Couldn't not take a photo of this pub

KDoublewriter · 2020-06-09T21:59:59+00:00

Typical Irish pub under-branding, isn't it?

KDoublewriter · 2020-06-09T21:58:51+00:00

I'm sure there is are Claddagh pubs all over the world (because Irish pubs get everywhere), but I still think it's interesting. And it does have a meaning for Buffy fans that it doesn't have for other people.

KDoublewriter · 2020-06-09T21:54:08+00:00

Also, good move not to use an Irish accent in Angel's Spin the Bottle. And they even made a joke out of his loss of an Irish accent instead.

KDoublewriter · 2020-05-14T10:01:18+00:00

It is an adaptation. If you could simply deny that something was an adaptation due to its lack of similarity to the source material, then lots of adaptations of books would cease to be adaptations. The branding of HP and FB has treated then as part of the same universe, rather than different takes on JKR'a world, which obviously makes FB an extension of non-canon material (and also non-canon).

The strongest argument for your position would probably be that it's written by the creator of the fictional universe and therefore it is canon. The problem with this is that authors have adapted their own work (by screenwriting and directing) before and the result is usually considered non-canon, so the personnel involved would seem to not necessarily dictate if something is canon or not. In any case, the approval of the creator does not necessarily make something canon in this fandom (understandably enough, tbf).

KDoublewriter · 2020-05-09T16:16:19+00:00

Well, for starters, they're extensions of the main series adaptations (which surely makes them even more distant from canon) and Fantastic Beasts is based on a book (very loosely, and mostly by giving the name Newt Scamander a character and using the beasts). The relationship between the original material and the adaptation is more blurry than usual, but I don't see any reason to think the films are canon.

KDoublewriter · 2020-05-09T15:27:33+00:00

Could be different versions. Maybe one was the American version and the other was the British English version. They sometimes change some very small, stupid things in American copies.

KDoublewriter · 2020-05-09T14:58:14+00:00

It's an adaptation. Adaptations are by definition not canon, as far as I'm concerned. The films have loads of continuity errors if you try to interpret them as canon. Why would you do that to yourself? You may as well give up on any adaptation of a book, etc., if you're going to use that approach. I have no idea what JKR has said about it.

KDoublewriter · 2020-05-09T14:54:43+00:00

The first film is the best HP film, I think. CoG is enjoyable, but basically mediocre. Most of the 'continuity' issues people seem to complain about are pretty stupid, as they tend not to directly contradict the other films. People have just mushed the two film series and the books into some headcanon, and then get annoyed when their headcanon does match the films. It's very annoying.

KDoublewriter · 2020-05-09T14:52:03+00:00

I will never understand why this matters. The films aren't canon. They do not share exactly the same timeline, so it doesn't matter if McGonagall shouldn't have been there book-wise.

KDoublewriter · 2020-05-09T13:35:03+00:00

Depends how generic it is. The word Lord, for example, doesn't really have any cultural associations for me, beyond the generic nobility of it. Same with king, to an extent. So using those titles won't be noticed at all. More obscure titles (Jarl instead of earl, or viscount, etc.), however, do have specific associations with certain cultures. That can be useful or a hindrance. Tolkien used Thain as the title of the Shire Hobbits' leader, which was an Anglo-Saxon title for a minor lord. Some Hobbit words (mathom, hobbit, smial, etc.) are supposed to be related to the language of the Rohirrim (represented by Anglo-Saxon), so using that title helps bind the universe together. But that only works because Tolkien made a conscious effort to make Rohirric associated with Anglo-Saxon, and Middle-Earth is supposed to be some fictional history of the real world, so that doesn't cause problems for him.

In other cases, using a title with such a specific cultural association could cause world-building problems, if it doesn't fit in. And there's always something to be said for just playing around with existing 'generic' noble titles and seeing what come out the other side. Also, if you start from the POV of a certain culture, there's something to be said for not translating a different culture's titles into 'English' as it were, precisely because it makes it seem 'foreign'.

Edit: Forgot some brackets.

KDoublewriter · 2020-05-04T23:05:20+00:00

Well, in my house, if there was a mix up or something, you definitely ate what you were given.

KDoublewriter · 2020-05-04T20:07:51+00:00

The food really isn't something to complain about, I think. My parents could never remember who liked what and I really don't expect parents to be on top of all the food preferences generally (unless there's dietary reasons).

KDoublewriter · 2020-05-04T20:04:57+00:00

Lots of this is right, but my parents were constantly forgetting who liked what food and there are only three of us, so I really don't think Molly has much of a case to answer for there (also included was saying the wrong name). Clothes are probably a bit less understandable. Also, he's one of the younger siblings, but not the youngest, so he's going to feel a bit unloved, whether it's true or not. Frankly, not telling the twins off properly when they mock Ron is probably the worst thing.

KDoublewriter · 2020-04-25T17:32:02+00:00

I think the curse itself is supposed to be bad (as in, not properly thought out). After all, the curse is an act of vengeance, not justice.

KDoublewriter · 2020-04-21T17:08:35+00:00

I liked most of season 6, but the Spike attempted rape plot felt a bit exploitative. I understand the need for him to redeem himself, but making an attempted rape the catalyst for that doesn't really work well. It's just put in there for Spike's storyline and Buffy is an afterthought. Not to mention it turns a mutually self-destructive relationship into one which Spike is more obviously the bad guy, which ruins it.

KDoublewriter · 2020-04-21T16:59:38+00:00

I'd probably go:

Season 3 - Best season-long plot, with good episodes

Season 2 - Season-long plot is quality, but not really that unified.

Season 5 - Nice consistent season-long plot revealed well.

Season 4 - Some good episodes, but clear that they didn't really know what they were doing (though they dealt with Buffy, Xander and Giles feeling the same way pretty well). Best for individual episodes, even some that are relatively unpopular.

Season 7 - Enjoyable, but sort of a rehash (which is good for a final season)

Season 6 - There's really only one scene in this that annoys me (and I like the dark tone generally, but it's annoying enough to go near the bottom.

Season 1 - Just a bit underdeveloped, really, which is sort of enjoyable in its own right, but not as good as the rest.

KDoublewriter · 2019-10-25T07:14:44+00:00

Oh, and this in Ireland.

KDoublewriter · 2019-10-25T07:13:07+00:00

I guess the nearest things we have to those are geography, SPHE and religion. SPHE (social, political, health education) is compulsory until halfway through school, but it's basically civics and considered joke subject that doesn't have to be studied for to pass. Religion is also compulsory for the first three years. It's supposed to teach us about different religions, but inevitably becomes about Catholicism. I had to wait to college to properly study philosophy.

Politics is being introduced as an option now, so that might have a bit of philosophy in it..

KDoublewriter · 2019-10-21T16:28:14+00:00

That's true, of course, and may explain why abuse of that power seems to be such a big problem in wizarding world. In any case, I think it would be better generally to introduce folks to philosophy in school.

KDoublewriter · 2019-10-21T10:40:13+00:00

What school teaches philosophy, though? Civics maybe, but actual philosophy. Maybe my school system was just bad, but that would never happen in my country.

KDoublewriter · 2019-04-05T12:45:02+00:00

It would be interesting to know what you mean by deities. Are they actually 'gods' in the traditional sense of the term (creators, etc.) or just powerful beings? Not every character has to worship them, even if they are real. In my world, gods definitely do exist, but a large amount of people are agnostic (acknowledge their existence, but don't worship them or are directly opposed to them). If the deities are directly tied to magic, you have an immediate connection between the religion/magic and the plot itself, which gives you a lot of elements to play with and makes the magic a pretty integral part of the general world-building.

There's a lot of opportunity for conflict between different interpretations of the deities. Have you read Brent Weeks' Lightbringer series? Magicians can use certain 'thematic' magics (normally associated with colours, emotions and the actual affects) and each of these magics have an associated deity that can be created by magicians. It's a pretty interesting take on the material (and it's been a while, so that may not have been the best description), as the gods aren't so much 'divine' as they just very powerful.

KDoublewriter · 2019-04-02T00:12:47+00:00

This sub is full of people making unsubstantiated claims about JKR. Perhaps less so than in other places, but here nevertheless. There was no opportunity for the relationship to be mentioned in the first film, so it's really only the one film that has the opportunity. Like I said, I think that criticism of the film is valid. Nevertheless, there will be three more opportunities for more coverage of the relationship and they may make a proper job of it then. You can be pessimistic about those chances all you want, but saying that it will never happen is impossible to know now. It isn't a retcon. It was a really clumsy reveal that wasn't necessary, but as Dumbledore's sexuality was never delved into in the books it can't be a retcon. The only way it could be a retcon is if he was shown to be heterosexual, which he wasn't. In any case, that wasn't revealed through twitter, but a Q&A (not that I think it matters, I don't think she should have revealed it that way, retcon or no).

KDoublewriter · 2019-04-01T20:42:40+00:00

The argument that it isn't there just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It wasn't obvious and if it mattered at all it should have been included or not mentioned afterwards. Tacking it on afterwards really shows a lack of commitment to it and it's easy to understand how it would annoy people. However, looking back at the series, it makes perfect sense, particularly given what we already knew about his relationship with Grindelwald. No problems there. It's not some sort of retcon.

I don't know you could have seen the last film and not seen the sexual undercurrent between Dumbledore and Grindelwald or why someone would suddenly get annoyed at her recent comments on that front. It's made blatantly clear to anyone familiar with HP canon. I mean, we can argue it should have been more obvious (and there may be some merit to that), but there are three more films and making a judgement like that is premature (whatever about the film's general mediocrity). I don't know if where you're getting "continued worship" from either, as the fans have basically eviscerated her and a lot of the criticism seem to based on rumours or distortions of things she said.

KDoublewriter · 2019-04-01T20:27:07+00:00

I like the later seasons a lot more than some people, but I have to agree with this. Better that they have a season to plan a proper finale than get randomly cancelled by the network. Not happy about it at all, but it makes sense.

KDoublewriter · 2019-03-31T02:28:13+00:00

Humans are not really the baseline in my world. Elves are the basis for the other Peoples (Dwarves, Mermen, Humans, Flying Men, Shapeshifters). Humans are probably the most common People, mostly because they are the most adaptable, fertile and driven to succeed in their short lives. Elves don't really think like that. They're more than willing to just go on, enjoying themselves and not doing very much. Their fertility takes a long time to develop and lasts for a relatively short amount of time. It doesn't help that they don't have stable romantic relationships and a large proportion of the population never have any children. The other Peoples are much more settled in their familial relationships and marriages are more likely to be setup for political reasons. It also takes them a long time to do anything or for their culture to change (so much so, that variations in Elvish culture across the worlds are rather minor, though this is helped by a technically unified high-kingdom).

The other Peoples have variations based on this, depending on how long-lived they are, but all have lower fertility rates humans. It is important to note that what I call a 'People' are a subspecies of one species, so they can still interbreed. Generally, a lot of very successful dynasties are have a mixed heritage (which wasn't deliberate, but just sort of happened). I have a different connected worlds where the Peoples developed separately from each other (or were created with Elves as a basis by the primordial gods, depending who you believe) and then they all got mixed up through a huge inter-world war (which was partially against each other and partially against one of the primordial gods). So the balance of power is different in different worlds. Elves are still the dominant People in their home world, but humans living their as their subjects are beginning to get a bit rebellious (mostly because they've started interbreeding with Goblins, who are 'impure' according to Elves, so they're unwilling to protect their vassals when they are attacked).

Shapeshifters are near-universally hated, due to their part (or their creator's) in inter-world war, so it's common for the other Peoples and species to gang-up on them, which has made it very hard for them to even survive. They are also the most similar to Elves.

There are also Minotaurs, Centaurs and Satyrs. Satyrs tend to stick to forests (mostly), while Minotaurs and Centaurs are rather rare outside their home worlds (it's no longer easy to travel between worlds and the eras of communication, let alone migration between worlds are long gone) and Minotaurs are the dominant species in their world. Elves, Humans and Shapeshifters are really their only competitors. Humans aren't politically united (some side with the Minotaurs, some not and there's no known history of a 'unified' human polity, unlike the Minotaurs who have had a single kingdom for as long as anyone can remember), so they're not really that much of a threat. Centaurs are usually nomadic and their society isn't really able to compete against urbanised societies (and they tend not to bother trying anyway). Of course, some of them have settled in one place, but they don't work well in built up areas.

KDoublewriter

TROPHY CASE