5bloodyroses

[5bloodyroses]

[5bloodyroses]

Unique coat colors on cats 🖤

[5bloodyroses]

[5bloodyroses]

Not my meme but figured I'd share for those about to ride out the storm

[5bloodyroses]

So I have read several people complaining that they can’t be expected to know the “unwritten rules” of fandom. So here’s what I wish people knew:

Fanfiction is fiction.

Fictional people are not real.

Fictional people do not have rights.

Fictional people cannot be abused.

Reading or writing about something does not mean the desire to do or support it in the real world.

If I find art upsetting/triggering/disgusting/outraging/unpleasant/squicky/distressing/offensive, it is on me not to read it, not the creators and hosts to remove it.

Curate your own experience. The back buttons exist for a reason.

If you don’t trust yourself to do that, get someone you trust to do it for you.

Fandom is an adult space. Adults create and own and host fandom spaces. If minors want to participate, then the onus is on them and their parents/guardians/trusted adults to ensure they participate appropriately, not on strange adults to stop being adults.

You often don’t know the assault status or mental health status or neurotype or race or nationality or religion or gender or sexuality or age of a creator or consumer, and they do not have to disclose to you to justify their fantasy.

AO3 is not a safe space. It is not intended to be a safe space. Proceed accordingly.

Just because you don’t like something or find it offensive doesn’t mean it is a “problem” that “has to be dealt with”.

Most characters in anime are not white.

There is no onus on you to reblog or share anything.

Everyone makes mistakes in fandom and is less than their best self sometimes.

Persistent pseudonyms encourage long term relationships.

Ship wars are stupid.

Someone else enjoying things does not impact on your own enjoyment of other things.

Tagging and warning is a courtesy, not a requirement. Assume any fic might contain untagged content.

Rating is an imprecise art, not a science.

Don’t hassle IP creators.

Most people who are in fandom are hoping to make connections based on a shared passion.

Trying to profit from transformative fanworks puts us all at risk.

No one is obligated to share your head canon or fanon.

Being kind rarely fails to pay off.

It is okay to block and remove people who make your experience unpleasant. You don’t have to placate them. (Learn from my mistakes).

Britpicking is a good thing.

You don’t have to justify why you like a canon/pairing/trope/kink. Sometimes navel gazing is fun, but you don’t have an obligation to explain yourself, especially to strangers. I share the overwhelming desire to refute an unfair accusation, but the people accusing you are rarely doing so in good faith, so you’re batting a losing wicket.

I’m not your Mum. (Well, okay, a very few of you can call me Mum or Mom, but if you are one of them you already know who you are ❤️)

If you aren’t mature enough to take responsibility for your online experiences, you aren’t mature enough to be in fandom spaces.

[5bloodyroses]

THEY LITERALLY HANG THEM UP TO DRY IN CRYING OH MY GOD

[5bloodyroses]

More info coming soon...

[5bloodyroses]

Flooflers

[5bloodyroses]

Romeo + Juliet (1996) truly has everything…heavy religious imagery…young leo…90s fashion…a brief drag scene….neon lights…those iconic angel wings

[5bloodyroses]

Let’s talk about The Mummy (1999)

Someone was talking at me yesterday about this movie and I was getting riled so I decided to go full rant. Specifically in regards to the feminist podcast that slammed it.

I don’t even remember which podcast it was, but I am still rankled and baffled that any “feminism in movies” podcast could jump to anything but “this movie is phenomenal.”

First of all, even just discussing the overall quality: sure, it might not have been groundbreaking with its cgi or plot twists. But back in the 90s, that wasn’t the standard of measure like it is now (and even now is a shitty standard that needs to die). This movie was light and funny and yet hit all the right beats to maintain the dire stakes needed to make it a compelling action flick.

Its characters are fully realized and entirely distinct from each other. Even those treated with a broader brush, such as the Americans, were charismatic enough that we were fully invested in their fate. The entire cast of characters were real people with real impact and real agency.

The script is quotable and fucking hilarious. There are gems from literally every single character. Rick and Evie have actual chemistry, aided by Rachel Weisz’s natural magnetism and Brendan Frasier’s career-long knack for acting utterly charmed with his female costars.

Actually, let’s talk about Rick O'Connell for a second. This is peak 90s Brendan Frasier. He is absolutely GORGEOUS, suave, and cool, rugged and handsome. He is the epitome of the 1920s adventure hero. Dear god I want to kiss those casting directors. But for all his general peak masculinity? He’s feminist as fuck. He is equally dumbstruck by Evie as she is by him, and it’s wholly evident that it’s more than a “oh no she’s hot” thing.

How do we know?

He steals her some tools to dig with. This gift demonstrates that he a) has identified her passion for archaeology, b) has recognized her proficiency in the field, despite it not being explicitly stated on screen, and c) sees a chance to restore her full and active participation in the discovery of Hamunaptra.

There is never a moment where Rick assumes to be the leader of the expedition. He is the weapons expert, the muscle–and he knows it. Better than that, he’s totally okay with it. He follows Evie’s lead in all things.

Another favorite moment of mine is when they’re facing off with the American team on Day 1, and Evie realizes there’s a chamber underneath Anubis they could use to excavate the statue. She puts her hand on Rick’s arm, looks him in the eye, and says very deliberately “there are other places to dig.” And he yields, instantly.

By comparison, see the way the Americans treat their workers and guide.

Does he groan about his work being made exponentially harder as a result? Nope. And that’s a recurring theme in his behavior the entire goddamn movie. The only time he is in charge is when a situation is in his wheelhouse– namely, combat and rescue. And it deserves mentioning that the majority of the time that he’s in charge, Evie is not present.

Meanwhile, Evie– her adventurer’s spirit chafing in an academia that dismisses her for her gender– is an absolute marvel. She is visually coded as being very feminine (she’s in dresses and long hair most of the film), but that fact in no way detracts from her competence and agency.

She is consistently protrayed as a fully capable expert in egyptology and there is never a single moment where she waffles on what to do. Even when she’s the damsel in distress, she actively makes the choice to be so because she weighs the potential outcomes and decides doing so provides their best chance of success.

Evie is never the passive victim. She is constantly brash, constantly scheming, and saves the lives of her would-be rescuers mid-abduction. And when her brother (who is the failure of the family, against type) needs help with translation, she correctly translates for him while being throttled by a mummified priestess.

When I first saw this film, I was too young to realize how novel it was. Back then, all I knew was that it was just a good time. But now as an adult– an adult acutely aware of the treatment female characters have gotten in the twenty years since– I marvel at the respect with which the writers and directors treated Evie.

I marvel at how tender Rick was allowed to be, despite his rugged adventurer archetype.

The Mummy (1999) is peak storytelling. It doesn’t try to outsmart the audience, but rather lays out a consistent, coherent narrative that gives the characters and viewers room to breathe. It invests the audience enough to care whether the characters succeed in their goals.

The Mummy (1999) does it right. It’s the reason that any talk of the Tom Cruise version gets an immediate eyeroll from me, because whatever modern grimdark grit they shove into a story about a mummy cannot compare to the reliable and timeless entertainment of the 1999 adaptation.

All modern media should aspire to be the kind of film that The Mummy (1999) is.

[5bloodyroses]

[5bloodyroses]

The rest of the thread is here.

tl;dr: Don’t monetize AO3, kids.  You won’t like what happens next.

[5bloodyroses]

Friendly reminder to not punish yourself for creating. 

[5bloodyroses]

[5bloodyroses]

Like to charge reblog to cast

[5bloodyroses]

Steve Irwin in a Jaeger would be entertaining.

Look over there. There’s a Catergory 3 Kaiju. Biggest one yet. 

Ah’m gonna wrassle with it. 

[5bloodyroses]

My dear friends: When a librarian or teacher says "Audiobooks count as reading", we do not literally mean that audiobooks are the same as decoding visual meaning via symbols representing sounds. We mean, among other things:

Audiobooks can expose listeners to new vocabulary and forms of syntax.

Audiobooks can present listeners with long-form fictional narratives with engaging characters, interesting literary devices, and poetic turns of phrase.

Audiobooks can teach listeners new information in a long-form manner that goes into depth or wide breadth on a particular subject or subjects.

Audiobooks can help listeners' verbal comprehension skills.

Audiobooks can do all these things without presenting the same difficulties to blind, low vision, partially sighted, visually impaired, or dyslexic listeners; listeners with ADHD; listeners who experience physical difficulty with holding a book or e-reader; or listeners who are disabled in a host of other ways that a physical book or e-reader might present.

The written word is not specially imbued with magical noble worth above the spoken word, and if you think it is, you may have some ableism and/or racism to deconstruct.