BOOXMOWO

The way at the start of the musical everyone's fear of Ella was rooted in the idea that she was tainted by her mother's witchcraft, but what ultimately saves Ella is stepping into her mother's footsteps. The fall of House Ashmore started with Lady Ashmore performing a ritual underneath the old oak, and so the end of the tragedy comes the same way.

Hey, Melissa! is not a script that gets labeled as "the bad one" for simply being creepy and unsettling, it is a script that gets labeled as "the creepy and unsettling one" due to simply being bad.

I don't think Hey, Melissa! is actually more disturbing than e.g. Jane's a Car or Perky's Buds, I think it's bad for subtle reasons that I'm constantly tempted to describe as a general "lack of being good". I think people watch it, don't get the usual dopamine rush from seeing familiar Hatchetfield characters, and then when attempting to explain why they didn't like it the only thing that sticks out to them is that the human pet stuff is really weird.

i agree with the lack of usual dopamine rush attached to beloved hatchetfield characters though. somehow all of them (except maybe ted) feel ooc in that script.

in addition to that, the ending is just terrible. it really doesn’t sit well with me. i can handle the weird horror, but i don’t like the abused choosing to go back to the abuser. that’s not horror, that’s real life and depressing.

The rest of the cast it kind of feels like their characterizations and dynamics are shifted to what they need to be to move the plot where it's going. Given that this actually is a script that got cancelled and then dug up to serve as bonus material it's very possible that they gave up on it so early that it's been through fewer drafts than a normal episode would go through. It's also possible that the inability to get the plot moving in the intended direction without distorting the characters was the reason it was scrapped.

But whether it's "the characters feel wrong because this is a much rougher draft than what usually reached production" or "this story was scrapped because the writers recognized how much the characters weren't working right in the storyline"... those are both reasons why counting it as canon doesn't feel right even in a weird multiverse continuity like Hatchetfield.

Hey, Melissa! is not a script that gets labeled as "the bad one" for simply being creepy and unsettling, it is a script that gets labeled as "the creepy and unsettling one" due to simply being bad.

I don't think Hey, Melissa! is actually more disturbing than e.g. Jane's a Car or Perky's Buds, I think it's bad for subtle reasons that I'm constantly tempted to describe as a general "lack of being good". I think people watch it, don't get the usual dopamine rush from seeing familiar Hatchetfield characters, and then when attempting to explain why they didn't like it the only thing that sticks out to them is that the human pet stuff is really weird.

Fennel and Lloyd Webber looked at Cinderella and apparently saw a stereotypical makeover story about a woman needing to change her looks to be desirable, and then made their whole musical a counterpoint to that. That's an angle that's really not even applicable the fairy tale; Cinderella gets a "makeover" because she has never even been allowed to have nice clothes. But regardless it leaves the whole thing very confused at every point as to whether it's telling the story of Cinderella or a deliberate counternarrative to Cinderella.

The Lang brothers looked at Cinderella and recognized that it was largely a story about a survivor escaping her abusers and getting a break of good karma. They introduced a lot of their own dark fantasy elements but everything changed in the story was still in service of making Ella's eventual victory over her stepmother more cathartic.

The entire description of her character is "girl" and her role in the plot is simply "- dies". I don't know, I guess because I like Lucy Westenra as Bram Stoker wrote her it feels weird seeing her reduced to... no... originate as a simple two word entry in a list. On the other hand there's no way this is an unusual way to come up with characters; you write the barest outline of their role first and then flesh them out later, and that includes inventing characters for the sole purpose of dying.

But on a sort of meta level it makes me feel sad for Lucy Westenra the completely fictional woman, because she was always going to die. Like, not just independent of any choices she could make, but independent even of what sort of person she was. She was destined to die because she was invented to die.

girl - dies

She is a girl, a simple fact that is of course established immediately within her introduction to the story. She dies, an event that by definition happens to her only at the end of her role in the story. All other features of her as a character can only happen in between.

Dracula is one of the most adapted storylines in all of English literature and by proxy Lucy Westenra, though she doesn't appear in every version of Dracula, has been adapted to film, television, theatre, etc. dozens and dozens of times. And honestly, the various adaptations of Lucy are often so different in personality from each other that it does feel like "girl - dies" is the core of her identity. Every new writer/director has their own take on who this girl is and why she dies.

Main Story: you are tasked with slowly unraveling one of the most fucked-up family histories on the planet and read on with horrified fascination, culminating in a powerful message that's very touching and REALLY hits home in the current political climate

Guy Hudson in The Roottrees are Dead: He got promoted to company president instead of Ernie Jr. due to some behind the scenes family politics, did a terrible job of it for a little less than five years, then died. That's it. One of the key hints in placing him on the family tree is simply that his obituary says he and his wife had no children when they died.

Diffocod: It’s a cod, which obviously makes it a water type, but it also either differs or is difficult. Actually I’m gonna go with Diffocod differ in ways that are difficult to tell. It has a bunch on minor form difference a la Spinda. It’s Water/Psychic I’ve decided. Diffocod possess the mental prowess to immediately recognize all of their minor differences.

Firebermen: Is obviously a Fire type. But also... fibers... and “men” is plural implying that this is one of Falinks-Tandemaus sort of ones that is just straight up multiple creatures treated as a single Pokémon. I’m now imagining tiny men made of fire that are tied together by a fiber... that is also made of fire. Weird concept, hypothetical GameFreak, but okay. It’s a pure Fire type.

Nanarcer: Is, I think, an archer made of bananas? So primary grass (Oh hey we already have a starter trio (no we don’t, Firebermen and Diffocod are definitely single stage Pokémon)) and... I’m feeling Fighting as the secondary type here. Yeah this isn’t a starter either this is the Bounsweet/Smoliv kind of Pokémon, it’s earliest stage is a banana with a face and it gets more humanoid as it evolves.

Exulation: Oh man this one doesn’t give any hints towards what kind of creature it is. I believe it’s a pun on “Exhalation”, so it’s primary characteristic is that it breathes out... I think it’s a Fairy type, and there’s some sort of magical property that occurs every time it breathes, but I really can’t guess what the thing actually looks like.

Sweeze: Another Fairy type. A funny little trickster made out of candy. Bet it’s gonna get a weird signature move that makes it really good in competitive and then we get a ton of memes about how, like. Tyrannitar and Grimmsnarl are scared of Sweeze.

Barbon: Is a fish but actually it’s not a Water-type, it’s Steel/Dark. Wait this is treading really closely to Overqwil in terms of concept, maybe it shouldn’t be a fish? Hmm... maybe the execution will be different enough.

Browbedably: Oh man what a name. But it’s a portmanteau of “Browbeat” and “Dabble”, so this is like, a really overbearing artist? I’m now imagining it as as a sort of jerk version of Smeargle, so I think it’s another breed of dog and is a Dark type.

Strisitor: Portmanteau of stride and visitor. This is definitely a mid-stage one. It’s first and third forms have more descriptive puns involving the word stride, and so it needs to incorporate the same word and so we get “Strisitor”. It’s a bird, but a bird that prefers to run so I don’t know if it should be a Flying type. You know what maybe Strisitor is a pure Normal type, but I think it’s evolved form is going to add something to it that gives it a secondary type.

Wishine: Is a shiny coin that evolves into a wishing well. Or maybe they aren’t literally a coin and a well, but they have those motifs. In fact, they’re actually fish. Yes this is the third fish line in this post but in my defense there really are a lot of fish Pokémon. Wishine is pure Water type.

Quartwish: Wait I actually hadn’t read this one when I wrote Wishine’s description, is this Wishine’s evolved form? Okay. Quart in this context is a unit of volume, a reference to quarters, and a reference to quartz, because Quartwish is a Water/Rock type. Quartwish carries a basin filled with water and Wishines wherever it goes.

Prinvaully: Is a portmanteau of prince and volley. This Pokémon has a regal motif and throws things. It’s not the fully evolved form, because that ones name is gonna be a pun on “King”. Prinvaully is... a Steel type, not really based on an animal. It’s got a crown but the crown is actually a part of it’s body and similarly shaped spikes grow on the rest of the body and get used as ammunition instead.

Trifies: Huh. Trifies, Trifies, Trifies... There’s a specific vibe to this name, but it’s really hard to figure out what words it might be playing on. Maybe “trifle” but that doesn’t tell me much. ... I think it’s a Fairy type, and I think it isn’t fully evolved and I... can’t tell you much more.

Sumentfurtific: Umm... does this one even fit in the character limit? No it doesn’t it’s 14 characters long. Illegal Pokémon name. Anyway. Sumentfurtific is ground. Like not just that’s it’s type, Sumentfurtific is literally just a soil layer. I uhh... don’t know what it looks like when you send it out onto the battlefield. Sumentfurtific is not allowed to exist, so it doesn’t need to make sense.

Apporins: This Pokémon’s entire reason for existing is a stupid pun on the phrase “comparing apples and oranges”, and to be clear, that is a compliment. This a third branch of the Applin family, where the wyrm starts inhabiting an orange instead so that it can know what it’s like and my god that is stupid but that’s what Apporins is and you know what this might be my favourite on this list GameFreak please turn Apporins into a real thing. It isn’t even a different type from Applin’s other evolutions, this is just straight up a third Grass/Dragon final form of the same family.

Powean: ... I think this one is Prinvaully’s evolution. It’s a pun on “queen”, not “king” like I thought it would be. Yeah I guess “prince” and “princess” both start with “prin”. My bad. Still pure steel type. It grows even more menacing spikes and an even more impressive crown.

Founty: It found you and now is ready to collect you’re bounty, heh. This one is just a sendup to westerns in terms of it’s personality, which is pretty funny. It’s a Dark type, due to the grey morality of the archetype its aping. This one is based on an animal, but it’s gonna be something entirely unrelated to westerns that the designer just thought would look cool.

Sankle: Water/Ground. Quicksand Pokémon. It is a pit, that you sank into, up to you’re ankle.

Aerocioundly: Was worried this was another Sumentfurtific situation, but no it’s 12 characters that’s allowed. Crisis averted. So obviously this is a Flying type. In fact I think a pure Flying type. Windy thing.

Derphitiges: Oh that is a weird name. It’s Bug/Rock. It’s like a termite but it eats rocks instead of wood.