This bitch is going to bootleg her way into being one of the main heroes and everything is going to be bad forever.

Well considering in the bible it's mentioned he loses the election to Miss Bustier this season Chloe need be careful with the budget from season 6 on

How much does being Mayor of Paris even pay?

Well damn, good for Mrs Bustier

The press DOES have a field day and bugs him alot actually but his infinite money and cartoonishly impossible mayorial powers protects him.

The guy has missile launches under his thumb and can bring in the army with just a word. He clearly has way more power than a regular mayor

kids show*

Chloe and Marinette get on when they have a common reason for jealousy

The Mari Kim one? Yes. Adrien finding out about this is what makes him fully end his friendship with Chloe
Kim thirsting for Chloe was good ol' season 1 days but seeing this with the bible info makes it especially hilarious

> Thomas DESPERATELY wants us to think that only super nice people can be heroes. My guess is that he either thinks all anti-heroes are bad or he's really, REALLY desperate to bury Chloe. People can screech about Chloe's arc being intentional all they want. Thinking that being nice is the only way to be a hero is fricking stupid.
Why exactly?

Do you have any source to back up your claim? It's like if I say that Astruc fricked you mother. There is also no hatred for morally gray characters (whatever it means) in MLB.

Chloe wasn't morally grey, she was a jerk the whole time. It seemed like she was getting better, but she regressed.

Avatar did something similar with Zuko at the end of season 2 and he got himself together eventually. I don't think or know Astruc will do the same with Chloe and its his right to do so, even if people disagree.

What I don't understand why people on Cinemaphile are so obsessed with Chloe getting redemption and becoming a hero. There are other characters in multiple series who deserved a shot at redemption, never got it and people here made excuses on why it was a good thing.

Oh wow, I knew Ass Truck was bad but I didn't think he'd agree with a weird take like that. Damn.

I don't want Chloe to be good but I liked she was trying to be a hero, even if for personal gain it was a nice contrast with everyone else who feels pretty generic on being a hero, having an butthole in the group makes things interesting.

Zuko's failing is framed as a tragedy. Even if he just got worse from there, it wouldn't have been because there was never hope for him but because the situation he was in and came from wouldn't allow him. It would be sad.

That's not the case for Chloe, Astruc doesn't want you to be sad for what could have been and insists there was a "could".

>kind of saying
No.

The changes might have been written by other writers with their own views on how the characters should evolve.
And if there is something this show lacks, it is personal development.

This. Also, does anyone like it when Chloe is just a rich b***h villain? I'm so tired of it. Lilah is at least playing 4D chess, so she's way more compelling as a villain.

The fact that they are making everyone dumber to make Lila look smart is astounding. And the fact that Kagami is next on Lila's idiot ball is just terrible.

And the fact that she's getting akumatized again because of Lila making her believe Marinette's not a good friend is just bad, I feel people will salt on her again... Kagami truly deserved better

Lila has an aura around her that makes everyone stupid

It seems like you are just upset that MLB doesn't follow trops you already seen in comics. It's hardly a valid criticism. Also why do even think that MLB is somehow against characters with grey morality being heroes? That's just exactly what happened with Chloe in Season 2. She joined heroes in accordance with her grey morality then she joined villains also with accordance to her grey morality. It's pretty logical. If Chloe changed her morality to good she would've stopped being character with grey morality so she wouldn't be a hero with grey morality.

> I'm not saying that this show is against people with grey morality. I'm saying that this show is against people who aren't 100% nice to the main characters. You can still be good while not being a fricking boring-ass motherfricker like Zoe.
If you are good person there is just no reason to be hostile to another good person. MC is a good person. Need I explain why MC of children show should be a good person?
> The fact that Astruc didn't have the balls to actually write an arc where someone goes from being a jerk to being kind and instead just creates a "nice girl" to replace her is telling of his mindset. He's a fricking coward.
Because you can't go from being a jerk to being kind. Though you can learn value behaving like a good person in society because it's more profitable to you. That what happens when people say "school bully grew up to be a good person".
Strangely this is what according to leak could happen with Lila teaching Chloe to look good.

>If you are good person there is just no reason to be hostile to another good person.
Conflict is inevitable even amongst what could be described as the best of people. If we all just agreed with each other no matter what, you're only going to spiral into stagnation and fall apart.
>MC is a good person. Need I explain why MC of children show should be a good person?
>Marinette and Adrien
>Good people
Are you fricking sure about that? No matter how shitty Chloe's actions are, you can't tell me that these two as we've seen so far are truly good people. By your own logic, they could very well be fricked up themselves.
>Because you can't go from being a jerk to being kind. Though you can learn value behaving like a good person in society because it's more profitable to you. That what happens when people say "school bully grew up to be a good person". Strangely this is what according to leak could happen with Lila teaching Chloe to look good.
Are you actually implying that those who have issues can never be good people? That they only pretend to be good people just to get something and that they never actually improve as people? Holy fricking shit, I don't want to believe that you're actually Astruc because I doubt he actually browses Cinemaphile frequently, but the fact that this seems to be what he taught to people like you just cements my point. It's no wonder we have actual nutcases like miraculouscontent trying to make essays about how Adrien is some psychopath because he said some stupid shit to Marinette. The fact that this fandom is filled with idiots going out of their way to fricking attack anyone for liking any character can be traced back to this bullshit you're spewing right now. You don't try to look at things in a nuanced fashion. You just say "this is what Astruc intended, so it has to be right" and then argue that people with issues can't actually improve themselves. That is some wild mental gymnastics you're pulling there. Please frick off.

I agree 100% I like Chloe myself for what they could’ve done with her potential, but good God some of her other fans make me sick with their whining and animosity. Like there’s a point where it goes beyond acceptable criticism and just leans into being malicious. This malicious attitude is also pretty prevalent among Marinette fans and reminds me greatly of the entire MHA fandom

>Conflict is inevitable even amongst what could be described as the best of people.
There is a difference between disagreement and bullying. For people engaging in conflict to considered to be a good persons there should be certain kind of subjects, rules of engagement and willingness to end it in a good way. The problem is you will refuse to recognize it as a conflict you like. You want bullying to be considered as such conflict where both parties could be viewed as good people. It's just impossible.
>Are you fricking sure about that?
Yes, they are good people.
>Are you actually implying that those who have issues can never be good people?
Issues are brought in many forms.
>That they only pretend to be good people just to get something and that they never actually improve as people?
That's a good question. Some people say:
>If there is no God, everything is permitted
Some people just can't wrap their heads around the idea that people can be genuinely altruistic
without constant looming threat from society or some supernatural being. Smarter and more educated people are less likely to commit crimes, especially violent crimes. Smart, educated people evaluate their chances and value safety and stability of non-confrontational way of living. What is the difference between altruistic person who just don't like to hurt people, smart and educated egoistical person and egoistical but religious person if they act the same in the end? Should we call all of them good persons, or it is only applied to the first one? Does intent matter? As people grow, their mind develops, thus it makes them act more mature. Should we consider it as personal improvement? There are many and many questions. Highbrow people argue about it since forever. But it seems like you just totally solve everything and got final answer to questions of morality and human behavior. Ton down your insults and your hostility, as it just shows like you are not moral enough to talk about morals.

Jesus Christ.
>You want bullying to be considered as such conflict where both parties could be viewed as good people. It's just impossible.
Hey, "good people" can be needlessly hostile to other "good people" themselves. Sometimes, they can actually lapse into harassment because they feel the need to defend their point.
>Yes, they are good people.
No, they're not. They are as flawed as any other person could be and while they're not a "heartless b***h" or a "psychopath" like some brainlet salters say, they still do shitty things which pisses people off to this day.
>Issues are brought in many forms.
They are still deserving of being analyzed from multiple perspectives instead of being thrown into the baddies bin like you're seemingly trying to do.
>What is the difference between altruistic person who just don't like to hurt people, smart and educated egoistical person and egoistical but religious person if they act the same in the end? Should we call all of them good persons, or it is only applied to the first one? Does intent matter? As people grow, their mind develops, thus it makes them act more mature. Should we consider it as personal improvement? There are many and many questions.
Reasonable questions about how people tend to act as they grow older. That said, this guy managed to bring up a better question:

>Because you can't go from being a jerk to being kind.
Have you met a child?

>Have you met a child?
I know you probably forget because of the anons cooming, but a majority of these characters are teenagers AT MOST with some exceptions. They aren't supposed to be moral paragons at Age 15. Teenagers are capricious frickers and can shift very easily in terms of morality. What I'm saying is that I'm sick of folks like you expecting all children to be pure paragons and then damning them when they're being bullies. Their brains don't even stop developing until their 20s. This show should show that teenagers have a lot to figure out and aren't set for life on their morals. But they don't because of BAD WRITING.

Good people without flaws exist anon, He died on the cross for your sins.

He is in the bread and wine, talk to your local Catholic Priest to learn more!

>BY YOUR OWN LOGIC
>since you seem super happy to condemn other people
>stop trying to act like people are just set for shit
homie where did i do any of that? i'm nta you've been arguing with, that was my first reply to you

I never defended him, I know Asstruck isn't a good writer and has funny tantrums but don't act like you Chloegays aren't as lulzy as him. Some people are c**ts and stay c**ts, characters like Chloe are nothing new, not every bully character needs a redemption, she's fun the way she is. Who knows, maybe the movie will give you your redemption. Until then, stay mad and seethe more.

> Hey, "good people" can be needlessly hostile to other "good people" themselves. Sometimes, they can actually lapse into harassment because they feel the need to defend their point.
They could. Then they sort it out. It happens all the time, in MLB too. Don't pretend to be a good person with flaws is somehow equal to being a bully. There are good people with flaws and there are bad people with virtues. I could certainly rank them. There is no need to draw false equivalence.
> I know you probably forget because of the anons cooming, but a majority of these characters are teenagers AT MOST with some exceptions. They aren't supposed to be moral paragons at Age 15.
No one needs to be a pure paragon, but you can't equate morality of people on such ground. They are very different and could be ranked. Bullies certainly go to the "bad" book.
> This show should show that teenagers have a lot to figure out and aren't set for life on their morals. But they don't because of BAD WRITING.

The premise of Chloe's damnation arc is pretty solid as it is. It is a deconstruction of the shitty trope where a bad person acquires magical power and this somehow turns them into a better person. MLB shows that there is no reason for it. Kicking someone in a spandex suit doesn't shield you from the obligation to be a decent person without costume. Such desire is by itself is a sign of immaturity and being a bad person. I think it's pretty fresh and solid.

>Don't act like you Chloegays aren't as lulzy as him.
Yeah, I know Cyrus the Great is a brainlet cuck who somehow think that Chloe isn't a bully and I know there are spergs like him who screech about how Marinette is history's greatest monster when she's literally just your run-of-the-mill bully victim with possible autism and creepy tendencies. I'm just sick of having to deal with these moralizing clowns who screech about MORALITIES and DAMNATION for fricking teenagers.

Yes, there is nothing wrong with arguing about moralities of teenagers.

What does your comment have to do with my comment?

Fanfiction is insufficient, it's just words. Without the visuals of the show and the VAs and music and whole package it's nothing.

Not that anon but you liking fanfiction doesn't change the fact that watching something isn't the same as reading something, and fanfiction comes with major issues of shitty writing that can be even worse then the show.

it said empathy, not sympathy. there's a difference.

what a failure that was. Holyshit why would they make her such an unlikable stupid b***h in season 4 then.

If you're going to make us empathize with someone, at the very least, make them interesting and compelling to follow. They could've done that with Marinette, but they didn't. Not only did they boil much of her goals down to "DUDE ADRIEN LMAO", but they constantly have her frick up while expecting us to always side with her. There's a point where someone fricks up too much and they become unbearable. It's all bad writing. It's what fricked up Chloe.
>REEEE SHE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE BAD
Shut the frick up, it was still done poorly. It's what fricked up Chloe, it's what fricked up Gabriel, it's what fricked up Fu, it's what fricked up Adrien, and it's what especially fricked up Marinette.

Bacouse he told her once he travelled back in time to feed the kwamus earlier

I'm thinking they made Zoe "rounder" to contrast with Chloe's "sharpness", (rounder = more innocent or some bullshit) but I'd say their eyes were more than enough to show that

I don't know how, if he couldn't decode the Gromorium on his own, but he knew from a long time about the powers of the other Miraculous. (He made Volpina had the power of Ilussion, just like the real Miraculous).

In all this time, he had plenty of time to think about OTHER solutions if he got the other Miraculous.

HECK, EVEN WITH JUST THE BUTTERFLY MIRACULOUS HE COULD HAVE SAVED EMILIE!!! He could have created an akumatized villain with the power to make people ill and to cure them!!!

For someone so smart, not thinking about either of those was pretty stupid!

1º) Miraculous World is just like our, only they avoid certain "topics" that might sound to hard for children. Paris has an hospital, and it's very typical that people suffer because beloved relatives get sick and either they can pay for treatment of there's no cure. It happens every day! Don't you think it would pass too much time before Gabriel finds someone with the proper emotions?

2º) I can see that. I mean, in "Cat Blanc", the broken Adrien went psycho very much like his father, wanting to use Ladybug's Miraculous to fix the world. Even when the solution was as simple as to let himself to be deakumatized and let her "Miraculous Ladybug" to fix the world!

>She meets a woman that has a butterfly farm
>"Mom! I finally found you!"
for this to work the woman would have to have amnesia.

>If it worked with her 3 other moms it's sure gonna work on this one too
good point, but it's still stupid that 4 women don't remember giving birth to a baby and then abandoning it.

>wait, you don't need to have a butterfly nest of your own in order to use the butterfly miracle properly?
>Where will Lila get that many butterflies?
I guess it wasn't hard to get butterflies in the old days, but today that would be a big drawback for 99% of modern carriers.

In my headcanon butterflies are the way Gabe found out to conceive his power at long-range.
A butterfly holder without those needs to actually touch the akuma victim to transfer their power.
IDk it be a neat change of pace for Lila, since she seems to be more hands-on than Gabriel.

Yes. That is what I was saying. It seems like he's bringing the series down as hard as he can before he leaves. Who ever comes in afterwards will have a very hard time trying to salvage the series.

i'll still watch it coz he seems like a dickhead

Adrien's just a grower, no way Emilie and Gabriel wouldn't add huge dong to the list of things they wanted Adrien to have when they made him