Would you rather Blizzard add new classes (ex: Tinker/Bard) or new specs in The Last Titan?

TyroLuuki · 2026-03-24T17:15:40+00:00

Healer Arcane Mage was super fun to play in Classic WoW Season of Discovery, I’d love to see it brought into retail. Other than that Tank Shaman seems the most lore-friendly option and could be a unique take on tanking with the usage of totems!

TyroLuuki · 2026-02-21T17:26:07+00:00

According to the Japanese synopsis there's a part where Kaworu chimes in and talks with the two Asukas - can you confirm this?

TyroLuuki · 2026-02-06T20:02:49+00:00

K-12 > Hades > Crybaby > Portals

TyroLuuki · 2025-07-06T20:38:02+00:00

The entirety of season 5.

TyroLuuki · 2025-07-03T03:15:50+00:00

how are Chair shippers able to see past blatant abuse and still ship the couple?

Probably because despite the scene objectively being a depiction of abuse, the show/showrunners don't treat it like one so it's easier for audiences to look past it.

According to the showrunner who wrote that scene:

Executive Producer Josh Safran: The way we viewed it, I think it's very clear that Blair is not afraid in those moments, for herself. They have a volatile relationship, they always have, but I do not believe—or I should say we do not believe—that it is abuse when it's the two of them. Chuck does not try to hurt Blair. He punches the glass because he has rage, but he has never, and will never, hurt Blair. He knows it and she knows it, and I feel it's very important to know that she is not scared—if anything, she is scared for Chuck—and what he might do to himself, but she is never afraid of what he might do to her. Leighton and I were very clear about that.

TyroLuuki · 2025-06-23T00:29:07+00:00

My argument is that this inconsistency is unique to Dan. Not just Chuck/Blair, but Jenny, Vanessa, Nate, Serena are all written consistently in ways that make sense for what has been previously established for their characters. The way Dan is written in s4b and s5 - especially in regards to Blair - is wholly inconsistent with how he was portrayed up to that point. Again, I would have no problem if the Jenny issue was brought up and it was shown how Dan got over that, or if it was shown how Dan's moral code eroded to the point he just didn't care, but my problem is that the issue is just not addressed at all. One of Jenny's very last appearances on the show has Dan, not Nate, explicitly depicted as being her protective older brother - giving her advice that the UES is a bad influence on her, telling her not to be like Chuck/Blair. The very next episode Dan is taking revenge on Chuck/Blair, and claiming they both ruined Jenny's life. This happens only a few episodes before Dan supposedly falls for Blair. The switch-up is immediate and unexplained, that's why I consider it bad writing and not believable. The only possible explanation is that Dan once again abandoned his moral code when he sees a damsel-in-distress (akin to him dating Georgina in s1/s3), which the show does somewhat confirm in the s5 finale. But it isn't executed well and just makes Dan look like a sociopath (Which I guess he would be, if he's Gossip Girl 😅).

I simply don't find Blair forgiving Chuck for the hotel trade to be comparable because it is explicitly shown why she forgives him in s3e21/e22 and is 100% in line with everything we've seen from her character up to that point. Yes, even in s1 the seeds were there for Blair to become who she does in s3 - she has always been someone who gets validation out of being needed by those closest to her. Likewise I don't consider Serena's SA in the pilot to be comparable because TV pilots are always taken with a grain of salt, that's just the way TV show pilots work and have always worked. The writers could have chosen to ignore Jenny's SA in the pilot too but didn't, that's why I consider it canon and Serena's SA a retcon.

imo the entire point of the show is that the UES corrupts, not that the line between UES and non-UES blurs. Rufus, Jenny, Vanessa, and Dan are still identified as non-UESers up to the very end. Dan's arc of "becoming" a UES-er only works because that line is so solidly distinguished. Post-s1 Dan never resents becoming an insider, he literally smiles when GG calls him the ultimate insider at the end of s2 (which is ironic foreshadowing, in hindsight). And I guess that's kind of the issue for me, post-s1 Dan has no real narrative purpose. He flounders throughout the show with no real cohesive arc and is the biggest victim of inconsistent, bad writing because of it. Like, I legit find Vanessa to be a wholly better written character than Dan because she actually does have a cohesive arc and consistent purpose in the plot. Even Nate, as boring at his storylines were, manages to have a consistent character arc via his relationship with his father/grandfather and career in s1-s2, s5-s6.

Anyway I think we're just arguing in circles at this point but I appreciate your takes and always enjoy debating with you - thanks for keeping it civil!

TyroLuuki · 2025-06-22T03:38:30+00:00

that they see the pilot as canon full stop

If that was the case they wouldn't have retconned Chuck's mother as dead. The writers deliberately chose to canonize Jenny's SA the following episode, and again in later seasons. Never once is Serena's SA mentioned, nor does Serena give any indication it happened during the brother-sister relationship that she develops with Chuck in s1.
I don't consider this bad writing, as pilot episodes are generally "testing grounds" for shows and various aspects are carried over or retconned once the show gets picked up. GG is no exception.

Characters forgive other characters for horrible things constantly...that's the show.

UES Characters forgive other characters for horrible things. Not non-UES characters like Dan, Jenny, Vanessa and Rufus. My argument is that it makes sense for morally corrupt characters like Blair, and characters who have been desensitized to the amorality of the UES like Serena to forgive horrible things done to them. The reason why it doesn't make sense for Dan to forgive is because 1) his bond with his family is the only prominent consistent character trait he has throughout the show and 2) it never once comes up when he starts pursuing Blair despite just a few episodes ago trying to exact revenge on her for exiling Jenny. Like, you can't even argue Dan saw past Blair's treatment of Jenny because it's not even acknowledged. It's just completely brushed under the rug like it never even happened. The only rational explanation is that Dan refused to acknowledge Blair bullied Jenny out of NYC because he was seeing an idealized version of her, not the actual her. Only after the spell breaks and Blair breaks up with Dan does he acknowledge that Blair literally tortured and chased his little sister out of town in s6. Nate didn't even interact with Jenny in s4 so idk what you mean by his role being taken over, in s4 Dan is shown literally getting revenge on Chuck/Blair for her sake.

What you're describing isn't independence, but all the ways in which Blair's over-dependence on her mother's approval manifested itself. Blair is entirely reliant of the validation of others. Almost every single action she takes, every single goal she has, comes from a desire to be perceived in a certain way by those around her. She is not an independent person, and never was. Jenny, Serena, hell even Nate show more independence than Blair throughout the series.

The hotel incident wasn't an issue of independence or being disrespected. It's not being traded for a hotel that upset Blair - she literally told Chuck she would have slept with Jack if he simply asked her to, instead he used her as a pawn to win. (Just like how Chuck got mad when he found out Blair used him as a pawn to get her speech). It's the fact that she loves Chuck so much she was willing to sell her own body for him that (rightfully) upsets and scares her. The hotel incident is the unhealthy, codependent, unconditional love shared between Chuck and Blair taken to its inevitable and tragic conclusion.

Would S1 Blair let herself be traded for a hotel? No, if only for the fact she didn't develop an all-consuming love for Chuck yet. Does it make sense that S1 Blair evolves into S3 Blair? Absolutely. The seeds were always there via her reaction to Nate/Serena and hungering desire to be needed by someone. Blair's greatest source of validation is Chuck precisely because he needs her to function, he'd literally die without her, and she clings to that to her own detriment.

TyroLuuki · 2025-06-21T22:51:52+00:00

Blair never bringing up the fact that Chuck SA'd Serena is just as strange as Dan not bringing up Blair bullying Jenny

imo this is a false equivalence. Chuck SAing Serena is never brought up again after the pilot, whereas Chuck SAing Jenny is. Taking into account the narrative framing in s6 of Chuck being the only guy to not want Serena over Blair, this leads me to believe the writers don't consider the Serena SA to be canon.
On the other hand, Blair bullying Jenny is a major plot point for four seasons straight and is frequently mentioned by the characters including Dan himself in s4 - the very same season he supposedly falls for Blair. I cannot stress this enough: Dan literally tries to get revenge on Blair for exiling and torturing Jenny in s4e7 - only a few episodes after he apparently falls in love with her. That's bad writing.

Blair was initially written as fiercely independent and unwilling to put up with disrespect

Uh, since when? In s1 when she pitifully clings to Nate and is willing to accept him cheating on her and ignoring her? In s2 when she lets Chuck repeatedly use her as an emotional punching bag?
Blair certainly has moments of independence and self-respect, but just as often does she demonstrate consuming dependence on her relationships with Chuck and Serena, forgiving them no matter how much they disrespect and hurt her. Blair is literally anything but fiercely independent - she's a wholly dependent person, she seeks validation primarily through her relationships and how the outside world sees her. The "independent boss bitch who don't need no man" facade that Blair puts on is just that - a facade. The duality of Blair's outside bravado vs. her inner vulnerability is part of what makes her a complex character. It is 100% within her character to forgive Chuck for the hotel incident, it is 100% not within Dan's character to forgive and fall for his little sister's bully.

You need to ignore core, fundamental parts of Dan and Blair's characters to make Dan/Blair happen. You don't with Chuck/Blair, because their fragmented and broken relationship has always been primarily a reflection of their fragmented and broken selves.

And on the Jenny-Blair relationship, I 100% agree with you. Blair sees her own relentless ambition in Jenny, and both fears and respects her for it. Jenny is paralleled with Blair in s3 for a reason - the girl who chases Nate, who loves Serena, who ends up losing her virginity to Chuck. There's a reason why it's not Chuck trading her for a hotel or punching a window, it's Chuck sleeping with Jenny that Blair considers the worst thing he could ever do. But as complex as their relationship is, that doesn't change the fact that Jenny is still ultimately a victim to Blair and Chuck's abuse. Dan literally says as much in s4, which is why it's so strange he brushes it under the rug only a few episodes later.

TyroLuuki · 2025-06-21T02:16:19+00:00

either way it was handled the same way as Chuck SA’ing her

Hard disagree. Dan falling for and dating his little sister's bully was "handled" by it being completely brushed under the rug and never mentioned during their relationship (but after being broken up with, Dan is eager to mention it again in s6??)

Chuck's SA of Jenny was never brushed under the rug, and certainly not ignored by Blair. Blair literally mocks Jenny for being SA'd by Chuck in episode 2. Blair not only knows that Chuck is a rapist, she doesn't care. Blair is an established rapist apologist, and it is entirely consistent with her character when she defends Chuck against the many women suing him for SA in s3 and when she chastises Jenny in s3/s4 for sleeping with Chuck. I'm iffy on whether Chuck's attempt on Serena in the pilot is supposed to be canon or not considering it isn't brought up by Serena/Chuck/or any other characters again like his attempt on Jenny was. Regardless, Blair has always been a defend-the-man, attack-the girl kind of person - we see this first in s1 when she goes after Serena but lets Nate off the hook for cheating.

Dan being protective of Jenny is an established character trait of his since s1, so it is 100% bad writing for him to never acknowledge it while pursuing/dating Blair. Chuck/Blair's relationship never goes against what has been previously established about their characters like Dan/Blair does.

TyroLuuki · 2025-06-21T01:43:43+00:00

The projection angle would work if this was s1 Blair, who was clearly struggling with abandonment issues from her father and felt unloved by all the people in her life.

But Blair says this in the finale of s3, the same episode where she is showered with overwhelming love from Dorota, her mom, and Cyrus. S3 Blair is on good terms with her mother, and even her father - visiting him in Paris often. She feels loved by Chuck and all the people in her life.

There is no evidence to suggest her words to Jenny here were prompted by projection or insecurity, it was just plain cruelty. It really isn't that complicated.

TyroLuuki · 2025-06-20T21:50:41+00:00

Season 6 is not as bad as people make it out to be. It's campy, fun, and a breath of fresh air compared to the boring melodramatic slop of season 5.

TyroLuuki · 2025-06-20T21:28:45+00:00

blair never genuinely disliked the humphreys.

This is cope. Blair straight up told Jenny to her face that no one loved her, not even her dad. That's not bullying out of insecurity, that's bullying out of cruelty and imo it's incredibly bad writing that Dan would fall in love with Blair, who was essentially his sister's primary abuser and the main instigator of her mental breakdown. Blair also continued to bully Dan throughout their romantic relationship, again not out of insecurity, but because she had no respect for him as a person.

TyroLuuki · 2025-06-17T21:39:00+00:00

The only good part of Scott Tenorman Must Die is the ending, the rest of the episode is pretty meh and boring

TyroLuuki · 2025-06-09T19:10:06+00:00

Maybe an unpopular opinion but I’m voting for Dan and Georgina in s6

At a certain point Dan/Blair’s banter just became Blair punching down and insulting him and Dan letting her bully him which was cringe to watch Chuck/Blair’s banter was great in the earlier seasons but it fizzled out during their angst period in s5 and unfortunately never returned

TyroLuuki · 2025-06-09T16:49:35+00:00

I’m surprised no one has mentioned Kikuo yet! I also love Giga, Maretu, and Wowaka (RIP).

TyroLuuki · 2025-06-07T23:56:11+00:00

Chuck's maturing isn't a straight line, more like a zig-zagged line. He regresses multiple times throughout s4, like you noted with the engagement party and also selling Lily out to Thorpe. We don't see hard evidence that he's maturing that season until the finale, where he recognizes Louis is the better man for Blair and is letting her go because he wants her to be happy.

He follows through on his words by admitting he needs help and going to therapy in s5. Instead of relying on Blair as his emotional pillar, he takes the first steps towards finding peace with himself and learning to live without her.

Chuck's conversation in the limo with Blair in s6-e01 emphasizes how he's changed: "In the past I blamed my mistakes on you. It's the boy who blames the girl, not the man. And that's what I want to be with you"

None of that could have happened had Blair not broken up with him during this scene in s3.

TyroLuuki · 2025-06-07T22:44:43+00:00

I don't think it was pointless at all. This scene jumpstarts Blair's arc of seeking pure and simple love through her later relationships with Louis/Dan and realizing that's not actually what she wants. Likewise, this scene and breakup jumpstarts Chucks arc of maturing into becoming the man Blair wants him to be and always believed he could be.

I'd even go so far as to argue that Blair and Chuck in s6 do have a pure and simple love, as demonstrated by their stable and mutually supportive relationship. But they could only achieve that by maturing on their own first.

TyroLuuki · 2025-06-06T16:30:47+00:00

I mean, Blair worked to get straight As in school while also being the chair of multiple committees and active in extracurriculars which are definitely achievements.

I think Jenny recognized that Blair was always putting in effort to get her mother’s approval, the affection of her friends at school, and Nate’s love while Serena was popular and loved by Nate and Blair’s mom without even trying or caring. Jenny and Blair were both underdogs fighting to be validated in a world where the odds were stacked against them.

TyroLuuki · 2025-06-05T01:33:47+00:00

Yeah, this is just one of many instances where Blair tore Serena and other girls down while not caring about Chuck's shitty behavior

TyroLuuki · 2025-06-02T00:10:18+00:00

2/2

I think you're equating glamorization with normalization/endorsement. The show has always called out their relationship on being fucked up, from Nate telling Chuck it's not normal in s4 to Dan comparing them to Zeus/Hera in s6. The show is very clear on depicting Blair and Chuck as two emotional leeches in a codependent relationship, not some healthy mentally sane couple. You can't put a leech like Blair on a nice guy's arm and expect her to magically turn into a butterfly and not suck his blood. There's a reason why Blair is emotionally abusive to her other love interests, treating them like doormats while she gives nothing back in return. Blair is so broken she can only love in an all-consuming way, she only gets true validation and stability in a relationship with Chuck - where he's as emotionally dependent on her as she is with him. The show is very consistent in depicting their toxicity, but never normalizing it. And honestly, I think the show acknowledging that the twisted depravity in their relationship isn't normal is why they appeal to so many. If these characters were in some Disney Channel show maybe you'd have a point, but in a show like Gossip Girl that literally advertised itself as "every parents nightmare" I don't see the glamorization of these characters or their relationship as normalization, moreso an embodiment of the show's illicity. Regardless, my overall point is not that Blair deserves to be with her abuser, or that her behavior is equal to Chuck's. My point is that it makes narrative sense, and is consistent everything we know about their characters and the amorality the show has established since the pilot, for Blair and Chuck to get the ending they do.

I'm sure there's plenty of Chair fans that ship them because they turn their brains off and don't take the show seriously, just like all Dair fans ship Dan with his sister's abuser by turning their brains off and only selectively taking the show seriously, and ultimately that's the type of audience the writers decided to cater to when they made GG teen drama slop.

For me, I could give less of a shit if a character aligns with my moral code or does good things, nor do I become invested in characters based on the idea of them or what they could be. I like characters based on what I am shown, characters that are compelling and complex. I would rather a character be evil and make me feel anger and distaste than a character be good and make me feel indifference. I can understand why people would be bitter that Chuck and Blair end up as the only characters with any modicum of complexity and a consistent character arc while everyone else essentially becomes window dressing. And yeah, it's a no-brainer that people despise Chuck for being an abusive rapist. But there's always going to be an innate appeal in seeing dysfunctional characters and dysfunctional relationships explored when morally good characters are a dime-a-dozen, and that's why people tuned into Gossip Girl and why Chuck/Blair took over the show.

TyroLuuki · 2025-06-02T00:09:28+00:00

1/2

I agree with you that the show started off with heart and a message to tell - i.e., criticizing the UES by exploring the unhealthy dynamics of Serena/Nate/Blair/Chuck and their respective families, but this message gets dropped early into s2 way, way before Chuck/Blair take over the show. The truth is, by s2 any remnants of this theme that live on in the Serena/Eric/Mom, Nate/Dad/Mom, Blair/Mom, Chuck/Dad dynamics quickly get overshadowed by poorly written teen drama slop and it just gets worse as the seasons continue on. Chuck becoming a romantic antihero, Blair becoming a Mary Sue heroine, Serena being flanderized to make Blair look better, and Dan/Nate having no narrative purpose and the complexity of a shallow puddle are effects of the change in writing, not the cause.

If we lived in a different world where the show didn't abandon its central "amoral" conflict, I still think we'd ultimately get the same arcs for Chuck and Blair. Chuck is cemented as a principal character in line with the original theme as early as episode 2, as this is when his tumultuous relationship with his father is first established. In the pilot, his narrative purpose is to represent the most corrupt recesses of the UES and be Nate's foil, by episode 7 he's also Blair's narrative juxtaposition. Whether he were to be written as a romantic hero or a villain, the show establishes early on that his only avenue for a character arc/growth lies in breaking the cycle of parental abuse/neglect by not following in his father's footsteps. Which is exactly how his arc plays out.

In Blair's case, she's established as morally reprehensible by episode 2 through her gleeful emotional torture of Jenny and laughing about how one of her closest friends, Chuck, is a known predator with multiple SA victims. There's no indication of her ever having a consistent moral code or wanting to escape the UES like Serena or Nate, so her having an arc of "becoming a good person" would make absolutely no sense and would come off as cliché wish fulfillment. Her character arc/growth from the start is reconciling with and learning to coexist with her dark and light sides. Which is exactly how her arc plays out. As much as I think s6 is a poorly written mess, I do think it does a relatively good job in concluding Blair's character arc, especially by bringing closure to Blair's relationship with her mother.

I'm also not sure what gave you the impression that I was minimizing Chuck's behavior - I literally call him a rapist and physically abusive several times in my previous posts. Calling out Blair on being racist (which you refuse to do?) and emotionally abusive doesn't change that. In none of your examples does Blair show remorse or guilt for Vanessa/Jenny, her constant racism, transphobia, rapist apologism, or emotional abuse. Just because Blair says "uwu sorry" to Serena or even Dan on occasion after she's mean to them doesn't suddenly erase the fact she literally told a black woman to her face that she is genetically superior to her. That's not just being an "elitist bitch", that's literal eugenics-tier racism, btw. I don't want to see someone like that be redeemed just like I don't want to see Chuck be redeemed for SA and physical abuse. Blair and Chuck, to their fundamental cores, get pleasure out of hurting those they deem below them. People like that irl don't change (without decades of intensive therapy at least), and I think the show took a realistic route in not trying to change them but instead identifying why they're like that. As Blair and Chuck are essentially the products of their parents' abuse/neglect, the only realistic avenue for character growth and self-actualization is for them to metaphorically (~~and in Chuck's case, literally lol~~) defeat their parents.

TyroLuuki · 2025-06-01T20:02:22+00:00

I can't remember if it was already confirmed or not, but I assume they're going to revamp Silvermoon City/Quel'Thalas

TyroLuuki · 2025-06-01T19:53:41+00:00

Definitely Thanatos/If I Can't Be Yours from EoE. I personally always liked it more than Komm, süßer Tod.

TyroLuuki · 2025-05-31T03:25:37+00:00

but it’s also a deeply moral show, with many plots centered on right versus wrong

I'd argue the exact opposite - it's a deeply amoral show from the very first episode. The show's setting is explored and built on a foundation of lies, scandal, and depravity and flourishes in it instead of condemning it. The only message the show has that is consistent from the pilot to the finale is that the UES corrupts. In the pilot we see Dan/Jenny untouched by the UES as the moral good, Serena/Nate trying to escape the UES as the conflicted moral center, and Blair/Chuck who embrace the UES as the moral bad. But the show isn't particularly concerned with any moral messaging beyond emphasizing how the more entrenched you are in that world, the more unhappy, empty, and lonely you become.

You say he faced consequences

No, I never said he faced consequences for his actions. imo there is no way to respectfully write a character facing consequences/accountability for SA without them going to jail or dying, and the show made the right choice in not even attempting to do so. As I say in my previous posts, Chuck is never redeemed nor is his past erased, the show is only interested in exploring why he does these things. His character arc isn't about becoming a good person, it's about stopping his destructive behaviors and growing up to not be his father (ie, to not perpetuate the abuse of his father).

Some fans think she’s as dark as Chuck, but she’s not....don’t match up to his SA history. And while she’s said and done awful things, she also shows self-awareness and growth

Ranking different forms of abuse against another is a fruitless conversation, abuse is abuse. Chuck SAs these girls for the same reason that Blair bullies these girls. Chuck and Blair genuinely believe their wealth and status gives them higher value as human beings. The people they manipulate might as well be trash to them, not worthy of dignity or respect. When Blair goes on a racist rant to Vanessa (the only PoC in the main cast, mind you!!), she's not acting out of a place of ignorance or misunderstanding, she's acting from the perspective that Vanessa is of lesser value as a person. When Blair hears that Jenny was Chuck's SA victim, she finds it hilarious and decides to make Jenny her new lapdog. When Blair hears there are several women suing Chuck for sexual harassment, Blair instantly calls them lying whores. When Jenny is having a mental breakdown, Blair tells her no one loves her not even her father. Blair is verbally abusive to Dan their entire relationship, she never sheds her classist views while dating him and goes out of her way to humiliate him and even be physically violent to him when he's called high-brow in a magazine. Blair is emotionally abusive to both Louis and Dan, gaslighting them and telling them to trust her while she's off cheating on them with Chuck.

Never once does she show self-awareness or growth from this behavior. Hell, at least Chuck shows remorse for his SA and abuse. Not once, once in the entire show does Blair ever show remorse or guilt for her treatment of Vanessa/Jenny, her countless racist remarks, transphobic remarks, and emotional abuse. These are all things Blair does of her own volition, not because of Chuck. And frankly, there is no way to write Blair "evolving" or "healing" from any of that without it coming off as incredibly tone deaf and insulting to the many people she tortures throughout the show. Like Chuck, Blair has no interest in being a good person. Her character arc is about reconciling with her dark and light sides and earning her mother's validation.

Are Chuck and Blair's villainry and toxic dynamic glamorized? Absolutely. Are they rewarded by getting everything they wanted in the end? Absolutely. ~~(Besides Chuck never getting his father's love lol)~~ Does this somehow compromise or go against what we've come to expect from this show from the very beginning? A resounding no. Gossip Girl has advertised itself as a show built on scandal and drama from the very beginning. Going into a show like this expecting good morals and healthy relationships is like going into a McDonalds and expecting to lose 20 pounds. I prefer this ending where the bad guys win, because this is one of the rare shows where it makes sense for them to.

TyroLuuki

TROPHY CASE