#inconsistent characterization

Caroline is determined to make stefan see just because their future doesn't seem appealing as before (because he is human) doesn't mean they shouldn't at least try. I completely get the point but i am like did she even consider how her children's lives would look like when she'd have to uproot her life from theirs because choosing to stay a vampire means keeping the not aging part a secret. She'd not be able to participate in important firsts in their lives, probably would have to attend their graduation in disguise. Maybe initially she avoided it because she didn't have a choice in the matter. She was scared of the touchy/ uncomfortable subject of an unknown future with the kids but what about after when she was marrying the supposed love of her life ? this further proves the ridiculousness of the pregnancy plot that the writers pretended was an obstacle but couldn't bother explaining. (2/3)

Lastly, when she says how misguided she was (about her excitement of the unknown with stefan) and uses that to stay aloof and distant. but marrying ric 'for the kids' was an intellectual decision???  It's like the writers just threw in random terms to justify plots without thinking and hoped that we wouldn't notice they didn't make sense. They did the same when they used 'abandoned' to justify caroline's 3 year long anger then pivoted to Caroline suddenly understanding stefan's noble-ish decision in a matter of a day. (3/3)

The writers altering or abandoning previous characterization to fit the plot was one of my central problems with the show. I first noticed it with Damon in season 4 when the writers abandoned Damon's previous characterization during the cure story line:

"I have a secret. I'm not human. And I miss it. I miss it more than anything in the world."  - Damon, season 2

"I used to be human. Now I can't think of anything more miserable on earth." - Damon season 4

Damon's change of heart was never explained or explored. The writers altered Damon's character to fit the plot.

So, I'm not surprised that they pulled the same nonsense with Caroline. And it's one of the primary reasons why I don't like the cure and Calaric story lines.

Me, just here for a good time: ehhhh, valid, but idc

Some people: Why are all these characters so flamboyant?? It's unrealistic!

Me, sarcastic: Oh no, the silly musical show about hell has flamboyant characters! Who would have known??? And oh no, the silly character doesn't behave like how you think they should while still being true to how she's portrayed them so far and/or expands on their character! The horror!

Braveheart (1995) and The Patriot (2000) are not only both violent epics very loosely based on historical events, but their protagonists are very similar up to a point. William Wallace declares that he has returned from years abroad "to raise crops and a family. And if I can live in peace, I will." Benjamin Martin also cites family commitments in his refusal to support South Carolina in seeking independence from British rule: "My wife is dead. I have seven children. Who will care for them if I go to war?" Numerous critics describe The Patriot as "American Braveheart" emphasizing the themes of vengeance and national identity that drive both films. Superficial similarities aside, these films are very different, and the main difference comes down to the protagonists themselves. Through consistent characterization, Braveheart is able to show that Wallace is who he says he is, something The Patriot fails to replicate in Martin.

We are introduced to Wallace as a little boy who is horrified by the excessive cruelty English king Edward III visits on the Scots, and he grows into a man who is is horrified by the excessive cruelty English king Edward III visits on the Scots. Apart from gaining an education and a whole lot of muscle mass, Wallace does not change much within the first half hour of the film. In fact, he has not changed much by the end of the film's nearly three hour run time. Some cite his lack of development as a writing flaw, but simple characters can still be effective. And one thing Wallace certainly is capable of is learning.

One scene that particularly highlights this is the wedding that occurs shortly after Wallace's return and after King Edward has reinstituted the right of nobles to the first night with any bride on their land. When the English lord comes to claim this right, some men in attendance get agitated and a violent conflict seems imminent until the bride offers herself up to save her husband. Wallace watches these events unfold and decides that he and Murron will marry in secret. He is, after all, trying to live in peace! But then the English target her with harassment and eventually kill her because, as the film has painstakingly established numerous times already, they are excessively cruel. This is the event that inspires Wallace to take a leadership role in the Scottish rebellion, and he never looks back.

The seeds of the man Wallace will grow into are sown in the first twenty minutes of so of the film, not only his horror at British treatment of Scots but his affection for Murron as well. And adult Wallace maintains an almost childlike inability to grasp the nuances of politics in his dealing with Scottish lords like Robert the Bruce. In short, Wallace feels like the same person over the course of thirty years, if we accept the character as being the same age as Gibson at the time of filming. The Martin who stays out of the war to protect his children and the Martin who abandons his children multiple times years later do not feel like the same person. The Martin whose shirt is splattered with the blood of wounded British soldiers he helps and the Martin whose face is soaked in the blood of a British soldier he hacks to mincemeat just a few minutes later do not feel like the same person. Given the time it takes Martin and Villeneuve to recruit and train the militia, it is well within possibility that one or more of the men whose wounds he treated were later killed while trying to surrender by men under his command. What the fuck, Benjamin?

These drastic, Jekyll into Hyde transformations Martin undergoes may well be meant to come across as complexity but succeed in giving us a hero who gets to have his cake and eat it too. A war criminal in the streets who is also, we are told, a loving father plagued by nightmares in the sheets. The problem is, we actually see the first part. The harrowing story Martin tells us about his actions at Fort Wilderness reinforces the unhinged violent personality we see in his treatment of the last British soldier in his one-man massacre and the surrendering British troops. And while he said before the war that he would prioritize his children's safety, we never see him actually do that. He asserts to General Cornwallis that British officers are continuing to target civilians but is then as shocked as anyone when a British officer actually does that. The work of anchoring his characterization is shouldered almost exclusively by characters close to him, who insist that he "has changed," that he is "a good man."

Okay.

I've often wondered since rewatching Braveheart how different the wedding scene and Wallace's reaction to it might have gone in the hands of The Patriot's filmmakers. I imagine something like this: Wallace watches, shocked, as the English carry off his friend's bride. He turns to Murron. "Murron, this is terrible . . . for them. Nothing like this will happen at our wedding, though. We're built different. The English would not dare!" And then at their wedding, the English ride up to collect Murron, and Wallace watches shocked, shocked that this would happen . . . again. Braveheart may be heavy-handed on some points, but give me heavy-handed consistency over wild characterization inconsistencies duck-taped together by other characters' comments any day.

In writing, consistency means essentially keeping all the details consistent throughout the story. You have to write with a consistent vision. You have to erase anything that potentially can distract a viewer/reader. You have to remember the dumbest of details.

I’m sure we’ve all read a book where a name was misspelled by accident. That happens, it’s an annoyance, but we move on. Have you read stories where characters completely changed names or appearances halfway through the story? Lot more annoying because it’s no longer consistent with the first half of the book.

Prodigal Son right now is engaging in what I call “writers remorse.” They’re changing Malcolm’s characterization to fit their sudden idea of who his character needs to be this season and completely ignoring the areas where they established these parts of him in the first season. Example:

His tremor. In the current episode, Malcolm tells Dani:

Ignoring the piss-poor caption job here... 😂

We have a flashback from season 1 where we clearly see young Malcolm with that tremor:

That’s not years, it is weeks. Maybe months. Can we say he maybe didn’t recognize his tremors until he was older? Yes. However, the narrative implies differently. They’re saying years. It’s inconsistent characterization.

And no, Malcolm being an unreliable narrator doesn’t justify it.

Second point of inconsistency. All season 1, Malcolm is haunted by his fear of the girl in the box and what he might have done to her. He’s upset by his recalling he stabbed John Watkins in an act of self-defense. His stabbing of his father (contrived by Martin as a way to manipulate and control Malcolm as to help catch the Carousel Killer) torments him to the point he and Dani have a falling out over it.

But we get this (sorry, no video of this scene on YouTube for me to grab so I am linking to a blog with gifs):

So, Malcolm essentially plans out an entire act of revenge on a kid who bullied him at boarding school that almost kills the kid and is totally fine with it?

I don’t think so.

Inconsistent characterization.

If he was okay with essentially pushing a kid into an asthma attack and giving them their “empty” inhaler (okay, he “saved” him in the end but still), he’d have had no problem in shooting Endicott. He was justified in shooting Endicott. The man had a hand in his “girlfriend’s” (less girlfriend, more user, sorry) murder, in his father nearly being killed/sent to Rikers, his being framed for murder, murdering his lawyer, having Gil stabbed, and essentially assaulting his sister (to the point she snapped and killed him).

Yeah, Malcolm okay with almost murdering a bullying classmate is not tracking well here, and no, unreliable narrator doesn’t cover it. This is writer remorse. They had places they wanted to take Malcolm in season 1, reversed on them at some point, and are now trying to shoehorn those things in now as character development. It’s inconsistent. Can they still pull this together in the remaining ten episodes? Sure... but I’m not optimistic given the choices they have made so far.

Especially since the laziest writing of all was perpetrated in episode one by them having Malcolm chop up and dispose of Endicott. That is called jumping the shark. All suspensions of belief were basically ignored as they went with the safest and most predictable angle they could to explain the end of season 1 without having to revisit the missing elements from season 1 (thanks to the Whu Whu bug). Does it add drama? Sure. Is it good drama? Not really. I can think of a number of ways they could have gone with this that were as dramatic and built a story they could have worked into season 2.5 or 3 (depending on what happens in the next few months).

I honestly feel like the writer’s don’t know how to write relationships. Like, Barry and Iris were great together when they weren't dating, as they built their relationship and showed how much they care. But, when they did get together, it felt like any tension or compelling part of it had been ripped out. A lot of it did seem forced.

That’s one of the reasons I think Caitlin feels like she has more chemistry to people, because they’re not trying to write a relationship with them, but they still get to built on their caring for one another in what feels organic.

Today’s a Saturday, so it’s very quiet at Seigetsu Gakuen. What’s Tsukiko doing on campus though?

Negotiations Awkwardslide (6/25)

In the book, Bard did, in fact, want some of the treasure---all of it, if it was just sitting there. Thranduil, too, wanted Smaug’s hoard, but only if it was abandoned; Thranduil was not willing to fight over it. Thranduil seems to have made a commitment to help the human refugees (and my headcanon is that Bard wanted Thranduil and his army to stick around, because the Erebor situation was likely to get dicey, and because he needs Thorin to take him seriously, which means he needs a show of strength/might/ability-to-follow-through). 

That’s the book (and my headcanon based on the book).

The movie, however, changed everybody’s personality, then acted like those persons would make the same decisions and take the same actions, despite having completely different motives.