#( but I really really liked seeing Jamie in a villain role )

[cabbxges-and-kings]

Jamie Bell as Harper Curtis

[synergysilhouette]

"Batman: Caped Crusader" review

Binge-watched this show, and I wanted to be one of many people to share my thoughts on this--plus I was spurred on by getting a wish of mine granted from the show. Make sure to check out the show if you can!

The animation is beautiful--I know this is a weird comparison, but soemthing about the animation reminds me of 2010s Scooby Doo animated films, and I kind of adore that.

The voice acting was...fine--I can't tell if it was poor performances or poor direction; Hamish's Bruce Wayne sounds too raspy/rugged some of the time, like he's still playing Batman, and many of the other actors felt like they were just reading lines rather than performing lines, not enough emotion. IDK if they're more used to live-action work, but voice-acting is a different ballgame, since your voice is all you have to convey the character. A lot of performances fell flat for me, but it wasn't 100% unbearable, just underwhelming. I have some people I'd recommend instead (both familiar to the role and otherwise), but I don't wanna start anything.

LOVED Harley (but not her costume)--Jamie Chung had one of the better performances in the group, and I really LOVED the angle they did for Harley; I feel like the media often flanderizes her as the goofy crazy chick, so seeing her actually utilize her psychology skills (like I've been asking for!) is so satisfying. That said, the outfit has GOT TO GO. Gold and black is gorgeous, but it ples in comparison to her black and red look. And a weird nit-pick; when I first saw the stills, I was under the impression she was wearing a carnival-esque mask rather than face paint, and I find that idea a lot creepier. I wish we'd gotten more of Harley's antics--and even seeing her get close to Bruce in the way she did with Barbara and Renee--before revealing her as a big bad to the public. And I appreciate that she isn't 100% evil; she is doing what she believes is a noble cause, just doing it in an illegal and unethical way. I needed a backstory!

Not enough Batman--Maybe it's just me, but it definitely felt like there were some episodes where Bruce and Batman were supporting characters and more focus was on the GCPD. While I don't mind it too much, I enjoy superhero shows for the superheroes, not the heroes; this is why I had a love/hate relationship with "Gotham."

Batman (and Bruce) isn't quite likeable enough--In earlier incarnations, Batman was more kind and caring before becoming more emotionally closed off with time, but here he's that way from the get-go. Not to mention that Bruce Wayne puts on a facade around everyone, even people he trusts (he probably did that anyway; I can't remember), and his session with Harleen really frustrated me because I don't expect his walls to come down immediately, I don't expect them to be this high this early. I wanted him to be a bit warmer and transparent, rather than curt and cold like he's usually seen in the show. I feel like this is an issue often seen in comics, too; people prioritize Batman's "coolness" and thus push his feelings to the wayside.

Using underrated and familiar villains--I'm sure the real experts are gonna chew me out for this one, but as someone who got into comics in the 2010s and didn't catch up on the acclaimed 90s series, it was fun to see villains I loved and villains I didn't know; one of the best things a popular property can do is use underrated characters, since it helps the show feel original and fresh (thus why "Teen Titans" is so enjoyable; the whole franchise is underrated).

Too modern for the 1940s--I can't put my fingers on it exactly, but the vibes feel too modern; I assume the 1940s was for aesthetics, but since everything else feels updated (from the way people talk to Harley and Renee seemingly being open about their feelings for each other), I don't think it was a wise choice to have it both ways. I see no reason not to have it in modern-day, but I suppose you'd have to get more creative with technology.

Barbara and the Robins--First off, I should've gambled with someone that Jason would be a redhead; I'd have made SO MUCH money. Secondly, I'm not crazy about how all four kids are orphans; If I recall correctly, both Carrie and Stephanie's parents were alive when they joined the Batfamily. In any case, I'm confused on why Barbara is significantly older than them when they're all supposed to be within the same age bracket (I think; someone has told me otherwise since posting this, so I could be wrong). Not to mention, a part of me worries that because of the quartet's young ages and Barbara getting so much screentime as a lawyer, we won't get any of them as Robins or Batgirls unless something drastic happens, and/or we get a time jump.

Overall, I think my biggest gripes are the voice acting and how Batman/Bruce Wayne is written. That said, I enjoyed the show overall. IDK why HBO Max dropped it. Hopefully season 2 will introduce Poison Ivy, Catman, Tim Drake, Ghostmaker, and Gardener, since the finale already showed us a certain someone who IS coming to Gotham.

[the--highlanders]

I would be interested in hearing about how Jamie influenced the Doctor's moral code

I do want to preface this by saying that one's companions absolutely play a massive role in influencing the doctor's development and morality. barbara probably more than anyone. one as we first meet him in an unearthly child is not the same as one in the tenth planet, or two going forward. he's already come a long way by that point.

that being said, two in power of the daleks and the highlanders is. honestly a lot more morally grey than he is later in his run, or compared to later incarnations. he does very little to reassure ben and polly post-regeneration, picks up the examiner's badge with not a lot of outward concern for the man who's just died, runs around in the highlanders antagonising the people he doesn't like without ever actually specifying whose side he's on. he bashes perkins' head into a table until he admits he has a headache. there's a real sense that he's doing everything he does less because he wants to do the right thing, and more because it's entertaining to him. his sense of right and wrong is far more secondary than it will be in the future.

some of his development is driven by himself, and likely by his other companions - 'there are some corners of the universe which have bred the most terrible things' comes before he's had much of a chance to get to know jamie, let alone have jamie's sense of morality rub off on him. but as the doctor (and the audience) get to know jamie, his moral code starts looking an awful lot like the one the doctor will come to adopt

the first thing about jamie is that while he meets the doctor in the aftermath of a war, while the first time we see him he's holding a knife to two's throat - he's not a soldier. he's a musician. he's spent nearly a year as (more or less) a non-combatant marching with an army. and that shows in the way he acts, because while physically he's a capable fighter, and happy to show that when he needs to, he is fundamentally not a killer. he'll destroy robots, but he won't kill humans or humanoid aliens. he duels with trask, but knocks him off the ship rather than finishing him off. he refuses to fight the gond with a weapon. even when it's to his detriment or puts other people in danger, like him being initially unable to shoot the zombie in the age of ambition.

maybe most tellingly, in the novelisation of the abominable snowmen, he's the one to step in and stop the monks from killing the abbot. he steps in front of the abbot, 'ignoring the weapon' pointed at him, and gets the monks to stand down by telling them 'we've had enough killing'. which is something it's very easy to imagine the doctor doing.

he also ends up being the one to push the doctor into investigating, like in enemy of the world, or putting his foot down and insisting they should do the right thing, like in evil of the daleks where rescues victoria even when two tells him not to. in fact, it's predictable enough that he will do this that two hinges the start of the human factor experiment on the fact that he can tell jamie not to do the right thing and help a complete stranger, and jamie will defy him and do it anyway. more than that, two's whole sub-plan to create 'good' daleks depends on his belief that jamie embodies the best of humanity. at the beginning of series 5, he's already recognised jamie's moral code as something that defines him and that can be depended on.

so jamie is someone who prefers to avoid (lethal) force if he can, and who will stick his neck out to help people when he doesn't have to or when even people he cares deeply for say he shouldn't. which isn't particularly true of two at the beginning of his run, but which starts to become true from s5 onwards, and which later incarnations will cleave to.

but the really telling thing is - we very rarely see jamie truly, properly hate someone. he butts heads with villains (vaughn in the invasion, for instance), and disapproves of people who don't live up to his standards or expectations (william wallace in on a pedestal being childish, irresponsible, and careless with other people; two in evil of the daleks for, again, being careless with other people and appearing to side with the daleks). but there's really only two times on-screen where he can't stand someone. one of these is evans in the web of fear, who really just wants to escape and save himself, rather than help everyone else. he's a coward, and jamie calls him out on it with disgust. but most of all, he hates bennik in enemy of the world. the interrogation scene is probably the angriest we ever see him. he hates bennik's callousness, actively threatens him, and says - interestingly - that he 'must have been a nasty little boy'. he's seething through that whole scene.

so the two characteristics that jamie seems to find completely unbearable are - cowardice, and cruelty. and those are the two major tenets of the 'oath' that goes along with the doctor's identity and mission. 'never be cruel, and never be cowardly'.

he's not solely responsible for the person the doctor becomes and the way they end up approaching the universe - those wheels were set in motion long before he arrived, and the doctor themselves provides a lot of the impetus. but it's interesting that jamie arrives just after the doctor's first regeneration, at a time where he seems to be searching for who he is and who he will be - and there's jamie to set a standard, and hold two to it.

[thebeesareback]

Fuck it, let's talk about Littlefinger

(the ASOIAF character, not just fingers in general. Also, I've said "Brandon Stark" for Ned's brother, and "Bran Stark" for Ned's son)

Trigger warning: rape and forced abortion

So one of the things I've said before is that I love ASOIAF for many reasons, including the complexities and backstories of all the characters. I suppose that's why there's a bazillion characters and the books are so long.

Anyway, one interesting example of narrative framing is the perspective we get on Littlefinger. He's (arguably) the main antagonist in the first book and is responsible for everything from Jon Arryn and Ned's death to the Tyrell marriage to Joffrey's assassination. We see him as a scheming villain, determined to harm our saintly Starks.

Littlefinger was born as a second-generation immigrant and heir to a minor lordship. Thanks to his parents' relationship with fuckhead Hoster Tully, he got to foster at Riverrun, where he befriended Cat, Lysa and Edmure. The books are interested in the "outsider" perspective on power status, hence Jon Snow's POV, and arguably Theon and Arya, too. They live in the home, they're part of the family... kinda. Sansa always thinks of Jon as her "bastard half-brother", Theon knows that Ned might have to kill him, and Arya doesn't fit neatly into her assigned gender role. They see Rob and Sansa and want that, kind of, but know they'll never get it.

Therefore, in his youth, Littlefinger knew that he was smart, knew that he wanted power, yet was keenly aware that it was almost impossible for him to socially climb. He does -- we'll get to that in a bit -- but as a child, he knows it's unlikely. Think of Rob and Jon playing in Winterfell and Jon yelling "I'm the Lord of Winterfell" and Rob just returning "no, my mother says you won't be". It's a horrible situation to be in. We don't get Littlefinger's POV, but if we did, I think there's a good chance he would remember a similar scenario.

Then there's Littlefinger's relationship to Catlyn and Lysa. Little boys often have crushes on little girls, and it's usually pretty sweet and can sometimes become a nice romance or just fade away. We hear that Catlyn is intelligent and beautiful as an adult, so it's easy to see the appeal, and Catlyn also has status through her Tully blood and an understanding of Machiavellian power plays because her father raised her as his heir until Edmure was born. One could easily see Littlefinger's desire for Catlyn being a desire for power and status, as well as her own merits.

Lysa had a crush on Littlefinger, creating the incesty love triangle that GRRM loves so much. I can't imagine playing kissing games with a foster brother and a sister, tbh. Littlefinger himself seems to only see Lysa as a pawn, and uses her feelings to get her to do what she wants. The narrative suggests that, for a time, there's Catlyn, mourning her mother; Lysa, mourning her mother and interested in a boy who doesn't really care about her; Edmure, just being a baby; and Littlefinger, caught up in rules and restrictions: allowed to be close to what he wants, but never truly part of the team.

Events start to occur. Fuckhead Hoster Tully decides to set up marriage alliances for Catlyn and Lysa. Lysa meets Jamie Lannister, who barely pays her any attention (he's distracted by the presence of his hero, Brynden "Blackfish" Tully). Catlyn meets Brandon Stark, who has power, status, a noble house, physical prowess -- everything Littlefinger wants. On the night the Stark-Tully engagement is arranged, Littlefinger gets drunk. He can't cope with the years of complicated class dynamics, he's heartbroken, and he's what, 14? He's immature and acts like it. Then Lysa rapes him.

I'm not a psychologist so I can't comment on the impact of sexual violence, especially when gender and power play into the situation in this way. However, Lysa did an unforgivable thing, and there was nobody Littlefinger could turn to. That's horrifying. I also think that more should be made about Littlefinger's comments about shutting your eyes and getting it over with in relation to being in bed with "an ugly woman".

Soon after, he challenges Brandon Stark to a duel for Catlyn's hand. Catlyn "betrays" him (in Littlefinger's mind) by giving Brandon her favour, Edmure "betrays" him by "squiring" for Brandon, and then Brandon nearly kills him. So we have a teenager who is 1) in huge amounts of physical pain, 2) without friends or allies, 3) was recently raped and 4) considered unimportant and insignificant. Then, Lysa rapes him again. The fact that this poor child didn't have a full mental breakdown is genuinely suprising.

We don't know if Littlefinger knew about Lysa's pregnancy at the time. What Hoster did to her was also unforgivable -- violence begets violence, and Lysa and Hoster's relationship is full of toxicity and harm. Hoster is also just generally monstrous. If Littlefinger did know, that's another layer of complexity where his foster father aborts Littlefinger's baby, a physical reminder of the sexual violence Littlefinger endured.

A few years later Lysa convinces her then-husband, Jon Arryn, to bring Littlefinger to King's Landing. He is traumatised, he is resentful, and he is cunning. He works hard to enter the places he was once barred from, like the court, the Red Keep and the small council. Now he can take his revenge on everyone who hurt him.

GRRM often talks about the futility of revenge. House Martell is the most obvious example of this, and the speech Elaria gives is beautiful and poignient. Littlefinger doesn't get revenge on Hoster or Brandon Stark. He does kill Lysa, but that's more to shut her up. In a story with a different perspective -- and a few characters kept alive -- we could see Littlefinger as a Kill Bill style avenger, ruining the lives and families of all of those who harmed him. It could be easy to root for him, not against him as the narrative sets up.

Revenge isn't simple, and that's why Littlefinger doesn't succed and isn't an inspirational character. He never confronts anyone on what happened to him -- he's too psychologically damaged -- so instead he kills Ned and Jon Arryn, two people who had nothing to do with his traumatic experiences at Riverrun, and then he hyperfixates on poor Sansa, who looks like Catlyn in his memory. He's immature and stunted in his mid-teens. I wonder if Littlefinger and Sansa lived for another 10/20 years he'd find himself losing interest because she moved on and he can't.

Littlefinger will likely die because of Sansa, and nobody will miss him. He's not a good person. He's groomed and lied and manipulated her, and the horrors he inflicted on Jeyne Poole, supposedly her best friend, are even worse. I don't see his future death as triumphant, though, in an unbiased overview kind of way. The Starks will celebrate, because he killed their dad. No one else will really care. The Lords Declarant have got rid of an annoyance, and he wasn't really working with King Tommen or the Small Council any more.

I think there is some sadness, though, for the child who wanted to be included, wanted to be loved, and who was instead hated, abused, ignored and scarred. RIP Littlefinger, a victim of the patriachy and the class structure.

[hollow-keys]

This is kinda random. But as a fellow Jason enjoyer and classic Doctor Who enjoyer. What do you think about the difference in narrative treatment and framing of Adric and Jason? They both got blown up (in the 80s) trying to do something noble that didn't really mean anything (the ship wasn't going to wipe out humanity/Sheila betrayed Jason to the Joker for trying to save her). Adric is characterized as not well liked by his peers and Jason is but post-mortem the treatment of Adric is very much a tragedy. They didn't feel a need to aggressively (pretty much every time mentioned) victim blame Adric (as far as I remember I haven't done a proper rewatch, outside of that one bad audio drama that I refuse to engage with) to justify future companions. Not even future teen companions. Meanwhile Jason was seemingly loved but post-mortem was incredibly disrespected and victim blamed by the people who allegedly cared for him. Most mentions of Jason were accompanied with an element of victim blaming.

Also interesting that in Doctor Who the Fifth Doctor thinks that Adric's 'deprived, delinquent upbringing' makes him naive. (There is logic to it. He would likely to be more used to desperate people than malevolent in his difficult situation. Also in this specific case, his trauma seemingly involving a lack of food the robot body no food requirement would make sense.) While Batman says Jason is destined to be a criminal and then characterizes his death as recklessness when there is actually a stronger argument for Jason's death as being the result of naivete. Him trusting in Sheila.

I have thought about Jason and Adric parallels! I'm not familiar with EU Adric content so I can't (yet) comment on it, but I will talk about how the show deals with it.

Adric's death isn't really dwelt upon as much as you'd expect. There's no "Lonely Place of Dying" arc for the Doctor, there's no spiral, he even directly says that Adric wouldn't want them to mourn unnecessarily (which I assume means get lost in grieving rather than meaning any mourning is unnecessary). This is partly because the show, at the time, wasn't really concerned with pulling at your heartstrings too much and following through emotional development plots. Sure, you'd get sad moments, but they wouldn't really deal with them properly after it happened (Katarina's death, Jamie and Zoe getting their memories erased, Turlough's suicide attempt, etc). It's also because the Doctor is a very different, and tbh more emotionally stable character. He's not preoccupied with his own grief or (at least in the Classic series) at risk of going off the deep end without people around to ground him.

Batman, by contrast, was originally more stable but as comics got darker when the Comics Code Authority's censorship got less stringent and writers also actively wanted to fight against the perceptions of comics as childish, he became darker and more brooding, so the writers actively wanted to dwell on traumatic moments where Fifth Doctor era Doctor Who didn't. So part of the reason we didn't get a victim blaming arc for Adric was because they just didn't talk about it.

And Adric didn't have a replacement character to take his role in the narrative. Sure, the Doctor got new companions but none of them took Adric's role. They weren't trying to tear him down to lift someone else up like "See, aren't they so much better at being Adric?"

So yeah, outside a few scenes, Adric doesn't get dwelt so there's no real opportunity for the writers to victim blame him post death, but Jason became a ghost in the narrative that haunted Batman, and a character for Tim to supercede, which gave them a lot of chances to shit talk him, which they did take.

Additionally, Jason got resurrected (which was a decision that wasn't made for his character but rather to create a new villain for Batman) so to justify this darker turn, they made a point of going "See, he was destined to be criminal. Here's all this foreshadowing." Well, it's less foreshadowing and more backshadowing since it was inserted after the fact. Adric doesn't have that.

There's really nothing to motivate them going "See, Adric was always bad and he's worse now." He's just a character that a lot of people didn't really like who's only really remembered positively in the context of his death. Which is apparent in Tales of the TARDIS where Five and Tegan can't seem to say anything nice about him.

FIVE: "He was so..."

TEGAN: "Oh he was a nightmare."

FIVE: "He was daft and silly and sulky and... He was just a kid."

I've talked before about how I don't like how certain DW writers will make the Doctor straight up unreasonable to his companions or overly mean, and how Adric was treated def falls into that sometimes. Like yeah, him and Five arguing over going through the CVE to get home in Earthshock is in character tetchiness from the Doctor, but Five calling him a naive idiot in Four to Doomsday without giving him a chance to explain himself (which you brought up, and I thought the writers had him side with the villain for no reason but you do bring up a good point about hunger, I wish his motives were more focused on in narrative and he was given more sympathetic characterisation) and Five berating him for losing control of the Total Survival Suit in Kinda was just unnecessarily mean to me and I think part of it was because the writers just didn't like Adric so the Doctor didn't either I guess.

This moment is another case of that because that's not how you talk about a teenager who died violently in an attempt to save people, one who was also smart and determined (along with his negative traits). The writers just don't seem to notice it as mean because they don't like him.

Which is more in line with how Jason is talked about post death. "Yeah, we don't like him but his death was sad." Noteworthy that this is written in retrospect in an era where DW is much more concerned with ~emotional moments~ and it was written by RTD, who is A Fan of a Certain Generation who probably never liked Adric and can't bring himself to describe him nicely in any way (but still wants to use his death to pull at people's heartstrings), so of course Adric gets more of the Jason treatment.

And that, fundamentally, is the fate of Jason and Adric. To be disrespected as characters but have their deaths used as Emotional Moments (please get out the violins) by writers who don't see them very sympathetically outside of that.

I hope that wasn't overly long or meandering, thanks for asking!

[sylvies-chen]

okay obviously roy’s question to keeley in this week’s episode was all kinds of inappropriate and invasive. personally it did feel very out of character, and the storytelling on the roy and keeley front has been very off through this season so far. but I’ve been thinking about the audience response to it as the reactions and tweets have been rolling in and it’s worth noting the difference in how roy and jamie are treated as characters right now

what is so appealing to many about jamie is that he began the show as the obvious antagonist. he wasn’t the villain exactly, but ted lasso is a show that doesn’t exactly have a main villain besides maybe rupert— and even then, he’s mainly just the team’s opposition and rebecca’s enemy. the true “villains” in this show, to me, are the cultures and mindsets that we all fall into. the trap of vengeance and retributive justice, locker room culture, bullying, toxic masculinity and its expectations, insecurity, etc. and I could go into all that another day. but I digress.

jamie had the potential to be the show’s antagonist. they could have very well stuck him in the role of bully and kept him there, but they didn’t. they allowed him nuance, they gave him the grace and leeway to grow and evolve into the lovable himbo that he is today. and now that he’s put in that work that was so hard to get him to do inthe first place, he’s sitting comfortably in that evolved state.

roy is not like that. he’s a character who made some sizeable strides of growth very early on in the show, and who then made a few missteps along the way. he’s a character who retreats back into an older version of himself for self-preservation, and though it isn’t right and results in him making significant mistakes, he’s ultimately the kind of man who can recognize when he does fuck up and will make things right. we haven’t forgotten that, have we?

my point is, roy is a character whose growth is not linear or simple. jamie is. and that’s not me saying jamie is a basic character or without nuance because he has his complexity. I know that and enjoy it thoroughly. but his arc was a very straightforward narrative and I think that’s part of why so many people like him. it’s a very easy tale to love, with a before and an after.

roy, as of right now, just isn’t like that. he is at his most insecure, his most closed off, and his most wounded. he’s reverted slightly, in the midst of a character regression due to the pain he’s felt and the anxieties he has. and it’s making him do stupid things (or ask stupid questions) especially because no one has been seen to really help him snap tf out of it. now of course he has to be the one to hold himself accountable and be the man keeley deserves and let go of his insecurities controlling his life and his actions, and many of those steps he has to take on his own. but damn, it’s sad to see so many people straight up quit on roy as a character after having done a bad thing. progress is not always linear! just cause he screwed the pooch on this one doesn’t mean he can’t get back to who he really is and earn back keeley through redemption. this whole show is about radical empathy and reconciliation, for crying out loud! falling into this trap of “who’s the better person” and “who deserves keeley” denies these characters the very fundamental idea that people don’t come with a predetermined set of what they do or don’t deserve, because we are all capable of change. if it were true, jamie would deserve to be stuck on love island for harassing sam in season 1 or ruining nate’s suggestion box.

anyway, TLDR: we can acknowledge that roy was entirely wrong and inappropriate to ask that question while also not entirely surrendering hope for him to fix his mistake. instead, we can acknowledge it for what it really is, which is a shit writing choice by people who are fumbling the bag on the roy/keeley/jamie/jack aspect of the season tremendously

[adamwatchesmovies]

Heart of Stone (2023)

It isn’t so much that Heart of Stone is bad; it’s that it doesn’t do anything good enough to stand out. This is what I think of when someone says “Netflix Top Ten Original”. When it arrives, it feels like everyone’s watching it. A week later, everyone who saw it has already forgotten about it and moved on to the next action spy-thriller with several notable stars in important roles.

Rachel Stone (Gal Gadot) is part of an MI6 field team. What agents Parker (Jamie Dornan), Yang (Jing Lusi) and Bailey (Paul Ready) don’t know is she’s secretly a member of The Charter, an ultra-secret agency dedicated to peacekeeping that operates outside of any government. The Charter uses The Heart, a sophisticated artificial intelligence, to calculate its agents’ odds of success based on every possible factor in real time. The Heart allows the agents to succeed in the most precarious situations and The Charter to hack into any device. When a mysterious hacker named Keya (Alia Bhatt) makes a move against the Charter, Stone has to blow her cover - unaware this is exactly what her opponent was hoping she would do.

I’ll admit that while watching Heart of Stone, I was entertained in a “it’s moving and I want to see what’s coming next” sort of way. Looking back - particularly after writing that synopsis down - this is the store-brand version of your spy-thriller action film. I can remember a death-defying chase down the Italian Alps and the picture’s final confrontation but these scenes are nothing special; they could be in any movie like this. Stone herself is a protagonist we’ve seen a thousand times. Gal Gadot plays the part fine and she handles the stunts with no problem but her character makes no impact. Similarly, The Charter is dull, dull, dull as a secret organization. I can’t think of any movie that’s done exactly what they’re doing, but I swear I’ve seen it before, probably in another movie I forgot soon after it ended.

Heart of Stone sort of feels like the third entry in a franchise that's limping along. It's as if most of the cast are sick of their roles and asking for their characters to be killed off, revealed as traitors or retired, or are the new replacements introduced to help revitalize a fledgling series. Because Stone is at her most interesting when she has to pretend like she can’t handle fieldwork, the film is most engaging at the beginning, when she’s paired up with Bailey, Yang and Parker. About a third of the movie in, they get dropped. Their absence and the focus on Stone should get us all riled up emotionally but we’re just not invested in the characters enough to really care.

On the upside, there are plenty of twists and turns along the way, the stunt work is good, the action well shot and the special effects convincing. While Stone might not be memorable, you do like her. You also like Gal Gadot in the role enough to never feel bored despite the been-there-done-that story and premise. I want to be nice to this movie but too often, it does the obvious or makes a choice that will have you thinking “Couldn’t you have tried something else?” There’s a point towards the end when a villainous character receives a chance at redemption. The movie really wants us to believe they deserve it. Meanwhile, I’m just thinking “What, you didn’t realize the people you were working with were power-hungry madmen when you were setting up a casino where the high-rollers can bet on who will die first in the footage you’ve hacked from the U.S. military? Give me a break.”

Heart of Stone is Mission: Impossible at home. I mean… it is, LITERALLY since you don’t have to go to the theater to see it and it’s about a group of people, led by an action star doing all sorts of action things to save the day from a shadowing organization. It is also figuratively “Mission: Impossible at home”. (September 3, 2023)

[bylertruther]

The scales fall from fans’ eyes (and Eleven’s) as the Volume 1 finale reaches its crescendo. Bower’s orderly commits the episode’s titular massacre, revealing himself to be powered just like Eleven. That’s because he came to the lab as young Henry, following the murders in the Creel family home, which he carried out. Upon realizing Henry’s bloodthirsty villainy, Eleven accidentally banishes him to the Upside Down, creating Vecna. 

“There was always this idea of stillness with Henry and a methodical nature to how he was and is. That was very much in there with Vecna as well,” says Bower, who has been a Stranger Things fan since its debut. “Then when everything kicks off in [Episode] 7 and obviously he is Vecna, there’s more freedom to it. But he’s still very concise in his choices of how he chooses to move.” 

[...]

When did you learn you’d be playing three different characters?

It happened pretty quickly. [Co-creators] Matt and Ross [Duffer] and Carmen [Cuba] from the casting team sent me two sets of sides, one from Hellraiser and one from Primal Fear. Knowing Primal Fear and the way in which one character presents themselves in that, I was like, “Okay, well there’s obviously some sort of masking going on here.” And then I was sent some dummy sides as well for Vecna. So I figured it out pretty quickly. 

Were there any acting choices you made to connect Henry and Vecna?

Little things that are slightly more animalistic, [with his] head tilts. Also, I’m a really big fan of the [Stanley] Kubrickian stare. So anything where the chin is down and the eyes are up, I would say it is just nice and naughty and dark, and it feels really great. 

The way that you talk about the physicality of Henry is very animal kingdom predator. Do you purposefully bring that to him? 

It was more that I had to mask this rage and this belief system with something [that helped him] survive within the environment that he was in. Really, the survival is him presenting like, “Yeah. Everything’s fine. But actually I want to fuck you up.”

Did you meet the actor who plays young Henry?

No. I never had the opportunity to meet him. But what I found really fascinating about this show is how things just line up. The way I was holding my forehead, particularly above the eyes, my eyebrows were always just slightly more up. And I saw a picture of him in the head of the hair department’s chair as I was sitting in there with her, and I was like, “We are holding our brows in the same way.”

Why do you think he picks Eleven specifically to, say, mentor?

Given the way she’s treated in the institute and the way the other children are treating her, he sees a lot of himself in her. She’s the underdog, she’s quiet. You know when you see somebody and you just go, “That person’s got potential. That person’s got something. They’re not shouting about it. They’re not raving about it, but there’s something going on in there”? That’s what he sees in her. 

Particularly for that scene with Eleven and with Henry, when they get accosted by the guards and Henry’s allowed to use his powers, I felt like there was a real bond between the two of them. Then, obviously, with everything that happens subsequently and afterwards, that bond is still there. But the rage that he has within him for these other kids and the way in which the world has treated him is much more at the surface now. 

Going into Volume 2, there’s the fight for Hawkins on the horizon. Do you think Vecna sees himself as the villain here going forward?

Absolutely not. No way. God no. He’s the savior. He’s what’s good and right in the world.

How do you bring that and ground that perspective? Because our heroes would much rather enjoy their reality, free of Upside Down villains. 

But you don’t need a house where I’m taking you all. It’s fine. We can all live in the mind lair together. I think that ultimately his goal is to live in a world of truth.

Our beloved group of Stranger Things individuals have their saying, “friends don’t lie.” [Vecna’s plan] is another layer to that. It’s this idea, again, of righteous justice. Where the facade and the rug [are] pulled out from under the feet of institutions. It’s like, “We all float down here.”

So when he approaches his victims, he thinks he’s helping? 

Absolutely. 100%. And I think he takes great relish in that as well. I think he takes great pleasure in being able to free people from their guilt constraint.

[sweeneytoddblog]

Some First Preview Thoughts

Fun fact, this is my 300th post. I can’t believe we are finally at the point where I am talking about a Broadway revival on this blog. Truly blessed.

Obviously I won’t be able to comment on a lot of things about the show since I only had audio, but I can tell you what I personally think about the voices so far:

First things first, there are SO MANY ACCENTS GOING ON. Does anyone remember that revival of Annie where everyone had a very distinct New York accent? It’s like that. EVERY character: Johanna, Lucy, and especially Mrs. Lovett and Beadle Bamford, has picked a (different) British dialect and is going for it 100%. Unfortunately Jordan Fisher (Anthony) really struggles in this area; he slips in and out of accents a lot.

And I might as well say this now, Jordan Fisher is not my fav. I mean he’s fine; his tone is nice and he does get some laughs, but he just doesn’t seem to have the power vocally. He kind of sticks out like a sore thumb among the rest of the cast.

Gaten Matarazzo likewise does not have an *amazing* voice imo (although “Not While I’m Around” is very nicely done) but even just listening to him you can tell he brings a lot of energy to the table and that he plays the character very well. Which is all I really require from Toby!

Lucy really plays up the “miserable” and “pitiful” in her performance. There are some productions where Lucy is a little sassier. Her voice came across to me as more fearful and also less “crazy” than Lucy is usually played as well. No Beggar Woman’s Lullaby, but there is a short instrumental break after she enters the barbershop - a hint at her identity without being too overt.

Speaking of cuts, there is also no Mea Culpa. I have always found this to be an awkward and uncomfortable song for all parties involved, but I have to say, I found myself wishing it had been included. This Judge Turpin feels more like a one-dimensional villain without it, and his stage time was cut down as well. Jamie Jackson does a decent job but doesn’t seem to shine in any areas. It makes you wonder what he would have done with the song.

However, John Rapson (Beadle Bamford) is a delight! I was not wrong in that prediction. He plays the Beadle as this very posh, insufferable guy, and his dialect was one that did not bother me. Judging by the laughs he got from the audience it also seems he was very funny. AND I CANNOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH, FULL VERSION OF PARLOR SONGS IS THERE. That never happens anymore so I was thrilled!

Pirelli is also good but his voice is not as operatic as it usually is. I believe he’s also the Sweeney understudy and I have a hard time imagining him in that role. 

Maria Bilbao (Johanna) is vocally a standout! A lot of productions struggle with finding a Johanna who can both sound youthful and hit the notes properly. She definitely had the range and the power. It sounded to me though that she played the character more as just a sad girl, kind of like how Lucy was. “Kiss Me” did not really get any laughs and I don’t know if it the couple just lacked chemistry or if they didn’t know how to lean into the humor of their roles. 

Ensemble and orchestra were both top notch. I heard a few instrumentals during transitions that sounded brand new to me, which was highly enjoyable. Can’t wait for that aspect of the cast album in particular!

Annaleigh Ashford has a GORGEOUS voice but often masks the “prettiness” of it with her British accent (I was expecting this as I remember her talking about it in interviews.) Which is good! You really only hear the prettiness in slower songs like “My Friends” or “Not While I’m Around.” I am no expert on British accents though so I am curious what the English will have to say about it (I don’t believe anyone in the cast is English?) She also got a lot of laughs from the audience. I feel like there’s not much I can say about her because I didn’t actually see her, but she definitely delivers as Mrs. Lovett from what I heard.

Josh Groban...what a guy. When I first heard him sing I didn’t realize at first it was him; his voice takes on a much darker tone than he normally does. I did kind of wonder about him and those low notes, but I didn’t notice any problems with reaching them. His speaking voice too is just very low compared to his normal voice? Again, I feel like I can’t comment too much because I couldn’t see his acting interpretation, but vocally, he’s my favorite voice in the cast. Maybe he’ll be a different Sweeney than is typical, but that’s okay too. I’m so excited to actually see him once those bootlegs hit. 

DISCLAIMER FOR EVERYTHING:

I know I only heard the first PREVIEW and a lot could change, so take any of my criticisms in stride. There are many detailed reviews out there now from people who have actually seen the show, so I recommend checking those out! But I am so incredibly grateful to have heard the audio. I promised I wouldn’t share it, but if you message me I can direct you to the right person and then it’s up to them. :) And jsyk there are some audio clips floating around tumblr already!

[a-strange-inkling]

im sure its been theorized before but hear me out. Im high and this idea is ENTIRELY MY OWN. copyright 2023.

ok so what if this whole thing is a dream or manifested massive delusion driven dnd game for will. its been more or less confirmed that the next season is centered on will’s character and it makes sense that the show will start and end with him. Firstly it seems unsatisfying narratively if Will would have anything less than a villain/hero arc. Secondly he is shown driving the story at the start of every season by entering a fantasy scape. And, given that his primary insecurity is being left, it makes sense that every season resulted in reunions and drawing all the story lines together?

like a master dnd dm would? Will/Mind Flayer has been building quests and storylines this entire time?

do you see what im getting at? master of puppets is will!! (or will by proxy, not sure yet but still)

anyway, do you know any more about the will theory? would love to hear your predictions about s4!

Okay…

Mom?

Is that you? What are you doing on Tumblr?? Please don’t read my ao3 😭

No, I kid!

My mom and I spend many of our morning coffee chats theorizing Season Five and she’s convinced it’s all a dnd campaign on Will’s end too!!! And she’s brought up all of these points and more, which is pretty cool, as she doesn’t even have any online presence (or does she?? 👀). But when I explained the lyrics to Master of Puppets and the Mind Flayer, she said what if the master isn’t Vecna?

What if it’s Will, what if it’s all Will?

She’s also pointed out that Will hasn’t had that much agency in the series. Always a victim, or an observer, a watcher. In Season Five will he finally become a player/hero? Or a villain? Is this what it’s all been leading up to?

She even thinks that they’ve pulled a HIMYM and have already filmed the ending back when they actors were kids. It will end on all them playing in Mike’s basement.

This is such a wild theory and I’m always trying to disprove it lol because I don’t think the Duffers have the foresight or the planning skills for that (bless their hearts) and I’m just like what is Will on if he conjured all this up on his own? Won’t this take away from the story as a whole to make it all just a campaign? What about El? What about all the character growth of characters like Hopper and Steve?

But she’s so convinced that she’s slowly convincing me too 😂

This ask made my whole day!! She’s going to be so validated when I tell her this lmao

Oh, Season Five… Season Five

I don’t have a lot of theories or even desires myself… Not to be a stick in the mud, but I have to be honest, I haven’t really been invested in the plot of Stranger Things like I used to after watching Season Three. In comparison to where we started, I think the writing and the characters in general has progressively weakened over the seasons (there’s been exceptions, of course!)

If not for Joe, Gwen, Mason and Jamie (all the new comers) putting THEIR FUCKING ALL into their SIDE ROLES/VILLAIN ROLE I probably wouldn’t have enjoyed Season Four much at all. I’ve made the joke about myself that Stranger Things has become Eddie and Chrissy with some other people around for me lmao and sadly it’s not too far from the truth. And then they killed them off! 😭 The fresh faces and incredible chemistry they desperately needed! They really shot themselves in the foot. We were so robbed!

As for the main cast (still incredibly talented and wonderful, don’t get me wrong) they just sort of feel tired in their roles despite their best efforts, a lot of that chemistry in the beginning sort of fizzing out with all the same issues reoccurring when they should have been resolved by now. I do have to give props to Sadie and Caleb this season, out of the main cast they really shined. But, lot’s of the things I cared about I just don’t anymore. Like the Steve/Nancy/Jonathan storyline. Used to be invested. Don’t care at all. Even Jopper finally getting together really didn’t impact me. And they were my first otp in this show!! I’ve been waiting!

So, while I still love discussing it and hearing theories, I don’t expect much other than a pretty straight forward happy ending maybe with a few character deaths (Steve… Jonathan… be safe out there boys). Ooo wait a Jonathan death would really trigger a Will villain arc and maybe be the gravity this show needs.

I do see Will on the precipice of a hero/villain journey, dark side light side stuff, ultimately choosing hero and maybe saving El for a change.

I’m going to tell my mom about the Jonathan death theory this morning when we get coffee though!

I’m also in the minority here, but I don’t want Eddie back (unless Chrissy gets to too 😤. Let him rest. I think anything outside of a flashback or a Vecna vision would be bad for the narrative as a whole. Could also ruin his character if they aren’t careful. But I would fucking love a flashback of Eddie and Chrissy at Hawkins High or something like that. Oh yes please!!

Overall, I think the main cast really need to have the focus put on them to wrap this up neatly. (However, Kas!Eddie rising from out of the Upside Down as an undead vampire/zombie to a raging metal soundtrack would be so sick… bad writing… but very, very sick lol)

Okay, wait though… speaking of screw it all, let’s go insane writing, may I tell you the stupid thing what I want so badly?? I want a Ted Wheeler redemption arc. I’m dead serious! I want him to save the day like a badass for NO REASON or build up. I want everyone to be in the heat of battle and the world going to hell in a hand basket and I want Dustin (it has to be Dustin) to be surrounded by Demogorgons or whatever, about to die and then, out of nowhere, Ted revs in with his fucking station wagon and runs them all over, skidding to a stop (Holly is in the back seat in her booster). Dustin dazed and confused stares up at him with his mouth agape as Mr. Wheeler opens the passenger door and just says ‘Get in.’

Sorry, this came out long winded and all over the place lmao! I’m so sleep deprived presently!

I’m still going to watch Season Five, because I have to see where they end it after all these years!! Just not on the edge of my seat about it.

But, who knows maybe Season Five will grab us all by throat and surprise us (in a good way)!

[aidansplaguewind]

You ever feel like Aidan’s projects choices the last couple of years have been awful? There’s hasn’t been a single project that he’s done since Peaky or PBB that has excited me. It’s been super underwhelming and that’s why I feel a lot of people don’t really talk about him anymore. Not only do we get crumbs of him like every 3 months but when he does come out with new stuff, it’s ass. So it becomes this cycle of anticipating a new project of his, not hearing about it for months, even years, just for it end up being awful or we don’t even get to see the final product. It’s kind of sad, I think Aidan didn’t need to prove himself to anyone but it feels like he could do more in his career that he hasn’t yet done. What are your thoughts?

I've been sitting on this anon for a while because I wasn't really sure how to respond. I didn't want to be too negative but I wanted to be honest.

I do understand your frustration. I got so excited about Pickups back in like 2016 or maybe even before that when we first started hearing about it. Then the premiere came, only to find out that at the time Jamie Thraves had said it wasn't going to get released because it was meant to be a cinema experience. That bummed me out so hard. He has since stated that he does want to release it, but they're having issues with the rights on music I believe it was, but still. It's 2023 now, and if and when we ever get to see it, it could possibly be a decade old by then.

And I agree that I haven't been really, really into anything he's done since GOT. Not even Project Blue Book. I mean, PBB was okay, and it was nice getting to see him in something new every week, but I don't think it was amazing television. Needless to say, I wasn’t one bit surprised when it was canceled.

And to be super honest, I don't really even think Peaky Blinders is all that great. I watched the first season and just kinda lost interest, though I did watch the two seasons Aidan was in.

Most of the fans Aidan had when GOT came out seemed to have been more fans of Petyr than Aidan himself. Which is why most of them are gone now. Or the type of fans that kinda hop from celebrity to celebrity with no loyal obsession to just one. Sadly. I guess you could say he has "fair-weather" fans.

I'm loyally obsessed, so I will stick with him regardless of the garbage he makes. I support him always and not just when he's in a great show.

Though I would love to see him in something really good. Something that gets a decent run where he's not killed off and where he's at the very least a major supporting character. Because, if we're being honest here, I know Aidan's never likely to get an amazing lead role in an amazing show. I hate to say it, but it's the truth. Especially now that he's getting older.

And it's not his fault. I don't think he's turning down amazing roles, lead or supporting. I just don't think they're being offered to him.

Part of it could be because he's been type-cast as a villain but dude, villains can be great characters too. I can't stand seeing villains that aren't fleshed out and have no story, and just seem evil for the sake of being evil. Nothing in life is black & white and characters like that are just lazy writing. Anyway, that's neither here nor there. My point is just that, I'm okay with him playing villains, I'd just like to see him get to play a damn good one.

Those are my thoughts. And as usual, always too long.

[hotliljewishgirl]

Post-Jangle Ball Ramblings

I saw JB in Philly last night and it left me genuinely speechless. It was my first time ever seeing them live after ten years of obsessing over their content from afar, and it was everything I could have asked for or dreamed of. I HIGHLY encourage anyone who’s on the fence to get tickets. You won’t regret it.

Starkid means so much to me. I cannot begin to list all the ways they’ve helped me and changed me, and last night represented the fulfillment of a dream I’ve had since I was nine years old. I won’t get too corny here, mostly because nothing I could say would do justice to how much I love these artists and this community, but I wanted to say – thank you to everyone who made the past ten years of being a Starkid fan so special.

Bear with me here, because I have a lot of Feelings. Be aware this post does contain spoilers for Jangle Ball. Without further ado, my thoughts:

We been knew, but everyone is SO talented and seeing them perform was a magical, life-changing, incredible, unforgettable experience.

Also everyone looked ridiculously good and I am not ok. The variation in outfits was hilarious though. I’m not sure what they were told to wear, but it ranged from Lauren in a very sexy sheer top to Jamie in a festive red dress to Dylan just chilling in flannel. None of them looked like they were going to the same event and I loved it.

Janaya’s Stutter was iconic and I want to listen to it on repeat. Lauren’s background dancing was equally amazing despite the fact it induced a severe state of gay panic.

I wish we got more Show Stopping Number from Joey and James. I wasn’t sure anyone other than R*bert would be able to pull off that song and I’ve never been happier to be wrong. I actually think either of them would make a great Hidgens if Nick doesn’t want to take on the role.

Dylan blew me away. I knew he talented but tbh he completely stole the show in the first act with the Twisted numbers. Not only does he have an incredible voice, but his stage presence is ridiculous (and I made eye contact with him briefly. My life is complete. Now I can finally lay down and die.)

I loved the Status Quo parody and I was so glad to see JOEY perform it again (no shade to Alex and Mariah but they just can’t compare to the OG). I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – if they pulled a Taylor Swift and re-recorded all their old cast albums I would literally give them all my money. I love the old songs and it was so special to see them performed.

Queen B…I think I briefly blacked out. I honestly don’t listen to that song much because I’m not really one for rap, but I might start now. Lauren killed it. My favorite thing about her as a performer is how versatile she is. Not every one can pull off a number like that, but she did it effortlessly. I was equal parts terrified and aroused, which is exactly what that song should do. Shout out to Brian and James dancing backup. The dancing in this show truly blew me away. I was not expecting that many choreographed numbers given how little they rehearsed, and I’m so glad (and impressed) that they managed to do it. It just brought the energy up and was so fun to watch.

A lil nitpick: I get that Cup of Roasted Coffee, Stutter, Show Stopping Number, and the Wiggly Jingle are technically villain songs but they don’t really give that energy? And Deck the Halls, We Got Work to Do, Climate Change, and Status Quo are straight up not villain songs. I liked the whole “ the villain is capitalism” angle but tbh when I heard they were performing villain songs I was expecting like…Wagon on Fire. Rogues Medley. Kick It Up a Notch. The classic Starkid villain songs, you know? I LOVED the set list as it was and I wouldn’t trade it for anything but I think there was a tiny flaw in marketing. And now I’ll get off my soapbox.

I try to keep my Richpez shipping off this blog but holy shit, I need to freak out for a minute. In person or through a screen, their love, pride, affection for each other is palpable. They way Lauren looks at Joey while he’s performing, the casual touches, the way he kept trying to make her break on stage…it brought tears to my eyes. And that’s not even touching on Priceless. Seeing them dancing together and holding each other like that in front of hundreds of people broke me. I’m so happy for them, not only that they have each other but also that they feel comfortable sharing it with us. The same goes for Breredith (the kiss in Final Ghost was both completely unnecessary and a fantastic addition)

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the band. The music was on point. I don’t know if they wrote new arrangements for the tour, but I did notice it was very “beat-heavy” (is that a thing??) which made it very fun and easy to dance along – perfect for a concert. Also, AJ’s number was fucking incredible and I’m so glad I got to see him sing. It literally gave me AVPSY flashbacks. He’s only gotten more talented since then. I wish we could see him in more Starkid shows. Lastly, I will never stop thanking Clark for writing VHSCC. It’s a energetic, touching, unique take on a familiar story and by far my favorite adaptation of CC. I want him to write more music for Starkid shows.

Thanks for reading my stream of consciousness if you’ve gotten this far. I’m going to post another one for act two (because otherwise this post is going to be way too long).

[maximumwobblerbanditdonut]

Translation:

Sam Heughan: "A romantic comedy set in Madrid would be very passionate"

We went up to one of the most representative domes of the Madrid 'skyline' with the Scottish actor to talk about superpowers, time travel, Madrid and the characters in his life, such as Jamie Fraser from “Outlander” or the journalist from “ Love Again”, the romantic comedy that opens in theaters on May 12.

By Ana Pérez and Photography: Alfonso Ohnur / Styling: Jesús Cicero

04/19/2023

"A coffee and in five minutes we are ready. He's in a very good mood, by the way,” says Wendy, a cheerful and charming middle-aged Scottish woman who is featured as the hair and makeup manager in today's session, although we soon discover that she is much more than that. She belongs to the actor's circle of trust, so she goes down in advance to see that everything is in order. The Esquire team is already prepared in the spectacular 300 m 2 suite that the Four Seasons in Madrid has given us for the occasion. There are nerves, because it's not every day that you have a star like Sam Heughan on your hands(Galloway, Scotland, 1980) and everything has to go perfectly. While he goes down, the team from Sony Pictures and Movistar Plus+, the producer and distributor in Spain of Outlander , respectively (the series that has catapulted him to fame), review the outfits so that, once we start, everything goes smoothly.

Fendi trench coat, and Pedro del Hierro shirt and pants.

Finally Sam arrives at the suite. He is serious, but so charming that the nerves dissipate. Everything happens with astonishing agility under the watchful eye of Wendy, who reviews each shot with efficiency and alternates her suggestions (all of the most sound, really) with her enthusiasm for the work we're doing. There is nothing that this herculean Scotsman of almost two meters in height does not defend with solvency. He doesn't care about a modern Prada trench coat with green squares or an impeccable summer suit from Emporio Armani. Once the photo session was over we went to the suitepresidential, overlooking Calle Alcalá, where the interview will take place. “On my next trip I want to stay here!” She says, joking for the first time, as she crosses the threshold. We settle into some seats, facing each other, and I have to confess that when Sam Heughan gives you all his attention, he's intimidating. I perceive an obvious barrier of shyness, so I try to break through it and reach him through his characters.

Tell me, Sam, what is the first memory you have of being on stage?

I went to a very creative school, where the arts, music, theater were very encouraged... My first role was Bill Sikes, the drunken villain in Oliver Twist , in a school play. He hadn't acted before and he wasn't very good, but I vividly remember having a lot of fun on stage. Later, my first professional role was Romeo, in Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet , already at acting school.

You became known to the general public with the Batman from the musical Batman Live . What was your favorite superhero as a child?

Batman , without a doubt, a very dark character who lost his parents very young. He dresses up as a bat, but in reality he is not a real superhero. He's just an ordinary human being, who has had privileged access to a lot of technology. And yet I think it's very interesting.

"Teleportation would make my life easier, because I would no longer have to travel continuously."

And if you could choose to have one superpower that you could use in real life, what would it be?

Perhaps teleportation, so he can travel wherever he wants. It would make my life easier, because I would no longer have to travel all the time. It would allow me to be anywhere in the world in a moment.

After Batman, Outlander and Jamie Fraser come into your life. What has this character meant to you?

Jamie has changed my life. Since I started playing it eight years ago, everything has completely changed. Until then, I was a normal actor; you know, towards theater, television... But Jamie really changed my world, he's given me a lot of opportunities, I've been able to create my own projects, write, produce... He's an incredible character that I've been growing up with, living with many experiences, I have grown old with him... It has been an incredible challenge to play him.

Sam is wearing Giorgio Armani total look . ALFONSO OHNURESQUIRE

And what do you think is, in your opinion, the secret of the success of this series?

I think the incredible relationship that Jamie and Claire have, without a doubt; their romance, which never dies despite all the obstacles that come their way. No matter what, their love endures and I think that everyone would like to have a relationship like this. But this is to the credit of Diana Gabaldón [the American author of the saga of novels on which she is based]. She created these characters, who people love and season after season are waiting to see what will happen to them.

“Jamie has changed my life. Since I started interpreting him, everything has changed completely ”

In the seventh season, which premieres in Spain on June 17 on Movistar Plus+, will Jamie be alive from start to finish?

We are studying it... [laughs]. Yes, this story has to last even longer [recently it has been confirmed that the eighth will be the last season of the series]. Diana has written a tenth book, so we still have a long way to go.

If you could travel in time , as Claire's character, your wife, does in the series, what era would you travel to?

Wow, so I would love to go to Ancient Egypt, to Rome, and maybe I would also like to travel to the future to see what will happen in a hundred years.

Sam Heughan, in the dome of the Four Seasons hotel in Madrid with a total look by Zegna.

Although Heughan has often stated that it doesn't have much to do with his character in Outlander , what he does have in common with him is his Scottish origin, something he wears with pride, to the point of becoming its ambassador worldwide. In fact, in parallel to this series, he stars in another, Men in Kilts (its second season will also be available on Movistar Plus+ in the coming months), in which he tours Scotland accompanied by Graham McTavish (Dougal MacKenzie, in the series), to divulge the secrets of their culture and customs. And he also makes his own whisky, which he has named Sassenach, after the Gaelic word for non-Gaelics and Jamie for his fictional partner.

Outlander has been very successful in Spain. What do we Spaniards and Scots have in common?

I think the energy and passion in Spain is incredible, similar to ours. Scots and Spaniards have many things in common: we are very warm, friendly, passionate about sports and we also like to party. We are very similar.

The first thing you premiere now is the romantic comedy Love Again (Sony Pictures) , on May 12, in which you share the bill with Priyanka Chopra and Celine Dion herself . What can you tell us?

The film revolves around a great romance, although underlying it there is also a tragedy: the protagonist loses her fiancé and writes text messages to his old mobile number, which my character has, a journalist named Rob Burns who falls in love her. It is tragic, but also very beautiful. It's a very sweet film, with the presence of Celine Dion, an authority on romance [laughs]. I think people are going to have a lot of fun watching it.

Sam Heughan and Priyanka Chopra in a scene from Love Again. LIAM DANIEL SONY PICTURES

[Notice to fans: Watch out for Heughan singing Celine Dion's It's All Coming Back to Me Now while taking a shower.]

In the case of the characters in the film, technology is crucial to finding each other. What do you think about using technology to find love?

I think technology helps us communicate and allows us to connect people who might not otherwise be able to, like the two characters in the movie. Dating apps and social media allow for more interaction, but maybe sometimes we rely too much on technology and hide behind it. I think an in-person connection is always better.

Perhaps Madrid could be the setting for your next romantic comedy... Where would it take place?

I love Madrid, it's great, romantic and full of energy. A romantic comedy set in Madrid would be very passionate. Perhaps in the Royal Palace, with a prince who meets a girl in the El Retiro park, but finds out that she is actually a professional soccer player. They see a game at the stadium and end with dinner and dancing in the San Miguel market.

Prada trench coat and Paul Smith pants. ALFONSO OHNURESQUIRE

In addition to work, you lead a project, My Peak Challenge, with which you collaborate in various solidarity initiatives. What is it about?

It is an online fitness program . The peakers , which is what the members are called, pay a fee for daily training, adapted to each one. They include yoga, mindfulness , nutrition program... In addition to the fee, 15% is contributed to charitable causes. It is about working for your health, for yourself, and at the same time helping others.

And what is the peak or challenge that has been the hardest for you to reach in your life?

Perhaps the large number of projects I have on my hands. Finding time to dedicate to all of them, but I am very lucky to be able to get them going.

After this interview, Waypoints came into my hands. My Scottish Journey (recently published in Spain by Principal de los libros), a kind of memoir in which Heughan alternates reflections on his life, parallel to a trip along a complicated hiking route, the West Highland Way, in the homeland of he. Among other things, he tells that he grew up without a father (he abandoned him at 18 months) and gives some clues that explain the man behind the actor. In fact, he is perfectly summed up in this fragment: “According to my mother, he was a little adventurer, although he could also be quite sensitive. When left to my own devices he could lead any attack, but in company he preferred not to be the center of attention. He wasn't shy: I just felt more comfortable watching from the rear."

Photography assistants: Dani García and Elisa María Lozano · Styling assistant: Aline Patiño · Makeup and hairdressing: Wendy Kemp Forbes · Tailor: Maribel Madrid · Photography editor: Carolina Álvarez · Production: Marta Sánchez · Acknowledgments: Hotel Four Seasons Madrid.

*This report appears in the May 2023 issue of Esquire magazine, on sale since April 21.

Now it is understood why Wendy Kemp Forbes was part of SH's speech in Madrid last year. His improvised speech was not for social reasons. His interest in women's participation was very doubtful. The credibility of his speech was put aside by his opportunism 🤨

[galacticlamps]

I while ago when I was watching Evil, I know I referred to Kemel as the worst racism-driven POC caricature of the era, and now that I’ve gotten to Toberman, I really feel like I should expand upon what I meant by that.

For one, I hadn’t forgotten about Toberman when I said that - in fact, he was exactly who I was thinking of - and I’m not trying to make an argument about which is more offensive (I don’t really think there is a definitive answer to that, nor does trying to rank them in that way achieve anything, what upsets a person upsets a person at the end of the day & that’ll never be the same for everybody) but Toberman’s case is significantly more complicated and less straightforward than Kemel’s, which is why I want to talk about it a little instead of just being like ugh the annoyingly racist 60s.

To just recap what I find so appalling about Kemel: his character comes to us from a historical background - Victorian England - and is first introduced into the story as the hired servant of the human villain, a man who’s more than happy to aid the Daleks in enslaving the whole human race as long as it benefits him personally. In short, he’s exactly the kind of character who both by circumstances & personality, you’d expect to be totally fine with de-humanizing someone like Kemel - so why does the script need to do it as well, by making him mute? Maxtible already doesn’t respect or trust Kemel in any great regard, so he certainly hasn’t given him information that would alter the plot if he could share it with Jamie or Victoria, the other characters he primarily interacts with. In fact, Kemel seems perfectly capable of communicating with & being understood by both of them as well as Maxtible, so his not being able to speak for himself never seems to serve any purpose to the story itself, while it does rob him of one of the most important tools a character on a tv show can have. His overall role, objectifying and degrading though it may be, is understandable in-universe, and even his death on the Dalek planet, where only the 3 main characters are permitted to survive because the story demands both that they live and that everyone else on Skaro, human & Dalek alike, dies, doesn’t feel particularly racially motivated compared to other characters of color who meet similar fates. That’s not to say that having a story-motivated reason would justify treating him worse than the white characters of course, but the lack of one really does seem to emphasize that his muteness is instead the result of active 1960s bbc racism specifically - the writers themselves not seeing anything wrong with making the one character of color literally unable to speak for himself. It’s somewhat easy to single out both the problem there and the would-be solution that doesn’t involve either omitting his character or even changing any major events in the story itself - and with Toberman & Tomb, that’s definitely more complicated, simply because his status as a negative racial stereotype is much more involved in the story in which he appears.

Obviously, I am not about to claim that Tomb is not racist. But it does walk a very strange line with regard to when it’s conscious of that racism - and might even be trying to acknowledge it & make a point about it - vs when it just seems to take it for granted as totally normal & un-noteworthy (and the fact that it never seems to take pick a side of that line is what makes it inconsistent in general, racist for sure, and also very difficult to pick out just the racist parts only from)

As usual with characters like this, the problem with Toberman being treated the way he is, both by characters & the narrative itself, isn't exactly that he's black, but that no one else is - that he represents 100% of the black characters in the serial, and that 100% of the characters in his degrading position & who suffer his horrible fate are in turn black. That none of the 'good guys' or even the neutral characters are people of color of any kind - and that the other villains are also POC - or, I almost want to say, like, POC-coded? Between the complicated racial politics of Europe & the monochrome film though, the literal color of their skin is secondary to the fact that they're very clearly made out as Foreign in general. Which should in itself be considered an oxymoron, if we're being honest - not only because we're on another planet, but because just look at the rest of the (white) team - English, Welsh, American - there is some variety here, a fairly conscious attempt to represent more than just one homogeneous culture - and yet the result is still so blatantly racist.

Part of the story in Tomb is the shock & horror of seeing our first ever converted or partially converted character. Before now, we've seen full Cybermen and even men acting under the Cybermen's control (in the Moonbase) but until Toberman, we aren't faced with seeing a character we knew beforehand go through a transformation that strips them of their free will and turns them partially into a machine, and the first time I watched classic who, I was pretty surprised by that fact, given how that aspect of the Cybermen had always seemed like the creepiest thing about them & their biggest strength as villains. I did not expect to have to wait until their third serial within a year - proof that they were already considered very successful antagonists - before that element was presented in its full horror, and of course it’s no accident that the first time we do see it, it’s Toberman this happens to. The fact that he’s suspicious, large, strong, violent, silent, & obedient make him an unsurprising choice for conversion, someone the plot can use to demonstrate the threat of the Cybermen without asking the audience to stretch their minds too far or re-evaluate their stance on a character’s motivation or trustworthiness. He’s easy to write off, and not that far from what we expect a Cyberman to be like in the first place - which will of course become a plotpoint in itself, when it takes the other characters some time to realize he’s been partially converted.

But of course, at the end of the day, Toberman proves himself not to be anything like the Cybermen. He saves them all, defeats the Cybermen, and does so by overcoming what they’ve done to him. He’s so much more man than machine that it’s seeing his mistress - someone we only now learn must’ve been somewhat important to him personally, more than just an employer or even an oppressor of some kind - killed which breaks him of their conditioning & frees him from their orders. The unsurprise with which we saw him converted is now turned on its head into shock at the twist that this silent giant who we weren’t sure if we’d ever seen really think for himself before is not only capable of it, but so willful that he can break through and personally defeat the Cybermen, while our heroes are able to do little more than cheer him on. That is frankly a pretty ingenious plottwist, and a way of elevating Toberman’s status retroactively - because even if he seem ed like little more than a futuristic slave when the program began, looking at the end, it’s hard to believe Kaftan or Kleig or anyone else could ever’ve made him do anything he didn’t already want. So, was the serial really racist the whole time, or did we just bring racist assumptions to it ourselves because we recognized tropes we’re used to seeing used in racist ways? Is it possible that Toberman’s role in the ending - not only as the hero but as the character who surprised us by being one, now making us re-evaluate everything that came before - is that enough to totally change the verdict on his character? Personally, I don’t think so, but I think it’s worth posing that question in order to really zero in on which parts of the story are an obstacle to that anti-racist reading.

No matter how intentionally the writers meant it, the reveal that Toberman can defeat the Cybermen through his unique combination of strength, willpower, thought, and unsuspecting demeanor does actively play on the fact that the audience presented with this racially polarized group of characters will have seen him in the first few minutes and immediately recognized him as the strongman, the black man who’ll die, the villain’s henchman who doesn’t do anything but carry out orders other people think up & believe in, even if he takes a savage joy in doing harm. For the surprise of the ending to land, in many ways he needs to be that character the audience passed over too quick - dismissed on grounds that were partially racist on their own, and partially a simple recognition of the racist patterns that recur in media. In another context, his heroism & the specific way he achieves it in the end might’ve been a successful critique of the negative assumptions the audience willingly laid onto the character as a result of his race. But it still feels a stretch to say that’s definitely what happens here. Again, the problem isn’t that Toberman is black, or even that he’s black and strong and silent and evil in the first place - he needs to be those things for the audience to be properly surprised when the dismissive attitude those traits had earned him proves to be so wildly incorrect. The problem is that nobody else is, even within a group that’s notably diverse in origin, and even among the villains, he’s given a substandard role.

And that’s what I think is so unsalvageable about the idea, and why it’s impossible to prise the good elements apart from the shitty ones in Tomb - for Toberman to be in control of himself enough to save the day in the end, he must also have been equally on-board with Kaftan & Kelig’s plan at the beginning, rather than an unwilling accomplice or even a victim - but not only does that make him more of a villain & another piece of evidence in support of a moral divide running exactly parallel to the racial divides in the group - it also begs the question of why he isn’t treated by the script & the camera as equally worthy of attention, one in a Trio of Bad Guys and instead secondary to Kaftan & Kleig. Why don’t we know what his views on the Brotherhood of Logicians and the whole plot to ally with the Cybermen are, if he’s also a partner in the evil plan? The character has to be both the racial stereotype viewers expect to see (even if they aren’t particularly comfortable with it) while also being in the inverse of that trope - so the script & the camera must also treat him as secondary, not worth consideration beyond the fact that he is strong, so that there’s nothing in the text or on the screen inhibiting his strength from being used for evil in one scene and good in another. He isn’t allowed to have presence & agency of his own, because even when the characters (Kaftan, Kleig, the Cybermen) have stopped robbing him of it, then the needs of the script step in & start making demands which he’ll need to lack a great deal of specificity to be able to fulfill.

And last but certainly not least, with the story set in the future, what possible in-universe reason is there for the characters in the story never challenging - but instead, supporting - those same racist assumptions the writers are so clear banking on the viewers bringing to the episode, either consciously or unconsciously? Why don’t they ever balk at Toberman’s status as such a silent, obedient servant, other than the fact that it would spoil the ‘surprise’ that we should indeed have considered him his own person all along? Bodyguards might well still exist, but I wouldn’t say Tomb paints the picture of a highly stratified futuristic class system particularly well - and without one, it seems strange that this small party of explorers on an alien world would all default to treating Toberman as secondary when their group is so limited to begin with. He’s not even the only one there who doesn’t really belong, it’s well-established that neither Kaftan nor Kleig have any claim to being there in an archaeological capacity. So why ignore him, write him off as a forgone conclusion? Wouldn’t your default be to treat him like any other member of the team, who doesn’t quite belong there in an official capacity but is anyway? Why treat him as a literal extension of Kaftan herself, who doesn’t think or act on his own? Oh right, the racism. Perhaps if the story had been set in the past instead of the future, that point in the serial would’ve been quite nice indeed - we’d understand why it’s the default for the white members of the party not to pay too much mind to him, and never pause to consider what he might or might not want, whether it’s for them or against them. There would be an element of dramatic irony throughout the script inherent from the fact that the audience knows this is foolish, bizarre, unfair behavior, while the characters limited by the rules of their age’s society could be believably ignorant (or at least acting as such). But of course, if it’s set in the past you can’t have an expedition looking for the Cybermen or villains whose intention it is to use this technology to conquer and enslave the whole human race, to say nothing of the fact that it’s sympathy for Kaftan that breaks Toberman of the Cyberprogramming - he can be her victim, or he can be in control of himself enough to save the day, but not both.

This isn’t really going anywhere except to say that there truly isn’t some hypothetical, 21st century ‘good’ version of Tomb, or some lens of looking at it without the 60s racism, or even a way of distilling that racism down into particular points without which the rest of the serial stands up. There’s no clear way it ‘would be done now’ to achieve all the same clever parts (be it an unexpected plottwist involving an under-appreciated character, or a critique of the audience’s complacency with racist assumptions) that doesn’t also call for major alterations to the rest of the story, plot, and characters, to the point that it all falls apart anyway. However, Toberman is a fascinating character in as much as he appears to be a negative racial stereotype trying to be used for a good, anti-racist point - but unsurprisingly, the story attempting to do that gets caught up in its own contradictions & inconsistencies, failing so spectacularly that it doesn’t stand up to even the lowest level of scrutiny, and betrays the fact that the writers either weren’t overly concerned with the anti-racist implications, only the twist ending they could provide, or they didn’t think that an important enough area to even look into thoroughly enough to see the failings of in the first place.

At the end of the day, you can’t have Tomb without Toberman, and you can’t have a Toberman that doesn’t fit all of the negative racial stereotypes he does, or there’s no point in having him at all, and in turn, no resolution for Tomb. I don’t think there’s anything standing in the way of the case that Tomb might actually have had anti-racism on its radar as a vague, minor goal, likely only because it serviced the larger goals of the plot in general - but there’s also no question about how it failed if that was the plan. In a way, it’s a shockingly sticky cycle that racism has trapped this story in, particularly compared to the preceding serial, in which the most blatant example of real-world racism actually felt tangential and infuriatingly optional, considering how Kemel really had no great need to be mute, and could’ve still fulfilled all his plot- or character-development purposes just the same - better, even - if he’d been allowed to speak. With Toberman you absolutely have to take the good with the bad, whereas Kemel just got needlessly - though tellingly - mistreated by the writing itself.

[graceerodgers]

Django Unchained: Character Analysis

If it were up to me, I would definitely say I am the hero in my own story. Many people may love to think they're the good guy in their life but I truly believe I hold heroic characteristics. Everyone has their flaws, even your favorite superhero, so I would never use one example or a single situation to evaluate someone's character. The bigger picture means everything. In my opinion. I think Django Freeman is definitely the hero in the movie Django unchained. He portrays many selfless acts of kindness on top of his bravery and determination to find the love of his life. Throughout the movie we see him do things like kill and lie, and if you were only given that small portion of information it would be easy to detect him as an anti-hero but would an anti-hero risk his life trusting the word of a bounty hunter just to attempt and find his wife?

DJango Freeman is the protagonist of the 2012 film, “Django Unchained.” Written and directed by Quentin Tarantino, the film tells the story of Django, a slave who becomes a bounty hunter to rescue his wife and get revenge on those who've wronged him in the past. Played by Jamie Foxx, Django is a complex character with an interesting backstory and strong morals. He is introduced as a slave, shackled and being transported by a group of white slave traders. In the beginning scenes of the movie, Django is portrayed with a very stoic demeanor. The lack of personality and dialogue was used to show the power dynamics at hand. He was chained to a group of other enslaved men and had no power in the presence of this white slave trader. Django's true character emerges when he is released from his shackles by Dr. King Shultz, a bounty hunter in need of help.Schultz kills the transporters and frees the rest of the slaves. Django is hesitant around Dr. Schultz before learning more about his true motives yet still went with him. We can assume he took this as an opportunity to become a free man and bring him a step closer to finding his wife.

After making a deal with Schultz to help him find the Brittle brothers we see the two start to create a partnership. Django and Dr. Schultz built a close relationship built off of mutual respect and admiration. Schultz sticks up for Django and his safety was always in his best interest. Django takes advantage of this opportunity and is determined to find the brittle brothers, also the men responsible for previously torturing him and his wife. We learn more about his backstory through flashbacks and see why he is so determined to find his wife and help Schultz. At 35m:49s we are introduced to the brittle brothers and a new side of Django’s character is revealed for the first time. As John Brittle turns around, Django shoots him in the chest and says “I like the way you die boy’ as he falls to the ground. For a newly freed African American man this was more than an act of courage. He gets revenge on them by then whipping the other brother the same way they've done to Broomhilda, Django's wife, then proceeds to shoot him in the head.

Some may say this is the moment in the film where Django becomes the Anti- hero, but I disagree. Django is a newly freed African American man and is not used to making his own decisions. He was simply following the directions of his ‘owner’ so how much blame can we REALLY put on Django himself? We learn through a flashback how these men also tortured his wife and would not stop no matter how much he begged. The people around him may think he is a villain but he lives in a time where African Americans are always going to be the villains, but in reality, Django is far from being the real villain in the storyline. 

After his first kill of the film, we see Django get more comfortable with the use of a gun and his role as a bounty hunter. Django's character encompasses a strong moral code. Dr. Schultz tries to come up with a plan to get onto the plantation that Broomhilda is being held on by her slave owner, Calvin Candie, the true villain in this film. Schultz suggests Django act as a black slaver. Django says himself “ain't nothing lower than a black slaver.” It goes against what he believes in after years of torturous treatment from slave owners and he had to play the same role to save his wife from these same people. Calvin Candie is a rich slave owner who is in the Mandingo business. A business where one would have their slaves fight to the death for their own entertainment. He owns Django’s wife and refuses to sell him to her. The actions Django takes that some may see as villainous are actually just steps to save his wife from the real villain.  

In the end, Django achieves his goal of finding and saving his wife, but couldn't have done it without Dr.Schultz. He goes through a painful journey to reach the only thing that matters to him and when he succeeds in the end, it shows the audience how determined he was to save his wife. It highlights the fact that his wife is his main priority and the whole movie is essentially surrounded around her. Even before he was set free by Dr.Schultz we knew that he was still trying to find his wife, but then used his newfound relationship with him as an opportunity to find her. He overcomes many obstacles and faces many people who see him as the enemy and could possibly take his life. As the movie progresses we see more and more examples of him being a serious, determined, and skilled character which contributes to the aspects of the movie. Through Django’s story, Tarantino portrays an accurate and interesting demonstration of slavelike times and can use this film as a way to show people the true horrors of slavery and racism.

[monstermaster13]

- Character tf into a character that is rarely done or one you really like but it's a rubber version. Or even worse it's a lewd pervy version. I imagine you look for tf art into characters from children's shows and when you do it's a rubber version or a lewd version. Yeah, Noddy for one. He's a child, why do almost all the Noddy ones I see always have to be lewd and with creepy MC? He's a child character for crying out loud. Also aaaw come on, I like Pinkie Pie but why a rubber version of her?

- Any tf Ciel has done. I have nothing against Avianine but I find that her TF art is overrated and I hate the Ciel character, I HATE her anthro Pokemon tfs because a lot of them either have MC or are too overly sexually designed (it wouldn't kill her to put some clothes on those Poke-girls would it?), her inanimate tfs either make no sense or creep me out (were-pooltoys don't make any sense, pooltoys don't have teeth or anything you could get caught on which could turn you into one, how does that even work anyway? Also why did it have to be a full moon trigger when a water trigger would have made more sense? Why did it have to be a full moon? You know, you could have just made it that water is the trigger for a pooltoy transformation, you could have just made it a cursed swimming pool but nooo you had to make it a fucking full moon trigger), drone tfs that make me feel uncomfortable (yeah i'm sorry but seeing a bulge between the legs of some of the more feminine forms of drones makes me feel weirded out, I know Avianine has done Futa type tfs before, it's all in her Furaffinity account but that one Judy Hopps one where the victim still has a male bulge despite Judy clearly being female pissed me off, it's like when people thought Jamie Lee Curtis is a guy, uhhh...Jamie Lee is female, and so is Lady GaGa!), her Pokeslut stuff (which thankfully is not on here, Avianine, how can you be sexist against your very own gender? You have a sort-of-canonically trans-character yet you totally fetishize female characters anyway? Forshame. Al ot of her slutty tf content is just sexualizing certain species or even her own gender), her 'hero suit' stuff (Uhhh...yeah, tell me how a suit that prohibits the villain from taking it off not even to use the toilet is supposed to do any good. And also yeah i'm sorry, but if it's forcing someone to be good, that is still more evil than good), anything Puro related or Puro adjacent (how can anyone like this? Knowing that Dragonsnow is a sick bastard in real life, yes he supports shotacon erotic art of his own characters even though Collin is a teenager in the game, he's the Dan Schneider of the transformation community, the game was awful enough with it being a blatant fetish-fest but Avianine's Puro stuff made it worse), and of course anyone where Ciel turns someone into herself..(I swear Ciel is the most arrogant phoenix ever, she sometimes forcibly turns people into clones of her. Does Agent Smith know she is stealing his gimmick? And also, arrogant, much?).

- Character tfs that are absolutely cursed, even as a joke. The Noid, seriously? Poor Honeycomb Craver and Honey Monster barely get any, and what about those 'Cadbury Creme Egg' ad characters made to represent star signs who either have a weird ability based on their sign or turn into the animal the star sign is of (e.g the twins who like to slurp it/bite it, the Delboy looking Aries dude who turns into a ram, the Scorpio lady with the whip-like hair-do, or the guy in the sweater who morphs into a crab). Pepsiman, seriously? You know, there's a lovely underrated Danish anthro cow mascot who needs TF attention and also a whole group of lovely anthro animal-girls that need more love. Also Cool Cat? Even if it's a joke or a parody, never use Cool Cat in anything not even in TFs unless it's about Cool Cat and Daddy Derek being punished for being terrible role models. Also seriously, those creepy Poopsie unicorn dolls that wear diapers?

- Fat nerd stereotypes. Oh sure, all anime fans are overweight and are bad at sex, all nerds are bad at sex and have bad hygiene, that is totally not an untrue stereotype at all.