#media studies

[gaykittycorps]

The Medium Streamlining The Message

Auto-translation still sucks. Why's it everywhere now?

new article

auto translation and auto dubbing kept annoying me. so I had to write about it

[scribeofmorpheus]

Why Dragon Age Veilguard isn't a "Cathedral"

Concept art by Matt Rhodes

"To disinherit the storylines of past games goes directly against the notion of building cathedrals."

What is inherent with Veilguard that keeps bothering me is the fact that the world's choices truly didn't matter--and it doesn't simply bother me from a player perspective, it's not simply a grievance borne of frustration to what I (as a longtime fan) have lost. It's about the very culture of the arts under capitalism's new media habituation cycle [x][x].

Yes, I spent hours of my life playing and replaying each instalment of Dragon Age. Yes, I painstakingly curated a 'canon' world state by replaying what came before in preparation for Veilguard. Yes, I am even more unsatisfied with the end product--time hasn't helped, it's just widened the divide. But, and I can't stress this enough, these very personal gripes aren't what hit home the most. It's the inherent disregard of legacy. A legacy that the previous writers and game developers were building towards.

In the DAV artbook, "cathedral" is the word used to describe the process of making a game. Matt Rhodes' exact words are: "One artist can make a painting, but it takes a team to build a cathedral." Cathedrals took centuries to build. The architect who drafted the first blueprints would likely never see his work realised, he had to rely on those who came after him, like-minded and passionate, to see it through--for the culture, for the future, for legacy. Painters took on several apprentices for this reason too--giant frescoes were not completed by one man's hand, even if it is one man's name that immortalises them. Similarly, if you weave a narrative around choice, what good does it do to take it away at the final act if not to fall to caricature?

To disinherit the storylines of past games goes directly against the notion of building cathedrals.

Late-stage capitalism and profit-margin-obsessed game producers forcing developers to churn out meager content, to make a known brand into something it's not, to chase a fad or a popular trend... o, how reductive and cliche you've been forced to become Bioware. We have lost the cultural thought patterns relative to Cathedrals. We know only of barn-raised churches--done in a day but unlikely to last the turn of the seasons.

And don't even get me started on the music of Veilguard either. From Origins to World of Warcraft to Everquest to Baldur's Gate to Dungeon Siege, you can hear the intricate interconnected weave of sounds inspired by the Dungeons and Dragons-esque fantasy genre. You hear it in the repeated use of certain instruments, in the harmonic weeping notes of a bard-like singer or the foreboding echoes of drums as if of war. In tavern songs. But then, rather than hire someone who loves these worlds and this genre, who is a hungry artist looking to make a name, a legacy if you will, for themselves with a spectacular score, you hire any already sated composer, one well-into the encroaching years of career fatigue, whose notes repeat in countless projects, who feels less concise and more uninterested with each new project. One who has long since cemented his legacy. Someone in it for a paycheck and nothing else! And, to top it off, you let him compose something so minimalist? I am offended actually.

Cathedrals! We should have witnessed the final tile being placed on the Dragon Age cathedral. Instead, some architects walked up, tore down the interior and installed IKEA furniture and called it authentic before having to call the previous architects to come and fix the "load-bearing issues", forcing them to rush and add a coat of varnish and a few 'aged' details for authenticity.

[renthony]

In Defense of Shitty Queer Art

Queer art has a long history of being censored and sidelined. In 1895, Oscar Wilde’s novel The Picture of Dorian Gray was used as evidence in the author’s sodomy trials. From the 1930s to the 1960s, the American Hays Code prohibited depictions of queerness in film, defining it as “sex perversion.” In 2020, the book Steven Universe: End of an Era by Chris McDonnell confirmed that Rebecca Sugar’s insistence on including a sapphic wedding in the show is what triggered its cancellation by Cartoon Network. According to the American Library Association, of the top ten most challenged books in 2023, seven were targeted for their queer content. Across time, place, and medium, queer art has been ruthlessly targeted by censors and protesters, and at times it seems there might be no end in sight.

So why, then, are queer spaces so viciously critical of queer art?

Name any piece of moderately-well-known queer media, and you can find immense, vitriolic discourse surrounding it. Audiences debate whether queer media is good representation, bad representation, or whether it’s otherwise too problematic to engage with. Artists are picked apart under a microscope to make sure their morals are pure enough and their identities queer enough. Every minor fault—real or perceived—is compiled in discourse dossiers and spread around online. Lines are drawn, and callout posts are made against those who get too close to “problematic art.”

Modern examples abound, such as the TV show Steven Universe, the video game Dream Daddy, or the webcomic Boyfriends, but it’s far from a new phenomenon. In his book Hi Honey, I’m Homo!, queer pop culture analyst Matt Baume writes about an example from the 1970s, where the ABC sitcom titled Soap was protested by homophobes and queer audiences alike—before a single episode of the show ever aired. Audiences didn’t wait to actually watch the show before passing judgment and writing protest letters.

After so many years starved for positive representation, it’s understandable for queer audiences to crave depictions where we’re treated well. It’s exhausting to only ever see the same tired gay tropes and subtext, and queer audiences deserve more. Yet the way to more, better, varied representation is not to insist on perfection. The pursuit of perfection is poison in art, and it’s no different when that art happens to be queer.

When the pool of queer art is so limited, it feels horrible when a piece of queer art doesn’t live up to expectations. Even if the representation is technically good, it’s disappointing to get excited for a queer story only for that story to underwhelm and frustrate you.

But the world needs that disappointing art. It needs mediocre art. It even needs the bad art. The world needs to reach a point where queer artists can fearlessly make a mess, because if queer artists can only strive for perfection, the less art they can make. They may eventually produce a masterpiece, but a single masterpiece is still a drop in the bucket compared to the oceans of censorship. The only way to drown out bigotry and offensive stereotypes created by bigots is to allow queer artists the ability to experiment, learn through making mistakes, and represent their queer truth even if it clashes with someone else’s.

If queer artists aren’t allowed to make garbage, we can never make those masterpieces everyone craves. If queer artists are terrified at all times that their art will be targeted both by bigots and their own queer communities, queer art cannot thrive.

Let queer artists make shitty art. Let allies to queer people try their hand at representation, even if they miss the mark. Let queer art be messy, and let the artists screw up without fear of overblown retribution.

It’s the only way we’ll ever get more queer art.

_

Like this essay? Tip me on Ko-Fi, pledge to my Patreon, or commission an essay on the topic of your choice!

[i-am-aprl]

Reblog, Reblog, Reblog

[hetalia-iggy]

Media literacy is dying on the most basic of levels. I saw Project Hail Mary with an acquaintance and why did they think the movie ended with Rocky and Dr. Grace on Saturn… I yearn for a stimulating conversation.

[batsifur]

NEW FIXATION

I've been studying everything I could find about it closely. Yes, I have WAY more than this down. I'd show the entire thing if it weren't for the image limit. Where Is Tracy Maddison is an animated pilot created by @wishboneanimation!!

[ghoulwithglasses]

A Hidden Narrative: The Case for an Unspoken Romantic Relationship Between Albert Wesker & Chris Redfield in Resident Evil

Across the early entries of the Resident Evil franchise, the Umbrella Corporation acts as the primary antagonist, but another central conflict develops in parallel: the prolonged, emotionally charged rivalry between Albert Wesker and Chris Redfield. Canon frames this conflict as a cycle of betrayal, vengeance, and moral opposition, culminating in Resident Evil 5. However, some patterns in behavior, narrative choice, and character interaction suggest hostility alone does not explain their dynamic. This analysis explores the hypothesis that Wesker and Chris shared a secret romantic relationship prior to the Spencer Mansion incident, and that the emotional fallout of that relationship shaped both characters' actions, decisions, and motives throughout the series.

S.T.A.R.S. (Special Tactics and Rescue Squad) was established in 1996 as part of the Raccoon City's "Bright Raccoon 21" urban expansion initiative, and Wesker; formerly a high-ranking Umbrella B.O.W. researcher was transferred out of the laboratory and placed in command of the team. Although officially an internal transfer to "data gathering", this move placed him directly inside law enforcement operations, where he could both monitor and influence investigations that might threaten Umbrella. During the formation of the unit, Chris Redfield joined S.T.A.R.S., meaning that the two men met and began working together at least two years before the Spencer Mansion incident of June 1998.

Canon gives almost no explicit detail about day-to-day life within S.T.A.R.S. during this two year period. However, the context of Raccoon City in rapid expansion; shifting from rural community into an aspiring metropolis through significant Umbrella investment; implies increased crime, increased tactical deployments, and extensive time spent together in high-pressure conditions. This gap in recorded narrative becomes a plausible space in which a romantic relationship could have developed, especially between two men with military backgrounds, comparable skill sets, and significant shared responsibility.

In this interpretation, Wesker and Chris became romantically involved sometime between 1996 and 1998. Because of Umbrella's history of eliminating employees perceived as compromised, Wesker would have insisted on secrecy. He would have understood, firsthand, the corporation's ruthlessness, having witnessed how Umbrella dealt with Dr. James Marcus. Chris, unaware of Wesker's true Umbrella allegiance, would not have fully understood why their relationship needed to remain hidden. The dynamic imbalance between knowledge and ignorance could easily have produced tension. Eventually, Chris; wanting honesty, openness, and the ability to tell his sister Claire and his teammates; likely ended the relationship. Both men, trained in rigid emotional control through their time in the U.S. Army (Wesker) and U.S. Air Force (Chris), would have been capable of compartmentalizing personal heartbreak while maintaining unit cohesion.

The Spencer Mansion incident (June 1998) serves as the first major case study supporting this interpretation. Wesker, acting under orders to collect B.O.W. combat data, views most of S.T.A.R.S. as expendable, yet he repeatedly avoids killing Chris himself. In Jill Valentine's scenario, Chris is discovered alive in a secure laboratory cell; a location that required unusual access protocols, including electronic lock systems tied to the facility's control center. This can be read as protective detention: removing Chris from immediate danger while allowing other team members to unknowingly serve as live combat data. In Chris' scenario, Wesker disappears early and reappears intermittently, but notably assists Chris indirectly. He unlocks access routes and leaves supplies in locations Chris will likely find; behavior that contradicts the goal of eliminating Chris as a threat. Each choice illustrates deliberate preservation where lethal options existed.

This pattern extends into Resident Evil Code: Veronica (December 1998). Wesker confronts Claire Redfield on Rockford Island but deliberately leaves her alive, ensuring that news of her captivity will reach Chris. Later, when Wesker sees Chris through the surveillance feed, his expression and tone; particularly the rare, restrained smile; can be read as more than villainous theatrics; it resembles relief. When they finally collide physically, Wesker demonstrates effortless superiority yet intentionally pulls back from lethal blows, engaging instead in what feels like a furious emotional negotiation conducted through fists and speed rather than words. His accusations of hatred and betrayal land closer to the syntax of abandonment trauma than simple antagonism.

In the Antarctic facility confrontation with Alexia Ashford, this interpretation gains another layer. Wesker's reaction upon seeing Chris conveys a rare moment of relief. He lunges forward, not to attack Chris, but as if to protect him from Alexia's flames. The attack interrupts him, burning him before he can complete the movement. Rather than reengaging or forcing Chris out of the fight, Wesker steps back and lets Chris confront Alexia himself, telling him, "You're one of my best men". Even in this moment of tactical pragmatism, Wesker's words and actions reflect lingering attachment: he still considers Chris his, and he chooses protection over harm.

The 2006 confrontation at another Spencer estate shows a darker evolution in their personal dynamic. This event, occurring shortly before Resident Evil 5, is one of the last times they meet prior to the TriCell incident in Africa and is significant because it reveals how far their emotional tone has shifted. By this point, Wesker is no longer hiding his viral enhancement, nor pretending to be aligned with any human-based authority. He is ascendant, detached, and increasingly defined by a worldview that sees most people as disposable or inferior; yet, Chris remains the exception he cannot fully eradicate or ignore. Their exchange during this encounter contains no bargaining, no persuasion, and no attempt at ideological conversion; instead, Wesker's dialogue centers on Chris' perceived "failure" to evolve. His disdain carries personal contour, as through Chris' refusal represents not just ideological incompatibility, but personal betrayal. Despite possessing the clear ability to kill Chris instantly, Wesker again refrains, attacking S.T.A.R.S. legacy and personal history more than he attack's Chris' body. The encounter ends not in death, but in an emotional stalemate, suggesting that Wesker has transformed from conflicted protector to vengeful lover unable to sever his final attachment.

Resident Evil 5 (2009) depicts the culmination of their unresolved relationship, and the emotional tone of their interactions changes from confrontational tension to something resembling tragic inevitability. Chris' mission in Africa begins with an unexplained compulsion to continue fighting after years of trauma, suggesting that the emotional residue of Wesker is still an open psychological wound. Sheva Alomar repeatedly questions his fixation, implying that his motivation operates differently than standard duty. When Chris learns that Jill Valentine has been captured and manipulated by Wesker, the narrative introduces what could be read as a triangulated form of emotional injury; Wesker had taken someone precious to Chris and reshaped her into a weapon, a symbolic gesture reminiscent of intimate retribution. Their final confrontation atop the volcano unfolds with heightened interpersonal intensity. Wesker's language focuses on what Chris "should have been" and how he "never had the vision", rhetoric that implies disappointment rather than mere contempt. Chris responds not with triumph, but with angry desperation, continuing to shout Wesker's name even as the battlefield crumbles. When Wesker finally sinks beneath the lava, his last spoken word is Chris' name; not "you", "die", or "failure"; reinforcing that his final conscious focus is not his ideology, but the man he could never convert, control, forget or truly stop loving. Chris' backward glance before the helicopter departs is silent, but is not triumphant; it reads as the grief of someone who has lost not just an enemy, but a once-beloved person of his past.

Within this interpretive structure, Wesker's villain arc becomes not simply the product of manipulation, ego, or viral enhancement, but also of unresolved love, secrecy, and emotional rupture. Umbrella did not merely shape him as a scientist or operative; it constructed the psychological conditions that made authentic vulnerability impossible. The corporation valued loyalty above identity, secrecy above intimacy, and ambition above humanity. Any genuine relationship was incompatible with the role Wesker was trained to inhabit, meaning that his involvement with Chris, was structurally doomed long before either man recognized it.

From this perspective, Wesker's descent into villainy becomes inseparable from the emotional toll of enforced doubleness; a man required to play two roles at once; trusted leader and covert operative; while simultaneously maintaining a secret relationship that contradicted every expectation placed upon him. Chris, unaware of the full context, could only interpret Wesker's secrecy as rejection, control, or emotional distance rather than self-protection. What Wesker saw as necessary compartmentalization, Chris experienced as dishonesty, ultimately leading him to believe he had loved someone who chose power over truth.

When Chris later learns of Wesker's loyalty to Umbrella and continued involvement in bio weapon development, the emotional injury deepens. Through this lens, Chris is not simply fighting a corrupt superior or a dangerous bio-enhanced tyrant; he is confronting the unbearable realization that he once trusted, admired, and loved a man who was, and may have always been, aligned with the enemy. The tragedy is not only that their relationship ended, but that it was never permitted to exist openly, honestly, or safely. Umbrella's influence acted not only as a narrative antagonist but as a systemic force that destroyed their ability to choose one another.

In this reading, Wesker and Chris do not represent a binary of good and evil, but a collapsed bond poisoned by institutional secrecy, moral divergence, and unresolved attachment. Their story becomes a reflection of what happens when personal loyalty collides with corporate indoctrination, and when forbidden intimacy becomes indistinguishable from betrayal. Rather than a clear-cut rivalry, the conflict becomes a tragic case study in how love can be weaponized, corrupted, or erased by the structures that demand silence.

[ccjubilee]

“A look into how the “Greta effect” bespeaks digital citizenship and its standing significance.”

Digital citizenship is similar and equivalent to a national citizenship, just translated to technology use, and it’s being granted way less attention than it deserves. People spend hours on platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, Tumblr and etc. and this pretty much proves the undeniable significance of digital space and community to every individual in this modern day generation. 

Ribble (2011) states digital citizenship as the responsible and appropriate use of technology by the public. 

How do we measure and assess digital citizenship in ourselves and within digital communities? 

One useful framework for understanding digital citizenship is Mike Ribble’s 9 Elements of Digital (Ribble & Shaaban, 2011) .

The nine elements highlight the responsibilities individuals carry when participating in digital spaces. They also turn digital citizenship into a complete framework which covers the social, ethical, legal, and personal dimensions of online life (Yehya Rafaat, 2014) . 

The 9 elements of digital citizenship demonstrate responsible online behaviour includes equal access to technology, critical use of information, respectful communication, and awareness of laws, rights, and etiquette. They also emphasise the importance of protecting privacy and security, maintaining digital wellbeing, and engaging responsibly in online economic activities.

Now that we have understood the definition of digital citizenship, it’s time to look at profound examples of digital citizenship being carried into great practice.

Remember Greta Thunberg.

The young climate change activist established a “digital legacy” - one that stirred the digital wave and brought it to life - when she was just 15 years old. The overall impact exerted on the news agenda, online attention, and people’s attitudes and behaviours has been coined as “the Greta effect”. Studies affirm that successful public advocacies like the Greta effect can shape collective efficacy beliefs and motivate collective action, particularly among those with shared political ideology.

Thunberg’s first school strike led to a massive increase of public attention towards the global warming issue after 2016 (Lozano-Díaz & Fernández-Prados, 2021) . This is a result of growing newspaper coverage and online search volume. More importantly, her approach is a classic example of digital communication. Following COVID-19 restrictions, Thunberg shifted the Fridays for Future movement to a #DigitalStrike format, using social media to maintain momentum. This demonstrated a form of "distributed citizen participation," where online platforms acted as essential tools for civic awareness.

'Greta effect' spurring UK children's online activism, Ofcom says. (The Guardian, 2020)

Her most successful yet controversial movement has to be the #FridaysforFuture movement (Lozano-Díaz & Fernández-Prados, 2021) . It encourages students to protest every Friday, demanding immediate action on climate change in line with the Paris agreement. Her success has indefinite ties to her postings on Twitter Page. She has amassed a large following due to her passion already to begin with. To combat the media’s visible biases, Thunberg has wielded her Twitter following and notoriety to in many cases de-centralise her self-image for the sake of elevating a plethora of her other voices, at the same time asking others to do the same (Weadock, 2020) .

Nakate’s Twitter post. The photo, of Nakate and others protesting, stated: 

I am Vanessa from Africa. I have striked for climate [sic] for over a year now with fellow #Africanactivists. I have realised that our cries have not been listened to. It is important to know that #Africanlivesmatter. The #RiseUpMovement is changing that story this year! (Nakate, 2020). 

Thunberg’s retweet stated: 

Africa is so hugely underreported when it comes to the climate crisis (as well as everything else…). If you have a platform - help amplify the voices and stories from Africa. Africa has a key role in the fight for climate justice. Please acknowledge and share their perspective (Thunberg, 2020). 

Thunberg’s Twitter presence creates group identification by inviting collective identity surrounding “shared interactions” within “social institutions, organizational structures, patterns of social interaction and a constellation of experiences,” which are built on live experiences but that don’t privilege any individual’s voice or discount difference (Weadock, 2020), 

Her actions portrayed a “new type” of activist movement which is based upon the groundwork of digital citizenship, as she exercised controlling her digital image while turning online citizens into real followers. A conversion of public digital interaction to a physical active participation of people in the climate change movement further proved the importance of digital citizenship in influencing reality (Mede & Schroeder, 2024) . 

To conclude, the Greta’s effect consolidates the standing significance of digital citizenship, its influence inevitably parallel to traditional citizenship. As digitization has rooted in human civilization to a point that is inseparable, society is in need of a digital monitorship to ensure digital citizenship is being taken care of. Thunberg's efforts, nevertheless, showcased a lively, spontaneous effect as a result of digital citizenship if being exploited to the fullest, if being used correctly. 

Week 6 Reflection: What is Digital Citizenship? Hashtag Publics, Political Engagement and Activism

References:

“Greta effect” spurring UK children’s online activism, Ofcom says. (2020, February 4). The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/feb/04/greta-effect-spurring-uk-childrens-online-activism-ofcom-says

Lozano-Díaz, A., & Fernández-Prados, J. S. (2021). Young digital citizenship in #FridaysForFuture. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 44(5), 447–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714413.2021.1929012

Mede, N. G., & Schroeder, R. (2024). The “Greta Effect” on Social Media: A Systematic Review of Research on Thunberg’s Impact on Digital Climate Change Communication. Environmental Communication, 18(6), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2024.2314028

Ribble, M., & Shaaban, A. (2011). Digital Citizenship in Schools Second Edition. ResearchGate; unknown. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340468314_Digital_Citizenship_in_Schools_Second_Edition

Weadock, C. R. (2020). @GretaThunberg: Navigating Critique and Identity Within Youth Climate Activism on Twitter. Digital Commons @ DU. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd/1861/?utm_source=digitalcommons.du.edu%2Fetd%2F1861&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

Yehya Rafaat. (2014, January 1). The 9 elements of digital citizenship. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340682289_The_9_elements_of_digital_citizenship