#media meta

[ms-scarletwings]

[foenixed]

One of the worst things to happen to the glorious nation of haters was the conflation of hatred with love. "Oh you hate them so much you must want them soooo bad" Not how that works. Sorry your perception of love is so toxic you think hatred is an intrinsic part of it but you can take your stupid ass reductive "He only bullies you because he likes you" ass opinion and smother it. There is no love here. I bully you because I hate you.

[strawberrythighddemon]

What Happens When We’re Given the Means: Obsession (2026) and the Horror of Taking Someone’s Agency

This is going to be an interesting discussion, since I’ve noticed how the indie horror film Obsession has become the talk lately.

I have to admit, horror is fascinating because it’s like having an uncomfortable conversation about human behavior and people, but displayed on a screen. What pulled it onto my radar was its use of ritual magick as a tool to invoke a wish. It leans into the supernatural to show what it looks like when someone strips another person of autonomy and agency, which breaks the natural laws of consent.

I practiced witchcraft in the past and learned about other things. I have a basic understanding of the costs of leaning in either direction, light or dark. When you do things that harm another person — yes, that includes love spells — you’re still stripping someone’s autonomy and agency. And that has consequences.

Obsession isn’t the first film to explore infatuation through a crush, or the desire for someone who doesn’t desire you back. Funny enough, two ’90s films with Sandra Bullock tap into influencing people against their will:

Love Potion No. 9 and Practical Magic.

Love Potion No. 9 follows two socially awkward scientists — Sandra Bullock’s character being one of them — who come across a mysterious elixir that makes them irresistible to anyone who hears them speak. They test the potion on themselves, setting off a chain of “funny” and supposedly romantic misadventures. I don’t find ’90s rom‑coms romantic, because they often romanticize predatory behavior. It’s basically the siren‑voice concept, but bottled. They intentionally use it to influence people in their favor. Their victims — and I’m calling them victims because we need to be honest — could not resist. This film is one of many pieces of media showing that if someone who feels unseen or neglected is given the means to get what they want, even at the cost of someone else’s agency, they’ll use it for self‑interest.

Practical Magic shows this in a short scene where a customer begs the aunts for a love spell to make a man love her.

We don’t see the consequences of that spell, but we do see the consequences of other things the sisters invoke.

Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely enjoyed Practical Magic. It’s still one of my favorite films that portrays modern‑day witches without going over‑the‑top like The Craft.

I enjoyed The Craft too. But again, that film shows what happens when you’re offered the means to change your reality and how you choose to use it. In that story, a love spell is cast on Chris Hooker out of vengeance for how he treated Robin and Nancy.

He becomes almost Robin’s slave, doing whatever she asks without hesitation. That spell pushes him into extreme obsession.

Then there’s Weapons. Even though it doesn’t use a love spell, the concept of craft and tools being used to control people is still there. The day the trailers dropped, the moment I saw the bell being rung, I already knew what kind of ritual was being invoked.

The children running out into the night at the same hour, only responding to the bell — it all clicked.

They didn’t have to say a practitioner was behind it; it was obvious. And of course, I watched the film, and oh my gosh.

Now, with Obsession, what the other films don’t say directly is that every victim is conscious throughout the whole thing. The sinister — or, honestly, the most diabolical — aspect is that the victim is fully aware of what’s happening but has no control over their body.

I played The Last of Us and watched the live‑action series. The thing about the cordyceps takeover is that the victim is still conscious and feeling everything, but the body is being controlled. Every facial contortion, every moan, every groan hits harder because the victim is in extreme agony. They feel everything and cannot stop it.

That’s why ending someone’s life after infection is considered mercy; the alternative is far worse. But the story isn’t really about the infection; it’s about how people react to it. Even with an external force taking over bodies, humans still find ways to dehumanize each other, exert control, and justify extreme violence.

Obsession, Practical Magic, Love Potion No. 9, and Weapons all showcase what happens when a person is given the means to fulfill their deepest desire. That’s why people get uncomfortable when someone says crushes aren’t healthy, or that infatuation is rooted in fantasy. Obsession with one particular person blinds you. Many people act like they’re entitled to the people they’re attracted to. It shows up subtly, calling dibs on someone, getting upset when feelings aren’t reciprocated, or when someone doesn’t view them romantically or sexually. Nikki, the victim in Obsession, had her entire life destroyed because one person was obsessed enough to make a wish.

Desperation is an interesting topic because it drives so much of human behavior. It shapes decisions, relationships, priorities. It makes people tunnel‑visioned. And I used to be there. I thought life would be better if I fulfilled certain things; if I was with this woman, if I had this job, this amount of money, a motorcycle. I thought everything would feel better. Different. No.

I absolutely love writing. I enjoy stories. I’m invigorated by mythologies, folklore, and fairytales, especially the ones that are actually cautionary tales. So when Nikki quit her job to become a full‑time writer and write that love story, I related to that. But someone else’s infatuation with her led to everything that happened in the film.

Sometimes you have to acknowledge the truth: the real critique is what a self‑serving human being will do if they’re given the tools to make their wish come true. The ritual, the wish; those are just tools. The person choosing to use them is the real antagonist. Sometimes, we are our own worst villains in society.

I’ll end it here.

Take that as you will.

[snowviolettwhite]

Addams Family head-canon: They are Jewish. The Sabre Mazurka ceremony seems coded as a bar mitzvah. The Addams Family is can be viewed from a Jewish-American lens in multiple ways this just happens to be one of the the most obvious hints.

---

Later when I have time I might write and post a full analysis. I would need to look through the original comics, re-watch the 1960s sitcom, the 1990s films, read the script of the addams family musical and listen to soundtrack, watch the animated films, re-watch wednesday.

[yellowocaballero]

What Is A Character?

This is not writing advice. This is a highly truncated version of a manifesto. I am correct. I have solved the mystery of a hundred Tumblr fights, thousand comic book forum threads lasting for three hundred pages. I'm just right.          

A while back somebody mentioned that I had a pretty unique take on Tim Drake, a comic book character with a thousand characterizations. I ended up talking a little bit about ‘how to write a comic book character’, and how amorphous the definition of a character really is. Or, really, how ill-defined the ontology of a 'characterization' is. After rereading a lot of Batman comics in preparation for The Batman movie, and this deeply unfortunate Moon Knight thing, I’d like to revisit it. I am speaking predominantly in terms of comic books, since they’re definitely the easiest example for this, but you could apply this whole bag to a lot of different situations (Star Wars is almost as bad as comics) and maybe characterization as a whole. Nobody asked for this, but this is my blog and opinions were made to be heard (this is 90% of my problem). I swear I will try to make this as short as possible while still arguing my point, but my point will need to be argued.

The central question is this: what is a true, real character? The conclusion I eventually reach in this essay is will sound like bullshit but you will understand that I am correct. Rest under the cut.

The absolute inherent nature of any media that lasts for a stupid long time, has a stupid amount of different creators and creative teams, and passes between different owners and mediums like hot potatoes, is that it will be contradictory. Even without the insane continuity issues of Star Wars, comic book writer Michael will outright retcon Henry’s backstory for Wonder Girl because Michael fucking hates Henry. James fucked Henry’s wife so Henry will write in a character that James created and then murder them gruesomely. Geoff Johns is there. All of this means that everybody, from the execs to the creators to the fan content creators to the fanbase, ultimately do have decide who Batman/Obi-Wan/Sherlock Holmes ‘really is’. This is important – it decides the future of a character.

 It’s not the origin story of the character. It’s not decided by who created the character (Otherwise everybody here would love Miles Morales for who Bendis wrote him as, instead of himself in ITSV – and they really don’t). I think the answer to this question is determined by consensus from every group I just listed. It’s what people, basically, agree on. Which means that a character’s true character is the character that everybody thinks they are.

Point One: The Power of the Disney

The first way this can be determined is, basically, by their most popular incarnation. I say Hawkeye and you think of Fraction/Aja Hawkeye. I say Tony Stark and you think MCU. I say Sherlock Holmes and you think of the book Holmes if you’re embittered by the BBC version and you live spitefully and you think the BBC version if you aren’t. I say Vic Sage as the Question and you think of the JLU version, which comes from the Denny O’Neil 1980s version, which has nothing to do with the character’s origins as a shitty objectivist mouthpiece. The Question, as a character, just is not a Randian, even if he was created that way. He’s a quirky conspiracy theorist. That’s who he is, because that’s the guy who pops into your head. You’d argue with me if I said he was a Randist. The people reading this who actually know the Question is are probably shocked by the Randist thing.

This can apply by transitive property too – I say Teen Titans and you think of the baller 2005 cartoon, right? That was based off the Wolfman/Perez 1980s TT. I wouldn’t call 2005 TT the ‘real’ TT, I’d call Wolfman/Perez the real TT – because it created the 2005 one, and was also hugely influential in creating a soapy teen drama comic book scene. It’s marked by influence. Nobody gave a shit about Thor before MCU Thor, so he’s Thor now – how influential was 1970s Journey into Mystery?

So the first idea is that the ‘real character’ of a comic character can change through runs or mass media becoming very prominent and making that characterization the most prominent in people’s minds. The second idea is that this change can happen more gradually through a cultural or reception-based shift.

Point Two: Drift Compatibility

Harley Quinn has changed a lot as a character from Batman: The Animated Series. She had a few interesting quirks, but she was really 100% a bad guy. I can put maybe the genesis of her more modern understanding in the Injustice comic, which presented basically a more interesting and intelligent and well-rounded feminist Harley. The fan reception was positive, the creators wrote that kind of Harley more and more, the fanbase reacted positively, the fanbase reacted negatively to Suicide Squad until she was rewritten into the BOP version, and through fan reception and gradual shift we get the #feminist we have today.

You can also say very much the same about Deadpool. I grew up on the 90s Deadpool and Deadpool & Cable, and the drift into the modern guy has actually been pretty insane for reasons too long to list here (he tortured Blind Al?). Reception to the Deadpool you’re thinking of was just better, and the Deadpool movie basically cemented that idea of Deadpool in popular consciousness.

Sometimes this change happens very suddenly, like with Fraction/Aja's Hawkeye, but sometimes it is a result of trial and error decided by fan reception and the zeitgeist of the times and the comic book tone. 90s Deadpool does not fit in '20s comics. BTAS Harley Quinn would receive some boos for being defined by her abusive boyfriend. These things change with culture, comic book fads & zeitgeists, and fans liking a character so much in one way that the creators wire them more and more that way.

So that’s the second idea: that the drift can happen within books through fan reception, and is eventually reflected in mass media and cements the personality until we cycle back into the first idea.

Point Three: The Inmates Run The Asylum

The third idea is a really logical extension of this: that the fandom and fanon version of the characters can grow to eclipse any characterization from 1) or 2), and that when this fan interpretation of a character becomes so rampant it becomes the new ‘consensus’ of the character. Batman can defeat anyone with enough prep time. Harley Quinn and Poison Ivy are unproblematic girlbosses. Spider-Gwen became so popular and such a big character solely through her pretty dope design that got super popular and went viral on the internet. If you cut out the middle man of the mass media and canon comics, then you have the fandom creations.

This drift is making its way into the mainstream. I won't talk here about fandomization of media, but the fanon characterizations and tropes are starting to enter Point #2 territory: that is, creators are realizing that the fandom plots and tropes are what people want, and they're creeping into the mainstream. The Webtoon Wayne Family Adventures is the greatest example of this, anywhere. That Webtoon is a million fanfics brought to life, and it's helping cement those fanfic dynamics and characterizations into 'the real Batfam' - to the point where the traditional comics Batfam is being dismissed as 'not real'.

Memes are intensely powerful, here! Every comic fan from around ten years ago knew the Squirrel Girl can defeat everybody meme. Now she has a comic and she’s pretty famous, through sheer memery. Sometimes a ‘true character’ can be derived solely from their meme status, if there is truly nothing better or nothing else to the character. Sometimes meme status can give them a book, which fleshes them out and makes a real character out of it. Virality is a huge force, and when a character goes viral then businesses jump on it and recreate what people liked about it as quickly as possible - and, sometimes, as influentially as possible.

Part Five: If You Agreed With My Other Points You Have To Admit That I Am Correct

 So, logically. When you ask the question ‘what’s Moon Knight’s real characterization before the MCU show, which is pretty clearly a huge deviation from the comics and his comic self?’...and if you are a Moon Knight fan I'm very sorry about this...you're valid, alla youse are valid...

You see that nobody really gives a shit about Moon Knight. He has never had an influential run. Barely anybody had heard of him before the show. Nobody can list a single thing about the guy. Nobody’s read a single Moon Knight comic. The only panel from Moon Knight that I’m willing to bet the vast majority of this website has seen, that everybody thinks is real, that is 100% of what they know about Moon Knight, is this joke meme panel. That is Photoshopped. (If you didn’t know it’s Photoshopped, now you do – the other joke Moon Knight Panels you’ve seen are also photoshopped). This is not a real image from the comics. However, taking into account everything else I've said...

This meme Photoshop one panel image of Moon Knight is the definitive, true, actual comics Moon Knight goodbye everybody I’m right and nobody can change my mind.

[strange-as-it-may-seem]

Like with every new fandom where people are full of enthusiasm and admiration for the work od media and it’s creators, few things are worth remembering.

Do not idolise the creators and cast of Our Flag Means Death (or the fandom and fandom members or the show itself). Remember that your relationship with creators and cast of the show (unless you are real life friends) are nonexistent or parasocial ones. You can admire and praise their skill and work or be inspired by it, but don’t treat them as role models for everything in life.

At some point someone from that group is gonna do something (or it will be discovered that someone has done something or someone will point out something problematic) that you wont like, or something problematic and bad and because the idolisation people are gonna be even more hurt. No creator or a piece of media is perfect and ‘unproblematic’.

That won’t mean that you will have to ‘cancel’ the show or leave the fandom [ I mean unless it’s the unlikely situation where the fandom would be hyping up a franchise that funds hate movement like H*rry P**ter - in that situation I would reccomend not engaging with such a piece of media or hyping it up, but even then - I ain’t your concience, make your own decisions, I can only encourage some of them] or scream at people on the internet or that things inspired by the show or those people are null and void.

Enjoy the show, the fandom, enjoy and create the art, think critically!

[regardstosoulandromance]

it’s alarming how the current hays code discourse, the proship vs anti debate, and all the book banning across the US have show how fast people have shifted from “I don’t like X so I don’t read/watch X” to “I don’t like X so YOU can’t read/watch X” but what I find especially insidious is how with the former two- hays code discourse and the proship v anti debate- censorship is repackaged into more “progressive” language saying things like “I don’t like kissing scenes on tv because the characters didn’t consent to be watched” and overwhelmingly “everything is pedophilia” narrative of anti shippers. it boggles my mind how people don’t see how this is just a different version of the massive book banning that conservatives are trying to enforce across the US.