So yeah if you haven't watched Coraline go do that first.

Okay so now we all now the general themes and such of the movie. But on the first watch of the movie, the intro scene is just creepy because it's creepy. It's a creepy doll being made up by a pair of creepy hands. It's enough to get you hooked on the mystery of what's going on around that place.

But after every reveal, the explanation is very simple. It's just showing us the sequence of how the beldam makes the doll, and the doll is just some magic she uses to spy on children and lure them into her web. You'd think that would really boil the sequence down to something pretty basic and not creepy and all now that you know how mundane it really is, she's just making a doll.

But is doesn't get less creepy. It gets MORE creepy and it perfectly encapsulates the theme and the horror of the beldam's nature. Because like most of the beldam's traps, it's a perversion of nurturing. How can something so evil put so much... love? into a toy? She puts so much detail and care into the thing. if the hands weren't her demon hands, you'd think it was just a mother making a toy for her daughter. But when you know that every act of love she ever produces is just a way for her to kill a child, the feeling of unknowing creepyness evolves into dread and terror because you know exactly how poisonous all that care is.

It's been a couple of days since the Clayface movie came out now and while the movie is doing pretty well and most of the reviews are positive (8/10 on average) there's still some negative criticism here and there.

Some of them are, honestly, fair like the pacing or some minor incoherences in the plot here and there, no problem with those.

HOWEVER, there's one that I've seen that is absolutely not fair. People complaining that Batman didn't show up at any point in the movie.

Now, for some of you who saw the movie, Batman not showing up, not even as a cameo, might be obvious but allow me to explain why anyway with two explanations, an out-of-universe one first and an in-universe one second. In other words, a doylist and a watsonian explanation.

Out-of-universe, meta explanation (Doylist): Batman is the most popular superhero ever and him showing up in any project automatically and retroactively makes that project a Batman project. Batman just being present immediatelly highjack a project and turns the attention away from whoever we were working on towards Batman himself. DC made a Justice League Dark animated movie on a team of superhero specialized in supernatural magical threats and yet Batman is the main character of that movie simply because he's present, even though magic is absolutely not his area of expertise and he shouldn't even be there. DC made a movie adapting the Flashpoint paradox yet all of the marketing was focused on micheal Keaton's Batman being in the film.

The only exception being Superman himself who can afford to share the screen with Batman without losing in presence or importance so Batman showing up in Clayface even as a mere cameo would have hurt the movie. The movie is about Matt Haggen and Matt only, the story is about him so artistically speaking we don't need Batman showing up.

In-universe explanation (Watsonian): Batman showing up wouldn't make sense in the plot of the movie given the events and the timeline. Frankly, I don’t see why Batman would care at all until the very end of the movie.

Don't get me wrong, a vigilante going around killing mobsters, an actor and a lawyer would still get Batman's attention eventually, that's like how the Red Hood storyline started, someone killing criminals left and right, even though it looks like just another mob war from a distance.

BUT, also be fair, Matt at the time was such a new villain who went down his shit list so fast that you could easily argue that Batman simply didn't have time to track him down before the events of the movie were already over.

Sure, the murder of Corey and Frank (Matt's actor friend and Matt's lawyer respectively) took place over a couple of days but every other mobster all died practically on the same night, like that's way too fast for Batman to do anything about it.

Plus without pre-existing knowledge, Batman would have no way to know that a shapeshifting mud monster formally known as reknown actor Matt Haggen would be the culprit.

By the end of the movie ? Sure, he would know thanks to Dr Caitlin's testimony to the police and all the files, photos and videos she surrendered to them but before that point ? Clayface's existence was unknown to everyone but Caitlin meaning Matt was impossible to suspect, that's why his shapeshifting makes him so dangerous, if he uses the right set of disguises at the right time in the right context and then he's basically invisible.

At best, Batman could find a connection between Matt and the victims just like John did in the film but even then it takes a great leap in logic to go from "all those people wronged Matt Haggen before" to "Matt Haggen is definitely the culprit and is a shapeshifting mud monster" like even for Batman that's a stretch.

It's especially difficult to suspect Matt given that he's never found or seen on any of the crime scenes, he make sure to always stay hidden and never show his face to anyone but his future victim so no witness or camera can ever confirm his presence on the scene so again, even for Batman it would be hard to suspect Matt.

Like yeah sure, there is indeed a connection between Matt and the victims because they're all people he knew and/or wronged him before but it's still impossible to suspect Matt because there's no proof, no eyewitness, straight up nothing that can place him at or near the scene of the crime during or around the time of the murder. According to the evidence, there's straight up nothing to prove he was even there at any point.

Matt even made sure to cover his own tracks by turning into his victims after killing them, adding even more to the general confusion.

But most importantly, the elephant in the room I've been avoiding all this time is this: Clayface takes place before Superman started his "career" so to speak, 3 years before the events of the 2025 movie to be precise, and most of the time, Superman and Batman start roughly around the same time.

So, for all we know, Batman doesn't even exist yet, he hasn't officially started his "career" as Batman.

It's for all of these reasons that Batman showing up wouldn't make sense, it would artistically hurt the movie from a meta perspective and it wouldn't make sense given the film's plot and the timeline of event.

I think people have this faulty view that Batman is an omniscient, all-knowing guy who knows all the ins and out of what happens in Gotham but that's at best half true and only apply to when he reaches the peak of his paranoia like when he invent Brother Eye or something but even then he's still human and can't possibly be aware of everything as if he placed Gotham in a 1984 style surveillance state, he's just a very good detective at the end of the day. No matter how good, a detective doesn't prevent crimes as they happen, he investigate them after the facts.

Im not a fan of powerscalers who only say in debates:

"Vsbw said that" "vsbw accepted this"

I think the vsbw tiering system is good but i dont recomend using them as a primary source for everything since they have accepted some questionable stuff like:

-ben 10 (human form) was once rated solar system level on vsbw (maybe there is a chance he still is rated that i havent checked). None of his aliens besides Alien X reach that.

-Cthulhu Mythos got degraded to outerversal despite even the loweat structure (the universe) having infinite dimensions on top of each other, that would be low outerversal and the void being above that would be outer. This one is especially bad as they have been ducking attempts to rebunk it back to its old status.

I think with powerscaling its better to not rely on someone else for everything you do.

Just cuz vsbw accepted something doesnt mean its valid.

Also this

You can hate a show & view it as not your cup of tea, but you don’t have to constantly make up reasons to hate the finale. For context, this will be dissecting the original critique, & given that it’s from years ago & several response-to-critic type posts have been made on the sub for awhile, I’m assuming this isn’t breaking any rules on the sub.

Massive TDLR: the original post constantly just makes scenes up that never happen, or complains about things that were shown & explained several times

Claiming that “Lizzy is ignorant of the world ending” is blatantly untrue as both Lizzy & Thad were ordered by V to spy on J (due to V’s suspicions that Tessa was “Cyn” & that J betrayed her & N to willingly work for “Cyn”), where they felt copper 9 shake, express concern & found out that J was destroying all other ways off the planet. Khan then appears to spoonfeed to the characters & audience that the planet is in danger, where they proceed to distract J… for 10 seconds before the explosion occurs.

Saying ”Lizzy just sits on her phone as V fights J” as a critique is the equivalent of arguing a civilian should’ve fought Conquest (from Invincible) to help Mark. Lizzy is a regular worker drone that’s trapped on a very small island with only one safe spot that’s extremely close to the fight. Unlike Lizzy, V & J are fighting in space with the ability to freely control their gravity. They can create any weapon they wish & regenerate. What was Lizzy supposed to do?? All what she can do is provide bits of information to V while watching her fight, which she does. Lizzy only manages to distracts J less than 10 seconds & V tells Lizzy not to fight her anyways.

“Nori gets Truck-kun'd by N. She survives- because obviously she does- except we don't know how & she didn't even seem to take damage” Nori & the entire cast tanked a direct explosion (from it’s epicenter) from the planet’s core that disperses most of the planet’s clouds, tore apart pieces of the planet & sent those planets into space MINUTES before getting truck-kun’d. The cast surviving explosions like this happens not once, not twice- but 3 times across the series. But Nori surviving getting truck-kun’d is unrealistic?

Nori doesn’t even get hit in the scene. She only loses her balance on the rock & then falls back to copper 9’s surface. Half of the original post is already breaking rule 2.

”And Uzi & N somehow survived sunlight” they are falling to the surface of the planet at night.

“J continues working with the thing she tried to stop, the thing that killed someone she seemed to genuinely care for, because... she wants to win??” J admits she works for “Cyn” because she’s scared & views them as unbeatable. That’s why she insists that there’s no escape from her, & why she even makes the ’we do our jobs & in return you might set us free?’ deal in the first place. J trying to convince V to join “the winning side” doesn’t mean she actually wants to be on top- it means that J doesn’t want V to be on the losing side where she loses & gets tormented by Cyn / the solver for eternity. If J gets V back on their side, then there’s a slim chance Cyn / the solver would be more lenient with J.

“J just keeps fighting on the solver’s side and later says she doesn't actually need V anyway. I think the writers just don't know what to do with her” yeah… because she sees the solver as unbeatable. J can't even die- the solver will just keep reviving her. She wants V and N to survive with her but isn't willing to oppose it with them. V refused her offer to stop fighting Cyn despite J (in J’s point of view) trying to cover for them, so saying that she “doesn’t need V anyway” is desperate denial that she doesn’t care about them (when she does- or else she wouldn’t had “stepped up as the leader of the 3” & included them in the deal). We also know this was always the plan with J since the pilot & start of episode 2 heavily implies, then states J was willingly working for Cyn.

”Cyn somehow recovers from that and gets her decapitated head back“ the main cast (disassembly drones & solver hosts) regenerate their lost body parts in every episode.

”We don't know how V survived, we don't know how she tamed that fucking robo-raptor, she just... appears and we're supposed to cheer“. When Sparky (& the sentinels do have sentience) gets knocked out & comes back online, their AI conflicts between “be a good dingo” & “eliminate AI targets” where this becomes a key main point that’s continuously emphasized throughout 3 scenes in episode 6. After V fights Sparky & pins them, Sparky onscreen submits to V. When V starts to get surrounded by the other sentinels, Sparky slowly gets up, doesn’t attack V & looks at the other sentinels right before the cliffhanger. If V WERE to die to the sentinels, then that would create a ton of (real) plot holes as V can regenerate & sentinels don’t attack cores.

”We don't even get to know WHAT the Solver is, despite it being the main villain.” It’s a eldritch entity that‘s “the solver of the absolute fabric, the void, the exponential end” (taken the form of a singularity). The scientists, Nori, Doll, N & the solver itself all say it’s a eldritch entity. We also know they’re separate as the moment the solver drops it’s guard of masking as “Cyn” at the manor, it clarifies it’s the solver & not Cyn at all.

”It seems to be a sentient black hole with the singularity that appears once Uzi rips out Cyn's core but it's not explicitly stated”. It is directly stated by the scientists (“the singularity will consume everything you love dear!”, the other test subject through their notes (drawings of a singularity & the text ‘IT WILL CONSUME’), & Nori (‘the singularity awakens’) to be a entity whose true form is a living singularity. It’s even shown in the ending of the series where Cyn’s core gets destroyed & the main absolute solver reveals it’s form as the singularity.

”Hell, with Solver stating "assimilating is better than explaining" and that "I'M NOT SOLVED" message, it's like the writers are mocking the viewers for wanting answers.” But we have the answers. The main solver consumes matter & is constantly assimilating for more (to the point where it devours planets & several solar systems), half of the cast (including the solver) state that it’s gonna consume everything in the universe & is a overtime universal threat, & the solver says it‘s “the exponential end”. From this, we can easily infer it’s goal is to consume everything. Why? Because it’s a eldritch horror that seeks for more matter &/or energy.

Why is the eldritch horror a eldritch horror? Because it simply is. How was it born & what birthed it & what birthed whoever birthed it & so on? We aren’t supposed to know that because it’s a eldritch being, & those answers aren’t necessary to the series. Eldritch & cosmic horrors are never supposed to be perfectly explained down to their scientific or historical level.

“We see from the post-credits scene that the Solver's still alive inside Uzi's body, and like... what happened to it?? Is it actually the Solver or a freed Cyn?” It’s the solver. Cyn’s core was entirely destroyed, it’s eyes are yellow & the subtitles have always said ”SOLVER”. Even in the original murder drones script, that’s always been the solver.

There’s lots of genuine critiques you can use about the entirety of murder drones instead such as the pacing, the spoonfeeding, Nori just being a plot device with depth that should’ve been present, how the V vs Uzi fight could’ve been written better, how Khan & Uzi should’ve had their own episode together, the novels (which aren‘t canon to the series & made by a different writer under crunch time, but the writing quality is terrible), etc. But making up things isn’t a critique.

As a longtime watcher of Alan Becker's Animator vs Animation/Animation vs Minecraft series, one thing that has stuck out to me is that he knows how far computers have come, and it shows. From the very first episode, the series took place on ( what is later confirmed to have been ) a clunky laptop in the late 2000's, updating to a bigger computer and eventually one with a drawing tablet. Even the apps the computer uses are shown to update in look as time goes on.

In his AVM series, the textures update as Minecraft itself updates, adding in new mobs and biomes like the Warden and custom creatures like theCreeper dimension mobs . The 3D shots also subtly show what Alan's team is able to do with computers now, whereas something like the Far Landswould have been damn near impossible with what we had when it started.

All this was done by human hands keeping up to date with the advancement of computers, and making pretty incredible-looking things with it.

I love Naruto, it's my second favourite in the Big 3 but people on Reddit act like it's way better than Bleach or One Piece or most shounen for that matter. It escapes all the slander that other shounen get.

It has a lot of issues like side characters being kicked off to the curb after the timeskip, asspulls like Sharingan getting a bunch of absurd powerups, the whole world revolving around the Uchiha in the end etc. I feel Naruto wasn't as good as before after Pain Arc.

Ultimately it's just another shounen and is comparable to its contemporaries

I literally saw posts here praising Naruto for non existent things like nature of jutsus being related to villages

I finally saw the Clayface movie and I have some thoughts. On the actual film side, I only have a few real complaints. I heard a lot of people thought Matt got disfigured too quickly and I have to agree. We barely spend any time with him before he gets cut to pieces. I'm not kidding, Matt gets a total of 6-7 minutes for his introduction. He should've gotten at least 10 or 15 minutes more. Also, some of the CGI does look kinda shitty. The final form has grown on me, but the climax where he starts spilling out was not that great looking. They should've used some of the budget on the spike hammer scene instead of us just seeing a shadow until the very end. But other than those complaints, it's decent. Sure, some of the characters don't have any depth and I do wish we explored his relationship with Corey more, but the main leads do carry a lot of the story and some of the kills are extremely memorable. As a horror film, it does its job competently. However, when you examine it as a entry in the DCU (and it's supposed to be one despite the different tone), it falls apart.

The makers explain that Batman is present during the events of the film and you can "feel his presence throughout Gotham", whatever the hell that means, but no one ever mentions him. Also, if we are to believe that he is protecting Gotham during Clayface, than it doesn't make sense that a big time manager like Frank dies in his city and he's just conveniently not even present at the crime scene. This kind of thing also happened in Creature Commandos where Doctor Phosphorus kills Rupert Thorne, a well known crime boss, and Batman still lets Phosphorus run around the city and kill more people. He arrests him so much later than he should have. I was willing to overlook the thing with Phosphorus since maybe he was interrogating crooks for leads, but the nightclub scene in Clayface was really pushing it. All this chaos, plus another actor dead in a trailer, and Batman still isn't on top of it, in his own damn city? And yeah, people are going to say this isn't a superhero movie, it's horror, but it's also a movie in a cinematic universe, one where Batman is supposedly an active hero. Not even one mention of the Dark Knight makes zero sense in this so-called DCU flick. They didn't even need to show him, just a name drop by anyone in Gotham. Maybe it really should've been been part of the Battinson universe, because they already made a Penguin show without Batman in it. Would've at least been consistent.

I think I've read too many emotionally taxing books this year... Because the latest one I'm reading is getting so heavy at points that for the first time in a while, I'm probably going to have to take a step back before finishing it. I'm both looking forward to seeing what happens yet dreading starting the audiobook for it up.

And it brings to mind something I think is really important when it comes to writing a story, especially one with high stakes.

You need to just give the characters time to just breathe both physically and emotionally.

Just have a few scenes where there is no tension, no drama, nothing going on, and just have the characters spend time with each other. Without fearing that something bad is going to happen or something.

I'm not saying you need to make the story a hug fest, but if you don't give the characters time to relax, the audience probably isn't going to relax and enjoy it either.

I think one example I can think of where this really hurt the story is the Energon Universe comics. DWJ's run was good, but it also had so much death and so much drama and action that it became hard to get invested for some people. Kirkman's improving on this a bit in his run, but given the next arc is going to be focused on an ultra-powerful upgraded Megatron fighting the Autobots, I'm worried it won't last.

But I think one of the biggest examples of how this can become a problem is the Last Jedi.

People have discussed the many issues. Last Jedi has at length, but one of my particular bugbears with it is just how emotionally draining it is. The whole movie just seems to pile hopeless, cynical, sad, depressing, and even nihilistic at times crap over and over again. All the good guys fail miserably in different ways throughout the movie, the Resistance gets decimated, and they only manage to survive because Luke sacrifices himself.

For a movie that's meant to be about the rejection of cynicism and embracing hope, the overall story feels so depressing and cynical throughout that when the story tries to give its thesis, it just rings hollow.

Speaking of Star Wars, for as much as my feelings towards Dave Filoni have become far more negative in recent years, there's a quote from him I really respect and come back to often.

"People always say they want things dark, but if you don't have a plan to draw people out of that and show how these people overcome it, then you just leave your audience in despair."

And he's right.

Having a dark story, having stakes, is good. It's important to have stakes and make sure the characters feel them.

I also just think it makes things more impactful if you actually save the emotionally draining stuff and spread it out throughout the story.

This is also why having a status quo for a decent portion of time is a good thing in my opinion. Lure the audience into a sense of comfort, so when the heavy stuff does happen, it feels more earned and surprising.

But if you pile on emotionally draining stuff on top of emotionally draining stuff and never give the characters a chance to breathe, then be prepared for the audience to stop caring after a while.

This is going to be very long (like the series in question).

I've come to generally "trust" One Piece. There's been many times my enjoyment of the series has been reduced, but it has always managed to pull me back with stuff that makes me interested and impressed all over again. Tomino (Gundam creator), who has talked about OP a few times, once said:

"But, you know, among the popular manga there is manga with very beautiful art and manga with bad art, but interesting nonetheless. And I don’t trust manga with very beautiful art unless it is One Piece.”

I began reading One Piece in high school (2017, I believe) through my school's library, which had an extensive manga catalogue, including what I remember as being most of One Piece. Before that I was a Dragon Ball fanboy (if you stalk my account enough you'll see I used to argue my brains off for DB on r/whowouldwin) who had also tried (though often not finished) other stuff including Hunter x Hunter, One Punch Man (anime and webcomic), Gurren Lagann, and Akira (movie and manga). At the time the manga was in Whole Cake Island. I didn't know much about the series, but I knew it was big and I had seen it referred to as being among the "Holy Shonen Trinity" (now commonly known as the Big Three). When I started it, I found it charming and cool. The concept was appealing, the main characters were likeable, the stories were entertaining, and the SBS section was fun. The art, while very different from most stuff I had seen prior, was also very appealing to me. I remember reading Baratie in band class and loving the action (Luffy breaking Don Krieg's armor was a striking moment to me); it was both cartoony and over the top but hard hitting, kinetic and brutal. When I got to the classic "Help me" moment in Arlong Park I was enamored. I kept reading, very much enjoying most of what I read up until Skypiea, where one or a few volumes were missing in the library. I wasn't as hooked and took a break for a while, and when I came back I made the dumb decision to just read the next volume available, finished Skypiea, and then picked up toward the end of Foxy when I made the switch to digital, missing crucial parts of Skypiea and most of Long Ring. I won't go into an extreme amount of detail of the process after that since I've already talked a lot, but I will say that I enjoyed most of everything that came after, and caught up during Wano. By then it was pretty much cemented as my favorite series. The fact that it was long usually wasn't really a problem to me because I wasn't watching Toei do an impression of a snail and I wasn't clamoring for the series to end.

Over the past several years, One Piece has become highly scrutinized online and has lost a portion of the good will it once carried in the public eye. A lot of this criticism is understandable and expected. There are many problems with One Piece, both lasting and more modern. I myself had become a bit unenthused when I caught up in early Wano, and since then there's been tons of polarizing stuff, including something that Oda can be seen to have anticipated to be controversial, Gear 5. But I also believe that a lot of the common criticism levied towards this series has become a series of lazy, misleading cliches and misrepresentations (largely brought on by the fact that a lot of people either haven't read the series or stopped a while ago). There's an increasingly common perception that One Piece is a low-effort, mass appeal product of unremarkable quality meant to go on forever (a.k.a slop). On the contrary, I truly believe that on balance, One Piece tends to be a high quality series, especially when you compare it to its peers.

First, what are the series' main strengths? I'd say: a knockout main character, a very wide variety of great ancillary characters, strong thematic writing, remarkable emotional resonance, relatively good internal consistency and continuity (especially considering its length and density), great worldbuilding, attention to detail, solid creativity, "vibes," and a story and world that gives a lot to talk and think about. I think that in general, even though these things will waver throughout the story, Oda's skill in these areas remain to this day. I also think that compared to most of the other stuff that would be most likely to be compared to it, One Piece is a monster in these departments. JJK is a high quality series that is absolutely huge, but it would be hard to defend the opinion that Yuji is a a better main character than Luffy for most people who enjoy both series, valid as the opinion may be. Naruto is extremely solid, but I think OP reaches higher peaks and will not have an ending arc as problematic. I got bored with Bleach in a way I didn't with One Piece. I just think it's genuinely distinguishable in quality from a lot of stuff.

Now there's so much stuff I could rant about when it comes to discussion of this series, but I'll get into some prominent topics of contention where I think there are misrepresentations. First, I actually think that One Piece's "politics," or other similar "serious topics," while notable, are not as central to its quality as a lot of the fans will say. There's tons of stuff with similar audiences that addresses that type of stuff, like Fullmetal Alchemist or Avatar the Last Airbender. I'd say in terms of themes, One Piece is actually way more noteworthy "philosophically" or "poetically" than politically. Take the arc of Skypiea, for example (which I went back and fully read, along with Foxy). There clearly are themes that could be called "political," such as claim to land, progress vs. tradition, and the struggle against the erasure of peoples and history. But there should also be talk about the themes of romance (in the literary sense) and dreams, faith, and the human desire for vindication. Don't get me wrong, One Piece has politics. But I think the incorrect framing of One Piece as a battle shonen Communist Manifesto rather than something more like a battle shonen William Blake work actually leads not only to misplaced discussion, but improper criticism! You'll hear stuff like "it's not that deep, One Piece is just dictators bad, slavery bad, racism bad, starving bad" as if the series wasn't saying tons of stuff before the revolutionary themes were even that prominent. As if the most interesting part of Fishman Island isn't that it tells you that racism is bad, but how it explores how discrimination affects a people's spirit, and the paths of healing for that. I mean why, with a series with so much analysis and discussion of parallels to real life, am I the only person I can find who has noticed the possible connection between Shandora (golden city that ascends into the heavens) and the New Jersualem from Revelation (golden city that descends from the heavens)? Especially in an arc with so much talk of "God?" People have pointed out the Israel/Palestine connection in the arc; why not this other possible theme connected to Abrahamic faith and history?

One Piece nowadays often gets flack for its female characters. For example, a viral tweet that has inspired much discourse and many derivatives posited what it would be like if Oda had wrote Maki from JJK. I won't deny that One Piece is primarily a boy's club, and that there's notable fanservice and a repetitive design template for pretty female characters. However, let's look at the actual common claim: that Oda is bad at writing women. Is this really an accurate claim, at least when compared to other shonen, and even JJK itself? When I think of One Piece women, though there's not as many super important or strong ones as the boys, I think of characters that are generally good, if not always in execution, then at least in their construction. Nami, Robin, Vivi, Pudding, Bonney, Big Mom, Carrot, and Hancock are all characters I have positive opinions on. Robin's pre-TS arc would probably be the best character arc in many series, period. People used to directly compare One Piece's relatively good female characters with series like Naruto, though there's long been criticism levied towards designs and sexualization. And with all due respect to Gege, he would have an aneurysm trying to write a character like Kureha. I think it's funny that Maki is used as the example because if you take any other JJK female character, they'd have less prominence, less notable writing, little in terms of a character arc, and likely have a far smaller fanbase. I mean, Gege often got these same "bad women" allegations! As did Horikoshi! I'd sooner accept Oda as a disgusting misogynist than as someone who couldn't write women, because I think that's blatantly untrue. Toriyama has even more direct proof of misogyny ("Lady Red" is pretty insane, content warning), has even more egregious fanservice in early DB, and his series is even more of a boy's club, but I'd he say he can write women too.

As I mentioned before, One Piece will have points where I start to enjoy it less. However, these instances are then punctuated with peaks I just can't get anywhere else. Thriller Bark, which isn't a bad arc in my opinion but is understandably less popular, ends with an absolutely insane sequence when Kuma arrives and is followed by the freaking Sabaody to Marineford stretch. Wano had tons of polarizing stuff, but it also has what might be the best fight in the series, an instant classic Roger moment that redefined what we thought of the One Piece, tons of wow factor, lore stuff, great character stuff for Sanji, and as a whole was a big part of One Piece's new wave of mainstream popularity in the West. Most recently, I personally was not as motivated to read recent Elbaf, though on paper I liked the turns of events. But the recent Sanji stuff is extremely compelling and rewarding, and now I'm really excited for the next chapter. The idea that Oda is just washed and can't make something worth reading anymore is just not true to me, and if you've seen that screenshot of someone ranting on a forum around the time of Enies Lobby complaining that the series had lowered in quality, you've seen that this type of discussion is not new. On that note, when I was reading Naruto a while back, I tended to look up old discussions for chapters after finishing them, as I often do for manga. I already knew that there was tons of criticism, but man, the discussion was brutal. It was very often filled with a significant amount of negativity, even concerning stuff that now is lauded, like Itachi or Obito. This fall from grace posture might just be a feature of the long running shonen space in the information age.

Now, One Piece certainly isn't without its flaws. Some of the main ones I'd point to are:

- Repetitiveness. I don't mean the cliche people bring up about Luffy saving a kingdom/island and princess from a dictator/oppression; One Piece actually deviates from this a lot (many of its most popular or critically acclaimed arcs don't follow this, including Baratie, Water 7, Enies Lobby, Jaya, Sabaody, Amazon Lily, Impel Down, Marineford, Whole Cake Island, Zou, Egghead) and even when it doesn't, the world and wider themes justify liberation from oppression being a common theme. I'm referring to stuff like the narrative forcing the Straw Hats to separate so that they can do a bunch of tasks and maybe have individual fights. Stuff like the forced "Ticking time bomb" element added to a lot of arcs added for tension. Stuff like Luffy conveniently befriending someone from almost everywhere he goes to give him a reason to risk everything for them while the narrative insists he's not a hero. Stuff like gags being repeated without enough variation.

- Fakeout deaths. Self explanatory, though Oda has been killing more people in recent years.

- Decreased focus on the Straw Hats, and a general feeling of flanderization there in general for a bunch of them.

- Bad paneling after the timeskip (though recently it's been more serviceable)

- Art is just not as good anymore. I think the peak of Oda's pen was probably early to mid post timeskip; things were just really sharp and pretty. Understandable; he's getting older. But it's quite noticeable.

- The fight choreo and flow is inconsistent, especially over time. There's some genuinely really good stuff and some really mediocre/bad stuff. Wano actually has some of Oda's best (read 1010 or 1037 again) and then after Wano it's just not as good. This seriously hurts an arc with a good deal of impressive writing like Egghead, because other than that it's largely a mad scramble of fights.

- Related to the fight complaint: the chapters nowadays almost feel like they're intentionally written to be adapted into the anime. As if Oda realized that Toei was putting more effort into the anime, and also that they're only going to adapt one chapter, so the best thing to do was to write them like a storyboard for an episode, bloated with text, and with deemphasized action art. Like he thought "who cares about making my chapter a good comic when the anime will make the actual fights and have cool directing?"

All in all though, I think One Piece is really good for what it is, and I trust that the ending will be good too.

TL;DR: I trust One Piece. I got into the series years ago after already experiencing other series and it captured me like very little before it. I think the increased scrutiny its gotten, while largely understandable, is also kind of inaccurate in ways. Despite its flaws, One Piece is peak battle shonen and will likely stick the landing.

Fuck Lincoln Burrows, man. It’s not often that I genuinely get upset over a character's stupid-ass decisions, but honestly, Lincoln Burrows might just take the cake.

For those who haven't watched Prison Break , the premise is about two brothers: Lincoln, a petty criminal, and Michael, a wealthy structural engineer. Lincoln gets framed for the murder of a CEO Terrance Steadman and gets sentenced to death by the electric chair. As it goes, he is actually innocent of the crime he’s accused of. So Michael Scofield, not wanting his brother to die for a crime he didn't commit, decides to rob a bank in order to get himself incarcerated in the same prison as Lincoln and break him out.

Season 1 of Prison Break is legit peak television. Season 2 wasn't as tight, but still overall pretty good, especially with the inclusion of Agent Alex Mahone. Season 3 is legit one of the most pointless pieces of media out there, but it was written during the 2007–2008 writers' strike, so I can't fault it that much. And season 4 was pretty poor, if not outright bad, especially the second half (take a shot every time a character asks, "Where is Scylla?"). Prison Break eventually ended with a two-part television movie that wrapped up with Michael dying and Lincoln free to live a new life with his son and girlfriend.

A lot of people weren't happy that, after everything Michael had done, he just died at the end. So, years later, Prison Break got a fifth season. While I found it to be a vast improvement over season 4, aside from being rather unnecessary, it also had some of the dumbest ideas in the entire series. One of which is the whole reason for this rant: what Lincoln had been doing for the previous few years.

Instead of settling down with his girlfriend and raising his kid, it's revealed that Lincoln has gone back to a life of crime and, prior to the start of the season, had been working for the son of John Abruzzi.

Are you fucking serious?

Look, I'm not going to say it isn't realistic for a former criminal to relapse into that kind of life, but come the fuck on. Lincoln, you absolute dumbfuck, it was this exact lifestyle that put you in a scenario where you were used as a scapegoat for murder, leaving you to live for years with the executioner's axe hanging over your head, and you decided to go right back to it?!

If that wasn't stupid enough on its own, it becomes completely infuriating when you take into account how Michael sacrificed everything for this bum. Michael threw away his comfortable life as a structural engineer, willing to live the rest of his days as a fugitive just to save Lincoln from being executed for a crime that Lincoln, mind you, isn't entirely innocent of. Because while he didn't actually kill the guy, he still went to Terrence Steadman with a loaded gun and every intention of pulling the trigger. Literally, if The Company had just been willing to take a slight gamble, Lincoln would have killed the John Doe decoy himself without any need to actually frame him.

For fuck's sake, man, I just realized that throughout the entirety of season 5, not once did Lincoln ever actually mention his son, LJ, at all. LJ had to watch his mom get gunned down, got framed for that murder, had to live homeless and shoeless while men were trying to kill him. Eventually gets arrested and threaten with the chair. And while he is set free, he then is held hostage as barganing chip for Licoln. How despicable do you have to be, after everyhting you teenage son wen trough, to abandon your son to work for the mob?

TL;DR? Fuck this shitcunt.

Pun intended. But in most stories the Wizard would hate the sapient Animals because maybe a pika ate one of his eyes or something but no Wicked at least the movie version has it that the Wizard and his regime decided to target Animals as a way to consolidate his power and get a source of cheap power.

It’s far true to real life system of oppression where queer people and ethnic minorities aren’t targeted because the leader really hates them . Or just because but because scapegoating a minority puts the target off them

Spoilers for the movie Obsession (2026) ahead.

In the movie Obsession, Bear uses a One Wish Willow to wish that Nikki love him more than anyone in the world. To facilitate this wish, the willow traps Nikki inside her own body and creates a new entity to take over. This entity, in turn, is psychopathically and murderously obsessed with Bear thus fulfilling the most literal definition of his wish.

My view is that there is nothing particularly evil about what Bear wished for. He certainly isn't the first person to want their crush to like them back. Setting aside the fact that he had no reason to even believe that the willow actually works, I do not believe it a necessary condition that Nikki had to be turned into a demon to fulfill the wish. I believe instead, that the willow facilitated the wish in the most malicious way possible. I have heard a number of people (including the director of the movie) insist that there is nothing inherently malevolent about the willow and that Bear's wish itself was the problem. I have heard the argument that the only way to make a wish like this come true was to make Nikki a prisoner to herself. I am not convinced by this at all.

For one, there is a good argument to be made that the willow functions as a monkey's paw. In other words, the mechanism by which it facilitates wishes must/will always result in an unintended and adverse consequence. Two major wishes are made in the movie and neither is cleanly granted to the user without complication. Bear's wish turns Nikki into a demonic entity that even he cannot handle. Ian's wish for a billion dollars eventually leads to him getting shot in the head. The possible counterargument to this would be the shopkeeper who said that he had also used the willow and was satisfied with his wish. This, however, does not prove to me that the wish did not come with a consequence. It could just as easily be that the consequence was far less severe than the wish granted, and as such he is still happy overall with what he got. For example, he might have wished for the willow to cure his mother's cancer and as a by-product, perhaps he broke his arm for a few months.

Secondly, I am simply not convinced that turning Nikki into a demonic entity is the only way the wish could be granted. The willow is clearly demonstrated to be literal magic (eg. when it made money materialize out of nothing and fall from the ceiling). Why couldnt it simply give Bear all the characteristics that Nikki finds attractive? Like confidence, or muscles or whatever else she is into. Then perhaps she would start to see him differently, they spend more time together and maybe end up in love eventually. There are other ways of making the wish come true that dont involve Nikki pooping herself or turning Bear's cat into lunch. The willow simply chose the most destructive path to achieving the outcome. This would be like if you threw a coin in a fountain and wished for a million bucks. Then you get a call saying that your rich uncle just died and left you a million in his will. There are plenty of other ways you could have gotten the money, but the very mechanism that grants the wish seems to require that it be done in the most malicious way possible.

All in all, there is nothing selfish or evil about what Bear wished for. The willow simply corrupted his wish.

The thing is that unfortunately when you do look at the themes of Frieren it does support racism and ableism so the right wing nut jobs are reading it "correctly"

When you stop and think about it. Both the elves and the demons are almost one to one stand ins for Neurodivergent thought patterns.

The elves are coded as being autistic with mild in attentive ADHD the demons are coded as autistic with extreme fantasy anti social personality disorder.

The central conflict of the story when you think about it is Frieren trying to communicate with others both in a way she understands and they would understand while other people only communicate with her in a way they understand then treat her like a child when she doesn't understand them.

Her party continues to refuse to talk to Frieren by meeting her where she is until they die.

But no worries once they die Frieren learns the important lesson that communicating in the way you understand is wrong and that she needs to unilaterally learn to understand others while no one makes a real effort to understand her outside of again treating her way of viewing the world as something childish she needs to grow out of.

To be human is to be Neurotypical and anyone or anything that isn't "human" Is alien and therefore evil.

Don't worry though Frieren doesn't need to stay wrong since her race have to ability to learn to be human (Neurotypical) but this other race (demons) are incapable of learning to be human (Neurotypical) so you literally need to murder their babies before they grow up to kill millions.

A lot of people will respond to this being pointed out by saying "The fact that you see Demons and think of neurodivergent people is the problem not the writing of the show if you think real life people can be demons that's on you"

That's the thing though. I'm not the one doing that, the story those that.

The way themes work is that a story presents a character with a choice. Do a good thing or do a bad thing.

When the main character those the good thing they are rewarded when the antagonist those the bad thing they are punished.

Through this mechanism the story shows the audience that it is good to do good and bad to do bad.

Obviously out side of shows made for five year olds a story is going to be much more complex than that but the core idea still holds,

The story explains that the reason demons are as cruel and as evil as they are is because they didn't evolve empathy.

But the thing is empathy is not fantasy power source like miasma, cursed energy or spiritual pressure. Empathy is a real life thing that people can, and are, born without.

People who don't have emotional empathy in real life are said to have anti social personality disorder. (ASPD previously known as psychopathy)

When the story claims demons are evil because they lack empathy the story is by necessity claiming empathy is a prerequisite for acceptable behavior.

That is why the moment you put any thought into it the story is necessarily saying that people with ASPD are incapable of acceptable behavior and when the, story says the solution to demons is murdering them before they even have a chance to do anything wrong the story weather the author realizes it or not is implying that people with ASPD need to be murdered before they even have a chance to do anything wrong.

Going back to the elves. The elves are said to have trouble living with humans because the way they both experience and communicate time, their emotions and their thoughts are different from normal humans.

In real life people who have trouble communicating their thoughts and emotions are called autistic (and a couple other things depending on symptoms)

So when the story says that the way elves need to grow as people is by ignoring their natural way of being and adapting themselves to how normal people behave.

What the story is implicitly saying is that if you have a natural thing that makes it hard for you to communicate your thoughts and emotions to others it is unilaterally your fault and the way you need to grow as a person is by forcing yourself to communicate like a "normal person".

And before anyone jumps in with the demons aren't human we cant apply human concepts to them what I'm saying has absolutely nothing to do with fantasy races and everything to do with theme and character writhing.

You can't say my character is an orc and their fore all criticism of how the story was written is now invalid because I can't apply fantasy races with human concepts.

Where in any other media is that acceptable.

By your logic ratatouille isn't a story about balancing passion and family because the main character is a rat and we can't apply human concepts to non human characters.

By your logic Superman is not a story about trying to be the best version of yourself you possibly can and to help people because super man is an alien and their fore we cannot apply human concepts to him.

I really loved how the movie Logan portrayed the pressures of fatherhood it's really unfortunate that you now made me realize that the movie isn't about Logan raising the next generation while dealing with his own faults because Logan is a mutant and their fore incapable of having human concepts applied to him.

The Lord of the rings movies must have been about how much these non human characters love walking around with shinny objects since human concepts like bravery and responsibility cannot be applied to them.

Historical precedent

Mimics - As a class of monster have historically been used as a vehicle to express bigoted fear of the other.

The first been the concept of the changeling which in European folk lore where basically fairies that stole your children away and replaced them with Fae replicants.

Now we know that a lot of these myths related to Fae were more than likely just cultural superstitions related to autistic people.

The child who, doesn't make eye contact, explains things strangely and uses words they shouldn't know is just slightly different they are actually a evil spirit that is just pretending to be human

Now we can look back at this now with a more modern scientific understanding and laugh at the idea of fairies stealing away children but id like you to remember that being a Fae child was genuine justification to murder your children back in the day.

Another common use of the Idea of the Mimic is as a stand in for foreigners you especially see this kind of framing in the original telling of the vampire stories as well as in old school science fiction like invasions of the body snatchers.

Most modern depiction of a Mimic like creature go to lengths to divorce these creatures from their original use and vehicles for Mimicry which to me makes frieren worse.

Frieren is not Deconstructing the modern idea of mimics or demons the show is quit literally reverting it to their original bigoted stereotypes.

The worse part it all is how adamant fans are about defending it. The conversation is just this over and over.

"Demons are problematic because XYZ reasons"

No the author didn't intend them to be a different race in spite them literally being a different race their meant to be like sociopaths.

(Just going to let the fact the literal hundreds of Frieren fans have defended the idea that demons should be genocided without remorse by comparing them to people with anti social personality disorder sit in the air as it should)

That doesn't make it better because now rather than justifying genocide by race it's justifying genocide of Neurodivergent people. (Which to be fair is consistent with how Frieren is treated like a child for having a level of Neurodivergent that she has to "learn" To overcome as if bring different is a personal failing)

No you see demons aren't meant to represent different races or different brain types they actually represent predators.

But literally no predator would evolve the contradictory traits demons possess.

Now your just nitpicking the story isn't about evolution or humans vs predators it's a human story about people learning to have empathy for one another.

So if the story is a story about humans learning to empathize with each other what is the story trying to say by having a literal separate race that is innately evil and can't be empathized with?

No the author didn't intend them to be a different race in spite them being a literal different race their meant to be like sociopaths.

(Ad infinitum)

The demons can't be problematic because if they were my favorite show wouldn't be good so the demons aren't problematic.

What makes the crossover in its current form feel so, for a lack of a better term, cringe is how it's bashing these two properties with wildly different power levels and aesthetics together in a really coy, snide way. There's no synergy here other than "These are our biggest buyouts that make us billions of dollars, surely the more the merrier". It's a very Fortnitian approach to crossovers, expect at least there you're directly playing through and immersing yourself in the absurdity instead of blankly staring at a lousy comic's pages.

The thing is, I don't think it had to be this way. The Star Wars universe is famously so expansive and rife with granular worldbuilding details that you could plausibly built an intriguing superhero mythos out of it. A sufficiently thoughtful writer could make something of the parallels between how the Marvel heroes and the Jedi are seen by the world at large, how Captain America and the Rebellion struggle against fascism, etc.

I'm basically just writing fanfiction from here on out but some ideas that popped into my head just from pacing around and brainstorming for 5 minutes:

-The Clone Trooper program wasn't the Kaminoans' only major project of that era: Upon the Clone Wars beginning in earnest, they sought out to create a super soldier with massively enhanced strength and speed. A suitable test subject was found in Stev Ronan, with him achieving such success on the battlefield as Captain Republic that he eventually wound up fighting alongside Jedi, including a couple of missions with Obi-Wan and Anakin. He was believed to have died on a mission in the Clone Wars' final year, but during the construction of Echo Base he is found frozen in ice by the Rebellion.

-Toniel Starr is the maddeningly rich CEO of a Coruscant weapons conglomerate. After growing disillusioned with the Emperor's reign and daring to make a mildly critical statement in public he is - just coincidentally, of course - kidnapped by a gang of bounty hunters a couple of weeks later. However, with just a box of scraps, he makes an unbelievable escape by forging his own flying armor to rival that of the Fetts. Upon returning home he innovates his design and takes on the mantle of Beskar Man, all while covertly developing contacts with Rebel cells to see how he can be of use to them.

-As the mechanism that would power the Death Star's laser was being tested, an Imperial scientist named Brunus Banner got too close without protective equipment and was showered with gamma radiation, transforming him into a musclebound, emerald-skinned monster. Over a hundred Stormtroopers and other personnel died in the ensuing rampage, which was only stopped by luring him to an airlock and launching him into space. The incident was quickly classified and the so-called Hulk considered disposed of, but what doesn't reach the Empire's ear is a swirl of hushed rumors in Tatooine's seediest cantinas of a monster living in Beggar's Canyon...

-As the extermination of the Jedi wound down, another disfavored target entered the Empire's sights: Mutants. Wherever credible sightings are reported, the towering jet black Sentinel Droids are sure to arrive within 24 hours to neutralize the threat. Among the highest profile targets is Magneto, believed by Imperial Intelligence to be a survivor of the Ghorman Massacre.

The criticism for Mike Flanagan's Carrie is just dumb. Yes the show did change alot of things including the ending ,but the overall premise behind the story and the characterization are still intact. Carrie is still a social outcast who still ends up committing murder entirely on her own when she kills Chris and Billy. Sure the entire prom massacre wasn’t entirely her doing ,but committing murder is still pretty bad and letting someone who wanted to murder people so badly to take over your body is still a horrible decision from Carrie. Margarrete White is still a religious fanatic and abusive mother. She doesn’t hate Carrie unlike the book version ,but the essence of her character is still there and has a lot more depth compared to her book counterpart who was basically a one dimensional bad guy. So what’s the problem exactly again? Carrie isn’t as vengeful and hateful unlike her book counterpart? even though it made zero sense for the Mike Flanagan version at all because she wasn’t tormented by her classmates her entire life. Margaret isn’t a religious zealot who actively despises her daughter? We literally got 3 adaptations already of Carrie where he had a one dimensional religious zealot mother who actively despises their daughter. 

I think one of the biggest issues with any discussions involving an adaptation is the refusal from some folks to just judge the show or a movie entirely on its merits and judge it as an adaptation as a secondary thing ,but they treat it as a primary thing. The discussion involving Spider-Man in the MCU is apparent because a lot of discussions with his character are so freaking toxic. MCU Spider Man is bad because he was being mentored by Tony Stark instead of Uncle Ben. MCU Spider-Man is a bad adaptation because many of his villains are related to Stark or in some ways like Stark industries instead of being related to Norman Osbourne and Oscorp. Instead of appreciating the unique and spectacular dynamic between Peter being mentored by an incredibly flawed and imperfect mentor Tony Stark a lot of people are incredibly petty about the lack of Uncle Ben when Tony Stark is obviously the Uncle Ben like character in Peter’s life within the MCU. I freaking love that dynamic between Peter and Tony. If it weren’t for them we wouldn’t even have gotten those iconic scenes from Infinity Wars and Endgame. Their dynamic was just written beautifully. 

Also if people really wanted to see the wise sage Uncle Ben who’s literally just an embodiment of virtue and makes memorable speeches to mentor Peter then why not just rewatch the Sam Raimi version which is considered to be a definitive adaptation of the iconic character? The same Rami version that had Oscorp and Norman Osbourne being the primary thing that connects to some of Spidey’s villains such as The Green Goblin, Harry Osbourne and even Doctor Octopus when his science project was primarily funded by Harry. Same thing with Carrie because if you want to see the one dimensional religious nutjob Margette White or the vengeful Carrie who was tormented by her classmates her whole life  then just watch the 3 other adaptations that already exist which are all pretty damn accurate in their own ways  or reread the book. 

I just think seeing the same thing again is just going to be boring. Sure MCU Spider-Man or Carrie 2026 already had multiple adaptations already ,but if they're going to adapted again the writers need to bring in something new to the table rather than recreating what came before beat to beat. I want added or altered characterization to the iconic characters to give them more depth in their own ways without losing the full essence of their characters which I think the MCU Spider-Man and Carrie 2026 captured perfectly well.

​

Man, the more I think about MHA's ending, the worse it gets lmao.

THEY CAN LITERALLY COPY QUIRKS IN A LAB AND IMPLANT THEM INTO OTHER PEOPLE. THAT'S WHAT THE NOMU ARE.

So WHY THE FUCK does Deku have to spend EIGHT YEARS without a Quirk just to get an armor suit?

And I'm not even talking about getting One For All back. He doesn't need OFA to be a hero. JUST GIVE THE GUY ANOTHER QUIRK.

The Nomu prove that people who were originally Quirkless can have Quirks artificially implanted into them. This isn't some random fan theory or a solution pulled out of nowhere. It's something the story itself established.

Deku lost One For All, but that doesn't mean he suddenly became incapable of receiving another Quirk. The story already showed us that artificial Quirk implantation is possible, so why is this never properly addressed?

And what about Garaki? The dude spent years researching Quirks, figured out how to duplicate them and implant multiple Quirks into people, and we're supposed to believe that nobody could use any of that research to at least TRY to find another solution for Deku?

I'm not saying they could just give him any random Quirk with zero complications. But the possibility clearly exists. They could have investigated it, explained why it wouldn't work, or even shown Deku trying and failing. ANYTHING would have been better than leaving such an obvious question unanswered.

And it doesn't even stop there.

WHAT ABOUT ERI?

Her Rewind Quirk can reverse a person's physical state, and she already restored Mirio's Quirk after he lost it. Could she have helped Deku somehow? We don't know whether she could restore One For All after its embers completely faded, so I'm not saying that would definitely work. But seriously, isn't that something worth considering?

The story already gave us a character with an ability capable of reversing major changes to someone's body, including the loss of a Quirk. Yet another possibility that could have been explored, even if it ultimately turned out to be impossible.

And even if neither artificial Quirk implantation nor Eri's Rewind could help him, WHY DOES DEKU NEED A QUIRK TO BE A HERO IN THE FIRST PLACE?

He could keep training, improve his physical conditioning, use support equipment and continue working as a hero. Obviously, he'd have to adapt his fighting style and be more careful about the kinds of situations he could handle, but being Quirkless doesn't automatically mean he can't help people.

And if he could receive a Quirk like Super Regeneration, that would give him another potential advantage. The story already established that this kind of Quirk exists and can be implanted artificially. He doesn't need One For All specifically. He could have an entirely different power set and still be Deku.

I'm not saying he'd suddenly be able to fight Shigaraki or All For One on equal terms. I'm saying there are plenty of ways he could continue being a hero without getting OFA back.

And then there's the teaching situation.

Deku becomes a teacher at U.A., which is fine. But WHY does being a teacher mean he can't also be a hero? Those jobs aren't mutually exclusive. All Might was a teacher and a hero. Other heroes have responsibilities outside of fighting villains, too.

And the ending itself proves that Deku can do both: he works as a teacher and eventually returns to hero work with his suit.

So why did he have to spend eight years waiting for that suit instead of exploring other possibilities during that time?

And before anyone says the armor is supposed to represent how Deku's friends support him, I GET IT. I understand the message, and I actually think the idea itself is nice.

BUT THAT DOESN'T ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION.

The armor can be emotionally meaningful AND the ending can still have a massive hole in its worldbuilding.

The problem isn't that Deku ended up using an armor suit. The problem is that the story presents this as the solution to his situation without properly addressing the alternatives it had already established.

Artificial Quirk implantation? Never properly addressed.

Eri's Rewind? Never properly addressed as a possible avenue for helping him.

Continuing as a Quirkless hero through training and support equipment? A possibility that doesn't require him to regain OFA at all.

And being a teacher doesn't prevent him from being a hero, either. The ending literally shows him doing both.

Obviously, not every possible solution is guaranteed to work. But that's exactly why the story should have explored them instead of leaving readers to wonder why nobody even tried.

Deku didn't need to get One For All back. He didn't even necessarily need another Quirk. He just needed a way to continue doing what he had always wanted to do, and the story had several possible avenues it could have explored.

My problem isn't that Deku ended up using an armor suit. My problem is that MHA established multiple ways he might have continued being a hero, then skipped over those possibilities and made us wait eight years for the one solution the ending wanted to give him.

Seriously, Horikoshi, you created a world where people can manufacture superhumans in a lab, where someone can rewind a person's body, and where support technology can compensate for the absence of a Quirk.

And somehow, after all that, the story doesn't give us a convincing explanation for why Deku had to spend eight years without a way to return to hero work.

The ending could have kept the armor, kept the emotional payoff, and still addressed these questions.

That's what makes this so frustrating. The problem wasn't that the story lacked possible solutions. It was that it never properly dealt with the implications of the solutions it had already introduced.

No matter if the story is a sci-fi epic, an anime, a video game, or a comic book run, if it ends with reality being wiped clean and restarted from scratch, audiences almost universally groan.

Most people feel cheated. Seasons or hours investing in characters, watching them struggle, suffer, grow, and build relationships, only for the author to wave a cosmic wind.

That kind of reset feels like cowardice because it undoes everything.

The worst offender of this trope is the Personal Inconvenience Reset or the Grief Avoidance Reset. This happens when a writer uses timeline tampering or reality-stitching not because existence is collapsing, but because a character is sad.

But there is a massive distinction that critics of this trope often overlook. An ending where the universe gets rebooted or reset isn’t bad when the stakes are the literal apocalypse.

In this scenario, the heroes aren't fighting to save the world as it is. When a universe reset happens here, it becomes a sacrificial hail mary. It is a desperate, terrifying gamble born out of absolute, unadulterated catastrophe.

It shifts the question from "How do we win?" to "Can existence itself be salvaged in any form, even if we don't survive to see it?"

DC Comics, in particular, is infamous for its endless line-wide reboots, but they made those reboots stick.

Here's famous examples:

• Crisis on Infinite Earths: Anti-Monitor was systematically eating the entire DC Multiverse, reducing infinite worlds, billions of lives, and centuries of history to absolute nothingness. There was no negotiating or "punching harder", the fabric of reality itself was dissolving. The surviving heroes and villains were forced into a desperate, catastrophic fusion of the remaining five Earths into one singular, unified universe. Pre-Crisis continuity was permanently erased, iconic heroes like Barry Allen and Supergirl died to secure the new timeline, and characters woke up in a world where they had no memory of their past multiverse.
• Rebuild of Evangelion: The Fourth Impact and Gendo Ikari’s Instrumentality project are destroying the universe, reducing the world to a barren, blood-red wasteland populated by giant skeletal remnants of angels and shattered evas. Shinji Ikari confronts his father in a surreal metaphysical space and realizes that the cycle of pain, trauma, and giant mecha loops must be broken forever. The Spear of Gaius is used to rewrite reality entirely, creating a "Neon Genesis," a world completely free of Evangelions.
• 12 Monkeys tv show: The "Army of the 12 Monkeys" and the elusive entity known as the Witness orchestrate the creation of the "Red Forest", a cosmic state where time stops, death is undone, and all of history collapses. The only solution requires erasing Cole’s very existence from the timeline entirely. Reality resets to a pristine baseline timeline where the deadly virus never existed and the time machine was never built. But Cole is gone.
• Final Fantasy XIV: In the original version of the game (1.0), the world of Eorzea faced total annihilation when the Garlean Empire clashed with the primal dragon Bahamut, who broke free from his moon prison and unleashed the Seventh Umbral Calamity. A massive firestorm rained down, literally burning the server map to ash in real-time. When the game returned as A Realm Reborn, the universe was restructured lore-wise and geographically. The old world died in fire, and players woke up years later in a scarred, newly minted reality trying to rebuild
• Madoka Magica: Magical girls are bound, when their hope runs out, they inevitably fall into despair and transform into Witches, monsters of catastrophic destruction that feed on human misery across generations, then new magical girls kill those. Madoka Kaname realizes that fighting individual witches is treating a symptom, not the disease. She uses her wish to cause all witches in the multiverse to get killed by her own hands, and then transforming herself into an abstract concept (the Law of Cycles) that intercepts magical girls right before they despair. The universe resets into a new reality where Witches no longer exist, but Madoka is completely erased from human memory because she killed her own witch, therefore killing herself before she was born, turning into a paradox.

When writers use a universe reset to tackle systemic failure, it stops being a narrative cop-out. Some things cannot be reformed from within and the only way to fix it, it is to start from scratch.

Like, if you like 40k for anything outside of space marines, space king is not for you i fear

Tau: blap blaps while heavily featured are just there to be cannon fodder, the cool aspect of tau conquered worlds being better than with the imperium is thrashed in favor of having the blaps be just as bad as the psycho warriors

Orks: space hogs are very orky but lack the more recognizable stuff

Necrons: the god-weapon is really cool but barely necron based outside of looks (may be based on that one necron lord that thinks he’s still flesh)

Tyrannids: outside of looks the tyrannid equivalent is clearly the bugs that suck your blood and organs through your anus making death permanent and shameful and can we talk of how lame it is that even the genestealer equivalent is the non-space marines (psycho warriors)?

Eldar: not present (as an Eldar fan i hope it continues like this), maybe the time wizard?

Any imperial faction: no sisters of battle, no inquisition, no custodes and the guard equivalent is just that one joke of the guard having bad equipment

Outside of a few things like the cathedral stuff all the factions are also very samey in looks, like, if you didnt knew the very basic lore would you know the blaps and the space hogs are not the same faction? All the technology except for the cathedral stuff looks mostly the same with very little changes, meanwhile in 40K you can tell the difference between the Tau, Orks and space marines immediately

Like Ton and Don’s way to be original enough while clearly leeching of 40K is to remove most things that make each faction cool

And yes i say leeching because it’s clear that they kinda want to be their own thing while having everything be discount bin 40k

TL;DR: i dont like how space king is clearly based on 40k while removing a lot of the cool stuff, being original is cool but the way they do it is by removing what makes the factions cool

Just saw a bunch of discourse about the sexual assault allegation plot points in the recent Clayface movie. A good number people seem to dislike this movie because they think the "malicious woman ruins man's life with allegations" trope is present when the girlfriend of a mob boss falsely accuses Matt Hagen of SA. Obviously SA is a very controversial topic so I understand why it has soured the movie.

Upon rewatch, I think this trope actually isn't present.

Initially, the false accusation from the mob girlfriend did rub me wrong. However, the movie establishes that Szabo (her boyfriend) is the one wanting to destroy Matt's career for disrespecting him, not the girlfriend. Szabo pushes a broader campaign to ruin Matt's reputation and credibility in the court case, and the SA allegations are just one part of that.

**I think the movie touches on male SA topics as well. In the first scene where Matt meets the mobster's girlfriend, he says he is "scared" of her and tries to get back to his friend. At this point she gives him a drug; he becomes visibly inebriated, ignores all warnings about the woman's identity and sleeps with her. To me, this comes off as SA. (Also the mob boss himself makes a joke about raping Matt.)

So yes, even though the mob girlfriend IS an awful person, she only accuses him because she has to prevent her boyfriend from going to jail. She is not the "malicious woman" who is the mastermind behind Matt's smear campaign, as the trope usually insinuates.

I would add that Matt isn't innocent either, at least, not until the end of the movie.

This is when he forces himself onto his doctor after killing her fiance. At this point he's deluded into thinking that their love is mutual, and has lost his mind due to the nanobots.

Also, some people are saying that there were other SA accusations from Matt's past, coming from his friends. WHERE ARE THESE? They just talked about how Matt wasn't credible, and speculated that the fame might have gotten to him. NO other mentions of SA by Matt were made. I think Matt was just an arrogant and cocky guy at the beginning of the movie, nothing else.

Even though I'm not mad at how they handled SA topics, I REALLY wish the writer/directors hadn't ventured into this territory because it's so controversial and isn't that accurate to the source material. Plus there are so many misinterpretations from viewers already.

This was just a very strange characterization choice that is hard to untangle.

I've made it no secret I'm pissed at Seven Haven's post-apocalyptic setting and Korra's name being mud now. Admittedly, I haven't watched it yet, so I can't comment on the quality or the plot or anything, but I'm just so fucking pissed off that I can't bring myself to (yeah yeah, call me a larper if you wish, but at least I'm not pretending I have watched it and I'm an authority on the subject).

And I'm so confused. Most people I've seen seem to be totally cool with it. Everyone's fine. Even before the show premiered, everyone was saying stuff like, "Oh, something like this was destined to happen," or "Happy endings don't exist in real life; it's normal."

I am so confused by this.

Because literally every other time something like this has happened, fans have gotten pissed and have largely rejected outcomes like this, pointing out how bullshit it is.

Star Wars is probably the prime example of this. We're still getting people complaining about how the events of the OT were rendered meaningless by the sequel trilogy and how it all ending like it did damaged the franchise in the long term.

Even My Little Pony got complaints about this when G5 revealed all of Twilight Sparkle's hard work was undone...by her.

And then there are other cases like Terminator and Dragon Age.

But Avatar renders all of Korra and Aang's work meaningless in the new show by destroying the world, and now the Avatar is remembered as a symbol of destruction instead of hope, and the majority opinion seems to be that people are fine with it!?

And every time I've tried to talk about how bullshit this is, I get shouted down like I'm the stupid one.

I don't get it.

What's given Avatar the free pass?

I think batman is most interesting when he works mostly independently, batman's persona of a symbol of fear for the villains of Gotham.

Like genuinely I feel like after the events of Death In the Family, Batman should never take another side kick. In this way Dick Grayson and Barbara Gordon remain independent characters and Batman doesn't wind up with 30 different side kicks but somehow Gotham is still crime infested.

Yes this is ANOTHER rant about Helluva Boss. But I really do not care, I just want to get this out of my system because this might be the worst retcon I've seen in ages and I keep up with Genshin Impact.

I'm sure this entire subreddit knows what Stolas and Stolitz are due to the several rants that have appeared. Most of what you've heard is true: Stolas made a deal where Blitz gets his grimoire to go to the human world in exchange for Blitz having sex with him. Later on the deal falls apart as they both realize they want more than sex and actually do have romantic feelings for each other. Both suck at communicating and it all blows up into a who did what to who and Stolas becoming straight up unbearable towards Blitz due to Blitz (rightfully) holding him accountable for the class difference and how Stolas never really pays attention to his feelings.

But here's the thing with Stolas: the story explains his behavior by revealing that Blitz was his only and first childhood friend as a kid hence why Stolas got so obsessed with him. He's also been isolated and abused for his entire life and thus his only really experience for a proper romantic relationship are rom coms and fairytales, so he doesn't quite understand how real relationships work and that there's no perfect fairy tale ending. Blitz was also the first one to make Stolas feel loved and wanted, albeit through sex, which is another reason why Stolas went so crazy over him. For once Stolas was finally getting to discover himself and while none of his actions with the deal were ever ok they did make sense for his character. Seems understandable right?

Then season three happened and we got introduced to Vassago, an old friend of Stolas's. Introducing an old friend this late on was already somewhat contradicting Stolas's backstory and narrative but it didn't feel that bad. But then out of nowhere it was revealed that Vassago and Stolas were lovers during their teen years and almost ran away together before Stolas decided that he was bound to his position. So not only was Blitz not Stolas's gay awakening that allowed him to discover himself and not only was he the only friend Stolas had as a kid who he hyperfixtated on for years, there was this other character the entire time who was even more important to Stolas and awakened him. This makes the (already incredibly weak and badly written) bond between Blitz and Stolas make way less sense and completely retcons Stolas's entire narrative. He's no longer a loner who idealizes fairy tales and rom coms and believes that everything will play out like one, this is someone whose been in an actual romantic relationship before and knows how to behave in one and that things don't always work out with a happily ever after. He's not finally awakening and asking all of these questions about himself, he already did that years earlier. This one singular retcon erased both Stolas's entire narrative and any justification (as if there even was any to begin with) anyone has for his actions.

And here's the thing: I get what they wanted to do. Blitz also had a close friend as a child that he was in love with and obviously they wanted to parallel that with Vassago. But the difference between Vassago and Fizzarolli's roles in the narrative is night and day: Fizz was introduced in the second episode of the show and they very clearly ebstablished that he had a history with Blitz. On top of that Fizz strengthens Blitz's narrative and helps explain why Blitz is too terrified to let himself love anyone again after the fire. Vassago is just a poorly thought-out retcon that only exists because the writing team wanted to create more relationship drama between Blitz and Stolas because god forbid we don't focus on Stolitz having drama for one second. This show desperately needed a continuity supervisor, or for the writers to at the very least rewatch their own show before writing new episodes. It's one thing to do a retcon early on when you're still figuring stuff out and it's another to do one during season three and completely retcon the entire narrative of the deuteragonist for no good reason. RIP Stolas Goetia, I'm still mourning the character you could've been.

My tier list ranking of deaths I felt bad about in Part II

\*\*S Tier:\*\*

Jesse, poor guy got done so dirty and never got referenced again beyond his parents and potential naming of baby JJ.

Yara, poor girl she just wanted herself and Lev to be safe at all costs and was pragmatic enough to know they needed Abby and that going back for their mom was a bad idea. She took out Isaac too which is a big W.

Also Simon and Paige Vicker, the couple killed by scars whilst searching for medicine for Paige’s sickness as honourable off screen mentions.

\*\*A Tier:\*\*

Mel, also done incredibly dirty. Boyfriend didn’t give a shit about her pregnancy and was initially planning to abandon their baby to chase fireflies and later tried to get her to go on a suicide mission with him to war zone haven to try save Abby. Him attempting to intervene in the interrogation scene got them both killed, I can’t really see Ellie killing Mel after getting the info, probably pistol whipping which is consequence free in this universe.

Also in A tier we have the WLF deserters who thought Ellie was sent to hunt them down. I wish we could have had some dialogue like perhaps if you leave one alive and cripple them Ellie says shes not a wolf and you can either leave them there or kill them etc.

\*\*B Tier\*\*

Owen as he was arguably the nicest person in salt lake crew as a personality and not a violent douchebag. My praise. For him begins and ends there.

Joel. So sad for him to go but I completely understand the motivation of Abby. I have some gripes with how this game was written but this isn’t one of them.

The WLF defectors. I so wish there was a way you could have talked to them or even perhaps if you got them down to last one standing and shot their leg, during the brief ‘any last words?’ Moment you find out the truth about each other.

\*\*C Tier\*\*

Nora only because of how badly she went out but otherwise, the minute she tried to use PTSD no Jutsu on Ellie I felt like she had what was coming for her and I don’t think not letting us see the death was very effective given what she said pissed players off. Ellie needed info and had to force it out of her. Also I’ve played God of War and Ellie’s POV torture sequence is…not the most brutal is all I’ll say.

Manny I didn’t really care about much he seemed entertaining to be around and he has a dialogue line where his VA sounded British for some reason when he asks ‘where did he go?’ but I was happy Tommy got the W. No offence to Manny but seeing Tommy trick and no scope headshot someone was peak cinema.

Every dog. Alice, Bear, any dog named or otherwise unamed in C tier alongside their handlers (unless said handler is a rattler, in which case dog stays C but handler goes to F). The dogs mission is to maul you to death and therefore survival of the fittest may the best fighter wins applies. The idea that ‘in another life they’d love you!’ doesn’t really matter here because you can easily argue that almost anyone would be. I’m sure Whitney and Ellie would be video game besties outside the apocalypse.

\*\*F Tier\*\*

Fuck Jordan and his bitch ass lmaoo, should have joined the seraphites with that scar on his face. Salt Lake crew are meant to be all besties and this guy casually pulled a gun on Owen for saying they should all go home? Him and Danny better cosy up in their slot in TLOU hell lmaoo.

Everyone of the Rattlers. Post apocalyptic enslaving scum.

Leah was a non character practically for me and just needed for Ellie to get info and pictures. Also she had a thing with Jordan which is the greatest mark against her character.

Who the HELL is Nick???? First two playthroughs I had I thought I missed something or the implication was he was always an off screen chatacter, idk why they bothered to have him.

lets be real here korra and asami barely interacted with each other

even as friends ( korra didnt show strong platonic feelings for asami ) the most you have is korra sending asami a letter to vent ( which doesnt portray korra as closer to asami ) and korra blushing at a compliment which she did to

what we have seen of their respective personalities and needs would saythey are incompatible

the whole attempts to use censorship as an excuse comes offf as desperation because even byitself

makorras strength in their bond how mako showed

he can support korra when she needed it and he consistently saw her as a person ( bryke claimed miyazaki platonic bond but that doesnt work with outside romantic relationship

bryke admitted to only bothering to ask when the finale was almost finished

so it reads like this near the finale they thought how could they not include lgbt rep ( or decided to raise the shows ratings with a publicity stunt since they were planning to end the show with korra single ) a

and then they pretend like they planned it nowing how the yuri crowd will get and will shield it from criticism since they were already seeing any positive moment as evidence for relationship

they will shield it because its the only same sex ship when so what it doesnt change the fact it didnt deserve to happen and damages narrative (its like if atla ended with aang suddenly ending up with some random girl ( like the girl from the headband) he barely interacted with . makorra is the kataang of atla

or trying to downplay makorras bond ( even trying to go but they broke up in b2 when neither of them were ready for a relationship with anyone and they overcame the mutual flaws that caused the breakup

https://ikkinthekitsune.tumblr.com/post/124974796098/structural-shortcomings-of-the-shipping

mako took all the roles of a love interest in b4

Or, Why Mako Stole the Love Interest Role in Book 4

One of the responses I received in regards to my post about my boyfriend’s reaction to the final scene really stuck out to me, because it reminded me of how easy it was to interpret Mako and Korra’s final scene together as romantic before the final scene came around and threw a monkey wrench into that interpretation.

So, I got to thinking. Why does a scene with no specifically-romantic elements feel like it could double as a romantic conclusion to Mako and Korra’s arc? (And why is this so frequently true of “Miyazaki-type” relationships?)

What I came up with was this: Mako and Korra’s final scene together serves all of the narrative goals usually served by a romantic relationship. (Korra and Asami’s, in contrast, serves basically none of them.)

As far as I can tell, there are two main purposes to ending an action story with romance:

To guarantee happiness for the hero in a way that maintains continuity with the journey that said hero had just completed. Heroes’ lives inevitably change drastically after the end of their journeys, but completing a romance arc is a way to build their happy endings out of what came before.

To validate the hero by showing that they’re at a point in their development where they’re able to take hold of that guarantee of happiness. Even when the love interest is basically a trophy, the fact that they find the hero attractive is meant to show how much the hero has grown… and when they’re not, the fact that they end up with the hero shows that the hero grew past either flaws that were keeping them apart as a couple or insecurities that precluded any meaningful relationship.

And, in a real sense, Mako’s final scene with Korra does both of those things.

As far as 1) is concerned… just look at Mako’s final lines. “I want you to know, I’ll follow you into battle no matter how crazy things get. I’ve got your back, and I always will” (emphasis mine).

Outside of an outright proposal… it’s pretty hard to make a stronger declaration of eternal support. =P “Always” is a big word. “Always” is the Happily Ever After. Mako gets the “always;” Asami gets a “maybe?”

Things get a little more complex in terms of 2), but here’s where the comparison to their struggles in Book 2 come into play. Korra has, of course, grown a lot since she basically demanded unconditional support while acting recklessly. And, because of that, I’m not sure Mako would have been able to say this back then. These two lines requires a level of trust in Korra’s judgment that wouldn’t have been possible without her growth, and they reflect an understanding that being out there on the battlefield is a huge part of who Korra is. As such, this scene is the only scene Korra gets with her allies that actually validates her (alongside the scene with Korra and Kuvira in the Spirit World); the final scene with Asami has almost nothing to do with Korra and her growth if it’s meant to be romantic (as opposed to her trying to console a friend whose father just died =P ).

Of course, this isn’t the only way that Mako steals the love interest role, even in the finale – he’s the one whose concern is put front and center when Korra’s missing, for instance. Beyond the Wilds had him take this role, too, developing him into the one figure of support who Korra could actually count on to be what she needed on a consistent basis (in contrast to Tenzin, who showed way too much doubt in her way too often, and Asami, who didn’t seem to have any idea that trying to undercut Korra’s self-doubt was just making things worse). He’s the one warding off Wu’s obnoxious crush. He’s the one Korra trusts with the most vital role in taking down the Colossus. He’s the one who discusses his relationship with Korra and his admiration of her for eleven minutes straight during the recap episode. ( I mean mako consistently showed he saw korra the person and got a speech on korra the person while asami failed in helping korra going youre the avatar of course we need you and tenzin succeeded by pointing at her growth as a person

( plus asami shows she handles things with praise while mako and tenzin succeded with validation

It really isn’t surprising that the relationship between Korra and Asami seemed nearly non-existent… regardless of what the writers intended, Mako stole every scene that seemed designed to feature a love interest and left Asami with nothing but scraps. =

https://www.tumblr.com/ikkinthekitsune/117161039837?source=share

to be blunt korra going on a vacation when she spent the whole time training to get back her gumption is so ooc that the only explanation is she is still having issues

https://www.tumblr.com/ikkinthekitsune/106752202173/i-honestly-dont-believe-korra-and-asami-are-going?source=share

I want Korra to be happy, and I don't believe for one second that she'd be happy in a romantic relationship with Asami.  =P  I don't believe for one second that Mako would be happy with Korra and Asami together, either; he seemed to care too much for Korra to be satisfied with second-class relationship status.  (Remember when he slept under his desk because he felt so awkward around Korra after their breakup?  Yeah...  =/ )

To be perfectly honest, the only way that Korra and Asami wouldn't have issues in their relationship is if they went majorly out-of-character for each other.

In the simplest terms, Korra runs hot and cold while Asami needs warmth and stability. 

Korra is, above all, driven -- she's passionate about what she wants, but also inclined towards pragmatic valuation and emotional compartmentalization in her efforts to achieve her goals.  She's the sort of person who, after seeing her father thrown off a cliff to his presumed death, would launch a sneak attack at a guy who just saw his girlfriend's head blow up.  She's the sort of person who wouldn't lose a step after one of her allies sacrificed themselves for her cause.  She's the sort of person who would set her romantic feelings aside without a second thought because there were more important things she had to do.

Asami, in contrast, is decidedly not that.  She's principled enough to fake it when her morals call for it, but Asami can't do or understand coldness.  She saw Mako's pragmatic request to deal with their Book 1 relationship after the situation with Amon was settled as a sign that he didn't really care about their relationship in the first place.  She sought out a romantic relationship with Mako again in Book 2 when it looked like her company was falling apart.  Her attempt to cut Hiroshi off in Book 4 completely backfired because she couldn't bear to hurt him in person like that, and she was upset with Korra for losing contact for so long even though she must have been consciously aware that Korra had a good reason for it.

In other words, Korra and Asami shouldn't work for the same reasons that Mako and Asami didn't work -- Asami has emotional needs that an intensely pragmatic individual could never meet.

also I feel korra and kuvira emotional closeness and stuff wil lcause tension for asami and korra

• We never see Korra show any romantic interest in Asami until that final scene.  Her actions and behavior throughout the rest of the season become significantly more consistent if you assume that she went along with Asami’s obvious interest because she felt bad about what happened.
• Korra doesn’t really act like herself around Asami and usually feels like she has to hold back when they’re together.  That’s neither healthy nor a good sign for a lasting relationship (see: Makorra in Book 2, before Mako realized it was possible to disagree with people who you don’t intend to burn bridges with).

And, as a result, I don't believe for one second that Asami would ever be happy in the long run, either.  As the characters are written, a relationship between Korra and Asami isn't a happy ending for anyone.

Why would Korrasami not last?

it’s more that the ship only makes sense under the assumption that Korra has changed from who she used to be in a way that I absolutely am not willing to accept (i.e. she’s more insecure, more apologetic, more afraid to upset people she likes, less forward with her feelings, less assertive, and less passionate and its an idea I cant accept

( plus korras line about compassion ticked me off for she was always compassionate

and

"Korra and Mako: Romantic, platonic, it doesn’t matter, and that’s kind of the point – they don’t need to be looking for romance to care about each other more than pretty much anyone else.  I love how supportive Mako is, how much they help each other grow, how they balance each other out, and how natural their dynamic is with each other.  Mako’s one of the few people who consistently insists that he cares about Korra-the-person instead of just Korra-the-Avatar, and he’s one of the few people who understands that sometimes, she just needs space to handle things on her own.  Their last scene together would have been perfect, if the show had ended in any other way.

"

lets be real here asami was a blad character who was constantly sidelined since b1 she had no development but she gets worshipped ffor the last couple minutes and being generically nice

(if korra was a guy everyone would be calling korrasami as just being a generic love interest and makorra being superior for asami showed she cant support korraa

( no amount of citing makos mistakes in first half changes the facts