The Fandom Learning Curve (Tumblr Edition) @hobbitkiller - Tumblr Blog

As someone who was a diehard CW Supergirl fan from the first season, please officially leave me out of any attempts to pit CW Supergirl against the new one.

Supergirl has always been an elastic character open to interpretation, and embracing the multiverse means all versions can coexist.

Benoist’s Supergirl will always be a unique take because they centered that show on the sister relationship with Alex who is just in that universe.

Will the new movie replace CW as my favorite? I doubt it. That doesn’t mean I have to hate it or campaign against it.

#supergirl

It’s been years, and I’m still not over how cool “feminists” were with the blatant ableism of the Birds of Prey movie.

Between that and being part of the white-washed Wuthering Heights movie, I’m really side-eying Margo Robbie.

hobbitkiller

“What happened to rebel Vi? Season 2 destroyed her character!”

“What happened to rebel Vi” is that Vander took her to the bridge where her parents died in his revolution and asked her what she was willing to lose. Then she meets Cait who is gentle and kind while still being tough and it makes her rethink how she sees topside. When Jinx tells her she changed too, that’s what she’s talking about.

I’m sorry if you thought Vi was going to be a topside-hating revolutionary in Season 2, but that’s clearly not where her character arc was going. Remember how she forced her way between Ekko and Cait? It seemed very straightforward that was the role her character was taking on.

I feel similar about people who act like the show was betraying its premise because it ended with reconciliation/Zaun and Piltover working together. Again, the fact that two of the most important relationships were between characters from both sides and that they made a point of talking about Zaun and Piltover first coming together against a common enemy was a pretty clear indicator that was the plan.

Now, I get being annoyed that that was what they chose to do. You don’t have to love the creative decisions of media, just like media doesn’t have to compromise its creative direction to satisfy you. But not liking that they went that direction is not the same as the show having bad writing or engaging in character assassination.

Everything Vi did in season 2 was very much in character with how she changed and who she became throughout Season 1. Hell, she used enforcers and Hextech to raid Shimmer facilities before Commander Kiramman ever threw on a beret. So, yes, actually wearing the uniform was a huge and complicated decision that she was definitely not happy about, but it also fell in line with what she had been doing.

There’s meat for another post at some point about the three different Zaun/enforcer partnerships we see in the show: Vander/Greyson, Silco/Marcus, and Cait/Vi; but I’m not going to go into that now.

TLDR: “Rebel Vi” who wants to fight all of topside hasn’t existed since the end of the second episode of the show.

Editing to add that Vi doesn’t see attacking Chem Barons as attacking Zaun; she’s taking down the people who are destroying Zaun.

samhadjblog2

While I agree with most of your claims here. I have to disagree with this one.

>I feel similar about people who act like the show was betraying its premise because it ended with reconciliation/Zaun and Piltover working together. Again, the fact that two of the most important relationships were between characters from both sides and that they made a point of talking about Zaun and Piltover first coming together against a common enemy was a pretty clear indicator that was the plan.

Having the two cities work together against a common enemy is just a cheap way to resolves the conflict because it addresses none of the issues and has takes away any meaningful motivation.

Saving the world is a base line goal it tells us nothing about the characters or there ideals. Because of coarse people are going to go in and save the world.

Also no there were never talks about reaching common enemy in the first season. In fact its kind of clear that a lot of season 1 indicates that some characters are going to cut ties with one another.

Its not a "not liking a direction the story took". Its more like "The story is chickening out of a more complicated topic by just ending the show on this note".

hobbitkiller

Sorry, but this resolution was, in fact, clearly where the show was going. It’s basic story structure that things get worse before they get better—that there is a moment where characters are separated before they reconnect. It is very common. It would be unrealistic if you brought these characters together and didn’t have conflict.

As for fighting a common enemy not being discussed, go back and rewatch the scene where Jayce talks to Silco. They talk about what brought Zaun and Piltover together in the first place, a common enemy from beyond their walls (this is what a middle school English teacher might call foreshadowing.) Silco says people have a short memory—kind of like this fandom.

Some of the biggest emotional beats in season one were people from topside and bottom coming together. When Vi says they’re oil and water and can’t mix, you’re not supposed to agree with her.

Finally, there’s a reason why the last words of season one are “what could have been.” It’s because that future where Zaun gained its independence is gone. Maybe way down the line it could happen, but Jinx destroyed that chance for now. It’s also not framed as a triumphant, righteous moment.

The show didn’t chicken out. It told the story it was always and very obviously going to tell. There’s a difference between a theme going unaddressed and unresolved. Arcane didn’t wave a wand and resolve all of the issues between Piltover and Zaun—which is why the ending isn’t some sunshine and rainbows celebration. No one cheers as the Noxians leave while Pilties and Zaunites hug in the streets.

What you should have taken away from the epilogue is that there is still a ton of work to do—“are you still in this fight, Violet?” Those issues of inequality and prejudice haven’t been erased, and the show acknowledges that. “No one wins in war” is one of the theses of the show.

samhadjblog2

Coming back to this discussion a year I wanted to share some general thoughts after re-watching I will admit to saying that I was wrong that the story was planned to end this way. In that Viktor was going to become this big Herald of the Arcane and there was going to be giant fight. So I admit I am wrong there

However that doesn't mean that were ended fits the themes in what the show set up (intentional or not). And good example of this would have the be this statement here.

As for fighting a common enemy not being discussed, go back and rewatch the scene where Jayce talks to Silco. They talk about what brought Zaun and Piltover together in the first place, a common enemy from beyond their walls (this is what a middle school English teacher might call foreshadowing.) Silco says people have a short memory—kind of like this fandom.

I feel like this was never meant to be foreshadowing for anything the show was setting up. Because when you take into account this statement "A common enemy from beyond the walls" is propaganda.

Because if you really look into the larger world of Rune-terra take into broader account of what the Rune-wars were. That Piltover is essentially just building a wall from the outside world and in turn decided to just shut themselves off from everyone.

And this is made even more clear with how magic works in League of Legends. Magic doesn't "Corrupt people's minds with weird blotchy shit" its just a tool dependent on how a person uses it.

The planet of Rune-terra (A planet literally called magic earth) is made of magic, there is literally various examples of magic shown here.

Further south of Zaun there is an Aztec empire with citizens who can channel elemental magic, to the west there is an archipelago in where people can channel the magic of god the life and motion. And north west of that there is Ionia a place .The empire of Noxus has variety of mages. . Heck Piltover's origins began with a bunch of people worshiping a wind spirit.

And so taking that all into consideration you can see the wall that Piltover built up and their staunch rejection of magic is in of itself regressive to the broader the contexts of the world. (Second only to Demacia which is so anti-magic that it literally has their own fantasy ICE that captures mages and imprison's them).

As for the statement of "One city" Ekko in S2 refutes the claim stating

"You say we are one city but whenever it rains we are the one's getting wet"

Which show's off that Piltover claims to be one city but in reality there not.

And so even if you want to claim this is foreshadowing you have to take into account the broader contexts of what this statement means in the show itself.

And that the moral that comes form this is that "You should build walls towards the outside world and you shouldn't ever explore the unknown"

hobbitkiller

A year later a nothing you say contradicts the clear foreshadowing of the show.

First, bringing in non-show-canon material is not proper analysis. Arcane is Arcane. It deviates significantly from other established lore and backstory. Until otherwise explicitly stated, Runeterra lore outside of Arcane is not applicable to a reading of the show.

Ekko’s statement has literally nothing to do with whether or not the two sides coming together to fight a common enemy was foreshadowed, particularly given it’s a Season 2 quote where they were building to that conclusion. Or do you think they didn’t know how the second season would end while they were making it?

Now, you can argue that you don’t like the ending and you feel it didn’t match what you interpret to be the themes of the show. That’s fine. You not liking the ending doesn’t mean it wasn’t planned and foreshadowed. As I believe I said in one of these exchanges, sometimes stories suffer because creators are too married to their original plan even when the story may be pulling in a different direction. (While I’m not a fan, “How I Met Your Mother” is a pretty good example). Stories that are internally inconsistent in their themes are fairly common, particularly ones that are trying to be more nuanced in their messages or that try to create sympathetic villains that they still need to be villains.

My saying the show foreshadowed this ending is neither an endorsement nor condemnation of the ending itself. It is simply looking at the way the story was told and the clear set up that they were likely moving in this direction.

They establish two sides of a conflict, create sympathetic characters on both sides, had a major theme of the first season be two separate partnerships of people from each side (Vi/Caitlyn, Jayce/Viktor), introduce a potential common enemy at the beginning of the final act of the first season then have two characters discuss a previous time when the two sides fought together toward the end of that same act. While it doesn’t mean they couldn’t have gone a different way, the setup was absolutely there.

Now, you can totally argue that it’s a cheap way of resolving the conflict (though I’d argue part of the point is that it wasn’t fully resolved), and I would say that’s fair. Arcane, as a show, is not perfect. There are definitely things I would change about it. But that doesn’t mean the ending wasn’t planned.

Also, not for nothing, but being xenophobic and being anti-Imperial invasion aren’t the same thing.

samhadjblog2

I never said that it wasn't foreshadowing heck I literally admit you were right about this being the direction of the show I apologize for not making this clear. I'm not here to debate you on whether or not the direction was planned, just rather what the direction says in the large contexts of Runeterra and what was presented in Arcane.

First, bringing in non-show-canon material is not proper analysis. Arcane is Arcane. It deviates significantly from other established lore and backstory. Until otherwise explicitly stated, Runeterra lore outside of Arcane is not applicable to a reading of the show.

Not true, Arcane has been officially been called canon to Runeterra lore prior to Season 2's premiere (And as of late there has been a smaller ongoing story that is currently taking place after Arcane in the league canon that feature ideas and concepts from the larger Rune-terra lore,such as "The Darkin", Demons, as well as the locations of both Ionia and Demacia and their respective cultural views towards magic). Heck the Black-Rose being here is a sign that a lot of the lore of Runeterra is canon.

Arcane being League of Legends canon is great.

Ekko’s statement has literally nothing to do with whether or not the two sides coming together to fight a common enemy was foreshadowed, particularly given it’s a Season 2 quote where they were building to that conclusion. Or do you think they didn’t know how the second season would end while they were making it?

I'm just saying that Ekko's statement brings criticism towards the idea of "Piltover being one city", just showing off that the theme of unity isn't a strong one. Even if that were the intention or not.

Now, you can argue that you don’t like the ending and you feel it didn’t match what you interpret to be the themes of the show. That’s fine. You not liking the ending doesn’t mean it wasn’t planned and foreshadowed. As I believe I said in one of these exchanges, sometimes stories suffer because creators are too married to their original plan even when the story may be pulling in a different direction. (While I’m not a fan, “How I Met Your Mother” is a pretty good example). Stories that are internally inconsistent in their themes are fairly common, particularly ones that are trying to be more nuanced in their messages or that try to create sympathetic villains that they still need to be villains.

Yes that is what I was stating here. I just started off admitting that this was planned I'm trying my best to judge for what it is and not what I think it should be. And I'm just arguing that when looking over the broader context of the world of Runeterra and what Arcane has presented feels out of place.

They establish two sides of a conflict, create sympathetic characters on both sides, had a major theme of the first season be two separate partnerships of people from each side (Vi/Caitlyn, Jayce/Viktor), introduce a potential common enemy at the beginning of the final act of the first season then have two characters discuss a previous time when the two sides fought together toward the end of that same act. While it doesn’t mean they couldn’t have gone a different way, the setup was absolutely there.

Again not going to deny this was planned i'm not going to refute that. "However" I want to at least discuss some aspects of these ideas here.

Because while yes the show has presented both sides of the conflict however it never feels like there were ever going to put aside their differences for a common foe. If anything the show highlighted a theme of division more than anything.

Specifically in how every partner team up in the show failed.

Vander and Silco's team up falls a apart,Vander and Loris team up falls a part, Vi and Powder's relationship falls a part, Caitlyn and Vi's team up falls a part, Jayce and Vi's team up last only briefly and falls a part, Jayce and Silco's deal falls a part. (And in the original lore both Ekko and Vi fall a part as well as Viktor and Jayce).

The show intentionally or not presented a theme in where two people come together and then split a part often due to one side failing to make good on there end and they become enemies. That was Tragedy in all of this, in that everyone is their enemy. Something reflected in the S1 finale in where Jinx recognized Vi will never love for who she is and so blew up the council as they were about to vote for peace. So the first season ends not on a note unity but division.

As for Ambessa nothing about her up to this point nothing about her was different then how anyone else acted to this point.

Want to say none of this was the intention of the writers fair enough I'm not going to argue against that. However you can at least see why people would make the claim that this doesn't line up with the show the crew presented in the first season.

Also, not for nothing, but being xenophobic and being anti-Imperial invasion aren’t the same thing.

Here's the thing Ambessa isn't the main antagonist in the end. Viktor and the Arcane is. And so when i'm referring to Xenophobia i'm referring to the idea of Hex-tech being some bad thing that shouldn't of been invented because magic is bad.

hobbitkiller

“I feel like this was never meant to be foreshadowing for anything the show was setting up. “

We can’t have a conversation if you’re not going to be honest.

Again, there are significant deviations between Arcane and established canon. Anything post arcane that wants to include it as canon also has nothing to do with the established canon of the show as it was airing.

Nothing in the show is canon that wasn’t explicitly stated as such, particularly details that would significantly impact the theme or plot. To make the understanding of your show reliant on materials outside of the general knowledge of your audience (which for Arcane was largely people that have not and will not further explore the lore of Runeterra) would be absolutely terrible storytelling at least.

Going back to Ekko’s statement, the whole point of “coming together to fight a common enemy” is that the two sides have to initially be apart. Him re-establishing the division just emphasizes the initial conflict the story is addressing—not making claims as to its resolution. Zaun and Piltover having diverged in purpose over two hundred years also has nothing to do with them initially joining forces against a common enemy. If they had continued to be friends or even just allies, the story of them fighting an enemy off together wouldn’t exactly be compelling.

Similarly, having the partnerships hit a rough patch or break up is classic story-telling. Have you never watched a rom com? It’s called the “second-act breakup.” There’s also the “all is lost” trope or “dark night of the soul” trope. Stories like to show heroes coming back from near defeat when all hope seems lost and win. Again, super basic story structure in just about every piece of fiction.

There’s a reason why so many trilogies have a dark second installment (Star Wars, A:TLA.) It’s generally solid storytelling to have your audience wondering how things will ever resolve and wondering if all is lost. It’s the classic “how will they get out of this one?”

The point of showing the failure of Silco and Vander’s relationship was in part to show how our current characters broke or at least put a dent in that cycle. Vi and Caitlyn and Jayce and Viktor are separated SO they can find each other again. That’s not a flaw in the storytelling, and it definitely doesn’t mean the story is saying they can never work together. The point—throw in Vi and Jinx and Jinx and Ekko too—is that all of these relationships ran the risk of falling to the same destructive patterns of those who came before, but their love was strong enough to overcome those divisions. They succeeded, or at least made progress, where their parents and mentors failed.

Ambessa was introduced murdering an unarmed child and immediately starts pushing to escalate the conflict so she can manipulate it to gain resources. This is classic imperialism. There’s also the fact that she was introduced at the moment when a future antagonist would likely be introduced so you don’t have to spend time establishing them in the next season.

While I disagree with your statement that Viktor is the main antagonist in the end, that also has no bearing on whether or not the show was building toward the two sides working together to defeat a common enemy. They joined forces to get rid of Ambessa, who had been terrorizing Zaun prior to turning her army on Piltover, and to stop Viktor. Both were threats to both cities, which is why they joined forces.

Arcane has interesting, nuanced characters, but still uses a lot of fundamentally basic story tropes, themes, and structures. And that’s fine. Again, it’s also fine if you didn’t like that they joined forces because it basically punted a lot of the structural problems between Piltover and Zaun down the road—something I’d argue they acknowledge in the epilogue. Sure, Sevika’s on the council, and they had a shared memorial, but was anything really resolved? No—not yet. That’s why I think Vi and Cait’s last scene is so important. Yes, they have each other, but they’re still in the fight. The path to a better future is there, but it won’t be easy.

And, yeah, in a lot of ways it’s a fundamentally, and I’d argue, purposefully unsatisfying ending. But it was the story they intended to tell.

samhadjblog2

“I feel like this was never meant to be foreshadowing for anything the show was setting up. “We can’t have a conversation if you’re not going to be honest.

O.k I will admit fault on my part. I should worded this better. Instead of "I feel like this was never meant to be foreshadowing for anything the show was setting up". And more like just based on what the show has presented, it feels more like we were suppose to take the opposite from this statement. In that this was the tragedy of Arcane that the city that born on unity is eroded due to city not actually adhering to this principle. To simply say "Magic is bad and Jayce should of never of messed with it" feels so narrow minded compared to how the first season sets itself up.

Nothing in the show is canon that wasn’t explicitly stated as such, particularly details that would significantly impact the theme or plot. To make the understanding of your show reliant on materials outside of the general knowledge of your audience (which for Arcane was largely people that have not and will not further explore the lore of Runeterra) would be absolutely terrible storytelling at least.

I mean things like the old origins of Piltover beginning as a place that worshiped a wind-spirit and how she was reused as a spirit of fresh-air due to Zaun's pollution are still canon as seen in S2 Act 1.

And even then Arcane was very much prone to just introducing things like "The Black Rose" even though they have nothing to do with anything.

Because that's the thing if your meant to create a story that uses characters and narrative events from the OG LoL lore then people are going to correlate it the lore of League to it.

However even if we want to disregard the large world of Runeterra when examining Arcane. The idea of "Standing tall against the Rune-wars" aren't the words of unity there the words of propaganda, the idea of "Building a wall to our enemies" is meant to

Going back to Ekko’s statement, the whole point of “coming together to fight a common enemy” is that the two sides have to initially be apart. Him re-establishing the division just emphasizes the initial conflict the story is addressing—not making claims as to its resolution. Zaun and Piltover having diverged in purpose over two hundred years also has nothing to do with them initially joining forces against a common enemy. If they had continued to be friends or even just allies, the story of them fighting an enemy off together wouldn’t exactly be compelling.

The thing about Ekko's statement is that what he is saying that there was "never" any unity to begin with, it was just a lie created by the elite.The emphasis of "the divergence" doesn't feel like its meant to highlight the inevitable unity of both cities. Rather highlight the division of the cities.

Because intentional or not Arcane was a story about the inevitable division due to differences.

There’s a reason why so many trilogies have a dark second installment (Star Wars, A:TLA.) It’s generally solid storytelling to have your audience wondering how things will ever resolve and wondering if all is lost. It’s the classic “how will they get out of this one?”

Here's the issue with this read,the difference between Arcane and stuff like (Star Wars and A:TLA) is that those stories were black and white to begin with. There was an obvious big-bad. Meanwhile Arcane was written as story about "Two opposing forces that are neither good or bad" and the conflict between the two groups. On top of that the antagonist of both of there stories were built up to and were a part of the central conflict. Meanwhile Ambessa is character whose motivation has nothing to do with anything with the central conflict. The darker moment wasn't driven by Ambessa it was driven by the two cities themselves.

And a lot of the more "darker moments" aren't meant to be the low-point in which the "Good guys" walk out of. Rather the dark signifies a broke relationship that can't be fixed. Hence the song "What could of been" a song that signifies "The happy unity that can no longer be". That path is broken and we can no longer try to have what we once had.

Ambessa was introduced murdering an unarmed child and immediately starts pushing to escalate the conflict so she can manipulate it to gain resources. This is classic imperialism.

And Jinx committed acts of terrorism that killed so many people. And left many children either orphaned or serve lung damage.

And Mel tried her best to build up Piltover at the expense of the undercity. And "also" manipulates to gain resources as well.

Jayce put up an Embargo as well as place a lot of enforcers on the bridge between the cities.

Heck Silco entire operation with Shimmer.

Nothing about what Ambessa is that different from what the rest of the cast has done. That's the point of morally complex stories, things like slicing peoples necks isn't meant to signify "Their the bad guy" rather it just meant to signify the norm of the world.

The world Arcane established is one in where you either have to be strong and powerful or manipulative and cunning. Or as Ambessa said "You either a Wolf or a Fox". Because that is just how the show established itself as. The Dualism between opposites not the two opposites facing a new opponent.

And that is the tragic angle of the show. The characters are forced into roles due to the way society is structured. And so to just look at Ambessa as just "A warmonger" and not someone who was forced into this role due to society just like everyone feels narrow minded.

Want to argue that the intention of the show was that Ambessa is the "Big bad" fine. However what the show has presented thus far is a contradiction to this very notion. Due to presenting a story that emphasizes that "You either need to be strong or smart to survive" and in turn making Ambessa appear no different to anyone else.

There’s also the fact that she was introduced at the moment when a future antagonist would likely be introduced so you don’t have to spend time establishing them in the next season.

I mean not really because the show was focused squarely on the two cities. I'm not arguing she came in with good intentions (or just solely good intentions) rather that how she was presented didn't seem like she would be the villain that everyone rally's against.

While I disagree with your statement that Viktor is the main antagonist in the end, that also has no bearing on whether or not the show was building toward the two sides working together to defeat a common enemy. They joined forces to get rid of Ambessa, who had been terrorizing Zaun prior to turning her army on Piltover, and to stop Viktor. Both were threats to both cities, which is why they joined forces.

The reason why I brought up Viktor as the big-bad, is to tie back to your statement about the difference between Xenophobia and Imperialism. In that Viktor's usage of the Arcane "is" the Xenophobia towards magic and Hex-tech. My argument isn't the story this wasn't was the original direction, rather that wasn't what they wrote in the end just states that "You should fear the unknown, and trying to go against things is wrong".

Arcane has interesting, nuanced characters, but still uses a lot of fundamentally basic story tropes, themes, and structures. And that’s fine.

I'm not arguing that this wasn't the intention to end on the note of uniting. However I'm just arguing that intentionally or not, the show didn't write a narrative about "coming together" they wrote a story about falling a part.

The tropes, structure and theme they use tell a story about about "Two sides of a relationship falling a part" in where the "Tragedy" of the story is how due to societal norms that forced us into specific roles in turn pushes us to hurt the people we love.

hobbitkiller

This is the last time I’m going to respond, because I’m frankly over how you continue to move the goal posts every time I point out the basic fundamental problems you have with your argument.

Let’s be real, saying you poorly worded “I don’t see this as foreshadowing” when called out on lying about saying you never said it wasn’t foreshadowing and saying you meant something completely different is, at best, intellectually dishonest.

The wind spirit lore in Season 2 was colorful set dressing, not, as I pointed out, something meant to have major implications toward understanding the plot or theme. It creates a deeper world, but does not mean we should assume all Runeterra lore should be considered canon or fundamentally impact our understanding of Arcane. That would be terrible storytelling.

Piltover in Arcane is not at all established as xenophobic against any community other than Zaun. Their biggest source of income is trade through the hex gates. You are fixating on the presence of the wall in that scene because it’s something for you to latch onto instead of the most obvious reading of the story.

Again, I literally cannot help you if you don’t get how story structure and conflict work. You noticed the cities are divided. Well spotted. It’s almost like that’s the surface-level conflict of the story. You have basic literacy. The question the story needs to then answer is what are they going to do with this conflict. Arcane could have gone a few ways, but it was clear that they were establishing a lot of set up that there was going to be some form of working together.

The fact that you have decided the story is about “inevitable division due to differences” tells me that you are completely overwriting the show’s themes with your own. It’s like you saw Vi say they’re like oil and water and just stopped the critical thinking process there—as if the show wasn’t obviously going to show Vi is wrong in that moment. Did you not think they were setting Vi and Cait up to be endgame? Again, a couple that serves as one of our avatars of the broader conflict because you need to personify these big themes to give the audience a better reason to care.

Even your example using Ekko completely contradicts your interpretation. What is Ekko doing in that scene? Who is he with? He’s working with Heimerdinger and Jayce. They are, in that moment, working together to try to solve a common problem. (A plot which leads to the AU where Piltover and Zaun have reunified, and shows Ekko that he can’t give up trying to fight for a better future or on a relationship he felt was irreparable.)

“What could have been” is about the ending that couldn’t be—an independent Zaun. That best outcome is gone. That’s why that isn’t what we get—please refer to my comments on the ending being largely unresolved and there still being a fight. What it doesn’t mean is that the show is declaring these sides can never get together—particularly at the midpoint of the story.

Ambessa was a deliberately setup outsider who killed without remorse from an imperial power. Everything about her set up was to establish that she was a threat up to and including how a character we had an established relationship with, Mel, reacted to her. Now, could they have subverted expectations? Sure. But Ambessa becoming the main antagonist of season 2 was super predictable. You not being able to see that on a rewatch is honestly a mind boggling as it is so incredibly obvious. That’s not saying she’s not complex or not a product of her own environment. Most good villains are both, and I enjoy her as a villain, but she was set up as the threat. She was set up as a villain.

Your return to the Viktor “point” is again you trying to completely change your argument retroactively. You keep pretending you aren’t arguing that this wasn’t the plan of the show, but that is what you consistently do. It also in no way challenges any of my points.

Your final point also has one tiny flaw—it completely ignores how over and over again in Arcane it shows characters coming together in different ways and contexts and for different reasons. You see the obstacles put in our characters’ ways and decide the show is showing us that they’re insurmountable even as it shows the characters doing just that. You took being shown difficulty as being shown impossibility.

Again, it’s like you saw the oil and water scene and decided that was the theme of the show.

That said, I never said the sole theme of the show was people coming together. I said that was the ending the show was building toward. That doesn’t make it the main theme as much as it makes it the mechanism to find some form of resolution—uneasy and unsatisfying as it was. The themes of Arcane are about the cycle of violence, love, legacy, community, oppression, trauma, trust. A nihilist declaration that divisions are too strong is the perspective of someone like Silco, maybe, but can only be seen as the major theme of the story if you choose to ignore the ways that characters refuse to give up, even when everything is telling them they should. And, yeah, it doesn’t always work out. And it’s hard. And there’s a reason there isn’t a fun musical montage of everyone celebrating as Noxus retreats.

If the show had needed in season one, you would have a leg to stand on, but it didn’t.

So, have a good life. I’m not going to block you, but I am no longer interested in this conversation where you keep trying to retcon your points and ignore what actually happened in the show. I do have better things to do. Maybe in a year when you rewatch the show again you’ll feel differently, but I have no interest in handholding you through it anymore.