-arcadia @arcadiaxx - Tumblr Blog

JULY 20th! ITS HAPPENING! The Guild Reunion Movie Kickstarter goes LIVE! Please repost to help us reach all the Guildies who want to support! And sign up on the website! https://watchtheguild.com! We're making a movie!!!!

ghostieblr

Wtf even are these takes. Firm believer of everyone has their own braincells, and art is subjective, but The Boys is pretty direct in its (un)subtlety. Homelander is a delusional cry-baby. Him being hyped-up as this all-powerful God was his own vision, not what he projects. People who know him fear him not because of how powerful he is, but because he's a psycho. People who don't know him think of him as a hero (despite proof to the contrary. Kinda second-guessing my belief of everyone having their own braincells now). Anyways. Point being, someone said it was a cheap way to send Homie off... that he was built up so much to end it too quick... and I'm sitting here like that makes sense BECAUSE of everything that was set-up for him. He's all powerful in his head, invincible and eternal. In reality he's swiping his daddy's credit card for the most expensive shit and getting declined because his daddy is a phony, finally caught by law. In reality, Homie's overconfident and cocky, unused to not getting his way, and when he's actually about to be blasted down to humanity, he's RUNNING AWAY. He's SCARED. Terrified. Ryan's the one who holds him down for Kimiko to blast him. And guess what? Homelander is now blubbering and about to SUCK DICK. Even EAT SHIT to be left alive. His delusional era is over and he's experiencing true fear. For once. His character arc ended perfectly. IDC what anyone says. The finale was great for The Boys' characters. Miffed about Gen V and their non-involvement, but if that show didn't exist, and it was just about the OG ones.... yeah. Great character arcs, 9/10 because there's always room for improvement lol.

THE BOYS FINALE THOUGHTS

*** SPOILERS***

I think that ultimately Vought still being around is the pessimistic side and bit of "realism" sprinkled into an otherwise fairly happy ending for a majority of the players going into the finale. Like of course the evil megacorp is still around so that this (or something like it) can inevitably happen again down the line and history can repeat itself. The world always learns it's lesson for a time and tried to right wrongs, but we always end up back in the trenches again with a new megalomaniac trying to proclaim themselves God and take over the world...

Like I just feel that the decision for Vought to still be active and Stan Edgar to be back as CEO was very deliberate to show that the cycle WILL continue.

Am I mad about it? Yeah. In the same way I'm mad that irl we can't stop repeating history either! But, despite being mad about it. I can see how it would make sense (at least in a surface-level way). Edgar was ousted... by Homelander and Victoria Neumann. He was "imprisoned" by Homelander (even though he was taken by HL, it was only at the very end after he was already in his bunker). For someone with his money, resources, and power, of course a slimeball like Stan Edgar gets away with it by blaming Homelander for everything. Society never holds those people accountable. He's essentially the Umbridge to Homelander's Voldemort. The every day evil compared to one that's 1 in a million.

Anyway, watching Homelander get killed was satisfying, but I wish the fight lasted longer. I don't pity the man who was a rapist and murderer and was prepared fo commit large scale genocide via literal thought police. I feel bad for the kid he was but not the man he became. That little kid died a long time ago and he hasn't been innocent since then. And I can be happy he died while still being upset that Vought didn't get destroyed. Being happy he died doesn't mean I'm pro-Vought. They are not mutually exclusive, which it seems like lot of HL pity posts kinda make it sound like they are.

#the boys finale #the boys #the boys season 5 #the boys spoilers #stan edgar #homelander #fuck vought #and fuck homelander too

fictionadventurer

I think the Hunger Games series sits in a similar literary position to The Lord of the Rings, as a piece of literature (by a Catholic author) that sparked a whole new subgenre and then gets blamed for flaws that exist in the copycat books and aren’t actually part of the original.

Like, despite what parodies might say, Katniss is nowhere near the stereotypical “unqualified teenager chosen to lead a rebellion for no good reason”. The entire point is that she’s not leading the rebellion. She’s a traumatized teenager who has emotional reactions to the horrors in her society, and is constantly being reined in by more experienced adults who have to tell her, “No, this is not how you fight the government, you are going to get people killed.” She’s not the upstart teenager showing the brainless adults what to do–she’s a teenager being manipulated by smarter and more experienced adults. She has no power in the rebellion except as a useful piece of propaganda, and the entire trilogy is her straining against that role. It’s much more realistic and far more nuanced than anyone who dismisses it as “stereotypical YA dystopian” gives it credit for.

And the misconceptions don’t end there. The Hunger Games has no “stereotypical YA love triangle”–yes, there are two potential love interests, but the romance is so not the point. There’s a war going on! Katniss has more important things to worry about than boys! The romance was never about her choosing between two hot boys–it’s about choosing between two diametrically opposed worldviews. Will she choose anger and war, or compassion and peace? Of course a trilogy filled with the horrors of war ends with her marriage to the peace-loving Peeta. Unlike some of the YA dystopian copycats, the romance here is part of the message, not just something to pacify readers who expect “hot love triangles” in their YA.

The worldbuilding in the Hunger Games trilogy is simplistic and not realistic, but unlike some of her imitators, Collins does this because she has something to say, not because she’s cobbling together a grim and gritty dystopia that’s “similar to the Hunger Games”. The worldbuilding has an allegorical function, kept simple so we can see beyond it to what Collins is really saying–and it’s nothing so comforting as “we need to fight the evil people who are ruining society”. The Capitol’s not just the powerful, greedy bad guys–the Capitol is us, First World America, living in luxury while we ignore the problems of the rest of the world, and thinking of other nations largely in terms of what resources we can get from them. This simplistic world is a sparsely set stage that lets us explore the larger themes about exploitation and war and the horrors people will commit for the sake of their bread and circuses, meant to make us think deeper about what separates a hero from a villain.

There’s a reason these books became a literary phenomenon. There’s a reason that dozens upon dozens of authors attempted to imitate them. But these imitators can’t capture that same genius, largely because they’re trying to imitate the trappings of another book, and failing to capture the larger and more meaningful message underneath. Make a copy of a copy of a copy, and you’ll wind up with something far removed from the original masterpiece. But we shouldn’t make the mistake of blaming those flaws on the original work.

datasnake

Other examples of “blamed for things their copycats did” include Watchmen (blamed for the gritty antihero comics of the 90s) and Madoka Magica (blamed for excessively edgy and grimdark magical girl shows).

fictionadventurer

Four years on, and I think you might be the first person to add this type of comment to this post. After receiving so many comments that are like “THG is nowhere near on the level of LotR” or “THG didn’t invent YA dystopia”, it’s so refreshing to see someone understand exactly what I meant by framing THG as “a work blamed for its copycats”, and expand on it with examples that I didn’t know about.

It’s so rare to get an original comment on this post. Thank you so much.

corvidcorgi

With three movies to compare between, I really appreciate how each Knives Out movie explores justice from a different thematic angle, not based on the murder that was committed but based on the cruelty that led to that murder.

In Knives Out, a compassionate, ethical young woman treats everyone around her with generosity, and the people around her repeatedly try to take advantage of her kindness to force her into losing the fortune that was gifted to her by a dear friend. There, justice means that she keeps the fortune and decides that actually, she doesn't have to be kind and giving to people who've proven themselves assholes.

In Glass Onion, a woman loses her sister to a gang of wealthy, successful people who've sacrificed their principles for the sake of ambition and ego. There, justice means that everyone involved will be made notorious: whatever their other accomplishments, they will forever be known for being complicit in the burning of the most famous painting in history.

In Wake Up Dead Man, the church takes advantage of a young girl's loyalty and faith to place her under a lifelong burden and fill her with guilt, shame, and hatred. Justice means helping her understand what was done to her and the women around her, and giving her compassion so she can find peace.

This is cool because it means the movies contradict each other! The compassionate justice of Wake Up Dead Man would be totally misplaced in Knives Out, and so would the toppling-monuments justice of Glass Onion. And because each movie has something different to say, they all stand on their own and feel fresh.

This is also why Benoit Blanc is the uniting figure but never the protagonist of these movies. He's an agent of legal justice in that he's the detective and it's his job to figure out whodunnit, but the protagonist -- Marta, Helen, and now Jud -- is always the character who delivers thematic justice.

theconcealedweapon

Parents think it's a sin for their children to disobey them. Parents think it's okay to assault their children in order to instill the fear of God in them.

Those parents are prime examples of using the lord's name in vain. But they don't want their children to know that. So they instead invent some bullshit definition.

rederiswrites

Quietly losing my mind over the fact that Elon Musk has straight up orchestrated a coup of our executive branch and like....I don't even know what, if any, system we have in place to fix this. Like... He's just taken control of the money and locked out the actual appointed officials. What the fuck.

rederiswrites

Nazis are taking over my government, and like, not even just the Nazis we fucking elected! And I'm...making hamburgers? Because somebody has to make dinner? I just feel completely unhinged.

derinthescarletpescatarian

I think that's how random civillians generally feel in these situations. Someone's gotta make dinner.

lizardlicks

If you're wondering, there is plenty to be done about it, and plenty being done about it already, even if it's not happening instantly in a way you can perceive.

Yes. Let me break it down for you.

rederiswrites

Reblogging because this is an excellent article that both tells you about some of what's being done and breaks it down in a way that will help you understand and think about future action. Please read!

rederiswrites

Nazis are taking over my government, and like, not even just the Nazis we fucking elected! And I'm...making hamburgers? Because somebody has to make dinner? I just feel completely unhinged.

derinthescarletpescatarian

I think that's how random civillians generally feel in these situations. Someone's gotta make dinner.

lizardlicks

If you're wondering, there is plenty to be done about it, and plenty being done about it already, even if it's not happening instantly in a way you can perceive.

Yes. Let me break it down for you.

rederiswrites

crafteeauthor

Gentle reminder that they almost definitely planted evidence on Luigi and arrested him to distract from the fact that the real UHC shooter got away with killing a billionaire. One of us successfully killed a billionaire and one of us could successfully do it again

(edit: Thompson was a millionaire but my point still stands billionaires and millionaires who make money through killing thousands gotta go)

theconcealedweapon

isnt

shesgotwhatittakes

While cleaning out my room I found a paper that my therapist gave me some time ago to deal with obsessive and intrusive thoughts. Sorry the paper is a little crinkled and stained, but I figured I’d post it in hopes that it will help someone like it helped me.

shesgotwhatittakes

Here it is again with text for anyone who can’t see the picture

That thought isn’t helpful right now.

Now is not the time to think about it. I can think about it later.

This is irrational. I’m going to let it go.

I won’t argue with an irrational thought.

This is not an emergency. I can slow down and think clearly about what I need.

This feels threatening and urgent, but it really isn’t.

I don’t have to be perfect to be OK.

I don’t have to figure out this question. The best thing to do is just drop it.

It’s OK to make mistakes.

I already know from my past experiences that these fears are irrational.

I have to take risks in order to be free. I’m willing to take this risk.

It’s OK that I just had that thought/image, and it doesn’t mean anything. I don’t have to pay attention to it.

I’m ready to move on now.

I can handle being wrong.

I don’t have to suffer like this. I deserve to feel comfortable.

That’s not my responsibility.

That’s not my problem.

I’ve done the best I can.

It’s good practice to let go of this worry. I want to practice.

invaderxan

Heard some important information on Twitter today, and thought I’d post it here for anyone who may not have heard it. This is actually a thing, devised by human rights organisation called Karma Nirvana.

Reblog to save a life?

theindependentconservative

Reblog to save a life.

libertarirynn-deactivated202006

Sharing because it’s actually a verified and sourced thing and not one of those dumbass fake tip posts.

lordfreemanofficial

Fuck me thats clever, actually worth reblogging

spider-hands-mannos-deactivated

Heres the thing you gotta understand about statistics.

“Increases your chances by 80%” does not mean “there is now an 80% chance”.

If your chances were previously 10%, your chances are now 18%, not 90%.

if your chances were roughly 1%, they’re now just slightly less than 2%.

thats how that works.

hopeful-weirdo

Wow I don’t understand math at all

freinhardt56

‘if you have a baby after 35, the chance of deformities goes up by 100%’ is a line I hear alot.

It goes up from .5% to 1%

fandomlockedfan

I think my brain just stopped working

authorgirl1111

100% is just another way of saying twice more likely. So 100% more basically means multiply the number you do have by 2.

that-catholic-shinobi

Imagine how many woman are scared to have kids because of that statistic

what-even-is-thiss

This is why I took stats instead of calc. Because I don’t build engineer bridges in my everyday life but I sure do read studies that affect how I might live my life if I misinterpret them.

bogleech

I’m terrible at numbers and math but I knew this and I really take it for granted. The average person definitely assumes, quite understandably, that “600% INCREASE!!!” must always mean a whole lot even if it literally only means that one of something is now six of something. Politicians probably take a shitload of advantage of this confusion.

hexmaniacmareen

just remember that increased BY and increased TO are very different things.

bogleech

Oh god I didn’t even think about that whole other layer of confusion. Yeah if you’ve got 100 people and one of them is sick, that’s 1% of them who are sick, so if it “increased BY 100%” then that means now two people are sick. If it’s “increased TO 100%” then all 100 people are sick.