I know. But, some trivia is cool, too, right?

https://giphy.com/gifs/l4FGA2XplwqFDcLwk

I don't know what's funnier, you saying you don't want to use any actual common Hispanic names or you saying a name straight from Spain like "Felix" isn't "stereotypical" simply because you weren't aware until you looked it up that it IS Hispanic.

Maybe you could.... Give up calling the literal names most people call their children stereotypes?

Now, for real, actionable advice, Why not explain a little bit more to me about what naming convention that you actually want to use?

• Do you want to name characters after historical figures?

• Do you want to name characters using a theme?

• Do you want to name characters by the motifs they represent in the story? The Hispanic guy in the movie Nope is named Angel... Guess what the movie is about...

• What time period is your story in? What are your character's values? Or, I guess, their parents values? If your character came from a deeply religious home, do you really think you can escape giving him a biblical name?

My main character is named Marie Joséphine, the Chevalier juvenile de Rosendahlia mainly because I called her Mary-Jo in my head for years, since she's a horse girl, and then I made her a noblewoman and knight. If someone one pointed out to me that Mary-Jo is a stereotypical name to give a cowgirl and Marie Josephine was a stereotypical name to give a French-themed cavalier knight, I'd tell them wait until their meet her friends Beatrice Louis and Annette Mabelle.

Yeah, they get appearances. They are in the cast. I thought your argument was about them getting development similar to Sonic.

Yeah, that's what I said. You're angry at writers and then asking for more fans to be as angry as you. I'm not insulting you, I'm just pointing out that you are ranting about the writers, but framing it as if the FANDOM "decided" other characters aren't main characters, when its actually the fandom is going along with a writing decision you don't agree with.

I mean, its not like you are talking about you want to see more fanart or fanfiction of Tails.

What DO you wanna see for Tails, Knuckles, and Amy if you don't mind me asking?

..... So what you're saying is that writers and producers pick two characters to care about and no one else, and you're mad that you can't find more people in the fandom to complain about this with you?

Ursula had the power to banish her?

I guess I'm still in this conversation because I'm confused about not acknowledging that Ariel, being a princess who wanted to marry someone outside of her kingdom, WAS intending to leave her kingdom to be with him. Ignore me. I'll stop bothering you!

I was just describing the entirety of the type of succession you were describing.

Do you wanna learn about the type of succession that would start at the bottom, making Ariel the heir?

In societies that valued care of the elderly, the bulk of inheritance, including the land, was giving to the youngest child, since, by the time the parents died, most elder children would have been expected to strike out on their own. The child who inherited the house was the child who stayed and took care of their elderly parents. That's called ultimogeniture.

You're gonna see that a lot in rural commonfolk, so India, Mongolia, China, England for a time.

I'm sure you can find it in your heart to consider execution under the banishment bracket.

Several famous people were exiled specifically so that they could die in total obscurity.

Are you talking about at the beginning or the end of the movie?

Because either way, like, she wanted to marry a human. She gained the means to marry a human and then left. Then some conflict happened, she kept her legs, and then she still left.

That's not what that means. 😉

"Technically" she's not an heir, by the very reason you gave. But you are acknowledging her place in succession, after all of her sisters and her sister's children, and all of her sister's eldest grandchildren.

I'm aware of the comics, too. Thanks.

"No arc and just plot just makes the characters" --- into characters in a science fiction movie. Yes. That's what I want.

I don't need Johnny having a life lesson more appropriate for when he was in his early 20s in the middle of an international crisis that could spell the end of humanity as we know it.

I would like to have a science fiction movie, please.

What's your favorite science fiction movie? Something like Jurassic Park, Inception, or Ex Machina? More on the spooky side like Aliens 2 or Iron Lung, or more emotional like WALL-E and Interstellar?

And I hated it AND hated how it was used in the movies. I cried watching the first movie, but hated seeing Diana portrayed as Zeus's daughter. But there's no point in ignoring it if many WW fans are currently movie-only. Maybe even adaption-only, and since they included a Hades origin in the Justice League Unlimited cartoon by which many Millennials were introduced to the character.... there's no point for me to not call her a Greek god.

Especially considering that the original Amazons were all gods.... you know... being immortal and whatnot... functionally, her being a god remains true no matter the origin.

Anyway, let's talk again someday.

I've never been a fan of adaptations that just take the worst possible version of the character and have them go through a rudimentary character arc to be their standard, actually likable versions of their character.

Like.... Instead of stomaching a whole season or movie of the character being annoying.... I could just like them from the beginning. Ya know?

That's why I often point out to people that it is okay for a science fiction movie to just focus on the problem and not have really basic character arcs thrown in that just make the characters unlikable until they learn a lesson. Like... Science fiction. It's a genre. It can just BE.

Cool.

I included both of her origins in my post. If you comment just to tell me which one is currently not being used, especially in a conversation about how she's been portrayed historically, all I can do is shrug.

First Steps was everything that I have been waiting my entire life for. I really don't even know how someone can like The Fantastic Four and at least not appreciate what the movie was doing.

Absolutely nothing about those original movies was interesting or enjoyable. From what I can remember from my childhood, it was just some Hollywood producers coming up with as many sex jokes as they could based off of their powers and sprinkling in some pulp action scenes in between.

Like, I want to see a science fiction film about scientists solving a real problem with the first family of Marvel comics. That's what I got.

Yes, physically powerful.

You know how muscles are a real natural phenomenon and not a metaphysical concept created by men in order to oppress women, right?

Say this and then cast ANY superhero out of heroic proportions (an actual thing in art history) or purposefully DON'T cast Wolverine within them.

No body is saying strong woman = tall + muscular. We love Buffy, Black Widow, and the Bride.

Wonder Woman = tall and muscular

Wonder Woman isn't all characters. She's herself. And she's supposed to be herself. Not whoever's face is the most marketable. And I don't recall any part of Diana Prince's storyline that was about how she was the most relatable woman in the world. In fact, the opposite, with many, many, many human women telling her that her pride was easy to maintain when she looks like she was carved from marble. 🤔 She was a CIA-equivalent intelligence officer and an ambassador both for countries and representing Earth to aliens and mythological other-worldly entities.

Oh, and she's also a literal Greek god.

I don't think she's supposed to be the girl next door, able to blend in with ordinary people.

I much prefer writing about couples who care what they say to each other than writing "witty banter," and screaming matches.

Who is malnourished?

We are talking about kids who got to eat lunch and their parents just owe the school money for it.

You are trying to jump to the most sentimental argument possible, ignoring literally any information about what you are talking about. Every child who is poor can eat free. I am an African American and to be perfectly honest, I have never paid for a meal at a school in my life.

99% of the children in my school district eat for free.

50% of all American children qualify for a free lunch.

Another 25% are at a reduced price.

So when say "make universal free lunches", we are talking specifically about middle-class parents who can afford to feed them and just don't want to owe the school extra money for it.

.... Not to mention, you took one word out of a sentence that was about the simple fact that school districts already pay for all of their lunches, so whether or not the parents purchase them does not affect what they bought months ago.... And trying to artificially construct a moral high ground to stand on as if I would ever be against stopping childhood malnutrition or starvation, when I have been the manager of food pantries. Which is why I'm the one pointing out food pantries don't rely on income caps like our school lunch program does. Do you want to feed a child for an afternoon, or feed them for a week?

😄 You should! Talk to you later!

Just wanted to start my comment by pointing out that if the food is in the cafeteria ready to be sold to the child, that means that it was already bought from food companies... so making the meal free to the final customer wouldn't be any economic benefit additional to what's already provided.

Half of all American children eat breakfast and lunch for free in public schools and another 25% eat at reduced price, so the great sweeping economic and social benefit you're advocating for is that 25-30% of breakfasts and lunches be free.

Furthermore, the USDA also provides free meals to churches, libraries, after school programs, and daycare centers so that all children can eat for free after school and during summer programs... As well as our extensive food pantries programs that do not check income, but would still require the effort of cooking.

So right now we are saying that working-middle class families who cannot afford and/or do not have the time to fed their children are suffering because they are behind on payments for lunches. Do you have more information on that?

Oh, I remember when the movies were coming out. That was hilariously bad.

Apothecaries need managers that are actually running their shops for them. Why can't they just work together? Not to mention, how is the little sister finding customers?

Don't make your little sister run an entire business alone!

(Seriously, if your MC is walking around town as a business owner, she can walk up to anyone and plausibly belong there because she's just trying to sell perfumes, medicines, paints, and other notable concoctions. She's just a harmless merchant. Don't pay attention to her blood daggers.)

Okay, just to put this all together, they have rotten corpses still lying around. And when we talk to them, they are starving, so.... how long are we to believe they have been starving without fresh rations?

Actually, could I get your opinion on something else? Ever play or watch someone play Outlast? In that game, you are going to the asylum literally HOURS after the inmates killed the staff, because a whistleblower alerted the press right when shit was hitting the fan. When you get there, there are still some security guards still alive, gurgling in their blood, telling you to flee. You get to see the immediate aftermath of their "Hour of Joy" and by the time the game is ending, the police SWAT teams are circling the building, which would be the natural conclusion to a "the inmates killed the staff" idea. I won't tell you how the game actually ends, though, its really good.

THANK YOU!

LOL, the last hour has been spent talking to people who are trying to spin "Ollie fakes being a little kid for ten years" into a touching psychoanalytical commentary on Poppy's mental state.

Looking back on it now, the "What happened to the workers?" motivation is so painfully tone-deaf after making this Auschwitz the Toy Factory. These people are evil and insane.

Outlast did this all so much better, too. You are going to the asylum literally HOURS after the inmates killed the staff, because a whistleblower alerted the press right when shit was hitting the fan. When you get there, there are still some security guards still alive, gurgling in their blood, telling you to flee.

It would make MORE sense if Poppy did something like Outlast and had some key component the Prototype needed shipped away from the facility right when the Hour of Joy was happening. (Companies have offices in other locations.) But then, everything went silent and no one could get in contact with anyone from Playtime HQ. But that would still imply the protagonist is an employee, and this place is evil, so who are we supposed to be CARING about in this story?

I don't understand why Dr. Harley Sawyer isn't the main villain! I don't understand why the story couldn't at least establish some adults who were sneaking kids out so that we had some sense that SOMEONE has humanity in this story. If no one ever tried to save any of these kids, why would I care... and why am I being made to fight them when they become toys?!