木下百合

on survival

anon, you could have spared yourself, but you just had to ask. no worries! 

so as the khr series goes on, the art improves, but the first several episodes of the anime are — mm, not too bad, i guess, for the most part. that is until episode five: an episode with such infamously terrible animation, it became a lasting cross-cultural khr fandom meme (that even other series referenced!) 

the poster child of which is this very unfortunate frame of gokudera, nicknamed “gowadera” 

(and his lesser known cousin, “yabamoto”) 

(hibari looks dodgy too, but he’s not made fun of as much for fear of coming alive from the screen and biting the viewers to death) 

the episode was fixed for the dvd release, but still. 

the ghost of gowadera haunts us to this day. 

(bonus badly drawn lambo) 

1 edit per chapter;

Silver cybersigilism chrome tribal pngs!

If you use pinterest, check out my main account at magicloopsdotart

Three

In Japanese, we can get a person's character and personality by the way of speaks. How about:

Basil

First person : "Sessha"

Second person : "Onushi"

On the whole : Old-fashioned, Polite, Solid

Well, I see that there are already a few words here that need some explanation. He is one of the most unique way of speaking characters in the cannon. Let's talk about the overall impression first, leaving the too complicated Japanese explanation for later.

He uses honorifics even children and people close to his age. His speaking is very polite, soft, and dependable. He may seem a bit reserved, but we can feel it is based on his calmness. He appears to be mature, but it sometimes appear youthfulness that is appropriate for his age. Especially against his enemy, he uses dashing words or second/third person pronounce. It never rough, but there is a pure impression. But that never detracts from his politeness.

And here comes the unique part. Let me explain each of the old-fashioned words he uses.

I want to talk a bit about media creation this week. Mostly because I want these blogs then to be a reference for whenever that discussion comes up again. Because, frankly, I am very tired of people not understanding - and not caring - about how many people it actually takes to make most media they consume.

We see that both when a piece of media succeeds - and when a piece of media flops or is heavily critisized. In both cases both the general public and also fans will usually latch onto one or two people involved in the production to be deserving of either all the praise or all the blame. Usually this is the person with most name recognition, or, if there is nobody like that involved, a general idea of "the writer(s)" or "the director", because while a lot of folks do not quite know what is in the control of either role, it feels kinda right that they should be able to have the most say about the outcome.

And don't get me wrong: There definitely are examples of media where indeed it was the writer(s), director, or whatever person with most name recognition making a project fail or succeed. And yes, this even goes so far as including actors. I can think of at least two movies where an actor, who was very full of themselves, made it almost impossible to work on a set. Just as I can think of examples, where a project would have failed without an actor putting all their name recognition and everything behind it to secure enough money to actually finish production.

But most of the time... It is a lot more complicated than that.

General rule: If a piece of media is not a self-published published book or comic, there is definitely more than one person involved into having gotten that piece of media onto the market.

Yes, even with a book. Sure, generally speaking, an author is allowed to ignore any advice given to them by an editor and publisher, unless their contract states something else (which it rarely does, because publishing industry standards). Does not mean that writers do. And yes, I know definitely cases where at least in my view editors have made books worse - often by pressing for more traditional climaxes of books that originally did not have such a thing. (You know, at times you can resolve the tension in certain books without a big BOOM. But I definitely know a lot of editors who will at least advice authors to do an action finale in a fantasy or scifi book, rather than one where characters talk that shit out.)

And of course, once we are talking "multimedia" there is gonna be a whole lot of people involved. If you have ever sat down to watch that by now 10 minute long credit roll of a movie or game, you know how many people there are. And... yeah, often not everyone gets credited. Because other wise those credits would be 20 minutes.

Of course, of those often hundreds of people, most do not have the kind of power over the project to make it either become amazing, nor fail. Neither the single accountant, nor the gaffer, nor the catering service will probably majorly influence the outcome of a project. But there are absolutely other people than just the director, the writer and the headline actors.

If we talk about both TV and movie production, it usually starts with a pitch or a script. Both are options - though the pitch will usually never get anywhere, unless there already is someone with a recognizable name and/or some influence attached. Though these days it is also very common that a pitch is: "Let's do a movie based on recognizable IP XYZ." At least when we are talking projects with some budget.

But let's not assume the "big budget" stuff for now. If it is not big budget, it usually starts with a script. And that script is gonna get sent into with a variety of producers. Most of them will usually put those scripts right into the trash, because they might on some days receive tens of those things. But some might read a script when it sounds interesting and if they see some promise, they might give some feedback for the writer to workshop it. Often it will get sent back and forth then, until the producer then goes to pitch it to investors and studios. And if the people involved are lucky, it is gonna get picked up.

Now, this is where a lot of people think the involvement of the writer ends - which studios will use to horribly underpay writers, mind you. But no, usually the writer is gonna be involved till the shooting is wrapped. You know why? Because no script will survive the reality of shooting or even just animation.

There is stuff that sounds amazing on paper, but just will not work in real life on set (or in the animation). Maybe a line sounds cool when written out, but once the actor says it, it sounds wrong. Maybe the writer imagined an amazing scene, but when they try to make it work, it won't because physics are a thing - and working against physics while possible does take more budget than a project eventually has. (Not to mention: In action heavy productions, there are enough writers that have learned to write in something across they lines of "they fight, X wins" and let the director, stunt coordinators, and actors/stunt people figure it out. I have seen fans of certain media rage about those "lazy writers", upon getting their hands on scripts, but... yeah, no this is actually a good practice, because those other people will usually have a better idea of what is possible than a writer.)

Also, directors and actors often have ideas about a story, and will want to change a scene or two.

If you have ever watched anything having to do with productions (no matter if movie or tv) you will have heard actors talk about receiving their pages for the shooting day early in the morning while in make up. That is because of those last minute changes. And that is why usually you do want to have writers involved in the production - and also why writers want writer rooms. Because two to three writers can mostly handle a movie, sure. But a TV production, that covers a lot more screentime in a few months of shooting/animating? You want more people working on it to make the daily adjustments.

And again: One of the main reasons why the writers guild was protesting last year was, that studios did a) not want a writers room (because more writers to pay) and b) actually did not want to pay the writers for those last minute adjustments during shooting. Which we hopefully can agree is very much unfair towards the writers.

The main director(s) will usually make a lot of decisions of course of how things happen on set or in the animation. Ideally a good director in this listens to the other specialists involved - though not all directors do, and in terms of certain productions recently (MCU *coughs*) often do not get the chance. But ideally they will get the input of actors, stunt people, the cinematographer, the people in command of set stuff, and also the people working on the visual effects. While the director(s) are definitely creative people and the role is a creative role, it is also very much a management thing, to get everyone onto the same page.

How much a director is involved in the pre-production (aka: getting an idea of the visual language, getting sets, costumes and whatever prepared, casting talent, getting the character and environment designs done, and so on) and the post-production (aka editing, visual effects, reshoots, retouching and so on) is very different depending on the project. Again, with Marvel Studios in recent years directors are usually only hired for the main production, with Marvel mainly taking care of both pre- and post-production, as most directors do not get to put in their unique creative style - it has to fit the brand after all. But even outside of Marvel it is also very dependent on the director and the kind of project it is, whether the director is heavily involved in this. Some directors will be sitting in the studio every day during post-production helping out whereever they can, others bring people for these things they trust and will only be on call, and some others will disappear on the last day of shooting.

And of course there is always the producers and executive producers. Every media project has them in some way or form. They are the people mainly there to secure funding and work as the communication line between the heads and board of a studio, and the creatives on set. As Guillermo del Toro once said (I am paraphrasing here): "A good producer is there, when you need them, but leaves you alone, when you don't." But... The higher the budget and investment, the worse the producer is usually by this metric.

Please note: By now it is fairly usual that at least big stars (both in terms of directing, and acting) will have their own production studio, and yes, also be credited as producers in a movie or TV show. However, as soon as there is more budget involved, that budget usually comes form a bigger studio or media conglomerate (like Disney, Netflix, Warner-Discovery and so on) and the producers who are responsible for the big investors in a project will have a lot more say. This might lead to something called "executive meddling" about what I am going to talk in two days.

And yes, before I forget. There is of course also game production, which usually is very different from anything else, because game productions most of the time do not start with a story concept, but rather with a general concept/game play concept. This might of course be different when you produce within established franchises, where people might expect a certain gameplay and your question is more what kinda story will allow that gameplay to happen again, but generally speaking: Gameplay will trump story in game productions.

But here is also the issue with game productions: These work very, very differently depending on what studio we are talking about. Sure, the AAA studios work in comparable ways, but everyone who isn't AAA has their unique style, because compared to every other form of media games are still fairly young as a form of media. And while for big budgeted releases certain "best practices" (given these will usually involve crunch for at several weeks) have been established that managers and investors will push for, smaller studios might well have their own best practices (that ideally will involve less crunch). But of course, with games the effect that there is not a single person or group of people to be praised/blamed for something being really amazing, or really bad, is even stronger, because usually game productions are more spread out and have a lot more moving parts that can make a thing really great or really bad.

Queerness is about rejecting those rules! Not about tying yourself up in new rules. When you think you might be less-than-straight try not to rush to find a label. You might end up with a new set of rules you box yourself into.

People get really hung up on the labels side of things- "Wait, am I still a lesbian if I only like dating girls but I have liked one guy and I have crushes on fictional men?" "am I bisexual if I'm a guy who only likes girls who look like boys or am I gay if I like that and I like anal sex??"

Just experience for a moment, the freedom to see yourself as you are. Go through the world with an openness to your feelings. Gradually you can unlearn the "this not that" strict mentality and learn what you actually like. You'll start to see the world with fresh eyes. Maybe you find someone attractive who you had never considered before. Maybe you notice, as I did, that you find certain traits attractive regardless of gender or sexuality. The way someone speaks, the way they move, the way they treat others. In time you'll start to define your unique sexuality.

gokudera is like "so you DO believe ghosts are real"

and yamamoto is like. "No, I don't. I'm just not taking any chances."