How Does 'The Wheel Of Time: Crossroads Of Twilight' Compare With 'Mistborn' In Character Depth?

Stacking Nikki Sixx's fortune against other rock stars is kind of a fascinating reminder that fame and money don't always travel together in a straight line. I usually see his net worth estimated in the ballpark of roughly $80–100 million, which is a very healthy number — especially for someone coming out of the hard-partying, ups-and-downs glam-metal scene. That cash comes from a mix of long-running songwriting royalties (he's co-writer on a huge chunk of 'Mötley Crüe' hits), decades of touring, publishing and licensing deals, a couple of bestselling memoirs and the money that flowed from adapting 'The Dirt' into a film. He also diversified: radio projects, photography and various side ventures helped stabilize income after some rough patches in the '90s and early 2000s. If you stack him next to the absolute top-tier of music billionaires and near-billionaires, Nikki lands lower — massively famous acts like Paul McCartney or members of the classic rock elite are in a different financial universe because of songwriting catalogs, decades of publishing and massive catalog sales. But compare Nikki to many of his peers in the hard rock and metal world, and he’s comfortably near the top. He’s generally better off than many glam/metal contemporaries who didn’t hit the same songwriting or licensing sweet spots, and he’s often in similar territory to other long-career rockers who kept touring and kept their names active. For contrast, guys who stayed on the road continually or who sold their catalogs at the right time can eclipse or trail him depending on timing and business choices. What I like about his story is that his net worth is as much a story of resilience as it is of hits. Money can spike and fall with big reunion tours, catalog deals, or a popular movie like 'The Dirt'. Taxes, bad contracts and wild spending can eat into peaks, but continuous royalty streams and a recognizable brand keep a baseline wealth that many artists never reach. For fans, the number is interesting, but the legacy of the music — the way a riff or lyric sticks with people — is what feels biggest to me, even if the dollars tell an impressive backup tale.

I get a real kick out of turning my selfies into cute, stylized female characters, and the tools these days are wild. For a quick, playful transformation I often reach for ToonMe and ToonApp — they're user-friendly, give that smooth cartoon shading and big-eyes look, and have presets aimed specifically at female faces. Voila AI Artist is another fave when I want the Pixar-esque or caricature vibe; it does that round-eyed 3D look really well. Lensa's Magic Avatars made headlines for a reason: polished, flattering results, but watch the cost and the prompt quirks. If you prefer anime-styled portraits, try 'Waifu Labs', 'Selfie2Anime', or apps that explicitly offer anime filters — they lean toward youthful, stylized proportions. For more control, I use web-based Stable Diffusion frontends or apps that let you run models like 'NovelAI' or custom anime checkpoints; that requires a bit more tinkering but you can push toward a specific character vibe. Pro tip: good lighting and a neutral expression in the selfie give the cleanest cartoon conversion. I usually touch up colors afterwards in a simple editor to match the mood I'm going for, and I love comparing results from different apps before I pick a final image.

I get asked this all the time, especially by friends who want to put a cute female cartoon on merch or use it in a poster for their small shop. The short reality: a cartoon female character photo is not automatically free for commercial use just because it looks like a simple drawing or a PNG on the internet. Characters—whether stylized or photoreal—are protected by copyright from the moment they are created, and many are also subject to trademark or brand restrictions if they're part of an established franchise like 'Sailor Moon' or a company-owned mascot. That protection covers the artwork and often the character design itself. If you want to use one commercially, check the license closely. Look for explicit permissions (Creative Commons types, a commercial-use stock license, or a written release from the artist). Buying a license or commissioning an original piece from an artist is the cleanest route. If something is labeled CC0 or public domain, that’s safer, but double-check provenance. For fan art or derivative work, you still need permission for commercial uses. I usually keep a screenshot of the license and the payment record—little things like that save headaches later, which I always appreciate.

I'm obsessed with getting cartoon art to pop off the page, so removing a background is one of my favorite little makeovers. For a precise, nondestructive workflow I usually open the file in 'Photoshop' (but Photopea or GIMP work similarly). First I duplicate the layer, then use 'Select Subject' or the Magic Wand to grab the character—cartoons often have solid fills and clean outlines, so that selection is surprisingly accurate. I switch to 'Select and Mask' to refine edges: increase contrast slightly, smooth a bit, and use the edge-detection brush on hair or stray lines. Always output to a layer mask rather than deleting pixels; that way I can paint the mask back if I overshoot. Next I tidy the outlines. If the character has a bold black stroke, I sometimes expand the selection by 1–2 pixels to avoid haloing, or use 'Defringe' to remove color spill. For soft shadows, I duplicate the layer, fill the mask with black, blur and lower opacity to create a realistic shadow layer. Export as PNG (or PSD if I want to keep layers). If you prefer free tools, Photopea mimics these steps and remove.bg gives great auto results for quick jobs. I love how a clean transparent background lets me drop my cartoon into any scene, and tweaking masks turns a rough cut into something that feels hand-polished—satisfying every time.

Curiously, I like lining up numbers and stories — and when I put Jay Cutler and Ben Roethlisberger side-by-side, the headline is pretty clear: Ben built a bigger pile of money. Jay’s net worth is generally put in the ballpark of around $35–45 million, which reflects a solid NFL career, some endorsement checks, and a lifestyle that’s been public and comfortable. I think people sometimes undervalue how much Jay parlayed his name into media moments and off-field income too. Ben, on the other hand, usually shows up with a larger estimate — roughly in the $70–90 million range depending on the source. That gap makes sense once you unpack it: Ben had a longer run as a franchise QB, more big contract years, and postseason runs that drive legacy pay and post-career opportunities. Plus, longer tenure often means bigger pension and more lucrative local endorsements. So yeah, if I had to sum it as a fan with a spreadsheet in my head: both are wealthy former quarterbacks who live well, but Ben’s career length and contract history almost certainly pushed his net worth appreciably higher than Jay’s — and that’s the angle that sticks with me.

Oddly enough, the history of cartoon fish is messier and more charming than you'd expect. I like to trace their roots back to the very birth of animation — the 1910s and 1920s — when film pioneers were doodling all kinds of creatures, including sea life, as part of experimental shorts. Early animated loops and novelty films often used fish and underwater scenes because they were visually playful and let animators stretch physics for gags. By the 1930s, studios like Disney and Fleischer were churning out theatrical shorts that featured anthropomorphic animals and occasional fish characters, giving those creations wider exposure in movie theaters. So pinning a single "first popular" fish is tricky: popularity came in waves. The medium matured through decades, and then later decades gave us unmistakable mainstream fish icons — my favorites being the bright, personality-driven characters from films like 'The Little Mermaid' and 'Finding Nemo'. Those later hits crystallized what a beloved cartoon fish could be, but the lineage goes back to those early silent-era experiments, and I find that long, winding evolution pretty delightful.

The moment the frame cuts to the underside of her tail in episode 5, something subtle but telling happens, and I felt it in my chest. At first glance it’s a visual tweak — a darker stripe, a faint shimmer, and the way the fur flattens like she’s bracing — but those little animation choices add up to a change in how she carries herself. I noticed the shoulders tilt, the eyes slip into guarded focus, and her movements become economical, almost like a predator shifting stance. That physical tightening reads as a psychological shift: she’s no longer playful, she’s calculating. Beyond the body language, the soundtrack drops to a low, resonant hum when the camera lingers under the tail. That audio cue, paired with the close-up, implies the reveal is important. For me it signaled a turning point in her arc — the tail area becomes a hiding place for secrets (scar, device, birthmark) and the way she shields it suggests vulnerability and a new determination. Watching it, I was excited and a little worried for her; it felt like the scene where a character stops pretending and starts acting, and I was hooked by how the show made that transition feel earned and intimate.

Growing up watching Sunday night cartoons felt like visiting the same neighborhood every week, and nowhere embodies that steady comfort more than 'Sazae-san'. The comic strip creator Machiko Hasegawa laid the emotional and tonal groundwork with a postwar, family-first sensibility beginning in the 1940s, and when the TV adaptation launched in 1969 the producers at Eiken and the broadcasters at NHK doubled down on that gentle, domestic rhythm rather than chasing flashy trends. Over time the show was shaped less by one showrunner and more by a relay of directors, episode writers, animators, and voice actors who prioritized continuity. That collective stewardship kept the character designs simple, the pacing unhurried, and the cultural references domestic—so the series aged with its audience instead of trying to reinvent itself every few seasons. The production decisions—short episodes, consistent broadcast slot, conservative visual updates—helped it survive eras that saw rapid animation shifts elsewhere. To me, the fascinating part is how a single creator’s tone can be stretched across generations without losing identity. You can see Machiko Hasegawa’s original values threaded through decades of staff changes, and that continuity has been its secret sauce. Even now, when I catch a rerun, there’s a warmth that feels authored by an entire community honoring the original spirit, and that’s honestly pretty moving.