/re "If Mary Jane face model looked like this in spiderman 2 would people still have complained?" | The problem isn't just her face

Source

#1 & #2

Depends, the original doesn't look as bad from certain angles lol.

But her magic taser crap, dollar tree lois lane-isms, her whiney scream dialogue, awkward scenes, zero presence in her scenes etc. etc.

Another dated, de-feminized, millennial/modern caricature called "MJ". And being MJ, she needs more endowment along with the face upgrade. You can have attractive women without going full Manga industry "piece of meat" treatment but that doesn't address the narrative issue. Her face is just a symbol.

Point being: She could look like Christina Hendricks but the writing is still garbage because the staffs idea of agency is her running around being Bargain Bin Lois Lane with inspector gadgets, which ironically should've been the whackier more fun parts of the game, tbh.

If she looked like that image from jump, the goal post would shift to "mary sue".

Personally, If i had to choose, I'd rather keep the Marlon Jane face in MSm2, and get a better written character, and more importantly: Presence & charisma, which she does not have.

But visually these two pics are upgrades, first one's better but the second one stays truer to the Msm2 model they went with.

Lastly, to get ppl to not "complain-" would be to overhaul the story, instead of the wannabe Kim Possible crap (& yet she's not even 1% the character Kim is in just the first episode) Give her some wit, femme fatale sass & some meme-worthy moments in the cutscenes. More banter moments with Peter so we can build up that chemistry (which they DO NOT have in the game).

Give her one liners, something! Give something the player can enjoy vs the player just watching an industry approved movie with interactive walking simulators & braindead Arkham sequences.

MJ really is just there despite how hard they tried to make her relevant and morally justified; the feminist rigid norm of the overworked careerholic woman in a dry relationship, the man is only one apologizing, and her arc culminates in her insulting Jameson & Peter telling her she's so cool.

Repeat after me: "Just because it's not Trad, doesn't mean it isn't a rigid norm."

Women not having flaws, never being the problem in relationships, overworked- is not flattering, that's not a character written like a human being, that's a talking-point in the form of a character: aka rigid norm.

All that effort & MJ just ended up being a plot device anyway.

That's really the worst part of it, the writer tried too hard because they were limited by the times. Zero nuance & it has nothing to do with her face, That's where the complaints would go if she was pretty from the start.

Mj isn't a source of strength or synergy, levity, or social cohesion. I say why not have her be the nerve center of the squad? And to be as such requires her actually having a personality vs the very feminist gen-trope of being married to her career pursuits to the point of burnout.

Which is where Peter comes in as a masculine warmth & levity, the mild-mannered cushion; so when the Symbiote comes in, there's a vacuum that threatens their bond, that relational serenity & eventually her safety.

But the point I'm making is-- something has to be there in order for something to be threatened in the first place.

Ifbthey have no chemistry & just act like platonic roommates; at worst Symbiote Peter just had a really bad attitude.

And him/Venom attacking her needed to come with ongoing physical evidence of harm to respect the gravity of that situation that builds towards his decision to let the suit go, or have that situation be the last straw.

Have Peter be on top of her, one killshot away from ending her life & then he wakes up.

Or: she tries to physically scratch at the symbiote to claw Peter out in sheer desperation, then wakes him with a calculated punch on his body, to target a wound she knows he had from a previous fight, using pain feedbacl to override the suit which is some serious combat IQ, all without a taser.

Mary Jane almost breaks her punching the symbiote & waking Peter up (meme worthy), then he sees what he's become.

Where's the Watson grit!? The kind that drove her to try to press Morlun of all people just to get her arm broken, that's peak MJ.

The MSm2 we got didn't have the spine to go there; Kraven loses his head, but MJ can't get too roughed up lol.

The story wants to insert her everywhere else she shouldn't be to inflate importance, but Peter coming to from his darkness was because of Morales (?) and not Watson's importance in Peter's life?

But she's his partner, not Miles. Sometimes the feminine approach is the stronger course of action and would make for a better conflict resolution than Miles throwing punches with Parker & hitting him with the Talk-No Deku technique.

Thus winning a fight he had no business winning and should've been written instead as Miles trying to survive Peter.

[Alien Cosmic Horror < plagiarized Jessica Drew powers] ZERO stakes, pure Gary Stu.

TL;DR point being---- whether ppl realize it or not, what warrants the complaints is more than just her face & the missions. I think her profile at this point is just the easiest target as a visual mascot for all the issues combined.

Which makes sense, I get it. But her face is more symbolic, it's not "the" problem.

For Mandom James Watsons face, she could look like Jessica Rabbit but if the writing's still slop, it'd just be a typical shonen anime at that point. All style, zero substance.

But like the Peter face change, it's not the change itself, it's what it was changed into that is the downgrade, on both accounts.

.

/re ""Toxic masculinity" has no coherent meaning-" | It's a Red Herring, not an extended hand

OP: "No one who uses the term "toxic masculinity" has any coherent underlying thought which is consistent with the way that anyone else uses it. The concept holds as much water as "original sin" on a logical level, and we can see this from the way that it is applied anywhere and everywhere that anyone wants to malign men.

Even at the most charitable interpretation, swigging the silly, gender-studies kool-aid about masculinity being purely "performed", it is still slurring a class of people by labeling their identity to be (at least partially) "toxic". Try that with any other class of people, and the bigotry is obvious. Yes, this applies to nonsense like "toxic femininity" just the same. It also applies to anyone who wants to label any aspect of blackness, latinity, Jewishness, or Asianness as "toxic" as well.

Anyone who uses these terms is engaged in irrational, incoherent bigotry. You might not have a problem with bigotry toward men as a class, but that doesn't make it bigotry any less." - "Toxic masculinity" has no coherent meaning and amounts only to a bigoted slur used against men."

https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/18g1cqh/toxic_masculinity_has_no_coherent_meaning_and/?sort=new

   Ideally it's about "patriarchal" norms reinforcing toxic behaviors in boys, which affects male decline later in life.

The issue: these are the same academics that label men as committing "avoidance" by not going to therapy; when in reality the therapy model is outdated, rigid, inflexible; and female lensed.

Sitting in a position & dumping about one's issues is easier for most women to commit to. Most men actually require DOING something about their problems, hands-on; most boys are the same way in school.

• The point of putting the ball in men's court is to distract from the fact that the industry is incompetent & is a business, not a charity. They do not care.
• Men should just express themselves like women, so the model of therapy nor society has to evolve to help everyone via a true egalitarian standard.

🚨"Toxic masculinity" the address aims to critique "societal pressures" that amplify bad traits in men, which in practice is literally about the system of parenting than it is masculinity. The term exposes itself.

Which includes out of control boys raised by single-mothers that DO NOT say "don't cry" but instead enable emotion indulgence by a woman's standards; without a stable, healthy male presence or mentorship.

• This conversation rarely explores that despite how more prominent single mothers are now compared to the 1950s.
• This isn't moving the goalpost to say it's worse with single mothers, this is establishing what always was reality: that this isn't about patriarchy or masculinity; it's about parenting and the ultimate wildcard of human nature--

 "Testosterone" the element ppl rarely bring up.

Otherwise, the inherent flaw of the label is the frequency of the behavior is irrelevant because the sole fact of the matter is:

• bigotry
• prejudice
• violence
• domination
• misandry
• misogyny
• stoicism
• repression

Aren't male exclusive flaws, and academia can't disprove that.

• Repression of expression posed as strength, or control of emotions being stigmatized as "repression" through a female academic lens.
• Telling boys not to cry is not going to create a Jack the ripper; not teaching boys the golden rule, how to respect people, how to respect women without omitting his own agency & confusing being a boytoy with serving a womans needs as a man./Teaching boundaries, professionalism,/ integrity, empathy: Not installing that is what creates an anomaly. 
• Slapping a little boy in the face or throwing him because he cried is how you create a future destroyer, just telling him not to cry, or teaching "time & place" is not toxic masculinity.

🚨If we want really have that conversation: Instead of pressing why men tell boys not to cry (misleading, I've heard women in their 50s comment on how emotional men are now), instead ask why men AND women thus society doesn't take male pain or men being violated as a seriously as they do women. And then you gaslight yourselves as to why men read the room & keep it to themselves because they know the collective does not care.

Why is it we then focus on men's reaction to biological bias, instead of addressing the bias itself? NOBODY wants to have that conversation.

🚨On the basis of suicide: Blatant societal neglect that empowerment is very brutally gendered by aiming it at women specifically/ Women are tired, mankeeping, & vindicated constantly, no accountability.

Justified in opting out because men are burdens who don't reciprocate & women reciprocate everything that's done for them at all times, 365 days a year, 24/7 (likely story)

In the next breath boys & men are "falling behind"

TL;DR men are just always screwing up, America specifically does not honor men, the closest it gets is superhero movies & even that fell off----that cultural, smothering abuse, bombarded for 40 years+ will initiate more thoughts in a boy that his existence doesn't matter, that there's no hope, no support, no empowerment for him & there's no positive INCENTIVE in opening up to society.

And society doesn't care to make any effort to try to help on men's terms, not because he was told not to cry but because society proudly, boldly, doesn't give a shit And it's always his fault.

That will erect more suicides than telling a boy to how, when, & why to regulate himself.

"Men & boys are falling behind": a misrepresentation.

• They're just not living their lives like women according to society's modern rigid parameters of success--- like going to college. Men not having degrees is men "falling behind". A lot of Men have more trade certifications, licenses instead of degrees, are women falling behind?
• Despite males still building every city that cradles your every need. Are women falling behind by that standard because men are still carrying civilization by a brutally huge margin?
• And not because women are being kept from something, they're not victims here, women CHOOSE not to help in hard skill fields--- Are women therefore falling behind or Or is it that women don't live their lives like men do & spoiler alert: there's nothing wrong with that.
• So why is it we ignore what women aren't doing to focus on what men aren't doing, spin that as males falling behind--Then tie it to masculinity & patriarchy or men resisting or clinging to how things were?
• When what's happening is men are only relevant mainly when it's a problem, mainly when men are painted to have scorned women in some way: never to empower, uplift or support.

Masculinity gets confused as a concept when we obfuscate it to mean control or a threat than service, creation, and provision. Hence your country existing at all, matriarchy didn't build Japan, America, China or Russia or India into the beasts they are today.

Patriarchy is what gets results, patriarchy builds because masculinity drives advancement; femininity drives smaller scale progress. But what are you advancing? Devolution or prosperity?

What direction are you progressing toward? Actual equality or the selective version where women benefit primarily? Are you progressing the country for everyone? or destabilizing it with good intentions? That's the caveat

🚨Much of Academia will kindly ignore that concern of what unchecked matriarchal movements do to society- ignoring that on purpose or unintentionally. Either way, that's the level of dishonesty and incompetence that we consider to be the "experts", at least in this topic whenever men are concerned, most of the time.

In fact, the "strong female character" archetype is usually, actively masculinized. Often very hostile, very bigoted, stoic, toxic, domineering, neglectful, insensitive (including to other women)--- all the things that make men a threat are sold as virtue to women.

Point being: Toxic masculinity is a red herring to gaslight men into believing certain bad human behavior is patriarchal, when in reality: "toxic masculinity" is "dysfunctional parenting", "maladaptive dysfunction" regardless of the person misbehaving.

So "toxic masculinity" works better in concept than theory by virtue of women doing the exact same things.

When women put babies in ovens, garbage cans, drownings; mutilating partners, calculated false allegations, keying, vehicular manslaughter, r*pe, drugging, harming themselves to frame people, putting glass in partners food (because women possess testosterone as well just a lesser volume); is that toxic femininity? or is that bad behavior exhibited by a woman at the time?  

One more time:

When women do the exact same thing, is that “toxic femininity” ? or women committing “toxic masculinity” aka a No Scotsman fallacy, bottlenecking the definition of the term.

Meaning if it isn’t toxic femininity, even when Women commit the same thing- we STILL have to keep the term gendered to men at all costs to keep the negative association with males. 

So it’s not women being human, it’s women being like men. See how this works? Do you see how that's engineered? Exception, the victim, deserves better and deserves everything. Thy name is woman.

 This is how you assassinate the morale of an entire group, an entire generation & hide behind “academia” so you won’t be questioned.

Almost as if that’s a zeitgeist requirement to uphold a “rigid” norm to keep majority of negative human traits "male" in overtone to gaslight people to think evil human traits are in essence: just maleness. Because that's exactly how it's spun.

So women doing wrong is just women being like men. 

Which is actually pretty evil, as far as lies go. 

Is it on purpose on part of academia? The doubling down is, but the initial fallacy? I’d like to think it isn’t. Because the term isn’t new. So it’s flawed, disingenuous, rigid and antiquated & disrespectful.

That’s targeted propaganda, not legitimate study. It's always one way.

TL;DR Dysfunction is human, not feminine or masculine. Values and parenting plants the seed of builders or destroyers. How the values are delivered is where the dichotomy comes into play or just personality. For there are tough moms and softer spoken fathers.

Testosterone in isolation- is drive, not a threat- if you parent properly.

The key to raising a little boy is what you choose to install into that mini-nuclear reactor before it goes off during puberty: Will it be a means of clean energy or a goddamn warhead.

• Stop trying to tame boys to sit still like girls do, stop trying to get them to vent & dump like women do; or make what women what women want to do into just doing everything men do from Stem to Railyard work.

If there's too many men, make quotas for women. If there's too many women, then that's progress. Progress is whatever your betters say it is, and that's the inherent problem with it.

• Men ARE NOT WOMEN. Because of that is why you have most of advanced civilization (stop taking that for granted because you think you can afford it).
• Stop trying to masculinize women to be the modern man their grandmothers wanted to date but most men on planet earth (not even overseas) doesn't want to deal with that and stop feminizing men to be a burden women didn't ask for & then women then ask "what happened to men?" AFTER you redefined masculinity five thousand times.
• Redefining masculinity stems from phobia, not understanding or even humanization.

🚨There's no version of masculinity. The end. But there's a version of parenting the same exact element: Testosterone vessel that is the male.

If you're a violator, that's not a bad or toxic masculinity because not that is not masculinity in any form. Period. Just like getting a sunburn isn't the sun being a "Toxic Sun" the Sun is the Sun regardless of how you interact with it.

• For boys specifically, testosterone amplify values or a void.

The label is a red herring because it doesn't capture the full picture, let alone nuance. Fallacious & moot: The traits listed are not unique to men, and at worst? The label is antiquated. By definition: Obsolete.

And ironically, was not created by a woman but gratefully opted by modernity outlets to do what they've always done--- not help the situation.

Categorical judgment that fails to establish a Functional understanding.

/re -- "A lot of people gloss over how six seems to have been in the tower for a length of time at least comparable to mono" | For me, there's a lot more to it than that.

source

 It's a solid enough theory, do I believe it? Not entirely, but it is possible. I often ponder how Mono (while good in intentions) was better off leaving Six to relative peace (even if it was a violation of her agency) & perhaps remaining in the tower himself to possibly watch over her. (bizarre? Yes.) I always saw the monster form as just a consequence of her being brought to the tower by force without the resistance Mono possesses to the transmission radiation & or The Thin Mans penance upon her was that specific form. The flipside to that is: if The Thin Man really wanted to make her suffer, he wouldn't have granted her the music box in the first place. It makes more sense that she simply became just as much a consumer of media as the deformed residents with their TV's. And that's likely what deformed her in the first place, combined with her being in the tower itself & her somewhat unique direct exposure to The Thin Man, who provided her some kind of form of peaceful stasis. He simply wanted her away from Mono & that toy kept her still. He could've just killed her. If she was in the tower for an extended period of time, then it's actually leagues more interesting how compliant & relatively 'friendly' she was when Mono signaled her to move from the corner, let alone showing his face in her presence. She didn't show any bitterness or resentment to him for not helping her when was abducted (be it in the past for her/ or just recently in real time). When she moved at his request, she even put the music box down, while her hands rested beside the toy. She didn't clutch it from him, meaning zero defensiveness to someone she should reasonably hate. Either way, she didn't try to hurt him until he began hurting her by smashing her anchor. That's why she went nuts, if Mono touched her hand instead, or resigned to just remaining there with her, there wouldn't have been a fight. So in respect to op "This isn’t an excuse for her actions," her actions were a consequence of Mono 'helping' too damn late in the timeline. Because think about it, when The Thin Man showed up in the street, Mono has this energy of submission to the fight, to save her, abandoning his head wear and everything. But if he had that energy before she was taken, he wouldn't have had to rescue her from a place that wasn't hurting her in a conventional sense. So she reaches out to him, he cowers. She finds peace, but now he hurts her to save her. My take all these years prior was: "He spent most of the game looking out her but that one time & she's done with him? Psycho." But no, really absorb the timeline. For her it was just repeated pain, a repeat agony, destroying the one thing she loved after he failed her. She allowed him into her room & through violence on her toy, he betrayed her once more. Again, she didn't get hostile until he imposed his will on her safe space for the right reasons. Her actions don't need defense because it's pretty reasonable why she went berserk. It has less to do with her being broken or her glitch form being separated & had everything to do with her minding her business, until he showed up, she let him in, and he hurt her. It's a very nuanced, very interesting storytelling decision, even for a basic concept as "Little Nightmares". The writing is pretty good in particularly in the 2nd game, so much so it's a good inspiration. She wasn't a princess in a tower, she was a victim that was compliant to her prison, because what else did she have to look forward to outside? If she remains, she wouldn't have delt with the hunger pains, she wouldn't have killed The Runaway Kid, she wouldn't be wandering the planet as a WOMD. Now this isn't excusing his actions but The Thin Man: given his justifiable wrath & pre-meditated hatred so immense his power enslaves sentient life- still treated her better than one would expect. though in a way it could be/likely was a form of taunting, given he knows she won't leave the toy, thus he owns her. Otherwise he could've just merged her with a solid wall, in a pit, screaming in the dark, to suffer for eternity. But he granted her that one little totem that emulated the tune she imprinted on in that house & granted her enough cognizance to recognize people, to move around, to even enjoy the music. Her own room, a twisted safety. That's way more than the others got or will get. Fked up all around, a sentimental tormentor. solid topic, good post.

"What was the point of THE DESCENT PART II? So they changed the ending and still made a flop out of a hit movie." - I agree

 

*originally typed AUG 2024

Just finished it. It was filibuster to reach the exact same conclusion as the first, just a worse movie you have ta sit through to get to it.

Unnecessary sequel, granted it was nice to see Juno being a beast as usual and her & Sarah getting some kind of closure but thats the only thing that was accomplished.

 a lot of contrivances (like the amnesia angle being the writers forced reason to get Sarah back in the cave somehow) , worse effects, we know what the crawlers shit pit looks like, we still see the crawlers taking turns killing instead hunting as group, we only see ONE female crawler, no kids, no babies, no elderly, no nest, the crawlers look worse than before.

 The direction was worse, the use of light took the threat level away from the crawlers and the fact that they keep getting bodied. And how its shot looks cheap. bad Cgi = points taken.

But again, Juno dead, Sarah dead. Same exact result as the first, which was presumed anyway. Realistically.

Juno vs all those crawlers, dead.

Sarah resigns herself to her fate with the illusion of Jessica in her final moments giving her some peace as death closed in.

The first movie ended perfectly.

No we didnt get the closure, but the lack of closure was part of the point of the "descent" into chaos, division, anarchy, primality.

Juno was cool, I personally liked her the most. While it was full circle she finally apologize, she did not deserve closure, she was a snake.

The sequel wasnt worth that one moment. Rios being denied because Ed psychically knew where she was going to be or he knew there was only w exits but then how did he know WHEN to be there, or why he presumes the crawlers wont kill them all outside Sarah being a fluke.  Bullshit.

Stupid. Stupid contrivance.

I watched it for more Crawler lore, and I learned they do indeed have a toilet, which I figured as much. Waste of time. Im confused why we only get one female type per movie. Where do they keep the children?

The best part about it was Ed hyping up the dread of the caves being a descent to hell, his gramps not surviving the trip. Chills.

The buildup to the caves were the best bit.

Writing was ass, story was ass, Juno & Sarah carried to a moot end, lore was painfully ass compared to the first.

Ed is protecting/preserving the crawlers, we dont know why or how his Granddads death relates to it or if the crawlers even see him as a benefactor.

What he gets out of it, and now more people are missing, including Law Enforcement personnel = more search party-

A loose end that was avoided with the first because nobody knew where the women were.

We gained absolutely nothing.

"What are your thoughts on Kallen Kozuki?" - Painfully under-written heroine (2025)

Painfully under-written heroine.

Season 2 was not her downfall, it was the show inflating what it always was: Overrated, hack, rule of cool that thought it was clever.

• R2 only emphasized prevailing issues that already existed in S1
• S2 didn't invent the sidelining, plot armor, contrivances, plot holes & overcompensating fanservice because the show couldn't think of humanizing reasons for anyone watching to give a shit about the women beyond what makes your dicc jolt
• And so, it gave us more of what CG was to begin with, the difference is Season 1 didn't have a reputation yet and so it was more conservative with it's gimmicks, didn't mean it was good, it means R2 was worse.

TL;DR Thoughts are Kallen overall was "fine", not good, but fine for a hollow light novel archetype, which is how she's treated.

A remarkably weakly executed character given how early we saw her in Season 1 and really had very little agency despite how headstrong she is.

Yet she's an excellent set piece for action scenes because of her archetype or being a piece of meat mascot for fanservice because unfortunately she wasn't a male character & due to that fact she isn't exempt from not being treated seriously or with respect, because that's what her worth boils down to according to the writers when she isn't kicking ass or being melodramatic or more noticeable: being Zero's biggest simp, her defining trait, besides her grit.

Episode 9 of Season 1 is still one of few episodes I'll still watch these days of the show without getting a headache because of how uncharacteristically competent the writing is for the most part. The through lines relating to her mother's traumas, her resentment toward her mother and it ends with somber closure between them both, though it should've been explored more as with Kallen's entire motivation namely her brother & daily life.

Kallen's goals, her motivation, her flaws, her abilities. She can carry a show easily, an OVA, really she's just as much main character material as Suzaku & Lelouch.

In Zero's absence, I would've liked to see Kallen directly leading the knights, her way; because how Lelouch leads isn't the only method to lead effectively.

• And the respect she already has due to being one of the front line fighters and being THE most valuable fighter: Her being Chief would've given an interesting challenge for us to see her not thinking like a brute, reliant on orders to aim her talents but instead thinking like a tactician, thinking for herself in this way whilst having that combat prowess, so being a nerfed combination of Suzaku & Lelouch but not being especially exaggerated in either category, a balanced Jack of All Trades. And unlike Xingke, she's not sick or anything, she's just not overpowered in terms of being a tactical genius, she goes off instincts.
• Because her decisions in this way would dictate whether or not her comrades live to fight another day, seeing her deal with the weight of that would be an easy arc for an episode, because they're not just chess pieces to her; all of which happens without Zero there to be her emotional safety net vs him/the mask being her metaphorical emotional shackle.
• Easily could've had R2's first 2-3 episodes or less be on that focus, whilst leading up to Lelouch' emancipation from his illusion, building up to it through Kallen's eyes. Easy w.

Lelouch is the MC of base form Code Geass but he wasn't the only protagonist, same with Avatar the last Airbender, Codename Kids Next Door & The Avengers movies, hell even Lego Monkie Kid. You can't just sparingly sprinkle some scarce development in there in 1 or episodes and then piss off, you have to add more development to eventually cultivate an arc. That's how it works.

When the plot hijacks the character writing, when fanservice regresses the profile of the characters, you get stagnation, which leads to sidelining & narrative deprivation. Season 2 didn't undermine Kallen, Code Geass as it always has been: undermined Kallen.

Unfortunately CG's writers had mismanaged priorities.

Otherwise, easily top 5 best pilots in CG, considering how many skilled pilots there actually are in the entire franchise beyond Lelouch' drama, so for her, that says a lot; beside the fact that The Black Knights' Ace pilot, "Q1" is globally infamous, which is also something I liked about what little we got from Kallen's profile in the long term.

But you need more going for you than just a part in action scenes & being boner bait, which is where most people get muddied when it comes to Kozuki or anime female leads in general. We get latched on for superficial reasons vs her actually being "well-written" due to exploration & tests, and it pains me to see (still) how many people will say that term but don't know what it means.

The "lewdness" or fanservice didn't defeat any depth for Kallen, because fanservice, especially in high frequency (in a serious setting like this) is generally what happens in a vacuum of not having depth in the first place. It clashes.

Fanservice can't undermine depth Kallen never got to have, which is why the fanservice was there to begin with; so with depth gone, you have to fill it with something, and lazy writers usually go with Mary Sue-isms (woke, condescending & politicized) or oversexualization (anti-woke, dehumanizing & disrespectful). You'll seldom see that kind of treatment with characters that are actually taken seriously by the writers.

There's a big difference between fanservice cameo, an easter egg, having fun; vs compiled humiliation rituals labeled "fanservice".

It's overcompensation so that the writers give us something to attach onto about the character the easy way, so they don't have to do any real work with their pens to layer the character. That way they can prioritize pushing the plot along while the characters get dragged in tow.

And because situations around the characters develop & escalate, we by proxy think they / the characters are developing as well, when at best they're just reacting to rising events but in reality most of them are actually still the same exact people.

Code Geass was & has always been plot driven over character driven, which is partly why it's a mess, style over substance.

So unfortunately despite her high ranking in The Black Knights, outspoken nature & prominence in fight scenes, the fanservice never undermined her depth because she had none to begin with.

Episode 9 Season 1 was the foundation for depth, & it wasn't fully realized or exploited, despite how early her debut was.

• She isn't an NPC that showed up in Episode 9 or 15, she was there since Episode 1, you'd think she'd get more respect or more to do.

Kallen wasn't useless (her preventing Lelouch from shooting up, rejecting his advance, course-correcting his vision is one of the better scenes in R2 EP7 because of how the drug relates to her personal life- is one of the better moments), she was whiney & clingy at times but not fragile. Written to be way too reliant on "Zero" overall for my taste, with no proactive attempt to use leaving him behind as a sign of growth for her, another wasted opportunity. Otherwise she had a stake & a role (as limited as it was), but not agency nor depth. At best, she was a highly prominent tool, high ranking lackey. What she needed was more independence, more proactivity vs being a reactive henchwoman.

Again, Fanservice definitely regressed her representation but it can't undermine depth Kallen never got to have in the first place, which is why the fanservice was there to begin with.

With depth nonexistent, you have to fill it with something, and lazy writers usually go with Mary Sue-isms (woke, condescending & politicization) or oversexualization (anti-woke, dehumanizing & disrespectful). You'll seldom see that kind of treatment with characters that are actually taken seriously by the writers.

Kallen really could've been the Katara of Code Geass with the theme of vengeance being the parallel, but Anime Japan yet again proved it's not capable or willing to write competent characters of high caliber in mainstream because quotas must be met at the characters expense for reasons that benefit everything & everyone except the characters.

Kallen is cool: strictly as an archetype, that's what she is & treated as, an archetype. As a character (generously): undercooked & painfully under-written because of lazy writers that felt style mattered more than substance. which is Code Geass in a nutshell.

"Rule of Cool:" The Animation, Mechs, superpowers, pretentious pseudo-intellectual political mumbo jumbo, supernatural shit pertaining to the will of man & god, cults, a ninja maid, etc.

Code Geass: Lelouch of the Asspulls was doing too much, it's why it got me into anime, it was an ambitious melting-pot experiment but it really didn't know what the hell it was doing & aged as well as a heroin addict.

Kallen is a casualty of that, one of many.

"What's something VTubers do that you HATE?!" (you asked lol) * Why VTubers are annoying, contrived, pathetic parodies of actual content creators

Example: The post itself, a blue haired wolf/fox/dog whateverthefuck. 

By itself it looks like a 14 year olds bad attempt at an OC with a dash of "Self-insert" syndrome & a punchable looking face.

Like what the fuck even is this:

Literal eye vomit, pure over-design, everything to hate about what anime did to people’s ability to discern “standards” as a concept, all of that manifested as a mascot.

• And the worst part is- I don’t have to like it, people can like it. I have zero qualms with an entire group having shit taste, you ain’t my child, thus not my problem, nor my representation of anything of myself, so go crazy.

The real issue is the OVERSATURATION of countless people copying this nonsense. It’s the excess for me. So sick of seeing it, sick of seeing laziness rewarded.

1. VTuber designs being obnoxious garbage #1 
2. shitty stock anime songs
3.  dry af personas
4.  oversaturated/ formulaic business model in which the main resource is males being basic products of the times, not a new concept, but still depressing that the main resource is their loneliness or gullible nature, lack of female attention is being exploited with a smile- yet again, as usual.

And I believe I saw somewhere that a couple watched a vtuber together, so there are outliers like that.

Otherwise, mind you: The target demo and main demographic aren’t the same thing. The target demo allegedly is teens & kids but the main demographic is lonely adults wanting to entertain a waifu they’ll never have, same old shit.

Because not only is she not real but it’s a ventriloquized mascot being puppeteered by some clown with a real voice.

I've seen some VTwerps look like demon lords or something, horns n shit. Or harkening back to IronMouse’ obnoxious as hell design, or fetish garbage.

ALL THAT just to watch videos & play games, wearing digital cosplay & thats “content”; basically parodying a content creator. Extra as hell.

• This is some shit I'd expect out of 13 year old girls; if it were children doing this, then it’s normal teenager cringe phase shit.
• Vs grown ass women & men lmfao, who should be adjusted by now. Painfully unattractive generations.

POV: **Wear digital cosplay; now you matter**

Regressive.**tldr, not a fan.**

**They're not DeviantArt Fetishist levels of #Parenthoodfail, I'll give average vanilla VTubers that much, some of em ain't *THAT* bad. 

Though they are still annoying. **

If a Vtuber gained a following singing her ass off on decent acapella or something/or being in the %1 of competitive PVP/pro speedrunner/ or could solve advanced algebra equations on a timer for her stream/ master chess player, just having a gift or something.

Or there was a VTuber meta where to be a VTuber you had to be really good at something within an avi, at that point I'd stomach the avi crap, and hop aboard just to see what's up and see them be masters at something.

This way they gatekeep the brand from being crowded; having a talent besides running your virtual mouth & being *uwu quirky* and that's the core of the "content" because schtick formula is the avi doing all the work.

Which is what this is really about, the avi being anime & thats all that atters.

Cause if being a VTUBER meant you were actually good at something, at that point just show your face. Why lie to your audience if the point is to give them something to connect to? I thought that's part of the point of streaming? I get some people likely opt for Vtwerping for safety reasons but cmon, where's your confidence?

You really need to cosplay as a half demon/ half demi-goddess, wolf queen with a pineapple allergy just to get anyone to give a shit about your internet existence? That's not in any way pathetic to these guys?

**What I dislike is VTwerps being a Dollar Store version of a Content Creator**, a parody.

• Appealing to the lowest to lowest or youngest common denominator, rewarded for the less than the bare minimum.
• Pushed so hard by Youtube for example, yet providing so little despite doing the most for no reason, or more accurately---

**"Realtime WAIFU SIMULATOR aka average VTuber"** aka the reason they get the time of day. They're a market friendly softcore tease. The sweet spot of algorithm wonderland.

Reaction videos out the ass for the avi making the same 2-3 expressions, the fuck even is this timeline anymore? Women just invent new ways to embaraass themselves.

males having easy access to female parasocial companionship without having to work for a real one, tale as old as dropping birthrates and a prevailing manhood crisis.

And its worse that these clowns look like interactive anime bimbos, some look like kids and babies.

Naturally Its the anime crowd, of course they want to watch underage mascots likenesses act like dumbasses.

Not all VTubers are female; majority are female (big shock), In contrast the majority audience are male 15-30yr, the lonely male range (big flipping shock)

 Otherwise, I can just watch anime for that same waifu simulator bullshit, at least then I'll get an equally scripted personality character with better line delivery /better voice acting/ BETTER ACTING from an actress who actually knows what the fuck she's doing.

And I've stopped doing even that for that exact reason almost 20 yrs ago. So I'm not giving some hack NPC, a grownass woman wearing digital cosplay calling herself a "VTuber", a “goddesss” (beit vtuber or fetishist loser) or whatever fatherless behavior someone’s random ass daughter is projecting this week for some good ol fashioned ATTENTION.

They’re everywhere.

I’m not paying donos or my attention for her doing her best impression of what she/they thinks is an interesting person. 

Which is what they’re doing, an elaborate impression of what they’re not.

Apparently this is what they gotta do to get anyone to give a shit, cause they themselves as people isn't good enough; actually creating something isn't good enough, a trade for the talentless. Hell even a regular anime pfp wasn’t enough they had to 3D that shit to get anyone to give a damn lmfao.

Hence the popularity of VTubers: *Not cause of phenomenal content creation but Male devotion/ desperation, predictable proletariate behavior.*

On one hand though, I'm sure they're having fun building the brand & embodying whatever it is they think they're going for, taste be damned, it's immersive roleplay--- have fun you cringey snots. 

Cause I repeat, some couples watch Vtubers, could just watch anime but whatever.

Live your illusion, even if it means not living at all. (That's me being salty, I know VTubers have lives off-stream)

Cause there's much worse cringe & unbridled garbage being pumped out here worth actual hate than VTubers playing video games or dropping an occasional fest or album.

• where VTwerps are tolerable is when they stay in their place, in the niche, out my recommends, and out of my fucking face.

They are tolerable when caught off guard or frustrated & you can somewhat see a real authentic reaction through their stupid avi jerking around and or they shut the hell up & in reality the actual entertainment of a Vtuber space- Is really the chat ngl, no different from most streamers.

(the only Vtuber to genuinely not piss me off by virtue of being in my line of sight is sakura miko's reaction to that GTA V Lamar roasts Franklin cutscene. The avi was cringe ofc but the womans vocal reaction saying "N*99a" in a musical note was funny. Wish i could've seen her face when she said it)

**On the other hand, say what you want about Youtube Reactors & some Twitch streamers' politics, but If it's gonna be parasocial?

Do me the respect of not wearing a weeb mask on top of the already fake ass persona act and then think a fabricated backstory & tropey, cutie, kawaii, or mysterious, sensual, smug, abrasive or whatever anime cliche you adopt as a theatricality; pasted on some corny lore attached to an animated anime girl profile, thinking that makes it a better look.**

Or even if it’s your real personality, why the fucking virtual mask? you can’t be that hideous. And that’s coming from me, but the difference is I’m not live streaming or talking, if you’re going to push yourself that hard, why hide?

Because not showing your face is in fact inauthentic to your own audience.

As if being a mystical, shy, immortal owl huntress turned pop idol from Dimension X with a fish allergy or whatever they think sells to an audience for some years is gonna stick----

• *Or however long these goofballs choose to keep that shit up, cause some of them do "retire" & walk away.

• Almost as if the gig was a joke to begin with & being a weeb mascot for teenage boys (target demo) isn't something to write home to mommy and daddy*

Way too many adults comfortable doing teenager shit nowadays, and ya’ll think cause it profits, you’re gaining something.

It's pitiful, the parasocial nature of it isn’t that dangerous but it is concerning especially with how young the demographics can be and *yet I can 100% see why kids would buy it; current gen will watch anything or anyone:

1.  that doesn't know when to shut the hell up
2.  it's colorful
3.  looks anime+female = average VTuber = business model to exploit*

I get the appeal, anime appeals to the simple minded (meaning casual mindset), the young, the low bar, easy to please, the NPC’s. 

None of that is a moral judgement btw, being ‘simple minded’ just means you can enjoy almost anything even if it’s garbage, but at the end of the day—  you can enjoy something, just in greater volume cause you care less if it's quality or not.

• watching a cropped avi sit there & make the same 2-3 expressions, jerk around making noises as if demonically possessed err i mean "being funny", ain't quirky, its embarrassing.

• The best thing about VTwerps is the side gig attempts, I can somewhat respect some of em for tryna expand the brand, with songs, art & other side quests even if it's mid or straight whack. 

Still, it’s effort.

VTubers translate better in highlights but even then it's just hearing a humans telegraphed voice coming out of the **humanoid equivalent of visual vomit** trying it's best to emulate a personality.

And even if it looked like peak pixar model with realtime expressions, its still bad.

In fact that’d look creepier if it could tap into full range of expressions.

VTuber is no longer a niche for a small clan, it's an exploitation of a loneliness market (not the only one either), it fell off cause they're doing too much.

VTubers are not exact clones of each other but they are variants, all disposable, as fake as a botox; *could be worse but painfully oversaturated & infantile.*

• It sucks they don’t have to be good at anything so any useless bot can just make the avi & pop off if and when they catch the right crowd, zero effort.

I swear there’s a grownass man with a teenage looking vampire jailbait with twintails, and dude has zero qualms with that. THATS his platform, burly man voice coming out of a little girl. Un-fucking- believable.

And random commentary channels i watch always have some vtuber in the damn videos, I can’t escape these twats, on god, lmfao.

So when Youtube shows me or insists on recommending me another stock demon chic/ green/blue haired VTard chump or some toddler looking little loli bastard and the title has

"VTUBER REACTS"

Meanwhile, people with actual talent, people I follow who can’t get a break, people who create actual content, who ARE ACTUAL CREATORS (shoutout “RobenSikk” on youtube) See when those people can’t get the kind of push VTubers get when VTubers are skill-less, worthless drones; unearned shilling from youtube.

Yeah imma get slightly agitated at that point especially when "not interested" ain't working and the videos are under "FOR YOU" tab.

For ME?!

HOW? I’m one of those peons who will listen to 3 hour lectures while doing 3 other things. When do I EVER even imply I would watch a “VTuber“, are you serious?

Then it makes me wonder if the algorithm truly thinks anyone & I MEAN ANYONE that watches anime (even if it's like 3 times in a year) really is that basic / & or desperate.

• Because while I get the appeal, I don’t get the hype. 

I had to turn off all google history just to get it to stop, for maybe 4 months before I started seeing it again.

Sick to death of looking at these people’s ass faced-mascots.

Otherwise I can ignore em as long as they stay outta my way, generously. 

Same with fetishists, I don’t hunt for these idiots, they end up in my face? It’s on sight.

Most of 2024 was Youtube ruining my site experience with those talentless hacks littered all over my recommends—

 On top of 15-30 second ads (& a few 1 hour) every 2-5 minutes/seconds, beginning, middle, middle, middle and end. It’s getting to the point where Imma just download videos I want to watch to see them in peace, and If I like it I’ll go back to the channel and like it.

Youtube needs to stop rewarding laziness; like any parasite, for VTwerps, if this schtick didn’t profit, these people wouldn’t be milking it dry like this- this much.

I just as much don't want VTubers shoved down my throat any more than I would politics or religion that I didn’t ask for, dead ass. Same goes for Fetishy bullshit on google images. That's a whole other beast right there.

So when I’d prefer to watch a 3 hour five precepts lecture over even 10 seconds of some VTuber singing the best cover sung in history, then goes back to being a general dumbass, algorithm needs to do better.

2024 Youtube lost it’s own plot.