I heard it had some BDSM elements, so, I figured I'd give it a shot. I really shouldn't have. A complete waste of potential. And worse than that, actually offensive in it's "unsophistication".
For example, the first story sets up this couple. They have a really dark dynamic going on. In order to please her, he kidnaps women for her to use. He doesn't "really" want to do it, but he loves her, he wants her, and so he does this for her. You get to take a look into something twisted, and into something broken, into something really dark. How he selects and charms the homeless girl, and how they play their parts as she's at their place. It had the potential to intimately explore the minds of human predators.
And so far, the writer was spot on. So far, this was authentic. It was scary because it was real. And I think that, in the end, it had to come out of the writer. He was aware of this darkness inside him. He put it on paper, and then on screen. But then, after he got this far, he basically apologizes for it. "I'm sorry that I showed this, here, let me make it up. Let me take it all back. Actually, the homeless girl is a monster that eats human flesh and tortures them now That makes it alright, right?" No, it doesn't. It makes it worthless. You had the chance to make a point, and you wasted it by running away from it. And doing so in an incredibly "unsophisticated" way. And you did the same exact thing in the third story. I didn't really watch the second one. So I can't comment on it.
The "good guy" in the third story absolutely horrified me. But not in the way it was intended. I was horrified there was a person who could write someone like that. He was in an unfair relationship by his own choice. And then he decides it's not for him anymore. And he can leave at any time. But he doesn't. He stays. And he pretends. And he lies. And he manipulates. And he has his girlfriend then raped by dogs, dogs being the thing she has a paralyzing fear of.
That is NOT a good guy. That is the ACTUAL monster here. Not the girl who gave him spankings and what not, which he agreed to in the first place. Just because the girl does A doesn't make it OK for the guy to do B, and after your protagonist has someone RAPED BY DOGS you're not allowed to portray him as a hero that overcame some kind of odds. He overcame a weak, little, scared woman. Kudos to him.
The kindest interpretation of that would be "blaming the victim" behavior. The words that came from my mouth when I saw it though were more along the lines of "despicable". I don't find the character despicable. I found how he was written, how his motivations and actions were justified to be despicable.
Again, you had a perfectly excellent chance to make a point, in this case about power exchange relationships, and how they can be dehumanizing, and increasingly heartless. And again, it was authentic, it was real, until you decided to take it all back as if to apologize for showing what you had so far in the first place.
With some conviction and follow through the creator of this might actually create something worthwhile down the road. This though is not that.
For example, the first story sets up this couple. They have a really dark dynamic going on. In order to please her, he kidnaps women for her to use. He doesn't "really" want to do it, but he loves her, he wants her, and so he does this for her. You get to take a look into something twisted, and into something broken, into something really dark. How he selects and charms the homeless girl, and how they play their parts as she's at their place. It had the potential to intimately explore the minds of human predators.
And so far, the writer was spot on. So far, this was authentic. It was scary because it was real. And I think that, in the end, it had to come out of the writer. He was aware of this darkness inside him. He put it on paper, and then on screen. But then, after he got this far, he basically apologizes for it. "I'm sorry that I showed this, here, let me make it up. Let me take it all back. Actually, the homeless girl is a monster that eats human flesh and tortures them now That makes it alright, right?" No, it doesn't. It makes it worthless. You had the chance to make a point, and you wasted it by running away from it. And doing so in an incredibly "unsophisticated" way. And you did the same exact thing in the third story. I didn't really watch the second one. So I can't comment on it.
The "good guy" in the third story absolutely horrified me. But not in the way it was intended. I was horrified there was a person who could write someone like that. He was in an unfair relationship by his own choice. And then he decides it's not for him anymore. And he can leave at any time. But he doesn't. He stays. And he pretends. And he lies. And he manipulates. And he has his girlfriend then raped by dogs, dogs being the thing she has a paralyzing fear of.
That is NOT a good guy. That is the ACTUAL monster here. Not the girl who gave him spankings and what not, which he agreed to in the first place. Just because the girl does A doesn't make it OK for the guy to do B, and after your protagonist has someone RAPED BY DOGS you're not allowed to portray him as a hero that overcame some kind of odds. He overcame a weak, little, scared woman. Kudos to him.
The kindest interpretation of that would be "blaming the victim" behavior. The words that came from my mouth when I saw it though were more along the lines of "despicable". I don't find the character despicable. I found how he was written, how his motivations and actions were justified to be despicable.
Again, you had a perfectly excellent chance to make a point, in this case about power exchange relationships, and how they can be dehumanizing, and increasingly heartless. And again, it was authentic, it was real, until you decided to take it all back as if to apologize for showing what you had so far in the first place.
With some conviction and follow through the creator of this might actually create something worthwhile down the road. This though is not that.