lalala

oathbreaker_cary on IG

Video description: A Black man wearing elf ears and dreads and a bandana on his head, pretending to talk to another person. Onscreen text in white says: "I'm Three Drinks Deep at the Elfsong Tavern and Someone Mentions Wyll Ravengard." The angle changes several times and Cary gets more and more animated as he speaks.

Transcription: (sounds of people talking)

Oh nonono, I'm jumping in here. I'm jumping in here because I read the piece in the Gazette, the piece on Wyll Ravengard.

Offscreen voice: Whaddya mean?

You can't slander this man.

Offscreen voice: What're you talking about?

Cary: You can't slander him. No but hear me - hear me well: he was banished from the city by his father at 17. Mind you, he protected the city from a cult of Tiamat. Tiamat cultists. You know where Tiamat was? SHE'S IN HELL. They tried to bring her to Baldur's Gate, and he stopped it. He stopped it! Nono and see this is why you backed Gortash, cuz you lack critical thinking.

Offscren voice: I don't see how that's relevant (repeats)

Cary: You do. You do. You simply do. You- you're completely mischaracterizing this man: he had every chance to just be evil. He coulda been a piece of shit, but he chose light. Where there is surely a path of darkness, he chose light every single time. For 7 years, he went and made a name for himself. As a hero - the Blade of Frontiers. For 7 years.

7 years, a devil in his ear, trying to sway him to a path of darkness, surely. And yet he chose the path of heroism. And you- and you- and you're calling him a fraud? Wyll Ravengard is NOT a fraud. Lorroakan? Fraud. Wyll Ravengard is not a fraud! Not only - not only does he save Baldur's Gate 7 years ago - when he was a teenager, ok? But he comes back with a band of ragtag heroes and helps protect the city from a cultist? The Absolute cultists?

dunmer ladies

After a drink at the tavern, I sometimes come out to the terrace for a breath of night air.

Behind me, all that raucous laughter... and above me, the quiet stars. Finding a place where both atmospheres coexist so perfectly — now that's a rare delight.

You feel the same way? Heh. So we're kindred spirits after all.

& war paint vers

While many have declared it a 'Love Letter' to the novel, I couldn't disagree more. It's not an unfaithful adaptation because the film made changes. It's because of what it changed and why.

At first I was enraged, now I’m just sad how her book was butchered to the point of completely missing the themes of it. How a man can warp a woman’s suffering and talent to fit his own narrative.

I don’t have anyone else to talk to about this so I just want to pick up a point that I thought was going to be fantastically subtle foreshadowing and was so let down when it wasn’t

When Creature was lightly touching Elizabeth’s neck and she was explaining that’s where the sound comes from I genuinely thought that was setting him up to strangle her later in the film and I thought it was going to be a great juxtaposition, and it made me really disappointed when it didn’t happen!

YES!! That would have been great foreshadowing—if only the film hadn't been trying to recreate a The Shape of Water-lite by doing the bare minimum.🙃*cough*

Seriously though, the amount of missed opportunities the film had with their own version of Elizabeth is astounding to me. It really felt like they were setting her up to be revealed as a morally ambiguous character; her wanting to trap the butterfly, her contradictory nature, her obvious romantic interest in The Creature despite him being… well, essentially a child.

And yet...

(Oh boy, you're in for it now cupidskissx!🤣)

It's such a shame, because I really think film-Elizabeth as an almost-villain could've been so interesting, especially considering how they were already representing her.

For example, take the moment with the butterfly—an insect she supposedly loves and yet chose to trap. Now, imagine if this had been a foreshadowing decision, and the film had wanted to use it as a way to demonstrate her belief that 'trapping' is how love is expressed; after all, that's what was always done to her, right?

Now, imagine if her love for the Creature mirrored this moment. If she had fallen for the Creature and wanted him in chains... because she knows what's best for him, of course! She would never take advantage of him, she's a good person, you see. She just wants him safe... by being trapped... just like the butterfly... just like her...

If the film had done something like that, trapping the butterfly would've then been a framing device that actually made sense. However, as it stands in the film's canon, the trapped butterfly metaphor falls flat because it would have only worked as a metaphor if Elizabeth had chosen to free it after she found the Creature in chains... But she didn't bloody do that, did she?! 😤And because of that narrative neglect, the whole butterfly bullshit is now a contradiction of her character! AHHH—

Mate, they could've even gone one step further—if they really wanted to be brave—and made a strong, controversial, conversation-sparking statement about abuse by framing her romantic interest in the Creature as deliberately predatory, not as just accidentally coming off that way. It could've represented an abusive carer dynamic and given the film's infantilisation of the Creature some deeper reason. It would've even dug deeper into that whole “hurt people hurt people” cycle-of-abuse shit that they loved so much.

...BUT NO!!😫