RARS!!!

«Percibo el suave tufo de tu ignorancia supina.»

[RARS!!! @rarsiii]

@karlylawyer Sí puedes. No lo recomiendo.

[RARS!!! @rarsiii]

@StratCons Nunca vi una imagen más representativa del aforismo «dar atole con el dedo».

[RARS!!! @rarsiii]

Nunca vi una imagen más representativa del aforismo «dar atole con el dedo».

[Xavier Tello, MD 🇪🇺🇬🇱🇨🇦 @StratCons]

Que la jefa del Estado mexicano esté visitando hospitales y "tomando nota" de los materiales faltantes en una libreta, no es un reflejo de su "cercanía con el pueblo" ni su "interés por los problemas"; es sencillamente, un reflejo de la enorme ineficiencia de su administración.

[RARS!!! @rarsiii]

@karlylawyer @roroan1210 ¿Estilo La Princesita?

[George Alexopoulos @GPrime85]

@AP He's arresting himself?

[RARS!!! @rarsiii]

@SarahTheHaider Yes, of the heart and soul. Catholic.

[RARS!!! @rarsiii]

@melkor99534 @Devon_Eriksen_ @Vanessid @grok They say zeppelins are making a comeback.

[RARS!!! @rarsiii]

@karlylawyer

[RARS!!! @rarsiii]

@tiberiusfiles

[RARS!!! @rarsiii]

@karlylawyer

[RARS!!! @rarsiii]

@GiddyOnGaming @Rothmus Same here.

[RARS!!! @rarsiii]

@CrunchAlias So many applicable @stonetoss comics.

[RARS!!! @rarsiii]

@malvafg Los topónimos y los nombres propios extranjeros se tratan de maneras distintas. Aquí el artículo en Ortografía sobre exónimos: https://t.co/DSfdkmVFkN

[RARS!!! @rarsiii]

@jeancarlopmag Harry Gregson-Williams es el puto amo.

[RARS!!! @rarsiii]

@GlorySpaceCakes @Mangalawyer Of course.

[RARS!!! @rarsiii]

@multiplanet1 As an engineer working for a legacy aerospace company: Yes.

[RARS!!! @rarsiii]

@Katy_Faust Also, I've been told repeatedly that one of the most important teach by example that parents give their children is the love that spouses show for each other. Depriving them of that will impact their future relationships.

[RARS!!! @rarsiii]

@MallymkunMousey https://t.co/Q1iBT6Yd6u

[Akapiru ☧ ♰ @Akapiru]

@Grummz It's all quirk chunguses in movies because that's who's writing all of these characters: quirk chunguses.

[RARS!!! @rarsiii]

@MallymkunMousey https://t.co/hG1tiHMgl8

[Devon Eriksen @Devon_Eriksen_]

To get rid of it, you have to change what's bad about it.

To change what's bad about it, you have to understand why you hate it.

You don't hate it because it's pure bad. You hate it because it's almost good. It hits some of the right notes, but fails to deliver. And that disappoints far more than getting everything wrong.

I'll explain.

This is "The Sorcerer's Apprentice".

Basic plot trope. Unskilled character tries to use powerful tool, powerful tool backfires. Unskilled character learns lesson about Dunning-Kruger effect.

You don't hate that.

The unskilled character, in this case, is a cute cartoon girl with exaggerated facial expressions and affect.

You don't hate that, either. You think you do, but you don't. You actually hate something else. We'll get to that.

So, there we are. The tools are laid out on the workbench.

Sorcerer's Apprentice plot. Cute cartoon girl.

There is nothing wrong with the tools.

The problem is that there are TWO Sorcerer's Apprentice plots here.

The first is cute cartoon girl mishandling magic.

But the second is unskilled filmmaker mishandling Sorcerer's Apprentice plot and cute cartoon girl.

See, the vital bit of the Sorcerer's Apprentice, what makes it narratively satisfying, is that the cocksure and unskilled character gets a lesson about messing with powerful tools carelessly.

She doesn't have to learn it right away. Perhaps, over the course of the film, you want to run this subplot several times before it sinks in.

But the lesson has to be delivered to her. It has to be there. The consequence has to be negative.

In the moment when the scary monster appears, the monster must be scary. And since the tool we have selected for conveying emotional meaning is "hyperexpressive cartoon girl", she must display the appropriate emotion.

She must be scared.

Otherwise, the monster is not scary, the consequence is not negative, the lesson is not delivered, and the subplot falls flat for the sake of a badly-told joke.

It's okay to have her say the line. It's not a great line, but it's not so terrible that the scene can't survive it.

What the scene actually cannot survive is that the emotionally expressive girl, who up to now has displayed the appropriate emotions that told the story (mostly nervousness mixed with callow arrogance), has suddenly broken away from the appropriate storytelling reaction.

If you want to have her say the line, make her look and sound scared when she says it.

If you want her not to be scared when she says the line, have her say it later, when she has escaped the monster.

If you want her to not be scared at all, don't have a scary negative consequence like a monster, but a humiliating negative consequence. She can say the line just that way, with zero fear, if she has just been drenched in mud and there is a frog sitting on her head.

You can use the tools any way you want. You just have to know how to do so, and stick to your plan.

It is okay to tell a story about Catholic space knights fighting demons. It is okay to tell a story about a talking pig who plays the saxophone.

But if the pig shows up to play a sax solo in the middle of a demonic incursion, then the audience isn't going to enjoy that very much.

Even if they like stories about Catholic space knights AND they like stories about talking pigs.

You may love fish, and everyone likes ice cream, but if I serve you salmon ice cream, only two or three weirdos are going to be willing to even try it.

And even they probably won't enjoy it very much.