#Christian movie website

[somerandomjewelleryonthefloor]

if you guys know these 2 movies

PLS MOOT ME OR REBLOG THIS

I NEEDA KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE HAD THE SAME CHILDHOOD AS ME

[jennilah]

Same person who recommended the reconciler, it's alright, it makes me giggle, especially with how stupid it is and in one scene it doesn't make much sense , but it's funny and I believe it's biblical movie genre should be comedy.

i did a very quick google and it does sound like it could be a silly time, esp for my stoned ass

something about really corny christian remakes of stuff is really funny to me. its like Kidz Bop

[friendofozma]

I somehow found a christian movie review website and Oh My God this “content warning” for Dolphin Tale is one of the funniest things I’ve ever read

Tag yourself I’m “two ‘Oh gosh’ exclamations”

[Alt Text:

Content:

(C, BB, Pa, FR, L, V, N, M) Light Christian, pro-created life, morally uplifting worldview which is also pro-stewardship of the environment marred by a re-telling of the Chumash Indian pagan story that dolphins are human beings turned into dolphins by a goddess when they fell off the rainbow bridge to paradise and the little girl Hazel prays to her mother instead of God, but a medical doctor talks about the excellence of God’s creation compared to what he can do with prosthetics; two very light obscenities and two ��Oh gosh” exclamations; threats of violence, pelican attacks people several times, dolphin gets caught in fisherman’s trap and has bleeding wounds, man goes off to Middle East war and comes back very wounded, several shots of wounded soldiers in veteran’s hospital, several shots of disabled children and adults, powerful hurricane almost destroys marine life hospital in Florida; no sex; men and women in bathing suits; no alcohol; no smoking; and, boy skips school to take care of dolphin and doesn’t tell his mother for a week and boy sneaks into marine animal rescue hospital, but he is rebuked.

End alt text]

[lichen-punk]

cant help but kinda feel like the majority of folk horror serves to further christian (and christian atheist) cultural hegemony by consistently coopting and vilifying nonchristian traditional beliefs but then again i dont watch horror movies so ig im unqualified to make that point

[somerandomjewelleryonthefloor]

NOT THE VALKA ONE-

Just got the AI Barbie poster maker

[bogleech]

CAPALERT was a Christian website that used to analyze movies and list out every single "offense" kind of like the bible-thumper version of doesthedogdie but there's one movie I had no idea they ever covered

[batwynn]

Fondly remembering that time in the early 2000s when my mother and I stumbled on a (illegal) Christian Movie website that edited out anything ‘not Christian’ out of all your faves by cutting out entire scenes and bleeping curse words, and that special moment when we saw ‘H*llboy’s’ runtime being under 20 minutes and absolutely lost it.

[devoutvesta]

A Deep Dive Into Disney’s Most Underperforming Princess

Princess Aurora can’t even be described as controversial. To most, she’s simply boring, too passive, and a continuation of the bland cycle of white princesses who wait around for magic or a prince to save them. Although no one hates her, they find her irritating at the worst, uninteresting at best. In the fifties, they must have thought the same thing. Sleeping Beauty was a commercial failure, and led to company wide annual loss. Sleeping Beauty had followed several other financial flops, such as Bambi and Alice in Wonderland, the latter costing Disney around half a million dollars. Due to her lack of popularity, Aurora may be one of the most neglected Princesses. Many cling to her out of nostalgia, or because she has a nice design, and they find it hard to defend their love for the movie. But the movie’s turbulent history and the amount of detail that went into Aurora herself is what really makes her so incredibly fascinating.

Starting with her design, Disney hired Marc Davis as the supervising animator for Aurora. He also animated Maleficent. The intention was for them to be realistic enough to be placed against the heavily detailed backgrounds of the movie. Davis had embraced this artistic direction, while many of the animators found it, and especially Aurora, laborious and tiring to work on. Both Maleficent and Aurora had to be refined and dynamic. Davis was Disney’s go-to animator for ‘pretty girls’, examples being Tinkerbell and Alice. His knowledge of anatomy and the human body brought both Aurora and Cinderella to life, two of Disney’s most visually iconic characters. Davis had also incorporated Art Nouveau and Art Deco into Aurora’s design, while the tapestry-like art style of the movie was chosen by Eyvind Earle, who was inspired by pre-Renaissance European art. The score and songs were based on Tchaikovsky’s ballet.

Aurora alone required more effort and attention to detail than any princess before her. It took Walt Disney and his team three years to choose a voice actress. They nearly scrapped the project until they discovered Mary Costa, but Disney himself avoided interacting with her in person early on in the project, fearing that she’d influence his vision of the movie.

Aurora was loosely based on her voice actress. Her appearance and her habits (such as gesturing when speaking and singing) were both incorporated into Aurora’s animation. She was also drawn to resemble both her live action model, the same one as Cinderella’s, Helene Stanley, and actress Audrey Hepburn. Davis took inspiration from Audrey Hepburn’s slender physique and elegant demeanour.

In the book Multiculturalism and the Mouse: Race and Sex in Disney Entertainment, author Douglas Brode referred to Aurora as “a model of modern (50’s) female glamour” and compared her to Brigitte Bardot. He also compared her gown to the work of Christian Dior.

As a character, she was described by Nerve as being “the apex of women who made no choices for themselves.” Aurora is a member of the “Golden Era” of Disney heroines, the original Princess trifecta. Her dreams are the same as those before her. But it’s possible that Aurora’s dreams of true love derived from the need for companionship outside of her three fairy godmothers.

On their website, Disney describes her as, “graceful and kind. She knows that a wonderful future awaits, if you just have the courage to dream it. Aurora enjoys using her imagination and sharing stories with her forest friends. She is also loyal in her relationships -- to her animal friends, her fairies, and her kingdom. Aurora believes in a wish and remains hopeful that she will find the adventure she is looking for.”

Walt Disney himself described Aurora as being “a very layered character/different. She’s calm, yet playful. She has a sense of humour, and she has an imagination.” We can not argue that she was considered layered through the lens of the fifties, because many critics disliked all three of the original princesses for their passive personality, or lack thereof. But from the perspective of the team working on the show, they saw much more to her.

This was the film that Walt Disney worked his hardest on, it took ten years to complete. It was also the very last Princess film he was involved in. Her ‘layers’ were very much intentional. Disney tried to do the same thing with Cinderella.

With Cinderella, they attempted to make her less passive than Snow White, and they showed this through her rebelling against her abusive stepfamily. Maurice Rapf said, "My thinking was you can't have somebody who comes in and changes everything for you. It can't be delivered for you on a platter. You've got to earn it. So in my version, the Fairy Godmother said, 'It's okay till midnight but from then on it's up to you.' I made her earn it, and what she had to do to achieve it was to rebel against her stepmother and stepsisters, to stop being a slave in her own home. So I had a scene where they're ordering her around and she throws the stuff back at them. She revolts, so they lock her up in the attic. I don't think anyone took (my idea) very seriously."

The toned down version of Cinderella, although rebellious in her own way, is still toned down. That part of her character was written out. In comparison to what she would have been, she is passive. Aurora and Cinderella are both less passive than their predecessors, but passive nonetheless. All three of them are the staple damsels in distress.

However, Mary Costa described Aurora as “very strong”, citing her urge to defy her guardians as a display of independence and an example of her strength. Aurora was raised by three women, and had never met a man in her life. Costa believed that because of this, she was ‘innately romantic’ as opposed to lonely or depressed with her sheltered life. To quote, “there was a certain part of her that maybe she didn’t realise, that was just so romantic and maybe expecting something that–she didn’t even know what.”

She believed that her being raised by three older women rather than her parents made her “a little bit older, and yet, she…had this young, outreaching spirit.” Author Douglas Brode points out that the fairies’ independent raising of Aurora mirrors “precisely that sort of women’s commune numerous feminists experimented with throughout the seventies.” Aurora living in an isolated, female-only space, with female authority, is reminiscent of the bold and liberating radical feminist movement. In her own way, as a peasant, she was independent. And that independence and autonomy was taken from her upon discovering that she was royalty and betrothed to a prince. She was leaving her home and the presumed man of her dreams behind, and not of her own free will.

Aurora had enjoyed her simple life, it had fulfilled her, even if she desired more. She had dreams of finding romantic love, which she talks about in the movie’s song ‘I Wonder’. Additionally, her close relationship with animals demonstrates her loving and kind personality. She has a whimsical imagination, and it’s scenes like the ones from Disney’s Enchanted Tales series and ‘Once Upon a Dream’, that would support Costa’s claim of her being a romantic. Where she’s changing in and out of pretty gowns with a magical wand, and giggling to herself. Or dancing happily with the forest animals, thinking about her imaginary prince. In ‘Keys to the Kingdom’, she proudly sings about wishing to make decisions with her heart.

Her independence is demonstrated on multiple occasions in Disney’s discontinued Enchanted Tales: Follow Your Dreams. Aurora graciously accepts responsibility of her kingdom while both her and Philip’s parents travel away for a business trip. All on her own, she is determined to get all of her Princess duties finished on time, the hard way. She refuses to take the easy way out, time and time again, even when she doubts herself. She works harder than even her father, who would take the easy way out by signing royal documents without reading them. Even when Meriwether gives her a magic wand to help her out, she reads and fills out every royal form diligently, and helps out all of her subjects. She manages to complete her tasks on time and throw a banquet for her family and Philip by the time they return. The lesson here is to ‘stick to it’ and to ‘persevere’. But her insistence on doing everything on her own is shown once again in A Kingdom of Kindness, where she must plan a surprise party for Philip. The three fairies attempt to help her, but she continues to tell them that she wants to do it on her own. This series was cancelled, and it is difficult to find any clips of it online. But this short-series gives us some insight into Aurora’s character.

She is assumed to be the protagonist by most, but many consider the three fairies to be the protagonists. They help move the story along, they protect Aurora, and they have distinct, in-your-face personalities. Many consider Aurora authentic, or the title character, but whether she is the protagonist or not has never been agreed upon. Her lack of role in the story has been criticized by many. But some take it as an allegory for the lack of control

The most lengthy debate surrounding Aurora has to do with how feminist her character is. She may have been an improvement from the previous princesses, but she is not regarded as a particularly feminist character.

The three original princesses, all being pale-skinned European princesses with a naive and endlessly forgiving (an unrealistic standard), sends a message to their viewers that this is what princesses should look like, how they should behave. All three classic princesses are deeply intertwined with Disney’s long history of racism and bigotry. In an attempt to amend this, Disney has released back to back live action remakes of their movies, all receiving mixed reviews. Maleficent was Sleeping Beauty’s remake, focused on a maternal relationship between Maleficent and Aurora. Many people interpreted the scene where Maleficent’s wings get cut off in her sleep as sexual assault. This inclusion made many survivors of sexual assault feel represented by the character.

From my perspective, the original Sleeping Beauty is technically a movie centred around women. A teenage girl lives with her three surrogate mothers, who end up saving her in the end from the female antagonist. Although Prince Philip’s role in the story is still a large part of what moves the plot along. It is Philip who is captured, as Maleficent knew that he would go looking for her. He courted Aurora, defeated Maleficent with the help of the three fairies, and kissed the princess awake. But he still doesn’t get as large of a role, or nearly as much screen time, as the three fairies.

In short, both the movie and the princess fascinate me. And although there is depth if you squint, a character does not need to be fleshed out to be lovable, or at least endearing. Aurora is my favourite Disney Princess, and I find the history behind her and the film to be more interesting than what meets the eye.

[quiet-admirer]

Sorry but I just don't really want to live my life based on what is appropriate for children it what is inoffensive to every prude and puritan. I am a grown adult and I would like to be able to enjoy porn and other media that focuses on sex. I want to see high-quality art porn in a movie theater and see a nipple or penis even on a website and buy a large-scale video game where fucking doesn't fade to black and genitals aren't censored. I want to be able to see bodies and intimacy and to just have the real words for swears and sex- and body-related words without constant euphemisms or bleeping. Why do I have to live my life according to the lowest common denominator of what is considered "offensive" or lewd at all times? Why can't I as an adult even opt into seeing adult topics?? I don't want these decisions to be made for me by lobbyists, Christians, politicians, and corporations and I'm so sick of it!

[theconstitutionisgayculture]

Man, I like Daily Wire in concept but Matt Walsh needs to shut the fuck up about video games. The same guy who tried to resurrect the tired old "violent video games are harmful!" crap is now acting like he's the first person to notice that video games are pushing woke nonsense (even though there are about a hundred channels and outlets that have been talking about this for years) but his solution is to, of course, for the right to stop playing video games.

No. Just, no.

This is the same "bury our head in the sand and pretend pop culture doesn't exist" mindset that got us into this situation in the first place. You can't win a war (and there is a culture war going on, no matter how many people on both sides want to pretend otherwise) by retreating from every battlefield. You win by raising awareness of a problem and then offering a real solution.

And it's especially stupid seeing this cultural retreat mindset from someone working for DW because DW actually knows exactly how to fight this battle. They created their own media company to fight against woke Hollywood. Are all their movies and shows good? No, not at all. But they still did the right thing. They put their money where their mouth is, and created an alternative.

A much better example is Angel Studios, which is probably the only Christian movie studio I've ever seen that puts out top quality content with great acting, writing, and production values. They're raking in money and getting their content onto mainstream streaming services as well as theaters. In other words, they're taking their message to the people who need it the most. The ones who aren't already in the echo chamber. Unlike Daily Wire, which only offers its content on its own website through a subscription service to its own audience, and never advertises anywhere.

Another successful example outside of movies is Eric July's Rippaverse. He's been killing it with his comics, with every single one of his campaigns raking in over a million dollars, every cent of which is reinvested back into his business, helping it grow, creating more content, and expanding his already impressive roster of writers and artists. Mainstream writers and artists, by the way. Like Chuck Dixon, the guy who co-created Bane and wrote the seminal Tim Drake Robin comics, among many other credits, and Mike Baron, who wrote some of the best early Punisher comics. Eric had a following before he started the Rippaverse. He runs a successful YouTube channel and he's a regular contributor to The Blaze. He could have walled himself off with his fanbase, wrote comics about ancaps saving the world from the evils of government, and made some money while pandering to the people who already agreed with him. Instead, he went big. He invested his own money, runs his own distribution center, owns his own business with zero outside investors, hires the best talent he can, and offers a product that focuses on story and characters over messaging. His work isn't even "anti-woke". It's just not woke.

And that's what we need in video games. We need alternatives. We need to roll up our sleeves and wade into the deep waters and actually contribute our ideas and our talents. Offer an alternative. Hire people who know what they're doing, who care about quality content first and social engineering never. There is a huge untapped audience who would pay hand over fist for good video games free from microtransactions and woke nonsense.

But retreating is not an option. It's not brave or moral to hide in our echo chambers and scoff at anything fun. Entertainment is necessary. And maybe more importantly, it's not going anywhere. We will never live in a world where people go to work and spend time with their families at home and do nothing else. We need to engage with the world as it is. Not wait around for whatever our idea of a perfect world is to magically form so we can finally interact with it. You can't change society if you keep pretending large swaths of it don't exist.

[lizardsfromspace]

Okay, this is the conclusion to my posts about Sophia Stewart. I'll never do something like this again

Everything I've posted is from her own book or her web presence btw. That's all I'm drawing from and if anyone tells me any information about her they gained any other way I'll block them immediately so uh, don't

Towards the end she reveals some of her other pitches. By showing she copywrote sequels to the Matrix and Terminator

Lots of strange details here - she wrote The Matrix 4 in 2000? They didn't even start filming The Matrix 2 & 3 until 2001. Also, we can see in this book that her pitch has nothing to do with The Matrix or Terminator, but she claims she wrote direct sequels to both?

(Her explanation for how both very different films are ripping off her work - a 1:1 copy, she claims - is, hilariously, that The Terminator plagiarizes it front to back, while The Matrix plagiarizes it back to front. What?)

But also she didn't write it. She registered copyright on a synopsis for The Matrix 4. She has concepts of a plan for a Matrix 4.

The book ends with a pitch for another...she calls it a book, but it's a movie pitch? And this, too, is just a synopsis for some grand epic series, light on detail of character and plot and heavy with lore and rants (in this case, primarily about God and Adam & Eve). Of course her exhaustively long but barely sketched-out epic movie pitch has a prologue, which is also full of Christian-tinged Ancient Aliens pyramid power woo.

Sophia Stewart is unimportant, bc she represents a class of writer. Writers who have Ideas. Who have outlines and plot points but no real story, bc they never write it. But they think just having Really Good Ideas is enough - that you should get credit for coming up with a good idea for a story, regardless of if you make an actual story out of it. They're a "writer", but they never write. Despite this they often have a deep case of Dunning-Kruger, churning out outlines that leave out basic details like "what happens in the climactic battle" and the personalities of characters while insisting that an inability to author anything shouldn't keep you from being praised as a genius author

If that type of person is lucky enough to have money, they become a studio executive or tech guy, both professions awash in the uncreatively creative, or they hire ghostwriters. If they're not, they become the type of person to file spurious lawsuits under the misapprehension they own basic plot concepts. It's the "I coulda made the majors!" of writing, except, you know. Baseball players who didn't make the majors still actually played baseball at some point. I assume from now on all those types will just pump their outline into ChatGPT and try to sell the gunk it slops out and then claim they 'wrote' it so uh, uhhhhhhhhhhhh

The only reason I made these posts was discovering the conspiratorial angle to her work, bc who cares if a major studio has to deal with a spurious lawsuit? That was the part that actually sucks. But also, she does a lot of press: profiles on news websites, podcasts, that documentary was even made by other filmmakers, who actually make films. It's persisted from blogs and chain emails all the way to podcasts and TikToks. All of this uncritically spreads her story, but I also have to ask: how many actual African-American science fiction writers do those platforms profile? How many of them get documentaries made about their work? How much air is being sucked out of the room by the decades long misinformation about the "true" creator of The Matrix? And why is that misinformation so persistent when it takes a trivial amount of effort to find out it just isn't true? It feels good to support the underdog against the big studio, but in this case it just isn't true.

The sad truth is a lot more Hollywood plagiarism cases look like this than are real exposures of wrongdoing, but people tend to accept them at face value since they feel like a little guy taking on a corporation, though in reality it's just two writers suing each other. Take The Holdovers case, where people immediately turned on it, but if you look into it, the two scripts have very little in common, and the accusing writer makes odd claims like a human character in The Holdovers being a ripoff of a billboard in his script.

Or look at Groundhog Day, which was accused of plagiarism by Richard A. Lupoff, writer of the story "12:01 P.M.". The two stories have nothing in common besides a time loop; in Groundhog Day he's reliving a day, in 12:01 PM he's reliving an hour. Groundhog Day is a romcom, 12:01 P.M. plays it for horror. Groundhog Day never reveals the source of its lop but it's clearly fantastical in nature, 12:01 P.M. is explicitly science fiction. In Groundhog Day he escapes the loop, in 12:01 P.M. he never does. You can't deny Lupoff felt personally slighted, but at the end of the day, a world where a writer could own the concept of time loops would be a dystopia where creativity and art would die.

But even though they were wrong, The Holdovers & Groundhog Day cases were based on real works of writing that existed. They were based on a real, if misguided, sense of violation from the writers. But in this case, we have a mere outline of a story with not even basic similarities to the stories she's claiming are a 1:1 copy of her work, and decades of media appearances based on exploiting a community college media student's mistake in 2004. Anyway seems bad

[recycledmoviecostumes]

The GDR was famously chronically strapped for cash. Luckily, that did not hinder the DEFA film company to keep on filming. As may be expected: It shows!

The GDR was famously chronically strapped for cash. Luckily, that did not hinder the DEFA film company to keep on filming. As may be expected, it shows!

Like with this costume, so pared back, one can hardly pinpoint the time period it was supposed to represent. On the other hand, it was very coherently reused: It (presumably) first appeared on Martina Wilka and Lilly Palmer playing young and older Charlotte Kestner, respectively, in 1974’s Lotte in Weimar – who, Thomas Mann argued, was fellow scribe Goethe’s inspiration for his Werther’s Lotte.

So, Lotte got to wear the costume in 1976’s The Sorrows of Young Werther – where Katharina Thalbach played her. Both films were directed by Egon Günther and costumed by Christiane Dorst, who worked on a large portion of 1970 to Mid-1990s 19th century set German movies.

Costume Credit: carsNcors

Follow: Website | Twitter | Facebook | Pinterest | Instagram

[banana-pancake5]

Meet the artist!

Hi, my name, here on tumblr, is Moo or M3B! If you would like to know more about myself than hop on under the cut; I’ve stored a couple of facts down there :D

I am a Christian writer and artist, and I’m attempting animation as well! I have lots of shows that I’m very into, but the main ones are TMNT, Snow White with the Red Hair, Project 863, and Gravity Falls (other shows/movies include Haikyu!!, ATLA, Moonknight, Marvel, Studio Ghibli, Steven Universe, over the garden wall, and many more).

The reason my Sona is wearing a Zebra onesie is because the Zebra is the official symbol for Rare Diseases. I have Mitochondrial Disease (I refer to it as Mito), which has effected my life in many ways, though now I’m practically fine which is a wonderful blessing from God, I absolutely love talking about it and will gladly share some of my experiences with anyone who wants to hear! The safety pins on the Onesie are also there because of my experience with Mito, though it’s kind of a long story so I won’t write it all out here. ^-^

I love reading people’s rambles, so if you ever would like to talk about a show, movie, or literally anything, regardless if I’ve heard of it, I’d love to hear in an ask! My asks are also open if you just wanna stop by and say Hi :D

Some fun facts:

- I have three cats, Loki, Sylvie, and Suki <3

- I am 5’ exactly >:D

- my favorite bands are Madilyn Mei and Twenty One Pilots

- besides drawing and writing I also love to cook, bake, and crochet

- I am an ENTP

- I love learning about Psychology :D

- I use all caps and emoticons quite often

- I’m always open to drawing and writing requests, HOWEVER! there’s no promises that I’ll be able to finish it in a decent time frame or at all

———

I would also like to mention some awesome people I’ve met on this website that you should definitely give a follow:

@bowandbrush @ferniforest @exhaustedwriterartist @jadetheblueartist @peoplepersonoaktree @crowsandturtlesandbatsohmy @cookiedoesart64 @allyheart707 (along with all my other mutuals that I don’t have time to tag!!)

[usssnarfblat]

Kay Nielsen's concept art for "the Little Mermaid"

This is not concept art for Ariel's movie.

Kay Nielsen painted these in the 1940s, for a project that wound up being shelved for 40 years. Disney had originally planned to make a collection of shorts based on Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tales, with "the Little Mermaid" being just one segment.

The above website has the full collection, but here are a few of my personal favorites:

[maykitz]

i was reading reviews on a 2004 movie and didnt realise one was on a christian website until it started randomly lamenting the "oversexualized culture" of the 90s/early 2000s, and that was pretty funny to me because i've definitely seen modern day young adults reminiscing about how that time (coincidentally, their childhood) was so much purer and more innocent and how kids could still be kids, unlike now where everything is tainted and sexed up (coincidentally, their adulthood)

[just-antithings]

This is not about antis, exactly, but there's definitely a similar vibe in the sentiments and it annoys me and I want to complain, so.

Apparently there's a program in my country that schools can sign up into that offers free "art experiences" to 8th graders (so about 14-year-olds). Looking at the program's website quickly, it seems to include plays, music concerts, probably art museum tours, I don't know what all. But like, either way, any of the stuff that the program offers is vetted beforehand to make sure it's suitable, and worksheets created for the kids to do before and after the show to try and get them to engage with art and understand what it makes them feel and whatever, and the kids get to rate whatever art thing it was they got to go to, afterwards.

Now, apparently, one of the things this program has arranged tickets for is some theater's current production of a comedic play written in the 19th century by one of the more famous playwrights/authors of my country's history (whose work, incidentally, was in his own time frequently under fire for its immoral and/or otherwise inappropriate depictions of whatever). I have never seen or read this particular play, so I can't tell you much about the plot or what the content of the text itself would be, beyond that it's a comedy that probably includes at least one character making a fool of himself, since that tends to be typical for the author's work afaik.

Anyway, to get to the point, the specific production that was on the program included, apparently, a scene in which, for comedic reasons, the main character's pants were pulled down enough for his bare ass to be visible, and something was written across his buttocks. And some other scenes which maybe, at least in the eyes of some in the audience, could be considered possibly somewhat sexually suggestive, though, again, I have not seen the particular production so I can't weigh in on whether they really are or not. Either way, even at worst, it's... come on, the school groups that was shown to were kids of about 14 years old, if they've never seen anything more sexually suggestive than that in movies or tv or somewhere, I'm honestly very surprised. In any case, the play contains no depictions of actual sex. And again, the play was checked by professionals and deemed to be appropriate for the program's art experience list.

Anyway, apparently the principal of some Christian school wrote an opinion piece in some news paper about oh how terrible and unnecessary sexualized and kids should not be exposed to that and so on and so forth. Aaaaand since then, the theater's social medias have been swamped with harrassing comments and, *sigh*, people accusing various people working on the production of pedophilia. To the point that the theater has had to switch off commenting altogether on many of their posts and made a policy of not answering phone calls from unknown comments anymore, because the shitstorm just got to that point.

And I just. literally WHY THE FUCK are people like this?? like. how do you even get from "theater play includes a scene where an actor's bare behind is visible and maybe a few other things with a slight sexual tone happen" to "people working for this theater are pedophiles and putting children in danger". Just. geez. it's so fucking stupid. Also I find it ironic that this was a work from the 19th century, that in its own time shocked people and was deemed immoral, and... what do you know, a modern rendition of the play also shocks people and gets deemed as immoral, apparently.

ugh that’s so shitty. time is a flat circle