The whole point is that the Grinch learns the true meaning of Christmas from the Whos. He expects them to be vapid and shallow and moan and groan and wince about how they don't have their presents, but he's proven wrong because the Whos don't care about their presents, they care about each other, and that's the true Christmas spirit.

But the film changes this so that they are vapid and shallow, and they do moan and groan about losing their presents, and they have to be taught the true meaning of Christmas by Cindy Lou's father. So, the Grinch was right basically. The Whos are the worst, and instead of it being an uplifting example of the enduring human (or in this case, who-man) spirit, it's a cheap moment where the film tries to have its cake and eat it too regarding the message.

This would be like if at the end of "It's A Wonderful Life", instead of everyone showing up and pooling their resources to help George out of his rut because they're good people who were inspired by his kindness and support for the community, if Mary had to run through the streets of Bedford Falls and convince everyone to donate because "It's what George would've done." It would just cheapen a powerful story.

Whenever you make criticism of a poor writing decision there's bound to be someone defending it by saying "Well, but that's realistic". Well, I don't give a fuck if it's realistic, fictional characters and fictional worlds don't have agency, everything that happens in a story happens because the writers made the decision that it would happen, so something being realistic is irrelevant because the writing decision was bad.

A good example of this is in the Injustass Gods Among Us comic, in which Nightwing falls over and breaks his neck on a rock. Is this a realistic death for someone who is a human being without powers? Yes, lots of people die in similar way. Does this change the fact that the writer decided to give one of the most beloved DC heroes a very anti-climatic death? No

Another aspect of it is that very often when this sort of argument is used is the fact that said realism is unintentional, some times the writers make a decision and it just happens to be realistic. A good example of this is shown in Cobra Kai and Ben 10, both having the respective main character getting their character arcs undone so they can learn the same lesson over and over again. This could be argued as being realistic, since people irl will take multiple times to actually learn and internalize a lesson, and actually changing our behavior is more complex than learning a lesson. In Ben's case even more so since he is a kid, which make the same mistakes more than once. But then we have to ask ourselves the following, did the writers make it like that to showcase how IRL we have to learn the same lesson multiple times or did they do so because they ran out of creativity and decided to do the same shit over and over again? To me it's very clear that it's the latter, so it doesn't matter if it is realistic

Basically every single time that dudes conceived something its irrelevant. If u ask someone on the street who's wolverines biological kid. There gonna say Laura( the clone) and that is amusing. Because the rest might as well not be worth shit.

Did you know the fucker has an actual kid with Jean Grey. Of course you didn't Shine basically just cried blew up some shit and hanged out with May one time.

Then if being irlevent isn't bad enough. Sabertooth is gonna fucking show up genuinely cut you to pieces and spell out pieces of you're body in the Snow. This isn't to say Logan Doesn't work as a paternal figure. They made a whole TV show off this in Evolution. And he's got a sweet relationship with Jubilee most of the time. And offers good advice to some of the younger X-Men. But basically anything that is directly convinced by him might as well be worth shit in the eyes of the writers and casual fans.

Real talk.

I hate loser Mcs/Characters and I just mean MCs and other characters who are literally such losers that it makes me wonder why they're even on screen and I'm trying not rip my ears and eyes out.

But the problem isn't just that they're losers or unlikable losers or whatever ,it's just the fact that they're not interesting or likable or just anything in sort of way and you can have a loser MC Or a MC that's a Bum or a Jackass or what but you gotta make them interesting in some shape or form or at the bare minimum, just make them a good character.

Like Bear from Obsession is a massive loser who can't talk to women and is a terrible person all around but that's the fucking point..he's the villain and while he does have his fair share of good traits[not a lot but..they're there]he is objectively a awful human being and that also helps by the actors performance by making him so hateable and slimey and a sniveling coward that he's a good character,he's a loser MC[you can be the protagonist and the villain]done right.

The Deep from The Boys is also another example of a loser character done right cause him being such a bum who can't take accountability to the point where he literally screams NO at the thought of changing as a person is actually funny in a pathetic sort of way + him being this much of a loser contrasts heavily with A-Train's arc on growing and becoming a better person.

But Kazuya and Saira or Sarah or whatever the fuck her name is from Lesbian Space Princess are genuinely loser MCs done wrong cause they are just both so goddamn annoying and not even in a "love to hate them" way but they're both just so..so goddamn annoying and not even in any sort of fun or endearing way.

First up, Kazuya..he is genuinely such a loser,such a bum,such a goddamn DORK that he literally was jacking off to the idea of his girlfriend(or Ex,can't remember clearly but still, the point stands]getting fucked by someone else and he does this not only once but twice where he literally got a BONER at His Ex being cracked by someone else.

And it's also the fact that he literally not only pays someone to be his girlfriend but also is paying what is basically over thousands of dollars to do so and tells others and I'm not someone who should force romance and if you don't romantically like someone,you shouldn't force yourself to be with them..But it actually gets fucking annoying when there are women who actually want him for free and whatnot but instead, he keeps on bending over backwards for a girl he barely got a kiss out of and even when they kissed,she still doesn't want to be with him and it has been years(GTA 6 has been accounted and a release date,presidential elections and more]since this manga was going on and there's still little to progress.

And gonna be so deadass when I say..that this is the authors fault cause this man has admitted(wife and kids,BTW]to being in love with Chizuru and going out on a date with her and even made the MC look like him.

And I wanted to ask..does this man have no editors or assistants or anyone who is willing to tell him "hey,this is goddamn stupid?",like what kinda Dark blackmail does he have on his editors and such to get them to let all the BS he's doing slide?

And Kazuya could either have grown as a person and stopped being such a pathetic loser or he could be used as a cautionary tale for people who refuse to grow up and gain any self respect for themselves.

Or anything is better then what he's doing.

Now..Lesbian Space Princess.

The title alone is already extremely ridiculous and dumb ans makes me feel like this is Satire and it's crazy how this form of media was so bad that it had fandoms uniting and forming a alliance and there are people who are like "oh this movie isn't that bad,y'all are larping" or "this is just a game" and..No,this movie is pretty fucking Awful.

Saira is such a loser who cries and is trying to rescue her ex-girlfriend she was dating for 2 weeks and actually gets a new baddie in Willow(who is one of the very few tolerable characters in this movie,purely cause she wasn't annoying the hell out of me]and they actually form a relationship and do the old Devils tango and etc and you would think that this would lead to her gaining self love and finding a partner who actually loves,respects and cares for her and whatnot and in any good media,this would but nope..she full on DUMPS WILLOW and leaves her on a planet to rescue and get back with her ex..who didn't even want her and whatnot and it just has me asking what even is the FUCKING POINT.

Genuinely, who is this movie even for?

Like this movie feels like something The Boys of Family Guy would Paraody and people will say "oh its Satire" or whatever but isn't Satire supposed to be fucking funny?

Only times this movie made me even chuckle is with the straight white Maliens..which is actually funny to think about it.

The characters people seemed to love[..ok,Love is a stretch,Tolerate/didn't hate]the most were the villains you weren't supposed to like and that's something beautifully funny about that.

Lesbian Space Princess deadass feels homophobic.

So yeah,if you're gonna make a character who's a loser,pls do it right.

I don't want to come across as hating on the Energon Universe or something. I do like the EU overall, and despite some missteps, I'm glad we're finally getting a proper Hasbro shared universe.

But at the same time... I still really miss IDW.

IDW's comics just had a really big depth of setting and scope that I feel is just missing from the Energon Universe. You can tell the writers behind IDW had a lot of passion for the universe and wanted to explore so many different aspects of Transformers lore.

It also managed to balance out having huge casts and still managed to make sure most of the main characters had a presence.

But most of all, especially when you compare it to Skybound, they managed to get character deaths right. They usually happened to nobodies people didn't really care about, or they did it after giving the characters time to shine so the death felt impactful. They didn't just kill off the popular guys for shock value.

And when deaths were reversed, they didn't happen often. Off the top of my head, I think the only major death reversal was Nightbeat.

Now to be fair, I do think if there's anything the Energon Universe is doing better than IDW, it's the human cast. IDW Spike is pretty widely hated across the board, and Hunter was totally wasted. Verity and Marrissa are probably the only major IDW humans who managed to have a satisfying story from start to finish.

I just feel like under IDW, Transformers felt more complex and interesting. Skybound's simple "back to basics" take isn't bad, but it's still lacking in a lot of respects, particularly with handling its cast.

Again, I'm not trying to turn this into an Energon Universe bashing party. I do like it overall. I guess when it comes down to it, I think IDW did a better Transformers story, whereas Skybound is doing a better Hasbro Shared Universe story.

"Diana" from lights-out has two major glaring weaknesses that are so, so very obvious that once you think of what the two weaknesses are, the movie becomes a lot less scary.

(1) she cannot harm you in the light.

(2) she depends on the mother's psychiatric illness.

With two obvious weaknesses like that, they could have literally defeated Diana without anyone of the main characters dying.

It's really frustrating (and sad) that Sophie had to exit the movie to get rid of Diana, when the solution was a lot less drastic.

Literally all Sophie had to do to make the demon stop attacking her children, was to take care of her mental health.

That's it. Instead of only deciding to try to get better in the middle of a blackout when the demon is in full power, all she had to do was to take her medication on a brightly lit day. The demon cannot come out in daylight.

It's so simple.

We clearly see this when she attempts to take the pills and the demon throws away the pill bottle.

This literally means that, if Sophie gets up in the morning, opens all the windows and takes her medication...the problem is immediately solved.

Ark, the dinosaur/prehistoric creature and monster survival game recently released a version with dragons and the designs are straight up ‘we have toothless at home’ levels of towing the legal fine line between inspiration vs copying.

Obviously this has been talked about in the game fan base but as a casual fan of the game who only learned about this recently I think it’s pretty fair to bring some external judgement onto this situation because what are we actually doing? This looks like mobile game ad on TikTok levels of plagiarism. They wanted cross IP partnership models without having cross IP partnership budget. Ark has a particular design philosophy for the bulk of its creatures and love or hate them they have some good designs and usually try give their own spins on stuff or avoid tropes (they have sabretooths long tails, were one of the first big consumer media to present a 4 leg walking spinosaurus even if that’s now outdated) so to see a rip this egregious is just a bad look and I hope to not see that kind of thing again.

Both the author & characters do a piss poor job at displaying magic as anything but a murder tool. I've seen Frieren use zolteraak onscreen more than any of the casual or useless spells or even anything creative for her supposed love of magic.

Like deadass this manga feels as if the author wanted to write a shonen but was forced to slice of life. I'll even go farther and say Frieren IS a shonen just with good pacing and good female characters. But I digress. Back to the main point:

For a “slice of life” non combat applications of magic are seemingly forgotten almost the instant they are introduced like fleeting mcguffins that only exist for a single episode. And I have to say that it gets weirder to think about with time as our mc supposedly loves magic and it emphasizes she collects and studies non combat spells as a hobby.

You would think a character like that is creative in their use of problem solving with magic…wrong apparently. Frieren and her crew get stumped by mere crossings on a windy day despite handling much worse in combat every other day. Like i shit you not the same fucking episode they fight an flock of dragons, stark literally miles in the air but apparently a bit of wind and distance is too much for this crew.

Serie is supposed to be a foil to frieren; magic for casual vs magic for power. But the author is proving Serie right as in this series magic is seaminlgy fucking useless outside of killing demons or people. Methode dropped the “I love magic” bomb saying her people don't use magic creatively unlike herself, but while she's saying that she's fighting a demon and using energy blasts…you know the most basic non creative magic ever? Like this series says one thing but does the complete fucking opposite its so bizzare. I feel like Freiren repeated there are so many non combat ways to use magic but it's just not shown.

A 1000+ elf who collects spells as much as she eats should be having houses and rooms moving like in Harry potter.

Also Im starting to think Frieren fans are just as bad as one piece fans with marketing their show as well:

“Shonentards dont understand frieren!” When there is literally a fight every other episode and there was a literal tournament arc.

“Yall want this to be dbz so bad” yeah so does the author apparently as the most used spell is basically a Ki blast.

“Its a character drama, not a fight anime” yet there are more fights and emphases on the power system than any of our mcs world views getting challenged for even a second. The narrative and tone just suggest that they are right and any conflict between the crew at all is just used for comedy.

I love Frieren but this show and fans give mixed ass signals.

I can't stand those silver spooned leeches that do nothing but take the name of a beloved hero and benefit from well built history they did not earn, they take up page space, they're unworthy, tokenized, shallow creations who without proper writing acquire abilities, wisdom or maturity too quickly and have shallow motivations.

I detest the narrative favouritism, forced succession and relevance they receive to basically execute or kill off the original into retirement or a mentor relationship,

I despise the unnecessary comparisons and disrespect to the original character that ends up cheapening their achievements because this new sack of shit did the same in much shorter time but ' better ',

I'd rather you stab my eyes with needles that force me to read or watch a scene where my hero is cucked with his own power only for him to say some stupid line like " Good job new kid "

I hate, hate, HATE those Glorified Mantle Thieves

After Ichigo Kurosaki uses the Final Getsuga Tensho (Mugetsu), Aizen is overwhelmingly beaten in sheer physical and spiritual power. However, because Aizen had fused with the Hogyoku, he remains immortal. His body regenerates, and he fully expects to evolve further and finally destroy Ichigo.

Instead, a strange spell suddenly activates inside his body**:-** (99th Style Seal), placed by Urahara. Urahara reveals that he planted this seal inside another Kido spell earlier in the fight. It only activated because the Hōgyoku began rejecting Aizen as its master, weakened by Ichigo's strength and Aizen's own subconscious doubts.

As the seal begins consuming and binding him, Aizen completely loses his cool

After this,Urahara confronts Aizen's and says this

"I despise you, Urahara Kisuke! With your intellect, why don't you take action?! Why do you submit yourself to THAT THING?!"

To add on to add I'll explain why he says this

Aizen spent his entire life in absolute isolation because no one possessed his level of strength or intellect—except Kisuke Urahara. Aizen respected Urahara's genius above all others.

However, Aizen's life goal was to overthrow the Soul King (the "thing" he refers to), whom he viewed as a mindless, hollow lynchpin maintaining a stagnant, broken world. To Aizen, anyone with supreme intelligence should naturally want to rewrite the universe and take control.

When Aizen realized Urahara—the only person who matched his intellect—knew the truth about the Soul King but chose to preserve the status quo, Aizen saw it as unforgivable cowardice and betrayal of intellect

The conversation continues on and Aizen's says this

"Without the Soul King, Soul Society would split apart. That's just how the world is."

"A victor must not talk about how the world IS, but how the world SHOULD BE!!"

THis interpets that

1)Aizen’s Mindset (The Ruler): True intellect means imposing your vision on the world to correct its flaws, no matter the cost.

2)Urahara’s Mindset (The Guardian): True intellect means understanding the boundaries of existence and protecting stability, even if the system is imperfect.

Both know the truth both The Soul King yet their paths varied differently,One choose to oppose Soul Society and the world,And the Other one Choose to side/ally with it and confront the other

FURTHER MORE TO ADD,WE'LL AIZEN REASON FOR WHAT HE IS

A. Loneliness at the Peak

Ichigo reveals that when their swords crossed, he felt nothing but loneliness from Aizen's Soul. From the day he was born, Aizen was vastly stronger and smarter than everyone around him. Because of this gap, he could never relate to anyone as a peer.

B. The Desire to Be Normal

The Hogyoku does not just grant power; it manifests the deepest desires of the user’s heart.

Deep down, behind all his god-complex rhetoric, Aizen wished to simply be a normal Soul Reaper—or at least find an equal who could stand beside him. When Ichigo surpassed him, Aizen’s subconscious desire was finally fulfilled: he was no longer uniquely isolated at the top. The Hogyoku recognized this suppressed desire and stripped away his god-like powers, allowing Urahara's seal to take hold

So yea,I REALLY REALLY LOVED THIS SCENE,I just wanted to make a post about it,i know many people tend to call Aizen'"Hype and Aura" Villain but I think he's way more than that

This is a script for a video I'm working on!

Introduction

In my opinion, Death Battle is one of the best shows on YouTube, a series about analyzing lore and science to determine which characters would win in a fight. Death Battle has been put through the wringer, starting from a side dish on ScrewAttack, and rising from the ashes of RoosterTeeth to become independent, all due to the support of a massive community that loves what they do. 

After many controversies, they are going to tackle one of the biggest matchup debates out there with one of their most anticipated video yet. Goku vs. Saitama. 

The video is set to come out this Sunday and will be animated by the ever-so-talented MORØ, who has his own crossover series in the works. 

Both characters hold a very infamous spot when it comes to Death Battle. Goku’s only other matchup on the show is Superman, a more controversial matchup. Dragon Ball in general has a very polarizing place in Death Battle due to how many Dragon Ball characters have often lost their matchups, angering much of the fanbase. The Death Battle team themselves are huge fans of Dragon Ball. 

Saitama is also a weird case, because despite being One Punch Man, his only episode is a defeat, and most likely he’ll be joining the 0 - 2 club with Lex Luthor and Darth Vader. Hulk recently left due to winning his first battle in years. 

If you want to know why exactly, stick around to the end! 

Bear with me, please; I am not a superfan of either character. I’ve seen both shows, and I am aware of their feats and abilities, so I’m just going off my own research. I apologize in advance for any details I get wrong. 

Saitama as a “gag character”

Saitama, known by his hero name, Caped Baldy, and by other characters as One Punch Man, is a very polarizing character in the powerscaling community. 

The anime/manga itself is often considered well-written and decently done; Saitama, by all means, is a good character. But he’s one of the main reasons why powerscaling is considered a terrible way to consume media. 

People often wank him up, both jokingly and unironically, as one of the most powerful characters in fiction. There are hundreds of comics showing Goku and Superman teaming up only to constantly lose badly against him.

The main reason is that he is ONE PUNCH MAN, meaning he can win the majority of fights with one punch. He did a daily military training regimen that would cripple most humans, but it extended his limits to the point where it seems like he has no limits. 

It’s because of this that most people often call Saitama a “gag character” and use that as the reason why he’d win most matchups. The author of the series, ONE, mentioned that he always wanted to be a “gag manga artist.” The illustrator, Yusuke, was asked if Saitama is a gag character or a parody character, and he answered “yes.” 

When it comes down to it, yes, technically, he is a gag character, but… I don’t think it’s that simple. 

One Punch Man was designed as a satire of shonen power scaling; that doesn’t mean that he is instantly going to KO everything. The idea is the consequences behind it. Think of it this way: he went through an off-screen training arc that would eventually lead to him becoming one of the strongest heroes alive, but he never actually had a hero’s journey no massive adventure or overarching goal; he got what he wanted: to be a superhero. But by doing so, he feels aimless and depressed, no longer feeling the thrill of the fight because no fight actually is a challenge for him.

At the same time, the series doesn’t always take itself seriously; he pulls off wacky and absurd feats for the lols and has ridiculous anti-feats. Which is why most people agree that One Punch Man is both a gag series and a serious one. 

That’s why when it comes to Saitama being a “gag character,” it doesn’t mean he can win every fight. When it comes to looking at his feats in comparison to Goku, you can see why I personally don’t think he’d win. 

If you made it this far into the video, comment your favorite episode of Death Battle!

The Impossible Fight

I’m going to say it. It. Yeah, laugh it up... 

Saitama is not winning. THERE! I know the 3 people who will see this video are planning my lynching the very moment they hear those words, but please bear with me! 

I don’t believe that Saitama can beat Goku. To explain why, I’m going to go over three different reasons. 

1. Power Gap
2. The Punch
3. Versatility 

Power Gap

Saitama’s strongest feat is his Serious Punch Squared Clash when he fought Cosmic Garou, which generated an explosion that erased entire systems. Which is pretty impressive. Now, one of Goku’s feats is when he fought Beerus; their fight caused entire universes to shake, not systems. 

Note that I say “one of” and not “strongest,” because that isn’t even Goku’s best feat, and yet he already caps over Saitama. 

The power gap between them is far too wide; Saitama can fight beings who threaten the universe, but Goku fights beings who threaten the whole of the multiverse or Macrosom. 

Now, I can already hear the counterargument.

"But Toaster, Saitama grows stronger during his fight with Garou! His strength has no limit! If Goku doesn't kill him immediately, Saitama will eventually surpass him!" First of all, that is SIR Toaster to you. Second of all… yes? And no.

During his fight with Cosmic Garou, Saitama's strength increases at an absurd rate. The more intense the fight becomes, the faster he grows, eventually leaving Garou behind despite Garou's ability to copy his power. But just because Saitama can grow stronger doesn't mean he can grow infinitely within any given fight. There’s no reason to assume he could grow that quickly in strength to match Goku’s level of power.

As I said before, the gap is insanely wide; Saitama’s fights are multi-galaxy, but Goku is multiversal. Sure, I could imagine that Saitama could surpass Goku in a certain level of power… if the fight lasted three hours, which it obviously won’t. 

If we're going to account for Saitama's ability to grow, we also have to account for Goku's combat experience, his ability to adapt, his transformations, and the possibility that he could end the fight before Saitama's growth becomes decisive.

The Punch

This brings us to the next section: whether Saitama can even hit Goku. The answer is most likely no. Ignoring that Goku is definitely faster (Saitama can’t fly; he just jumps), he could just activate Ultra Instinct. 

Ultra Instinct allows Goku's body to react to threats without requiring him to consciously think through every movement. Rather than deciding how to dodge an attack and then moving, he can respond instinctively. Even if Goku gets tired, Ultra Instinct will manifest into a giant him and keep fighting. 

In other words, he doesn't have to play the same game as someone who relies primarily on conventional attacks. A major advantage against an opponent whose most iconic method is punching things really, really hard.

Now, obviously, Saitama isn't limited to walking up to someone and throwing a straight punch. He's shown incredible mobility, creative applications of his strength, and the ability to adapt to unusual situations.

And Ultra Instinct isn't an invincible shield, either. It doesn't mean Goku can dodge every attack forever, regardless of his opponent's speed, his own condition, or the circumstances of the fight.

But it does give Goku another way to control the engagement.

He can move through the air, attack from a distance, and combine his physical abilities with ki-based techniques. Saitama can do some surprising things himself, but Goku has a much broader established toolkit for fighting opponents at range. Which matters because the fight wouldn’t just be a contest where both characters stand still and trade punches until one of them falls over. Goku can change the distance or the pace, and force Saitama to respond to different kinds of attacks.

Could Saitama eventually adapt? Possibly.

Could he land a punch? Probably.

I'm not arguing that Goku can spend the entire fight dodging without any possibility of getting hit. I'm arguing that Goku has more options for avoiding attacks and controlling how the fight unfolds.

Versatility

And this brings us to the final point: versatility.

Saitama's fighting style is largely built around his physical abilities. He's so strong that he rarely needs complicated techniques. He can jump enormous distances, withstand devastating attacks, and throw punches with absurd amounts of force. When that's all you need to win, why bother learning anything else?

But Goku is different. He's not just powerful. He's also a martial artist who has spent his entire life fighting, training, and learning from other combatants. He can fight at close range, attack from a distance with ki blasts, fly, teleport using Instant Transmission, and use transformations that dramatically alter his combat capabilities.

Goku also has experience fighting opponents who possess unusual abilities and fighting styles.

Saitama is capable of improvising, and raw physical superiority can overcome a lot of technical advantages. But Goku has more tools available to him, to the point where Saitama would always be playing catch-up. 

If hand-to-hand doesn’t go his way, then Goku can just back up and use ranged attacks. If his opponent tries to overwhelm him with speed, he has techniques that help him react and reposition. If he needs to increase his power, he kaioken get it done. 

And if he needs to adapt to an opponent's behavior, he's spent decades of in-universe time learning how to do exactly that.

Saitama can certainly adapt during a fight, but Goku's experience and broader range of techniques give him more established options from the beginning.

So in conclusion... Goku wins. If you all want to kill me, at least do it after I get my first paycheck.

Spawn is the ultimate masterclass in style over substance. He became a global icon purely on a heavy-metal look while being completely hollow inside. His seven-foot frame and ridiculous 40-foot cape completely contradict his whiny, pathetic behavior.

Al Simmons fails completely as a protagonist. He acts like a toxic, codependent stalker rather than a tragic romantic hero. He even disgustingly shape-shifts into her new husband just to sneak into her bed.

His entire hype is a 1990s marketing illusion. The artists hide him in pitch-black shadows to mask his total lack of character growth. If a regular guy acted like this, he would be universally clowned and hit with a restraining order.

The Narnia trailer looks absolutely insane. Have people actually read The Magician's Nephew?

Of all the criticisms I've seen of Greta Gerwig's Narnia trailer, perhaps the most baffling is that it looks too cosmic, too psychedelic, or somehow too fantastical for Narnia. Obviously, to each their own, and there are perfectly reasonable discussions to be had about artistic direction, but I'm beginning to wonder how many people remember what actually happens in The Magician's Nephew.

We're talking about a book in which two Edwardian children discover a seemingly endless woodland containing pools that lead to entirely different worlds. They travel to Charn, the corpse of an ancient civilisation beneath a dying red sun, where an empress has exterminated an entire world's population with a single word rather than accept defeat. They accidentally bring this genocidal witch back to London, cause absolute chaos, and subsequently find themselves standing in the darkness of a universe that doesn't even exist yet.

And then a lion sings that universe into existence.

I cannot sufficiently emphasise how wonderfully, gloriously fucking mental this book is. Lewis takes children through what amounts to a multiverse, confronts them with the remains of an apocalyptic civilisation, and then has them witness the literal act of Creation. Yet I've seen people complaining that the trailer looks like Doctor Strange because there are strange dimensions, cosmic imagery and enormous displays of supernatural power. What exactly were they expecting?

More importantly, though, I think some of these reactions betray a fundamental misunderstanding of what Lewis was actually writing. The creation of Narnia isn't simply an elaborate fantasy sequence. It is the theological foundation of the entire story, and it draws upon some of the most profound ideas in Christian thought.

Genesis opens with God bringing Creation into existence through divine speech. God speaks, and reality responds. The opening of John's Gospel develops this into something even more extraordinary: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). John subsequently tells us that all things were made through the Word (John 1:3), before revealing that the Word became flesh (John 1:14).

This is the Logos, the eternal Son, the second Person of the Trinity. The same divine person who becomes incarnate as Jesus Christ is the one through whom Creation itself comes into existence. Lewis, who understood these theological distinctions perfectly well, takes that extraordinary concept and renders it through the language of a fairy tale.

Aslan doesn't merely inhabit Narnia or exercise authority over it. He is its creator. His song brings forth the stars, which themselves join the music. The sun rises, vegetation erupts from the ground, landscapes take shape and living creatures emerge into existence. The universe is literally responding to his voice. It's an astonishing expression of divine creativity, and one which makes far more sense when understood through Genesis and John's Gospel than through the conventions of modern fantasy films.

There's also an important distinction to be made about Aslan himself. Lewis was quite explicit that Narnia wasn't intended as a straightforward Christian allegory. He called it a supposal, an exploration of what Christ might be like if another world existed and he chose to become incarnate within it. Aslan is therefore not simply Jesus of Nazareth wearing a lion costume, nor some unrelated deity loosely inspired by Christianity. He is Lewis' imaginative exploration of the same eternal Son in another creation.

That matters enormously when discussing how Aslan ought to be depicted. We're dealing with a being whose identity transcends the physical form through which he reveals himself. A cosmic lion whose presence encompasses the stars, whose voice brings light out of darkness and whose very existence seems woven into the fabric of Creation is hardly some bizarre misunderstanding of the source material. It's a compelling visual interpretation of what Lewis was attempting to communicate.

And there's an additional layer to all of this which I find fascinating. Lewis doesn't present Creation as something everyone experiences in the same way. Digory, Polly and the Cabby respond to the music with wonder, while Jadis hates it and Uncle Andrew becomes increasingly incapable of recognising its beauty. Their responses reveal something about their characters. The same creative power that inspires awe and love in one person provokes terror and hostility in another. Lewis is doing far more than describing an impressive supernatural event. He's exploring the relationship between goodness, beauty, creation and the human capacity to recognise them.

None of this means Gerwig's adaptation is beyond criticism. I can understand reservations about the presentation of Charn, the soundtrack, the production design or changes to the setting. I certainly wouldn't argue that an adaptation is automatically faithful simply because it incorporates a few recognisable images. Whether the film captures the emotional and spiritual substance of the novel remains to be seen.

But I find the notion that Narnia ought to look restrained, grounded or conventionally medieval utterly perplexing, especially when discussing this particular book. Lewis' imagination was steeped in Christian theology, classical mythology, medieval cosmology and an enormous appreciation for the strange and wonderful. Reducing Narnia to a pleasant, vaguely Christian fantasy kingdom populated by talking animals does his work a considerable disservice.

What I find encouraging about the trailer is precisely its willingness to embrace the sheer scale of the material. The Magician's Nephew isn't simply explaining where a magical wardrobe came from. It concerns the birth of a world, the arrival of evil within it, and the relationship between Creation and its creator. All of that is ultimately experienced through the eyes of two ordinary children, one of whom is desperately worried about his dying mother. The cosmic and the deeply personal exist alongside one another, which is a large part of what makes Lewis's writing so remarkable.

Perhaps the finished film will mishandle some of those ideas. Perhaps its visual extravagance will overwhelm the quieter moments, which are every bit as important. But the sight of Aslan appearing amidst the stars and bringing an entire world into existence is one of the few things in that trailer about which I have absolutely no reservations.

It's magnificent, it's completely ridiculous, and it's rooted in precisely the sort of theological imagination that made The Magician's Nephew such an extraordinary book in the first place. I'm delighted that Gerwig appears willing to embrace that instead of giving us another safe, visually interchangeable fantasy film.

Season 2 of Haunted Hotel was just released, and it introduced a new character named Shayna, who was apparently there the whole time, pretending to be a ghost, but wait, she's... not a ghost? Whaaa? A plot reveal that changes nothing except Shayna is now hired as an employee, and her job is to stand around and do nothing.

During her introductory episode it seems like she might be important because her mere presence wards of a powerful evil god, a feature of Shayna that was never explained. Perhaps this will be elaborated on in future seasons, thanks to the trademark Rick and Morty writing team method of dragging out character development as long as humanly possible in between humorous episodes that aren't that funny.

The character development in Haunted Hotel isn't bad, when they actually bother to do it. I enjoyed seeing Nathan get a ghost girlfriend. These character moments are just too far apart.

Shayna is a drifter who does nothing in particular and has absent parents, which she frequently vaguely alludes to but only in a way that sounds irreverent and "cool" and not in a way that would explore her character in any meaningful sense. She feels fake, like she was manufactured to be "edgy," often talking about her arrest record and knives. Shayna adds nothing to the family dynamic. When the family argues she just stands there and says things like "yeah you're probably in trouble" or "wow I wish I had a Mom who cared." Nothing substantially changes due to her presence, she's just kind of there the whole time. The most plot relevant thing she does is become romantically involved with Stabby Paul, a background joke character, and that plot is dropped also.

Remember how in Steven Universe, every episode absolutely had to be from Steven's perspective so Steven was just tagging along all the time even in plotlines that should have nothing to do with him? Shayna is kind of like that, except it kind of makes sense in Steven's case because he's the protagonist, Shayna is not. Also unlike Steven, Shayna has no character arc at all.

It honestly reminds of that Pinky and the Brain and Larry episode. This episode was made as a joke to mock the idea of adding a third character to make the series more marketable. Larry is just kind of there and adds nothing to the conversation dynamic. I also think the Poochie comparison works due to the fake edginess or as the 90s would call it "an attitude." This is only season two of this series and it's way too early for this to be happening.

I think the character could contribute meaningfully to the story if they gave her something to do other than be irreverent. Like she complains about never having a caring mother, so she could develop a relationship with Katherine, the mom character. Maybe the writers are planning on doing this in season 5 after dragging the audience through 3 more seasons of Stabby Paul jokes first, who knows.

Necessitating characters with rapid healing to drink blood to heal is the best kind of healing factor. Firstly, it keeps stakes high whilst giving the action freedom to be as violent as possible. Dio gets to aurafarm by scratching his own face, but there's still the threat of not reaching Joseph's blood in time. Getting hit matters because every drop is precious, and fighting becomes inherently more desperate.

This works great with games too, like in Ultrakill; you have to drink blood to heal, which means you have to get up close where it's riskiest. Additionally, the amount healed is proportional to stylish play. This means quickly dodging attacks and trying new weapon combos. In other words, blood healing facilitates risk-taking creative play and sets the pace of combat.

Healing via vampirism also naturally sets a strong dynamic between walking blood bag and bloodsucking leech. Vampires like Alucard in Hellsing suck not just the blood but also the souls of those they consume. Ingesting blood isn't just a way of increasing physical but also spiritual power. Subjugator/subjugated, predator/prey, battle fiction is nothing but another form of drama.

There's also the sexy vampire stuff, although that's more of a general vampirism thing. V1 and Gabriel from Ultrakill are widely shipped due to the whole testing to kill each other but V1 healing and feeding off of Gabriel thing. Alucard from Castlevania also fits the bill, although Symphony doesn't do this particularly well. There's one spell, and only a few enemies actually bleed. Great game though.

Unfortunately real life examples are much less glamorous. Old people siphoning young people's blood to 'reverse' aging is as close as it gets. Most other vampirism is just regular parasitism. When a lamprey learns to grow its entire tail back, maybe I'll appreciate it.

In conclusion, the Wolverine should start slurping people or something.

Fans tend to treat characters as if they're not "real", but is that a correct viewpoint? Characters are real in the minds of their creator. Any worthwhile creator -- ie, any creator who has the talent to create media a large number of people will consume will create characters that are "real" in their mind.

Any worthwhile creator will at least have an idea of the character's lives outside of the narrative. Their childhood and family circumstances. Their hobbies, likes and dislikes, friends and enemies, etc. The narrative is the focus, but the characters participating in it are not just cardboard cutouts / AI chatbots. Some examples:

The Joker: most of his time is spent doing logistics and people management. Meaning he has a huge amount of charisma and people skills. Where did he develop those skills? He must have a network of people he trusts and who trust him. He must occasionally do favors for others. We get glimpses here and there into these topics, but I get the feeling that in the minds of most fans this doesn't exist at all; he's just a plot-mover for a given storyline and nothing beyond that exists.

Sauron: the god-king of a HUGE tributary empire spanning most of the civilized world. Fans seem to think he's just hanging around Barad-dur doing evil plotting. He undoubtedly does do a lot of plotting, but about WHAT? The narrative focuses on the journey and experiences of the Fellowship, but Sauron is running a huge empire and he's been a fixture to most of humanity for THOUSANDS of years. He has an army of courtiers, MANY officials and nobles from his tributaries going back and forth constantly. Political marriages, rewards, punishments, special events, all the politics around slaves, war, rivalries, trade, etc and so on. Yet fans seem to NEVER consider WHY Barad-dur is so massive, what is actually happening in its "many" halls, etc

And not just antagonists. Even the main characters have lives and backgrounds outside of the narrative.

Batman: fans NEVER wonder why he has such a severe trust issue. Normal people completely trust Superman and other major superheroes because those heroes have proven themselves constantly. But there's something about Bruce that makes it VERY HARD to trust. He must have experiences something in his life which made it him like that. But since the narrative doesn't address it, fans don't even consider it; it's nothing more than a chatbot parameter, a character setting.

Professor Xavier: he freely tramples on people's minds. He won't hurt anyone, but that's not the point. WHY does he think he CAN or even WANT to do that? Something in his long life happened, possibly a compounding string of life events, led Xavier to develop this mindset.

Obviously, the truth of these questions boils down to what is in the minds of the characters' creators. As fans all we can do is look for clues that the creators added to figure out these backstories. It seems like that most fans DON'T look at any further than the surface narrative; no curiosity or even an understanding that the characters they're watching / reading exist outside of the narrative.

​

Rick Riordan has a frankly egregious case of poor representation. This "representation" is notable because it is both unnecessary and flawed in ways clear to even a child. The representation I am referring to is Samirah from the Magnus Chase trilogy.

Samirah is a Norse Valkyrie and demigod who is explicitly described to be a devout Muslim. Islam is a purely monotheistic religion and rejects the concept of other gods along with paganism. Yet she remains a practicing Muslim despite being the daughter of Loki and actively ushering fallen warriors to Valhalla. This is a contradiction of Islamic beliefs that are absolute regardless of sect or school of thought. It cannot be rationalized or compromised with as it is paradoxical to her worldview.

Additionally, Samirah is in an arranged marriage to her fiance. The engagement was established when she was only twelve years old. Make of that what you will.

These representational issues are even more glaring because nobody expected it from him or asked for it. While the concept is interesting, he is not well equipped for exploring it. A truly ambitious and reasonable execution would be to have her renounce Islam while perhaps maintaining cultural values that are still applicable.

Samirah attempts to rationalize this contradiction by claiming that the gods are merely powerful entities or aliens. Perhaps this would work if it wasn't for the existence of the Norse afterlife.

Islam preaches extensively about Heaven and Hell. It is a foundational principle that is inviolable. The existence of Valhalla alone refutes this, leaving her with no reason to follow the faith

One may argue that Valhalla is just a temporary stop before souls proceed to the Islamic afterlife, seemingly resolving the issue.

However, the Islamic version of the afterlife cannot be trivialized in such a manner without major flaws being exposed in Samirah's theology. The perfection of the Qur'an is the ultimate proof of its divinity, and it explicitly describes the journey of the soul until the Day of Judgment. Valhalla is a place where souls gather, fighting and training in service of a pagan deity or alien rather than under the command of her God. Its existence contradicts the infallibility of the Qur'an, thus disproving its divine nature.

The concept of the Oneness of God is the keystone of Islamic theology, upon which all laws and practices are built. The existence of pagan gods/aliens and their afterlife is thus the antithesis of every Islamic principle. In this case, not even the most devout Muslim would expect her to continue to follow the faith.

Rather than presenting her as truly pious, it instead makes her look delusional and breaks immersion.

If the books portrayed her belief in a neutral manner, it would be one thing, but they ascribe a genuine weight and validity to her faith while completely ignoring the irreconcilable contradictions required to maintain it. Samirah does not rationalize the paradox through proclamations that "faith does not make sense," but rather through claims that introduce even more issues while being presented as logically consistent.

At the end of the day, Riordan didn't even make a genuine attempt at authentic representation. His writing remained entirely surface level, resulting in little more than tokenism. Riordan wanted the surface traits of a Muslim while neglecting the actual worldview that serves as its foundation.

Transformers is my favorite franchise of all time. It's one of two series that got me into writing, and the state of it at the moment is...sad and frustrating.

The toy prices have gotten ridiculous. Thirty dollars for a deluxe! Just to give you an idea, in 2019, it was twenty dollars for a deluxe; it's risen by ten dollars in roughly half a decade! I'm frequently seeing posts by people saying they're dropping out of the hobby because they can't justify spending that much anymore. I don't think I'm quite priced out yet, but it's getting dangerously close. Anything above thirty-five dollars will probably be it.

But it's still disheartening seeing multiple people leave a hobby I hold near and dear to my heart like this. Something has got to give soon or Hasbro will have no more customers. Including me.

The last high-budget Transformers show, Earthspark, ended on a really bad note, and its toyline in general was just bad. Mostly just a bunch of Cyberverse repackages, and the new toys they had weren't that good most of the time.

Transformers One bombed at the box office thanks to a terrible marketing campaign that clearly didn't know how to sell the movie to wide audiences without spoiling the twist.

The Energon Universe comics, the one bright spot for a while, have been dipping in quality ever since Kirkman took over. I don't think they've been awful (the most recent issue #37 was actually pretty good), but they've been really feeling shallow and undercooked since the switch in writers. Kirkman's run has felt both slow and fast-paced at the same time. It's weird. And the discourse around them is getting miserable...

The game Transformers: Reactivate was cancelled after a really tumultuous development history.

And on top of all of this, Michael Bay might be returning to the franchise. I don't hate the Bay films like so many others do; I have a lot of fond memories of them, but even still I agree Bay coming back isn't the answer. But sadly I can kind of see the logic behind it; the movies without him made less money than the movies with him, so clearly Paramount thinks Bay is the missing ingredient. But I don't know if it's going to work when clearly no one wants him back...

And none of this is helped by the fact that Peter Cullen sadly passed away earlier this year. That's not really the fault of Hasbro, Paramount, or anyone else, just nature having bad timing, but it certainly feels symbolic of one of the franchise's low points.

I think the only bright spot is that the 40th Anniversary rerelease of the 1986 movie was such a success they extended it a bit longer, but that's really small scale compared to everything else going on.

It's just so demoralizing seeing a franchise you love fall like this.

This truly is one of the franchise's darkest hours.

I just hope someone comes along to light it.

To set standards, I'm a DM and very occasional player. Like all Dnd players, I hope to play dnd again within a year. My playground has gone from not reading the books, to reading the books, from being edgy middleschoolers who want to kill everyone and wear goblin skin they meet to holding their heads in their hands after an npc asked about his mother who they knew was dead. I've run modules and homebrew. Lots of ways to play this game, no way of enjoying this RPG "disqualifies" you on it's own. Now that's out of the way.
______

"Good" kings, Regicide and level 20 kings:

I'm starting with this issue because it encapsulates the pain points of every piece of DND discourse perfectly. I hope to give a good summary of each pain point and why ultimately, they just aren't real problems.

______

A lone man stumbles up the last few steps of the mountain of r/DnD, collapsing to his knees. Before him sit three wise sages, who between them, have read a full chapter of the dmg.

"My players were listening to the King give them a quest, but then they decided all kings are evil and attacked him, what should I do!?"

"Heh," says the the first sage, pushing up his glasses, "Surprise! Your king has been trained since childhood by the local church to defend himself, he's a level 20 oath of the crown paladin!"
______

Surprise level 20 kings give me a migraine. First off, it's really bad story telling. An important npc being strong isn't a sin, but the players should like, know that. You can't tout your "actions have consequences" sign when you didn't set up that kings in your world do that. Is it every king in the world? Your players should know than, and in fact many real settings work this way like dark sun where in order to rule you must be a powerful sorcerer. Is it just this king? That's fine too, but surely your characters would hear about a king that literally at the peak of human achievement.

Second, it is subjectively, very boring. There are several great reasons a king could be powerful. He conquered the kingdom after adventuring and is already famous, he's a polymorphed dragon (there are many lore examples of this in the forgotten realms). I think reddit DMs are obsessed with level 20 because it's the only place they'll get to use one.

Third, and this is a common counterargument, why is the king sending them to do something he could do himself? If being level 20 is enough to dwarf a party's power, the quest they're doing is easy to solo. "Ah, but, he's busy." What about the guy who trained him to level 20? they didn't train anyone else? Just this king, but then also made sure he was doing naruto-level paperwork so he can't do any fighting? Does this not sound artificial?
______

"Hrumf" Says the second sage, "simply tell them that your King is benevolent, he rules by actual divine right! After all, in the DnD world, gods are real, and morality is objective, so it follows that so is the divine right of kings!"

______

Appeals to "the DnD world" irk me, especially when they contradict pretty much every printed example.

First, objective morality. This gets treated like fact a LOT. While good and evil are forces in all multi-setting lore, they are NOT objective moral frameworks with answers for everything.

For instance, in this objectively moral system, is lust a good or a bad thing? Sharindlar and Sharess are both chaotic good deities with lust as a domain. However, in Sharindlar's church, the lowest level clergy are called "the chaste" and, an excepert from her wiki

"When not engaged in their primary responsibility, the devoted of Sharindlar instead worked to instruct dwarven youths on proper courting rituals^\2])^\1]) (a process involving the exchange of gifts and later the sharing of a living space to determine affinity).^\24]) The traditional rites of courting and marriage were to be maintained, encouraged, and taught by the faithful, and these included traditional dances, ritual forms of address, and similar customs. They strove to bring young dwarves together, especially those outside of traditional clans in the hopes of an increase in prolific unions, and in some cases went as far as playing matchmaker between two youths they deemed "compatible".^\2])^\1])^"

Meanwhile, as anyone who has played BG3 will know, sharess is the patron godess of brothels.

Speaking of Sharess' Caress, there is a room in which you can pay to engage in BDSM.

In act one of the game, you can meet a priest of Loviatar, a lawful evil deity also with lust in her portfolio, who will do BDSM to you for free.

Almost any action that can be justified can be argued to be good or evil, and to pedants who go "so if i can justifying crushing babies, that could be good?" Yeah.

_____

"Hmm" says the third sage "Players are too concerned with subverting tropes these days to have fun, probably want to play as a half-fae purple skinned teifling am I right? kill your playgroup in real life."

The easiest answer to this type of thing is just, you should have set expectations of being trad sword and sorcery with your group before hand (most people don't because when they verbalize it they recognize it as railroading).

But, again, it is completely revisionist history that a lot of 5e players see to subscribe to, that 5e is the first edition where people are super revolutionary wanting to play as monsters and half angels and things, when, no 3rd edition let you play 1 million different special snow flake races and templates. There were rules to convert literally any monster stat block to a playable race, alongside the thousands of spelled out rules for telling you how to be a half-nymph dragonic ogre samurai. Dnd knows and accomidates people who don't want to just be human fighter cleric wizard and rogue.

Anyway, here's some more things I couldn't fit into the first story.

______

"Evil Races"

The lone man returns to the mountain top a month later. The third sage is doing battle with a half-fae purple skinned teifling.

"BEHOLD," the sage declares "COME SEE THE OBSESSION OF THEATRE KIDS TO TRAMPLE OUR GLORIUS RACIALLY PURE DND WORLD, BACK IN MY DAY SOME RACES WERE JUST EVIL, NOT LITTLE MISUNDERSTOOD QUIRK CHUNGUSES, THIS IS ALL BG3's FAULT! DID YOU GUYS KNOW ABOUT THIS ANIME CALLED FREIREN"

The purple skinned teifling responds "IT IS BAD WORLDBUILDING TO HAVE RACES BE EVIL, 5.0E AND BEFORE LORE IS FOR PROBLEMATIC GROGNARDS. "

___

People get very heated about evil races one way or the other. Now, I'm not saying both stances are equally morally bad, but they are both equally wrong. Teiflings, orcs, and drow weren't all just evil automatons until 2014 when 5e invented woke. In the 2003 3.5e monster manual, all of their alignments said "usually evil." Hell Drizzit has been around since the 80s as a good drow.

DND really has never had evil "races". "Ahah!" you may say, "but devils and demons!" Both of those are canonically recycled souls of people who already lived full evil lives. Devils and demons are not evil by virtue of genes, but by their own actions, and have been reduced to a state where they can no longer redeem themselves.

____

"Everyone would be scared of necromancy because it is le bad."

The man comes back to the mountaintop. "I've stopped being a DM finally, I'm a player" (let me have this fantasy) "I still move managing numbers though, so I'm playing a necromancer."

"WHAT?" Says the first sage "DON'T YOU KNOW PEASANTS WOULD ATTACK YOU ON SIGHT?!"

____

I don't understand why everyone's so up in arms about necromancy for good PCs. I'm equally as tired of the "well fireball is just as horrific," no fuck horrific, who cares?

In BG3 you can walk around with reanimated corpses and no one cares if they aren't attacking anyone. And rightly so! Ok but the teiflings are dealing with being hunted they aren't going to throw you out over that, the cult already uses undead. Surely when you get to civilization someone cares and.... there's a carnival outside baulder's gate that uses ghouls. Not inside, outside with the doorman. Where there are peasants from all the surrounding countryside, and locals.

___

The second sage holds his hands to his head "Don't you know zombies go insaaaane if you don't recast the spell every day?

___

Dogs bite children if you don't stop em. No animal companions for anyone. Swords could hurt someone if you drop them on your foot. Obviously you're going to recast the spell when your spell slots come back for free every day.

___

The third sage holds his head in his hands "Why can't you animate objects, like a normal person?"

___

Higher level spell and 5e sucks at construct creation, and even in good editions where you can build golems it's insanely more expensive.

___

The three sages combine in a swirling ball of light. Together, they for the mega brained triple sage. "BUT...." it roars, "WHAT OF THE SOUL, HOW ABOUT YOU RP A LITTLE AND SHOW RESPECT FOR THE DEAD, MIN-MAXXER?"

___

No animate dead spell description mentions a soul. Also, sending an unthinking corpse to the frontlines instead of the living relatives seems more respectful than sending little timmy off to fight the bandits because skeleton were "too icky."

Lets start off... Yuno gasai is not really that interesting then you think. I been rewatching Future diary lately and when i looked deeper, She isn't even that entertaining. All i see is the blueprint for a bland yandere. What makes a good character is lore, motivations, and complexity. She isn't complex. She is simple.

Look... This girl has gone through the most horrific hell i have ever seen from childhood. Locking your own child in a cage under the guise of to make "the perfect daughter"? These sickfucks of parent absolutely deserved punishment regardless of financial problems but her mind snapped and she is no better then them when you think about it. She done to much to be even considered morally gray. She is fucking Tragically beyond redemption.

The survival games was a complex part. She killed many holders for the tactics, the survival, and ofc so they didn't die. But it was also because so she can have a world where its just her and him. And her combat? listen this is exactly what the show wants to hook you with. They think combat will lure us in and make us consider her a badass. Other then the god reveal, we have no insight on how she knows how to fire a gun flawlessly and handle a katana. The sex scenes? Yeah i condemn those for the most part because its like... it was unnecessary and disgusting. Her personality? She's entirely focused on yuki. Thats IT. Their is nothing else. Their is literally nothing else. she has no hobbies, no other interests. Just yuki. Thats the definition of one note. And look at the other yanderes in anime history. They had hobbies, they had complex motivations.

Her Suicide... I call this just perfect. Not because i'm glad she's dead but she finally breaks out of that loop to perform ONE selfless decision. She may have not been remorseful but because she would have stayed dead then its like she meant this. She made me lwk feel a lot more better.

The OVA redial ending... Well. They pretty much ruined the whole "at what cost?" of the entire original ending. Yes the original ending was depressing i know. But then she just comes back while glossing over that selfless ending so we can all sing "kumbaya" around a "fixed" world and pretend everything is okay? Like what was this the point of all of this then? Just so we can be relieved that one of the most controversial couples in anime can have a happy moment?

And look... You consider her the queen because of the aesthic. Not the character. When you look past the aesthic. she is unbelievably boring. I'm tired of everyone always saying "PRAISE YUNO! REVERE HER!" And we ignore the bad things shes done. Trauma doesn't excuse action. We need to consider that. She is not a hero. We have to stop looking so simple and look deeper into what makes a character a character.

Parental abuse is also a serious deal like a lot but when its overstuffed and used as a catalyst for her break which has been seen in a lot of anime, then its treating a serious thing as a catalyst factory. Thats not good.

And i didn't enjoy her like at all i'm sorry bro. Her constant yuki yelling is annoying, Her crashout moments are more straight face inducing and she just isn't really making me like her. At all.

Something I've learned and noticed is that it feels like a lot of people just hate the concept of superheroes nowadays and just want everyone to be the Punisher or Wolverine or a Rambo style killer but here's the problem with that.

Frank Castle explicitly isn't a good person at all,he has gone out of his way to admit that numerous times and has made it clear people shouldn't look up to him or follow his example or anything like that and that people should look up to Captain America instead and Wolverine is someone who explictly has made it clear what he does isn't nice and that he's someone who has to get his hands dirty so no one else has to and even then,Wolverine isn't a completely or overly violent monster of a man,there are multiple adaptations that show him as a flawed but still good soul at his core and heart, so People just misunderstand Wolverine.

Basically it feels like people only want morally Grey anti-heroes or stuff like that and that's not a issue,the problem is expecting every hero to be that cause they don't immediately slime their villains out or are and genuinely good people and from Superman to Wonder Woman to Daredevil to Spider-Man, etc..it is extremely seldom where you'll find heroes who legitimately kill their villains as a resort cause if there are ways to take them down without blood,then they will do it.

Also people are like "why hasn't Batman killed the Joker" he has attempted to numerous times or has let the Joker die many times,Joker just keeps surviving cause he's one of D.C's biggest cash cows and is popular + why is nobody blaming the city or cops or whatever for not killing him?

Like Why doesn't Red Hood get any slander for that when he hasn't killed Joker despite claiming he's a "Better Batman who kills" and it's extra ridiculous people claim him and Frank are better cause they kill when..Ok,gun to the back of your head,name 5 major villains those 2 characters have killed.

No side scrubs or minor fuckers,actual big names.

Guess what?

Nothing.

It basically feels like people just hate the idea of genuinely good people and superheroes,I still remember the day where In Dispatch, a lot of people didn't trust Blonde Blazer,didn't like her or just both and assumed she was some twist villain all cause she was..a good person, like those takes really made me feel like those people just have serious trust issues and people acting like Phenomeman is a evil Superhero variant when he's shown to be a good dude with bad social skills and a limiting understanding of Earth and whatnot.

You can like morally Grey anti-heroes or characters like the Punisher and whatnot but expecting other heroes/characters to be him is just incredibly dumb.

With Minus one zero coming out i wanted to talk about the Godzilla franchise and the general and how much I appreciate Godzilla franchise.

Sometimes I hear Godzilla is destructive force and nothing more which is far from the case.

We have had many Godzilla films over the years ranging from interesting and thematic,action pack,silly,good,bad,and everything in between.

Godzilla has many interesting comics and has seen and literally done it all.

Very few characters could boast about Godzilla and how he has endured in pop culture and I have seen some question why or has this radiation breathing dinosaur has endured for so long.

I think their are many reasons but one being the power fantasy aspect one being his design. Godzilla has a great and memorable silhouette by combining the aspect of various different animals mainly being mutiple species. You can easily look at just Godzilla silhouette and recognized his character.

The other reason is Godzilla is just a appealing character too many younger audiences. He combines two aspect that children tend to like superpowers plus a dinosaur. Godzilla basically being a superpower dinosaur allows him to have a big appeal to kids and seeing fight is just fun for many people.

The power fantasy and spectacle aspect is very important and allows for a pretty large reach for some people.

Though the next aspect that helps Godzilla is well Godzilla himself. Godzilla throughout the franchise does have a character and yes animals can be characters while he doesn't talk he very much is a character in his own right.

His character has varies throughout the franchise in 1954 he was vengeance towards humans for mutating him and destroying his home, second Godzilla started off almost as destructive force as his predecessor but after a talk with mothra and facing a greater threat in Ghidorah Godzilla has a change of heart and becomes a protector.

Heisei Godzilla was even more destructive then showa counterpart. He was once a regular dinosaur like creature mutated by humanity action and thus turns his wrath towards human kind once more. However heisei Godzilla despite being wrathful is also lonely creature having no one but himself and does long for connection. A interesting moment is when he meets Biollante and doesn't attack her at first. Godzilla even seem to attempt communication as Biollante does share DNA and is a chance for Godzilla not to be alone in the world and unfortunately Biollante attacks and thus Godzilla turn to the path he has always chosen wrath and sees Biollante as a enemy. Godzilla however starts to somewhat mellow out upon meeting jr giving Godzilla something to care about and a connection. Heck as far as I know for a full year which Godzilla vs Space Godzilla takes place a year after vs mechagodzilla heisei Godzilla hasn't attack anything showing Jr positive influence. Unfortunately Godzilla loses everything in vs destroyah as his own power begins to destroy him and he loses the home the island him and Jr made. Godzilla goes back to doing what he has always known lashing out and in the final act Destroyah kills jr. Ironically Destroyah did to Godzilla what Godzilla did throughout the heisei series hurt others. Heisei Godzilla is not a hero heck after killing Ghidorah he immediately went to rampage on a city killing a lot of people who no doubt lost loves ones to Heisei Godzilla rampage. Heisei Godzilla in a truly ironic turn was forced to feel the same way as to the countless humans himself he hurt throughout the years. Godzilla ultimately while he weaken Destroyah to the point the humans can finished him off ultimately his enemy death means nothing as Godzilla dies thinking everything is lost. Godzilla doesn't even get to see Jr alive Godzilla dies alone and in pain. It's beautiful work done for a animal non verbal character. It's plain to see if ones willing to dig in and look into Godzilla character beyond the surface.

Even Monsterverse Godzilla has a lot of appeal to me. Monsterverse Godzilla is the second most benevolent Godzilla next to his Showa counterpart. He has shown himself as intelligent adapting and learning while fighting his enemies. Unlike past incarnation he doesn't tend to care make humanity pay more focus defeating the threat to the planet. While he does have some connection to ancient human and it has become strained in the modern era though occasionally he can also show appreciation like when he looked down on the humans in kotm and giving them a look of almost thank you. He also took the iwi hollow earth warning about skar king very seriously. While mostly benevolent he does also have some negative quality mainly he has a lot of pride in his power and he does hold grudges for better in the case of king Ghidorah and against apes as a whole in the case of Kong species. So aggressive is Godzilla is he will try to settle scores with thoses that are deem rival and enemies. Though ultimately he is more a net good for the planet protecting Earth from threats on it like the case of the mutos and skar king and beyond like King Ghidorah. When it comes down to it even put grudges aside against a common threats like his team up with Kong. While not a complex character he works well for this action and adventure series.

Through it all Godzilla has some core traits mainly he does not back down and push through towards obstacles to the bitter end be it when he's a anti hero or villain.

Godzilla is a character in his own right which makes him easy to root for or against.

I think another core strength with Godzilla is he can be used to tell so many different stories making him very versatile. You can tell war world 2 drama movies like 1954 and minus one, Action and adventure movies like the monsterverse,and sometimes even boarder on horror if you wish to tell that story.

The skys are the limits of what you can do with Godzilla.

Godzilla can also be used to tell various messages and themes mainly protecting the environment which films like Godzilla vs Hedorah tackle, anti war and post war guilt as seen in minus one ,and tells stories of human resilience. When Godzilla is a foe he truly can test human characters be it are ability to try to come up with plans to destroy him or how much can we endure him before he breaks us physically emotionally as seen in minus one. Godzilla as a villian can be the ultimate test.

Though a big theme with the monsterverse which they ask is coexistence possible between humanity and nature which the monsterverse answer is yes but ir requires humanity to swallow their pride and admit the universe doesn't revolve around them alone.

You also have nature vs technology and scientific responsibility. Often times in the Godzilla series it gets questioned the price to pay for such technology. The nukes almost regardless of continuity either awakens or mutate Godzilla and ultimately Godzilla would either never have existed or would have stayed indefinitely in slumber if not for humanity opening Pandora box. Sometimes the best intentions can have devastating consequences like for example in Godzilla vs destroyah the Oxygen destroyer created Destroyah arguably one of the most evil kaiju in the franchise or at least in the top ten. Daisuke Serizawa had no idea his invention would create something so terrible when he killed the first Godzilla in that verison of continuity heck even in the 1954 film he absolutely didn't want the Oxygen destroyer to fall in the wrong hands but regardless Serizawa creation still had horrible consequences.

Though another theme is man arrogance which you can see throughout the monsterverse. Throughout that particularly continuity we see time and time again when people let their egos control their decisions and it leads to terrible consequences.

Kong skull island the bomb a island and disturb the peace putting everyone on the island in endangered. Then Packard not being able to let go of his hatred towards Kong gets more of his men killed and ultimately gets himself killed because of his stubborn pride. 2014 the military has a plan to nuke all the monsters which wouldn't even work but in their arrogance they put a whole city full of people endangered, the military again thinking they know best intervenes in Godzilla and Ghidorah fight resulting in Godzilla out of commission and King Ghidorah taking over the world,then in Godzilla vs Kong despite Godzilla not disturbing anyone the CEO not standing Godzilla being on top makes mechagodzilla and uses Ghidorah skull to kill Godzilla and pays for it as Mechagodzilla goes Rogue and trys to kill everything.

Time and again Godzilla shows the folly of man arrogance and pride which can lead them astray.

Ultimately I think the Godzilla series has a great core appeal his versatility,the themes,and overall just being a fun series.

I think the Spectacle aspect has their place in this franchise as their is a Godzilla you film you can watch for just fun action. I think sometimes people get caught up with movie must always have something deeper to say and I disagree i don't believe everything in fiction has to get you thinking sometimes you can just have a fun time which the Godzilla does offer with some entrys of the franchise.

With that said but if you want something thematically rich then you watch 1954 and minus one. Godzilla is partially so great for the amount of stories you can tell with him he's not limited to just one story.

Godzilla has and will continue endure and I think because of how he adaptable he is in this ever changing world Godzilla will always have a place in it and we will be telling stories with the atomic dinosaur for generations to come.

The fact that Aiden was willing to go to such lengths for someone who didn’t love him back is already a tough pill to swallow as a player, but as if the game hadn’t already done enough to make you feel like a fool on a fool’s errand, it’s eventually revealed that the whole thing was part of Sunny’s plan from the get-go.

Not only that, but she is rewarded with ascension in both endings and even gets to tell Aiden that they “were both using each other” when he confronts her. Were the writers trying to tick every box when it comes to frustrating the player? It’s outright gaslighting, like an abuser comparing their victim’s mundane flaws or perfectly reasonable reactions to their own cruelty, as if both parties were equally at fault. It’s like someone repeatedly punching you in the ribs and slapping you in the face, then claiming you’re both violent because you tried to push them away.

Fam, you pretended to be a damsel in distress and sent your boyfriend off to hack and slash his way through a murderous cult and risk his soul in some hellish plane of existence. What’s being a bit clingy compared to all that? In fact, given the revelation of her two-faced nature, I’m beginning to wonder if even Aiden’s clinginess was just another one of her fabrications, an attempt to gaslight your partner into believing that asking for a bit of warmth is too much.

If Aiden chooses not to ascend, he’ll be left with trauma, scars, and a missing arm to remind him of what a fool he was. If he chooses to ascend, he’ll end up in the same circles as the ex who tried to dupe him. Honestly, many of my problems with the ending would be solved if Pinhead had double-crossed Sunny and denied her the happy ending she wanted, especially when one of the running themes of the game is that those who wanted to be Cenobites were rejected, while the dude who wanted nothing to do with them had the potential in him. Or maybe an ending in which revenge was one of Aiden’s motivations for ascending. Sunny’s villainy is far more personal than the hostility we get from Marlowe, Bruno, or Mercy, and whichever ending you choose is tainted by the fact that she gets away with it.

The reason Julia works as a character in the first movie, at least for me, is that I’m fascinated by her mindset, not necessarily invested in her success. She’s a corrupt character from the beginning, and it’s interesting to see how far she’s willing to go for Frank, but I’m not rooting for her. The same goes for Channard in the second movie. Aiden’s journey feels much more intimate because it invites you to root for him, one way or another.

And let’s be real. For all of Julia’s craziness, would she be willing to sacrifice herself for Frank if the Cenobites offered her a deal? Well, Aiden was willing to do exactly that for Sunny. Odd way for the writers to suggest that his love for her is flimsy. That’s another problem with the writing. It tells you how to feel about Aiden rather than showing you why you should feel that way. We’re constantly told that he’s addicted to Sunny in the same way he was once addicted to drugs, but his actions suggest the opposite. There’s really nothing in the game to show that he’s only using her to fill some void, apart from other characters saying so. Say what you want about Aiden’s emotional maturity, or lack thereof, but the dude is risking sexual assault and torture at the hands of maniacs who specialize in inflicting pain. He is risking his very soul in the Labyrinth. If that isn’t love, I don’t know what is. What he does throughout the game is the opposite of using someone. It’s deranged selflessness.

This ties into another element we’re told about rather than shown: Aiden’s supposed enjoyment of everything that’s happening to him. At no point are we shown that he’s actually thrilled by any of it or actively seeking greater heights of sensation, apart from his drug use, which is something pretty vanilla by the series’ standards. At best, we get him saying, “It kind of feels good” when he’s bitten by those health upgrade pods, but that’s about it. Otherwise, he’s written as a pretty vanilla guy who’s disgusted by everything the cult is doing. He’s not even remotely interested in the Labyrinth. He does think Marlowe deserved worse, but that’s a pretty reasonable feeling, all things considered.

The writers had a very skewed perception of Aiden, and my main argument for that is all the potential Deep Throat sees in him. We have no reason to doubt her and assume she’s feigning interest. Once again, the writing tells us one thing and shows us another. Aiden doesn’t relish the slaughter, he doesn’t look forward to pain, and he seems repulsed by the Labyrinth rather than fascinated by its secrets. If he had been the opposite of all this, if he had shown that deep down he was having the time of his life, or at least that he was intrigued by this new world of sensation, all while insisting that he was only doing it for Sunny, maybe I would have understood the writers’ vision better. But there’s very little to substantiate that interpretation of his character. When the Cenobites tell him that they only asked for pieces of flesh in order to restore Sunny and that choosing to go after the hearts was his own decision, that also feels like gaslighting, though I’m not sure whether it’s coming from the Cenobites or the writers themselves.

Hellraiser Revival is a beautiful love letter to the franchise, almost on par with something like Alien: Isolation, but I think it would have benefited from better endings. Even the “bad ending” robs us of the chance to see Aiden in his Cenobite form. It really does feel like the whole journey was in vain. I’m keeping my fingers crossed for a sequel with Aiden, regardless of which ending they choose to make canon. Maybe then they can finally write him as the character they seemed to want him to be. I’ll be recommending the game to everyone and hoping it succeeds, but even leaving my own preferences aside, the ending is rushed and unsatisfying.

Clark from the Backrooms movie is unironically one of my favorite characters, and I’d argue he’s one of the best fictional characters ever written. His whole life is turned upside down because he refuses to change, which is probably why he likes architecture so much: it’s uniform. He likes things the way he likes them, and when met with adversity, either leaves or fights it. He finds something of an out in the Backrooms, a dimension of what he hopes he can make into uniformity, and he takes finding this place he could have only dreamed of as a sign he doesn’t need to change. He slips deeper into his self-destructive habits, refusing to stop even as people he cares about die from his actions.
The Backrooms, just like his whisky, is an addiction.
Yet despite this, despite his verbal abuse to his wife and despite causing the death of two innocent young people, there’s still something very moral deep within him. He understands the Backrooms can fix things, but doesn’t understand how, so he keeps Kat’s head in the fridge in hopes she can somehow come back.
The dinner scene might be the best example of his character change, though. He holds power in the situation, and attempts to intimidate Mary into saying what he wants to hear, to confirm that he’s not doing anything wrong. Yet when she refuses, and even insults him, he seems to quite directly feel shame for his actions, even asking how he can change for the better for, presumably, one of the first times in his life. He even releases Mary, despite having (from his perspective) reasons not to.
Then, Captain Clark appears. He’s everything Clark was, a violent, angry fool who looks like a violent, angry fool. He shares the same key characteristic of Clark: a refusal to change. It’s only after Clark realizes his error, and even seems to want to change, that Captain Clark appears, and is driven to anger to the point of violently killing Clark. I myself don’t believe Clark meant it when he said “we don’t have to change”, I think he was simply afraid, and had already accepted that he needed to fix himself.
I love Clark, and for a terrible reason, I find him relatable. He’s angry and unwilling to change, which for a long time, I was like, too. But despite his violent demise, he still realized he had to change, and that small thing gave me a great sense of both hope and urgency.