Yet MORE Old Msi Art

Yet MORE old msi art

I call it old despite being only from may, but I can see how they used to look like when I just began drawing them for the first time, they looked so different. Jimmy's pink hair used to look weird because I was too lazy to look for a reference lmao. I dont want to look two times at some of these HELP

I don't know how to explain this shit but I did it just for fun. I like doing stupid things.

To all Palestine supporters 🙏

🫂🫂

We still need less than 130€ to reach our short term goal of 7k€ ‼️

Your donations are important for our survival

Please help me reach our goal as soon as possible 🙏

We appreciate your help ❤️🙏

🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸❤🤍💚🖤

!!

DO NOT READ IF YKNOW ME IRL (IN REAL LIFE)

how did I go from "I hate furries!! they should all die!!" to "I don't like furries." to "ehh some furries are okay I guess." to "some furries are bad, but I still dont like the rest." to "I'm a therian, and I dont like furries." to "I'm still a therian and now I have a fursona, BUT, I still dont like furries." to "I have a fursona, and I'm a therian. I don't mind furries" to "I think furries are cool. (still a therian + has a fursona)" to "Im a furry!!"

gang what is this character development...

Since I've been seeing so many people shit on joker 2; folie a deux, so will I. (i saw it a daily earlier before most because it came out a day earlier in my area lol THE JOKER 1 IS VERY GOOD, POTRAYS PYSCHOTIC BEHAVIOR PERFECTLY AND IS BEAUTIFUL. BUT, JOKER 2 IS NOT ON THE OTHER HAND. YES, IT IS BEAUTIFUL, BUT HOLY FUCK ALL THAT SINGING WAS UNNEEDED, AND ALSO IT MADE BARELY ANY SENSE, ALSO JOKER IS MEANT TO BE THE ONE MANIPULATING HARLEY, NOT CODEPENDENT ON HER?? AND SHES NOT EVEN PYSCHO, JUST GOOFY AND WEIRD. JOKER 2 IS VERY HARSH AND REAL, AND VERY ACCURATELY CONNECTED TO THE ILLNESSES FEAUTURED IN JOKER 1, BUT WHAT THE PROBLEM IS WHO THEY'RE POTRAYED BY. THE ILLNESSES ARE ACCURATE, THEY GO TOGETHER, BUT THEY DON'T MATCH THE CHARACTER OF JOKER. THEY DON'T MATCH HIS ACTIONS, THE ILLNESSES OF JOKER IN PART 1 MATCHED HIS CHARACTER AND MADE SENSE; PERCIEVING HIM TO PEOPLE AS A CHARACTER THAT FINALLY BROKE FREE, SOMEONE WHO ENJOYED THE HIGH OF BEING KNOWN, AT A HIGHER RANK THAN EVERYONE ELSE. HE FELT AS IF HE WAS ONTOP, AND HE LOVED THE ATTENTION. HE WAS CARELESS AND RELENTLESS, YET DELUSIONAL AND PYSCHOTIC. THIS ALL HAPPENED WHEN HE FINALLY BROKE; FINALLY GOT SET FREE, AND HE WENT CRAZY AND YET WAS STILL DELUSIONAL. BUT, IN JOKER 2, HE IS MUCH MORE CO-DEPENDENT AND WEAK SHOWN, NOT MATCHING HIS CHARACTER IN THE 1ST ONE. YES, HE'S BEEN IN THE ASYLUM FOR AWHILE, BUT THAT SHOULD JUST MAKE HIM MORE CARELESS AND INSANE. BUT NO, NOW HE'S MORE SOFT AND DELUSIONAL, THE DELUSIONAL PART MAKES SENSE, BUT THE PART WHERE HE JUST GOES BACK TO NORMAL AND SAYS 'THERE WAS NEVER A JOKER'? NO. HE'S BEEN BRAINWASHED AND IT DOESNT MATCH HIS CHARACTER. HE CLEARLY FELT HAPPIER THAN EVER WHEN HE WAS THE JOKER AND IT DIDN'T MATCH HIS CHARACTER, THERE'S NO GOING BACK. YOU CAN'T JUST GO BACK TO BEING ARTHUR FLECK, THE YOU THAT YOU DESPISE. THE YOU THAT WAS WEAK. AFTER A TRAUMATIZING EXPERIENCE, IF ANYTHING, YOU SHOULD BECOME MORE EVIL. MORE REVENGEFUL. NO, IT'S NOT INVALID IF THAT'S NOT HOW YOU REACT, BUT IT'S INVALID FOR THE JOKER BECAUSE IT WAS INACCURATE TOWARDS HIS CHARACTER IN JOKER 1.

THEY BOTH POTRAYED MENTAL ILLNESS VERY WELL, AND THEY DO GO TOGETHER, BUT NOT FOR THE JOKER. THE JOKER IS EVIL AND RELENTLESS. NOT SOFT AND VULNERABLE. HE KNOWS WHAT HE DID. AND HE'S PROUD OF IT. HE FINALLY FELT ALIVE, SEEN, AND THE MOVIE OVERALL WAS MUCH MORE REALISTIC AND STRAIGHTFORWARD. HE MEANT TO DO WHAT HE DID PURPOSEFULLY. IT WASN'T JUST AN 'ACT'. ARTHUR FLECK WAS THE ACT, WAS HIM GOING INSANE, ARTHUR FLECK WAS THE BUILDUP TO THE JOKER. THE JOKER WAS THE REAL HIM, THE HIM THAT COULD FINALLY GET RELEASED. THE HIM HE'S BEEN CONCEALING FOR FOREVER. SO HIM BEING HAPPY AND CARELESS, AND EVEN ENJOYING BEING EVIL, DOES NOT MATCH HIM BEING SOFT AND VULNERABLE. YES THE DELUSIONS MAKE SENSE, DEEPLY, BUT THEY'RE JUST TOO CORNY AND TOO CO-DEPENDENT. BEING DELUSIONAL MAKES SENSE FOR HIM, BUT HIM HAVING CO-DEPENDENT DELUSIONS, SAYING ITS 'ALL A FANTASY', IS THE HARSH TRUTH, YET ALSO INACCURATE. HE WAS DELUSIONAL, IT WAS JUST A FANTASY, BUT HE LOVED IT, IT WAS PART OF HIS CHARACTER, HE WOULDNT JUST ADMIT HES A TERRIBLE PERSON, AND HOW IT WAS ALL AN ACT, BECAUSE IT NEVER WAS, BECAUSE DEEP DOWN HES ALWAYS BEEN THIS PYSCHOPATH. TO SAY IT WAS JUST AN ACT?? IS INSANE. IN HIS DELUSIONS ABOUT HAVING A ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP, IN JOKER 1, THEY WERE NEVER TOO CORNY. NEVER TOO CODEPENDENT, FOR EVEN IN THE DELUSIONS HE COULD RELY ON HIMSELF, FOR EVEN IN THE DELUSIONS HE WAS CONFIDENT. BUT IN THE JOKER 2, HIS DELUSIONS ARE CORNY, AND VERY MUSICAL-LIKE WHICH WASNT NEEDED, VERY RANDOM AND KINDA DIDNT ADD UP. THE MOVIE WAS GREAT WITH GREAT SCENERY, BUT HOLY SHIT THEY TRIED WAY TOO HARD AND WENT OFF TRACK. IT WOULD BE A GREAT MOVIE, BUT MAYBE RELATED TO A DIFFERENT JOKER. BECAUSE THE JOKER IN JOKER 2, IS NOT THE JOKER WE SEE IN JOKER 1. ITS LIKE AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT JOKER. OVERALL, IT WAS AN OK MOVIE. BUT IT WOULDVE BEEN BETTER IF NOT RELATED TO THE JOKER. WHAT WAS REALLY FASCINATING ABOUT JOKER 1 IS HOW IT SHOWED HOW PEOPLE BREAK, IT WAS A MOVIE ABOUT CHAOS AND HOW HE WAS SLOWLY LOSING HIS SANITY. SOME PEOPLE COULD EVEN RELATE TO HIS SHITTY LIFE, PEOPLE FELT COMFORT. PEOPLE FELT SYMPATHY; EMPATHY. BUT IN THE JOKER 2 THEY COMPLETELY TAKE THAT AWAY, RIDDING OF HIS TOUGH, CARELESS, 'I'D DO IT AGAIN.' PERSONA AND REPLACING IT WITH A SOFTER, 'I REGRET IT ALL', PERSONA. JOKER 2 OVERALL DIDN'T MATCH HIS CHARACTER, AND PRACTICALLY WAS CHARACTER REGRGESSION RATHER THAN CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT. PEOPLE WANTED THE JOKER TO GO INSANE, THEY WERE HAPPY HE WAS TAKING REVENGE ON THE CRUEL WORLD. BUT IN JOKER 2, HE WAS EXACTLY LIKE HE WAS IN THE START OF JOKER 1. WEAK, SAD. YES, IT WAS A GOOD MOVIE WITH VERY WELL POTRAYED MENTAL ILLNESSES, IT JUST DIDN'T FIT HIS CHARACTER.

"that's the fifth pick-up line you've said in a minute, finn."