#Moana 2 critique

[artist-issues]

Sounds like Moana 2 felt like the rushed tv movie it was supposed to be.

THIS IS THE MOANA 2 CRITIQUE POST

I'm tired of excusing things with the word "rushed." If you have less time to produce, you should simplify what you're trying to say. That way, all your small amount of time can be spent on carefully building the best way to say it. Moana 2 felt very unfocused. It felt like it was trying to say:

"You Can’t Survive in Isolation" (but like why not? why do they need their neighboring islands? Don’t make up a reason—tell me the reason the movie showed you.)

"There's Always Another Way” (what? As opposed to what? One way? What One Way was Moana demonstrably sticking to before the not-really-villainess sang her song? Wasn’t finding that One Way ((“learning where to go by remembering who you are/where you’ve been”)) the whole point of the first movie? Now we’re throwing that out the window?)

"Together But a Little Different" ("Different" as in 'In-New-Circumstances' not "Different" as in 'We’re-Different-So-It’s-Hard-to-Relate-to-One-Another,’ which would've been the better, more cohesive sense of ‘Different’.)

“Something-Something Stories Are Important” (literally they just substitute the phrase “we’ll die” with “our story will end.” No mention of why that’s bad, or what makes a story a story, no reason why stories are important, or what for, just throwing the word “story” around vaguely.)

And none of those "themes" I listed just now had a lot of work put into them. That’s it, in a nutshell. But I can flesh-out my argument for those, and present what I think they could’ve easily done differently, if they’d just picked one and worked hard to make it simply good. SPOILERS BELOW.

“You Can’t Survive in Isolation”

We're told in a quick vision that Moana's people will die if they stay in isolation—but there's no showing us that.

In fact, what we've been shown is that they're thriving, they're fine by themselves. They were in the first movie. They are at the beginning of the second.

So we're not convinced that they need what the whole adventure is supposedly about. Compare that to the first movie! Totally doesn't measure up to the storytelling quality!

In the first movie, the whole first act sets up the idea of darkness reaching through the ocean from Tefiti's missing heart, killing everything. That’s especially bad for Moana’s people. We know that because we’re shown how Moana's people are so deeply connected to the ecosystem of their island, and how every part of it is needed for their way of life to continue—then were also shown that Moana has a deep, personal longing to leave the island. There’s a real connection to home and an urgent need to leave it, and that creates really good emotional tension.

So by the time we're shown (not told in one scene, or through snatches of overdone dialogue, but shown) how the darkness will destroy everything if she doesn't go, we really believe it. We have lots of reasons to empathize with and believe in Moana’s reason for going on this mission. We also feel for her having to make the big decision; we’ve been shown that she’s trying to live up to her responsibilities, and leaving the island would seem like a dismissal of those responsibilities, but we can also see how doing nothing and staying actually would be a dismissal. We feel that tension because they showed us several believable reasons to feel it.

But when Moana is singing “Beyond,” which is supposedly about her conflicting feelings about leaving, and the need to go? I’m just bored. Not emotionally invested. I just saw her going back-and-forth, leaving and coming back, leaving and coming back, one song ago, in “We’re Back.” And everything was fine during that song. Leaving-And-Coming-Back is the dream she’s been living as a voyager. So why is she suddenly convinced it’s a hard decision to…leave-and-plan-to-come-back?

“Because the last voyager died doing this mission she’s about to go on! She might die too!” Okay but all you did was tell me that. You didn’t show me Moana nearly-dying (like she did the first time she tried to cross the reef, or the first time she tried to tackle Te Ka on her own) and then realizing, “gee, oh no, I could die this time,” and then having to make a renewed decision to go anyway. You didn’t put work in, so I don’t believe it.

But the emotion Moana is feeling about leaving is also undercut, like I said, because there doesn’t seem to be a need for her to leave. All they did was tell me that Motunui is in trouble if it stays isolated. But no proof. They were fine isolated from other islands in Moana 1. They have been fine up until now in Moana 2. One random vision of an empty pavilion for three seconds isn’t going to make me forget that and believe that continued isolation will do anything negative to them.

And another thing, what does “uniting with other islands” even mean?” Why would it be such a good thing?

Nobody mentions trade. Nobody mentions learning from one another, or demonstrates learning from one another. Honestly, having Kele teach Moana or Moni or the Kakamora, an actual other-islander, about farming would’ve been a great demonstration of “why we need to meet new people and get out more.”

Having Kele LEARN TO SWIM would have been a SLOW ONE DOWN THE MIDDLE.

But nooo. They just half-bake suggest the idea that the old man doesn’t like leaving his comfort zone, but then never let one of the others have a real conversation with him about why he needs to learn new things from new people. NEVER. It’s just “bouncy vague song, almost-jump-in-the-water-under-coercion BUT NEVER ACTUALLY DO IT, banter and one liners” for the rest of the movie! (And don’t tell me Kele “learning to speak Kakamora” was an example of him “getting out of his comfort zone.” No. Kele never demonstrated a lack of desire to meet and learn new things from strangers. He demonstrated a hatred of fun and the ocean. All the others could also understand the Kakamora literally whenever they needed to, so that wasn’t a special-character-arc for Kele.)

Even though, my point is, they could’ve easily had a character arc for Kele. And that would’ve had something to do with “learn new things from new people, or die stagnant and stuck in your ways,” look, see, a mini-object-lesson in one character’s journey about the theme of the movie. But noooo

They could’ve done the same type of “learn-something-new-or-die” with Moni. Have him be convinced that doing things the “traditional Motunui Wayfinding Way” on this, his first adventure, is the ONLY way to do things. But he’s not good at it, no matter how much head-knowledge he has. And then the Kakamora (or literally any non-Motunui-character) could’ve shown him a newly-developed style for him to learn and grow.

They could’ve done the same type of “learn-something-new-or-die” with Loto. But nope. She just has a really poorly-done, poorly-written, poorly-performed snippet of a song where she mentions how… “perfection is a myth, the journey is just failing, learning, then death, no destination, ever.” But that ridiculous, absolutely absurd worldview is not portrayed as something she’s wrong about or needs to grow out of. It’s portrayed as a good, quirky, revolutionary thing.

But that’s not the same thing as portraying the value I’m describing. Loto just sings about it and invents-and-reinvents canoes. She does not learn how to make canoes from outsiders. She doesn’t learn anything from anybody. She is portrayed as a solitary genius with her own ideas who’s never once shown to be wrong about anything in the whole movie, and everything she tries works. She never messes up or makes a mistake, for all her singing about it. So she never actually “falls on her face, then gets up and learns.” Even though learning from others would be the literal only way for her character to portray the idea of this vague theme they throw out there, “You Can’t Survive in Isolation.”

The point is: there is no reason, in-movie, SHOWN, for the audience to believe that Moana should “re-unite the islands.” There’s no believable demonstration of why that would be a good thing, and no believable demonstration of why not doing it would be a bad thing.

So then why do we care if she risks her life and Maui’s life to re-unite the islands? For a bunch of nameless nobody background characters to show up for a five-second afterparty on Motunui at the end? Ridiculous.

Moving on.

“There’s Always Another Way”

So BUMP ALL THAT, I GUESS.

Matangi, everybody’s Cherished Hope for a New Villain, sings a song and it’s about “get lost, there is no one way, there’s always a different way.”

Fine. Cool. Whatever. The whole point of the first movie was that there’s this symbolic, ancient, WAY of sailing and living your life bravely. And Moana doesn’t know what that One WAY is because her tribe had forgotten it, so she has to learn it. It’s cool, because you navigate by looking at where you’ve been, to see where you’re going. It’s the whole “remember who you are in order to face life’s challenges, not hide from them.” That’s “the Way.” But whatever. Dump that down the toilet, new movie. You know why? Because everybody’s obsessed with “There’s No One Truth,” and “There Is No Right and Wrong,” and “Let’s Experience Things Just to Experience Them, the Journey is the Destination Because We’re not Going Anywhere!” Blah blah blah ridiculous inane sewage slop.

BUT whatever, fine, IF you mean it in a “There’s Lot’s of Ways to Solve Most Problems, Try Try Again,” sense, that’s okay. That’s true for most problems (not all, but most, certainly there are more than one ways to sail.) Sure. that message, if that’s what they mean, is fine. That’s the sense in which Moana takes it, at least, when she dives down to touch the Core Island and break the curse instead of it rising.

But you know what? Yeah. They don’t flesh it out. They don’t take time to show that that’s what’s happening. Moana doesn’t try to teach her new crew how to sail, and they suck at it, but if she lets them do it their own way or whatever, then they work—and she learns there’s “more than one way.” That doesn’t happen.

The Kakamora that joins their team doesn’t solve all his problems with blow darts, or violence, or whatever—and then Moana, or the kindhearted Moni, or the peaceful Kele, tells him, “no, there’s another way, you don’t always have to do things your violent way.” That doesn’t happen.

Loto has one moment where she applies the way she was already living according-to, from the moment we meet her, not a NEW way, to the canoe so that the gang can out-sail magical waterspouts. And it works for like twenty seconds, is played like a great triumph, before they all get smashed into the ocean anyway.

Kele, again, would’ve been a great example of “learn to do things in a different way, or problem-solve by try-trying again.” Because he’s old and they set him up as hating life for no reason and not wanting to do new things. But they didn’t do anything with him.

And guess what else—at the end—when Moana has her own demigod powers, and her own magical-arm-tattoo ripped off from Tears of the Kingdom—guess what her magic power is?

To stick her oar in the water, and light up one current or “path” for the boat to take to a new destination.

A Path. ONE SINGULAR SOLITARY WAY.

Not “a new way.” Not “all possible ways.” Not “multiple ways.” Not even two ways. One. Even though the big lesson she sacrificed her life for, even though the one and only song Matangi got to sing, was about how “there’s always another way.”

WHILE they’re singing a reprise of, “We Know THE Way.”

It’s like being in a conversation with someone who starts a sentence and then forgets what they were saying halfway through, and winds up saying worse than nothing.

“Together, But a Little Different”

Like I said, if you told me that the Main Point of the movie (not one of many vague ideas, but the Main Point) was “Together, But a Little Different,” I immediately would’ve said:

“Oh, so it’s about having to adjust to long-distance relationships. Maybe even death.” Or, maybe, because I saw the trailers, I’d go, “Oh, so it’s about keeping what makes us unique, but uniting when we need to, in spite of our differences. ‘Together, But a Little Different.’”

No. It’s not about any of that. It’s just a phrase the Grandma’s Ghost says whenever she hugs Moana to remind her that she’s still “with her.” She’s still with her; she just glows and can shapeshift into a manta ray now! That has tons of application for real life. 🙄

It’s supposed to be her words of comfort to pass on to Moana, who can then pass it on to the people in her island, so they know that she won’t “ever really leave them.” But like. Then why should I care that she’s leaving them? Why should that be sad? If there’s no sacrifice in being apart, in leaving for the adventure, then the adventure keeps feeling low-stakes and boring and kind of pointless.

If you tilt your head and squint, it’s also maybe-applying to Moana’s pointless ugly annoying Little Sister character, Simea. Simea is in the movie so that someone can be immature for three seconds about how Moana’s always gone from home. And I do mean exactly three seconds, that’s all the emotional drama we get, and it’s not built up to either. She says, “Never come back? -sniff sniffle- I don’t want you to gooo!” And then runs away and then Moana takes a break from singing the next day to briefly explain to Simea about how she can pass messages through the ocean. Then she’s fine.

But the way this theme is thrown around, you think it would mean, “Moana Has to Go Away Sometimes, But if You Remember Her She Never Leaves You.”

But seriously. Again I say to you, who cares? We know Moana is coming back. We know that. Nobody in the audience seriously believes she’s never coming back when she leaves for this adventure. If we did, maybe we’d care that Simea cares. But we don’t.

Even when Moana “dies,” and it’s the perfect time to be like, “seeee, what we feeeared has happened, she’s dead, she can never go home to Simea!” THERE IS NO FOLLOW-THROUGH. There’s not even a cut to Simea back on Motonui, feeling through the ocean or the Force or whatever movie mumbo-jumbo that her sister is gone. And there is not even a deadline, in the movie, for Moana to accomplish this mission, so it’s not like she could be running late and we could get some scenes of Moana’s family mourning. Simea having to do something, take some big step, that show’s she’s willing to go on even if she can’t be with Moana anymore because she believed Moana about how she’s always with her—something like that.

My point is, Simea has no real point, so she doesn’t add to this “Together, But Different.” idea at all. And we already know that it doesn’t mean, “overcome our differences” from what I said in the first Theme.

But what they could have done? They COULD have gone whole-hog and MADE MOANA A BELIEVABLE DEMIGOD. Instead of a vague joke about tattoos that leaves the question open-ended, a pointless and theme-breaking display of shiny superpowers, and no other change to the status quo—

—they could’ve shown that there are consequences to that action—maybe she’s a Demigod of Navigation, or something like that, and the condition is, she can sail around connecting islands, but she can never stay on one too long. So she’ll never be able to live with Simea and her parents again on Motunui, but it’s the price she has to pay to connect the islands. Then she’d have to show Simea how they can still be “Together, Just a Little Different.”

Or someone could’ve gotten hurt or disabled, giving off the idea that even though everything is “different,” they can still be “together.”

Maui could’ve died and passed his fishhook powers, AND MINI MAUI, on to Moni or Moana. “Together, but different.”

Nothing, nothing at all like that happens. It’s just a pretty phrase that could’ve meant something, but any meaning it actually has hamstrings the whole emotional weight of the story instead of fueling it.

“Something-Something Stories Are Important”

The thing here is. I already said it. You can’t just say words and expect them to be impactful, in a story. You’re supposed to show what they mean and why they’re true, and THAT’S what creates an impact.

So when you’re talking about “stories” in a story, you definitely should not have nothing to say.

And I can feel it. I’ve seen none of the promotional material, I don’t watch the interviews, I haven’t checked BuzzFeed or ScreenRant or the Disney Youtube page in a while, but I can feel it.

I can feel them trying to say, “Something Something, ‘Storytelling’ is a big part of Pacific Islander Culture!” I can imagine the headlines. “[Actor or Disney Exec Name Here] Invites You to Celebrate Your Story with Pacific Islander Heritage Month!” They’re so into “culture as a marketing tool” these days.

But they say it so lazily. Just repeating the word “story” over and over in the movie doesn’t pay tribute to how important “stories” are to Pacific Islanders. Or to anybody.

You know what makes stories impactful? They point at truth, when the darkness and misunderstandings and evil of the world threaten to distract you or hide the truth. That’s what makes stories impactful. I’m sure Pacific Islanders use stories in that way—to pass on what they believe to be true, in a way that can be retold and remembered.

So MAKE THAT THE THEME OF YOUR MOVIE. Instead of just having Moana replace “Nalo wants to kill us” with “Nalo wants to end our story” for Empty Effect—instead of having Grandma say something about “your e

Okay okay.

Nalo is a silly, lazy villain. He is clearly a Thanos rip-off in design and introduction in a literal post-credits scene, and his most-present form, in the movie, is just a big ocean thunderstorm. But the laziest thing about him is that he’s the Conflict that everyone is trying to rise up and overcome, and the whole reason he sunk the Island was “He gets power from humans being divided.”

That’s never explained. It’s never shown at all why he gets power from the vague “humans are divided” thing. He has no scenes. He has no interactions with other characters (till the end-credits scene.) A range of his power, like “here’s what it looks like when the humans are divided—oh, now here’s how much less-powerful he is when they’re together!” is never shown. So. No consequences if the heroes fail, no change to the status-quo, villain-wise, when they win.

If Nalo wanted to end their stories, though, that would be another thing.

Stories are meant to be told. They’re for the benefit of others. So what they should’ve done is made the secret key of Nalo’s power hidden. Unknown. Nobody knows how to beat him. And he’s not sinking some unfindable island in another dimension. He’s just devouring the resources of the weather with his ever-more-powerful storms, (kind of like the darkness leaking through the ocean from the first movie) and nobody can stop him.

But that’s because each island, around Oceania, has clues to how to beat him. Clues in their stories. But they can only sail so far from what they know before his storms kill them. So he’s literally making them weaker by using his power to keep them apart, and making himself stronger by defending his weakness. Now they can’t Wayfind to each other, and learn one another’s cultural advancements or stories or beauties, because Nalo is powerful enough to make storms that rip their boats apart. But if they could learn from one another’s stories about the things their ancestors used against him, they could get rid of him.

That’s what they should’ve done. Shown why Nalo was a threat and how the Main Theme was the key to overcoming that threat.

They did not do that.

They made stories just a hot button word to be thrown around with no impact. In a story.

The point of this post is that Moana 2 had a lot of potentially-good points, and it made none of them, so it was totally unsatisfying. If it had just focused on one, the other little benefits they were trying to fit in could’ve been mentioned more naturally.

The way that Beauty & the Beast is all about ONE theme: “True Love is Self-Sacrificial.” But because of the tools it uses to tell that story—a beast that it would take a lot of self-sacrifice to be stuck with forever—you get little side-themes thrown in, supporting and draping decoratively over the ONE theme: “Beauty is Found Within, So Don’t Be Deceived By Appearances,” etc.

Moana 2 should’ve just picked the Story One, and it could’ve had that theme, and it’s cultural-nod cake, and it’s unifying-effect cake, and EATEN IT TOO.

And we could’ve eaten it. And WE could’ve enjoyed it! But no. Money money money lazy lazy lazy.

[moltenwrites]

I think my biggest pet peeve in media, especially in movies where this is by FAAAAR the most prevalent, is when an actual cool/emotional moment is undercut by an unnecessary ass joke.

This is the most frequent in kids and superhero movies, and it pisses me off SO much in both. Kids aren’t stupid, they can let a moment resonate. For example, I can’t think of an example from either Inside Out movie of this happening. Compare this to the recently released Moana 2 ( which I did enjoy, for the record ) where there were multiple moments I groaned because a stupid joke was made that actively took away from a scene.

TDLR; Let your moments sit and resonate, the audience isint stupid, and shoving a joke into a serious moment only devalues everything you’re trying to achieve

[marionetteangie]

I have an opinion about YouTube and especially movie review channels that I’m inclined to share.

Amid all the clickbait, ragebait, hating etc, people have lost the ability to see a work for what it is, from the perspective of the person who created it, ESPECIALLY when it’s a Disney movie.

This can be seen with channels that farm views, they take a frame of the movie, freeze it at an awkward point, and then slap that on a thumbnail expecting the views to roll in. Examples include how people take Moana 2’s goofy frames, which in the context of the movie are designed to be goofy moments, but taking them out of context is designed to make the movie look bad. Same with frames from Wish, even some live action movies like Mufasa (which I haven’t watched btw, but I’ve seen the thumbnails), and any new movie that has one second of awkward scenes.

And don’t even get me started on a lack of media literacy. YouTube is crawling with clickbait, misinformation spreads like wildfire due to YouTube shorts often not showing the full context of a work (and I assume the same can be said for TikTok but I don’t use that site), and in general people have lost the ability to see nuance outside of a movie’s synopsis. This is especially prevalent with Wish, which is a movie I loved (and yes I may have spoken about it in detail on YouTube already but it’s the best example I have of this phenomena).

People missed the absolute point of Wish, it’s a movie that fights against authoritarianism and showing the power of one person to rally a community and bring them together, helping them pave the way for a future where they have the autonomy and freedom to make their dreams come true. But people misinterpreted this completely, slapped a thumbnail of a goofy looking Asha onto a video, made a YouTube short glorifying the concept art that is fundamentally flawed, (see my video):

and overall just completely missed the point of what the movie was trying to show, especially the song At All Costs (see my other video):

This isn’t solely a Wish focused post though, it’s just my best example. People don’t look at what the creator is trying to say anymore, they don’t look for the nuance or message… because they don’t watch the movies AT ALL.

I believe people have stopped watching movies or shows simply because watching a review by a random person online is so much easier and doesn’t require them to spend any money. I understand not wanting to waste money on cinema tickets, but clicking on the first review you find, which is usually made right after the movie comes out and has the most bare bones synopsis DESIGNED to make you misunderstand the movie isn’t a good idea imo.

I also think people tend to glorify old concept art nowadays, claiming they were robbed. There’s a genuine discontent in every single corner, like I’ve seen people talking about how they were robbed of Anastasia concept art, and that movie came out DECADES ago. I don’t understand why people can’t just like what exists, instead of whining about what doesn’t. Maybe it has something to do with growing up, like they hate their own lives so they project that onto media…?

Please, watch stuff yourself, and make your own judgements. Don’t follow the herd or a mob mentality, because YouTube and social media in general are really pushing everyone to think the same at the moment and I’m so tired of it. I’ve stopped watching a lot of YouTube in the last year, it’s all so samey nowadays and I only use it for music for the most part. I like forming my own judgements and sharing those to my small audience, but genuinely I don’t think it’s a site worth listening to for sound first impressions and judgements on what a movie’s creator actually wanted to say, it would be much better to watch the actual movie if you want to find the truth.

Aight, I’m out :)

[inkedinserendipity]

oh my god, y'all. oh my god. moana 2 spoilers under the cut.

i am just?? i am speechless. i am literally still collecting my thoughts. right now i am just a mess of glee and relief and joy at watching that movie. the first movie meant so much to me!! and the most important part of it to me was the friendship between maui and moana, and i am so proud of the sequel for how they did that relationship right. i was stunned honestly by how faithful they were to what drove the first movie - maui coming to respect and care about this mortal, and moana caring about him and turn.

the first thing he does when he hears the gods are threatening moana is go no, this is between me and him! this isn't about her! don't even talk to me about the way he dove into the ocean after her!! without hesitation, even after he just lost his hook and his powers! (especially after the way he reacted to that exact same thing in the first movie, but in this one, instead of lashing out, instead of even pausing to think about it, he just goes in after her.) the panic in his voice when he finds heihei and demands, oh hell, where's moana. the way he mourned - god, that broke my heart. that was palpable. that was tangible. the song, aue, aue....

fuck me. FUCK me. if me from six years ago could've seen this, i would've been overjoyed. i'm tearing up now, even thinking about it. this story that i cared about so deeply has been continued with so much respect to what spoke the most to me.

the callbacks made me so freaking happy too! the mini-maui being just as much of a little shit, keeping score, the oar and the hook, oh and MOANA'S OAR becoming the symbol of her divinity? i lost my freaking mind! that was so good! and her ancestors - her grandmother, tala - being the one who ushered her into divinity - was so fucking good. we tell the stories of our elders in a never-ending chain. you could see it happen! in the symbol of te fiti, the swirl of people who gathered around her to bring her back to life!

the tie between community killed me too. how in the beginning of the movie, the meeting in motunui featured just moana and her father - and then toward the end, the structure was full of people.

i have so many more thoughts, about the musical callbacks, the refrains from the first movie (and, candidly, a number of critiques about the new characters and the strange pacing and lackluster and plot and weird music choices - basically everything but the friendship between our leading duo, tbh), but this was just...my heart is so full. i am so glad i got to see this movie. younger seren, you would've fucking loved this.

[treeckos-for-arson]

my hot take of the day is that paul doesn’t not like musicals. i don’t know how it’s taken me 5+ years to come to this conclusion, but hear me out. i rewatched tgwdlm twice this weekend and my brain is vibrating on paul matthews frequency. my soul is one with his. my hypothesis wraps up everything that’s bothered me about paul’s character in a neat little bow: paul likes musicals, even if he doesn’t think he does.

the jokes have been circulating from the start, how paul knows the words to moana better than anyone else, how he has seen every musical mentioned in the show (he didn’t directly say he’s seen hamilton and mamma mia, but he at the very least knows the difference in the pop cultural relevance of the two). paul claims that he was forced to see godspell and brigadoon, but that doesn’t account for the other shows he’s seen, one of which he’s canonically watched enough times to know the words better than his coworkers/the average musical-hating ccrp employee.

i’ve heard speculation that paul goes to see every musical just to criticize it. but i don’t think that’s the case. i think paul has repressed his love of musicals. maybe he thinks he hates them, and thinks he watches them to critique them, but deep down he’s lying to himself and he knows it.

this is evidenced by “let it out,” specifically the lines: “i’ve become what i hated / or maybe i never did.” unlike the first verse, where there’s a clear distinction between the lines sung by paul vs pokey, i find it much more difficult to tell who’s singing in the second verse. i imagine this was an intentional acting choice on jon’s part, symbolizing that as pokey gets a firmer grip on paul he has access to more of his repressed memories, feelings, and desires. his words become more seamlessly infused with paul’s real thoughts. he identifies that paul has never hated musicals and makes him acknowledge it to himself and the audience.

so what caused paul to repress his love of musicals? he tells us directly—the moment that made him hate musicals was when he was bussed over to hatchetfield high to watch their production of brigadoon, because sycamore didn’t have a theater program. look, there is No Way that the entire student body of sycamore high was bussed over to see brigadoon: first, it would have been after school hours, and impossible (or at least a very strange thing) to make mandatory; second, the average high school production is, what, 2-4 nights? no way there would have been enough seats for all of sycamore; third, arranging the bus situation would have been far too inconvenient and expensive. i could go on, but my point is, going to see brigadoon was a voluntary action on high schooler!paul’s part. my guess is that it was only the students who actively wanted to be in a theater program who were taken to see brigadoon. that leads me to the conclusion: paul was an aspiring theater kid in high school, and you can’t tell me otherwise.

it was the experience of watching emma and the hatchetfield high kids perform brigadoon, longing to be onstage with them in the spotlight, and knowing he wasn’t going to get that opportunity in high school that made him start repressing his love of musicals. but (and i don’t have evidence for this, it’s just speculation) it’s post-high school, when he realized he was never going to get to be in a musical, that sealed that commitment to repression. whether he went to college and auditioned and didn’t get any roles for lack of practice, or joined the workforce and got his dream crushed out of him by the monotony of ccrp, paul distanced himself from the object of his desire by pretending that, actually, he never really wanted it. he pretended so hard he started to believe it. he began watching musicals “ironically.” he listened to the moana soundtrack because he “liked making fun of it.” he’d “rather do anything” than go watch mamma mia. he was “forced” to see godspell, and he “hated it.” godspell, more like god-awful, amirite?

(and don’t get me started on the little we see of him in black friday—what do you mean you don’t like those “musical commercials,” paul?? are you trying to say the kars 4 kids jingle is comparable to a full-length musical?? do you not listen to music at all, paul??? or are you overgeneralizing your hatred of musicals to cover your ass?? yet you can sing when you realize it’s possibly the final minutes of your life and there’s no hope to be found but in song? answer me paul. ANSWER ME.)

i’ve seen it hypothesized that pokey gives each character what they want before he kills them. paul is no exception. paul finally gets what he wants: to be in a musical. not just to be in a musical, but to play the leading role. to sing before an audience. to be the hero, sacrificing himself to save the day. i think it’s possible that, if ever paul genuinely stops liking musicals, it’s after pokey’s invasion begins. i mean, i certainly would stick to silent films for the rest of my life after getting caught up in that, so i don’t blame him. paul’s panic is visceral in every song sequence—but it’s not because he doesn’t like musicals, it’s for the obvious reason that Holy Fuck Something Is Wrong With These People Think About The Implications.

this has turned into an absolute essay, so tl;dr: paul likes musicals. if anything, paul loves musicals. paul was so broken by his inability to be in musicals as a kid that he made himself believe he hated them so all the missed opportunities would hurt less. all of the overexaggerated musical hating that we see on screen is overcompensation. he can fool the audience. he can fool himself. he can even fool me for 5+ years. but he can’t fool pokey.

[nancydrewwouldnever]

I can tell you’re getting as sick of these ranting hate anons as I am. 🤣

Good for you for having the patience to still respond. You’re better than I am.

Also…

For anyone who cares, R1 was actually a decent movie and a lot better than expected. I think hating on the rock and (to a lesser extent) CE and recent movie choices is popular right now but i wouldn’t be laughing so fast.

R1 still ended up being a number one movie for them both, and the rock can say he has Moana 2 in the same month. As much as people want to hate on the guy, he still has star power.

As for Chris. Look, I’m all for critiquing someone when they need it, but my own parents watched R1 this Christmas and my mom couldn’t stop talking about CE and kept mentioning how she admired his acting, his movements, and his looks. They’re total boomers but of course they know him as Cap and also Snowpiercer and Knives Out. I think a lot of people are disappointed right now in how his career appears to have panned out but look at what happened to Demi Moore. A woman who was told she was just a popcorn actress for 45 years before last night, finally getting the recognition she deserved. Her filmography was pretty interesting but she had a lot of tough times as well. I don’t think people took her seriously for most of her career, and I’m proud of her comeback and it’s why I don’t like to judge people so harshly, especially ones I don’t know and don’t know what they may be going through BTS. This goes for everyone.

Look, people love to kick on people when they’re down, but some of you shouldn’t be so loud and gloating when you never know what could happen in the future.

I think my biggest issue with R1 is still just the numbers. A budget that ballooned up to 250M and then most likely at least another 50M+ on the marketing campaign. I just don't understand the economics anymore when it comes to streamer movies. And I know a lot of streamers are just tax write-downs (especially true when you're talking about the streamers of the big tech companies), but it skews the whole industry.

I'm happy for Demi's latest successes. I will still never get over that story from Charlie's Angels 2: Full Throttle about how she was lambasted and shamed in public media for being 41 y.o. (at the time) and filming a bikini scene. I recently saw that movie on tv again, and she was completely smoking hot in that scene. I can't believe the unattainable standards society puts forth for women when it comes to their bodies and public consumption.

[simplysomelilguys]

People need to take their critical thinking one step further fr

Like I am seeing so many people (on TikTok) talk about how it is downhill for Disney that Moana 2 was meant to be a series turned movie and everything yet those same people just went to see the movie so they can make informed videos about it (or whatever their reasoning is)

And it’s like do you not comprehend that whether you are watching it to critique it or make fun of it or enjoy it Disney gets the box office money either way?? like you are directly contributing to the numbers that Disney will use to decide if they should use this strategy again in the future

(also talking about it online makes more people aware that it is out and want to go see it bc like fomo)

[smexy-fish]

Is Moana Capitalist Propaganda?

With Moana 2 coming out in a few days (rumour has it she might literally be coming out), I thought it might be nice to cast our minds back to the first one (first released 8 years ago now…) and consider whether the film itself is a subtle vehicle for capitalist propaganda.

Disney has been historically critiqued as a multinational conglomerate who's sole purpose is to create childish animations mass-produced for private profits.

Moana was revolutionary, not only did it celebrate Polythesian culture, but Moana was also the first Disney princess to have a normal body shape, rather than the typical pinched waist of most Disney characters. This was an enormous breakthrough as Disney's princesses and increased Disney's visibility and consumer base.

However, Disney seems to be monopolizing on the stories of Polythesian culture for personal gain. Their artistic representations have been appropriated to attract audiences and increase merchandise sales, and Disney is the largest merchandise vendor in the world.

Moana's journey prioritises individual agency and self reliance, she is constantly berated by those around her for attempting to leave the island and even suppose that there is another, better world out there, but she choses instead to restore her island to its former glory, in line with the capitalist beliefs that one's personal efforts can drive societal change.

Maui also holds seemingly capitalist principles, his achievements are what makes up his self worth. Maui's rediscovery of his purpose through earning back his magical fishhook, emphasise that personal accomplishment are central to his identity. This aligns with the capitalist ideals that value is derived from one's personal contributions and success, rather than the success of a community.

Tamatoa, the coconut crab most famous for Jemaine Clement's Shiny, exemplifies consumerism and the desire for the biggest and shiniest treasures out there, similar to how corporations thrive off advertising and marketing 'must-have' products. His character aligns with how corporations such as Disney, emphasise exclusivity and luxury: the allure of possessing the very best.

Moana's community thrives on collectivisation and collaboration, key communist ideals, yet Disney's portrayal of them shattering as soon as Te Ka, the film's main antagonist, has had her heart stolen, implies that if power is in the wrong hands, a seemingly harmonious world can crumble. This draws on the idea of how many communist ideas seem perfect in theory yet are unable to be executed due to mankind's desire for power. Te Ka's rediscovery of her old self, Te Fiti, who previously embraced freedom and discovery, links to Jean-Paul Sartre's idea that we are 'radically free' and to deny our radical freedom is bad faith.

This can also be seen in the portrayal of Moana's father, who in his youth also longed for a similar freedom yet after the death of his friend, developed aquaphobia and forbade his people from venturing beyond the reef. Although freedom may be messy, humans value their right of choice, even though it comes with certain responsibility.

We can also link this to Sartre's ideas of existence over essence, since we have no creator, humans are not born with a predetermined purpose; instead, they must create their own meaning. Moana's internal struggle—torn between staying on the island to fulfil her expected role and venturing into the unknown to forge her own destiny—mirrors this existential dilemma. Ultimately, she chooses to forge her own path which suggests that she wants to be more than just one of the many (emphasised in the scene where her father shows her the rocks of the fathers before him), she wants to break free and become her own self.

It is only through Moana's independence and self determination that the heart can be restored and the community, and individual action is emphasised as the catalyst for communal success which endorses capitalist values over collective problem solving. Her community also remains passive throughout her journey, once more amplifying the independent voice as a means of restoration.

At the end of the film the people of Montunui embrace Moana's independence and start a life of their own, yet this could also draw on themes of human's exploitation of the natural environment as they begin to cultivate more and more of the earth's resources.

[synergysilhouette]

An alternate take on "Moana" (2016)

I really enjoyed "Moana." It was a beautiful film with a gorgeous story and a nice twist. However, as with all my rewrites, I did have some nit-picks with it.

More deities. When creating "Moana," the directors used Fiji, Samoa, and Tahiti, which are part of Polynesia or Micronesia, respectively. I recall there was some criticism on what specific culture Moana was supposed to be emulating, and while I think it'd be fine to include other Polynesian-inspired deities, but perhaps original ones could potentially be well-received. I could potentially see it as a cross between "Big Hero 6" and "Hercules" in terms of having a fun and bubbly group of characters, as well as showing why Te Ka is such a threat to all forms of life.

2. Make Moana less obsessed about the sea, keeping it a secret from the chief. She sees how it upsets him, even before learning why. As such, she keeps this to herself, so that she can be a chief that's not distracted. This is just me, but I was slightly annoyed that her wanting to explore the reef was moreso for herself than her people, and later she was given reason to indulge in it.

3. Moana's brothers. A big issue I have with "Moana" is that the major cast is so small; once on the ocean, it's just Moana, Maui, and Hei-Hei. I'd have loved including a couple of brothers from the original concept--not all of them, since it'd be too many characters (or perhaps some go with her while the others stay home).

4. Bring Pua instead of Hei-Hei. Personal preference; Hei-Hei was annoying and Pua seemed a little bit smarter.

5. Maui's design. A critique of Maui's design is that he's portrayed as obese, whereas culturally he's seen as athletic, and it was seen as embracing the derogatory stereotype of the obese Pacific Islander. Making him more athletic physically would've been an easy fix. Along with this, I'd probably tweak his personality. In the film, his vanity is sourced from being a hero to mortals, but it would be neat if he was a more submissive character, instead being a people-pleaser. While it wouldn't make him stealing the Heart of Te Fiti right, it'd make him look less evil and cruel; it'd feel more like he was being manipulated and taken advantage of after his mother threw him away.

6. The Ocean's duality. Moana gets frustrated at the sea for bringing her to what she thought was an abandoned island (which was actually Maui's island), but we never see her or Maui question the sea; Maui just says that the ocean made bad judgement picking her. I do wish Moana had hesitancy cooperating with the sea due to almost drowning her and drowning her father's friend. Heck, maybe make this flashback happen earlier to explain why Moana isn't as hooked on going to the sea; she's traumatized, even if she finds it alluring.

Lemme know what you think! I know this movie is beloved as-is.

[maytawee-pth]

On the Matter of Media: Movies and Animation as Agents of Cultural Diversity

Film and animation significantly influence perceptions of cultural diversity, challenging prejudices and promoting inclusivity by exposing audiences to different traditions and perspectives. While these mediums can celebrate diversity, they also face criticism for perpetuating stereotypes and making controversial creative choices, such as altering the race of beloved characters, sparking passionate debates.

Movies and animations introduce unique traditions and sentiments to global audiences, enhancing cultural appreciation. Films like Moana and Coco are praised for authentically portraying Polynesian and Mexican cultures, serving as cultural touchstones that foster empathy (Teen Vogue, 2024). Black Panther highlights African heritage and empowers underrepresented communities. However, some critiques argue that such portrayals can oversimplify or commercialize the cultures represented. For instance, while Moana aimed to celebrate Polynesian culture, experts felt it oversimplified complex traditions to fit Western storytelling norms. The challenge remains for mainstream media to balance authenticity with mass appeal.

Changing the race or ethnicity of established characters is a contentious issue. Supporters of adaptations like Ariel in The Little Mermaid argue that they promote diversity and representation. Critics, however, view these changes as superficial and compromising the integrity of original stories. The original director of The Little Mermaid criticized the live-action version for lacking the expressiveness of the animated classic (Entertainment Weekly, 2024). Similarly, the casting choices in the upcoming Harry Potter series have sparked debate over whether they enhance representation or diminish the familiarity of beloved characters (The Times, 2023). Critics suggest that creators should focus on original narratives that authentically represent diverse voices.

Another concern is the reinforcement of stereotypes. Films like Aladdin have been criticized for homogenizing Middle Eastern and South Asian cultures, which undermines the uniqueness of these cultures and perpetuates harmful stereotypes. This emphasizes the need for cultural sensitivity and respect in media portrayals.

Despite the challenges, films and animations can foster pride in cultural diversity, encouraging inclusive representation in a multicultural society. Balancing race changes and cultural stereotypes can enhance storytelling, promoting understanding and reducing prejudice. Intentional storytelling can unite diverse cultures, paving the way for a more knowledgeable and empathetic society.

Hnin Wutt Yee Khaing (670115530)

Maytawee Panthahan (670115032)

References

Entertainment Weekly. (2024). [Original Little Mermaid director criticizes live action adaptation: 'Live animals in a zoo have more expression]. Retrieved from [https://ew.com/original-little-mermaid-director-criticizes-live-action-adaptation-8654258?]

Teen Vogue. (2024). [Moana 2 Director Thinks Matangi Has ‘More to Say’ in a Potential Moana 3]. Retrieved from [https://www.teenvogue.com/story/moana-2-director-matangi-has-more-to-say-in-potential-moana-3-interview?]

The Times. (2024). [Hunt for the new Harry Potter — what are casting directors looking for?]. Retrieved from [https://www.thetimes.com/culture/tv-radio/article/harry-potter-hbo-casting-call-auditions-ron-hermione-2zjvkt82l?]

[theomenmedia]

The Internet Reacts To "Moana 2"

Dive into the vibrant world of Moana 2! Critics and fans agree on the stunning visuals, but does the story hold up?

[artist-issues]

Update: it didn’t really do any of these things. It didn’t really do anything at all. Like, at all, at all.

What are your hopes and fears for Moana 2?

Here's the thing

I mostly don't have any serious expectations or serious fears, because I can't be bothered to care that much, ever since Wish and Mark Henn's retirement. Not to put it dramatically, but Disney sort of died as I listened to the Bancroft Brothers' interview with Mark Henn. I have a baby nephew born around the same time a few months ago, and I listened to that guy talk about how the work stopped being meaningful and how he cried as soon as he got home from his going-away party at the studio, and something in my brain, unprompted, went, "my nephew isn't going to get the same Disney that I got or even my parents got, because it went out the door with Mark Henn."

Anyway.

But if you want my thoughts: the first movie was about how it's good to do new things when you're secure in who you are, and you find out who you are by remembering where you've been & what you've done. I could say it more succinctly but I don't feel like it.

So a sequel would make the most sense if it was about something calling into question who Moana thought she was—like maybe she's adopted or her ancestors waged war on another tribe and were actually conquerors, not just explorers, something unfortunate like that—and then she has to try and right the wrong or find out who her real parents are, something that corrects that fracture in her identity (kind of a Frozen 2 thing)—OR the other route they could go is less Moana-herself-focused and more "worldbuildy," and they could do that while staying "on theme" by having a new mystery about "who her people are" come up—because who her "people" are is a big part of her identity, and the current Western culture is all about finding identity in your "people," so they'll eat it up.

Aaandd the latter seems to be exactly what they're doing, from the trailers I've seen.

My biggest fears are that it's not going to look as good, and it's not going to sound as good, and it's not going to be paced as well, as the first movie. Already there's something off about the character designs in the trailers. And everybody's excited about this new villainess. They're like "yay, a villainess who is a villain!"

But ok guys 1) just because there is a villain in a movie doesn't mean it'll be a good movie, or a good villain. It just means, until proven otherwise, they're ticking off the fan-request boxes they've seen listed on the internet. And I don't find that to be a good sign. In the first movie they have a series of "real villains," even if they're not the driving force behind the main conflict. It's not a good story just because of the villain. The villain has to serve the story in a way that's specific to the main theme for it to be good.

Tamatoa was a good villain because he made his identity all about his outward appearance, as a foil for Maui. Maui was a good villain (such as he was) because he was willing to make his insecurities the rest of the world's problem—which could've been a temptation for Moana to do, too, because her whole village expected something of her, yadda yadda. Tefiti was a good villain because she illustrated the destructiveness of forgetting who you are. Even the dad is a good "antagonist," not straight up villain, because he's also forgotten who he is—the chief of traditional wayfinders—and it makes him self-protective instead of remembering who he is and taking direction for the future from that.

Anyway.

In this movie, if the main point is something like "We'll never be Who We Truly Are if we disconnect from parts of ourselves" (which is what I predict it'll be) then the villainess should be someone who's compartmentalizing parts of herself. While she gets in Moana's way. Maybe she can think she's doing the right thing but actually she's compensating for some major hurt from her past. Maybe she's doing all her evil deeds to cover up a weak spot or bury it. Maybe she lost something and doesn't want to deal with the grief.

That might make her too "sympathetic" for y'all's "give us a real villain" tastes, but if it serves the story it'll be good. There are ways to make her a "despicably evil, no good villain," and still stay on theme, though. If the main idea is "We'll never be Who We Truly Are if we disconnect from parts of ourselves," she could be a goddess who gave up mortality in a Faustian deal; sold her regular life and her family or something to be ultra-powerful and immortal, because she's afraid of her weakness. Or she can't stand the thought of being viewed as "normal," she wants to be "special," so she makes all the drama and evil plots as a sadistic bid for attention—like who Maui was in the first movie, but more unhinged. After all, Jafar is a power-hungry liar because Aladdin has a tendency to lie and thinks power will solve his problems. Ursula's motivation is petty vengeance because Ariel's is love that understands. You just need a villain who does the opposite of, or shines a back-light on, the Main Idea.

But I don't think they'll do that.

I think they've forgotten what it means to make a good story and they just go for dress-up box-checking now. Thats all Wish was, and who's in their story room to help them?

I also think it's too vague and too broad a thing to have it be about "reconnecting the islands." What magical Twister do they have to play with their plot elements to explain how one island makes or breaks the unity of all islands? Or are they going to do a bait and switch—they think that setting foot on one island will solve their problems, but actually, no, they just have to do the hard work to make community happen?

I'm mostly afraid they're going to make the movie all about how you have to Be Yourself, and you can't be afraid of what others think—"just Be Yourself and find the people who like you for who you are, and don't ask you to change, and those are Your People. Thats unity!" Ick.

Or they'll go the generic, "come together and embrace what we have in common, no prejudice!" thing that like, Amphibia does, or The Land Before Time limps around.

And there'll be a bisexual, gay, or transgender allegory, if not character, in that mix. And the crew Moana has will be a mini-object-lesson in unity: Old Guy has to value Young Fresh Ideas, Ditzy Boy has to find Confidence in himself instead of hero-worshipping the Princess, like Ken from Barbie, even though the girls will do all the heavy adventuring, etc. There'll probably be a bookwormish girl character, or Moana's little sister, who will need to learn to Embrace Their Power as a Woman and throw spears and punch things and let their hair down or whatever. Those are my fears.

Sorry to be a downer. Maybe it'll be good. I will not go into the theater expecting those things; I will go in open to what the movie is trying to say. But if you ask me to guess what it might say from the trailers beforehand, those are my takes.

[fantastic-nonsense]

@erohrs​: No I'm pretty sure one of the main complaints about the face *is* the fact that Disney has been doing it for such a long time. And I don't think you quite understand what an aesthetic is if you think making all of your main female characters look identical qualifies. It's just kinda boring and lazy for a studio with Disney's prowess to reuse the same basic character design, especially when we know they can do better.

It also doesn't particularly matter if you think complaining about it is useless or not, critique is critique regardless if the person it's aimed at decides to act on it or not. Not to mention, between airing your grievances and remaining silent, only one actually has a chance of getting the issue solved.

1) And it’s getting extraordinarily tiring to deal with the same dumb complaints that are just people looking for issues. You may or may not subjectively like/dislike Sisu’s design. That’s fine, and there’s plenty of valid criticism to be had on that front. But she doesn’t look like Elsa just because she’s got Big Disney Eyes. She just doesn’t. Her human form doesn’t look like Elsa and the only “resemblance” Dragon!Sisu shares with Elsa is that she’s blue and has big eyes. That’s it.

2) The complaints are getting more and more ridiculous as time goes on. First it was the “everyone looks like Rapunzel!” crowd. Now it’s “everyone looks like Elsa.” It’s the same dumb criticism repackaged because of this website’s weird and raging hatred for Frozen.

We have literally cycled through “Anna and Elsa look like Rapunzel!”, “Vanellope looks like Baby!Elsa,” “Judy Hopps is just Furry!Elsa,” “Moana looks like Elsa but brown and with rounder cheeks,” and “Raya looks like Elsa but Asian.” Now it’s the damn dragon that looks like Elsa. Newsflash: none of them actually look that much like Elsa! They just have big eyes, which IS, in fact, a purposeful aesthetic animation choice Disney has made during the Revival Era, just like the rough, half-finished look was a purposeful choice they made during the Xerox Era and why all Disney animals are recognizably Disney products regardless of era.

And they’re not going to change it because you “air your grievances” about it, lol; if that were the case, they would have changed styles after the “Honey Lemon looks like Rapunzel” debacle seven years ago. 

3) Even if they were blatantly same-facing, it’s not like this is a “Disney only” problem. Don Bluth knew how to make exactly two men, for example:

And Studio Ghibli, critical and public darling that it is, is notorious for same-facing their mains. Don’t hear anyone complaining about them.

These pictures are four different women, from four completely different movies (and there’s plenty more examples; these were just the four most obvious ones). And yet these characters (who are carbon copies of each other) and their movies are judged not the appearance of the female characters, but by their personalities, their role in their movie, and the movie as a whole. No one cares that they look the same. Everyone (shocker) still loves SG movies. For…you know…the STORIES.

Meanwhile, Disney makes Honey Lemon look like Rapunzel and gives some big eyes to a dragon and Tumblr goes apeshit. There’s a huge double standard where Disney vs. other animation studios are concerned. It’s exhausting, and boring, and utterly uninspired because “can’t y’all come up with literally ANY other criticism other than ‘the dragon looks boring and has big eyes’? Is that really the best you can do?”

tl;dr “Sisu looks ugly and disproportionate but for god’s sake she doesn’t look like Elsa you morons PLEASE find another criticism”

[officialfoxsquadron]

Hamilton is a musical that has aged poorly quickly. It’s a musical that is a direct product of Obama-era idealism. Notably, LMM began writing it in 2008, the year Obama was elected, and finished it in 2015, the last year of his presidency. LMM is also an artist who I think gets grating very quickly-because of Hamilton’s earnest nature, he’s been trapped in a Disney hell of bog-standard musical theatre numbers. They’re catchy but not exactly reinventing the wheel.

It was subversive in its time for how it was made. It features a non-white cast, an overwhelmingly non-white production team, and rap music. I can’t remember the last time LMM made any reference to rap in his music. (There was a “rap” in Moana that was really more Gilbert and Sullivan patter songs.) Hamilton is filled with references to classic 90s rap which was exciting and fresh on Broadway.

The actual content of Hamilton itself, however, is a fairly standard retelling of the oldest American story—that anyone with a dollar and a dream can make it.

There’s something sinister about the big Act 2 number “What’d I Miss?” being Thomas Jefferson coming home to his plantation. It’s a song designed to get a big audience reaction (Jefferson is literally dressed as Prince and twirls a cane.) It contains a throwaway reference to Sally Hawkins, the slave Jefferson raped. The dancers line up to “greet” Jefferson. It’s uncomfortable, to say the least.

I also want to add there was critique of Hamilton and LMM at the time-specifically The Haunting of Lin-Manuel Miranda by Ishmael Reed, which deals with the white washing of Hamilton. It premiered in 2019, but Reed was a vocal critic of Hamilton since 2015.

lin manuel miranda wherever you are its on sight

[silvanils]

1. What's a show/game/book/fandom your love that you don't talk about much here on tumblr? 2. You're a martial artist, right? Do you ever critique the fight scenes in movies and TV? xD 3. What's your favorite Disney movie?

Reblog if you're willing to answer publicly anything that comes to your ask box right now.

1. What's a show/game/book/fandom your love that you don't talk about much here on tumblr?

Oh man - so I actually have a pretty detailed “fandom list” on my mainblog, which is basically where I put all the things I can remember being “really into” at some point or another.

There’s some shows my sister and I got into more recently that I haven’t posted a lot about (the Golden Girls, M*A*S*H, The Good Place) and... Voltron is it’s own thing, I took a big step away from that fandom because of how toxic it was.

There’s a few games I really love that have smaller fandoms, including Golden Sun (which I was more involved with on FF.net and DeviantArt than here) as well as Radiant Historia (which has a VERY small fandom, which is sad because the premise of the game is pretty neat). Fire Emblem: Awakening is actually one of my favorite games (and the Fire Emblem game I post the MOST about, but I still post about it less than other games...)

I post a lot about the books I REALLY love (The Last Unicorn, Tolkien, Howl’s Moving Castle) so any book series I’m into besides those probably count... So stuff like Artemis Fowl, the Belgariad, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, and more recently Discworld (which I only started reading in the last year-or-so.) There’s also a bunch of other things I read when I was much younger that I don’t remember well enough to post about but want to revisit at some point.

(This was probably a more involved answer than you were expecting but I’m just... into a BUNCH of things? I just end up posting more about the things I’m currently super involved with at any given time.)

2. You're a martial artist, right? Do you ever critique the fight scenes in movies and TV? xD 

Yes! Sometimes - I will say most of the shows I watch get things “right enough” and I don’t actively critique in the middle of watching. Some things that wouldn’t work in real life just look cool on the screen. (And, really, being fully honest - in real life a serious fight is going to be over within a few minutes, if not within a few MOVES.) I’m willing to forgive accuracy in that regard for the drama.

However, there have been times I can tell the actor isn’t as masterful in the art as the character they’re portraying. It might seem obvious, but you really do perfect and streamline even the simple techniques as you go through the ranks, and a lot of times actors will still have tells.

3. What's your favorite Disney movie? 

I always used to answer this question with “Mulan” when I was a kid, but it’s actually pretty closely ranked with both Hercules and the Lion King. I watched all three of those movies SO MUCH when I was little. I had a favorite Lion King shirt, a favorite Hercules plate, and kept Mulan’s VHS on a little shelf in my room where I could see the cover all the time. 

If I were to choose from their more recent stuff, I’d pick Moana. The music was SO GOOD and I’ve always loved the ocean.

[isa-ah]

bro over a Minecraft oc???? when was this ajfjkskfkrk

idk like a year or 2 ago lmfao he was a chubby loosely polynesian inspired drowned oc i made right after the ocean update, and around the time i was super vibing w moana? an anon asked me to draw him dancing in a kelp skirt since kelp was another big part of that update and so the finished picture was like a cute heavily blocky stylized (y'know.. Minecraft) picture of my chubby twenty smtn oc swaying in a kelp skirt. like it wasn't even suggestive dancing he just had his hands up and a foot kicked back a little & I got shit everywhere from "this is racist" to "this is p*dophilic" to "this is transphobic" to people posting my selfies to be like op is a cis white guy fetishising trans men dhdhhd he was a cis 21-23yr old character w facial and body hair but like lmao go off I guess? chubby cis guys must have Flat Nacho Bodies Only. the assumption that I was cis was rlly funny to me tho they didn't believe me & someone even called me self fetishising fhdjhdjdhdjjd the ONLY valid critique that came out of all of it was the like "brown people gerting drawn w gold dangly jewelry" stereotype which I wasn't aware of & did apologize for. that was it tho djdjjd