Hey so I'm gonna be very very honest here.
And this is going to make a lot of people very angry to hear.
But a lot of y'all on this website are truly deeply genuinely never going to be capable of any kind of real narrative analysis--and I don't mean 'being right all the time' I mean 'meaningfully engaging with the text in any way'--
Because you are, fundamentally, incapable of comprehending that writers usually do things on purpose.
The themes are there on...purpose.
The match cuts were meticulously designed and put there to communicate something.
The VA's delivery of a line was being directed. Inflection and tone change the meaning of dialogue. This is intentional. There are entire teams of people shaping those choices and deciding which take to use based on what works best for the story.
Information is being revealed in a specific order, on purpose, to craft an emotional arc and guide the audience's understanding.
A character's romantic preferences are only, and SHOULD only be, their primary motivation if the genre is romance. That is why there is a genre called that. Most stories are other genres.
Creators who dislike a character generally give them LESS attention, MORE boring storylines, and LESS screentime.
Sometimes curtains are just blue. But if the shot composition or written narration takes time to HIGHLIGHT, especially more than once, that the curtains are blue, then the blueness of the curtains is by definition narratively important.
"Cite your sources" is not a witch's curse that banishes People With Different Opinions to the shadowrealm of Being Wrong. Someone making points that challenge your perceptions, while including screenshots and explicit examples, cannot be dismissed with "cite your sources" because they are literally doing that. Don't @ me on this one I've seen shit in the wars, y'all.
Failing to understand these things WILL bar you from ever really engaging with or understanding any narrative more complicated than Paw Patrol for the rest of your life.
I am very sorry if that makes you angry.
This post is fantastic. The notes are truly incredible.
OP: you guys are never going to be able to meaningfully engage with story and character analysis if you cant understand or aren't willing to even consider the context within writers create their stories and the intention behind characters actions and motivations, which are intentional and complex. Not everything begins and ends with romance and relationships, in fact most stories outside of the romance genre feature more complex themes and motivations than straightforward romance and romantic love. Sorry if that makes you mad.
Everyone in the notes: ... I am overwhelmed with fury over this ridiculous and incomprehensible statement, how dare you. Many genres focus on romance, have you never watched a movie? There is always romance. Why would you say only the romance genre should include romance. I will not engage any further with what you said or consider additional context.
Shout-out to the person who said that romance is the primary motivation of many characters outside of the romance genre, and the example that they gave for this was.... Glenn Close, in Fatal Attraction.
.... you know I do think there may have been something more significant than romantic attraction motivating this character, who is a violent obsessive stalker. In fact, it could be something a little more... fatal?
Part of me wonders what they thought of the movie Obsession, but mostly I am too afraid to ask.





















