#preliminary thoughts

[dragon-susceptible]

Okay, I havent watched the video of SDCC yet, but I keep seeing SO MANY POSTS about theories for The Dragon King, three in particular, and I wanna make my own stance on them currently.

Aaravos' Return/The Timing

They're doing it as a spinoff that new viewers can come into without the previous show. Of course they're starting it the day Aaravos returns. Did we all just forget that season 1 started with Harrow's assassination? It took three seasons to build out all the backstory leading up to that night. They did a similar thing in Arc 1, picking back up where the action did and just flashing back to whatever we needed to know from the lapse. That's likely what they're going to do again. No need to get anyone's knickers in a twist about Missing Everything - they'll tell us what we need to know like they have the other times they did this. Why are people even surprised.

Zym's Rival

This is an interesting story point for them to bring out, and I do think it's possible that Luna Tenebris' heir is the dragon in question. That said, I also got the vibe that this may hearken back to something Much Older, like pre- Sol Regem old potentially. How did the Sun King take the throne? We don't know that either. I think it's too soon to be sure. I will say also though, we're making a big fuss about an "unsuitable heir" when the full sentence we have about it is "Luna Tenebris lacked a suitable heir", which. Could also realistically just mean she lacked any children. "Suitable heir" could be being used as a singular term here, as it often can be in royal contexts. And lacking children would just mean she never actually chose a suitable heir before her disappearance. The one that crossed my mind that I haven't seen mentioned yet is the possibility that it's literally just her, returning, to reclaim a throne that she was taken from.

The Baby

They very well might have been trying to set up Rayllum children in Season 7, and I wouldn't be mad about that. I doubt they would plan on having a child that close to Aaravos' return, but accidents happen, especially in the pseudo-medieval world they're living in. I think that's the theory that has the most active substance from the show so far. However, TDP has been known to throw twists in, so here's the other options I think are most likely:

Janai and Amaya refused to let Aaravos dictate their life choices, and realistically Janai needs an heir now that her siblings are both dead. This is their child.

It's Claudia's child, probably with Terry (whether with his participation or not, given dark magic). This narratively places her flipping the tables so instead of being the abandoned child she is now the parent, and especially if contrasted with any other characters (coughRayllumcough) having their own kids, could produce a strong narrative mirror with her parenting through her madness. I don't think it will be enough to redeem her, and I don't think it will be "Aaravos reborn". Startouch elves aren't mortal beings like humans and other elves, they're constellations taking vaguely mortal form, and we already know what form Aaravos chooses.

Edit to add: It also occurred to me a little while later that it could also be Soren's child, producing another narrative flip from being the forgotten/abused son to being a father. It would be especially powerful seeing him take on that role after so much of his previous arcs have been about his tumultuous relationship with his family.

As a side note, it kind of baffles me that I'm seeing people being upset about the inclusion of a baby in The Dragon King. The Dragon Prince has been about family, the complicated relationships between parents and children, and overcoming generational hatred and conflict since Day One. Our original main characters are the adults of the tipping point - it feels actually fitting to me that the final arc will touch on the children who will actually grow up after it, who won't remember the conflict directly.

[seagreenstardust]

Tonight’s plan: determine how many tracks on The Life of a Showgirl can be directly tied to bkdk

[conspiracymediatheory]

The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel

I just want to get some preliminary thoughts on this show out there now that I’ve watched all eight episodes.

First, it’s true what everyone is saying about Rachel Brosnahan. She is terrific, funny, charming, and her performance as Midge is one of the best things I’ve seen in a TV show this year. But don’t overlook Alex Borstein, who has been great in so many things and overlooked and under-appreciated for so long it’s obscene. She’s soooo very good here as coffee house booker Susie Meyerson it’s ridiculous. After a career playing small roles here and there, or known primarily for MadTV and her voice work on Family Guy, it’s nice to see her have a moment to really shine and show us what she can do in a co-lead. (She was great in the HBO series Getting On, btw, alongside Laurie Metcalf, another great talent finally getting her day in the sun in Lady Bird.)

Second, I think the show does a pretty solid job of demonstrating the inside baseball world of the late 1950s comedy scene (that is admittedly still far too insular), and even if it gets some things wrong, it feels right, which in a piece of art is more important than simple historical accuracy. At its heart, The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel is a domestic drama fairytale, and it carries with it all the trials and tribulations thereof. In the fifth episode, “Doink,” after Midge bombs repeatedly, I found myself thinking that I don’t know if I’ve ever seen a show or a film that demonstrates how often this happens - and discusses the reasons why (unprepared material, going off-script, etc.) - as thoroughly as this one hour of TV.

And one last thing before I go - alongside GLOW over on Netflix, I think this is a banner year for TV comedies anchored by women. This isn’t to say that Sherman-Palladino’s other series aren’t good, but this one seems to fit more firmly in the “comedy” category of comedy-drama than otherwise. I think we are benefitting from streaming platforms in at least one way, and it’s the proliferation of shows featuring strong women as lead characters, and anchored by their friendships, and which may feel false or alien to some men, but fuck it - the opposite has been true for nearly eighty years of broadcasting if you include radio. These aren’t the only two shows doing this work, either, but they’re my favorites, and I am enamored with each.

[florencetheflowerfairy]

I watched the first half of the stage play! I’m enjoying it so far. There’s a lot of great character moments, and I adore the puppets! I also think that they did a great job of making it an ensemble piece, so everyone gets their moment to shine.

My favorite character is definitely Sora, which makes me very happy. <3 She has a WONDERFUL actress! She gets Sora just right! Her responsible, introverted, caring nature; her anxiety; her hopes; her bravery... If I have time, I’d like to make a post with all of her moments! I hope that she continues to shine in the second act. (I think maybe I have a little crush on her aaahh.)

Taichi is the hardest for me to understand. I think that his actor is overacting? He shouts a lot, while his personality is more subtle in the Tri cartoon. 

I have mixed feelings about Etemon. Some of his jokes work for me (especially his meta jokes where he comments about the TV show or the stage) and some don’t. I hated the kiss, and I didn’t like that Koushiro had to point out that Etemon had a “feminine” voice. Basically, I’m worried that they’re playing on the stereotype of predatory queer men.

It seemed clear to me that they implied that Sora had a “crush” on Yamato, so I might make a post for that later. I guess that I’ve already gotten more “romance” than my low expectations. :P Maybe they will interact more in the second act, but I’m not holding my breath. Fortunately, I can assure you that Sora is definitely more concerned with her future career and growing up than she is worried about romance.

I’ve heard that Taichi and Koushiro interact more in the second act, so I’ve got something to look forward to. :)

[runawayforthesummer]

Anyway, if you are interested in family planning from the post-revolutionary era, the fact that Alexander and Eliza waited until they moved out of her parents’ house in 1783 to try for another baby tells you a lot.  And no, they did not abstain.  They were together in their own place in Philadelphia in the winter of 1783, but it wasn’t a permanent move, hence no pregnancy.  But as soon as they settled in NYC in November of 1783, she’s pregnant within a month.

So basically those eight kids weren’t left entirely up to nature’s devices. 

[lostinquisitor]

aside from ameridan using thee/thou/thy when he is familiar with someone or speaking to someone he perceives as of lesser social status (a junior member of his temple would’ve been thou’d outside of formal situations) i think kingdom era elves would’ve also had separate pronoun sets when speaking of spirits and separate pronoun sets when referring specifically to the gods, and a way of referring to themselves in that context that goes another step to widen that gap (referring to themselves in the way of “this one” instead of “i/me” for example)

[musicloverdani]

Checked out "The Witchery" by S. Isabelle from the library, mostly because of the cover, but also because of the synopsis, but I'm only 30 pages in and I'm already disappointed. The narrative is written so weirdly, like the first five chapters read like a summary than the beginning of the story. I'm not sure if I'll finish the book or DNF it.

Though I am enjoying "Blood Debts" by Terry J. Benton-Walker, so far. A book I'm also only 30 pages into, but am only on the second chapter of.

Which comparing the two like that, I think I understand why I'm having trouble with The Witchery and not Blood Debts. The Witchery keeps switching POVs, with very little set up for the character. It is also is kind of throwing you into the story with little context, and I kind of understand why I saw some reviews say that The Witchery would be good as a TV show, but not really as a book. But it does have a fantastic cover. I mean look at it.

[wheredidthe80sgo]

barbie was so not anti-men. it quite literally perfectly articulated what I’ve always said about feminism and the fact that it’s not about supremacy it’s about equality. barbieland seemed perfect but there was always underlying tension bc ken didn’t feel adequate. and yes, this was obviously demonstrating how in the ‘real world’ it’s reversed and women are the ones who are inadequate. but when you look at it properly, the way barbie did, the patriarchy hurts everyone. the entire system is a total fucking mess and it benefits no one.