Reblogs Welcome - Blog Posts

I always am my strongest with backgrounds.

#FRACTURALS ; a study in survival, growth and battling childhood trauma .... with a side order of emotional constipation .... featuring muses from SQUID GAME , DISNEY , SUPERNATURAL and many more

18+ and selective multi - muse for various forms of media, primarily television. mun is 22 and in the GMT / BST timezone ..... this blog has LOW ACTIVITY !!!! this is a hobby, not my entire life ..... OC and crossover muses are more than welcome

also found on @staticbrajn / @sunbreathr / @gumventure

discord : tayterrtots

highest muses : TLOU , TWD , SUPERNATURAL , LUCIFER

google doc / memes / wishlist

Headcanon idea: Loki is the secret affair child of Frigga and Laufey.

No Jotun we ever saw in the MCU had hair, right? But Hela has black hair, just like Loki has, and has a familial resemblance to Loki, despite apparently not being related to them, but supposedly being related to Thor, who looks nothing like her. We're also never given a potential 'mother' option in the movies, so there's nothing to say this might not have been the case. Frigga and Loki also have a resemblance to each other, which also strengthens the idea, imo.

My theory basically turns Loki from the adopted child, to the half sibling of both Thor and Hela, and the product of a secret interspecies affair that the royal family is trying to cover up. Coming up with the idea of an 'adoption' as a last-resort explanation in case Loki's Jotun heritage ever came to light. (Basically throwing Loki under the bus for being related to a race demonized in Asgard.)

Odin resents Loki (And somewhat resents Frigga, explaining why we never see them interacting outside of Odin commanding Frigga to 'leave' at the beginning of Thor Dark World.) for being the product of his wife's affair and the son of his enemy, thus why he's so distant from them.

I think, if we ignore the bias and retcon-filled phase 4 (Like we should), it also explains why Loki might be smaller than most Jotuns. It's because Loki isn't a full-blooded Jotun, Loki is a half-Jotun. (Which explains why Loki can learn Asgardian magic when we've gotten no indication Jotuns can do so, etc.)

I dunno, this theory came to mind and I wanted to share, lol.

Humanitarian Appeal

‼️She will die at any time‼️😭Emergency, read my story and help me 🚨

"One moment can change everything

My daughter suffers from kidney failure and autism

due to the devastating consequences of war and malnutrition. He urgently needs donations for his ongoing treatment and a life-saving kidney transplant help to cover the high costs of his medical care and surgery, which could save his life and improve his health.

We kindly appeal to compassionate individuals to donate and support us during this difficult time.

Thank you for your cooperation and generosity.

I am asking for $25 or 50$ , which will make a significant difference in my life and my family’s🙏🏻💔

🔴My child extends her hands to you. Do not leave her facing death. If you can, your support is a lifeline for her. No one helps me or cares about her illness. Please, from a humanitarian standpoint.

https://gofund.me/8dce001c

I hope you get the help you need, and that your daughter gets through this okay. I sadly don't have money to spare, but I'll answer here so other people can see in case they have funds for you.

Leon in the original Resident evil games is fucking annoying. (Especially in RE:4) Like oh my god- shutthefuckupfortwoseconds, you action hero cardboard cutout with the clunkiest dialogue ever, fuck-!

I actually like his character in the remakes, though. His humor and one-liners feel far less grating to me in the remakes.

I know people like to rag on him because Resident Evil has trouble depicting trauma and stuff, but honestly, I prefer the writing in the remakes.

Leon in the original feels way more like the 'edgy emo' that people like to claim remake!Leon feels like imo. The constant action hero lines in the original RE:4 feel super tacky and take me out of the game a lot. (Especially the 'sing kumbaya' one at the very beginning, that one felt really awkward and clunky as hell.)

Why was Steven King hired at the bank?

Because he was Pennywise.

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?

Blood and Honey 2 = FNAF movie

Watched both the FNAF movie and Blood and Honey 2, and you know what? ...I feel like these movies should've traded tones.

When you hear a 'Winnie the Pooh horror movie', I personally think 'Oh that's silly', so the tone of the FNAF movie would've probably been more appropriate. So, it's horror, but it's silly horror, like the modern IT movie (Chapter 1) with the weird nonsensical 'cleaning up the bathroom' scene. It also would've helped a lot of the goofier dialogue jokes they tried to make. (The whole 'Let's Bounce' thing, for instance.)

Meanwhile, FNAF is a horror franchise at it's core about children being lured away, murdered, then stuffed into suits where they rotted until they possessed them. ...That deserves a way, way more dark tone than we got in the FNAF movie imo.

Either way, I can confidently say that Blood and Honey 2 stole its plot from the FNAF movie, but despite that, I had more fun watching Blood and Honey 2 than I did watching the FNAF movie. The only parts I actually really had fun with the FNAF movie on were the cameos, tbh, which is definitely a bad sign. (Like another series I know, if the thing you enjoy about it is the references to the original source material, then it's not a good addition to the franchise.)

I know why FNAF is sillier, because the franchise for some reason is trying to appeal to kids, now, but still. You can make horror for kids that's kid-friendly while still being scary and interesting, guys, come on.

I finally caught back up on The Dragon Prince, and I gotta say, I'm glad the newer seasons got rid of that odd and awkward pacing and writing issue that the fourth season had.

Also... (MAJOR SPOILERS FOR THE DRAGON PRINCE SEASON 3, 5, & 6)

Not me crying while Viren sacrificed himself to cast the cinder heart spell. Damn-

Not me also crying during Aaravos' flashback with his daughter, oh my god. They really had to have him tell her to 'close her eyes', didn't they? (Also, I'm not the only one who suspects Leola had autism, right?)

I also didn't expect how much blood was in these two seasons. WOW. What age is this series geared towards again? TV-Y7? First Viren gets stabbed in the chest in season 3, now there's a bunch of blood spread in a ritualistic rite for dark magic? Yikes! (Also, in season 3, Soren stabbed Viren in the heart, right? Now Soren has Viren perform dark magic that requires a rune in his heart. Coincidence? I don't think so.)

Oh, but I love this series. I cannot believe that they actually got me to care about Viren, though.

I also gotta say, I love that none of my theories end up being right. I have so many every season, and then the story just keeps taking a left turn to somewhere completely different.

Anyway, now I'm just gonna sit in a box like a cat and wait for the next season.

You know... it's funny that the movie that has a more accurate wolverine costume ends up being the most box office breaking, huh?

It's almost like... I don't know, maybe you should have people who actually know the original source material working on movies involving comic characters? Unlike some people I know?

I tried to watch Demon Slayer. ...I could barely get through the first episode.

I don't know, there's something about the writing that bothers me. The visuals are nice, but other than that, it's just not interesting to me.

Obviously, I tried to give it its due and watched a couple more episodes after that, thinking maybe it was just one of those shows with a bad first episode? ...But no, it's just like that.

I don't get why people like this show. The writing and direction feels awkward.

Please Reblog, I wanna see what most people's general consensus is. Jukebox musicals, for reference, are musicals that include already-existing songs, rather than original ones. (The Book Of Life and Moulin Rouge for example.)

Gotta love how when the third episode of Helluva boss came out, people for some reason just started taking the Chrub's word as 'gospel' (ha).

The cherubs said 'Yeah no, there's no way to get back into heaven, sorry' and people immediately decided 'oh, I guess they're correct!'

As if the whole point of Charlie's story isn't to prove that Heaven is incorrect about that.

Apparently, characters in a story are unable to lie or be wrong about something anymore.

Can I please walk two steps into the Hazbin fandom without people blatantly erasing Alastor's aro-aceness?

"Oh, but some people who are aro-ace want relationships!"

Yeah, but that excuse gets really fucking old after a while when you seem to use it for literally every asexual character you see, dude! Especially if they're a character you happen to find attractive!

Your aphobia is showing and you're really not doing a good job of hiding it!

Thought dump now that I've watched Hazbin Hotel. (Major Spoilers)

I watched the first season of Hazbin Hotel and gave myself a few days to let it simmer in my head, and now I have thoughts.

(Note: I don't count anything Vivs has said on podcasts and livestreams as being canon, only what shows up in Hazbin/Helluva is canon to me, so please don't try to 'gotcha' me with anything from a ten-year-old livestream or something, lol.)

The opening scene mentioned that Adam and Lilith were equals and that Lilith left after Adam tried and failed to control her, right?

Well, as someone who was raised Christian, I'm assuming that might be a misdirect, given the bible's version of those events actually meshes a bit better with the vibes I'm getting from the story so far.

You see, in the bible, it's actually mentioned that god created Lilith to serve Adam, not that they were made as equals. God created Adam first, then Adam grew lonely and god created Lilith to be subservient to him. However, Lilith proved too independent and was replaced by Eve - who was literally 'made' more subservient due to being created through one of Adam's rib bones. (Side note: Adam eating ribs in the show is hilarious.) After Eve's creation, Lilith was basically kicked out of paradise and became a demon.

Now, I'm not saying that the story will/should make it exactly that, or that I expect it to be 'more accurate'. What I am saying is, I think at some point, we might end up getting a 'hey, god's a douche actually and enabled Adam like an entitled child and that's why he's such an asshole' angle to the story.

I think this fits mainly because there seems to be a 'heaven isn't all it's cracked up to be' vibe, as well as the fact that from what I've seen, the older testaments are the versions Viv is using mainly for inspiration and the older testaments, if you know anything about them, tend not to characterize god as being the most... 'merciful' sometimes. (Turning people into salt pillars, drowning the entire world, asking Abraham to sacrifice his son on a mountaintop, etc.)

With that in mind, I also feel like Adam's probably gonna come back. Not as an Angel, but as a demon. At the end of the last episode, we saw Sir Pentious return to life redeemed and in heaven, so it only makes sense in my mind that if it works one way, it must work the other way around, too.

I feel like it'd be a pretty cool plotline if Adam got pulled into Charlie's Hazbin Hotel to try getting redeemed only to end up actually becoming a better person through it. With Adam's redemption becoming a way for Charlie to prove she was right definitively to heaven and maybe having a narrative timer since Adam technically counts as a sinner and would likely be targeted by the exterminators, who would have no reason to believe this 'sinner' claiming to be Adam was actually the real Adam.

You know how in 'All Dogs Go To Heaven', the dogs all have a watch or other time piece they owned in life that stops when they die?

Does that mean that for most modern people, their 'clock' would be their phones?

Because there's a bunch of different time pieces shown; hourglasses, sundials, pocket watches, Cuckoo clocks, Alarm clocks, etc?

And the time piece most people use and have on them most often now is their phone, so-

Forgive me if there's something in the comics that makes these opinions obsolete or something, I haven't read all Marvel comics, but-

I think it's ridiculous that the MCU made Asgardians aliens rather than actual gods. Especially given that they made Egyptian gods canon later with Moon Knight.

First of all, if you're gonna make some of them gods, why not make all of them gods? That doesn't make sense? Second, someone pointed this out in a post I saw some time ago, but based on the timeline and the canon ages of the characters, it makes no sense. According to that 'canon' timeline, Loki would've been a child during the time the Norse would've known about them to create stories, which doesn't align at all. So even without the Egyptian gods, it makes no sense.

Yeah, yeah, I get it, the 'Eternals' and shit, but like-... really? Maybe I'm biased just because I know the original runs had the Asgardians as actual gods with immortality and everything, but that makes far more sense to me then the MCU handles it. I'm just saying.

I could go on multiple tangents about stuff in the MCU, especially about stuff after Phase 3, but honestly, I would really rather pretend Phase 4+ doesn't exist and just keep my imperfect, but still fun, Phases three and below (Minus Ragnarok).

Honestly, I figured. I swear to god, I've only seen it on a single 'totally legal website', and even then, it was recorded with commercials attached.

I don't know whether to say 'don't watch it', or to say 'it's worth watching just because of how bizarre it is'.

Basically, if you're curious: It's Pokemon, except instead of commanding little monsters in Pokeballs, it's ten-year-olds commanding the Marvel superheroes in discs. It's... it's so stupid.

'Spiderman, I choose you!' type shit. The writing is even Digimon-esq, heck-

(Please reblog, I'm genuinely curious about the majority option here.)

(Please reblog, I'm genuinely curious about the majority option here.)

Random thoughts - Marvel's Jotuns and Cannibalism

You know... I just realized something while rewatching Earth's mightiest heroes.

The jotuns in that show clearly try to eat people, right?

Do you think- ...do you think Loki ever gets cannibalistic urges because of that?

I mean, Loki is a jotun, right? Or half-jotun in some universes (The universes where he's Thor's half-brother, for instance). So since Jotuns seem to have that same instinct to prey on humans and Asgardians like in the original mythology, it only stands to reason Loki would, too, right?

Obviously, this wouldn't apply to MCU Loki, because it pretty much does everything it can to characterize them as basically just 'taller icy Asgardians with blue skin'. (Or maybe it does apply, who knows, we didn't get that much world building with the nine realms in the MCU universe before phase four ruined everything.)

But for universes like Earth's mightiest, where it's blatant that they eat people?

I mean, I obviously haven't read all of the comics, so maybe something in a comic I haven't read yet disproves that, but from what I'm currently aware of? It's not impossible.

Random fandom poll #1

Please don't just vote based on who's your favorite or who you think is the most attractive.

If I made a Batman movie, I'd cast Robert Carlyle as Scarecrow/Jonathan Crane.

Look at the roles he's played and tell me that man wouldn't do a fantastic job. Whether you want him more serious, or more 'hroo hraa'-esq, he'd play the part well.

I feel it in my bones. He's the ultimate choice.

Mewtwo & Loki Moodboard

Since I realized these two characters have a lot in common, actually.

(All images, aside from the one on the top right are from google/stock images. The top right one is from Thor: Dark World, and the bottom left is a photo of a sculpture in a Pokemon center in japan.)

Zootopia spoilers, I guess:

When I watched Zootopia the first time, I honestly thought it was going in the direction of the savages being animals who contracted rabies. Especially after seeing the scene with Manchas, I thought: 'Oh, Emmit scratched him, and because of that, he contracted rabies from him.'

...So, what I'm saying is: The actual plot of the movie was disappointing, tbh.

People assuming the predators were going savage only to figure out it's not the predators at all, but a virus that makes you super aggressive and violent? That just sounds interesting. Discounting entirely the sucky 'twist villain' thing. Making the movie have no real villain other than the discovery of a crazed viral outbreak?

...Maybe that's just the zombie fanatic in me talking, but I honestly think that would've made for a way more interesting movie.

Most people for some reason immediately assume that if I'm a 'fan of Loki' that automatically means I must be attracted to/am a fan of Tom Hiddleston.

And like... *Didn't know who Tom Hiddleston was until I looked up Loki's actor.* *Doesn't keep up with anything he's doing, including roles he's been in.* *Doesn't know jack shit about Hiddleston's career or anything about him.* *Likes not just MCU Loki, but also the ones from other cartoons, comics, video games, etc to the exact same extent.* *Legit forgets who Tom Hiddleston even is sometimes.* *Was one of the people who hated the fan-service scenes in the 'Loki show'.*

So Like... I guess you can say the only reason I like Loki or am attracted to them is because of Tom Hiddleston but... I mean, just because you say something doesn't mean it's true.

True story, btw, Someone brought him up and I was like: "...The guy who plays Spiderman?" They laughed at me when I said that and I was so confused, lmao.

I think it's kind of sad that I can't bring myself to care about new stuff in the MCU anymore.

It's not about superhero-fatigue or whatever other things people are suggesting may be the cause, though. I feel like the reason I and many other people are starting to overlook new stuff and not care is because the people making those movies and stuff basically just... stopped caring about it themselves.

They stopped really putting effort into it, and it shows. There are a couple of outliers, like Moon Knight, but for every Moon Knight that comes out, there are three Loki series, or Mobius movies. Y'know?

It's become less and less rewarding and less and less fun to watch. Just cash-grabs, rather than actual stories with substance.

And I feel like this is easy to notice when you think about how Invincible and The Boys is super popular despite the idea of 'Superhero fatigue'. The difference between DC/Marvel and The Boys/Invincible? (Besides the violence, obviously.) is that 'The Boys' and 'Invincible' actually have time, effort, and love put into them. While the DCEU and the MCU are both basically being milked to death by the same people who tried to copyright 'Día de los Muertos' after they made the movie Coco.

...But hey, at least we still have the MCU before Ragnarok (+Black Panther) to enjoy, right? We also have all the animated DC and Marvel content, as well as all the comics.

Not a rant, just me rambling about 'The Boy' again. *Spoilers*

I can't help but notice how many people like to say that Brahms is rich. People will be like: 'Greta made a mistake in choosing Malcolm when she had a perfectly good rich guy right there.' and stuff, right?

But, I'm over here like: "...N-no? He really isn't? lol."

I know most of these people are meaning it as a joke, but this has been in my head for days and it won't leave me alone, so I have to make a post about it or I'll never know peace, lmao.

Now, I can see why they'd make this connection, right? He lives in a mansion, his parents are rich, and his parents are dead. Problem is, as far as everyone else is concerned, so is he.

The way this kind of thing works(take what I say with a grain of salt, I'm not good with legal stuff.), is that when someone dies, they can leave their possessions to people in their will, right? Well, you can't leave money or possessions to people who are already dead.

Brahms was given a headstone, everyone in the nearby towns believes that he's dead, and the Heelshires likely had a funeral, so as far as everyone else is concerned, Brahms isn't alive. Thus, it's very likely that the government is under that same assumption, meaning that Brahms wouldn't be in the Heelshire's will by default. (Now this would be different if he was thought to have died recently, or if Brahms had kids of his own, but since he was thought to have died when he was eight and is twenty-eight in the movie, both of those things are impossible.)

If anything, I feel like the Heelshires may have left their money to Greta, since they assumed she'd be taking care of him from then on?

If we're going with that, that leaves Greta with an unknown amount of money (Though likely a lot), a manor, one less crazy ex-boyfriend to worry about, and Malcolm by the end of the movie.

Brahms isn't rich. Hell, Brahms is pretty much two steps away from homeless, really. After all, the manor is either in Greta's name now, or its just sitting there, so it could be repossessed and resold at any time.

Honestly, that just makes the entire situation for him worse. One moment, you're banished to the walls of your house for years on end after being accused of killing your one friend, the next, your stabbed, abandoned, and left to fend for yourself without any resources while being legally dead.

It's kind of tragic. Especially if you read his backstory as sympathetic like I did. Damn.

   No doubt, one of my favorite things about ‘The Boy (2016)’ 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.)

Major Spoilers for ‘The Boy (2016)’ below

   We got almost no concrete proof for anything the movie tells us about Brahms’ backstory, and what we do know can lead to multiple conclusions about the character.

   The whole ‘he killed Emily’ thing, for instance.    This is something we’re 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 who’s lived in a small town and had gossip and rumors spread about me and my loved ones, they’re usually spread with very little of the original context and, usually, turns into ‘I think this happened’ 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 ‘Emily’ that Brahms knew, but other than that, we get nothing.

   For all we know, Emily could’ve fell and hit her head on a rock, and people started blaming Brahms for it. There’s no concrete evidence proving it either way, and I love it.

   We don’t even know that much about Brahms, really. He’s 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 can’t live by himself (At least, as far as we know.). ...That’s 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 ‘Odd’, 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:     "He’s a traumatized man who’s possibly autistic (Schedule, traps may be a special interest, can’t 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 Emily’s death really was his fault."

  But that’s 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: ‘he’s guilty, creepy, and severely in need of psychological help’.) and that’s great, I love it! 

   I wish more ‘horror-ish’ 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 ‘The Collector’ but disliked its sequel ‘The Collection’, lol.)

   Idk, I just felt like posting something about the movie, haha.

MCU Supernatural headcanons

I’m mostly going off of vibe here. (Note: By ‘Supernatural’ I mean things like ghosts.)    Characters who believe in the Supernatural: Loki, Thor, Everyone on Asgard, Peter Parker, Gamora, Hulk, Bucky, T’challa, Scott, Wanda, Marc Spector, Steven Grant, Jake Lockley, Groot, Mantis, Darcy Lewis, Drax, Ned Leeds, Eddie Brock, Wade Wilson, Wong

   Characters who are undecided on the Supernatural: Vision, Bruce Banner, Steve, Natasha, Clint, Pietro, Rocket, Sam Wilson, James Rhodes, Carol Danvers, Nick Fury, Jane Foster, Phil Coulson, Yelena, MJ, Venom, Stephen Strange

   Characters who don’t believe in the Supernatural: Tony Stark, Hank Pym, Peter Quill, Nebula, Peggy Carter, Shuri?,