Now I'm thinking about characters (all fandoms) who are in-universe "famous" in staff break rooms. Maybe also otherwise famous, but more importantly... Staff Break Room Famous. The employees of an establishment are gossipiiinnnggg...
ojovivo
will byers stan first human second

Discoholic 🪩

⁂
No title available
Claire Keane

titsay
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
Cosmic Funnies

Origami Around
Game of Thrones Daily

oozey mess

izzy's playlists!
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸

shark vs the universe

Andulka

JBB: An Artblog!
trying on a metaphor

Janaina Medeiros
d e v o n

seen from Malaysia

seen from Singapore

seen from Italy
seen from Australia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Singapore
@tossawary
Now I'm thinking about characters (all fandoms) who are in-universe "famous" in staff break rooms. Maybe also otherwise famous, but more importantly... Staff Break Room Famous. The employees of an establishment are gossipiiinnnggg...
The "Ace Attorney" games that I've played are obviously not representative of realistic legal practices, presumably due to 1) intentional parody to create humour and tension, 2) the natural constraints of game length and mechanics and other developmental resources, and 3) the developers also probably not really knowing very much about legal professions.
One thing I did appreciate, though, is that the games did seem to at least include 1) named staff at various locations, which is a general requirement for murder mysteries, I think, and also 2) additional, unnamed characters in the background to fill out the world. The courthouse has security / police officers. The police station has a couple extra desk workers. And so on. I like to see worlds appearing filled out. I'm interested to see if that goes further in other games down the line.
From what I understand, big city courthouses are busy and have a lot of administrative staff, and the staff and lawyers tend to get to know each other through repeated cases. I'd love to see an AA fic told entirely through the outsider's POV of various courthouse staff.
Not just other prosecutors, other judges, public defenders / legal aid counsel / duty counsel, and security guards and police officers. But also the court clerks, the counter clerks and office administrators, the court stenographers and transcriptionists, the judicial assistants, the trial coordinators and scheduling staff, the court staff supervisors and HR people, the records management staff, the IT staff, the janitors, and so on. Also throw in the people who are in and out of the courthouse regularly: law clerks, paralegals, articling students, social service workers of various kinds, language interpreters, etc..
There is a VILLAGE of people inside the courthouse and connected to it who are gossiping nonstop about Phoenix Wright, not just other lawyers, I promise you. That man is Staff Break Room Famous. The clerks have favourite prosecutors for sure (everyone has a "Miles Edgeworth Encounter Story" probably) and the clerks are definitely ranking these defense attorneys on the quality of their paperwork filed with the courts.
Some poor, barely trained court staff member has also definitely gotten in trouble with management for firing the confetti cannon at the wrong time.
As much as I would like "The Muppet Show" to return regularly in some form, I don't really have any faith that it'll be very interesting. Entertaining, maybe, and inspiring nostalgia, but I don't think the execs will loosen the strings enough for much compelling creativity. I suspect that too much of the focus will be on "recreating the classics of Muppets IP" rather than doing much of anything new.
Anyway, the thought occurs that "Dropout" and its shows are currently serving as something of a spiritual successor. Large, colourful, recurring cast of comedians. Lots of weird skits and parodies and improv chaos. Increasingly big celebrities lured over for performances and cameos with the promise of a good time on set. Everything kind of takes place within the broader "we're trying to put on a show" narrative.
I'm not even remotely suggesting it's a one-to-one situation. "Dropout" shows take inspiration from many other sources while also trying to be their own thing. I just had the thought that a lot of "Dropout" shows fill a similar niche in my personal media catalogue as "The Muppet Show". I mean this as a compliment.
One of the funny things about "Heated Rivalry" popularity for me is that I haven't really had the opportunity to do so much mental "Canadian-picking" while reading fanworks before. The phrase, "Aw, yeah, no, it for sure doesn't work like that over here, bud, sorry," is getting SO much use.
I saw a post with Krypto the dog from the new 2025 "Superman" movie, which reminded me... I really liked Krypto, and I was also judging Clark HARSHLY through like 75% of the movie for having such a poorly trained dog until the reveal that he was honestly just dog-sitting for Kara. I was internally like, "Okay, he must have gotten Krypto pretty recently in this universe, because my boy Clark Kent ought to be a more responsible super-dog owner than this. Krypto could really easily kill a lot of people and animals. Ma and Pa raised you BETTER than this, Clark-! Oh, it's Kara's adorable nightmare dog. Okay. Yeah."
There are a couple of posts going around with the OP expressing (in a perfectly straightforward and neutral manner) that they prefer to watch films intended for general adult demographics and have no personal interest in watching movies intended for children. So, of course, the replies include a hilariously nightmarish free blocklist of presumable trolls and perhaps some strawmen-come-to-life calling OP pretentious and defensively arguing that [insert kids movie here] is "actually adult media when you think about it".
Which is both funny and ghastly to me personally as someone who ADORES a lot of animated films, and generally enjoys and has a lot of opinions about kids media. I still think the majority of weird replies must be trolls of some kind, but it's still odd seeing people so willfully refuse to engage with the idea that some media is created to resonate best with different levels of life experience.
Like, setting aside quality of a story and any supposed messaging within... some adult media is stupid as hell, and some kids media is also stupid as hell, and they're both still made to appeal to seperate audiences. Even a silly, fairly bad adult comedy may be more appealing to many adults than a well-made kids movie simply because it'll reference more relatable adult experiences. Most kids don't really know a whole lot about, say, car insurance or menopause.
People will talk online about the importance of representation a lot. I think that obviously extends to adults and adult experiences. A lot of adults have been through or been connected to messy, unpleasant experiences and, when they engage with stories, they want to see that explored and feel seen by those explorations. And the films will want to jump right into situations to explore complex ideas, expecting a certain level of understanding about the world from their audience. This will naturally include stories about sex, divorce, grief, illness, violence, addictions, bigotry, trauma, tragedy, etc., on levels and in ways that may be quite disturbing and confusing to most children without adult guidance.
And I personally think it's actually pretty insulting towards a lot of well-made kids media to say it's at the same level of complexity as serious, high-quality adult media. The creators of high-quality kids media often put a LOT of effort into planning how to introduce and explore concepts in simple, entertaining ways to people of limited life experience (children). The reduction of complexity for general audiences is intentional. A lot of kids media, even if it's fiction and not explicitly educational, is purposefully a point of onboarding.
And sure, it sucks that a lot of people don't seem to recognize the effort and craftsmanship that goes into the creation of kids media, or teen media, but a lot of people don't recognize effort and craftsmanship across a wide range of things in this world, so it's kind of whatever imo. OP of the aforementioned posts at no point did this, btw. They were expressing, as far as I can tell, a mild frustration. Real case of "buds, you have GOT to become more okay with strangers on the internet simply having different tastes than you, otherwise you will drive yourself mad" in those comments. (I had to do this. I think a lot people have to learn to become more confident in their own personal tastes.)
Also, I do laugh whenever anyone (again, not OP, but some of wild comments) thinks they can draw perfectly clean lines regarding genres for any medium or demographics for anything. Sometimes, yeah, a movie is genuinely meant for everyone. But kids media is NOT anything that a stray child could potentially watch and enjoy. Likewise, an adult being able to enjoy a movie primarily intended for children and their families doesn't make it adult media. That's a very funny thing to say.
One movie I saw this week that I did enjoy was "Sheep Detectives". Which was quite silly and noticeably flimsy and unrealistic (beyond the basic suspension of disbelief required to accept the premise) in places, but was also quite funny and very sincere in its emotions and had some surprisingly solid character writing. It's been a hot minute since I've seen a kids movie try to tackle death and grief that directly, and I thought it did a pretty solid job, on top of being a light fare introduction to the murder mystery genre starring secretly intelligent and adorable animals.
Overall, a pretty delightful outing with the household. The movie had the vibe of a silly but sincere graphic novel (I know it was based on a book) that I might have read and enjoyed in elementary school enough to remember it fondly well into adulthood. I was generally charmed.
Watched the "Good Omens" S3 finale (sitting in the same room while someone else watched it) and did not enjoy it. (Spoilers:)
The entire universe getting destroyed and all the characters dying at the end was... kind of horrifying to me? Things honestly didn't seem that bad to me throughout most of it, world seemed to be chugging along fine despite the mess of heaven and hell, until everything started getting destroyed by an angel's breakdown, and then the end message seemed to be... "Nothing is salvageable! The universe got destroyed because an angel had a meltdown! We aren't going to face our brokenness and grow past it together with hard, painful work! New universe time!"
Personally, I think that goes pretty strongly against the original book and S1? Adam rejects the apocalypse and preserves the world because he thinks it's good. He thinks it can be better. The great plans of heaven and hell are cancelled in favour of allowing humanity to live their lives.
But here... I guess you could argue that the characters here had no choice about rebooting the universe because it was already destroyed, but... uh... the show didn't have to write that? They didn't have to write themselves into this hole?
Epilogue with a Human AU Aziraphale and Crowley also didn't work for me. These are different people. I don't really care.
Happy ending for these random new characters who happen to share the same faces and some quirks, I guess, and everything from all previous episodes is just gone. All of the shared memories and experiences (and love story) of the original Aziraphale and Crowley are gone, though. They're just written out of existence. Just dead. And you could view that as a beautiful sacrifice on their parts, I guess? I personally found the whole story pretty depressing.
(Reminded me vaguely of the Steve Rogers ending in "Endgame". They explicitly established that their time travel is just going to different universes, then had Steve get his "happy ending" with Peggy, abandoning Sam and Bucky and all his friends. Not only does "magically going back" feel like a cop-out to me, but the story has explicitly established that there is another Steve in that universe still frozen under the ice. That's fucked up.)
I guess the tragedy of them dying for a new universe didn't feel meaningful to me because the writing just didn't feel... clever. It didn't feel poignant. It didn't feel sharp or witty or incisive or grimly funny. The closest things got to that for me was Joshua, I thought he was maybe the best part of the whole thing, but the writing around him, while trying to be compassionate, didn't feel particularly clever to me either. It all felt very random. All the threads didn't come together in an interesting way. Stuff just happened. Sure. Whatever.
The show felt like it was trying to imitate a quirky tone, but it mostly fell flat to me. The writing and world felt very... small, to me, and shallow. There were so few characters??? I feel like I've read some much more thoughtful writing on the subject of Christianity and its formation of the universe before. I think you can get away with having very shallow lore if you're particularly funny about it, but this wasn't funny and quick enough to keep me distracted and it wasn't deep enough to compell me otherwise.
The entire time, I was thinking, "This feels like a self-indulgent fanfiction that works WAY better as fanfiction." I didn't like how... humanized all the non-human characters were. I didn't even like God's narration in S1 of this adaptation, because I thought it made God too knowable and present, rather than the far more mysterious figure of the original book, so God actually showing up here was not to my taste.
And then the human characters kind of just... didn't matter? The human characters didn't impact the plot pretty much at all in this season. I was wondering if we were going to get to see Joshua contribute to the ending somehow, somehow get Michael and Joshua in a room and see a meaningful interaction, but that never happened. Joshua didn't really get to do anything. Depressing.
OH! I also HATED the revision of Aziraphale and Crowley's first meeting? I thought they met in the Garden of Eden?
I can't think of anything more to say right now because I don't want to think about this bonus content ever again. I'll keep to the book, view S1 as a decent enough adaptation, and then probably never rewatch S2 or S3 ever again.
What was wrong with potentially making all the angels and demons human and forcing them to live that way? If the point is that heaven and hell need to go, the show could have had God undo Michael's destruction, then make all the angels and demons into humans? I don't think I'd like that ending very much either, but at least Aziraphale and Crowley could be making their own go of it, rather than these... completely unrelated OCs who happen to share the same actors? "Good Omens" didn't even bother to establish how souls work in their universe, so I don't want to be told shit about reincarnation of souls here.
We finished watching this and then... No one said anything? Which is weird for my household. I think that it was just... so bad and so weird that no one really had anything to say about it. Not our thing.
We enjoyed seeing "Sheep Detectives" earlier this week. That movie was a little silly and it had some plot holes, maybe, but the character work was pretty good and it was funny and sweet and touching. I think it actually handled death and grief pretty well for a kids movie? Decent intro to murder mysteries for kids too, I think. Everybody go watch "Sheep Detectives" instead.
At the very beginning of "War of the Rohirrim", they very briefly played a piece of The One Ring's musical theme from the Jackson movies, which was kind of funny because that got an IMMEDIATE negative reaction from me. Like, "Wait, is that the One Ring's theme??? 😠😠😠 That's not a generic 'Middle-Earth' piece to use simply to indicate that we're inside a LotR IP now!!! 😡😡😡 That is a SPECIFIC character piece for the Ring and it is NOT appropriate to play it unless the Ring is somehow present / relevant to this moment!!! 😤😤😤"
I have fuzzy memories of "The Hobbit" trilogy misusing some LotR character themes, and also the recent "Star Wars" trilogy doing the same thing maybe? Remakes and sequels throwing out nostalgia-bait elements and references to cover up their own lack of substance is a personal pet peeve, for sure. So, that provoked immediate hackles up.
And then the narrator immediately directly referenced the War of the Ring in passing and the music changed, so the whole thing kind of became a "casually threw aside a large rock" situation. Wasn't thrilled about it, but I'll allow it. That was fine, actually.
We're not actually finished it yet, but wooooow... "War of the Rohirrim" is really not a good movie, huh? Damn...
Yeah, okay, I did not enjoy that. Like, it could have been worse? But it wasn't good. I often found it outright irritating. Assorted notes below the cut.
The animation was fine. The backgrounds were gorgeous, but I personally don't like it when the level of rendering on the backgrounds is vastly different to the level of rendering on the characters. It's a specific style, I know, but the mismatch just doesn't work for me. I think it makes the characters look out of place in their environment.
I found the animation pretty stiff. Like, again, it was generally serviceable, and it was occasionally very good in certain action scenes. But overall, I found a lot of the movement and expressions kind of stiff. Like it was too focused on looking pretty (the detail on the costumes was impressive) to be... truly expressive? Arguably, this is a personal style taste thing again.
Okay, I'm going to try to be more chronological from here.
The immediate fatphobia, colorism, and racism soured me pretty early on, and the film did not win me back. If anything, it became increasingly racist, orientalist, etc. in both design and writing choices.
Like, this is a huge problem in the Jackson movies as well, so I don't want to seem like I'm picking on WotR here. And Tolkien has always had racism and orientalism issues, even before the Jackson movies decided to go HARD on the racist "barbarian" designs for all of the antagonist armies. Despite having 20 years to reflect on that, WotR just... kept up that awful choice?
Anyway, I hated the fact that they made Wulf's father Freca fat, dark-skinned, dark-haired, with a large nose, and then pitted him against these very pale, very blond Rohirrim. General Targg is noticeably brown-skinned. Wulf himself is pretty dark. They're allied with Southron men (who have the EXACT same orientalist look as the Jackson films despite taking place 300 years earlier) and have oliphants on their side. That felt very gross.
Detour from the racism for a moment: the way that the oliphants were animated was VERY strange to me. They reminded me of octopuses for some reason? They did not move convincingly like elephants, which made it hard to suspend disbelief. They didn't act like... animals. They're just these incredibly bizarre monsters that just... rampage wildly until dead.
Which actually ties in well to the racism... So, going back to that... the Dunlendings / hill-people did not behave like actual people. Okay, so, firstly, again, their designs are racist. Randomly placed furs and "barbarian" skull helmets are stupidly impractical and irrational.
Secondly, the way they behaved was also nonsensical, which is again racist in the way that the "Faceless, Fearless Army of Evil" trope always is. None of the Dunlendings besides Wulf and Targg had names or real characters. Their only motivation was apparently money. They were ridiculously willing to follow Wul, In aAf, murder everyone including women and children, and throw themselves recklessly forward until they abruptly all became cowards at the end. They were basically... orcs. Orcs again.
And there are many, MANY problems with orcs in both the Jackson films and Tolkien's original work, but... some behavioural stuff is handwaved away by the fact that those Faceless, Fearless Armies of Evil are perhaps created by these dark lords, and are motivated by the fact that they have evil demi-gods like Sauron and Saruman and the Witch King at their backs. In-universe, the orcs are kind of non-people to their powerful magical overlords, sure.
The Dunlendings in WotR are supposed to be ordinary men. This is supposed to be a conflict between ordinary men. But it's just... redoing LotR in many regards. The conflict was so two-dimensional. The characters were all quite two-dimensional. Wulf as a villain is just violently mad with grief. It's entirely unclear to me why anyone would have betrayed Helm for Wulf.
Sieges in the middle of winter make your army very, VERY unhappy with you. Which the movie did show, but... still. What were the Dunlendings eating? How were they staying warm? Why would they stick around through the winter without Wulf lying to them about treasure from the beginning? I just really wasn't convinced that the Dunlendings were... people and had any reason to be loyal to Wulf. Generic fantasy bandits who love murder and money above all common sense are boring.
Almost all of the action scenes were ridiculous. The Jackson films have many absurd moments too, but this was... the worst of the Jackson films constantly. I couldn't suspend my disbelief. Helm killing Freca with a punch was probably the most realistic moment? Otherwise, people were jumping around like superheroes.
The war tactics and strategies on display were also infuriatingly stupid. The script wants certain characters in certain places at certain times, and it is incredibly contrived, especially when the Rohirrim are fighting for and driven out of Edoras.
At one point, an oliphant pushed against an Edoras wall and made it explode. Incredibly bold to have that happen in the same movie that Wulf builds a wooden bridge and has it fall down onto the wall of the Hornburg. That stupid bridge should have snapped into pieces upon impact.
Also, incredibly bold to show the characters being concerned about limited firewood, then show us them unnecessarily burning candles and torches constantly, and also having open doors and windows in the middle of winter. I'm the sort of annoying person to comment on unrealistic numbers of candles and torches to begin with, but specifically commenting on the limited supplies during a siege IS giving me permission to be annoying.
I hated Helm's last stand. Like, this man was bedridden and unconscious for weeks? They must have been desperately feeding him broth to keep him alive. Being bedridden and not moving for a long time fucks up your body. But this guy loses no muscle mass? He gets up and slips away and is taking guys out no problem? In winter? Without a cloak or a hat or SLEEVES? What the fuck was he EATING out there? I could not suspend my disbelief.
When they started with the "Wraith of Helm Hammerhand" stuff happening after a coma, I did not really like that idea. When the movie presented the idea that the wraith was actually some orcs preying on the Dunlendings at night, I actually REALLY liked that as a twist. That made sense to me. When the movie reversed on that to show Helm Hammerhand alive in a fucking blizzard and kicking unbelievable ass after his (months long?) coma, I was honestly really angry at the movie. They presented a reasonable explanation and then trampled on it with something unbelievably ridiculous.
The orcs searching for rings because of orders from Mordor felt unnecessary to me as an element. I really felt like this film didn't need to be tied to LotR like that. Didn't like that bit of it. They really could have just been random orcs or goblins taking advantage of a human conflict.
Oh! Speaking of unnecessary LotR references, I really HATED the bit before the battle beside Edoras where Helm Hammerhand did the "Death!" cry from "Return of the King" before his army did their stupid nighttime charge into a bunch of arrows. This film did NOT earn that.
I think that cry belonged to Eomer in the LotR books, given to Theoden in the LotR movies, and it makes sense there because everyone thinks they're facing the end of the world. Rohan is facing an evil, immortal demi-god's terrifying army for the fate of all of Middle-Earth. It makes NO sense for Helm to do the "Death!" cry before a battle he thinks he's going to win. That cry belongs to SOMEONE ELSE in a SPECIFIC terrible situation! It's not earned here!!!
Frealaf's charge down the mountainside also just felt like a fan-service-y repeat that did not actually service me. Like, we did this already with Gandalf and Eomer in "The Two Towers"? Do something NEW.
Generally speaking, I found a lot of the writing and dialogue stiff and disjointed and unearned. The characters were just... saying things and it didn't feel like the movie was really showing me these things to be true. All of the supposedly inspirational stuff with Hera at the end just felt empty to me. I feel like I didn't really see her connected to the people in her care. Most of the background and minor characters felt like props.
I wanted to like Hera, but she was just... kind of a nothing character to me in the end. I thought the move with the oliphant and the tentacle creature was kind of clever, if disgusting to watch, but the thing with the wedding dress at the end just felt silly. And the thing with the eagle and the armor felt like something that should have maybe been tried weeks and weeks ago.
I just... wasn't very compelled by Hera. This may be partially because I was already soured by the design choices, the stilted dialogue, the contrived character movement, and the ridiculous action scenes, but I don't think the movie really showed her to be a good leader. A good fighter and rider, sure, but not a charismatic and thoughtful leader. So, I guess it tracks that she ran off on her own at the end of the movie to go adventuring, rather than... stay with her people to rebuild.
Hera felt to me as two-dimensional as everyone else in this movie, really. Some characters had more to them than others, but none of them felt... truly nuanced to me... or particularly likeable. I don't know if I'd say that anyone in this movie got any compelling character development. Circumstances changed, but I think pretty much all of the characters stayed more or less the same the whole way through.
I don't think I can point to any one thing that I think could be changed to "fix" this movie. The whole thing was just... kind of weak... in my opinion. Underwhelming and flat. Stiff and awkward and contrived. Unoriginal and unnecessarily repetitive.
Wow, that sounds incredibly mean. Okay, let me reiterate that I did find the backgrounds gorgeous and some of the animation quite good, even if I personally did not like most of the designs. Plot-wise, some of the ideas here are not inherently terrible. It's just that the movie undercut itself and its potential constantly with contrived plot beats, racist designs and writing for the antagonists, awkward dialogue, and silly action scenes that broke my suspension of disbelief for being physically unrealistic or just obviously a bad idea tactically.
Maybe a fun watch if you already like LotR and also like complaining.
We're not actually finished it yet, but wooooow... "War of the Rohirrim" is really not a good movie, huh? Damn...
Thinking about modern retellings of "Pride and Prejudice" again, specifically how to convey in a new setting the irresponsibility of both Bennet parents, although mostly about Mrs. Bennet.
See, Mrs. Bennet in the original story isn't "just trying to give her daughters a good future / save her daughters from ruin". I have some sympathy for her, given that her marriage has no respect in it and her power is limited, but she's also a selfish, silly, and immature person who is bad at planning for the future, pretty bad at actually parenting her children, and hasn't really cared to try to be better.
She's wasteful with money because she likes to show off. She neglected her daughters' education and blatantly plays favourites. She engages in and encourages embarrassing behaviour in a world where reputation is everything, to the point of being reckless with her children's safety.
I think she'd happily let Modern AU Lydia and Kitty neglect school to try to pursue careers as online influencers.
Like, I think revising a modern Mrs. Bennet into someone obsessed with academic performance and getting her children into good universities could work, depending on what new story you want to tell. But if we're trying to adapt the general spirit of Mrs. Bennet from the original, plus the fact that she is someone to neglect education, I think we have to go waaay more short-sighted, embarrassing, silly, reckless, and so on.
So, continue this "online influencers" line of thought to construct a Modern AU. The Bennets are pretty wealthy but also wasteful with their money. I think that instead of saving sensibly, planning for the future, Mrs. Bennet likes to take expensive family vacations multiple times a year to places that look good on social media, and she's not afraid to regularly pull the girls out of school to get a few extra days for that.
I think she herself didn't do university, didn't like school at all, and "doesn't really see the value in it" when the girls can just marry well or "make their own way if they're smart enough to get scholarships". I think she encouraged the girls to participate in flashy extracurriculars that she can brag about, which may also involve missing school. I think Mary is probably in sooooo many expensive extracurriculars, sports and music and the like, and wants to be an Olympian or something, but Mrs. Bennet isn't really helping Mary organize that well enough to succeed (and also Mary isn't really... good enough to make it).
I think Modern AU Mrs. Bennet lets the girls take off school whenever they claim to be sick, and all of the girls have abused this at least once before, but especially Kitty and Lydia. I think Kitty and Lydia had phones waaaay too young and were on every single social media site totally unsupervised. Mrs. Bennet probably happily helps Lydia and Kitty make "content" (probably has her OWN channels tbh) and talks to everyone about how her 13- and 14-year-old daughters are going to be "the next Kardashians" because they have a YouTube channel with 11,000 followers already!
If Modern AU Jane Bennet was scouted as a teenager to be a model, her mom would be THRILLED. When Jane meets Bingley, she's probably quietly fighting with her mom about quitting her modest modelling career to finally go to university, while Mrs. Bennet is telling everyone about how HER Jane just received an offer to be on a REALITY TV SHOW and is going to be FAMOUS. (Jane doesn't want to take it.) And Darcy in this AU breaks them up because he's sternly and desperately telling a lovestruck Bingley NOT to date a future REALITY TV STAR. That Bennet family is nothing but drama!
Playoff hockey has reminded me how funny / silly some parts of the "Heated Rivalry" books seem re: Montréal hockey. Like, Shane Hollander's situation IS obviously extremely complicated and nuanced for a bunch of different reasons, also it's a work of fiction so it's an AU world (and we can also guess what real-world situation the author was mad about at the time), but... you don't understand... He supposedly won THREE Cups for MONTRÉAL...!!!
I can't explain how much they LOVE hockey there. Winning that much would make Shane Hollander a local deity with the fans. They'd love him. They'd LOVE him. Unofficial king of Québec. God's gift to Montréal and to Canada's Cup drought. Guaranteed Hall-of-Famer. They've already picked out the spot in the rafters where his retired jersey will hang forever. There's extreme pressure that comes with that, obviously, but also... the people of Montréal would let him get away with bloody murder for ONE Cup, let alone THREE. Letting him walk feels unbelievable.
These books are missing the part where, after Captain 3-Cups walks from the team due to apparent homophobia, vengeful Montréal fans burn down the coach's house and push the GM's car into the river with him in it. Which is a joke, but... uh... not THAT much of a joke.
Commenting on the art of "filing the serial numbers off" and what story foundations may get lost is fun, except for the few people who rush in to apparently comment back happily arguing the inherent inferiority of fanfiction as media as though wholly original fiction never commits the errors of... *checks notes* having some worldbuilding plot holes or underused characters who seem kind out of place or just not being very good. Like... come on.
We're watching "Bridgerton" S4 and while I broadly enjoy the show, it is definitely still Not Good for a variety of reasons. S4 at least hasn't pissed me off like S3 did yet.
Last night, I was only half-watching / mostly listening, and I ended up completely missing the transition between the two episodes we watched. Dear Reader, for 30ish minutes (I was not tracking time), I had entered into a universe where Netflix was allowing "Bridgerton" episodes to randomly be 1.5+ hours long. (It didn't seem Probable, but it felt Possible.) Until the second episode finally ended and I confirmed with someone that, to my great relief, that had been 2 episodes.
Extremely mild Manmade Horrors Within My Comprehension type of bemused dread experience.
I really liked the fact that OPLA S2 decided to mention Sanji's mother early and connect her sickness to Nami's own. It makes sense to me that Sanji would speak about his beloved mother to his new friends. It highlights the fact that certain characters (Sanji) are emotionally Going Through It due to similar past experiences.
HOWEVER, having been tipped off about this before I watched the episode, I ended up being a little dismayed that the show didn't explicitly mention Usopp's experience with sick loved ones as well.
Usopp's mother Banchina died due to a mysterious illness when he was a child, practically orphaning him in a village that seems to have broadly disliked him or at least his quirks. And THEN Usopp spent years watching Kaya struggle with a mysterious illness that never seemed to improve and could have ultimately killed her, which turned out to be poison, yes, but doesn't negate the anxiety and fear and grief of that experience.
The show did show Zoro and Usopp being tense with each other, so we can easily infer that Usopp is really Going Through It due to past similar experiences. I assume the actor recalled Usopp's backstory and used that to inform acting choices. I also think it's not unrealistic that Usopp wouldn't be interested in drawing sympathetic attention to himself or being sincerely vulnerable at this particular point in time, so it tracks fine that he wouldn't mention it.
It just seemed remarkable to me that the show didn't take the opportunity regardless to more explicitly recall Usopp's experiences, and to give him and Sanji a moment of connection, with a single line of dialogue. I do personally think that introducing this new information about Sanji and foreshadowing some things is probably more important than doing recall, but it still feels like a missed opportunity to not explicitly allow Usopp a couple lines of dialogue and further highlight the emotions at hand. The Sanji-Usopp moment of connection here could have been fun.
Or else it might have been nice to see Usopp offer brief words of advice to Zoro or Luffy on dealing emotionally with a loved one's illnesss. Since there's already a Zoro-Usopp exchange here, a further point of connection might be giving Zoro answering dialogue about how frustrating it is to lose a loved one due to something you can't fight with a blade (Kuina). I don't recall if Zoro has explicitly mentioned Kuina to any of the other Strawhats yet, but I think it would have been a good mirror to Sanji opening up about his mom to Nami.
Like, if I were to rewrite the Zoro and Usopp exchange, I would have probably had Usopp explicitly bring up Banchina. Some "my mom died due to illness + but I'm still trying to DO something now" expression of frustration. Then have Zoro (who has been preoccupied by memories of Kuina since meeting Tashigi) clap back with some statement about how he's lost friends before to things he couldn't fight too, before leaving to go on watch. When Usopp goes to apologize to Zoro later, he can also briefly mention Kaya and how those memories also aren't helping, and Zoro could respond with, "We're good. Everyone's lost someone."
And if you want to extend these scenes slightly rather than just tweaking dialogue for greater emotional depth, you could have something like Usopp asking after the name of the person Zoro lost, Zoro telling him, Usopp expressing condolences, and Zoro expressing condolences in return, very briefly. I think all of this would have tied in very nicely with Sanji's reveal plus Drum Island's "When does a man die?" backstory for its major residents.
I think it's probably too early to get Luffy in on this too with Sabo or the like? Since Ace will appear next season, I do think they should mention / foreshadow Sabo then, with a toast to Sabo between Ace and Luffy or something. There's no good reason not to mention Sabo early in S3, when Ace and Luffy loved their brother so dearly.
Anyway, yeah. Liked the Sanji stuff. Surprised that the show didn't take the next couple steps to briefly but explicitly relate this to Usopp's backstory too while they were at it. You'd only need fairly slight changes to the dialogue and I don't really see a point in subtlety here.
I like Zoro/Sanji as a pairing just fine, but I'm picky about it because I also cannot see them ever being each other's priority. I don't think a romantic/sexual relationship would rank as more important to them than their other Strawhat relationships.
In FACT, I believe that if one of them ever expressed that the other was more important to them than 1) their friendships and bonds with the other Strawhats, 2) their duties to the crew, 3) their personal dream, the other person would be like, "What the fuck is wrong with you???!!! Are you being mind-controlled by a Devil Fruit user right now or are you an imposter or what???"
I think either one saying that one true love romance stuff would cause the other to lose all respect for their partner, and also be a huge turn off for both of them. Even in a scenario where they (in a romantic/sexual relationship) somehow manage to become more civil and even friendly with each other casually, I still don't really think they'd be in each other's top 3 favourite crewmates. Maybe even not even top 5. Possibly still bottom of the list.
Definitely one of those pairings where the friendships and personal goals are load-bearing for me. The romantic/sexual relationship would be just another part of their busy lives and I think they'd like it that way. I can't fully buy into any characterization where the most important person in both of their lives isn't Luffy.