No doubt, one of my favorite things about âThe Boy (2016)â was how much of it was left up to your imagination and interpretation. (Death of the author, ofc. Only keeping the movie itself in mind.)
  We got almost no concrete proof for anything the movie tells us about Brahmsâ backstory, and what we do know can lead to multiple conclusions about the character.
  The whole âhe killed Emilyâ thing, for instance.   This is something weâre told by Malcom, who prefaces what he says by directly mentioning that this is town gossip. Which is untrue or, at best, only half-true. (Take it from someone whoâs lived in a small town and had gossip and rumors spread about me and my loved ones, theyâre usually spread with very little of the original context and, usually, turns into âI think this happenedâ instead of facts, or ends up being a giant game of telephone... or both.)   We get a picture of a girl, showing that there was, in fact, an âEmilyâ that Brahms knew, but other than that, we get nothing.
  For all we know, Emily couldâve fell and hit her head on a rock, and people started blaming Brahms for it. Thereâs no concrete evidence proving it either way, and I love it.
  We donât even know that much about Brahms, really. Heâs a craftsman (As seen in the ending scene.), he makes traps (The rat traps everywhere with his initials.), he can make a sandwich, he enjoys having a set schedule, and he canât live by himself (At least, as far as we know.). ...Thatâs really all we know besides him being forced into the walls by his parents and being twenty-eight in the film. We also hear that he was apparently âOddâ, which, considering his clearly snooty-ish upbringing, could mean a lot of things.
  Why is he acting like a kid? It could be a manipulation tactic, it could be a sign of mental illness, or it could be a coping mechanism. Again, it's up to your interpretation.
  Personally, I see all this and think:   "Heâs a traumatized man whoâs possibly autistic (Schedule, traps may be a special interest, canât properly live by himself, etc.), falsely rumored to have murdered his one friend, burned in a fire set by his (possibly ableist) parents, and was gaslit and manipulated into thinking Emilyâs death really was his fault."
 But thatâs just how I see it, of course.   I imagine there could be many ways someone could interpret the film. (For instance, my sister watched it and came out the other side with: âheâs guilty, creepy, and severely in need of psychological helpâ.) and thatâs great, I love it!Â
  I wish more âhorror-ishâ movies did this. Most present horror is jump scares and gore with little to no substance, and while I enjoy a bit of gore here and there, it can be pretty tiring. (Aka: Why I loved âThe Collectorâ but disliked its sequel âThe Collectionâ, lol.)
Using the novelization of movies as evidence for something in the movie itself is really stupid.
Mainly, I'm saying this because the writer of the novelization is often a different person, who is tasked with 'expanding' on the source in their own way. Sometimes given early versions of the script to work off of, which were already scrapped for one reason or another.
So, the writer of the novelization will have a different interpretation of the story/characters than the original writers, and the movie's ideas and entire point may end up getting muddled and overshadowed by the biases and perspective of the novelization's writer.
So, to me, novelizations of movies/tv shows are far more like remakes, not bonus scenes. It follows the same formula, but it's not the same. So it makes no sense to use them as evidence for something in the original movie, whether it be about character, plot, or worldbuilding.
Same with movie-tie in video games, etc. People don't use those as 'evidence' from what I've seen, but I've seen people use movie novelizations as evidence, and it bothers the hell out of me.
Idk, I just wanted to make this post, because I'm annoyed.
I think I'm already tired of the 'all of one character groups into a collective of multiverse heroes' trope. Or whatever you want to call it.
I just tried to watch 'My adventures with Superman' and I was mentally checked out the entire seventh episode as soon as we found out about the 'league of Lois'.
Honestly, that trope is so dumb. I'm not the only one who thinks that, right?
Infinity Train is getting removed from HBO Max and now CN deleted every video and mention of it off their social media.
I am livid.
Reblog this if you think Infinity Train deserves so much better.
barracks
(from the Thor: The Dark World movie storybook)
I wanted to do a more cartoony Batman The Animated Series version of Magdalena! Her last name being Seymore is a direct (if misspelled) reference to Little Shop Of Horrors!
In Batman The Animated Series Magdalena would be a hairdresser trying to make an ultimate conditioner and accidentally bringing her hair to life after a vile is infected with spores from a meteorite! Idk her Suicide Squad backstory is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT but I wanted it to be sillier for this!
You missed a few:
-People apologizing Tony for all the shit he pulled.
-Holding Thanos in higher regard than half the other characters despite him being arguably badly-written and doing horrible things to the other characters even before the snap.
-Completely missing Lokiâs entire arc during the first two Thor movies and Avengers, and chalking them up as âjust a narcissistic villainâ.
MCU fans in a nutshell:
Apologizing anything Wanda ever did, even things she did when there was no influence on her.
Victim blaming Bucky and Loki for being controlled and tortured.
Apologizing Clint killing people after the death of his family.
Calling Zemo a villain for doing literally the same.
Smell the hypocrisy.
He/They/It. Made in 2002. BLM. ACAB. Queer and Disabled. Some fandom blog w/ a secondary self-ship blog. This blog is fandom stuff, and also rambling about misc shit. DNI: Proshippers/Comshippers, MAPs, Racists, LGBT-phobes, Ableists.
174 posts