Idly, Do You Have Any Strong Feelings About Ian's Whole Semi-Daredevil Deal Of "I'm Blind But My Superpowers

Idly, do you have any strong feelings about Ian's whole semi-Daredevil deal of "I'm blind but my superpowers make up for that"? Because I know some people find that trope annoying but I know other people don't mind it. I find it interesting from the in-universe science angle-I remember Ian was born blind genetically, it wasn't an accident, so it came about interestingly. I have similar thoughts on Tara and Taylor's powers being similar, but not identical, and them being identical twins. But I wanted a second opinion.

I get how people would be annoyed with the whole “yea I’m blind but actually not really” I’ve never minded. I’ve kind of enjoyed the trope at times. I think it ads to the characters “sight” related powers because it emphasizes just how differently they see the world.

I kind of like how Tara and Taylor’s powers are different. One because identical twins still aren’t completely the same and 2 it could have something to do with how they were raised/trained.

All of this makes me start to think about why each kids powers are different and what influenced the differences.

Beetlewing Headshot - rendering practice

Timelapse

(Following up on the last one) You legit make a good point.

Now that I think about it I think my approach might end up being similar. I'd keep the "Tara makes Hatch look like Carl" scene because Tara's illusion ability is important enough to establish and use for the Quentin mutiny later but I would probably make Carl a spy-entist (ba-dum-tish) inside the Elgen under a new fake name-probably make his fake identity a reoccurring character running tests on Quentin et al. possibly even have him set up/assist the mutiny alongside that one guy Quentin rescues that I can't recall the name of. And then bump Coonradt up to the Resistance's leader.

That also touched on a brief Idea I had of playing up Hatch's twin tools of manipulation being luxury and guilt. You have Zeus and his pool memory, you have Tanner and the airplane stuff, Nichelle and the electrical fires in her foster homes, I was thinking of making it a more prevalent thing that Hatch tries to get under Michael's skin by implying that he killed Carl with his powers as a kid. Honestly was also considering something similar with Quentin's EMP power-grandparent with a pacemaker of some sort?

Yes! That would make so much sense! I didn’t even think of the fact that hatch uses a traumatic thing form the kids past as a control tactic. And hatch definitely could have utilized that with Michael.

Also, do you remember that thing where Hatch tried to trick Michael by telling him that most of the kids that died from the experiment died from cancer and that since Michael’s electricity was growing he could be at risk? Because I think about that a lot. And I honestly feel like that didn’t go anywhere. Hatch gave Michael a bunch of reasons to doubt the resistance and his friends, and it would have been interesting to see him start to doubt everyone. Become mistrusting because who should he believe. Sure, the Elgan did horrible things and the resistance is fighting against them, but they are sending them on death missions. Using them as basically child soldiers.

Not super into Dear Evan Hansen but…

does anyone know the song Talk Good by Grace VanderWaal? Because it’s literally Evan. I would kill for that animatic.

Most people in the BMC fandom know the musical before the book and while the book isn’t amazing and I do like the musical better overall, I had the luxury of reading the book first and feel I can give the book some credits were credits due. I think people hate the book even more because they only know the musical and have really high expectations.

one. I like that Jeremy and Christine don’t get together in the end of the book. There’s a hint that that’s a possibility but it’s not set in stone like it is in the musical. The musical made it feel like Jeremy had no consequences. Task fails successfully if you know what I’m saying. He gets the girl in the end. And I think that the books message that even if you change yourself completely, you won’t get that girl because that’s not how life works is much more impactful.

Two. Jeremy never ditches Michael in the book (well he kinda does but it’s brief and Jeremy feels bad and apologized) and while I still love the angst of Jeremy ditching Michael I also love the supportive Jeremy who just wants to be cool and also help his buddy get invited to the cool guy parties.

three. There were some funny lines that ultimately got cut and I think that’s unfortunate.

four. you think Jeremy in the musical is a dork? In the book he got in trouble for randomly belting out into song. At one point he got excited and jumped up and clicked his heels together. JUMPED UP AND CLICKED HIS HEELS TOGETHER!

five. Adding on to the last one, Jeremy didn’t join the school play for Christine in the book. He was a genuine theater kid and Christine happens to also be there.

six. The here Heere jokes. The book literally opens up with one.

seven. I think single dad representation is important but can we appreciate book Mrs. Heere? She’s the MVP.

eight. Rich’s bellybutton kink. They reference it in the musical I think. But it was so weird it stuck with me.

nine. Jeremy being a furry. It’s canon! He references liking girls with tails and makes a comment about the girls in fairy costumes for the play being attractive.

ten. Jeremy’s SQUIP being able to shock other people and shocking a guy when he was picking on Jeremy.

In conclusion, yes the book has a lot of faults but it came first. It gave birth to us OK? That book was what created this musical. That book was what created this fandom. And even if you don’t like it, which is valid. It deserves recognition for what it was.

Do also specify a shade (bright red, dark green, etc.)

Blah blah blah rb for sample size or whatev