people are likening the last one to the plot of Monsters Inc. so I feel obligated to point some things out:
the "fear vs laughter" premise of monsters inc is part of a broader allegory about corporate greed at the expense of the health and well-being of the world at large. in particular, it's roughly analogous to the world's continued reliance on fossil fuels, which is due in part to fearmongering about nuclear power and wind farms.
a key element of the plot is that it's not just a matter of "the main characters don't want to subsist on fear, they want to be Niceys." the plot and characterization rely on sully and ESPECIALLY mike buying into the corporate line on human children, and thus going from "terrified" to "confused and intrigued" when it becomes apparent that human children are not actually dangerous
the result of all this is that "laugh power is just as feasible, and in fact more efficient" develops the themes and characters rather than shutting them down. if the premise of the movie were simply that sully and mike are Niceys to begin with, you lose the allegory, you have to rewrite the plot from scratch, and the characters - imo - become considerably less interesting, because you're robbing them of the tension between "maybe what I'm doing is wrong" and "I would like to have Money to Eat, not cause a mass panic, and not get thrown in jail or killed or written off as a crank"
attitude is a major element here. monsters inc isn't out here implying that the concept of monsters engendering fear/pain in order to harvest it is stupid. undertale isn't a game where "you're in a dungeon but everyone is friendly;" a pacifist run is a conscious decision that you make with people firing bullets at you. this one's a Twitter example, but - something like lovely lady rpg or clam man 2 isn't starting from the absurd premise that harry dubois and the setting he's in are Generic and therefore Uninteresting, only to tear them out and replace them with nothing of substance.
lastly, and imo this is key:
a short tumblr post is ill-suited for exploring ideas in any real detail, which tends to make it more annoying, not less.
more specifically: these posts rarely dive into the actual narrative implications of anything they're proposing, instead favoring vague gestures at pithy but underdeveloped ideas. there's a difference between saying "what if Indiana Jones didn't go on adventures lol" and "what if a normal, realistic archaeologist still got drawn into a pulp adventure and had to get by in spite of being terrified and under-equipped to deal with the situation." the latter would be A Story that engages with the genre, not just a cheap gag.
andulkaphoto
annaxmalina
stormborns
discoholicmusic
tangentwithtanner
germansingergirl
titsay
romaincrisis
