seen from United States
seen from Singapore
seen from Türkiye
seen from China
seen from Singapore
seen from United States
seen from Russia
seen from Malaysia
seen from France
seen from China
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Israel
seen from United States
seen from Romania
seen from Türkiye
seen from South Korea
seen from United States
seen from Australia
seen from Italy
The real problem with the Legend of Zelda franchise is that in spite of being famous for its inexplicably recurring supporting characters, the only supporting character introduced more recently than Majora's Mask who's actually become recurring in any significant capacity is fucking Beedle.
SPN Recurring Characters Poll
If you absolutely HAD TO, which recurring character would you completely remove from Supernatural?
Bobby
Castiel
Crowley
Garth
Charlie
Kevin
Benny
Donna
Claire
Rowena
Jack
Chuck (as “god”)
Please feel free to to give your reasons in the tags (or reblog with a whole ass rant).
How would their removal affect the show? Would it be a positive change or a negative one?
EDIT TO ADD - I just realized my Chuck option might be misleading, eliminating “god” Chuck still eliminated the whole character. My own bias slipped by me on that one. lol.
Genuine question, do you think a work of fiction should always try to make all their characters into complex people? Because you said that Bellatrix is flat, and I agree, but I also don't think it's a bad thing. I feel like some characters aren't meant to be complex, they are just there to symbolize something, or to get the narrative moving. Of course, it's always better to have complex characters, but Bellatrix wasn't meant to be like that. Her function is to represent the extremism of the death eaters, and she fulfills that role.
Okay, I'm just using Bellatrix as an example, but my real question is: do you think every fictional character should be complex? Is it always a bad thing if they are not?
Of course not, it’s not a narrative necessity. There are characters who simply serve as vehicles to move the plot forward or are used as tools to further the development of other characters, or who simply act as complements. That’s why we have categories like main, supporting, or recurring characters.
A recurring character needs to be coherent with their context and with the role they’ve been given within the narrative, but they don’t necessarily need the depth of a supporting character or a protagonist. Their role isn’t essential to the plot, nor are they a cornerstone of it. They’re the kind of characters who could be swapped out for others without affecting the main storyline.
What I don’t believe is that we should force a recurring or merely anecdotal character — which is the fourth category — to have more relevance than necessary. You can like a recurring or anecdotal character for their personality or how they speak, but that doesn’t mean they’re deep or well-rounded. There’s no need to invent a nonexistent backstory when the author’s intention is already quite clear: not to give them more relevance than strictly necessary.
The vestige forgetting everything is so frustrating to me. I've seen people argue that the players might not remember things from 10 years ago. But to me personally even that is a bad argument because I remember minor characters and locations from when I first played on launch and I only play with my main character so I haven't revisited the content later. And I for sure remember the major stuff. It makes me want to click through the dialogue but I don't in case I do mis something relevant or interesting.
This. Why do we have to sound so incompetent? I love this game, I really do, but there are things about it that can drive me a little crazy sometimes, and the most frustrating thing for me as a player is that in earlier parts of the game I've played through dialogue where the lines are relevant to the content I've completed. There are two or even three ways the conversations could go, and there are alternatives to the 'goldfish-brained' responses that allow the quest to progress without assuming I'm completely new to the game. It can be done, it has been done, so why isn't it being done that way now? As far as I'm concerned, making Coldharbour the tutorial again was a great call because not only does the base game have excellent content, it also provides players with most of what they need to know about the lore, current situation and backstory. Not everyone who plays the game is going to remember things, that's true, but I think the majority of players who follow a quest's dialogue rather than spam-click through it for the next objective are going to be invested enough to remember the basics. The NPC's way of greeting them - and if they have met before, referring to their previous adventure together - can also help prompt those memories. The way both Raz and Darien react in Summerset depending on what content your character had completed prior to that point was so much more immersive than other reunions with quest-leading NPCs in more recent years have felt. And anyone who's confused and actually cares enough can check the UESP for the information they need.
Or, ZOS could consider adding a tab to our Journal or Collections menus to keep notes on all named NPC's our character has met, including where and doing what, as another type of sticker-book.
I was wondering for DS9 in particular, how did it work when the writer's room realised it would be great to have a recurring character in a particular episode? I am thinking about the logistics of knowing ahead of time that the actor for this character would actually be available to film it. For example Civil Defense (unsure if you worked on it, but it's what got me thinking about it) uses Dukat but it doesn't seem to be a plot that was written just to have a Dukat episode - but rather that Dukat was a fun addition to an already conceived plot idea.
In such a case, how did you know that Marc Alaimo would be available for the episode? Is there a negotiation with the recurring actor while the episode is being written? Did each season have a pre-negotiated number of X appearances by Marc Alaimo and you could decide where to use him? Or does a Marc Alaimo appearance actually come first and an episode gets written around him? (obviously the same could be asked for any other recurring actor)
Would appreciate any insight into how this process worked because it seems complicated to me.
We had season deals with our recurring actors, so we'd guarentee them, say 8 of 26 and that gave them a better rate and guaranteed work, in exchange for which we'd get a higher level of priority for them over, say, a guest spot on another show.
When we wanted to use someone like Marc, we'd give casting a heads-up well in advance, like when we were breaking the story, and say, "Hey, we need Marc for episode 8, can you book them?" and they'd do so. If there was an issue (and I don't ever remember one), we'd work it out by scheduling their days around the conflict, or we'd shift the episode. But since we had them on recurring contracts, I don't think this ever happened.
On their part, I think if they got offered another gig, they'd check with us and make sure we didn't need them for the days they were working.
In a few extreme examples, we were even able to do this with regular cast, notably when Armin was doing his BUFFY side hustle or when Colm was off doing a movie.
Showbiz!
David in Animorphs #48: The Return
Crayak is the savior girl, obviously, and the glue trap is the tiny rock island they left him on. Although we don’t know if David survived to be able to be on a podcast
Alternatively, if Rachel didn’t kill him, I’d like to imagine this situation actually happening to him in his life as a city rat
I thought the couple at Ozzie’s looked familiar. ;) (I included the screenshot of them while Moxxie is singing his song because the girl is just like “?” while her boyfriend makes a grab for her XD).
(Screenshots from “Loo Loo Land” and “Ozzie’s”)
