#a mediocre film does nothing. but a bad film….

[steelycunt]

the way a bad film will bring people together..a power that could transform this world for the better once properly harnessed of that i am sure

[lonesomedotmp3]

also evil dead sucked major ass I'm sick of staying silent the more I think about it the more it seems like a total failure under any criteria u give

[chaos0pikachu]

Cinematography?? In MY BL??? Not as likely as you think.

TLDR: it's a joke!!! but also legit sometimes I see "cinematography in bl" and it's just some basic pictures with mid-tone lighting and blue t-shirts. Let's talk film terms like: aperture, panning, tilting, and movement in film so we can see what goes into cinematography (with sources!). Also if I name a show you like as "boring cinematography" don't send me hate mail I'll laugh

(examples used: Our Skyy2 vs kinnporsche, 2gether vs semantic error, 1000 Stars vs The Sign)

If I name a show you like in this post as "bad cinematography" be chill about it, like, I ain't saying you can't like it, I'm just talking about techniques here not personal likability or overall show quality. I like badly filmed shit too say hello to my collection of Friday the 13th Blue Rays we're just here to talk techniques and like, educational stuff okay?

So the straight (heh) textbook definition of "cinematography" is: the art of making motion pictures. Which, frankly, tells you nothing. Like it's not wrong~~ but it's not informative either. Cinematography covers a lot of what we, the audience, visually see on screen:

"Cinematography is the art of photography and visual storytelling in a motion picture or television show. Cinematography comprises all on-screen visual elements, including lighting, framing, composition, camera motion, camera angles, film selection, lens choices, depth of field, zoom, focus, color, exposure, and filtration." (source)

So let's talk movement in film.

So when I talk about movement, what do I mean? I mean the way the camera, the characters, and the environment moves within a frame.

This video on Akira Kurosawa's usage of movement in a scene is brilliant:

Something as simple as having rain or fire in the background of a shot can enhance the emotions of a scene vastly. it gives the scene depth - literal depth, not narrative depth - that would otherwise be missing.

The way the camera moves and transitions leading the viewers eye back and forth makes what you're watching more engaging. You aren't consuming these scenes, you are engaging with them. They are apart of the story itself, giving the environment life and texture so the characters within them matter more.

And, look, I get busting out Thee Akira Kurosawa might be unfair, but if we're gonna talk cinematography we can't not talk the importance of movement on film.

To understand good cinematography you have to understand what makes it good and as such what makes bad or mediocre cinematography.

In connection with movement we gotta talk about camera techniques like panning and tilting:

"Camera movements are a fundamental part of video production. They can be a powerful storytelling device, heightening tension, evoking emotions, and bringing the viewer into the action. Without saying a word, camera movements can transform a scene’s entire narrative, and direct audiences’ attention where you want it." (source)

So we have movement of environment, of characters, and we also have movement of the camera itself.

Ok so like, where does the BL come in Pikachu??

I'm getting to that, I'm going to start with a more general example: Our Skyy 2 (Bad Buddy meets 1000 Stars edition) vs Kinnporsche.

Starting at 5:17 we have Pran stranded or whatever, and this shot is like, it's fine. It's boring as hell, but fine. Why is it boring as hell? Well it's flat, it lacks movement, it lacks depth.

When the driver drove off the camera could have panned to follow his movement and then panned back to Pran at a different angle to showcase his isolation. Honestly since the scene starts with a mid close up of Pran, I would have had the camera behind Pran as the driver drove away, and had the camera pan around Pran 360 so we get shots of his environment, and him, while also emphasizing holy shit he's like, fucking stuck in the wilderness. 

In general, there's a big lack of movement in the scene. The camera remains almost entirely static, there's no attempt at zooming in or out, following Pran's movement, or showcasing his environment in any meaningful way. Even when Pran begins walking towards the camera the angle of the framing is still centered, rather than tilted downward or upwards to give us more dimension (non-BL comparison, the Book of Eli starring Denzel Washington does the "walking towards the camera" shots really well).

We get a cut of a medium close up of Pran, with a deeper focus so his environment is blurred out.

I understand the thought process of this shot, we want the audience to focus on Pran, but if the point of the scene is to emphasize he's alone, confused, maybe even a bit anxious at his new circumstances it could've been done better. Take a wider shot from this angle, open up the lens to allow for that background environment to come through and show him isolated. Maybe do a pan above him or tilt the camera up going from his feet up as he nervously ruffles his hair. There's options here.

This just adds more walking to the scene, which we already had. It doesn't enhance or emphasize anything about Pran's emotions as a character.

Anyway the camera continues to follow him and then we get another cut. And it's from the same angle as before, only this time we see a truck coming. The camera remains static, it completely stops moving, and we just wait for the truck to drive into the frame.

This whole sequence of events ends at 5:57 and while not a long sequence I find it frustrating because it's boring. The only way the audience knows that Pran is anxious is via Nanon’s acting, there’s nothing in the filmmaking that enhances or contributes to that feeling.

He’s alone, until he’s not, and that’s all the scene tells us. It leaves the scene lacking any tension as well, because we’re not getting a sense of isolation - how large is this space? How alone is Pran right now? What is the entirety of the environment? 

Contrast this with a similar scene in kinnporsche ep06 where Kinn and Porsche are alone in the mountains. I don't have a video of this specific scene so I have to link the trailer, starting at 1:48 to 1:52, but see how we start mid-close up of Kinn and Porsche, then pan out from above them? This is a better showcasing of just how vast the environment around Kinn and Porsche are.

They're still center frame throughout all of this, the depth of the scene is in mid-focus so nothing is blurred out and you can see the sharpness of the environment.

It also places the audience in the same space as Kinn, who is looking up at the sky while the audience looks down at him. It makes the audience a more active participant in the shot, emphasizes the state of the characters, gives the audience a sense of space & environment, and relies a sense of emotion.

The additional fast zoom out also adds to the scene by adding movement and making it more dynamic.

(my man pran looking like this 🧍)

Both these scenes are pretty short, but they're relaying similar information and one is way more dynamic and effective than the other. Both Pran and Kinn/Porsche are alone in the wildness, but in the latter there's a lack of space, a lack of movement, and a lack dimension. This is mainly a framing issue, so let's talk more about camera movement (panning, & tilting).

Here's a scene from 2gether vs a scene from Semantic Error.

(saw someone say 2gether had a high production value and chepie where??)

This entire scene with Sarawat and Tine is flatly shot. There is nothing in their background so no outward movement is happening, the lighting is even as are the colors, everything is at the same depth, and there's little to no motion in the camera.

The scene with Sarawat pushing Tine into frame. Why doesn't the camera follow Tine's motion of movement so the scene has more momentum? It just stops and the char falls out of frame before walking back into it. Then we get a series of cuts back and forth of close ups on Sarawat and Tine's faces. Back and forth, back and forth.

The editing leaves a ton to be deserved because if the back and forth did a quick pan back and forth with each beat we could build up tension, give the scene some texture, heighten the intensity of the argument. If we're going for something softer we could place them in on better set, or make the characters move themselves - have Sarawat walk away from the argument up those stairs, have the camera follow his movement as Tine chases him continuing the argument - or play with the lighting a bit, pan the camera down or tilt it something!

When Tine kisses Sarawat why doesn't the camera move with him in a more notable way? Why did we have a cut to a close up? And then we're back in a mid close up and more cuts and this editor is killing me!

This scene is 4mins long and the only engaging bit of filmmaking here is when the camera follows Tine when he steps closer to Sarawat putting the latter in the frame at 3:15, the entire scene is 4 minutes long.

I want to compare this scene to this scene in Semantic Error which is also all dialogue and also obviously filmed on a shoestring budget.

So right away the camera work here is smart, it starts off in an establishing shot, evenly lit, of Sang Woo and Jae Young both in the frame. Then we get a mid close up of JY looking down, then a tight close up of JY looking up.

The change in camera angle emphasizes his surprise at seeing SW here as he looks up at SW. The lighting has also changed, it's much brighter now. The camera also begins to move, where it was static before it begins to tilt and shift.

We get a cut to SW, the first one of this scene. JY is seeing SW in a new light for the first time, and as such so is the audience. By starting the scene off in an outward shot with both chars in the frame, they are placed on the same level and the audience doesn't see their expressions up close. So when we're hit with JY's close up of surprise and then SW's close up of his wet hair it holds way more impact. It enhances the feelings of JY's character for the audience.

The lighting behind SW has also changed, it's much brighter, and warmer compared to the cooler tones of light behind JY. The camera also slows, and continues to to tilt and shift. JY's world has literally been shifted on his axis.

We get another cut, this time medium on SW and notice, the camera stops moving for that moment and the light around him dims. It's not as saturated. We're moved out of JY's pov here and back into "regular" framing.

SW tries to make JY leave, we get a close up cut of the cut on JY's arm - hey editing used to display important and new information! - then the camera cuts to SW getting medicine and here's a small but important thing, when he tosses at JY the camera follows his movement. And instead of cutting away, when JY gets up thinking SW is hurt, the camera follows JY's movement back towards SW.

It would have been easy to make a cut there back and forth - like in the 2gether scene did over and over - but following the movement of the characters makes the scene way more interesting visually to watch.

Changing the angles of the camera from a lower angle (where JY is looking up) to a downward angle (where SW is looking down) makes the scene more interesting visually as well and enhances the storybeat of JY looking up at SW in a new light memorized. This contributes to the story as well, as it's JY who catches feelings for SW first so their are literally, on uneven ground until they're not later in the story. The camera is panning, tilting, moving with the characters even given the limited space. The lighting adds to the effectiveness, as do the minimal cuts.

On a technical level, the scene in Semantic Error is just better filmed. In my own opinion, the scene is far more engaging b/c the filmmaking is better, where in 2gether the reliance is almost completely on the actors to sell the scene with little help. And I'm not saying nothing about Bright and Win cause their stans wildin'.

Next, I wanna talk about aperture.

I saw a post that used this word and I didn't understand the context in which they were using it because aperture isn't a style of filmmaking its a camera setting or lens adjustment - it's the rate at which the camera opens and closes letting in light and focus.

"Aperture is the opening of the lens through which light passes. When you hit the shutter release button to take the picture, the camera aperture opens to the predetermined width, letting a specific amount of light through. A large aperture lets more light in, and vice versa. Aperture is calibrated in f/stops, written in numbers like 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11 and 16. The larger the number, the narrower the aperture." (source) <- really recommend this article if you want to learn about aperture in film.

A great non-BL example of aperture used for style is One Piece Live Action where cinematographers Nicole Hirsch Whitaker, and Michael Wood love using deep focus aperture in a lot of scenes.

But let's compare The Sign vs 1000 Stars.

So when the scene starts, we're in mid-focus/aperture, everything is of similar sharpness and depth. Nothing is especially blurred out we're getting the full spectrum of Phaya and Tharn's environment.

When the camera switches to close ups of Phaya and Tharn however, we get a deep focus aperture. That's why everything behind them is so blurred out. In a close up of Phaya, even Tharn's face is blurred. The director wants the audience to focus specifically on these characters individually, so we can understand the weight of their dialogue. But when the camera wants us to see the characters as a unit, it cuts, pulls back out of that deep focus and everything is back in mid-focus again.

Here's another thing, it's subtle but it's important.

This scene also combines what we already discussed about movement. At :08 of the scene, in that first mid-shot the camera is actually zooming in closer on Phaya and Tharn. Not dramatically, subtly, but it is there. This is important, because at 3:23 we get another mid-shot of them, pulled out of that deep focus, and the camera begins to zoom out.

The camera also follows the movement of Phaya grabbing Tharn's hands, then pans back up to Phaya's face once again before panning higher into the frame and panning back to their faces and zooming in.

When we move back out of that deep focus, into a mid-shot the camera continues to zoom out on the two characters as they kiss.

I saw someone say that this scene wasn't "filmed like BL kisses" and, eh? Like it isn't filmed in that static style of filmmaking which has dominated BL filmmaking probably due to budgetary reasons. But

The Sign follows a similar filmmaking style as Kinnporsche and Domundi shows do. But also just like, basic filmmaking techniques you'd see in shows of the non-CW/soap variety.

The thing fans are seeing here is film technique (probably partially due to a larger budget). Movement, lens adjustment, panning and titling, lighting and color are all playing a role in this specific scene.

Cinematography baby.

(sidenote the VFX of The Sign is dope as fuck too)

Okay so let's talk Our Skyy 1000 Stars

So this opening scene follows a similar structure to the scene in The Sign: mid focus shot of the two chars, into separate deep focus close ups. It's also a dialogue heavy scene like the one with Phaya and Tharn.

So why does their scene work better on a technical level than this one in Our Skyy 2?

The scene in The Sign combines techniques of aperture, movement, lighting, color and framing to give everything more impact.

In this scene with Phupha and Tian we get a similar editing style as the scene in 2gether: lots of back and forth cuts, very tight close ups, static camera movement. Where as the camera zooms in and out during mid-shots, the camera doesn't move in Our Skyy 2. It remains motionless even though a zoom in as the two characters lay in bed would add a lot to the scene itself.

In the close ups the camera continues to remain static, only changing angles when there's a cut. At 1:22 Phupha moves his arm to wrap around Tian, the camera could have taken a closer shot at his arm, and then followed his movement as he wraps it around Tian. Like how the camera followed Phaya's movement when he holds Tharn's hand.

Instead it's just a flat shot, we see his arm wrap around in a mid-focus above shot. The camera does move to follow Tian a couple times - at 1:50 for example. But overall, the scene is stiff - who sleeps like this frfr - in framing, in movement, in depth.

I want to say that I don't think this scene is bad - like I do the 2gether scene or the earlier scene with Pran - I think it's just, okay~~

And no, for none of these examples did I pick "the worst" shots or whatever. I'm not out to get any specific show, but tried to find comparable scenes and compare and contrast the filmmaking techniques used in both and how effectively they were used.

I want to leave off with this.

There's a lot that goes into cinematography, yes this singular shot of Furiosa is amazing, but what makes the scene amazing?

Pay attention to how the camera moves (panning and tilting), when the camera moves (zooms in and out), the movement of the scene (the hair and sand moving), the lighting (Furiosa from behind is in darkness, her side profile more lit), the depth of the scene itself changing (as she walks away from the group the focus/aperture gets deeper on her, then when she walks out of the frame it grows larger to focus on the characters left behind).

All these little things make up what is "cinematography". The more you learn about the techniques used the more you can notice about film and what makes a scene powerful.

As BL gets more budget we're seeing shows expand their filmmaking catalogue more and more. Which is exciting! If fandom is gonna talk cinematography I think it's helpful to have the vocab to do so, and it's cool to watch a scene and be like "oh I see what they're doing here and why and how".

I mentioned other things that go into cinematography like framing, lighting, color, and there's also editing (which is separate). Idk if I'll make a post about those things cause I'm lazy and this shit takes forever to research and write but who knows~~

Check out other posts in the series:

Film Making? In My BL? - The Sign ep01 Edition | Aspect Ratio in Love for Love's Sake | Cinematography in My BL - Our Skyy2 vs kinnporsche, 2gether vs semantic error, 1000 Stars vs The Sign | How The Sign Uses CGI | Is BL Being Overly Influenced by Modern Western Romance Tropes?

[like these posts? drop me a couple pennies on ko-fi]

[utilitycaster]

Hi! Hope you don’t mind me asking but, I’ve seen you comment about a “fjord moon” theory every so often in your tags, and I’m quite curious what’s it about? I don’t think I’ve ever heard about it, is it something more prevalent in twitter spaces?

It started in Reddit spaces but it had a moment within the fandom at large during Campaign 2, especially after a YouTube video surfaced shortly after the campaign had come back from hiatus in August 2020. It hasn't come up lately since Campaign 3's plot pretty thoroughly debunked it, which wasn't necessary for reasons I will cover below.

I talked about how stupid it was at the time, and will do so again but I don't feel like looking back through my archives to find that post, so: the idea was that Fjord was from Ruidus. I call it a theory because its creators called it a theory but it was really just a lot of incoherent yelling that unfortunately happened to fall into the hands of a prolific and popular but talentless video maker and was boosted by a prolific and popular but deeply stupid figure on CR Twitter.

You can read it here but in short he basis was that Fjord was actually a Spelljammer Space Orc (Scro; yes this is just Orcs backwards; Spelljammer is not exactly the most brilliant of concepts) because he was intelligent and walked upright, ignoring that Spelljammer was, at the time, from D&D 2e only which can generously be described as "wicked racist in the depiction of orcs". Not that 5e is not without its foibles, but it had largely 86-ed the worst of the racism that pervaded earlier orc depictions. Also Garthok pre-dated Fjord and was a half-orc with the same intelligence, but what are facts to an idiot. So anyway this guy working off a deeply racist older concept for orcs spun this into a wild conspiracy theory involving the fact that Travis likes Dragonball Z; something about the film Spaceballs (as far as I know Travis has said absolutely nothing about this, this is just that the Mel Brooks Star Wars parody and my personal childhood favorite Spaceballs exists I think?) and various other random pulls from science fiction media. This guy asked a question at a panel and mistook the cast looking at him like he had lost the plot as a sign he was onto something. Somehow, people listened to him.

Here's the thing about theorycraft. It is more important, in writing a theory, that you base it on evidence than that you get it correct. Any dipshit can guess and any lucky dipshit can guess correctly, but if you show that you can't structure an argument for beans, anyone who can structure an argument for beans will rightfully look at you and say "well, they predicted something once, but that's a fucking fluke because they're a fucking joke." Theories should explain something that needs explanation (Fjord having an INT of 14 and the name Fjord and being an orphan does not). They should not solely rest on things the cast likes or things that merely exist in-world and certainly not from Spaceballs and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the connection of which to Critical Role in that Reddit post is not explained, ever.

To give some examples of good, mediocre, and bad but at least not nearly that bad theorycraft: the theory that Ashton was a meteor that was around early in C3 is in my mind not very good, but at least it fits within Exandria canon and explained something about Ashton needing explanation at the time. The theory that The Emissary is the source of the stasis bubbles is in my mind a very good one explaining several key mysteries (source of stasis bubbles; why Erathis sent him rather than coming himself). The theory that Bor'Dor was a dog was fucking stupid and made no sense nor did it explain anything that needed explanation (and also wildly misjudged how border collies behave) but did at least not say "also, the TV show Lassie...exists in our reality, and this is evidence" The Fjord Moon Theory is maybe the stupidest and worst CR theory I've seen in my entire life, and it's up there for fandom theories over all. I get that it was August 2020 and I don't begrudge people who were very bored and scared from joking about it while not taking it seriously, but I do begrudge those who did take it seriously because like, come on.

Anyway, I bring it up in tags sometimes because many of the worst C3 takes on Twitter that make it to me via "can you fucking believe this" screenshots in the groupchat are either started or propagated by Former Moon Theory People.

[smoothestjazz]

Games criticism is dead, and it's no one's fault. Speaking as a former freelance game critic, here's the major issues I've noticed recently.

1. Reviewers tend to review based on how subjectively fun the game is, not the objective measures of what the game does for the genre, whether it innovates, does anything new, is well crafted, or perhaps most important: whether it achieves what it set out to do. A good critic should, in my opinion, weigh both subjective and objective factors when reviewing games. This is something the film critics have figured out, but not so with game critics.

This has led to, in my personal opinion, polished mediocrity being lauded, because it's "fun", even when the game is objectively doing nothing for games as a whole, or the gamer in any meaningful way.

2. Reviewers are afraid to give bad scores for two reasons. Firstly, they may personally know the developers (online or otherwise), or are at least in an accessible place for the developers to speak to. I can personally speak to developers speaking to me or about me twice when they didn't like what I said about the games in reviews.

Secondly, reviewers are afraid of public reaction to the review. Developers are still receiving death threats when their games don't meet audience expectations; likewise, a reviewer who isn't a fan of a popular game may also see harassment campaigns. These factors make it difficult for a reviewer to deliver a perhaps correctly earned 2/10.

3. Game reviewing and journalism publications are dying. They're being bought up by big corps, and many are being shut down. This has resulted in a laser focus on the games big sites will cover, and not more niche areas.

(To briefly tangent, I wrote for a wargaming site back in the day. The site did okay but wasn't massive. It was bought by a large gaming publication; soon, one of the few review/ journalism wargaming sites shifted focus from wargaming to Dungeons & Dragons, Magic the Gathering, and Pokemon guides. There are scant few sites that even review wargames left now, resulting in less "professional" articles being posted. Us freelancers don't have the money or necessarily the time to buy and write about the big games of the genre without a site to support us.)

The focus on AAA games by these sites lessens the breadth of what the sites will write about... and lead to less challenging writing about the games. Negative, thoughtful pieces of criticism don't generate clicks as much as guides do; this is a fact I was expressly told by my former editor. This being the case, it's not in big gaming sites' interest to write negatively about games they may be able to write guides for, which would generate more revenue.

In essence, I don't believe games journalism is in currently in a place to contribute anything to the medium. There are too many factors limiting the journalists themselves from being able to actually *criticize* what they're writing about. It is unsustainable in the long term, and I'm afraid the remaining serious review sites will be subsumed into the morass of guide-churning sites that masquerade as "journalism".

[theficpusher]

Falling For You by YesIsAWorld | G | 1425 Five times Harry orders very particular drinks, and one time Louis finds out why. Featuring Starbucks’ fall menu.

tell me what you need by disgruntledkittenface | G | 2497 “And a fresh cherry?” he asks, pinching his bottom lip between his fingers. He waits as Louis stares him down, his brow furrowing. “No? What the fuck,” Louis rasps, looking bewildered.

Matcha Me and Matcha You by LadyLondonderry | G | 2508 Louis does not like the douche, and the douche clearly looks down on him. Therefore sometimes when Louis is in the walk-in freezer, he keeps himself warm with thoughts of punching his Boarding School Face. And the day he sees the douche walk into the cafe with someone new, he decides he can’t stomach the idea of his new partner going on unawares of just what a douche he’s on a date with.

in the right place and time by weareonceinalifetime | M | 4790 Louis is a barista. Harry is a regular with bad taste in clothes who really likes coconut milk dirty chais. Somehow it works.

I Kinda Need A Hero (Is It You) by FallingLikeThis | nr | 5311 Louis is a barista who’s had his heart broken. Harry is the boy who wants to put the pieces back together.

Stay forever by allwaswell16 | E | 6481 For the last year and a half, Harry has spent his coffee break at the same cafe every day, not because he loves their coffee, but rather because of the gorgeous omega behind the counter making the coffees. As a beta, he’s sure he doesn’t stand a chance with him, so he goes online to find as close a substitute as possible. A camboy au

Nothing Please Me More Than You by lululawrence | M | 8196 This guy came in every day and without fail said or did something that made Louis pause and puzzle over what it meant. His accent was American, but it had to be some regional dialect from nearby or something because everything sounded sharper when he spoke. A little more crisp. Like he’d worked with one of those dialect coaches that had been used when talking pictures first started being made. Louis shook his head and tried to rid himself of lectures from the film history course he’d taken last semester. It obviously had no bearing on what was going on with hot dude in the corner. Still, Louis would love to pick his brain and figure out where he was from. How his hair always looked so perfect. If he liked to kiss boys. Or...the one where Louis is a barista and Harry is the hot dude that comes in every day and does nothing except sit in the corner, writing in his notebook, all day long. But what Louis learns when he sneaks a peek inside the notebook changes everything.

Dust on the Road. by Velvetoscar | nr | 18308 Louis is definitely fine and Lottie is definitely crushing on her French teacher, and these two things have nothing to do with each other. Except they do. And Louis is not fine.

I Really Like Your Styles: The Baking Advent-ure by homosociallyyours | T | 34322 Louis isn't much for frills, and the coffee shop he co-owns with his best friend Liam is evidence of that. Yes, it's got a decent sized, well-kept industrial kitchen, but Louis insists that people come to coffee shops for coffee, not mediocre pastry and plastic wrapped cookies. When Liam's campaign for serving treats turns into watching a few baking accounts on whichever popular app he's on, there's one that really gets on Louis' nerves: "I Like Your Styles." With his chipper demeanor and over the top descriptions of the food he makes, Louis is sure that the (unfortunately cute) baker is full of it. Nothing that adorable could possibly be worth the hype. It doesn't actually take much for him to eat his words...and some quality baked goods, while he's at it.

[princesssarisa]

I've seen the trailer for Mufasa: The Lion King and I've read the Lion King fandom's outrage over it. So I've decided to share my own thoughts on the subject.

I agree that nobody asked for a prequel to the 2019 Lion King. That remake was mediocre. Nor am I expecting Mufasa to be much better; I'm not even sure whether I'll go see it or not.

I couldn't care less that the movie is retconning the popular fandom lore of who Mufasa and Scar's parents were and what their childhoods were like, or their backstory from The Lion Guard. None of that was ever official canon anyway.

The one retcon I might object to is that Mufasa and Scar will now be adoptive brothers rather than biological brothers. Some might argue that this makes Scar's eventual crime less horrific. But that will depend on how the movie plays out. If they're raised together through most of their childhood and sincerely think of themselves as brothers, then it doesn't matter whether the same mother gave birth to them or not: Mufasa’s murder is still fratricide.

But it seems as if the biggest source of outrage is the fact that the movie has Mufasa be a commoner lion by birth, which the fans claim goes against the themes of the original film.

The argument is that in the original Lion King, everyone has a destiny and a "place in the circle of life," and to go against it upsets the balance of nature. Scar does this by killing Mufasa, usurping the throne, and bringing the hyenas into the Pride Lands when they don't belong there. Simba is the rightful king because he's Mufasa's son: therefore, it's his responsibility to depose Scar and take the throne he was born to inherit. Therefore (the fans argue), Mufasa must have been the "rightful king" himself who inherited the throne, not a commoner who changed his destiny and gained the throne through his own achievements. If it was otherwise (they argue), then Scar did nothing wrong, because why shouldn't he have made himself king through his own efforts and cunning, or made changes to the animals' social order? And why couldn't Simba have opted out of being king, then, and let the lionesses find some other, more willing young lion to overthrow Scar instead?

Personally, I don't see it that way. Scar's crime isn't just that he became king when he wasn't "the rightful heir": it's that he murdered his brother, and then became a selfish, irresponsible king. The problem with the hyenas isn't just that they "don't belong in the Pride Lands": it's that the Pride Lands' resources can't support a second apex predator group, but Scar brings them in anyway just to uphold his own power. And just because it's wrong of Simba to try to abdicate while the Pride Lands are starving under Scar's reign doesn't inherently mean "only the biological son of the previous king belongs on the throne"!

I'll admit that Mufasa's new backstory is an obvious retcon. In some ways, the original film does seem to say "Everyone has a proper place in the world, predetermined at birth, and to go against it upsets the balance of nature." Over the years, critics have lambasted that "conservative" message, and Disney is obviously trying to "fix it" by retconning the story so that Mufasa wasn't of royal birth and became king through his own merit.

But I don't think the original film's message about the balance of nature and the circle of life inherently means "everyone's life is predetermined at birth and no change in role or status is allowed."

I have no idea if Mufasa will be good, bad, or just as mediocre as the 2019 Lion King, but I don't object to the basic scenario.

[pinkpinkmermayyy]

I finally watched Wish. And I gotta say, it's not as bad as people say it is. Don't get me wrong, it's not good by any means. But it's still not so awful I felt frustrated and sick to my stomach after watching it. But it's also not so bad it's good to the point where it becomes a guilty pleasure for me like the live-action Bratz movie. It's just...bad. But not horrible. It had potential. It COULD'VE been good if the writers actually gave a single damn, and knew what they were doing. Or, alternatively, if they simply spent a few more hours on the damn movie. But alas, they did not, and since we're in the bad timeline, this is what we got. The music is what really weighs it down, with just about every song being meaningless, badly-written, and having terrible grammar/confusing metaphors that don't hold up under a microscope or even make any sense at all, really. The only thing stopping them from being completely insufferable is the fact that the actors are legitimately good singers, making it a crying shame that none of them weren't given better material to work with.

The characters themselves, though, are unfortunately very boring, one-dimensional, and contradictory/confusing in their writing. The setting, plot, and worldbuilding are all very bland and haphazard as well, to the point where I actually laughed out loud during the climactic scene at the end where the king brutalizes Asha with his evil magic. It was that ridiculous! The side characters, both human, animal, and star, were all boring and pointless(except for the Star ig) and I really have a bone to pick with Gabo especially. He goes from thinking that Asha killed her family(for no reason, mind you) to shaming Simon for being a bad friend and betraying Asha to the king, both in the SAME SCENE!!! It's like...all of the characters are this inconsistent honestly.

And I don't buy that people would be happy to "forget without regret" when it comes to their wishes. It just makes no sense to me. The writers should've come up with a better excuse for why the people of Rosas put their faith in the wishing system rather than "they forget what they wanted in the first place but are totally all right with that!" especially when Asha acts like this is a new revelation. Like come on, guys, you work at Disney! Give us something! But they gave us nothing. Because they are lazy. A shame.

Also the costumes in this movie were boring and bland af, and everything was really monochrome and lifeless. It definitely fails in comparison to the costume designs in Encanto, The Princess and the Frog, and even Tangled. Everything just feels so dull, cheap, lazy, and uninspired. Though I do like Asha's design aside from her outfit, she is very pretty and it's sad what this movie does to her. This movie in short didn't feel like a Disney 100 Anniversary. In fact, it didn't even feel like a Disney movie at all. It felt like a student film that was inspired by Disney, or like those direct to video films made for really little kids that have a low budget and even lower-quality CGI. Just a massive disappointment. I'm afraid that Disney is no longer the gold standard of animation that it used to be. Oh well. 😔

this is what really ticks me off about wish. I would be fine if it was just terrible if it ended up not being amazing or even good, but it’s mediocre. And that drives me INSANE because I see so much potential in the story and characters and the villains but they just let it bite the dust and left us with this infuriatingly mediocre movie that was supposed to be the 100 YEAR ANNIVERSARY SPECIAL FOR DISNEY! That’s supposed to be something fantastical and amazing and have that wow factor but it’s just so bland and it makes me angry. Also the fact that it was originally supposed to be traditionally animated but they changed that also makes my blood boil.

[ariainstars]

"The Acolyte" is Cancelled

or

Why the Woke Controversy is Getting Ridiculous

In all honesty, I didn’t go crazy for The Acolyte. I found it rather mediocre. But I had already read and heard so much discussion and criticism about it, both from people who hate it and from the ones who liked it, before and after the second season was cancelled, that I watched it just in order to form my own opinion.

What’s Positive

The Acolyte is a series that doesn’t thrive on fanservice. Finally new characters, new perspective, no reference to characters or events from the classic movies. It’s not a great series, but at least it's something new and fresh.

It’s not a story of Good vs. Bad. Everybody is human and fallible. And people get to step into other people’s shoes instead of simply judging them - Mae putting on Osha’s clothes, Osha putting on Qimir’s helmet etc.

“The Force does not belong to the Jedi.” (Luke Skywalker in The Last Jedi)

Yes, some in the galaxy far, far away call it The Thread. And use it their own way. Both ways might be wrong. That’s what The Acolyte is about: Osha is raised by two very different mentalities and finds both don’t suit her, so she joins Qimir who is also looking to find his own path.

The Controversy

No, the show is not perfect by a long shot, but everything I read and hear about how bad it is, how lesbians and diversity and wokeness are at the root of the problem is stupid.

1. The Acolyte is not about lesbians. The central relationships are a) between two sisters, b) a Jedi and his apprentice (father-daughter relationship) and c) a male and female former Jedi (erotic relationship? maybe? wasn’t made clear enough).

2. No one was gendered by Disney in Star Wars. Characters are heterosexual or you don’t find out if they have a sexuality at all because it doesn’t matter for the story. If Aniseya (the twin’s mother figure) and Mother Koril (the woman who bore them) are a couple, I noticed no love, partnership or erotic spark between them.

3. The two main characters of The Acolyte grow up in an all-female society, but that has nothing to do with the glorification of lesbians or hatred against men. The women distrust the Jedi because they want to take their daughters; they never say or show that they hate men. Also, the Jedi who want to take the girls include two female ones.

4. The Dathomir witches Asajj Ventres belonged to were an all-female, coven, too. Nothing new here. (In Dune we have the Bene Gesserit, also all female). No one called them a bunch of lesbians, to my knowledge.

5. The most impressive fighter and Force user in the entire show is Qimir aka the Stranger. A guy. We even got to see him naked. Yup, definitively a guy. Not a woman or anything in between.

6. I noticed nothing erotic (lesbian or otherwise) in the entire show. The only time we feel a little erotic spark is when Qimir openly flirts with Osha, i.e. a guy with a girl, and that isn’t even requited by her. Amandla Stenberg, the actress who portrays Osha and Mae, came out as non-binary, but that doesn’t mean anything in this connection because the two characters she plays aren’t (or if they are, it’s never said).

What Is Actually Behind It? The Usual Thing...

Jedi Stans

Many die-hard Star Wars fans are upset because the Jedi Knights have always been some sort of infallible superheroes to them. More recent productions show that the Jedi are actually the problem. George Lucas himself had already done that with the prequels; they weren’t as well received, but he was still the creator of the classic films, and at the time there was no social media, so the backlash wasn't as vicious as today.

Sol: “She was just a child.” The Stranger: “You brought her here.”

„The majority of my colleagues can’t imagine a galaxy without the Jedi. And I can understand why. When you’re looking up to heroes, you don’t have to face what’s right in front of you.“

„I think the Jedi are a massive system of unchecked power posing as a religion. A delusional cult that claims to control the uncontrollable. You project an image of goodness and restraint. But it’s only a matter of time before one of you snaps. And when, not if that happens, who will be strong enough to stop him?” (Senator Rayencourt to Master Vernestra)

It’s words like these, and the actions that prove them, that makes die-hard fans get out of their minds with rage. Because it’s the truth, a truth they have spent decades ignoring. Still in the classics, Obi-Wan and Yoda tried to manipulate Luke to push him to commit patricide. Ben Solo is what Luke would have become: a self-loathing patricide burning in an inner hell. And we see over and over how a Jedi is the first to draw a weapon although they are allegedly trained to fight only in defense. The Jedi have made so many mistakes and committed so many sins that I could spend hours writing about nothing else. But woe if you dare to attack the alleged heroes who can make things float and have shiny sabers and a detached, uncaring attitude (or at least, pretend to have it).

If a Star Wars show had Jedi for protagonists and these would be the infallible, all-wise superheroes hardcore fans take them for, these fans wouldn't mind one bit if these Jedi were black, Asian, female, lesbians, non-binary or anything else. They would swallow it all, hook, line and sinker.

Some YouTubers Apparently Don't Have a Life

Now Star Wars is owned by Disney, and the antis see the studios as an enemy they need to fight tooth and nails because apparently, there is no life without a fight. These fans are a much bigger problem than the studios. Thanks to social media, any idiot can easily post their unthinking, hateful opinion online and gain a following of fans who are of the exact same opinion but would never listen to another perspective, or watch the tv show in question in the first place.

This whole discourse just shows what a polarized world we live in. You don’t like something, so you „fight” against the supposed bad guys who are responsible (in this case the Disney studios).

The Acolyte had few viewers because apparently many fans watched and listened to haters online instead of watching the actual show and forming an opinion of their own. Also, it is well known that the author is a lesbian and the protagonist identifies as non-binary, so that’s enough of a reason to reject it.

How progressive. I remember learning how in feudalist Europe the nobility refused to listen to Händel or Rossini because not being of noble birth, they allegedly couldn’t be good composers.

My point is that Star Wars stans should at least give a film or a tv show a chance instead of bowing down to preconceived notions, expectations, entitlement and influencers who they probably don’t even know personally.

After The Last Jedi, there was bullying and even death threats en masse; it already started with the prequels, Ahmed Best became depressed and Jake Lloyd schizophrenic. Kelly Marie Tran and Daisy Ridley had to cancel all of their online accounts. And these are just a few examples. I wouldn’t want to produce or work on Star Wars. There is no reason to be so aggressive over a piece of media.

I don’t like the „woke” agenda either, the victimization of minorities is ridiculous and counterproductive.

But please, who hates The Acolyte should at least a) watch the series and stick to the facts and b) look at themselves first. Female heroes, black / Asian actors, queer characters are not the problem here. It’s their hero worship of the Jedi and their misguided idea of what a „true hero“ ought to be like that’s at the bottom of all of their hatred. Die-hard fans still feel personally offended because Luke Skywalker had actually taken responsibility for his faults and drank green milk; they can record hours of YT videos where they keep ranting about every single shot of The Last Jedi, never admitting that they hate it because they feel like their personal pride got a blow on purpose. They would never listen to fans who actually liked that film, and why.

Some problems, really. These alleged fans ought to get a life instead of spending years and years hating on Disney, Kathleen Kennedy etc. because Their Heroes were (shocking) taken off their pedestal and humanized.

What also gets me is how utterly entitled and ungrateful these fans are. Ever since 2015 Disney has produced plenty of good Star Wars content until now: Rogue One, Andor, The Mandalorian, The Bad Batch, the 7th season of The Clone Wars, Ahsoka, The Force Awakens, just to name a few. Most fans agree that these are good or at least solid work. But as soon as something comes out that they don’t like, they forget all about that and rave that Disney should sell the franchise to more competent authors, or that at least the current board of directors should be fired and replaced.

Really? Listen to Rachel Zegler telling everybody what she thinks of 1937 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, the film that actually laid the ground for the studio’s success and wealth, and that she’s supposed to be starring in the remake. There’s a person who ought to be sacked right away for her disrespect of the original and overall entitlement.

Star Wars Is Not Owned by the Haters

In the end, a good story is a good story because it’s well told, not because of the ideals it (apparently) wants to convey.

Star Wars, ever from the start, was not about Good vs. Evil but about the power of love. The fact that the Jedi are not the good guys but fallible though well-meaning people is what makes them interesting. It’s not the author’s fault if so many fans believe that a good story must be Good vs. Evil and that there is no alternative to that. Star Wars started out as a fairy tale, it’s not your average action movie franchise.

I would like many of the antis have to do the actual work, i.e. write and produce a Star Wars show or movie, and do better. Most of them wouldn’t get two sentences together because all they know how to do is to hate on people who actually are creative, even if the result of that creativity isn’t perfect.

So, I suggest we, the more moderate fans, take a stand. Why have we allowed the antis to hate on Disney and on Star Wars in general since The Last Jedi came out? Why are our voices not louder? Why do we always hope for something better to happen?

The studios are drowning in hatred, for all the wrong reasons. It’s a pity that the more aggressive and stupid voices are also the loudest.

I would have liked to see a second season of The Acolyte, just to see where the characters would go. So would many other fans.

Let’s speak up. As for me personally, I’m sick of getting invested in stories and then let down.

Have a nice day.

[wonderfulworldofmichaelford]

Is It Really That Bad?

Women leading superhero films has a long and troubled history even before losers online decided to make it their life’s mission to bully Academy Award-winning actress Brie Larson for the crime of being in a mediocre MCU movie. 2004’s Catwoman is the film that is usually pointed to as the movie that poisoned the well in regards to superheroine blockbusters, but it takes two to tango; the following year’s Elektra is just as much to blame for the negative perception of these sorts of films.

And how could it not be? It was rushed into production, Jennifer Garner really didn’t want to do it but was contractually obligated, it was supposed to be rated R until more contractual obligations nipped that idea in the bud, and on top of everything else it was a sequel/spin-off to a movie that was already extremely unpopular (Daredevil vindication was a long way’s off at that point). With all that in mind, is it any wonder that it’s one of the lowest grossing films to ever be based off of a Marvel comic? The only films that did worse were Punisher: War Zone, Man-Thing, and The New Mutants. Even the Howard the Duck movie did better than this shit!

The career of director Rob Bowman as tanked because of this film, with his credits being relegated to TV. Garner, meanwhile, fared just as poorly, with her career cooling off and leading roles not being a thing for her after that point. But worst of all is the career of the poor boat house in this movie, as it ended up appearing in Fifty Shades of Grey. And obviously this film dragged down the idea of a woman headlining a superhero flick for about a decade until Genocide Barbie Gal Gadot stepped into Wonder Woman’s boots. And while Catwoman would receive better adaptations on the big screen, Elektra would get no such chance…

...Until it was revealed that Garner was reprising her role in, of all things, Deadpool & Wolverine.

While the film isn’t out as of the time of this review, the announcement of her presence in it really got me intrigued about the last time she donned the red ninja outfit. I’m a huge apologist for early to mid-2000s superhero garbage, so it only made sense to check it out in preparation for the massive Marvel crossover Deadpool was about to deliver. And you know what question I always ask when going in to an infamous film like this: Is it really that bad?

THE GOOD

This film is just hilariously corny when it wants to be. I think when it does stupid stuff other superhero films of the time did, it tends to do them at least a little better. For instance, like Ghost Rider it has a quirky miniboss squad full of boring flat characters who exist for Elektra to kill. But while the ones in Ghost Rider are completely forgettable and bland, this film at least has some striking visuals with Tattoo and hot forceful lesbian murder smooching with Typhoid Mary, something I’m sure awoke things in the five people who watched this.

Garner herself is really, really trying, and to her credit most of the action scenes she’s in are pretty ok when they aren’t being edited to death. As I watched the unrated version, the brief glimpses of insight into her backstory are nice, and I do love that bright red costume on her. If nothing else, she does sell how cool Elektra is supposed to be with how she carries herself, even if the writing isn’t doing her many favors.

The final act is where things really get fun, because we have a big stupid battle against magical tattoos, teleporting ninjas, and genuinely the funniest possible way to kill a villain ever. I legitimately burst out laughing when I saw this:

THE BAD

Unfortunately, no matter how funny Typhoid Mary taking a knife to the forehead after saying her only two lines in the movie, two lines that actually give her more character than every other villain in the film, it can’t really completely save the film from its two massive, crippling issues.

Literally everyone in this movie is a fucking moron. The biggest moron is easily Elektra’s buddy, who sacrifices himself so Elektra can escape from the bad guys… but his sacrifice is pointless because they pull the info from his mind with psyhcic powers. He would’ve been better off running away with them! But it’s not like the villains are much smarter; one of them chops down a tree, and then almost immediately forgets this and walks into its path before getting crushed to death. It is genuinely absurd how dumb these characters manage to get. The dumbest of them all, however, has to be Stick. I genuinely have no idea what the fuck this man is trying to accomplish at any point, because he is recklessly gambling with people’s lives here.

But hey, dumb decisions are fine in a trashy 2000s superhero movie as long as they lead to some enjoyably dumb scenarios, right? Well, about that… Barring a couple of ridiculously goofy action scenes, this film is pretty bereft of memorable corniness. Remember how I said the minibosses in Ghost Rider were not as good as the ones here? Sure, maybe it’s true, but no amount of murderous lesbian smooching makes this movie more memorable than Ghost Rider, which features over a dozen insane Nicolas Cage moments. But maybe that’s cheating, it’s not fair to compare a Jennifer Garner vehicle to a Nicolas Cage one… so how about Catwoman? As absolutely shoddy as that movie is, there are a bunch of cringey, campy scenes that have helped earn the movie at least a handful of ironic fans. There’s just nothing like that in Elektra. It’s trashy and stupid in safe, unimpressive ways for the most part, and it doesn’t do anything at all to really stand out from the crowd.

IS IT REALLY THAT BAD?

Yeah, I guess it’s bad, but the level of bad that it is is greatly exaggerated.

The movie I’d most compare this to is, of all things, Morbius. I love Morbius more than most people, and even I’m willing to admit it’s multiple bright spots of trashy charm are interspersed with the dullest shit imaginable, and Elektra has a similar issue. It’s just so goddamn unmemorable and dull for the most part, with only the final act being packed full of silly nonsense to latch onto. But even that comparison isn’t great, because Milo was sprinkled throughout Morbius and was genuinely hilarious the whole way through, while Elektra just plods along until it remembers to actually be a little cool for the finale.

I guess really the film is less “bad” and more “not good.” Like if you throw this on in the background as noise while you do something else, it’s not the worst you could do, though even then something like Black Adam would probably be better. If you want to watch a trashy 2000s superhero film, I guess it’s not unwatachably unpleasant, but why wouldn’t you watch Catwoman or Ghost Rider instead? It just is in such an unenviable position where it’s the bottom of the bottom of the barrel, the least engaging super-schlock ever made, a movie not good enough to be vindicated but not bad enough to deserve the hate it gets. Elektra is just a film that exists. That’s all there is to it and aside from the single funny death, I have no strong feelings about this movie. I think a solid 4 is where this belongs. Not good enough to be average, not bad enough to be awful, it’s just there.

All this being said, I’m honestly very excited to see Garner become a teleporting ninja assassin again. Every comic character who was in a crappy adaptation deserves a second shot, be it as a new character (Michael B. Jordan as Killmonger) or as a reprisal that improves on the untapped potential that was there (Jamie Foxx’s Electro in No Way Home). I’m rooting for Garner to get her due, and for Electra to get the respect she truly deserves… But I just don’t really think this movie’s going to be getting a reappraisal no matter how good she ends up doing.

[ro994art]

A very specific nitpick I have with 'Megamind vs. The Doom Syndicate'

I don't do text posts here very often. This feels odd, let's just get on with it.

I was originally going to write down a full-on review expressing my utter disappointment and disgust dislike towards the horrible and cheap "sequel" to my favorite Dreamworks movie, Megamind. A sequel which, by now, we all know was nothing but a glorified extended pilot for a Peacock series that I have not watched, but it honestly looks just as mediocre, so I have no current plans to.

Hoooowever, I have since seen many reviews of this "movie", most of which have been able to express my feelings and thoughts pretty well. So it felt like I didn't have much else to contribute to the discourse.

Except for one thing that I have not seen anyone talk about (or maybe they have talked about it and I just haven't seen it), and it was one of the things that bothered me most about the film. So this post's entire purpose is to publicly point it out.

No, I'm not talking about Keiko herself (although yes, she was my least favorite character and completely ruined the movie and this franchise for me thanks for asking). It's more the purpose of her character.

You see, and allow me to put my cranky old lady pants for just a moment, I believe most people have been able to guess that the entire reason this character was put into the movie was to be a target audience insert. So the 8 to 12 year-olds watching can go "Hey! This character is around my age and has the same interest as me! I'll keep watching for her!" (Do no ask me how well that's going because I personally do not find the excecution of it all that great, but I digress). And although, as a more mature viewer and long-time follower of the franchise, this does feel a bit annoying, having this kind of character when you're trying to appeal to a new audience is, technically speaking, not a bad thing in itself. And when executed well, this can totally work.

But here's the problem.

It makes no sense for a character like this to form part of Megamind's story.

You see, my friends, for those of you who have not seen this movie (which, for your own good, I sincerely hope is the majority of people who are reading this), "Megamind vs. The Doom Syndicate" is VERY explicitly supposed to take place two days after the events of the first movie.

Just two days.

This is explicitly said at least two or three times in the first act of the movie alone (I value my sanity too much to rewatch the film to double-check that fact, but I'm fairly confident in that).

If you all remember, the masterpiece known as the original Megamind movie came out in 2010. Therefore, the most logical thing to assume is that the events of the film itself also take place in 2010, if not before that, right? It's never explicitly stated, but since there is nothing that confirms or denies this, I think it's the default assumption we as an audience should make.

Now, I did not own my first cellphone until the year 2012 when I turned 13 (don't make fun of me for that fact), so, correct me if I'm wrong. But I don't think in 2010, we were seeing thing such as:

Smartphones like the one Keiko has throughout the film,

People using said smartphones to make livestreams in which people leave likes and comments in real time,

Kids who are content creators gaining half a million subscribers in TWO LITERAL DAYS (I cannot stress this enough) by getting information and newsflashes from goodness-knows-where,

App equivalents to TikTok and Instagram with as much popularity as we saw in this,

And overall, just social media getting the same treatment and functioning the same in 2010 as it does in 2024.

I mean yes, in 2010, things such as the ones I listed above were probably beginning to take popularity and to become a thing. But they surely weren't as well-established as they're being presented to us in Megamind "2".

This cheapquel "sequel" is suppossed to be only two days after the first one, and yet, everything that revolves around THIS KID'S existence suggests to us that we're in the 2020's era of internet, influencers, and social media. Heck, the earliest I could buy any of this believably happening is like, 2018. 2015 as a stretch.

We went from 2010 to (at least) 2015 in two stinkin' days.

No sense whatsoever.

Logically speaking, there's no way TikTok Childstar Keiko was even born in the year the first Megamind took place. Like, her birth year is 2011 at the earliest, and you can't convince me otherwise. Why do you even exist two days after Megamind was renowned as the hero of Metrocity? Please go back to the womb.

(That got personal, sorry. This kid gets too much on my nerves)

"Well, TECHNICALLY since it's never stated when the first Megamind took place, nothing's stopping them from making it so that it's been 2024 all along"

If that seriously does not sound like gaslighting your audience in order to force "hip" references that resonate with the kids watching almost a decade and a half after the original film came out to you, then I don't know what does. I don't even care if "you're not suppossed to think too hard about it" (which is a lame excuse for lazy writing btw), just watching both movies back-to-back, the tonal differences and any chronological references just clash way too much for me to buy this as a legitimate follow-up taking place in the same universe, same city, and even same week.

So yes, "Megamind vs The Doom Syndicate" sucks, and the inclusion of this character and this anachronistic plotline, for me, is a huge reason why. It's insulting to the audience and a clearly desperate attempt to appeal to a new generation of kids that frankly, if Megamind had gotten a genuinely good sequel, they would've liked it all the same, even if it didn't include a 12-year-old TikTok influencer with a half-baked personality and forced role in the story. Because seriously, don't even get me STARTED on how forced her joining the gang felt, holy crap. 😓 But that's a tangent for another day. Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe I'll just leave this meme here and move on.

This was, of course, only one of many flaws this movie had, but I feel like other people have ranted enough about how the writing, character portrayals, poor animation, bad humor, and lame attempts at world-building did the original Megamind dirty.

Here's hoping one day Dreamworks wakes up, thinks smart, and decides to give us the Megamind 2 we deserve, so we can all happily toss this... project, into the realm of non-canon media, where it belongs.

[nugulover69]

JAKQ is in the books!

Folks, its truly a sight to behold. and I mean that in the same way a 15 car pile up is a sight to behold

Watching JAKQ is not the experience of watching 1 show, its watching 3 different shows: a competent but nothing special spy drama with sprinkles of superhero elements, a lighthearted but mediocre superhero show, and a barely coherent fever dream consisting of Hiroshi Miyauchi wearing various silly outfits and gags so unfunny, they'll have you taking a 15 minute walk around your neighborhood just to remember that life can be so much better than this. by the last 7 episodes, you can tell they either had no time to film everything or were filming with unfinished/rushed scripts

The main quartet are nothing to write home abt, which is a shame bc they all have the bones of potentially interesting and more enjoyable characters. I understand abandoning the darker elements of their backstories prior to joining JAKQ to match the lightened tone, but the wasted potential of having those elements inform their actions will haunt me

The only member of the 4 I would describe as a likeable character is Dia Jack. partially bc he does the coolest shit ever (hot wiring and running his car with his OWN CYBORG INNARDS and creating a make-shift bomb out of Queen's necklace AND HIS OWN CYBORG INNARDS AGAIN) but also bc he maintains this air of effortless confidence in the face of danger and a gentle, cool demeanor in low stakes situations/interactions with civilians

Also he's the designated cunt server of the group what's not to love

Although I've just listed many gripes, I can't say my watching experience was 100% terrible. just 97% terrible. there are a few episodes that I would honestly call well done AND fun to watch (episodes 10, 11 and 13). a short list but hey its something. basically any episode prior to Big One's introduction are, at minimum, constructed soundly and have fun elements in them (or they're episodes like episode 7 with the drawn-out blatant luxury car product placement which is so bad it loops back around to funny). unfortunately, the second Big One appears is when any remaining quality evaporates, so thoroughly that there's not even much to IRONICALLY enjoy. it becomes a farce of itself. and had it been an intentional farce, maybe it would have been more bearable to watch

1/10 why isn't Dia Jack my wife that's the REAL issue here

[xxbrightshadowxx]

Trolls Band Together Review

Huh. Didn’t think I’d be doing this. But here we are. I watched the new trolls movie on Saturday and have rewatched three times on ‘legal’ sites to see how I felt about it.

And I give it, a 7.3/10. Now while that doesn’t sound the best, my ratings go like this.

0-Toy Story 4

.5-This is the worst piece of shit I have ever seen

1-who thought this was a good idea

1.5-this is fricking terrible

2-this is a bad movie

2.5-I can see the vision but the writing is terrible

3-if you squint, you can see one good thing about this film

3.5-this is the type of film where, you have to get drunk to enjoy

4-not good but not terrible

4.5-I feel nothing towards this movie

5-mediocrity at its finest

5.5-this is a decent movie

6-not bad

6.5-I enjoyed this more then I should

7-This is an enjoyable movie I’d be willing to watch it multiple times

7.5-This is a good movie

8-Probably will obsess over this movie for a while

8.5-this is a great movie

9-This a fantastic movie, holy sh-

9.5-This will be on my top five

10-this is a masterpiece aka Toy Story 3

Now that you know that the rating is good, let me now talk about why I feel like I like this movie.

Cons

Let’s get the negative out of the way before. Quick warning, there will be spoilers so if you haven’t seen the movie and want to, go watch it before my review. Now that’s out of the way, the cons

I’m going to be honest I have a few minor flaws for example: some of the dialogue is a bit off and could’ve been fixed without changing much, the whole talk about Branch and Poppy getting married could’ve been cut, I found Tiny Diamond flat, but these are just personal pet peeves.

I also had a small problem with the ending there’s nothing bad about it but Branch having been in another band doesn’t make sense since he became emo depressed when he was a small baby. And if you wanna say that he joined a band before his grandma died when he was still a baby that still doesn’t make much sense. And if you wanna argue that he joined after the first movie, you can’t tell me poppy didn’t find and if she did, that would lead her to know about BroZone’s.

My real problem is the Poppy’s long lost sister reveal. This section of the movie dragged out for so freaking long. Viva, while interesting, feels so out of place. They took like almost more then twenty minutes of screen time where I feel like it could have been devoted to more Brozone family bonding to make it so when we had the third act breakup more heartbreaking. While you could argue that they needed Viva and Gretchen and the king(I can’t remember his name) in the movie to help Poppy and Branch, you really are going to tell me that Poppy and Branch couldn’t find a different method to get on the boat?

Overall, the biggest problem I have is that I wish they cut Viva out of the movie, simply to tighten up the pacing and to create more time for Branch to get along with his brothers and for to see more of his brothers’ flaws so we could’ve built up to a more dramatic fight scene. If you still want the scene with Gretchen and Viva and the king, then I feel like it should’ve been a short. I personally think that it would’ve worked better as a short where the bergen king and queen went on a honeymoon and witness the damage the Bergens did to the trolls.

Pros

Each movie has its cons and pros and this movie had a decent amount of pros. I’m going to let you guys on a secret. I watched the Wish movie, and I don’t have any major problems like I did with this movie. Do you wanna know what I rated it? 4.5/10. Why did I rate it lower than this movie? Because unlike Wish, I had so much fun with this movie.

This movie was investing and fun and the rule for me is if a movie is so fun that I can ignore some dumb things it does for the first and second watch, then it will automatically get a 4/10 for me.

So other pros? The humor was decent, nothing that me laugh out loud, but some made me smile and I was SO glad to know that there was no poop or fart jokes. I also loved the character designs of Branch’s brothers. (Especially Floyd for…reasons) they look a look like him but the same time don’t which is exactly how me and my sister look.

I also look how depending on which creature we are interacting with, the props that, that character has, matches a different vibe. When we meet Brandy, Spruce’s extremely tall wife, the props such as the cookies look plastic and childlike. That also goes for her design and her kids design. Everything looks as if a 4-6 year old played with it and had unrestricted access to glitter glue. The same goes to the trolls. Everything is whimsy and cheesy, just like they are. Poppy’s scrap book and their homes really shows how small and outdated they are compared to the other creatures. This also applies to Velvet and Veneer. They give 80’s vibes and look so different compared to the other characters. Even though they look like a different artist designed each of the creatures, they all work and look great together not out of place.

Speaking of Velvet and Veneer, I loved them as villains. Not only do they have a good motive that’s not a sad backstory nor they want to just be more evil for no reason, they are iconic. I love their one liners and how stretchy they are. While they couldn’t sing at all, they were gorgeous and I love how they aren’t exactly alike. Veneer reminds me of that one meme of “I can excuse racism but I draw the line at animal cruelty” except replace racism as torture and kidnapping and replace animal cruelty as killing.

Another part I like is Poppy. Not gonna lie I found Poppy slightly annoying in the first movie. But she was funny, sarcastic, and was street smart. However, in the second movie she was so unbearable. Not to mention her and her relationship drama with Branch was boring in the second movie.

In the third she was so much more fun and I didn’t wanna gouge my eyes out when she was being optimistic. It wasn’t over the top and it was helpful in helping Branch. Speaking of Branch, the moment they share when Branch is leaving his brothers is so cute. I’m so glad they didn’t decide to have a third act break up with Poppy with Branch. It was so much more refreshing and it made me find the ship so much more sweeter.

My last pro is the music. While the Trolls movies just do covers, they are damn good at doing covers. Especially when they sang to stop Velvet and Veneer. I loved the beginning and you can never go wrong with Justine Timberlake. He has my favorite vocals out of all the cast.

In conclusion, this movie was by no means ground breaking or brilliant. But this was a good movie and I enjoyed it a lot.

Thank you for me Ted-talk.

[chaos0pikachu]

I am here actually to appreciate your post. I saw a blogger’s post saying The sign would have been ‘successful’ had it got filled with fantasy and romance and limit action to 10%. I wondered why that person, who says BL is all about romance, watched a show whose genre is action. Then I saw your post about people watching many shows to stay in fandom and I agree. Also you are right about dramas with a complex story receiving heavy criticism. Everything (even lack of proper plot or conflict) is exempted in a romance drama. No wonder most BLs are confined to ‘2 boys and their jealous & crying moments, routine conflicts enhanced by Escola or leads explaining how important Nikon printer is for their relationship’

Well damn hit me in the feels with this appreciation I'ma get all shy and shit.

I always wonder if by "successful" people mean in terms of critical acclaim, story telling, or monetarily. When it comes to Thai shows - and some please correct me if I'm wrong - it's difficult to tell how "successful" they are terms of audience reach/monetarily because there's no easily verifiable information. Like, there's Youtube numbers sure, but The Sign as an example, aired on Channel 3 what were it's ratings total on that channel? Idk, does anyone know that? Sincerely asking lol

Personally the way I like to judge a piece of media is what I call the Roger Ebert method; he often judged films based not solely on whether they were "good" or "bad but by how successfully they accomplished their goals.

If you read his review of Space Jam while it's clear Ebert doesn't think the movie is high art, "You can watch the movie on the sports and cartoon levels, and also appreciate the corporate strategy that's involved. [...] It is difficult for an actor to work in movies that combine live action with animation, because much of the time he cannot see the other characters in a scene with him. But Jordan has a natural ease and humor, an unforced charisma, that makes a good fit with the cartoon universe."

Ebert praises that the film, while filled with obvious product placement and banking on both nostalgia for the toons & star power of Jordan, accomplishes it's goal of being a family for that can be enjoyed by adults and children, and also the ability to blend techniques of live action, animation and 3D rendering.

I bring this up specifically b/c when I see "reviews" of shows in BL - the most common form of meta I see in BL fandom as a whole and that's not a knock just an observation - it's usually always about the narrative. Nothing about the filmmaking. And if there is discussion about he filmmaking it's usually misinformed or worse misinforming - no that's not what aperture means, yaoi framing isn't really a thing in film, the t-shirt is really just a t-shirt, etc, etc.

And like I get why. Fandom is more about story, what the words on a page or what the characters on screen are doing and saying. It's easier to talk about the amazing communication two characters have b/c you don't really need a film knowledge to discuss that. Which is a factor in why I think shows with lower stakes, more streamlined and straightforward plots get praised at a higher, less diligent and harsh level, than shows that are a bit more daring. They're less challenging in structure, they take less risks, so there's less to critique, and there's less room for a show to disappoint.

There comfort food, rather than trying something new at the restaurant. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, again, this is just a general observation.

To me, The Sign is miles better than Cooking Crush on a simple technical level. I only watched one episode of Cooking Crush and I found it pretty mediocre at best from all technical points: acting, editing, cinematography, directing, storytelling.

This isn't to say Cooking Crush is "bad" or that even if Cooking Crush was "bad" people shouldn't like it. I don't give a fuck if people like it, good for you chase the things that spark joy! I like lots of "bad" media, have y'all ever watched Jason Takes Manhattan?

For me, The Sign, like Space Jam, accomplishes it's goals and those were ambitious goals. An action fantasy BL that actually lives up to that premise and looks good?? The fight choreography looks great considering the obviously budget??

Like one of my issues with Laws of Attraction - aside from how painfully disinterested those kisses looked - was the fight choreography was bad.

The characters very rarely land hits in a way that looks real, or even marginally real. I can only speculate they didn't hire a stunt coordinator and/or couldn't hire stunt doubles so there was a worry of injury on set (for both reasons).

This isn't a disparagement on the actor(s) either, like stunt work is difficult and it's important to have professionals on set who can walk an actor through the steps so both them and others don't get hurt. Jackie Chan is probably one of the best known actors alive for stunt work, but watch how many times he fumbles and potentially hurts himself to the point where other actors are actively worried for him:

So yeah I'm going to give The Sign it's fucking gold star stickers b/c aside from some missteps in the gun handling - to many one handed gun fights but even then it wasn't all the time and bullets ran out of ammo! Y'all don't know how exciting for me that was to see - the fight scenes look damn good.

I understand the work that went into them, I understand the pre-production time that it took for the crew and cast to learn that and filming them well is another beast too.

There's a couple scenes with shaky cam that I dislike, but god do I love that first long take in The Sign. I love how good the CGI looks overall again, considering what is probably less budget than Black Christmas (2019).

I'm admittedly, fucking picky about what I watch b/c I'm really lazy and prefer watching films in general. I don't really like TV all that much, but if I am watching a tv show I wanna be impressed with more than just the characters talking to each other. Especially if said show is 12 hours or more.

When I'm looking at a piece of media - a comic, a novel, a film, a tv show - I'm thinking about stuff like "what were it's goals, and did it accomplish them? How was the filmmaking? How was the narrative structure? What is the time/place/culture this was made in?"

I'm not sure if people are arguing if The Sign was "successful" in terms of narratively, monetarily, or critically.

In reality we can only really speculate on how successful a Thai BL is based on data that's not not entirely accurate - social media, youtube stats, awards, etc - and even then most of that is based off international audience.

I can glean that 2gether was successful for gmmtv b/c it got a second season and a film, pretty much skyrocketed Bright and Win's individual careers but again, and created a cross country alliance for activism. But even all that is still speculation not facts (except the alliance that's a real thing that happened lol).

[This is all regardless of my own feelings regarding the show which is not kind. But feelings have nothing to do with individual discussion about how monetarily successful or accomplished a show is or isn't.]

Like it might be valid speculation on both shows but it should always come with a disclaimer of - these are not facts. Also, what is "popular" or "successful" can and will be dependent on individual countries too.

Take Cutie Pie for example, I would argue that it wasn't super "successful" here with American fans, but given how overwhelmingly popular Zee and NuNew are in both Thailand and Korea, I would then argue that the show was a success in Thailand and Korea. So was Cutie Pie "successful" or not? I would say yes!

Because "success" isn't and shouldn't be measured only by how western fans receive a piece of media.

In regards to The Sign, I'd argue it appears to be very successful with only the partial data I have at hand - social media which includes places like twitter, facebook, tumblr, the success of their sold out showing for the finale, a special episode, etc. If people argue it was unsuccessful in terms of narrative, well that's debatable and I have no interest in debating why the show is good except in terms of technical filmmaking and storytelling.

And even then it's a pointless debate like or dislike whatever just don't lie or mislead people regarding film terminology and techniques or harass people because they did like A Thing or clog up the tags with annoying posts about how you didn't like said Thing.

Overall, I don't give "reviews" on things I watch either positive or negative cause, well, I'm lazy lol, I don't believe putting how much I hate a show in it's tags and a thorough rating system would be to much work. I actually like how My Drama List rating system works, I just find most reviews on it to be Annoying lmao. Like giving Kinnporsche a 5 or below is absolutely bonkers to me but whatever es lo que es. But I also don't think my thoughts and opinions on shows are that valuable in terms of discussion.

These are mostly my general thoughts on fandom at large and it's not directly at any particular people its just observations at large across various social media platforms.

I think if you like more squeecore shows that's totally gucci, I just wish didn't proposite that 1) those are the only valid shows in terms of BL/queer media and 2) didn't overhype them to such sky high levels

[castlebyersafterdark]

Finn is a big star now but I don’t think he’s a strong enough actor to be in better movies. I’m sorry it’s just my opinion of him as an actor and his skills at this moment. I don’t think he’s bad just needs to hone skills If he wants more diverse and grown films he’s gonna have to truly get trained and work with an acting coach. Otherwise I say he should do more indie comedy shit instead of nostalgia bait but budget stuff and work on becoming a top director and writer instead. Noah on the other hand has the acting talent but I think his agent has always sucked and never gotten him more good work, I also think personally he doesn’t have the acting passion needed to be successful on another level, he seems too chill for that if that makes sense? almost like acting for him is a fun hobby and he’s not cutthroat enough for the biz …no matter how much he says he wants to keep acting, I just don’t get the sense even he wants to do that for life. Add in the industry’s homophobia which will be hard to navigate, plus all the hate he’s gotten lately that might have made being a public figure even harder… hard to say but I wouldn’t be surprised if he just pulls back from the spotlight, gets his degree, maybe a masters, and goes more into the business world or bts in the entertainment industry (he can produce finn’s films lol) and lives a private life. MBB gonna get divorced before 30, live off of selling various product lines to her fanbase and star in mediocre streaming productions until she marries like an older billionaire. Caleb will be successful in supporting roles in films until he’s older and he gets a recurring role in a tv procedural. Gaten will do some screen stuff but mostly transition to be full time stage work. imo Sadie is gonna be the one with a surprise smash career who gets an oscar by 35

Love the reads!! Thank you for sharing!!

I love love love Finn but that's also why I'd prefer to see him in smaller fare, hone his skills in a more focused way. I think to get better he needs to distance himself from another major production. I think he has the potential but he does need to grow. Directing is ideal, tho. Agree on the Noah read. Which is hard to admit and talk about because I really care about the kid but I'm just... so not sure what he's gonna do!! MILLIE 🤣🤣🤣 Yeah, that all tracks. CALEB WITH THE TV PROCEDURAL you are so right, ain't nothing wrong with that, those shows pay the rent, baby!! Sadie will win awards, I feel it.

[fiercynn]

people you'd like to get to know better!

thank u to @greighish for the tag!!

LAST SONG: "sever the blight" by hemlocke springs - i'm obsessed

FAVORITE COLOR: like somewhere halfway between teal and blue? i'm not great with color names lol. aquamarine but darker??

CURRENTLY WATCHING: catching up on abbott elementary since i had been watching it with my roommate and then she moved away a year ago and i never started the second season lol; two episodes into the thai gl show me love which so far is mediocre but still watchable; about to do an over the garden wall seasonal rewatch; and almost certainly going to try the fall of the house of usher when it drops because i apparently can't stay away from mike flanagan shows. oh also the wnba finals and the end of the nwsl season!

LAST MOVIE: this is a great question and i have absolutely no recollection, i think i've only been watching tv and sports and short films recently? does the filmed version of the 2019 public theatre production of much ado about nothing in central park starring danielle brooks count as a movie?? if not then i guess i haven't watched a movie in months!

CURRENTLY READING: i'm rereading squee from the margins: race and fandom by dr. rukmini pande, which is absolutely essential reading if you are interested in racism in fandom!

LAST THING I GOOGLED: "fist bump emoji" lmao

SWEET/SPICY/SAVORY: i would probably be booted out of my family if i didn't say spicy. to sum up our take on spicy food in a single anecdote: when the vending machine at my dad's workplace runs out of flaming hot cheetos, he buys regular cheetos and squeezes out a stripe of sri racha onto each one as he's eating

CURRENT OBSESSION: fandom-wise, bad buddy, womp womp. otherwise: i've been working on this project around understanding anti-blackness in asian communities that i'll be sharing publicly soon, and that i have been pretty consumed by (in a good way!)

CURRENTLY WORKING ON: apart from aforementioned project, i've got a patpran fic and an inkpa fic in the works (both canon-divergent AUs, because i am me), and several bad buddy podfics as well!

tagging @sharingfandoms @hyeoni-comb @pocketsizedquasar @dimplesandfierceeyes and honestly anyone else who wants to do it hahaha i just tagged the first people that came to mind!

blank template under the cut!

LAST SONG:

FAVORITE COLOR:

CURRENTLY WATCHING:

LAST MOVIE:

CURRENTLY READING:

LAST THING I GOOGLED:

SWEET/SPICY/SAVORY:

CURRENT OBSESSION:

CURRENTLY WORKING ON: