You know what I would love to see? I would love that if season 6 ended or season 7 started (or soon after) with Marinette in going to therapy.
First as a character that represents a strong lead, it can show people watching that even the leaders and who is supposed to be the "the strongest" need help. Like, yea, even the main character needs help, they aren't perfect.
and Marinette is far from perfect it's why I love her . We have seen throughout this season how the lie has been harming her, and in turn harming Adrien. Through the small little teases we got from the final two episodes we know they are going to be a doozy, everything may implode around Marinette, and it's not going to be good for her, and for anything.
I would love to see Marinette, after all is said and done, go to the therapist and help her work out what she did, why she did it, and help her navigate her feels, and most of all help not make the same mistake again.
I just think that would be a great way to show growth for Marinette.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
ā Live Streamingā Interactive Chatā Private Showsā HD Qualityā Free Actions
Free to watch ā¢ No registration required ā¢ HD streaming
I guess some brief clarification on my last post. I could definitely see the writers going faster than what I laid out, but traditionally the writers move glacially slow, and not every episode will focus on Buddie or even Buck or Eddie individually. So my timeline was based on a more realistic look at the season and based on trends I've noticed over the years from watching this show as it's aired for like 5 years.
What do we know so far:
We're getting two Buddie-heavy episodes in 8x09 and 8x10
8x11 is most likely a Bobby-heavy episode w/o Eddie in it with solo Buck most likely the b-plot
8x12 is an Eddie-heavy episode (the first one we're seeing of him in El Paso) I don't anticipate them wrapping up the Texas story arc in one episode.
My guess is 8x13 will have Eddie in B-plot, with someone else focus of A-plot.
8x14-8x15 are the two-parter plotty episodes, according to Tim and Oliver, so they will likely be focused on either Bobby, Athena, Hen, or Chim. Buck OR Eddie could potentially be b-plot or c-plot for either of those episodes but it's unlikely if early 8b was heavy on them.
That leaves 16-18 for the remainder of the major Buddie plots. I could see 16 being the last episode focusing on Eddie in Texas as A-plot, with them returning home at the end of 16 or the beginning of 17 (see: 5x16 May Day-5x18 Starting Over). That puts Eddie-focused A-plot in Texas to 3-4 total episodes, with some potential scenes sporadically in the middle of the other episodes, depending on how much of Buck's LA plot involves Eddie. That's about the same amount of time spent on Eddie during his s5 time away at Dispatch and his breakdown.
17 will then set up the major emergency of the finale, which may or may not involve Eddie or Buck. They might instead be b or c-plot of this episode. 18 will wrap the emergency up and then see the resolution with the characters recuperating from the emergency/resettling into "normal".
I don't see any major buddie stuff happening (ie. confessions) until they are both back and settled in the same physical location. I also don't see it being as simple as "I love you" "I love you too" "let's get married tomorrow". We simply do not have enough time to do that in 2 episodes with Eddie back in LA. Especially if the big emergency does not involve Buck or Eddie in any significant way. BUT if Buck and/or Eddie ARE the focus of the closing emergency, then I could absolutely see some major leaps happening for them.
But even if they are b or c-plot for 17-18 we could still get major developments. Even if they aren't a large part of the closing emergency, we know that these characters don't always have to be dying themselves to learn things. They often learn when OTHER PEOPLE are in these emergencies. Happens all the time. So I could see something happening where another couple loses a partner or an almost couple where one person mourns how they "never told them the truth of their feelings, and now they're gone" etc. That could ABSOLUTELY spur Buck on to admit his feelings in the comedown of the emergency, even without him being directly involved in it.
But, like, I am absolutely willing to eat my words. I definitely didn't anticipate all that happened in 8x09 to happen, so who knows! They could be going balls to the wall, and we could be getting more serious leaps for Buddie before the season ends, but I prefer to err on the side of caution because it helps me manage my expectations of an ensemble show while still remaining optimistic :)
So, I think we all know that thereās going to be quite a bit more to the 2x07 trial and the 2x08 tower scene when Lestat tells the story. If youāve read the Vampire Lestat, you already know what I mean; TVL is almost a wrapper for IWTV, and provides much of the context around Claudiaās death. Iām definitely going to spoil some events in that book in this post so watch out. Under the cut for spoilers.
The bulk of TVL describes Lestatās mortal life, his relationship with Nicolas de Lenfent, his non-consensual turning into a vampire by Magnus who then shortly after jumps into a fire, his meeting Armand, his forming of the Theatre des Vampires, and Nickiās eventual death by suicide that Armand greatly facilitated. Thereās a lot more to it but basically itās the backstory for why everything that happens to Claudia and Louis in Paris goes as horribly as it does.
Near the end of the book, Lestat revisits the trial. It picks up with him being extremely weak and sick for years after his ādeathā at the hands of (mostly) Claudia. He doesnāt condemn her for it, or seek revenge, and says he understands why she did what she did. But being alone and having no one to turn to, he eventually decides to ask Armand for some of his blood so that he can recover, having no idea that Louis and Claudia are already in Paris. Still in his weakened state, Armand takes advantage of him to get information about Louis and Claudia and how they tried to kill him. Armand is reading his mind but itās unclear how much info he gets there. Then, he traps Lestat under the theater and starves him until heās forced to drink dead blood. Heās extremely disoriented and sick and is dressed up to look good and brought out to testify against Claudia. Then heās taken away to Magnusā tower (he also has the yellow dress here) and Armand flips out on him for breaking up his former coven and starting the theater, tells him Louis is also dead (a lie obviously), and pushes him out of the tower.
The key difference between the show trial and the book trial is the fact that the show makes the trial into a play with rehearsals that Lestat is (apparently) present for. So my question, knowing the book canon, is why would Lestat participate willingly, or did he even willingly participate?
Going on the book canon, it might simply be that Lestat is super fucked up in this moment, that Armand is controlling his every action except for the few times where he manages to break out of it and go off script. And I do think thatās possible if heās weak enough- Armand is very powerful in that way, and Lestat might be unable to fend him off. I think this is possible- Armand explicitly states in the book that he wants Lestat to look presentable, and maybe that was enough to fool Louis.
But I actually think the show might have added another even more nefarious layer to this already fucked up event- I think that Armand has made some sort of fucked up deal with Lestat for Louisā life. Because otherwise, none of this makes sense.
Why does there need to be a trial play with a human jury? Legitimately, there doesnāt. Thereās no good reason for it- the coven was going to judge them as guilty no matter what, and the audience is going along with the play because they think itās a show. Armand and the coven will have Claudia dead one way or another, they really donāt need a bunch of mortals to weigh in on it. So who was Armand trying to convince? The only answer is Louis.
Armand may have written into the script that Louis was supposed to die with Claudia, but I think he made a deal behind the backs of the coven with Lestat. That deal was maybe something like- āI let you get him banished, then I will take him out of the wall. Say nothing about your involvement or he dies.ā Lestat is made to give up personal details of their lives together, seemingly freely. Why would be do this? Why would he willingly put himself in the position of the bad guy to Louis here? Even Louis wonders this in the interview. And there are even a bunch of moments where Lestat stalls in the middle of talking- and I think heās fighting with Armand telepathically, or being reminded of the terms of this agreement. Louis and Claudia wouldnāt be able to tell what was happening, but Madeline would, so they keep her hypnotized until later.
Because, the coven DIDNāT spare Louis. Lestat getting him ābanishedā didnāt spare his life at all, he was just dying slowly. Because again, the coven didnāt actually care about the audience jury, they just took him offstage for the main event. He was 100% still going to die. But Lestat DID still save him- by agreeing to let him go with Armand.
Lestat doesnāt answer when Louis accuses him of getting revenge during the trial. Lestat doesnāt provide any explanation in the tower in the next episode for why he participated. He allows Louis to hold him responsible for his participation and how it resulted in Claudiaās death. I feel like Lestat CANāT dispute it, as per the terms of whatever arrangement he and Armand had. Armand takes Louis out of the wall, and the price of Lestat saving him from that is letting Louis decide to leave him. He canāt say anything otherwise, and he truly doesnāt think he deserves to anyway.
This also could explain why Lestat participated to begin with. He actually IS really weak and fucked up, so he couldnāt do much to save Claudia or anything really past getting Louis put into that coffin. Armand puts him into the impossible position of relying on him to get Louis out while also trusting that Armand can handle his suicidal husband, knowing that Armand is responsible for Claudia AND Nickiās deaths already. This is why he is terrified that Louis is dead in 1973, because Armand has a track record and he knows that Louis has been suicidal before. But what other option does he have? Giving Louis up is the only way to save him.
This achieves 3 goals for Armand. He get Louis and finally (he hopes) severs Louisā ever present love for Lestat. He gets rid of the coven, or at least gets out of it. And, perhaps most importantly, he injures Lestat in a way that he will truly never recover from. Nicki is dead, Claudia is dead, Louis hates him.
I think this is partially why Armand is so gleeful when he tells Daniel how long he and Louis have been together versus Louis and Lestat. His ultimate goal is to punish and hurt Lestat. Kill his daughter, make him watch, make him responsible. Make Louis hate him. Make Louis stay with him āforeverā of his own free will.
It also recontextualizes the line in the last episode where Lestat explains to Louis that he āgave him to Armandā and questions whether or not that was actually saving him. Which implies there was a goal beyond simply getting him offstage, and I think means more than just exchanging a boyfriend between the two of them. Louis had already left Lestat at the point, and while maybe they would have gotten back together already without Armandās involvement, Louis wasnāt really āhisā to give. I think it means something more along the lines of he LITERALLY gave his bodily safety to Armand, knowing how much he couldnāt trust him. But, he had no other choice, because Armand left him with none. Let me have him or he dies.
I do actually wonder if Lestat was still imprisoned and starved by Armand, and I think thereās a high likelihood of that. I do think Lestat would have to be in a weakened state to agree to any of this. But it does add another psychological element to the original story that also explains some of the weirdness in Armandās version of events. This is the part of the story that Daniel canāt totally decode, because only Lestat knows exactly what happened besides him. And Lestat may still assume that Louis has āfigured it outā in the present day, because all Louis says is that he knows Lestat āsavedā him. Lestat still is going to clarify events going forward, and the trial is a big reason WHY he he writes TVL, because he wants Louis to understand what happened there.
Gemma was so soft and bright and warm and full of life in all the photos of her, but Miss Caseyās half-frozen. Her expression barely changes. Itās not the hapless earnestness of the other innies. Her eyes are shadowed always. Is because she works alone, never with friends? She can only ever sit with a stranger, reading a list, which must not evoke too strong an emotion. Or is it because of what happens when sheās buried down in Testing?
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
ā Live Streamingā Interactive Chatā Private Showsā HD Qualityā Free Actions
Free to watch ā¢ No registration required ā¢ HD streaming
So we mostly know the 50s through historical accounts and movies naturally (apart from any 70 plus year olds in the audience I suppose)
Some of the stuff happening in this weird 50s makes me wonder if some of these writers sat down with their parents or grandparents and just asked questions as research.
Like itās not weird this totally happened to my grandpaā¦.and yes my grandmother was that horny it was described to me in excruciating detail itās completely true to life. Basketball was life.
The thought should not amuse me as much as it does.
with the eye-opening comment in mind.... i have to know your thoughts on rhett??
I don't really have thoughts other than I love and support him. Especially him questioning the societal structures in his life, constantly, as I do, and relate a lot to his experience of feeling disillusioned by them every day. I know the thoughts I most relate to might be couched in terms of spirituality, but... it's sometimes kind of like hearing the same song in a different key or genre. It's unclear how much we relate, at this point. But it feels like potentially a lot, but definitely at least a little.
His thoughts from EB 275, for example, will haunt me forever.
Without getting too personal, this sense of yearning for a community after leaving the church is something a lot of queer people who leave the church go through as well. But they hopefully find that community in each other. Both guys have stated they have been made aware of these general similarities already, in their past interviews on the topic.
But some (if not all) queer identities are not cut and dry. They are complicated and can change, but it also goofily can feel like you're sneaking into a special club without paying cover. If you didn't struggle in the ways many queer people do, for example, it can feel disingenuous to take on a label. (I swear the internal mental gymnastics of 'torturing yourself by staying closeted because you weren't tortured enough to be forced out' should medal.)
Personally, maybe it's because I'm bi/pan, but you feel two-faced sometimes. It just... when you have this mask of straightness, it's very hard to let it slip forever. Permanently. It can feel like a safety valve for the pressure that anyone can relate to, trying to live up to external/societal expectations. For a long time it feels worth keeping for that very reason, like an escape option in an emergency. But, as many of us have found, if you ever do try on a label while questioning and drop it? It's cosmetic. People treated you about the same already and the rest didn't matter in the first place. Once it's gone, you realize it was controlling you, not the other way around. Just as the other societal structures have before.
The other main problem (for people who relate) is it also gives up your last line of protection/perceived validity of your arguments in straight spaces. That was the hardest part for me and something I struggle with anytime I have to come out to someone. Whether it's going to imply bias on an objective issue. So, I also can see why someone would want to stay a "double agent" for as long as possible trying to use that presence to sway or maintain open communication with those who might otherwise not extend it, should things change.
I don't know what's up with Rhett. Or Link, for that matter. I really don't. But I hope they find the community they're looking for, even if it's not ours.
And, based on the topics that dominated my feed and others', today, I feel obligated to point out, to anyone who isn't sure where you fit: you could spend your entire life in the closet and still be a valid, celebrated, and desirable member of the LGBTQIA community in whatever way you see fit. Please never mistake anyone championing potential representation as a demand for you to feel unsafe to emulate the same. Take your time. Most of us did, too, it just doesn't seem like it since you've likely met us in our After. But it also does not hurt to try a label, no label, whatever, to see what works for you.
As someone whose been in that place, it may look silly to stand by a closed closet door with balloons and confetti, like we so often set ourselves up to do, but I'd rather die waiting for no one to show up than to not be there welcoming someone that does. If that makes sense?
