#ted talk

[jmallory]

Sid impresses his audience with his message AND awesome PowerPoint skills.

@dduane uhoh! You are on their radar!

[akaashiit]

okay. that akaashi rant about how people mischaracterise him has awoken something in me. i am now going to start ranting about a bunch of other characters.

read or dont.

also, this isnt a dig at anyone, i just wanna clear up some stuff. if you use them in fanfiction, characterise them however you want - ur writing is amazing!! but when it comes to analysing or talking abt characters.. i just want to say this because its been on my mind since my talk with @blythmourning .

first off, SUNA RINTAROU. i cannot digress this enough - HE IS NOT A STONER THAT DOES DRUGS. PLEASE. just because the guy has hooded eyes and his posture is lowk cooked doesnt mean hes high like he's one of the most mentally active players on the court have u SEEN HIS BLOCKING. hes the type to record his teammates embarrassing moments not because hes a phone addict ( he could be on his phone a lot but not 24/7 like hello 😭 ) but because hes observant and has a dry, slightly mean sense of humor. not a misconception but he would use it as blackmail.. he's lazy in effort but high in intellect kinda the guy who does the literal BARE minimum to get an a+.

kay, sugawara, NOT sugamama. many people see him as the mum of the team, always taking care of them and telling them off, but hes really not a lot of the time. remember in the first volume i think it was? suga didnt snitch on them to daichi for sneaking in practice! he was like omg a secret i looove secrets. hes chaotic, if not more, as the rest of the team. they reduce him to a gentle mother figure and ignores the fact that suga is actually incredibly chaotic and a lowk a bit of a brat LMFAO. and really, hes surprisingly aggressive. hes the one who suggests rebounding balls off peoples faces pinching and he elbowed asahi 🥹( negativity, BEGONE ). suga uses the refreshing smile to mask a very competitive, slightly unhinged mind

kurooster! okay, theres a few about him. not many, but still some. either hes a complete nerd dork ( which he is actually nvm but imma leave it there ) or a player and cheater. like, kuroo? no. he is not kuroo the smooth talking heartbreaker! they misse his most endearing quality: hes a massive, unapologetic science chem dork. the guy who brings up the circulation of blood or whatever in a pre match speech. hes intensely loyal ( look at his childhood and current friendship with kenma ) and i hc that he would definitely spend his free time mentoring kids or something. also he literally taught tsukki stuff 🥹bro isnt out breaking hearts hes probably at home reading a chemistry textbook or trying to convince kenma to go outside for five minutes

hinata shoyo, from the concrete. calling hinata a soft baby or a cinnamon roll does a disservice to how terrifyingly intense he is 😭😭 hes the ultimate bait / decoy for a reason yk.. he is social, yes, but he is also incredibly blunt and sometimes socially oblivious. when he gets that predatory look in his eyes during a match, hes not cute hes a freaking monster. like have u SEEN HIS EYES holy shit . hes driven by a hunger that borders on obsessive - to be the little giant. he isnt there to be protected; he's there to outwork everyone until they're forced to look at him. but yeah he can have his moments where hes adorable.. an adorable 15+ yr old..

iwa-chan! oh here we go. ppl often portray iwaizumi as someone whose only personality trait is being annoyed by oikawa and hitting him. i admit, i have done that, but he was literally there for one sentence. some people literally do it for a whole story or smth.. no hes very mentally intelligent. hes one of the most emotionally mature characters in haikyuu id say he's incredibly athletic, and he carries a lot of self imposed pressure - his violence toward oikawa is basically a physical shorthand for get your head in the game because i care about you, but outside of that, hes incredibly respectful. and is NOT the type to just go around hitting whoever 😭hes very emotionally aware and stuff i think

oikawa toooooru. well people make him out to be this shallow pretty boy flirt who says yahoo and has no depth beyond being annoying - theres so much more to him. id know i HATED him at the start bc thats all i thought there was to him. oikawa is arguably the most tragic, obsessive character. he practiced until his knees literally started failing him because he wasnt a genius like kageyama or ushijima :( he's not a flirt, hes insecure and uses that to mask it, hes a shark who uses a smile to mask the fact that he wants to absolutely destroy you on the court. hes petty and incredibly hardworking.

thanks for reading this. and uh if you want me to do this for anyone else id be happy to because theres a lot of others that get mischaracterised i js cant bb typing anymore

[beccawise7]

Thanks for coming to my TedTalk! 🤣✌️

Have a kickass day!

~beccawise7💜🖤

[deliciouscollectorcrusadestuff]

How it feels for wanting an onscreen interaction with pomni, ragatha, gangle and or jax that can hopefully benefit from each their character arc and not have it be limited by the duo trope.

Like seriously, I remember the disappointment where pomni and ragatha interaction on ep 7 where pomni and ragatha interaction happen off screen.

I also wanted ragatha and jax to have a similar interaction where they can at least grow up and not have their arguments become childishly squabbles.

What about some interaction with ragatha and gangle where it can lead up to episode 4 on how gangle is weary about ragatha false positivity?

Heck I was even hoping for a gangle and jax interaction where gangle finally stand up for herself and tells jax on how she feels about him and make jax actually work for atonement.

I feel like tadc can benefit from having more episodes, Ive seen takes saying that the circus member are people that have adventures outside of these 9 episode and honestly I don't see that as really a good statement.

You can add more episode to help smooth out on characters arcs and still imply that these characters do have adventures outside of these 9 episode in total.

As much as I disagree with some of the takes ive currently seen online, I do agree with having more episode can benefit the character arcs that are given.

[siacherry]

Hot take maybe, but I feel like the phrases “This was in a kid’s movie?!” or “This movie/scene traumatized me as a kid” when talking about movies from like the 80’s/90’s/early 2000’s, has actually been really damaging about the way we think of and critique or criticize movies from those decades that many of us either grew up on watching and/or loved as kids and turned out fine.

Was Littlefoot’s mom dying sad? Yes. But I don’t think it was traumatizing. If you felt sad for Littlefoot because his mom died, then congratulations, that was the point! You were SUPPOSED to feel sad!

Sexual innuendos that would fly over a kids head in an old Disney or non-Disney animated movie are not some damning eye-widening thing we must pass judgement on today for having been done, but should be appreciated that movies were made for families- with both child and parent in mind. How many of us have gone to watch an old nostalgic fav and only now realized or understood as an adult, the jokes our parents laughed at that we were unaware of or unknowing of as children, and appreciated those jokes and scenes all the more??

So then why am I constantly watching people my age or younger than me, take those scenes now and criticize how it should actually have not been in the movie at all? Why?? Tell me why, Karen? Tell me why, Steve? Because you are so chronically online that you are allowing yourself to succumb to anti-sex/anti-adult discourse and propaganda??

Are the Skeksis freaky to look at? Yes. Did Morla scare me as a child when I watched The Neverending Story for the first time? Yes.

But they also fascinated me as well.

As a kid, every time Morla came on my screen (note the every time, as in, despite my being afraid of this creature, I would still watch this movie over and over) I would dive under our big square coffee table and either cover my eyes or watch Morla and Atreyu talk to each other in both fear and fascination. She was ugly and creepy and scary and cool.

And over time, I began to watch the scene not from under the coffee table, but out in the open, either on the floor in front of the tv or on the couch alone. I made that decision!! I came to the conclusion over time, while still very young, that she was not as scary as I believed!!

Also, it floored me later on to learn that she was a Turtle! A fact which is pretty obvious now with my Adult eyes, rather than my kid ones. And I gotta say it was BECAUSE of Morla I developed a like of Turtles.

All this to say, I think we are essentially robbing children of deciding for themselves what is too scary for them, and denying ourselves the fun and togetherness family films brought us all growing up. I think we are damning movies being made today and will be made in the future by beholding them to some current online consensus that “This Thing Bad Actually”, and robbing creatives of making work that tackle larger speaking points and ideas in their chosen mediums.

Once Upon a Forest is SUPPOSED to make you think about the environment- It’s SUPPOSED to show you the horror of environmental destruction and you’re SUPPOSED to be scared for and worry about these forest animals.

All Dogs Go To Heaven/The Rescuers is SUPPOSED to make you think and feel about how we not only treat children (orphaned or otherwise) but about animals as well.

Movies are SUPPOSED to make you think and feel and question the world around you and learn from its messages.

Movies, especially movies for children, should not just be wrung out and watered down to poopy silly haha fart jokes in bright colors and fast paced action with no breathing room or a real or cohesive plot, thought, message, or anything to say about anything!

(That said, some messages can also be very wrong to teach children, as some films in the past decade have proved to have done; The most damning one recently being the live-action Lilo & Stitch, but I digress)

I could go on and on, but I believe my point has been made.

CinemaSins, Saberspark, and other content creators like them, who do nothing to analyze or highlight a film or scene and boil it down to “This was in a kids movie?!” are perpetrators of the ongoing problem in how we think and critique films aimed at families and children, and it’s really starting to piss me off quite frankly.

Anyway, rant over.

[its-okay-youre-adorable]

The point of filler episodes is that you only get to know the people in your community by engaging with them. When they're important later, you understand so much deeper why, because you know that guy, he really likes cats, or you know that kid, they always make this one really bad quip that's grown on you since it's their thing, or you know that lady, she deadlifted a guy back in season 1 as a throwaway gag that's now coming back. And this is why filler episodes are vital to a healthy ecosystem and why Gravity Falls once again is peak. Give us the community worth fighting for, and SHOW us what exactly you're fighting for. We're fighting for friends, and we're fighting for the rando who lives down the block, and the kinda mean character who still has a home here; we're fighting for the people we wouldn't invite over but that our world would still somehow feel empty without, and we're fighting for all their quirks and personalities we've grown to love.

[bramble-rose]

A Controversial Take on Character Age and Interpretation in the Poppy Playtime Fandom

Okay....

I’m about to say something that might be considered controversial. At least judging by the reactions I’ve seen. Still, I’ll say it openly and accept whatever comes with it...

I haven’t been part of the Poppy Playtime fandom for very long, but I’m already confused and honestly a bit baffled by how people behave. Maybe it’s because a large portion of the fan base is quite young. The game itself is targeted at audiences around 14–16, meaning many fans have only recently reached the age where they can/should engage with it. That might explain the tone of discussions and the intensity of certain reactions.

Regardless, the level of hostility is exhausting. Fandom is supposed to be fun, yet many people act like “fun police”, aggressively shutting down interpretations they disagree with. Instead of open discussion, there’s often immediate judgment. Figuratively speaking, everyone could benefit from stepping back a bit.

Let's look at the Core Issue: Character Age

I know, this topic is explosive. But it keeps coming up and people seem particularly aggressive about it. The main conflict is how to interpret the age of the characters in Poppy Playtime.

Many people in the fandom often insists that the toy characters are “just children” and should be treated strictly as such. There are many clues within the game itself that support this. But there are just as many clues that suggest the opposite. In my opinion, the “just children” interpretation oversimplifies the situation and ignores key elements of the game’s lore. Especially for Poppy and the Prototype.

From what we know, the children in Poppy Playtime were not possessed by supernatural forces. Instead, they were subjected to scientific experimentation: their bodies were altered, infused with substances like Poppy Gel, and transformed into something entirely new. This is science fiction and body horror—not a ghost story.

These beings are alive. They breathe, they feel hunger, and they exist physically within the world. And they do develop to a certain level as we see with Huggy and his teeth growth. This clearly is a sign that they are not entirely frozen in time.

Important in that regard is, there is a clear timeline. Some characters have existed in this state for decades. Time matters in this universe, otherwise, there would be no need to establish it so clearly through tapes and notes and dates. And time means change.

Even if their bodies don't develop in a human way, they DO change. Most importantly their minds change. Because minds are shaped by experience. By learning, adapting, surviving. These processes inevitably affect cognition and behavior. A mind does not remain static for 30 years.

We even see evidence of social development: the toys have built structures, formed a society, and created systems like “Safe Haven” and the "Better Place" and even a newspaper. Anyone familiar with child development knows that young children alone could not sustain something like this. A purely childlike society would be chaotic, driven by immediate needs and egocentrism.

This doesn’t mean they are fully mature adults!! I want to emphasize this! They lack proper socialization and guidance. We see this clearly during the visit at Safe Haven. Some of them play games but others have sad and meaningful conversations. This proves they are vulnerable and deeply shaped by trauma. But they are also not simply “children” anymore. Their situation is far more complex.

A useful comparison is Claudia from Interview with the Vampire: a character trapped in a child’s body whose mind continues to develop. While the genre is different, the principle still applies—physical form and mental growth are not always aligned. Especially in fiction.

Anyway, there are two special cases which are different from the others. Poppy and the Prototype.

They are not merely “bigger body” experiments. They are unique creations tied directly to Elliot Ludwig and occupy leadership roles within the toy society. Others look up to them, others fear them. If any toy could be considered 'grown up', it would be these two. In fact, it’s mainly these two, as they stand out completely from the others in terms of their design, their role, their behaviour and their origins.

Poppy, despite her childlike form, displays strategic thinking and awareness. She struggles under pressure and sometimes reacts fearfully, but that does not negate her experience. By the timeline, she has existed for decades. Calling her simply a “child” ignores that history. The way the Prototype mocks her for her behavior also can be interpreted as him saying ‘you act like a child after all those years…’ It can be understood as him saying she should know better and could surpass herself. However, it is her physical form that limits her and makes her dependent on others. That is why she seems more like a ‘child’... which makes Elliot’s experiments all the more cruel. She is forever dependent on the help of others. (To jump straight into an analysis... The drastic change in her design at the end of Chapter 5 may symbolise that she is set to change even more, since she now looks less like a child-like doll.)

Back to the main topic.

The Prototype is an even clearer case.

He does not behave like a child in any meaningful sense. His actions are calculated, deliberate, and often cruel. He plans, manipulates, and executes complex strategies. He organizes others, leads uprisings, and enforces authority.

His behavior includes psychological tactics, such as deliberately tormenting survivors over extended periods and his language reflects a level of articulation no child possesses. From professional experience working with elementary school children, I can say that his speech patterns and reasoning do not align with child development at all. This goes for a lot of conversations we can hear during the game that are supposed to occur between 'kids'.

The starving toys in Safe Haven f.e.

Or the tape from chapter 5. Giblet, another toy and the Prototype argue about whether to kill innocent survivors or let them go.

Or the interrogation tape about the escape of Gentle John.

Then there are the tapes with the Prototype and the Doctor.

Or the conversations the Prototype has with Chum and later with Poppy.

Or the way he talked to Dr. Newman and Preston.

The way they all talk is not typically 'kids speech'. At all. And a lot of this happens shortly after the Hour of Joy... So already ten years ago.

Of course, one could argue that the Prototype is capable of imitating speech and voices and simply mimics the way adults speak. But even to do that, it needs a certain level of knowledge to understand words, including technical terms. Knowledge that goes beyond a child’s level of understanding. However, his behaviour and manner of speaking over the last 20–30 years suggest the following interpretation:

He WAS a child when turned

He has now existed for approximately 30 years

BUT he doesn't have a social education like normal adults would have

He planned and executed a riot

He mobilized all toys to join

He brought scientists to his cause

He is cruel

He is calculating

He kills

He tortures

He turns traitors inside out

He does experiments on others

He spreads propaganda during newspapers

His vocabulary isn't that of a child

But he provides for his allies

He takes care of his minions and friends

He runs a whole freaking city

He is an engineer most likely

He has built a society

He is the judge

He is seen as a God

(He is the Lord of the flies)

So, yes, he was a child once. But that is not the same as being a child now. He has spent decades existing, learning, and adapting under extreme conditions. He has effectively “grown up” within that environment, without guidance, without morality as we understand it, but still through experience. Does that make him a mature adult as we categorize it? No. But is he a little child either? No. But he has traits that reveal a traumatized child underneath. He is very emotional and throws tantrums.

Of course, one have to look at the individual characters and their stories.

Yarneby, for example, is neither human nor child nor anything else... The poor thing has completely degenerated into an animal.

Or Lilly. As a human, as Miss Gracie, she was an adult, but behaved very childishly, albeit being cruel and manipulative. As Lilly, she subdued to madness but has developed rather childlike character traits due to her isolation.

Doey has the traits of a teenager, but behaves very contradicting because of his entire background... But he also seems to be among the ‘older’ ones. Especially as Matthew was already 15 during the HOJ.

All the Bigger Bodies must be looked at separately... And that is where their full potential becomes apparent. The conflicts, everything that makes it interesting to engage with the characters, is negated if the fandom restricts itself to the view that they are merely simple children. That also robs them of their complexity. On the other hand, the interpretation that these beings might still be children is just as interesting and opens up entirely different ways of interacting with the lore. It’s a completely different, yet equally appealing approach!

To conclude my thoughts, I would like to say something important: This isn’t about justifying ships, the sexualization of characters or even pushing one specific interpretation. This is not about being wrong or right. It’s about acknowledging complexity within the lore and the possibilities that could come up with each interpretation, mainly interesting conversations, analyzing different approaches and theorizing about all kinds of topics. Reducing these characters to “they are children, end of discussion, everyone who thinks differently is a p*do” shuts down meaningful analysis (like WTF but I have seen this just because people entertained the idea that these characters might have aged. P*dophilia doesn't work that way btw but that's another topic). It ignores the psychological narrative, and thematic depth that makes the story interesting in the first place.

At the same time, interpretation is subjective. If someone prefers to see these characters as mere children, that’s their choice and absolutely okay. And if they don't want to engage with different takes, that's also fine. And the same goes for the opposite direction. As for myself, I think both interpretations are valid and both have a lot of potential that can be explored in interesting ways. (And no, I don't mean through shipping or explicit stuff in general. Not everything revolves around that topic ffs.)

Fandom is meant to be a space for creativity and exploration. The problem arises when people try to enforce their interpretation onto others.

These characters are fictional. They do not exist in reality. People should be allowed to create, interpret, and engage with the material in ways that are meaningful to them, whether that’s through analysis, art, humor, or storytelling.

Fandom should not be about policing others. It should not be about pointing fingers at each other and pillorying each other like tattletales, just because their interpretation is different. It should be about sharing ideas and enjoying a shared interest. So, interpret things how you like. Let others do the same.

Just don’t be an asshole.

… Or the Prototype will crawl out of your walls at night and turn you wrong side out!! 😤

And now have fun stoning me to death -_-

[belas-undead]

may i present.... this:

thank you for coming to my ted talk