Finished reading all of Muñeco series by Sarae (including the side stories) and oh my oh my, would you blame me if I cry and try to find a sooting fanfic to let the pain go away (pls give me recommendation of toll fanfic please please please)
Now my ratings of every part
WARNING: spoilers below
Part 1: Doll (♾️/10)
Oh my gosh, the tension, the build up, and all the smut. I love Tom's character so much, I love his possessiveness and the way he never tried to be the good guy which he is not. I fell in love with Bill more and more as the chapter goes on as well. I love how Bill believe in the good of everything, truly putting his trust on Tom's good side and Tom, even with all shit he had gone through, was still awestruck by how much he could be loved. And absolutely I love their Christmas night, that was so frickin sweet and romantic but Tom is too horny all the time lol. But I think the most favourite chapter of mine was when Bill kick Tom out, locking the house and was absolutely shock that his gangster brother would climb to the roof, followed by the proposal of Tom that make them an official boyfriend.
Then came the heart break situation for all, when Tom admit he only fooled with Bill innocent heart (nobody believed it though lol). And oh how I love when Bill strikes back because he ain't there to be a weak damsel in distress, nope he won't put up with your shit even though you're his boyfriend. What a heartbreaking masterpiece.
Part 2: Abandoned Doll (6/10)
Though I love Sparky (Derek) improvement, I'm not totally sold on him, like yeah you've been bullying this guy you have the longest crush on because you don't wanna be called a homo, but have we forget how Bill emphasize that Sparky beat him up like a bully does and now came Bill awesome handsome strong boyfriend and now Sparky took that chance of Tom's absence to hit on Bill, when not long ago tried to assault him in Natalie's party and I believe where Bill would actually end up being SA had Tom didn't come to his rescue. And yeah, he is sweet, rich and handsome but Bill where's your frickin dignity. Has it flied off to Stuttgart with Tom? (It did actually)
And for Tom's part, it's also interesting to see his true life aka leader of a gangster unit in the slum and yeah turns out he was actually quite powerful and quite rich??? Honestly I would thought that he is an excellent thief and strategist who gather money to buy his dear Cadillac, but seeing him as a mob leader is actually quite fulfilling.
And yeah, thought the second part is interesting as well, I felt tired reading and reading and reading how they missed each other so much but still apart, not my favourite but not the worst. But I do cried reading Tom's collection of why he had to leave Hamburg. I understand Simone well, any mother would think the same but oh it breaks me.
Part 3: Chained Doll (10/10)
~Beware of spoilers, as I'm not only reviewing but recount the event as well~
Another series of a masterpiece, so long story short. Bill leave Hamburg, planning on going to Nuremberg to search for job and become independent but fate play it's role well and he end up in Stuttgart because of a driver's betrayal. The father Jorg heard the news and told Tom, who act like he didn't care but search through the city with his Cadillac. Bill end up in the true slums of the rich Stuttgart and got chased immediately. Jorg finds him with the help of Tom and bring him back home, planning on taking him back to Hamburg the next day. Bill doens't want to as the city already knew his incestuous relationship, driving him mad to the point that his mother hired a psychologist who doens't help him much and only told Bill that his brother had raped him, destroyed him which Bill denied with every fiber of his body. And Jorg agreed seeing how Bill had inflicted harm on himself.
And Tom? Hesitating to see Bill, he ran off to his new doll Andreas and return early the next day thinking that they leave. But they do not, Bill was there, all beautiful and fragile and for a moment I would thought Tom was happy, he then immediately rethink and ordered Bill to get out. It honestly break me seeing him so vicious for the first time to Bill but that's what he is I guess.
And time goes on, Bill refused to go home and Tom adapted, but still continue with his blackmail to Bill, threatening to rape and abuse him if he in the slightest disobey him, and Bill would always strike back.
And after that night of the incident when Tom once again ran through the city to find Bill he had kicked out from the house the same night, peace began to warm the house but then came the night when Tom, despite knowing Bill would hate it, take advantage of Bill being not in his right mind, and slept with him.
Them again they fought, Bill got work which he absolutely rock because customer love his hansome face, and Tom actually for the first time bought lots of good stuff for Bill, thinking he can reconcile with that but Bill hadn't come home so he hurried to find him and does end up finding him, but on the bed with one of his friend, the girl Ricky and witness Bill cutting himself. The part of this series end with Tom falling off from the building, getting angry at Bill and Bill almost harming himself. But Tom ran back, preventing him from doing so.
Part 4: Finsihed/Broken Doll (8/10)
Honestly it could be better than 8/10.
We get the beach romance, the enemy of Tom and we see how the Chained ones (Tom's gang) hang out like a normal people outside of their gangster life.
I love the twins domestic life, now they truly became a couple again with se----x every morning (ahemm ahemm). I love seeing Tom so smitten with Bill's beauty & purity and Bill with Tom's handsomeness and strength.
So cutting short, Bill get kidnapped, absolutely breaking his fearsome Captain persona as he was afraid for the first time thinking that he might lose the most important person in his life until Heidi gave him Bill's birthday gift for him, a ring that is engraved with the word "I feel you near me".
Then Bill almost got SA because of a bitch name Esme who (not surprisingly) did the same thing with Ricky. It was going good, we actually get to see the actually evil side part of Tom from Gore and Toro who only remember Tom as this uncontrollable Satan who has no purpose up until Bill came into his life.
But then the author suddenly cut up short, the fight between the two gangs and how Tom bring Bill to Hamburg with their absolutely short conversation, and time skip to seven years later where Bill had become a lawyer, his mother married Gordon and now he has a sister, thousand of messages from Stuttgart and then finally a letter addressed to him as 'Doll', he opened it and the series has came to a finale.
As an author myself, I felt Sarae wants the story to end so hurriedly with the reason I don't know why. Because if using the excuse of not being able to write a fight, I would absolutely debunk it after reading millions of word where they are a writer no less than William Shakespeare. I think she kinda gets tired on the end dragging the series for too long or may get quite too emotional to write the ending in detail. If not for the ending, I would rate it a 100/10 because the ending was realistic and though it's painful, it's easier to accept it as it felt real.
So that's all for my review, thanks for reading and please read this wonderful series as well. Goodnight or Goodmorning
Seriously WHY did the car flip 360° several times after the one (1) bullet hit a back wheel? Why does Scott remain suspended in the air as everything else moves around him and the gun appears out of nowhere and he is STILL suspended in the air as everything STILL moves around him and he takes the perfect gunshot?? Is Scott an airbender??? WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE?????
as both ram and bheem seem to have similar physics defying moments i can only conclude that in the rrr universe homosexuality leads to some latent physic bending abilities. i thus have to conclude that scott either is a very repressed homosexual or in good old coloniser fashion he has learned to colonise homoeroticism for his own means
to use ai in literally anything related to iwtv which is such an iconically creative show and rightfully prides itself on that is so disheartening. it clearly wasn’t needed for the first two seasons and it isn’t needed now or ever because it’s never needed in any form of art and i stand by that. amc sleep with two eyes open…..
Louis de pointe du lac loves arson so much that his response to his own house getting burned down was to move in with the guy who did it. All y'all other arson fans are posers he's the only real arson enthusiast
Very quick sketch of BOOK Louis. I have been listening to IWTV the book and so I was slightly curious about his visual difference to the show ver. His monologues make him sound like a man who wouldn’t often smile in the presence of lestat so I imagine he’s quite grim most of the time.
i saw the discussions about usage of ai-generated visuals in the new opening titles, so i thought i would offer my two cents.
disclaimer: i have some experience in spotting ai-generated images, and VERY limited knowledge of video editing and compositing from my work, so please feel free to correct me on any mistakes i make.
link to the opening titles: [x]
so these are the sequences people are discussing:
do i think that these sequences are wholly ai-generated? i'd say no. current ai video models can't generate fast zoom very well and the results will most likely be blurry with a lot of artifacts/melting parts, and when i flip through the vid frame by frame in 1080p, i didn't see any of these tells. another thing i notice is that the parallax of the zoom are too consistent for it to be AI. so no, i don't think these sequences are entirely ai-generated.
do i think that parts of these sequences are ai-generated? eh. idk. maybe.
ok to explain my point better let me draw a diagram:
so these are the components that would make up these shots:
the long table and chairs in the middle
the props on the side (counter, candles, etc.)
the sidewalls
the floor
the backdrop
do i think the table and the props on the side are ai-generated? i'm 90% certain that it's not. because of the parallax i've mentioned, these would need to be 3d models or real props. while there are ai-generated 3d models now, the technology is not really that great for production: bad topology makes them a hassle to edit and retouch, so sometimes it's just faster to build the model from scratch. also there are some frames of the side props flicking in and out, so this tells me that these are on separate editable layers. moreover, checking sequence to sequence it looks like their design stay consistent, so i'd say that these parts are probably not AI.
the remaining components? i'm not so sure. still images are easier to generate and harder to detect. i'd say the sidewalls are not ai-generated, since the details seem consistent. the rug on the floor looks consistent in the first two sequences, but the last sequence i'm not so sure.
in this frame the rug pattern is clearer and more life-like, so i'd incline to believe that there's a 30% chance that this part is ai-generated.
now the backdrop is what trips me up the most and makes me most suspicious, especially this arch/entryway:
this protruding part is so weird to me since it breaks the symmetry of the design. i looked up some similar entryway designs of the time, and while there are asymmetrical designs, i couldn't find any like this. another thing that i think it's worth mentioning is that unlike other elements that seems more 3d, flipping through frames and comparing them made me think that this is a flat image that was reused in all 3 sequences, so that does heighten my suspicion more. i'd say this part has a 80-90% chance of being ai-generated.
it certainly doesn't help that a lot of the color grading and effects added make these sequences have that, uh, ai-generated look to them. like this sequence here is the most ai-looking sequence of all three, and i'd argue it has a lot to do with the color grading:
the forest backdrop does make me very suspicious, but with the parallax and the way they are layered, i'm not so sure. maybe they generate the footage of the forest separately then composite it with the table and rug layers? but even then i think the movement is still too consistent. idk. maybe this forest has a 60% chance of being ai-generated.
ok so what's the point of this post? if you're thinking i'm defending ai usage, then you're dead wrong. i've seen how ai deteriorates the commercial art industry, i've seen and experienced its direct impact on mine and many of my friends and colleague's livelihood, so no i'm not defending its industry-wide application. on the other hand, i do think that accusing something of being ai without any further interrogation can be detrimental as well. i think one of the reasons why ai is able to propagate so quickly is because the process of making art is so deeply mythologized. it's a process! that can be break down! that people can learn to do if they try! i think it's great that people are more cognizant of ai usage in creative works and is actively pushing back against it! but i just wish that it also inspires people to learn about the process of how their favorite media is made too! because without that knowledge i think it would make people easier to just judge things based on emotions which could lead to accusing real artists of using ai.
with all that being said, i think amc should be pressured into disclosing the amount of ai usage in what they put out. considering the adverse effect of this technology, it's only fair that they let their audience know how much ai is involved and how it is used.
i don't know what you've read and who you assume i am for you to say that i benefit from ai advancement. i always try to be vague when talking abt myself as much as i can because i get self-conscious, but here's the entire context of what i do and what i believe in:
i live in a third world country and the majority of the work i've done within the creative industry is outsourced work for brands and clients in the first world. the tasks that i do would be considered menial by most artists living in the imperial core. and it is exactly this sector in the creative industry that is being hit the hardest with the advancement of ai: the more commercial the work is, the more incentive higher-ups have for cutting corners and reducing labor. if the work you do is considered "menial", whether that is true or not, then it is easier to remove you from the production pipeline. there have been multiple layoffs where i work, a lot of my friends and colleagues are struggling to work, and those who managed to hang on like myself are feeling increasingly frustrated as our work grows less and less meaningful.
this isn't mean to complain abt my life, but to give context to where i came from and my personal relationship with generative ai technology. what frustrates me the most about conversations of organizing and dismantling ai within the creative industry is the lack of understanding of how art is made, because this in turn obfuscate the value of the labor we as artists put in. when conversations abt dismantling ai are only about vibes and emotions, and not grounded by material conditions and a deep understanding of those conditions, nothing can be meaningfully achieved. which is why i said that i'm happy that people are cognizant about ai usage and pushing back against it, but i hope that that pushback also comes with curiosity for how the art and media they enjoy are made. because if ppl understand how it's made, then they'd understand the labour value stolen when using this technology. this post is not about defending ai, i've said in the post and tags that i think ai is bad; this post is me trying to break the process of making art down so that it's more approachable to people.
at the same time, i don't think this air of paranoia can further the conversation of dismantling ai in any meaningful way, which is something i was trying to expel. yes, i do want people to be more aware of generative ai and its application and push back against it. no, i don't want people to just accuse things of being ai based solely on emotions and vibes. "this is clearly ai lol and if you don't think so then you're too stupid or you support ai" ok but what makes it clearly ai? what are the technical tells that people can use to detect them? that's what i was trying to do with this post, to make the process of pointing out signs of gen ai grounded in something more than just "this is clearly ai".
perhaps i was too lenient in my judgment of how much ai was used in those opening titles, and i do apologize that i'm not as up-to-date abt the technology as i should have. still, i still came to the conclusion that there are ai involvement in those opening titles and that amc should be pressured into disclosing it, so i don't get how that is in any way "defending" ai.
Maybe I seem too judgmental as well on my short wording so that's on me as well. I do apologise for my shortcomings of not being an expert.
Sorry for the misleading word there, English is not my first language. I was stating that your advocate to the people who use AI will be benefit "by the AI", not that you "benefit from AI".
It's mainly that there is too much leniency going on over AI production. It's not a case of using AI fully or partly, the problem is that they feel the need of using at all, something that have been crushing the human art and life for so long. And this goes for anyone else too. This is the way of benefitting AI, by using it bit by bit.
I don't know which part of my wording is calling you stupid and what tempt you to said it but I've never meant it that way. Apologies for that though.
And I never said you support it too, I'm just clearing that if you continue to be lenient on the people who helps in the advancement of AI, then you're partly contributing without knowing it, means that you don't have to support AI to help it's advancement. And reading your post, I think I have no more to say about what make that intro scene an AI production as I have believe that using AI partly is also still using it.
i saw the discussions about usage of ai-generated visuals in the new opening titles, so i thought i would offer my two cents.
disclaimer: i have some experience in spotting ai-generated images, and VERY limited knowledge of video editing and compositing from my work, so please feel free to correct me on any mistakes i make.
link to the opening titles: [x]
so these are the sequences people are discussing:
do i think that these sequences are wholly ai-generated? i'd say no. current ai video models can't generate fast zoom very well and the results will most likely be blurry with a lot of artifacts/melting parts, and when i flip through the vid frame by frame in 1080p, i didn't see any of these tells. another thing i notice is that the parallax of the zoom are too consistent for it to be AI. so no, i don't think these sequences are entirely ai-generated.
do i think that parts of these sequences are ai-generated? eh. idk. maybe.
ok to explain my point better let me draw a diagram:
so these are the components that would make up these shots:
the long table and chairs in the middle
the props on the side (counter, candles, etc.)
the sidewalls
the floor
the backdrop
do i think the table and the props on the side are ai-generated? i'm 90% certain that it's not. because of the parallax i've mentioned, these would need to be 3d models or real props. while there are ai-generated 3d models now, the technology is not really that great for production: bad topology makes them a hassle to edit and retouch, so sometimes it's just faster to build the model from scratch. also there are some frames of the side props flicking in and out, so this tells me that these are on separate editable layers. moreover, checking sequence to sequence it looks like their design stay consistent, so i'd say that these parts are probably not AI.
the remaining components? i'm not so sure. still images are easier to generate and harder to detect. i'd say the sidewalls are not ai-generated, since the details seem consistent. the rug on the floor looks consistent in the first two sequences, but the last sequence i'm not so sure.
in this frame the rug pattern is clearer and more life-like, so i'd incline to believe that there's a 30% chance that this part is ai-generated.
now the backdrop is what trips me up the most and makes me most suspicious, especially this arch/entryway:
this protruding part is so weird to me since it breaks the symmetry of the design. i looked up some similar entryway designs of the time, and while there are asymmetrical designs, i couldn't find any like this. another thing that i think it's worth mentioning is that unlike other elements that seems more 3d, flipping through frames and comparing them made me think that this is a flat image that was reused in all 3 sequences, so that does heighten my suspicion more. i'd say this part has a 80-90% chance of being ai-generated.
it certainly doesn't help that a lot of the color grading and effects added make these sequences have that, uh, ai-generated look to them. like this sequence here is the most ai-looking sequence of all three, and i'd argue it has a lot to do with the color grading:
the forest backdrop does make me very suspicious, but with the parallax and the way they are layered, i'm not so sure. maybe they generate the footage of the forest separately then composite it with the table and rug layers? but even then i think the movement is still too consistent. idk. maybe this forest has a 60% chance of being ai-generated.
ok so what's the point of this post? if you're thinking i'm defending ai usage, then you're dead wrong. i've seen how ai deteriorates the commercial art industry, i've seen and experienced its direct impact on mine and many of my friends and colleague's livelihood, so no i'm not defending its industry-wide application. on the other hand, i do think that accusing something of being ai without any further interrogation can be detrimental as well. i think one of the reasons why ai is able to propagate so quickly is because the process of making art is so deeply mythologized. it's a process! that can be break down! that people can learn to do if they try! i think it's great that people are more cognizant of ai usage in creative works and is actively pushing back against it! but i just wish that it also inspires people to learn about the process of how their favorite media is made too! because without that knowledge i think it would make people easier to just judge things based on emotions which could lead to accusing real artists of using ai.
with all that being said, i think amc should be pressured into disclosing the amount of ai usage in what they put out. considering the adverse effect of this technology, it's only fair that they let their audience know how much ai is involved and how it is used.
amc using so much ai also feels like. such a niche way to slap anne rice in the face as this author who got (and still gets) so much shit for not wanting to be edited. like, her philosophy that her books came straight from HER the way paintings come straight from a painter, warts and all, and the team adapting her work can't even be bothered to make their own bad art. whether it's because they're cheap or because they're creative cowards (or both) idk but it's just another thing that's so antithetical to these books and the author and it's so obnoxious!!!!!!
do you ever stay up late thinking about Justine de Pointe du Lac (Louis de Pointe du Lac's sister, as named by Anne in her original screenplay drafts)
do you think about how she was there in the room, on the night Lestat came to Louis on his deathbed, how she was likely the only one who cared for Louis after the death of Paul, who didn't outright blame him for Paul's death?
do you think about how she and Louis became so much closer after he was turned, about how he gave her everything she could ever want and spent hours talking with her and listening to her deepest dreams and fears and all of the thoughts she could never share with anyone else?
do you ever think about what his response must have been, upon receiving the news that she was with child? was he terrified? was he happy? was he distraught at the thought of his bloodline continuing? did he worry that the baby would look like Paul, would suffer the way Paul did in a cruel and unjust world?
Or worse, did he fret over the idea of the baby turning out like him, and living a life of cowardice and misery?
Did he stay up late into the morning praying to an uncaring God for his sister, that she would survive the birth and not succumb to the Pointe du Lac curse that has plagued his family? Did he ever feel the weight of the irony, watching his sister grow a human life inside of her while he himself is dead? Did he prepare a grave for her before the birth, just in case? Did he visit his brother in the mausoleum and vent his sorrows to him, just as he had done in life?
And do you ever wonder what became of the Pointe du Lac family, once Louis "died" in that tragic plantation fire? Do you ever wonder if Louis thought of his sister in those moments when he first realized he was going to have to raise a child of his own?
ANYWAY. @wicked-felina was also thinking about these things and we both made each other crazy sad about it so I needed to put it here so that we can all be sad together LMAO
tangentwithtanner
kaledo-art
romaincrisis
dededos
discoholicmusic
