#CRITIC

[officerbiscuit]

"But tonight, may I simply hold you? I want nothing more. Just let me comfort you, for once" 💙💚 THIS took longer then expected but I had to join everyone's lovely rendition of this moment because it just hit the mark SO WELL ❤️

[artist-issues]

Disney doesn't need to change "the formula." That's the last thing that Wish proves.

What Wish proves is that "the formula" only works when you know why the ingredients are in it, and you use them the correct way.

The Princess Character is meant to wish for only half of the movie's message, and go through an adventure that teaches her what the other half is; what her dream was missing. Ariel dreamed of understanding but she was missing love. Tiana dreamed of achieving her goals but she was missing faith. Jasmine dreamed of freedom but she was missing trust. Belle dreamed of adventure but she was missing being understood.

The Villain is meant to highlight the opposite of the movie's message. Jafar gets what he wants through trickery and manipulation; that's the opposite of Aladdin's "truth will set you free" message, and he gets imprisoned in a lamp. Scar thinks being a King is having his way all the time and can't learn from his past of living in Mufasa's shadow; that's the opposite of The Lion King's "Let the past remind you of your responsibility to selflessness." Gaston loves only himself and is always obsessed with appearances; that's the opposite of Beauty & the Beast's "true love is found within a heart of self-sacrifice." That's what makes them such good villains. (and that clear direction is what drives good villain songs, since Magnifico's is what everyone is talking about)

The sidekick is supposed to compare/contrast with the main character's qualities. Abu is a greedy thief, which is what everyone in Agrabah thinks Aladdin is; when he scolds Abu and teaches him selflessness, it shows us who Aladdin actually is. Flounder is easily frightened and looks at the glass half-full; when Ariel coaxes him and leads by example, we see her bravery and positivity reflected in Flounder's tiny character arc. Timon & Pumbaa do whatever they want all day just like young Simba always dreamed of; when Simba goes to live with them, he finds that "getting his way all the time" makes him forget who he really is and feel empty.

The setting is supposed to show off the characters and highlight the movie's message. Rapunzel's tower is designed to be pretty on the inside because of her influence; if it were too dark and prison-shaped, we'd wonder why she didn't work up the courage to leave sooner. Just like how Quasimodo has made his corner of the bell-tower beautiful, too; they're taught the world is cruel and they're not strong enough for it, but they make their own worlds beautiful enough to hint that that's wrong right from the start. Ariel's grotto is shaped like a tower with no roof so that she only has one window to the forbidden Surface, and it's the light that comes from that forbidden world into her dark grotto which literally makes her able to see human things differently. Tiana's apartment has no interesting features except her father's picture, a perfectly made bed, a drawer with no extra outfits but stuffed with tip money, and only two dresses; both of which are for work.

None of that is happening in Wish, because they didn't know why the formula ingredients are there. Disney needs to understand and return to the formula the right way; forgetting it was what got them here.

Asha learns nothing to add to her dream, unless you count "the power to grant wishes is in me." Which you shouldn't, because we didn't even know she was confused about that until the animals sang a song that was completely off-topic and she had the chance to jump in and sing "I'm a Star!"

Magnifico does not demonstrate the opposite of Wish's message effectively because his character has nothing to do with a philosophy against making wishes, and everything to do with power. (He is the strongest character in the film. But because the message and core concept of what wishes are are so bad, that's not saying much.)

Valentino, and Asha's friends, do not highlight anything about her character through compare/contrast. Valentino is brave and all over the place. Her friends are seven-dwarfs parodies. Happy, Doc, Sneezy, Dopey, Bashful, Sleepy, Grumpy. None of that contrasts with Asha's vague characterization of "cares too much." None of it compares to that characterization, either.

The setting is empty. There are no interesting details that teach you something about any of the characters. None in Asha's home, none in the neat-and-tidy one-dimensional forest, none in the Rosas square, and none in the bland, empty castle. Magnifico's study is the closest anything gets; there's a loose concept that all of Asha's friends have to work together to open the roof, and take a leap of faith to weigh the pulley system down. Unfortunately, none of these characters is shown struggling to work together, OR to take leaps of faith, at all, before this point.

The ingredients of the formula are in Wish. They're just not being used correctly. This is how not to use the formula; it's not the formulas fault. If it ain't broke. They should never have let people convince them to try and fix it.

[glitchphotography]

"The Art Critic is Game": (Deluxe Paint IV, 2024) [ cw: flashing ]

[wronghands1]

[azulapunchedozai]

People need to realize that there is a difference between liking a character as a character and liking a character as a person.

I like Azula as character. Does that mean that I like and support whatever she does? No. Azula is an antagonist in ATLA and is the face of manipulation herself. She's violent, cruel and would eliminate everyone who gets on her way. Almost everything she does goes against every moral stands I have. I don't like what she does because she is a horrible person.

BUT..

I like her as a character. I like how she is written. I like how she was portrayed as a villain. She is portrayed as this perfect, precise and smart villain but what I loved the most is how the writers still managed to show that no matter how intelligent and powerful she is, she is still a human. She has a human weakness that became the very catalyst of her sanity that lead to her downfall.

I like her as a character BUT I don't like her as a person. Azula is a good/well-written character but she is a horrible person.

There is a difference between a likeable character and a well-written character. A character's likeability doesn't define how well or bad they are written. A character could be be horrible as a person but still well-written and a likeable character can be poorly written.

An example of this is how M𝚊rinette Dupain-Cheng's character from the earlier seasons (particularly Season 1-3) of Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug and Cat Noir was handled. She's one of the good guys alright. She saves people with her alter ego, she stands up against bullies, and she genuinely cares for her friends. How did I say she was poorly written you ask?

Image 1 Context: M𝚊rinette has Adrien's personal daily schedule for the next three years

Image 2 Context: M𝚊rinette stole Adrien's phone to delete an embarrassing voicemail.

Image 3 Context: M𝚊rinette snuck into Adrien's bedroom as Ladybug to give him her gift.

Flaws are what makes good characters interesting and relatable. They can make mistakes and be selfish at times because they are supposed to be human. I mean human in a sense of being imperfect.

But these flaws and mistakes are supposed to be addressed. No part in any of the episodes these scenes addresses M𝚊rinette's actions and views them as mistakes and flaws. If anything, she's being rewarded with her horrible actions instead of suffering from consequences just like how she was never busted from sneaking into Adrien's bedroom and instead got her gift cherished by him.

That being said, these criticisms of her character are only based on how she was written in seasons 1-3. I am no longer watching this show and I don't know how her character is being handled in the later seasons.

What I am trying to point out with the Marienette example is that likeable/good characters can be poorly written.

Also, the amount of a characters' suffering and their good/bad actions doesn't define how well they are written. How well a character is written depends on how thay are handled, the execution of the concepts tied with the character and how their simplicity or complexity is handled.

The same way happy endings doesn't automatically mean well-written endings and how sad endings doesn't automatically mean bad endings.

PS: You don't have to support everything a character does all the time just because they're your favourite

[yourdailyqueer]

Rashida Renée

Gender: Transgender woman

Sexuality: Queer

DOB: N/A

Ethnicity: African American

Occupation: Journalist, fashion critic, blogger

[thepersonalwords]

I am not stopping till my enemies become my friends.

Amit Kalantri

[mademoiselle-cookie]

Moriarty the Patriot Vol. 9

"En troupeau"

(translation: "in a flock")

It's only in the french version, not the english one. I don't know japanese so I don't know if it's the original intention to use words this negative and insulting toward women. The issue is, even if it's just the french translators who did a massive mistake, I had no problem believing that was just the author casually insulting women (my money on the english translators softening the term. Also the eng ver I read was fanmade).

Maybe in another manga, I wouldn't have minded. Like if the character is supposed to be a misogynist and you're supposed to think bad of them for that and not agreeing with them. But Albert is not supposed to be a sexist asshole. And given the manga's striking record in its depiction of women, I don't feel lenient.

And that's just the beginning.

(first picture of the guests)

♫ Où sont les hommes ? ♫

No reason why there shouldn't be men at the tea party. Or at least why women shouldn't be accompanied by chaperones. Etiquette was very important back then, and you wouldn't leave a woman alone with a man. The Moriartys are ONLY men to the rest of the world. No one would leave them with women alone.

Good Manners

Noble women have all received an education in good manners. They are more subject to the severity of etiquette than men. There is very little chance of seeing them throw themselves at men by elbowing each other and calling each other "primbêche" (again, only in the french version. In the eng one, it's just "these girls...")

Especially if the person in front of them is of a different rank than hers. The hierarchy is very important within the nobility and determines who you can talk to, how, who to be friends with, who to marry…

Sure, I know bc I've read hundreds of romance novels about English aristocracy but the author prides themself on depicting the real England of that period and doesn't even know that? Any webtoon whose story takes place in an aristocratic environment knows that, even when it's not the same universe as ours.

So no, aristocratic women don't behave like groupies (and of course the Moriartys have groupies, what did I expect)

It's basic for an author to do research. How many authors have you seen joke that they'd be mistaken for serial killers if you looked at their history? Do you know how long I searched for descriptions of the pain of tattoos for a fiction I'll never write?

It's crazy to put so little effort into a story that claims to be ambitious.

Servants

Nobles are raised from birth to view commoners - including servants - as inferior. Often, servants are more of a piece of scenery than actual human beings. It’s not meanness, it’s just their upbringing.

Of course, that’s the theory. There are exceptions. But that’s what they are, exceptions. Which are generally kept to oneself, and not shown publicly. Noble women won’t openly swoon over the Moriarty’s servants.

And if they ever got hurt doing something stupid, they would be more upset about their injury than about the lost work of a servant. That's what happens when people are used to having everything served on a plate since birth.

(And in this situation, the servant would indeed have been at fault. In a party with many people, an element that can easily hurt was accidentally thrown by the hip thrust of a not very thick woman? Thank goodness there was no one behind.

The protagonists obviously think that these women are wild and stupid. Why didn't they babyproof the entire property? Especially the rose garden, which is a place they know will be very busy.)

Flirting

Obviously, the woman who dares to flirt with William in an aggressive and vulgar way is fat and ugly. All the others are pretty and thin, except her. She can't be a pretty femme fatale who is used to having men at her feet and thinks that William will be the same. She must be an idiot who has the audacity to think that William will be attracted to her, whose inner ugliness is reflected on the outside. It's not stupidly fatphobic at all.

Popularity

Why are the Moriartys so popular? They are handsome but in the eyes of the general public, that's about it. They are not the only men who are attractive and have good status/wealth. In any case, their beauty is the only criteria cited to justify the obsession they are the object of (and it is NOT the most important criteria for noble society). Nothing justifies the groupie behavior of apparently all the noble ladies . They are not k-pop stars. Will is just a mathematician, not even the heir, and he is the one who receives the most attention?

There is no accounting for likes - and dislikes. If people think Jayden Revri is average-looking, I can assure you that there are women who don't swoon over the Moriartys.

The art isn't bad, but it's not good enough to rave about the characters that much. So all these compliments ring hollow. Just like in R&C

The chapter is just: look how beautiful and popular the main characters are.

(I won't talk about these ladies swooning over a math class)

Secret

William was showing off by saying that he put protection systems in his office to protect their secret. But apparently, he didn't think of a very basic one.

Locking the door.

The girls who entered his office don't seem very bright like all the women in this manga, so I highly doubt that they picked the lock (and even less broke down the door). And if these very young, naive girls managed to do it, they need to put better locks. It should be easy with a genius like Von Herder.

Speaking of him, why is the secret meeting room in the basement so poorly hidden? How did the dog (who is just a dog with the intelligence of a dog, not a spy looking for the Moriartys' secrets) get so far? Its owner too? Is the entrance to the basement so poorly guarded?

There is once again a simple solution.

A door. Locked. Hidden by a curtain or a screen. Or even the same appearance as the wall. How did they not get caught before with such miserable discretion measures? (Well, they got caught, because William and his brother are too stupid to wear a mask)

Sure, there is the wine cellar right next door. Well, they might as well not put the secret room just next to it, especially if it has no protection against intruders. Otherwise, they could have put away everything that could be compromising. And I maintain, at least a door should be put in the basement entrance.

"King's scholars"

Of course the brothers got nicknames at school because they're so cool and smart. It would have been stupid to be discreet. Especially since one was known for being stupid. And another wasn't a noble at all to begin with (he didn't get bullied for that? Lucky him)

???

How does he know it's for William specifically? They don't know they've been exposed and Milverton officially has no interest in William.

Explanations please!

Sherlock

And one booger for Sherlock, one!

Court case

I have nothing to say in particular about the trial, I don't know enough about law or how it was done at the time. For MTP standards, it's pretty good since we're shown the reasoning and it more or less holds up. Nothing transcendent (I'm pretty sure no judge will side with a street kid demanding blood, over a nobleman) but of a quality expected for this manga. The problem is elsewhere.

It's William again.

There is almost no difference between adult Will and child Will. He has the same mentality, the same habits, the same level of intelligence, the same impressive culture compared to his peers. Even considering that he lived in a bookstore and is a genius, it becomes hard to believe when he can speak and manipulate so well at such a young age and has such a vast culture. William has been perfect and superior since childhood. His adoption into the nobility, his aristocratic education and the years passed have made no difference. He is essentially the same.

(this is a problem his brother shares, being exactly the same as his adult version while he is far from having received the education necessary for it to be credible. But he is very secondary and does not have the ridiculously intelligent side)

And all this would not have been a problem if he had FLAWS. Flaws are important elements for a character, it makes them endearing and above all credible.

Look at Edwin from Dead Boy Detectives. He is very intelligent, has an impressive memory and a gigantic library of knowledge (and extremely kind despite a tragic past and strangely neither racist nor sexist despite the context in which he was raised). But if he is my babygirl, it is because he is a fucking diva (also, the other characters can shine independently of him).

William has no flaw nor weakness, no prospect of evolution, nothing. He's boring.

"The most famous trial in the world"

The newspaper tycoon only learned about this story while investigating William. Even Bond didn't know about it. So not very famous, no.

(to be fair, in french, it's just "of the century". Doesn't work either)

Cruelty

It's ridiculous how much they try to portray young William as cool when he should just be crazy. He's a kid who's 100% ready to cut up another person. The MC are only the villains they're supposed to be when it's cool and edgy, otherwise they're classic good Samaritans. When those two notions are opposite.

Higher Intelligence

You discovered his identity because he didn't think to hide himself when leaving a crime scene. Stop saying William is smart.

I repeat myself but by dint of repeating that the MC are exceptional, it has no weight anymore (especially if it is not compensated by their flaws).

Lord of Crime

Glad to see non-noble people being skeptical about the Lord of Crime but it makes no sense that he is already so famous and popular. When we see the main characters act, it is usually very discreetly, like with Jack the Ripper, or Irene. So how did he becomes so famous? The general public has no proof that he actually exists, it is just a rumor, but everyone treats him like a real person.

Bendley

A person who lacks finesse and is not very subtle. I wonder if he is sincere because it is so exaggerated but that is a question that the manga asks itself so not so much a criticism. And he is clearly treated with respect - more respect than Sherlock.

Reputation

It is sad that Milverton is supposed to be a very bad guy and not subtle (not a flaw tho), but given the situation in the US, and even in France, I can't honestly say that he is unrealistic.

In conclusion, this image I found which sums up William and his gang very well

[luwe21]

Monsters: The Story of Lyle and Erik Menendez Story

The show was chaotic. Not shade the actors involved, of course, but it was a charade of what really happened.

After the brothers killed their parents, they went on a spending spree, it was true, and they were seen at a basketball game. In a way, this card is proof of what the brothers were capable of. They brutally killed their parents and then sat at a game completely relaxed and unexcited.

The portrayal of the two brothers was a grotesque caricature of their real-life counterparts. In particular, Lyle was portrayed as the typical toxic male stereotype of the spoiled rich boy and Erik as the typical weak, soft gay stereotype. None of this is true. It is sad that we still need the stereotypes to portray men. And the incest was unnecessary. What Lyle did to Erik on the show was a behavioral problem, not incest. Young children explore their own bodies and those of others, so-called "doctor" play. But normal play should never involve penetration. This is the problematic and borderline behavior of young children who may have been molested, raped or abused by their caregivers and should always be evaluated or treated by professionals. The choice of actors was also very deliberate. Of course, they couldn't be ordinary people, they had to be male models. As with Dahmers Story, fans are attracted to the actors and forget that this are real life crimes.

Erik gives a good and thoughtful answer to the chaos of a show. "Why is truth not enough?" The truth is already a spectacle. Two young men kill their rich and famous parents for unknown reasons. Then they spent a lot of money and "celebrated" until they were caught and sent to prison.

Violence is never the answer. But isn't that also true for their parents? Were they left with no choice but to kill their parents? Sadly, it seems that even today, there is often no chance of justice for victims of the rich and powerful. Some celebrities are even victims and have not gotten justice either.

This needs to be corrected. Man beings can be victims and can be oppressed. This is a fundamental truth that is not yet represented in some legal systems. Rape doesn't have to involve penetration to be rape.

I am appalled by Pam Bozanich's statements and her still hardened stance on the crime. She believes to this day that the brother's fabricated the abuse and molestation to avoid the death penalty and that it is still "just for money".

All I know from my love of true crime is that nobody would kill their parents like that just for money.

Nobody would disfigure their parents with multiple gunshots if it wasn't deeply personal.

And I also know that juries are reluctant and too "proud" to retry a case.

The case is complicated and involves a lot of factors that can't be proven 100% and is based on personal statements rather than concrete evidence.

The show hasn't helped at all. Except make Ryan Murphy and Netflix richer and spread misinformation. Maybe it helps a little to shine a light on the brothers, but not much.

[picsfortheday]

[deafening-enthusiastic-dreamer]

Family By Choice

She is so adorable and talented, I have seen her in so many dramas lately, she is doing a great job.

Father- Daughter duo I didn't think I needed, but love anyway.

Feeling a chaotic vibe- Just how I want it to be... I am genuinely excited for this.

Going to be a fun ride!

[nesiacha]

I already talk about horrible movie about the frev. Today I will make a critic about the bad points about a good movie with a very good historical accuracy that I really like but it’s also important to criticize good historical films even if we liked them as a whole (I must say that I liked them personally and I continue to do so) . Firstly, even if it may not have been the intention, because it was not the theme of the show as the writers had planned several themes with the people, including the Night of Varennes, I didn't like that the politicians were seen prominently while the people were too much in the background (minor criticism because the show was discontinued after the success of 'La Terreur et la Vertu,' so maybe they intended to do it later).

Next, the women of the French Revolution are too sidelined, and Lucile Desmoulins is portrayed more as simply worried for Camille Desmoulins without showing Lucile's political side, which accentuates the sexism. Camille Desmoulins is depicted as more naive than he actually was, in my opinion, perhaps to absolve or infantilize him, I don't know.

I would have liked it if we briefly mentioned the retaking of Lyon by Couthon, even just in passing. We have 4 representatives of the indulgent faction (Fabre d'Eglantine, Danton, Camille Desmoulins, and Philppeaux) compared to only 2 on the Hebertist side (Hébert and Chaumette). We only mention Vincent, Ronsin, and Momoro briefly, but I would have liked them to have the same amount of screen time. We should also see their trials and the fact that they were going to the guillotine instead of that, the topic is quickly dismissed.

Moreover, although Castelot and Decaux had a very good debate that I invite everyone to watch, there's something that bothers me. It is said that the CSP (Committee of Public Safety) is at fault for parodying justice against the indulgent, but as usual, we forget the parody done to the Hebertists and also forget that done to the Enragés like Jacques Roux when the CSP, the CSG (Committee of General Security), and the Convention relentlessly attacked him illegally to the point where he committed suicide. Double standard once again, and the parody of justice is justified a bit too much for my taste (which also executed many innocents like Lucile Desmoulins, Marie Françoise Goupil, even Chaumette who had, however, refused the insurrection of Hébert, Gobel, etc)...

Then to say that Barère is acting in good faith from Decaux's point of view? No seriously, I don't buy Barère's whitewashing, he's generally a weathervane (the only time the show mentions it from this side is when Danton says that Barère is for the tipping scale).

Another point is that I found Robespierre a bit too naive at times. In real life, he knows that deep down Danton is a dubious character, but he thinks that the Hebertist wave is more dangerous. It's a political calculation until he realizes that he underestimated the indulgent movement and will opt for a middle policy. There he is almost surprised by some of Danton's movements.

Finally, the end of 'La Terreur et la Vertu' is not bad and very emotionnal; there is an explanation that Saint Just did not move during the insurrection. But personally, I think that our five deputies certainly had scruples regarding the legality of the Convention, as has been said repeatedly, but they mainly hesitated because of it. If they were 100% against not moving against the Convention due to legality, they would have said so. My theory is that they felt exhausted and confused because 17 out of 49 sections had risen, which was a significant number but not enough to justify an uprising, not to mention they were at least somewhat legalistic.

Finally, I would have liked an explanation of why Hanriot was so loyal to Robespierre (we know this if we research the character a little, but a line or two of mention wouldn't have cost much), but I'm glad he wasn't demonized. Far from me the idea of wanting to put this excellent film on trial, but as I said earlier, it is also necessary to see the negative aspects of this film to have a better improvement of the content (although today it regresses even more).

I would have liked it if we also briefly saw Tinville refuse to prosecute Fleuriot Lescot; it would have added a little more humanity to his character (although I don't like Tinville at all, I find that he is always too caricatured to be believable. Fortunately, the TV movie shows his "human" side, but not enough).

The only problem is that I have the impression that they are telling the false message that the execution of Robespierre and his colleagues marks the end of the social revolution when in reality the coup de grace was not done for me. that with the execution of Romme and his friends (the episode of the execution of the Hébertists, Cordeliers, indulgents and of Robespierre and his colleagues was above all only a continuation of weakening between 'internal struggle') and the end of the frev was only after Bonaparte coup d'etat . After seeing that the show was suddenly stopped, perhaps the writers intended to rectify it.

A small gratuitous jab nonetheless from a line in a TV movie: Barras: You will take Robespierre and Saint Just.

Me: Wow, and does Couthon count for nothing, I guess? The poor has just been royally ignored."

[viejospellejos]

Su padre es el crítico de cocina de Ratatouille

[criticcritiquing]

@prada

[selh0ve]

How I feel after purchasing a pack and realizing we can only pick one color for the outfit: