When Gabriel Is Mad At Nathalie:

When Gabriel is mad at Nathalie:

When Nathalie is mad at Gabriel:

Bruh. I literally went onto Tumblr to do just that, why you gotta call me out like that?

"I should write" *looks at memes about writers procrastinating writing instead*

There's two sides, and they go from pie graph to venn diagram in a heartbeat

Every writer has two sides:

"I love my characters, they are my children and will protect them with my life"

"I wanna make them suffer so fucking much"

Lol so true. Thomas Astruc may have hated Ladybug PV, but at least the villain—without doing villainy stuff yet—looked and felt like a villain

I can see TA tries to make LIla/Ceries/WhateverThisBitchName as "briliant, mysterious" psychopathic mastermind to excuse marinette irrational hatred not merely because she try to steal "her precious" Adrien by turn her into PG-13 version of Leena Klammer.

If they keep this shit, I will not surprise if they make Lila is a "grow-up paed00 midget woman who hunt a handsome boy" to excuse why they will not give a redemption for Lila, and make her a "brilliant master manipulator" and dangerous than gabriel

It feels like the writers had no idea who to make the next villain, eventually settled on Lila, but realized they needed to find a way to make her more interesting and mysterious in order to draw intrigue for next season. It's just that they chose to do something completely absurd and hoped audiences would buy it.

Outside of the whole "fake identities" thing, we know nothing about Lila as a person, why she hates Marinette and Ladybug for such petty reasons, what she even wants to do besides mooch off famous people, or who she really is. The writers just hope the idea of a mystery will be enough to sell Lila as the next main villain.

For a show heavily influenced by Spider-Man, they basically turned Lila into their own Judas Traveller, a character designed to be mysterious and compelling with no actual plan for what his backstory was.

So, this is my understanding. Nuance is key. The difference between "maestro español" and "maestro de español" is that "español" can mean either a Spanish person or the Spanish nationality, and that "de" can be translated to "of". By using "maestro español", I'm describing the teacher as Spanish, thus making "español" a descriptor of the person's origins. But by using "maestro de español", the "de" literally turns it into "teacher of Spanish", implying that "español" is about the language than regarding the person.

Is this correct? I hope so, because I'm not too confident in how I understand this...

Maybe I'm dumb, but I'm having issues using Spanish descriptors. When is the right time to add "de" and when is it not? I would have "restaurante mexicano", but then my head would spin at "maestro de español". I know this is a stupid question, but I don't like how confused I am... is there some rule that denotes when "de" is appropriate to indicate a descriptor, like how you explained "cual" and "que" to me?

With this particular example it's about the nationality and how it comes across

If you said restaurante de México it would be "a restaurant from Mexico" as if the restaurant had originally been in Mexico (which could happen for foreign chains)

And if you said maestro español it would sound like "a Spanish teacher" as in the teacher is from Spain

(el) español is "the Spanish language", but español / española is "Spanish" or "Spaniard", so it becomes a different thing

...This can be especially useful if you don't know the gentilicio "demonym" of what someone is called when they're from a place - like there's a city in Spain called Huelva - someone from there is called onubense ... so un hombre onubense = un hombre de Huelva ; that's an irregular one though, a lot of them are generally straight-forward but still

It also helps if you don't know the nationality like danés/danesa is "Dane/Danish" but then the country is Dinamarca "Denmark"

You may also run into some cities/states/etc where it could be like un restaurante chico "a small restaurant" vs. un restaurante de Chico "a restaurant from (or potentially "in") Chico"

...

But for your example, it's especially important for genders - say you have una maestra francesa "a French teacher" as in "a female teacher who is French" vs. una maestra de francés "a French teacher" as in a "female teacher who teaches French"

Same idea with de inglés "English-related" vs. inglés/inglesa "English" the nationality; or un profesor/una profesora de literatura inglesa "an English literature teacher" for example has nothing to do with their nationality at all

Subjects in school are generally considered nouns, but especially in something where you could confuse someone's nationality with the subject they teach

-

In general if you're talking about adjectives by themselves they don't usually need a de

The adjectival phrases with de are normally de + noun (person, place, or thing)

Sometimes with nationalities it's a bigger difference like above

Other times it can be sort of whichever one you feel like - as in una camisa roja "a red shirt" vs. una camisa de color rojo is "a red-colored shirt" [lit. "a shirt of red color"; where de color (algo) is an adjectival phrase]

-

You will sometimes see de + adjective + noun or de + noun + adjective; same general idea as the other it's just a longer phrase

As an example - de primera is understood as "first-rate", probably de primera categoría ...as de segunda is "second-rate" or sometimes understood as "second class (citizen)" probably again de segunda categoría

But that's different from something like de primera mano "first-hand" where it is specifically "first + hand", and again de segunda mano would be "second-hand" which would mean like a thrift store or "second-hand" clothes etc.

-

Again, not really a set rule aside from a few where it's very important to make a distinction

[Also, side note, de + algo is sometimes referred to as "genitive" in case systems but it's - "of" or "belonging to", where it can also be property/possession in some cases; like la casa de mi amigo "my friend's house" vs a simple su casa "his house" which is much simpler but vague, as it could be "her house" or "their house" too - de + pronoun can be used to indicate clear ownership when something could be vague....... still considered a kind of adjectival phrase, but not the kind of adjective you'd immediately think of]

-

If you have any other specific examples you want me to go over, just message me it can be sort of hard to generalize when some examples come up but I hope that sort of helps

As a writer, I don't like the idea of placing abuse just to make a character more relatable or more pathetic just so people could sympathize with them. Arguably, Felix's abuse story could've been used to expand on his ideologies and his behaviors, and to explain them—but I would never use the "oh he's an abused child so you can't blame him" bs. The abuse is a reason, never an excuse.

Felix's abuse narrative could've explained why he was such a little shit, because some reactions to abuse is to lash out and take it out on the world. But then comes the "down with the oppressors" vigilante shit that DOESN'T IN ANY WAY RELATE TO HIS PREVIOUS BEHAVIOR and after that, "oh poor widdle me I was so horribly abused I get a get out of jail-free card"... smh

And as for Emilie and Amelie..... where do I even start? Amelie's background plays some significance regarding the abuse narrative, but there's too many holes and contradictions and she doesn't show up enough to justify giving a damn about her. Just to play the "my poor baby" role.

Emilie, also, is arguably the most worthless goalpoint ever. She is literally just a plot device. We never learned anything about her, just that she's apparently "nice" and "a good mother". Gabriel and Adrien bemoaning her loss isn't enough to explain why she's in such a high regard for both of them, and their grief over her loss isn't used unless (in Gabriel's case) it's to justify terrorism or (in Adrien's case) to play the sympathy card. In both cases, she's a means to an end, and we learn nothing about her as a person that could make us care so damn bad.

The whole thing is just bs, and frankly, using a play instead of having Felix summarize it is so useless. I don't even understand why TA wasted more time trying to animate that, like all that hard work only for it to turn out utterly ridiculous in the end.

Some people think the reason they had Felix tell his story through that weird play was because the details were too graphic for younger kids, do you think that's a good excuse?

No because the details of Felix's abuse weren't narratively necessary. Felix suffering any abuse wasn't narratively necessary. I'd even say it was a bad thing to add because I doubt that the show is planning to deal with that issue by putting Felix into therapy or the like. It's going to be resolved by Kagami's love and was arguably only added to make Felix a sad little uwu who we can't blame for his actions.

All the play actually needed to do was:

Establish who the sentimonsters are (which it arguably failed at)

Establish that Gabriel is the butterfly holder (which the next episode does anyway)

Even outside of the abuse issue, most of what we see in the play was pointless. Giving us Emilie and Amelie's backstory would have only mattered if Emilie was brought back to life, which seems to not be the case? Even if she was brought back to life, what did we really learn about her? If we removed this play from the story, what would the narrative lose? Maybe season six will surprise me, but my guess is nothing.

You want to know why the play was really added? It's there so that Marinette wasn't able to defeat the akuma and free Chat Noir from his nightmare dust, making sure that there was no identity reveal and that he didn't show up for the final. That's it. That's the whole point.