#WHO MADE THESE SHORTHANDS WHO TF DO YOU THINK YOU ARE

[crystalizedcryolite]

HCs of AvM Characters' Typing Styles

(Alan not included despite the misleading photo used lmao)

Red:

Oh, MOST DEFINITELY uses emoticons the most. He's the type to use the most insane ones like╭( ๐_๐)╮and is not above using OwO unironically. Uses all-caps the most, overall VERY expressive in text.

Definitely the one to have the most typos and uses shorthand a lot, but WILL correct when someone else makes a typing error.

Example - "HEYY GUYS hru?? :D" and "NOOO rEuebn in MCSM DIEDDD (ᗒᗣᗕ)՞"

Orange/TSC:

They're a ghoster in chat/J

Types pretty normally, but also uses shorthand a lot. Only uses punctuation and caps when it REALLY counts. Rarely uses emoticons, and uses tone indicators more. Lazy at typing, lmao

Example - "hey what's up?" and "oh dang, rlly? that sucks/gen"

Yellow:

Everything he types is in perfect grammar, punctuation, and spelling. This, of course, leads to him being a bit of a slow typer.

He almost-never uses shorthand, same goes for emoticons. He uses tone indicators, though! And not above using multiple letters like "Helloooo!"

When he makes a single typo, everyone goes crazy and is quick to joke about it. Always quick to correct any typing mistakes.

Example - "I think you mean *Reuben, @/Red, and wasn't there an option to save him? /genq"

Green:

Green, Mr. Everything-must-be-perfect Green? He tries to NEVER make a typo, and is quite fast at typing. Manages to maintain perfect typing even in a fast pace.

(The same outcome from Yellow happens to him if he makes a typing mistake, but gets clowned on a lot less since he'd definitely make more typos than Yellow ever would)

Similar to Yellow, he tries to maintain perfect everything for typing, but he DOES use emoticons and shorthands! Also drags on some words with extra letters, of course.

Example - "Yeaah, I think so?? But the scene where he turns into a porkchop is hilarious lmaooo" and "Oh heyy @/Blue and @/Purple are both online! Hey, guys <3"

Blue:

Has a typing style similar to Orange’s, but uses caps and emoticons a lot more! Doesn't quite care about typing errors unless it's something important. Nothing much to add to this, to be honest.

Example - "Heyyy! ^^" and "The cutsecene was actually pretty funny ngl, it made teh sad moment less sad tho :P"

Purple:

Their typing style used to be extremely perfect, but as time went on, they stopped caring too much. Of course, they use proper spelling and doesn't use shorthand too often, but they do allow themselves to be imperfect!

They use tone indicators more than shorthand, but they do use stuff like "lmaoo" and "wtf" sometimes!

Example - "Wait tf who's Reuben? /genq" and "@/Red I am so sorry for your loss.."

King Orange/King Mango:

Perfect typing, doesn't even try. Doesn't use emoticons, doesn't use shorthand, doesn't use tone indicators. Uses emojis.

Doesn't understand what "lol" means. His typing style reflects his speaking style.

Example - "@/Purple, I do believe that @/Red is referring to the show he's been watching." and "You all must go to sleep, it's late! You kids need more time to grow."

Purple: "Dad we're all young adults-"

KM: "Oh, that's right 🫢. Indeed, you are.."

Red: "o l d XD"

KM: "What does 'XD' mean?"

[leoremin]

I just finished watching the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen...and I have...thoughts (along with some bad grammar)

This is an overall negative post, so if you don't like that keep scrolling. If you like this movie, go ahead and scroll on past if you don't want to read this. If you want to debate me, then hell, go ahead, I might be wrong in some areas and I'm fully willing to admit that. I'd love to see anyone's take on this movie.

To say real quick, I haven't finished reading Dracula (over 1/2 through tho), Sherlock Holmes, 4 billion leagues under the sea, and a few others.

Also...spoilers...obv

(last note: I am not against retellings or that stuff, I'm just rating it on MY OPINION of these little guys and all that stuff. This is depending on how much I like them from just a writers sense.)

Tbh I really love the idea of crossovers, I love so much seeing the babies all together (I am working on a crossover myself so...) but I feel like this one was just...mediocre

First up Jekyll!

Number one, assuming this takes place after the novella, that is not how HJ7 works. Jekyll turning back into Hyde is not right then. At that point, Henry would be living on a timer rather than Hyde.

Also, little pet peeve...THE POTION SHOULD BE GREEN!!!! THE POTION'S FINAL COLOUR IS GREEN AND THEY MADE IT CLEAR!!!

Also Jekyll is a doctor, he acts like the fucking wimpy Swiss man from Frankenstein. Jekyll is meant to be a (mentally) strong man who experimented on himself and kept good notes during the whole thing. He is a doctor; he is used to seeing some shit.

Also...why would you make Hyde look like that? One of the few clear physical descriptions in the book is that Hyde is much shorter than Jekyll, but he's...hulkish. I don't like that because it takes the monstrosity away, pinning it all on looks and not on action.

Also why Paris? Why did Hyde run to Paris? There wasn't really a reason for him to do that in a writing sense.

Upside: At least he continues to run on rooftops. All Hydes run on rooftops; it is not optional.

Next on the Chopping block is Dorian.

For a moment there, I really thought they ruined Dorian, but hell yeah! They kinda did it!

I wish they'd had another actor to play him, since the dark hair makes him look a little malicious, which is quite the opposite of what he's supposed to look like. He's supposed to be a child-like and innocent; deceiving.

Also...what the fuck was his ending?? Like he doesn't perish if he looks at the portrait. It literally says earlier that "the last time [he] looked at the picture" which literally contradicts what happens later. He can look at the picture, but chooses not to.

I am glad they decided to not have him redeem himself. That fits a little closer to the book.

For Mina!

Quick thing: I have not yet finished reading Dracula, so I have no clue what's happening there or why she's the vampire (please don't spoil it) so I won't say anything on that (cough cough...should've been Carmilla)

I don't like making women the sole love interest. It feels weird. Literally three people liked her (well only 2, Dorian was pretending) out of five. Make it interesting, make it something someone would ship...there is literally no chemistry between any of them (except Dorian, and we don't even get a proper "oh yeah I hooked up with him" moment. It's only implied. When did that happen???). Also, Mina isn't that kind of person. She's (in book) not looking for romance in that sense, she had a husband, and I'm pretty sure she'd probably stay faithful to him even after death.

Speaking of Chemistry, why tf is she a chemist? Jekyll should've been the chemist. Mina is literally known for being able to write in shorthand, and they could've used that to her advantage. Again, please excuse this if somehow Mina does become a scientist after Dracula, but considering people's views on women in that time period, it's unlikely.

Skinner:

I think that's his name...idk. I have not read the Invisible Man, but why would they kill off Griffin? Like Jekyll dies, but he doesn't have a replacement. I can't say much since I haven't read the book.

I think that's all.

Thank you coming to my Little Leo lecture, and I hope anyone reading agrees, or can hopefully handle this as a mature adult. If you have other thoughts on this movie (whether they agree with mine or not) go ahead and share them, I'd be thrilled.

I may update this as I have things to say, but idk.

[navree]

Hi! Have you seen Domina s2? If so what are your thoughts on it?

Hey!

I have not seen Domina s2, nor have I seen Domina s1, because I just have genuine issues with it. I dislike where they chose to start the story, I dislike the way they've characterized a lot of these figures, I dislike a lot of what they've done with the history and their interpretation of the motivations behind it. And considering that Augustus is one of my favorite historical figures to read about and he already has a tendency to get really bad representations due to the people he was surrounded with (HBO Rome had Antony as a main character so of course their interpretation of Octavian, his final nemesis, was God fucking awful), it's infuriating.

Like, one of the reasons I like these figures and this period of history so much is that what actually happened was just so fascinating that I want to jam as much information about it as possible into my brain (I've harped on this before, but it is insane to me that Octavian, at the ripe old age of 22, decided to have 300 defeated and surrendered enemy soldiers slaughtered as human sacrifices on Julius Caesar's altar on the anniversary of his assassination, that is a crazy story and I wish we had more info about it) as permanently as possible. So whenever people decide to mess with that, it not only irritates me as an enjoyer of the history, but it also makes their story more dull because nothing these people come with for the sake of "ratings" is ever going to match up to real life (no, Colleen McCullough, Octavian disowning his mother based on a debunked historical theory is not more interesting than a 19 year old's only living parent dying unexpectedly a year after the only father figure he's ever known/close uncle/actual adopted father was brutally murdered thereby thrusting him into a position of extreme pressure and visibility and kicking off a personal revenge quest that led to the eventual reshaping of the Western World, sorry). And it especially doesn't work when you're relying on tropes that everyone has already seen done before.

Livia Drusilla as some conniving snake manipulating everything behind the scenes to suit her own ends is an incredibly tired trope, it's the main characterization given to nearly any interpretation of her and I've never liked it. Augustus being a power hungry tyrant who only cares about making himself a living god and nothing else is an incredibly tired trop, and it too is the main characterization given to nearly any interpretation of him and I've also never liked it. I don't even know what to do with their version of Agrippa because he just seems like a wet chihuahua half the time (and then has this insane line of "I put you where you are and Livia kept you there" that I really wrote 3k words in response to because for one, he would not fucking say that and for two it's literally untrue and for three he would not fucking say that!!!) and honestly every interpretation of him has been borderline schizophrenic (the Elizabeth Taylor movie made him significantly older than Octavian when they were the same age??? tf????). I've already seen Rome and I, Claudius (well, not really, but I have skimmed them on occasion), I don't need a rehash of old hackery. Give me something new, something interesting, something that can actually fit who these people were attested to be, and certainly more interesting than old shorthand based on ahistorical assumptions.

Domina honestly shot itself in the foot by starting the story after the Last War of the Republic (I think it starts in 27 BC when Octavian is declared Augustus, which is three years after the war against Antony), because the years between the Ides and Actium can genuinely have great character work for all of these people. And it can especially have great character work for Livia, seeing how she handled the tumultuous time leading up to eventual war, and especially how she handled Rome and the family and the politics during the time that Octavian was off at war and then in Egypt. So you've got old news characterizations that don't jive, you have boring made up stories that aren't anywhere near as fascinating as the actual history, and to make it worse you're focusing on the more placid years and bypassing any of the stuff that's actually going to be of interest and really getting into the meat of, you know, Octavian's rise to power and eventual turn into a living god, which seems to be what this show is trying to chronicle too.

And honestly? Honestly? I despise whatever the Hell they're trying to do with Livia and Agrippa. For one, again, scheming cheating whore is a tired trope, it's a tired trop that I don't care to apply to Livia. For two, it's a cop-out. I've said it before, I said it when Rome tried to do Agrippa/Octavia, it's a cop-out to try and add some tension to Agrippa by pairing him with the first woman you can find in Octavian's inner circle. No relationship that this man had, with anyone, is going to be anywhere near as interesting as the one he had with Octavian. No fictionalized, ahistorical romance with Octavian's wife or Octavian sister is going to approach the dynamic that Octavian and Agrippa had with each other. If you want to add some romance between Agrippa and a member of the Julio-Claudians, don't be a scaredy-cat and have it be with Octavian. The mutual devotion these two felt for each other, the way that Agrippa never tried to seize power even though he could, choosing instead to be Octavian's lieutenant, his attack dog, the loyalty Octavian showed Agrippa even when they were teenagers, the way these two were by each other's sides for nearly Agrippa's entire life (Agrippa predeceased Augustus by about thirty years), the longevity of the relationship and the reciprocity of it, it's all ripe for someone to do something great with it. And nobody's ever really gotten it right, there have been elements from different places that have had moments, but nothing that's had it right from start to finish. I mean, for God's sake, during Augustus's near fatal illness that I know was in Domina's first season, Augustus literally gave Agrippa his signet ring so that, if he died, his legions and followers would follow Agrippa immediately and see him as Augustus's anointed successor, and the show didn't have any of that. Insanity. Quit pussy-footing around it. If you want to add an "Agrippa loves and desperately wants something he's not sure he can have", have that something be Octavian, not Livia.

All in all, I just really don't like this show, for so many reasons, and I think they did nearly everything wrong except for maybe a few isolated things here and there, and I have absolutely no intention of watching it. Honestly, if you want good content on this time and any of these people, it's probably better to find a good nonfiction book on the period or biography on the key player that interests you the most and just read that.

Also I hate that horrible fucking wig they stuck on TGC when Augustus was literally a blond historically. Like, seriously, you have TGC there (and with all those gifsets showing how alike he and Olivia Cooke are it's a crying shame they didn't cast her as Octavia, the fancasting exists in my dreams), Augustus is attested as having been a blond pretty boy, fuck off with your terrible wig and let him use his natural hair, Roman men tended to have hair the length that most modern men keep their's nowadays anyway.

[mikamink]

Absolutely obsessed with TYL M.M.'s look. Look at her, you just know she got a motorcycle.

Tough biker girl M.M. here to pick up her cute goth prince BF and give his snob parents a real reason to be disappointed <3

[thepringlesofblood]

mummies should not be a horror movie monster

or at least, reanimated mummies should not be considered worse or wholly different from any other reanimated corpses

or at least, “monster” should not be the first word that comes to mind when you think of mummies. the definition of the term “mummy” should not include the horror movie monster.

like, think about it for more than 10 seconds

first off, I acknowledge the long and storied film and media history of the mummy as a monster. that doesn’t mean that we should keep using “mummies” as a shorthand for scary dangerous undead things that can curse and kill you

like. that’s a human person! they had a life! they had wishes for how they wanted to be buried, and those wishes were flagrantly disregarded! that’s horrifying!

if your dead grandma came back to life and started cursing people because someone dug up her grave and put her body on display in a museum, it’d be a ghost or zombie or ghoul or something. Also, people would be upset! the obvious thing to do would be to fucking put her back!

“Mummy” refers to the method of burial of a real person’s dead body. it should NOT refer to reanimation, or necromancy, or the undead in any way! it’s a fuckin anthropological term!

im sorry I’m doing a paper about the ethics of displaying dead bodies in museums and I have a lot of opinions

tl;dr that’s a real human person’s dead body, and its age and method of burial shouldn’t detract from the fact that we know how that person wanted their body to be treated, and that their wishes were made a mockery of.

under the cut I’m putting a loose plan for a remake of The Mummy

i know very little about the actual movie The Mummy

but I do know its real goofy

and i do have some ideas about subverted tropes

so

some thoughts

theres a “curse” where oh no everyone from this one dig is dying in weird ways and its played straight until the end, where its revealed that the “curse” is a vial of x scary disease that some guy brought with him to the dig to infect people with to popularize his research. someone has definitely already done this topic.

oh no something in this sleepy town is bringing back ghosts, a bunch of weird clues indicate an Ancient Egyptian Artifact™ from the museum (a la night at the museum) that is being shipped somewhere else, and the trail seems to go from the museum to the delivery service, but then our heroic protagonist wakes up in her own bed miles from either to find the ghosts of like 5 different fish she owned who all died and she buried them in her backyard just. swimming around her. and it turns out that the Amulet was a necklace given to her by her girlfriend earlier in the movie and oh no the girlfriend’s dad is an evil scientist and HARD pivot.

Bonus points if its a proximity thing and when she later goes into the Ancient Egypt exhibit at the museum there is a moment where a ghost of a mummy appears, but it’s just a confused priest who doesn’t speak any modern languages and is just wandering around like “what tf is happening??? where am i???” and this is the important thing - it’s a ghost, so theres no body reanimation and it’s just some guy with a wavy see-through effect in period-accurate clothes

an evil scientist/anthropologist of some kind is hunting down this archaeologist bc he wants the key to unlock the curse to x tomb or smthin, and after chase hijinks ensue and the guy breaks into a tomb or something, there’s just absolutely 0 mention or indication of this curse he’s talking about in any of the writing or hieroglyphics or artifacts or anything. which is what the archaeologist has been telling him the whole time.

and maybe there’s a hands-rubbing-together moment of him being like ‘well there’s nothing protecting this tomb now’ and insinuating some grave-robbing black-market shit and maybe we use this part to illuminate the very real issues with that but anyway the archaeologist is like ‘there’s me’ and beats the shit out of them very, very carefully, so as to preserve the integrity of the site as much as possible (we can get some fun acrobatics in here)

then he gets in trouble with the local authorities for not following proper excavation procedure.

look, I already know I’m a nerd.