In Skylanders: Giants in Wilkin Village, the Wilikin say they used to be with "the Maker" before "something bad happened." It's later revealed that this "maker" was actually Kaos, so what was the "bad thing" that happened? This could be a crucial point of Kaos' backstory.
Also, the book is not about "far off places, daring swordfights, magic spells and a Prince in disguise".
These scary moments seem oddly nostalgic and heartwarming now.
Not my video, credit goes to https://youtu.be/AHZ3cOm-F4M?is=0gzPfavv8NnirsZ4
I hate when people complain about a plot twist and insist it was SO OBVIOUS! Instead of giving people a chance to experience the story first, they just complain about what it is, robbing people of the chance to make up their own minds. Not everyone has the same cultural and personal experience as you. Some people don't pick up on clues that may be "obvious" to you. And you know what? That's a good thing! It lets people be genuinely shocked and have a better time than you!
Most egregious case of this I have experienced is the Black Mirror episode "Men Against Fire". Instead of letting me make up my own mind, they have to spoil the plot twist for me. Even f*king Wikipedia spoiled the episode's plot twist in the episode summary. Because I'm not like these people, I'm not going to spoil the episode for you.
Thi is included in every clickbait "Top 10 Dark Pixar Theories" videos and it doesn't make any sense and really annoys me. This whole idea is based on the presupposition that toys can die...and since when is that a thing? Never once does a Toy ever die in the series. It's heavily implied that the toys are brought to life and powered by love through being played with by children. The only way a toy could "die" in any sense is being forgotten so being played with would just bring them back to life. There's no way a kid could ever "play with a dead toy". It's just trying to be dark and edgy to the point of being silly.
This is literally how people talk to ChatGPT now
"Charles Atlas Superpower" is the trope where a character without superhuman powers is somehow able to achieve superhuman feats usually just by saying they "trained really hard". Question: Does this trope bother you? On the one hand, it can really pull you out of a story if a character who is meant to be a normal human can punch through metal, lift a car, jump 10 feet in the air and run fast enough to dodge bullets. On the other hand, I can kind of go along with it if it's done in a cool way. Thoughts?
"Bunny Girl Senpai" is a genuinely interesting anime about how ideas can influence reality and "Bitch" is a great comprehensive book about biology that exposes how a lot of patriarchal ideas about animals are wrong. Unfortunately, both of these have titles which mean I can never tell anyone about them without looking like a weirdo.
Has anyone noticed how "The Amazing Digital Circus" criticises religion?
Caine is the supreme Ruler of the Digital World, and is referred to as "God" by multiple characters. He makes the rules for the world and even censors swearing he doesn't like. He sees everything, and when his authority is questioned, he simply declares that he "runs the show" and that's it. He is later revealed to be indirectly responsible for altering people's minds to make them abstract, which seems to be similar to how sinners are damned. Both Caine and God send people to Eternal punishment yet blame the people who had no chance.
In Episode 7, his fake adventure is very similar to a "test" that the God of the Bible would do.
The most obvious example of this is in Episode 8, Caine declares "I AM GOD" and Zooble straight up says to him "What kind of all powerful being has such a fragile ego?". Then Caine dies, so as they say, "God is dead, and we have killed him".
Thoughts?
Regardless of how you feel about Charles personally, it's ridiculous and harmful for this children's book series to simplify this event into "Charles was nice, the anti-monarchist protestors were bad"
I feel like people don't appreciate how ahead of it's time this serial was when it came out. In 1966, there was no "I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream", no "2001: A Space Oddyssey", no Ultron, no Terminator. WOTAN was quite a new concept when this serial came out.
I feel like RTD didn't realise how the Doctor's "self sacrifice to give Belinda a child" came across...
So the most recent seasons of Doctor Who infamously tried to claim that the Doctor hasn't had children or grandchildren yet, and will have them in the future.
However, this isn't a new idea. Back in the 1990s, books like Lungbarrow were already claiming Susan was adopted by the Doctor via time travel/Looms.
But this has made me wonder...why? No matter which technobabble explanation, the "problem" that these stories are trying to "fix" is that the Doctor had a granddaughter. But why? Why do writers see Susan as a "problem" that needs to be fixed? Why can't the Doctor just have had a family and granddaughter on Gallifrey prior to running away? Why is that weird? Can someone explain?