changing simone's lore so she doesnt resemble jax and doesnt matter to anyone except me heeheh

seen from United States
seen from Yemen

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from China
seen from Russia

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Russia

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from China
seen from Italy

seen from United States
seen from Japan

seen from United States

seen from United States
changing simone's lore so she doesnt resemble jax and doesnt matter to anyone except me heeheh
look, I'm not saying they're doing the RJ possession this season, but there are moments in the previews where Lestat is either drunk/high as fuck (not counting the times where he's obviously high) or he's acting lowkey like... not himself
realizing the "kids" are the same age in s5 that the teens were in s1 makes them riding around on bikes seem weird.
like ik a large critism people have is that the actors look too old and i personally didn't care about that but i think part of that issue is the duffers didn't write the characters as 16/17/18 year olds.
like not one of them drive? they have to beg to go off on their own like 10 yr olds? they get dismissed like children?
if they wrote mike, lucas, will etc like they did nancy/jonathan/ steve in s1 as independent older teens maybe the actors age wouldn't be as big as an issue?
and you could argue they don't have licenses bc of the quarantine ig but they're kidnapping children and drugging people i don't think it's far fetched that nancy or jonathan taught their brothers how to drive even if they don't legally have a license.
i feel like most httyd fans didn't understand what the trilogy was trying to say.
i agree that the way that it ended didn't make the MOST sense plot wise, however, narrative wise it entirely did.
the franchise is clearly supposed to be some kind of commentary on animal cruelty - the entire plot of the second and third movies and the spin offs are the main characters freeing dragons and trying to change hunters' minds. it's obvious they wouldn't be able to continue that forever, but hiccup was too good of a person to allow dragon brutality to continue.
hiccup HAD to let toothless and the other dragons leave eventually, and i think that one deleted scene where valka's like "i fear our dream of a dragon utopia/well it just doesn't exist ... tame dragons are more vulnerable/their trust in us becomes their weakness" is so crucial to the plot and absolutely shouldn't have been deleted, it's clear the message of the franchise is that hiccup wasn't able to live the life he longed for because there was so many bad people in the world, and that it was better for his dream to just never exist in the first place.
but maybe i'm overthinking it.
(i'm not)
Where is all this revisionism Olruggio is present in the atelier during the first few episodes? I swore it was the common belief he was on a business trip. He's a workaholic but I don't think he's that locked in his room the kids don't see him for a week and Tetia doesn't think to ask him for help in the second test incident. This is what I was talking about earlier. Olly isn't even here yet and people are already ready to tear him apart
i'm getting some weird vides
like i'm trying to put them away but thry are back
this person's energy is giving me some weird vibes
everytime someone draws cubbins skinny or with like sharp features , an angel loses its wings
Would anybody be mad if I posted a chapter that was uhhhhhh...
29 pages and 12k+ words long????
Asking for a me.
?
I'll be mad
I won't be mad