#(sorry that I cheated a bit)

[lauravian]

S1E13: Le Morte D'Arthur

Redrawing a screencap from every episode of Merlin... (until I get bored with it)

[teddyonaboat]

"felicia's kids look like vander/silco" "felicia cheated with vander" "-no, felica cheated with silco"

WRONG

vander and silco are a couple and had threesomes with felicia

[pokeberry5]

Hiii

Love your art and I'm so sorry for your flight

If you have time could you do some jason /nightwing brothers moments?

If not I love you anyways ❤️❤️

thank you <3

this is them right?

Ref:

[myokk]

😇💘 (mdni🔞)

[coraniaid]

reverse unpopular opinion meme: xander?

[Reverse unpopular opinion meme]

I like to consider my opinion of Xander Harris as being particularly complicated and nuanced, but – engaging in some critical self-reflection for just a moment – I think the objective truth is probably more that I’m just instinctively and aggressively contrarian about it.  I find that I tend to strongly disagree with most of the online takes about Xander I see, almost regardless of whether they’re pro or anti.  

I mean, on the one hand I do think it’s more than a bit silly to pretend, as many people seem to do, that Xander Harris is [somehow?] uniquely and only a Joss Whedon self insert [despite being written by multiple people] in a way that none of the other characters [that Whedon also created and that appear in the show Whedon created] apparently are. Or to ignore the fact that very often the audience is clearly meant to think that Xander is in the wrong and disapprove of his actions.  (You obviously aren’t supposed to be cheering for him when he lies to Buffy about Willow’s message about Angel in Becoming, for an easy example; or to be clapping and applauding him when he cheats on Cordelia or leaves Anya at the altar either.) And I think it would be wrong to dismiss the fact that Xander starts the show as a dumb but (mostly) harmless teenager and that, not only does he gradually mature and improve as a person as he grows up, he also [perhaps uniquely for this show?] manages to do so without killing even one person.    

But equally I would be lying if I didn’t admit that many of my least favorite episodes of the show are either Xander-centric episodes (Teacher’s Pet, The Pack, Bewitched, Bothered & Bewildered for example) or episodes in which Xander plays a non-trivial role in exactly the parts of the episodes I most dislike (his treatment of Buffy in Dead Man’s Party, say, or his speech in support of Riley in Into The Woods).  The haters are right to say that Xander does often treat his female friends and partners abysmally, often in ways that the show doesn’t seem to acknowledge or which it briefly acknowledges only to brush them off with no consequences.  There certainly are times when the writers expect the audience to cheer for Xander a lot more than I personally want to, or when he says something gross and sexist which is just meant to be funny and that the writers simply didn’t think critically about at all.  And the flipside of Xander being written by a range of different writers is that his character growth is often slow, halting or inconsistent (which, while arguably realistic, is not particularly fun to experience).  And unlike some of the fandom I don’t really believe anything Xander does can be handwaved away by him being deeply affected by what happened to his “best friend” Jesse in Season 1’s The Harvest: in fact I would put money on a majority of the show’s writers having no idea who Jesse was.

Anyway, none of that preamble is really in the spirit of the ask game, is it?

Um.  Five things I like about Xander, then.  No hedging or clarification except for what I heavily imply above (oh, and also the comics aren’t canon and don’t mean anything and actually don’t even exist … I mean, uh, what comics are we even talking about?).

I think the show resolves the initial Season 1 “love triangle” (in which Xander is really into Buffy and she doesn’t reciprocate his feelings or even seem to notice them, while similarly Willow is really into Xander and he doesn’t reciprocate her feelings or even seem to notice them) in about the best way it possibly could have done.  Buffy and Xander don’t ever get together and there’s never really any suggestion that they might – one or two odd moments in Season 2 aside, I guess? – and Willow musters the self-respect required to firmly reject Xander when he tries to ask her to the dance that Buffy had just turned him down for in Prophecy Girl.  Not only that, but Willow goes on to have a serious relationship with a guy who isn’t Xander and then comes out as a lesbian and continues to have serious relationships with woman who aren’t Xander, right up to the end of the final season.  And this happens all while the three of them stay very close friends; in fact Buffy and Xander at least are clearly better friends in the second half of the season than they were at the beginning of the show [when, after all, Xander had only just met her].  Whether or not that was planned from the beginning – and to be honest, I think the Buffy fandom as a whole wildly overestimates how much of the show was planned from the beginning – I think that’s a pretty unambiguously great way for that particular subplot to have be handled.   (Although the funniest and most geometrically pleasing resolution of the Season 1 love triangle would, of course, have been for Buffy and Willow to end up together.)

Speaking of Buffy and Willow, for all his faults Xander is consistently written as somebody who cares about his friends and wants them to be safe and happy.  As well as the obvious big moments – helping to save Buffy’s life in Prophecy Girl; his speech assuring Buffy that she’s his hero in The Freshman; repeatedly assuring Willow in Grave that he’ll always love her, even if she ends up killing him or destroying the world; that moment in Season 7 where Buffy sends him away to look after Dawn because she “needs somebody [she] can count on” – I think it’s fun when we get to see the three of them just hang out, in those quiet little moments they get to just all be kids together.  I am very firmly in the camp that thinks Buffy should have friends and be allowed to not be treated for an idiot for liking said friends or wanting to spend time with them.  Whatever else you can say about it, I think it’s obvious that this is how the show’s writers expect you to engage with the show.   That’s part of why I’m more forgiving than some people of episodes like I Robot, You Jane or Bad Eggs or Amends: these are all episodes in which I can believe that Xander is fundamentally a good kid who Buffy would want to be friends with, and that he’d grow up to be somebody she’d still want to be friends with as an adult.    

Some people online – mostly not on Tumblr – talk a lot of rot about Xander getting self-defense training or somehow reconnecting with the military persona he had in Halloween or otherwise Learning How To Fight, and I can’t overstate how glad I am that the show didn’t go in this direction.  Xander makes sense as a character precisely because he isn’t a fighter.  Because he doesn’t occupy that more stereotypically masculine role: because he is the one who gets rescued and brings in baked goods and that the other, more powerful but emotionally repressed characters can go to to talk about their feelings.  Because he is the person who, by the end of the show, can best reassure Dawn that she doesn’t need to be a Potential Slayer or have superpowers to be special.  This idea that Xander complains too much during the show about not having special powers and that the “solution” to “fix” this is to have him go out and get some (as opposed to this being a deliberate character arc in which Xander learns to accept that he’s never going to be that sort of person) is not one I have a lot of sympathy for.  The show already has a human male character who is trained as a fighter so he can go on patrol with Buffy: he’s called Riley Finn and he’s insufferable. 

Although the fandom as a whole loves to massively oversell how “abusive” the Scoobies respective parents are, I do think that Xander’s home life is a key part of understanding who Xander specifically is as a person.  And – again, however deliberately planned from the beginning or not it was – there’s something nicely disturbing about how we never get a big dramatic reveal about how awful Xander’s parents are: it’s just something that the writers just slowly build up to – from the idea in Season 1 that Xander doesn’t regularly eat cooked meals at home (“do your parents even own a stove?”), to Xander joking about his dad trying to “send [him] to some Armenians once” early in Season 2, or calling home to say he’s going to be out all night and having his mother clearly not recognize his voice, through to Cordelia revealing in Season 3 that he admitted to her that sleeps outside during Christmas to avoid his parents drunken fights  – until by Restless we can see Xander having nightmares about being trapped in his parents basement and having his father come down the stairs and we don’t need to have anything more than that explained to us.  I think that’s all really effectively done, and while I don’t think it excuses te way Xander behaves I do think it does a lot to make sense of it.

Again, while I think it’s possible to drastically overstate the Mind/Spirit/Heart metaphorical reading – I don’t think this is something the writers were consciously thinking about most of the time and I don’t think the reading of the show in which everyone is reduced to a part of Buffy’s own psyche is even particularly interesting except perhaps as an intellectual exercise – I do think it’s a reading that works pretty well for Xander. (Actually of the three elements, that’s surely the one that’s easiest to see: I’ve never been completely sure why Willow is the Spirit rather than the Mind.)  Yeah, Xander can often be petty and jealous and selfish and hypocritical and refuse to analyze his own feelings: that doesn’t rule him out from being Buffy’s metaphorical heart, it’s evidence that he is.  Buffy can be all of those things too!  (I think I am rather more fond of Buffy herself than you are – she is my favorite character on the show, after all – but I don’t like Buffy because she’s flawless and perfect; I like her because she’s interesting and realistically flawed, and very often flawed in the same ways as her friends.)

[jetlaggingbehind]

listen to me. in a swap au ramona's knives would NOT be matthew. matthew got over his heartbreak fairly easily once he had his own musical to perform on and knives does not have that kind of emotional resilience in the face of scott's shittiness she is seventeen years of age. matthew would more likely be like kim or something. he's hiding stuff and he never got closure but at least he has a healthy outlet for his emotions which helps him come to terms with it in some sense. knives would be ROXY. heartbreak central.

[danikatze]

[ID in alt text]

Haven't finished the first run yet, but I made a new bg3 character.. Their name is Russet Cuprum, Russ for short :3 (brown and teal like rusted copper is one of my fave colour combos) They're a barbarian but also a Soft Boi ™️

[falconfate]

Hello ranger’s apprentice fandom can we talk real quick about the stupidest thing Flanagan ever wrote

It’s about the bows. Yanno, the rangers’ Iconique™️ main weapon. That one. You know the one.

Flanagan. Flanagan why are your rangers using longbows.

“uh well recurve arrows drop faster” BUT DO THEY. FLANAGAN. DO THEY.

the answer is no they don’t. Compared to a MODERN, COMPOUND (aka cheating) bow, yes, but compared to a longbow? Y’know, what the rangers use in canon? Yeah no a recurve actually has a FLATTER trajectory. It drops LATER.

This from an article comparing the two:

“Both a longbow and a recurve bow, when equipped with the right arrow and broadhead combination, are capable of taking down big game animals. Afterall, hunters have been doing it for centuries with both types of bows.

However, generally speaking and all things equal, a recurve bow will offer more arrow speed, creating a flatter flight trajectory and retain more kinetic energy at impact.

The archers draw length, along with the weight of the arrow also affect speed and kinetic energy. However, the curved design of the limbs on a recurve adds to its output of force.”

It doesn’t actually mention ANY distance in range! And this is from a resource for bow hunting, which, presumably, WOULD CARE ABOUT THAT SORT OF THING!

Okay so that’s just. That’s just the first thing.

The MAIN thing is that even accounting for “hur dur recurves drop faster” LONGBOWS ARE STILL THE STUPID OPTION.

Longbows, particularly and especially ENGLISH longbows, are—as their name suggests—very long. English longbows in particular are often as tall or taller than their wielder even while strung, but especially when unstrung. An unstrung longbow is a very long and expensive stick, one that will GLADLY entangle itself in nearby trees, other people’s clothes, and any doorway you’re passing through.

And yes, there are shorter longbows, but at that point if you’re shortening your longbow, just get a goddamn recurve. And Flanagan makes a point to compare his rangers’ bows to the Very Long English Longbow.

Oh, do you know how the Very Long English Longbow was mostly historically militarily used? BY ON-FOOT ARCHER UNITS. Do you know what they’re TERRIBLE for? MOUNTED ARCHERY.

Trust me. Go look up right now “mounted archery longbow.” You’ll find MAYBE one or two pictures of some guy on a horse struggling with a big stick; mostly you will actually see either mounted archers with RECURVES, or comparisons of Roman longbow archers to Mongolian horse archers (which are neat, can’t lie, I love comparing archery styles like that).

Anyway. Why are longbows terrible for mounted archery? Because they’re so damn long. Think about it: imagine you’re on a horse. You’re straddling a beast that can think for itself and moves at your command, but ultimately independently of you; if you’re both well-trained enough, you’re barely paying attention to your horse except to give it commands. And you have a bow in your hands. If your target is close enough to you that you know, from years of shooting experience, you will need to actually angle your bow down to hit it because of your equine height advantage, guess what? If you have a longbow, YOU CAN’T! YOUR HORSE IS IN THE WAY BECAUSE YOUR BOW IS TOO LONG! Worse, it’s probably going to get in the general area of your horse’s shoulder or legs, aka moving parts, which WILL injure your horse AND your bow and leave you fresh out of both a getaway vehicle and a ranged weapon. It’s stupid. Don’t do it.

A recurve, on the other hand, is short. It was literally made for horse archers. You have SO much range of motion with a recurve on horseback; and if you’re REALLY good, you know how to give yourself even more, with techniques like Jamarkee, a Turkish technique where you LITERALLY CAN AIM BACKWARDS.

For your viewing enjoyment, Serena Lynn of Texas demonstrating Jamarkee:

Yes, that’s real! This type of draw style is INCREDIBLY versatile: you can shoot backwards on horseback, straight down from a parapet or sally port without exposing yourself as a target, or from low to the ground to keep stealthy without banging your bow against the ground. And, while I’m sure you could attempt it with a longbow, I wouldn’t recommend it: a recurve’s smaller size makes it far more maneuverable up and over your head to actually get it into position for a Jamarkee shot.

A recurve just makes so much more SENSE. It’s not a baby bow! It’s not the longbow’s lesser cousin! It’s a COMPLETELY different instrument made to be used in a completely different context! For the rangers of Araluen, who put soooo much stock in being stealthy and their strong bonds with their horses, a recurve is the perfect fit! It’s small and easily transportable, it’s more maneuverable in combat and especially on horseback, it offers more power than a longbow of the same draw weight—really, truly, the only advantage in this case that a longbow has over the recurve is that longbows are quicker and easier to make. But we KNOW the rangers don’t care about that, their KNIVES use a forging technique (folding) that takes several times as long as standard Araluen forging practices at the time!

Okay.

Okay I think I’m done. For now.

[coffeebanana]

🤭, moon and ladynoir for your little snippets

If she closes her eyes, Ladybug can almost hear Chat Noir's laughter. She can almost feel it—a puff of warmth against her cheek and the rumble of his chest as he pulls her in close. It's beautiful.

But it's a lie.

When she forces her eyes open, she alone drowns beneath the moonlight.

[mostofthingsmostofthetime]

My thoughts on The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes movie

I don’t know if I liked it as much as the original films (maybe Mockingjay 1 & 2 as they are pretty emotionally draining), but I still enjoyed it.

I think where it fell a little flat for me is 1. The beginning was a bit slow (tbh I only really started getting interested when Lucy Gray stuck that snake down that girl’s dress & even then I enjoyed the story more when the setting changed from the Capitol to the district) 2. I knew Snow would survive 3. I’d already been spoiled online for a lot of stuff that happens & 4. while I know the director did his best to make Snow as “likeable” as he could for as long as possible, even before he started getting “a little too comfortable” with killing & snitching I didn’t find him as sympathetic as Katniss or Peeta (but that is probably again down to the fact that I know what he goes onto do & there’s no real way around that), this made engaging with him difficult for me.

The world is fascinating. Getting to see all the new locations we never had access to before as well as old locations now in a totally different light (for example district 12 which, while still clearly suffering, seemed like such a bustling industrial town compared to how it is in Katniss’s time). It might have a much more retro aesthetic but there's also just a more vibrant, natural, wild & lawless atmosphere to this movie compared to the others in the franchise. The whole scope of the film just felt more cinematic then I remember the others being yet also weirdly intimate. Maybe because it was one contained story & we knew the main character’s fate from the start. I also loved the title cards signifying the start of each section of the story like from the books & wished they'd done something similar for the other films. It just added a certain flair to the whole thing. Almost gave it the vibe of a tragic play.

The costuming was great. The bright red of the academy uniforms.  Flickerman’s snazzy suits. Snow’s dapper black & white outfit. Both peace keeper uniforms (despite one of them giving very ‘1930’s Germany’ vibes) looked great. Grandma might have been a bigot, but at least she was well dressed. Everything Dr Gaul wore (except the top that looked like a used tampon, lol) was exquisite. The main ladies of fashion, Tigris & Lucy Gray slayed. Our Future Capitol stylist looked like some regal yet exotic bird & Miss Survivor was giving Bohemian, country girl realness the entire time she was on screen. Even the extras were serving (like that random couple Snow walked past on his way to the reaping ceremony).

The music was amazing. Every song that played was fantastic (shout out to Olivia for her end credit contribution). The lyrics & instrumentation were beautiful & my god does Rachel Zegler have pipes! Anyone who says the singing scenes are cringy is just stupid like I’m sorry you can’t appreciate art. Also, the words ‘ballad’ & ‘songbirds’ are literally in the title. Plus, Lucy Gray is from the poorest district, so what exactly do those people want her to do in her free time? She can’t exactly hop on an X-box for a few hours. Not too mention that (as the offspring of someone who’s musically inclined) I can tell you, it’s completely realistic for a musician to use their craft to help them deal with trauma & Lucy Gray clearly had more than her fair share of that.

The Grandma'am helped to paint a sadly very realistic background for Snow. As who among us hasn’t met at least one delusional old person who thinks that their/their group’s suffering (regardless of the severity of it or the reason behind their former/newer status in society) means that no one else are deserving of even the tiniest shred of humanity & there are some people who are unlucky enough to not only be related to these people but be raised by them.

Hunter schafer as Tigris is clearly the superior Snow when it comes to things like empathy & overall mental stability but I do kind of wish they’d been more for her to do. Credit where credit is due though her & Tom did actually look like they could be related & I did buy their familial bond (which makes her appearance in Mockingjay so much sadder in hindsight).

Peter Dinklage as Casca Highbottom was a bit of a mix for me just due to his purpose as a character & the limit of film as a form of media. Like sure the audience know that Snow’s going to become an irredeemable monster in the end but without a window into his mind it really does just seem like the Dean is just out to get him & even when we find out why it seems kind of unfair. Like sure his dad sucked but haven’t the Games shown that blaming children for violence caused by others is unjust (& like ok he hates Coriolanus & probably the grandma but Tigris hadn’t done anything to deserve living in poverty, as she can’t control who she’s related to)? Plus, it felt like he could have at least tried taking Snow under his wing at some point to try to hinder Dr Gual’s influence. Saying all of that, though, Peter Dinklage is great at playing an addict with depression & the idea that some drunken rambling could lead to such long-lasting suffering is terrifying. Also its pretty realistic that living with that kind of guilt & in such a cruel environment for that long would make most people jaded & bitter, even if they did have good intentions.

Omg we finally get a Mayor family on screen & they’re assholes! Madge would be so disappointed 😭. It was interesting to see how harsh & overall “boot licky” the mayor & his family seemed compared to decades later, which makes sense as the war wasn’t that long ago for them so the dad probably felt more incentive to align himself with the Capitol as well as not feeling very connected to the district people as 12’s decline probably didn’t fully set in until they really started running low on coal & Snow became president (oh I just know he wanted to blow that district off the map 😆). I also wouldn’t put it past Billy to come up with some sob story of how he really does love Mayfair but wicked Lucy Gray is somehow preventing them from being together. Still no excuse to try to send her to her death twice in one week, though. Definitely not a girl’s girl.

Ok, so a liar. Cheat. Drunk & someone who hits women. Is there anything good about Billy Taupe? Also, trying to get your ex back, while your current girlfriend is literally standing right next to you? Dude, have some god damn back bone! You made a choice, now stick to it. Also, fumbling Lucy Gray, for a girl like that? What’s it like having no brains or taste? Well, too bad, coz you’re stuck with her forever now, lol.

Viola Davies, the actress that you are. What else is there to say? Dr Gaul is almost comic book levels of insane. Like she is how the Right see women in STEM, on crack! I don’t know what she did to get into character, but whatever it was, it worked.

Jason Schwartzman as Lucretius Flickerman is a very interesting addition to the story despite playing such a small & seemingly insignificant role. He is strange in how unthreatening he is while also extremely blasé about the abhorrent violence he witnesses that it’s as funny as it is disturbing. Making him come across as  more human yet harsher than his son, who at least pretends to care about the tributes (in a very Capitol way, obviously but still). There’s also a polish & confidence to Tucci’s performance that I think Schwartzman did a great job of avoiding copying (despite knowing what audiences were probably expecting) because not only are their characters in entirely different stages of their careers but the whole ethos of the Hunger Games is different in Snow’s youth than it is in Katniss’s. Caesar is a well established presenter & during his time, the games have always been a success (minus the year with the tundra) that the entire Capitol is invested in & seemingly in support of. On the other hand Lucretius had the unique task of not only coming into a job like this with zero experience (I mean imagine going from announcing the weather to presenting the fucking hunger games) but also there were no vibes to try to emulate let alone guidelines to follow because he truly was the first person to do this. On top of that, the "event" his presenting has been panned for years as both boring & unethical. Schwartzman brought a slightly awkward, experimental, yet try hard vibe (like a comedian who's desperate to get a laugh) that I think worked wonderfully for the character.

Tom Blyth's performance was great & he was visually perfect for a young Snow (the power of a good wig! Who knew lol). Even having the cool, analytical stare of Donald Sutherland, down pat. While his appearance was very Eminem during his peacekeeping days, his realisation in the cabin and subsequent breakdown in the woods were crazy. There was so much tension between him & Rachel in that scene that for a second, it literally felt like all the air had been sucked out of the room. I could almost hear the record scratch for both of them, & all that building paranoia finally coming to a sudden crescendo in the way that it did? Pure cinema!

Josh Rivera, as Sejanus, was honestly a mix for me. Obviously, I agree with his morals, but his way of going about it did seem a little dumb. However I do think it’s pretty realistic that a teenager, especially a rich one, would be rather naive. Also I’ve heard that he’s smarter in the book & I think at times my frustration with him is more just down to the fact that I’m seeing him from Snow’s point of view. Meaning scenes that would be portrayed as noble in any other film instead come across as almost painfully inconvenient because the focus is always on how they affect Snow rather than the actual victims of the situation. Lastly, sorry, Snowjanus shippers, I just don’t see it (especially on Snow’s end), but whatever floats your boat.

Rachel Zegler played Lucy Gray with the perfect mix of natural charm & emotional vulnerability with clear pride in her culture & a refusal to let the world around her change who she is. Yet there was also an air of mystery & a subtle resilience to her that makes her potentially surviving out in the woods for years without being detected actually believable (though I don’t buy the theory that she went on to become president Coin). Definitely the highlight of the movie for me.

PS. I'd love to know what you think of my review in the comments/tags & am open to criticism (as long as it's respectful) just remember that I'm only talking about the movie so please don't reference anything spersific to the book.

[pollutionbylimpbizkit]

Three Dollar Bill Y'all$ era Wes doing hair flips/ playing with his hair for @peppermint-candy ♡

[violetvulpini]

Happy Level Up Day! *explodes*

Thank you!! Fireworks and everything! For you, a lil scribble of the power armor👍

[dolls-self-ships]

guys would you think I'm annoying if I said I don't like seeing Lillith x Lucifer bc it makes me insecure and jelous please guys am I still cool and chill and sexy guys-

[iwritenarrativesandstuff]

ughhh thinking back on the original atla and lok by association reminds me of how much the writers of these shows just... cannot write a good romance.

[sysig]

VUX versions! (Patreon)

[autisticlancemcclain]

wip wednesday 7 <33

hello everyone! welcome to wip wednesday! choose a fic from the poll and i shall update it.

fics for your reference:

space whale au: 1

orphan au: 1 2

childhood friends au: 1 2 3

MIA lance au: 1

blade lance au: 1 2 3

the loneliest series: 1 2 3 4

the applebees universe: 1 2

selkie fic: 1