Random thoughts

Oh no he absolutely didn’t care about Winry, but I do think he was genuine in finding her and her parents admirable, yeah. Its just for Kimblee, admiring and caring about someone are very different things and the second is just something he does not do ever. In the manga, we even see that he was sent to kill the Rockbells if ‘neccessary’, its just Scar got to them first, and he was going on about how he admired them even back then...so ironically, when he was telling Winry about how much he admired her parents, he just left out the part where he was on his way to happily murder them, and would have. 

Kimblee seems completely devoid of compassion, but he does has his own twisted ideas about Respect (and people who really stick to their work/passion and principles is one of those things he respects, likely because he considers himself similar only his work/passion is murdering people and really Winry and Her Parents Should Understand That) and he has his own Standards that he sticks to- he just operates on this entirely different plane of morality than most of the other characters, and that makes him hard to deal with for them, especially since he occasionally makes chillingly decent points (like how you shouldn’t really be acting like a victim when you’re the persecuting nation in a war going around killing people).  I think he’s a good example of how you can have a completely hateable, despicable villain who has no sad backstory or moments of genuine compassion to latch on to, but still make them interesting to read about rather than just being “raaaaa im your standard cardboard cackler”. 

It occurs to me the same thing happens with how a lot of writers struggle with Batman. They fundamentally disagree with his philosophy so they can’t actually make it coherent. I remember it was clear Chuck Dixon so obviously couldn’t conceive of someone not wanting to kill people he’d give explanations like “the cops would no longer tacitly sanction Batman’s actions if he killed people so it’s an entirely pragmatic decision”. Plus, then the writers warp the villains so badly and make them so invincible and make it clear there are no other options that it becomes such a fucking joke not to kill them,. And then Batman’s speeches about why he doesn’t kill become a mass of contradictions resting on a slippery slope fallacy or whatever. And then the movies (maybe not the newest one I haven’t seen it) abandon the idea, as they have with most live action superheroes.

It actually makes me, once again, in my FMA rewatch, admire how the series handled it with Ed and Al, because it never HAS them make big speeches justifying why they won’t kill people. It’s very obviously their deeply held principle, but the series doesn’t have them try to justify it. It just shows you the inherent value of human life over and over again, and the consequences of a cycle of violence. There’s a lot you can infer- they are children and shouldn’t HAVE to kill people, Ed and Al both had their lives fucking ruined when they were judged guilty and punished for a “sin”, how can they feel the right to judge others enough for sins to condemn them to death?, that they were taught a philosophy where every small life is part of the flow of the universe (Al praying over the rabbit they had to kill, seeing the fox feed her kids with their food and eventually sharing it…), they repeatedly see the good things that can come from giving people second chances or how killing leads to vengeance and even more violence, they’re aware they’re part of a corrupt military complex and don’t want to kill under that authority- it goes on, but the series doesn’t spell it out for you these are their reasons. It allows the philosophy to stand unexplained and respected on it’s own, but then demonstrates why it might be held with the plot- for instance, with how the world would have been fucked if Ed or Al or Winry had been like “I’ll kill Scar”, and how it would have continued the cycle, and so on. 

At the same time, it doesn’t really have Ed or Al go out of their way to impose their values on anyone else- they’re obviously surrounded by people who have killed and continue to kill (even Al’s gf does, never forget when May casually wasted a couple dudes in the manga). But they don’t actively lecture people for having done it (Ed has traumatized reactions to people being killed in front of him, but jesus, of course he would). However, they won’t generally to be party to murder and try to find another way if possible- and the whole thing with Ed and Kimblee demonstrates that even when you’re careful trying to find another way (Ed tried to isolate Kimblee and keep him away from others he would hurt when he tried his just-capture-him gambit, but it still led to Ed nearly dying and Kimblee escaping, and he acknowledged these were the consequences of trying to be merciful and that if had a cost and he had to bear the responsibilities), it can blow up in your face. But…Ed sticking to his principles at cost to himself did impress Kimblee enough he was saved Ed down the line. That probably wasn’t worth the people Kimblee killed after escaping (or is it since Ed went on to save the country? This is what happens when you try to weigh human life- ultimately, you can’t do so reliably, and once you start treating it in terms of numbers, and it can be to say what could or should have happened)..,,, but he also might have escaped if the murder plan had gone down as expected, so there’s nuance  Al also has no comment when Lion Guy (sorry Im Ed) kills Kimblee. It’s not something he might have been able to do himself, but he recognizes it’s the only option they might have and doesn’t protest when it happens, even was the one who created the opportunity, etc.

The 2003 version was praised up and down back in its day, airing on Adult Swim’s Anime block while becoming FUNimation’s third big hit. It attracted more older audiences to the Anime they licensed outside Yu Yu Hakusho and Dragon Ball. It made Vic Mignogna cool before it was cool to hate him.

This endured for quite some time until Brotherhood came out in 2009 and to the states in 2010. It’s just amazing how the perception has shifted from which adaptation is the TRUE adaptation when in fact… it didn’t matter so long as the FMA Anime was a good-ass Anime.

I know that the reason I was a bit of an asshole about Brotherhood being the "real" adaptation back then is definitely because of some base "revanchist" feelings, because I had to remind a lot of people on forums who wondered why I was a fan of a cheap adaptation that no, I was a fan of the original work.

So I noticed in A:TLA, and it’s carried over in LoK, that Airbenders always seem to have an advantage in a fight. And at first, it felt like plot armour, particularly in A:TLA.

But when Aang fought Bumi, he lost most of that advantage. And I realised that this wasn’t just plot armour. Someone had sat and worked it out: nobody has had to fight Airbenders for generations. 

None of the other nations have had to train to face them, or practised sparring with them, or anything. Apart from Bumi, no bender in the show has ever even met an airbender before Aang comes along. And in LoK, for the most part people still haven’t. We never see fights between those who have (for e.g. we never see Tenzin and Lin fight); when Korra and Tenzin use airbending, its a unique fighting style that people aren’t trained to manage.

It’s a really small detail, and it fundamentally works to give the heroes an advantage (and make up for Aang’s young age and lack of combat experience), but I love how it’s an advantage in combat for completely logical reasons.

aang straight up says to the fire nation guards on zuko’s ship “you’ve probably never fought an airbender before”, because he in-universe figures out that, if what everyone around him is saying is true, and airbenders have been extinct for a century (or at least have gone to ground enough to make people think that) then he is a totally unknown figure in anyone’s calculations

this has been brought up before but it’s also one of the reasons why hama is so thrown in her fight with katara - waterbending is about energy exchange, keeping things flowing, throwing your opponent’s power back at them and we see katara and hama do this in their fight. however, when katara is faced with a powerful blast from hama, she stands her ground and blows it apart:

[image ID: a gif of katara in the puppetmaster. she is a teenage girl with dark skin and hair and blue eyes, wearing a red outfit. she turns and throws her hand out, stopping a blast of water and turning it into a huge shield. the background is a dark forest. end image ID]

why do i bring this up?

It’s completely different than anything we’ve seen from other metal benders, who bend metal with sharp movements like the derivative of earth bending that it is

Asami going against Hiroshi in the finale of season 1 in a mecha-tank duel, Asami managing to move the damn thing because her father based the controls on a piece of machinery to which she was accustomed but not really knowing the finest points of controlling it in a combat setting, against her father who designed the machine and seems to make a point of being a master operator of anything he builds : Asami loses badly and Hiroshi would have killed her if it wasn’t for Bolin intervening and putting Hiroshi off-balance, creating the perfect opportunity for Asami to counter-attack.

Bolin going against Ghazan at the end of season 3 and it’s basically a mirror match : similar body type, similar fighting style and the same unique bending ability, but Ghazan is so much more experienced in their shared lavabending that he absolutely dominates Bolin in the sheer volume of lava he bends and moves around the wasteland they create with absolute confidence whereas Bolin has to resort to cooling down some of the lava before he’s overwhelmed, which creates the perfect opportunity for Ghazan to finish him off. And that’s when Mako arrives and turns the tables.

No romance, at any point

I would have expended on the theme that started to be set up in S1 with the Great Heritage of the Cities of Gold being there to preserve Muan technology and energy sources, as they can both cause great destruction and greatly improve quality of life, and have the kids end up with a very powerful and dangerous artifact which could either save or kill thousands, while they debate if they should give it to someone, and if yes, to whom

Maybe some expansion on Mu's history, both good and bad - it's an Empire, after all. But also Tao deserves to know more about the history of his culture

Maybe some of that with Atlantis too?

Of course, Mendoza, Sancho and Pedro have to be in here (I mean, they don't actually have to, I can honestly see a possibility where they're not, but I like Mendoza too much not to include him) but the kids don't deliberately go fetch them in Barcelona. Rather, they had their own wacky adventures while trying to go back to Spain, possibly lost the gold somehow, and run into the kids by coincidence partway through S2 and they team up again, possibly with more of an on-and-off thing to it than in S1 so as not to undo the kids gaining more independence/coming of age thing at the end of S1

Hey, remember how Sancho and Pedro wanted to betray the kids at the end of S1 but Mendoza betrayed them and threatened to kill them if they didn't help out? What if this had consequences on the narrative and group dynamics???

Mendoza's continued character arc: he has the kids as essentially morality pets but is still kind of a terrible person on the side and mostly in it for the gold. His arc now is to be a better person to people who aren't the kids (while still being a lying little scoundrel, of course). That, or the kids deliberately use the fact that they know he won't hurt them/let them be hurt to manipulate him or deliberately thwart one of his plans, and it causes conflict. Or both. Both is good, too. There are multiple seasons. there's time

Arson is committed at least once per season

if I have to bring back one of Esteban's parents it'd be his mom. After all, we only know she's dead through Mayucca's tale, which he himself admits might not be true. Just because the part of it about his father was right doesn't mean the part about his mother dying was

I'm gonna be honest, I don't have the knowledge to pull that off and the execs wouldn't let me, but. Exploration, or even just representation, or gender and sexuality in Native cultures beyond the western binary and heteronormativity (since it's like, a fact that colonization fucked that up and that the western concept was most definitely not universal)

Zia gets to still be angry, tho I'm not entirely sure what her arc would be (and probably am not the best person to decide that. Presumably I'd have a team and I could find someone who is more qualified than I am in the matter tho. Same for n°10, tho I really don't think I'd be allowed to to it)

You know these weird rooms in S1? The ones with like, glowing red tiles on the walls? At least one of these per season. They never get explained

1. I don’t disagree on that point, although I think I would keep the Tao/Zia thing that happened at the beginning of season 3, because in hindsight it’s obvious why it starts (Tao processing the fact that Zia is a genetic descendant of the people of Mû, like him) and why it ends (Tao is absolutely emotionally crushed by the reveal of the full extent of Ambrosius’ treachery).

5. I don’t know about the kids getting totally independent, rewatching the first series, it’s impressive how helpful Sancho and Pedro can be just by virtue of being a good deal taller than the children.

1. Part of why I really, really don't want to have romance is because romance is just, so omnipresent in medias it feels cloying, and outside of some specific circumstances, adding a romantic subplot, even a well-handled one, makes things actively enjoyable for me. Now, it might in part be because I'm aromantic, but the lack of romance genuinely is part of why I love the series so much (to a fairly significant degree), so adding romance subplot is really not something I'd like to do on any level

2. I don't know that the kids would be fully independents — they would have team up with Mendoza, Sancho and Pedro, and with adults they meet on the way — but as the first season ends with the kids going their own way, them gaining some level of independence as part of the coming of age narrative is definitely a big part of their arc and of the ending, and having them travel full time with adults would feel like walking it back. Not that doing it is inherently bad, I just don't super like the thought of doing that in and official sequel (to note that what I think is interesting and fun and thematically satisfying in an official sequel and what I think is interesting and fun in a fanfic only partially overlap).

3. If the kid trio and the adult trio are traveling separately, there definitely needs to be a way for the adults to keep up, for which I mostly see three options:

The kids lose the condor (not a fan of that one because, I mean, it's the condor)

The adults are mostly confined to a few more static places but the kids have to go back there multiple times (this might feels frustrating and give the feeling of the plot not progressing or going in circle)

The adults get a different Muan transportation method. I'm thinking some kind of ship, smaller than the Solaris so that they can travel inside the land on rivers but don't quite have the same versatility and speed as the Condor. Alternatively, the Muan equivalent to a car/truck/minibus/caravan. I think this might be my favorite solution (though I think it would be best not to give them anything that flies, to preserve the Condor's feeling of being unique and special)

No romance, at any point

I would have expended on the theme that started to be set up in S1 with the Great Heritage of the Cities of Gold being there to preserve Muan technology and energy sources, as they can both cause great destruction and greatly improve quality of life, and have the kids end up with a very powerful and dangerous artifact which could either save or kill thousands, while they debate if they should give it to someone, and if yes, to whom

Maybe some expansion on Mu's history, both good and bad - it's an Empire, after all. But also Tao deserves to know more about the history of his culture

Maybe some of that with Atlantis too?

Of course, Mendoza, Sancho and Pedro have to be in here (I mean, they don't actually have to, I can honestly see a possibility where they're not, but I like Mendoza too much not to include him) but the kids don't deliberately go fetch them in Barcelona. Rather, they had their own wacky adventures while trying to go back to Spain, possibly lost the gold somehow, and run into the kids by coincidence partway through S2 and they team up again, possibly with more of an on-and-off thing to it than in S1 so as not to undo the kids gaining more independence/coming of age thing at the end of S1

Hey, remember how Sancho and Pedro wanted to betray the kids at the end of S1 but Mendoza betrayed them and threatened to kill them if they didn't help out? What if this had consequences on the narrative and group dynamics???

Mendoza's continued character arc: he has the kids as essentially morality pets but is still kind of a terrible person on the side and mostly in it for the gold. His arc now is to be a better person to people who aren't the kids (while still being a lying little scoundrel, of course). That, or the kids deliberately use the fact that they know he won't hurt them/let them be hurt to manipulate him or deliberately thwart one of his plans, and it causes conflict. Or both. Both is good, too. There are multiple seasons. there's time

Arson is committed at least once per season

if I have to bring back one of Esteban's parents it'd be his mom. After all, we only know she's dead through Mayucca's tale, which he himself admits might not be true. Just because the part of it about his father was right doesn't mean the part about his mother dying was

I'm gonna be honest, I don't have the knowledge to pull that off and the execs wouldn't let me, but. Exploration, or even just representation, or gender and sexuality in Native cultures beyond the western binary and heteronormativity (since it's like, a fact that colonization fucked that up and that the western concept was most definitely not universal)

Zia gets to still be angry, tho I'm not entirely sure what her arc would be (and probably am not the best person to decide that. Presumably I'd have a team and I could find someone who is more qualified than I am in the matter tho. Same for n°10, tho I really don't think I'd be allowed to to it)

You know these weird rooms in S1? The ones with like, glowing red tiles on the walls? At least one of these per season. They never get explained

1. I don’t disagree on that point, although I think I would keep the Tao/Zia thing that happened at the beginning of season 3, because in hindsight it’s obvious why it starts (Tao processing the fact that Zia is a genetic descendant of the people of Mû, like him) and why it ends (Tao is absolutely emotionally crushed by the reveal of the full extent of Ambrosius’ treachery).

5. I don’t know about the kids getting totally independent, rewatching the first series, it’s impressive how helpful Sancho and Pedro can be just by virtue of being a good deal taller than the children.

Yeah, I was referring to the virgin birth and the midichlorians nonsense when I mentioned the prequels in my previous post. I said my piece about Anakin some time ago, but yeah, I think Anakin should be a nobody from a backwater planet - because, as with Rey and The Last Jedi, the point is that anyone can be a Jedi because...

I'm even fine with the prophecy about someone bringing balance to the Force (although maybe don't use the words "Chosen One" directly because you don't actually have to hit the audience in the head with a copy of Hero of a Thousand Faces). As I said in my post linked above, I think there's potential to do a neat reverse on the audience by questioning what "balance" means, because if you're going to rip off Taoism you really ought to follow through on it rather than reverting to a more Western Christian conception of good and evil. And you can build that into Vader's tragic arc and Luke/Rey's triumphal arcs.

Jedi aren't supposed to have children, there's a whole EU thing where a Jedi woman gets herself pregnant and is deathly afraid of what the council will say. And then there's, well, Anakin. But if they do have kids the kids do inherit it.

If the thing with the woman deathly afraid of what the Council will say is what I think it is, it’s from an author (Karen Traviss) that had a particularly strong distaste for many aspects of how the Jedi operated and depicted them in a way that a lot of fans really hated (although the fact that the author was a woman probably played a part, misogyny should never be underestimated).

Yeah, I was referring to the virgin birth and the midichlorians nonsense when I mentioned the prequels in my previous post. I said my piece about Anakin some time ago, but yeah, I think Anakin should be a nobody from a backwater planet - because, as with Rey and The Last Jedi, the point is that anyone can be a Jedi because...

I'm even fine with the prophecy about someone bringing balance to the Force (although maybe don't use the words "Chosen One" directly because you don't actually have to hit the audience in the head with a copy of Hero of a Thousand Faces). As I said in my post linked above, I think there's potential to do a neat reverse on the audience by questioning what "balance" means, because if you're going to rip off Taoism you really ought to follow through on it rather than reverting to a more Western Christian conception of good and evil. And you can build that into Vader's tragic arc and Luke/Rey's triumphal arcs.

Yeah, I was referring to the virgin birth and the midichlorians nonsense when I mentioned the prequels in my previous post. I said my piece about Anakin some time ago, but yeah, I think Anakin should be a nobody from a backwater planet - because, as with Rey and The Last Jedi, the point is that anyone can be a Jedi because...

I'm even fine with the prophecy about someone bringing balance to the Force (although maybe don't use the words "Chosen One" directly because you don't actually have to hit the audience in the head with a copy of Hero of a Thousand Faces). As I said in my post linked above, I think there's potential to do a neat reverse on the audience by questioning what "balance" means, because if you're going to rip off Taoism you really ought to follow through on it rather than reverting to a more Western Christian conception of good and evil. And you can build that into Vader's tragic arc and Luke/Rey's triumphal arcs.

It occurs to me the same thing happens with how a lot of writers struggle with Batman. They fundamentally disagree with his philosophy so they can’t actually make it coherent. I remember it was clear Chuck Dixon so obviously couldn’t conceive of someone not wanting to kill people he’d give explanations like “the cops would no longer tacitly sanction Batman’s actions if he killed people so it’s an entirely pragmatic decision”. Plus, then the writers warp the villains so badly and make them so invincible and make it clear there are no other options that it becomes such a fucking joke not to kill them,. And then Batman’s speeches about why he doesn’t kill become a mass of contradictions resting on a slippery slope fallacy or whatever. And then the movies (maybe not the newest one I haven’t seen it) abandon the idea, as they have with most live action superheroes.

It actually makes me, once again, in my FMA rewatch, admire how the series handled it with Ed and Al, because it never HAS them make big speeches justifying why they won’t kill people. It’s very obviously their deeply held principle, but the series doesn’t have them try to justify it. It just shows you the inherent value of human life over and over again, and the consequences of a cycle of violence. There’s a lot you can infer- they are children and shouldn’t HAVE to kill people, Ed and Al both had their lives fucking ruined when they were judged guilty and punished for a “sin”, how can they feel the right to judge others enough for sins to condemn them to death?, that they were taught a philosophy where every small life is part of the flow of the universe (Al praying over the rabbit they had to kill, seeing the fox feed her kids with their food and eventually sharing it…), they repeatedly see the good things that can come from giving people second chances or how killing leads to vengeance and even more violence, they’re aware they’re part of a corrupt military complex and don’t want to kill under that authority- it goes on, but the series doesn’t spell it out for you these are their reasons. It allows the philosophy to stand unexplained and respected on it’s own, but then demonstrates why it might be held with the plot- for instance, with how the world would have been fucked if Ed or Al or Winry had been like “I’ll kill Scar”, and how it would have continued the cycle, and so on. 

At the same time, it doesn’t really have Ed or Al go out of their way to impose their values on anyone else- they’re obviously surrounded by people who have killed and continue to kill (even Al’s gf does, never forget when May casually wasted a couple dudes in the manga). But they don’t actively lecture people for having done it (Ed has traumatized reactions to people being killed in front of him, but jesus, of course he would). However, they won’t generally to be party to murder and try to find another way if possible- and the whole thing with Ed and Kimblee demonstrates that even when you’re careful trying to find another way (Ed tried to isolate Kimblee and keep him away from others he would hurt when he tried his just-capture-him gambit, but it still led to Ed nearly dying and Kimblee escaping, and he acknowledged these were the consequences of trying to be merciful and that if had a cost and he had to bear the responsibilities), it can blow up in your face. But…Ed sticking to his principles at cost to himself did impress Kimblee enough he was saved Ed down the line. That probably wasn’t worth the people Kimblee killed after escaping (or is it since Ed went on to save the country? This is what happens when you try to weigh human life- ultimately, you can’t do so reliably, and once you start treating it in terms of numbers, and it can be to say what could or should have happened)..,,, but he also might have escaped if the murder plan had gone down as expected, so there’s nuance  Al also has no comment when Lion Guy (sorry Im Ed) kills Kimblee. It’s not something he might have been able to do himself, but he recognizes it’s the only option they might have and doesn’t protest when it happens, even was the one who created the opportunity, etc.

Meatlung the Gronkle from How To train your Dragon

7/10. She’s lumpy, dumpy, cute and craggy. Her little wings buzz like a bee’s! This is a dog in the body of a lump. 

Red Death also How to Train Your Dragon

10/10. This lady is absolutely lovely. She’s hefty and craggy and intimidating. The shape of her mouth, crest, eyes, spines, and tail club are delightfully odd. She’s got 6 eyes! She’s massive but not absurdly big, with nice understated but not murky colors. She’s just a fucking kaiju compared to the others in thsi series, even compared to the other big dragons that lack her heft and menace. Also she actually looks lizardy with her limb proportions and set up.

Saphira from Eragon (film)

4/10. While I love how birdy and functional her wings look, I hate her smooth face and human eyes. Her face gives me ‘how do we show this dragon is female?’ vibes in a way that I hate. Her coloring is too muted and uniform and her freaky human eyes don’t stand out as much as they should.

Saphira from Eragon (book cover)

5/10. She’s got a much more visually interesting face. Look at those tentacle eyebrows and horse nose/fleshy beak  combo. The lenth of the scales on her neck give of an impression of feathers. 

Dragon from Shrek

5.5/10. Visually she’s not much to look at. And her wings are very nonfunctional looking (they’re barely attached). But the make up is fucking wild. Also she straight up ate the bad guy, which is something I always want good guys to do. (Like Shrek, Fiona, yer fucking ogres. Ogres specifically eat people. Eat the fucker you don’t like). The donkey dragon babies she ends up having are certainly… a choice.

Draco from Dragonheart

7/10. One of those dragons who’s def a character with their own story. Not personally a fan of ‘the last dragon’ plots but I like that this dragon does have some magic. Also how many dragons have you seen that participate in conning people?  I dislike how his colors don’t really pop and run together, brown is a good color but ya gotta use it right. His wings also bother me. They’ve got good surface area but they don’t really attach to his body.

Maleficent from Sleeping Beauty

8/10. This is a lovely design. I love how chunky she is and how emotive her spines are. The color of her tongue makes it look like a flame. Also the big ass nostrils and beak are very fun. Her tail is forked as in actually forked. Also she’s a fairy dragon and compared to everything else I’ve seen labeled as a fairy dragon, she’s a breath of fresh air.

Slyrak from Dota: Dragon’s Blood

8/10. Hard to find good pics of this man. This dragon is voiced by Tony Todd, this dragon has a sexy voice. The whiskers/tentacles on his face are a good touch. He’s got an interesting aged and lanky feel, very craggy old man, with good wings that show tattering. What’s really impressive is how feared this dude is, his sheer fucking fire power, and also the fact that he’s intelligent and still fucks people up just b/c he feels like it.

Dark Dragon from Burn The WItch

8/10. Before its face slid off it was delightfully cute in a lumpy way. Then its fucking face slid off for a lovely dash of horror on this otherwise cartoony sauropod shaped dragon. I love it.

Cinderella from Burn The Witch

well, i think you got it - practical, level-headed, deeply compassionate beneath a somewhat gruff outer exterior. i think in the duo of mace and yoda, mace, who is reportedly the master of the council and the second highest-ranking jedi, rakes on a lot of the practical responsibilities of running and maintaining the order, while yoda functions more as a spiritual leader, so mace's literal job description becomes Prioritize The Order. a lot of his decisions are weighed not on an individual, personal basis, but on what's good for the jedi as an organization - when he argues for ahsoka to be kicked out of the order, he doesn't do so because he thinks ahsoka's truly guilty, he does so specifically because he's trying to maintain the relationship between the jedi and the senate. fucked up thing to do, but i see where he's coming from, and his compassion towards the individual then is demonstrated as curbed by his prioritization of the whole.