#and in this instance i think we the audience will be the ones paying it

[captainvulcant]

Amongst rumours of a Supernatural season 16 I'm just gonna say that would be the funniest most meta shit ever. Even the show itself can't just die, always gotta be resurrecting and coming back like the world's most dysfunctional boomerang.

[lackadaisycats]

I tried to answer this succinctly, but it turned into an essay. (Sorry.)

The Princess and the Frog was not accurate, strictly speaking, but dinging it for that would be like criticizing the Lion King for not being a realistic wildlife documentary. Accuracy wasn't really the point. Given the fantastical elements and fictional nations like “Maldonia”, I suppose we're meant to understand this as a bit removed from the real New Orleans. It's more a a jazz-flavored fairy tale than a historical fiction.

But for discussion's sake....

Is it fashion-accurate to its 1926 timeframe? Ehhh, sort of. It pays homage to 20s fashion trends with cloche hats, furs and feathery headpieces, but without fully committing to it. The waistline on almost all of Tiana's clothing is too high for the 20s, and the the shapes of her fancier costumes take a lot of liberties, or deviate wildly from the style of the period.

In the 20s, dresses (including workaday stuff) tended to have a straight up-and-down shape to it - kind of a low-waisted rectangle that de-emphasized curves instead of highlighting them. There are valid reasons to play fast and loose with that, though (something I’m definitely guilty of as well). One of those reasons is communication. 

For instance, speculatively, the filmmakers wrote Tiana as a hard-working waitress and wanted her to look the part, so they made the choice to clothe her in something familiar - that gingham dress of mid-century shape that we broadly associate with diner waitresses. Actual waitress uniforms of the 20s had a fair bit of overlap with maid uniforms at the time too, and I can see why they wouldn't want to risk the confusion. It's more important to communicate clearly with the larger audience than to appease a small faction of fashion nerds who'd notice or care about the precision.

I don't think it's a case of the designers failing to do their research - I'm sure they had piles of references, and maybe even consultants - but they also had to have priorities.

With her hat and coat on, she looks a lot more 1920s-shaped.

Pretty consistently, the indication of the characteristic 1920s drop waist is there, but the approach otherwise ignores the 20s silhouette. The clothes hug the body too much. This may be about appealing to a 2000s audience, visually speaking, but also could be an animation thing. Maybe both. For practical reasons, clothes in 2d animation are usually more a sort of second skin than something that wears or behaves like realistic fabric.

These are not in the 1920s ballpark at all. Tiana's blue gown looks like your basic Disney brand invention. Strapless things would have been extremely unusual and the overall shape is far out of step. Excusable, I guess, because it's a costume in context. Charlotte looks like she’s heading for a mimosa brunch in a modern maxi dress.

Charlotte's princess dress did seem to be calling back to the ultra-wide pannier side hoops of the 18th century - something that made a reappearance for part of the 20s, albeit in much milder form called robe de style. I'm not sure if the filmmakers were alluding to that at all, really, but either way, her dress is hilarious.

They only went about halfway with the cloche hats. The 1920s cloche really encapsulated the cranium, almost entirely covered bobbed hair, and obscured much of the face from certain angles, so it's easy to see why they've been somewhat reined in for the film. Still, it ends up looking more 1930s, where the hats started to recede away from the face, evolving in the direction of the pillbox.

Similarly, Tiana's hair is not very reminiscent of the bobbed, close-to-the-cranium style of the period, but I think that could legitimately be written off as characterization. She's not at all the type of person who'd fuss about going à la mode. Not everyone bobbed and finger-waved their hair.

The clothes Prince Naveen is introduced in are very 1920s collegiate in spirit - the wide-leg oxford bags, the sleeveless pullover sweater, the flat cap, and high, stiff collar. The ukulele and banjolele were pretty trendy instruments at the time too.

Definitely some Josephine Baker vibes here. Also, the look of this whole fantasy sequence was reportedly inspired by the works of Aaron Douglas, a luminary painter of the Harlem Renaissance known for his depictions of the lives of African-Americans. (The mural is in Topeka, Kansas.)

They pretty much nailed the Art Deco. It's gorgeous. Looks somewhat inspired by the interiors of some of the Ralph Walker-designed NYC architecture, plus some French Quarter balcony flair for the final manifestation of Tiana's Place. Her dress here does resemble some gauzy mid-1920s looks, too.

------------------------------------------------

Culturally speaking...

New Orleans is an unusual place. Because some of the colonial Spanish and French laws and conventions that New Orleans evolved under persisted even after its inception into the United States; because it was such a heterogeneous hub of indigenous and immigrant peoples; and because it had a considerable population of free people of color (mostly Creole), it did not function quite like the rest of the South leading up to the Civil War, nor for a while after. Its particular coalescence of cultures made it its own unique sort of culture within the country, within the region, within the state of Louisiana even. By the early 20th century, though, regardless of the not-very-binary nature of New Orleans, Jim Crow laws were enforcing a literal black-and-white distinction, and not an evenhanded one, by far. In that aspect, the city had begun to resemble the rest of the South.

The film nods at the wealth disparity, but goes on to paint a pretty rosy picture of race and class relations at the time. Still it's not unbelievable that some people were exceptions to the rules. You could probably find a few compartments of old New Orleans society that resisted segregation or certain prejudicial norms, preferring to do things their own way. That aside, the film wasn't trying to confront these topics. Not every piece of media should have to. Sometimes breaking away from miserable period piece stereotypes is refreshing. I'm not sure it could have handled that meaningfully given the running time, narrow story focus, and intended audience, anyhow. (But you could perhaps also make a case that family films habitually underestimate younger audiences in this way.)

------------------------------------------------

Raymond the firefly I guess is the film's Cajun representation. There's not much to say about it, except perhaps to note that Evangeline is a reference to the heroine of a Longfellow poem of the same name. The poem is an epic romance set during the expulsion of the Acadians from the eastern provinces of Canada and the northernmost reaches of the American colonies (now Maine) by the British in the mid-1700s. Many exiled Acadians gradually migrated south to francophone-friendly Louisiana, settling into the prairies and bayous, where 'Acadian' truncated into the pronunciation 'Cajun'. Evangeline - who is only finally reunited with her love when he’s on his deathbed - has become an emblem of the heartbreak, separation and faithful hope of that cultural history, and there are parishes, statues and other landmarks named after the her throughout Louisiana.

------------------------------------------------

Voodoo does have a very historical presence in New Orleans, having arrived both directly from West Africa and by way of the Haitian diaspora (where it would more properly be called Vodou). While I don't think Disney's treatment of it was especially sensitive or serious, it also wasn't the grotesquely off-base sort of thing that media of the past has been known to do. It was largely whittled down to a magical plot component, but it wasn't so fully repurposed that it didn't resemble Voodoo at all either - and that's mostly owing to the characters, because it does appear the writers pulled from history there.

It’s apparently widely held that Dr. Facilier is a Baron Samedi caricature - and likely that's true, in part - but I have the impression he's also influenced by Doctor John. Not the 20th century funk musician, but the antebellum “Voodoo King” of New Orleans. Doctor John (also called Bayou John, Jean La Ficelle, and other aliases) claimed to be a Senegalese prince. He became well known as a potion man and romance-focused prognosticator to people from all corners of society. Though highly celebrated and financially successful at his peak, he seems ultimately remembered as an exploitative villain.

To my recollection, the film sort of gingerly avoids referring to Facilier as a Voodoo practitioner directly (I think he's more generically called a witch doctor in the script?) but it does seem to imply his 'friends on the other side' are a consortium of loa. It's mostly abbreviated into nebulously evil-seeming special FX, glazing over any specificity or dimensionality, but it does also loop back around as a vehicle of moral justice. Loa are all very individualistic and multi-faceted, but they do have reciprocal rules for asking favors of them.

There's also the benevolent counterpart in Mama Odie's character. Her wearing ritual whites has a definite basis in Voodoo/Vodou practice, and her depiction as a fairy godmother-like figure isn't entirely out of step with how a mambo may have been perceived...in a very general sense. They were/are ceremonial leaders and community bastions who people would seek out for help, advice and spiritual guidance. More than just emanating matronly good vibes, though, some have wielded considerable political and economic power.

(Just my opinions here. I've done a lot of reading on the subject for research but I'm no authority with any special insider understanding of Voodoo, and I really shouldn't be relied upon as an arbiter of who has or hasn't done it justice in fiction.)

------------------------------------------------

In summary--

Culturally, I think the film is respectably informed but paints a superficially genteel picture. The set pieces are gorgeous, but the story mostly delivers a sort of veneer of New Orleanishness. And as for fashion, well, it’s the 1920s run through a Disney filter. It’s very pretty, but it’s only as proximally accurate as seemed practical.

I don’t know that any of that really matters so much as whether or not it achieved what it intended, though. As a charming yarn and as a tribute to New Orleans and the Jazz age, I think it’s mostly successful. It’s also really beautifully animated!

[physalian]

How to Make your Writing Less Stiff 4

Let’s keep this train rollin’! This time less down to line edits and more overall scope of your narrative

Part 3

1. Foreshadowing

Nothing quite like the catharsis of accurately predicting where something’s going to go. It doesn’t have to be a huge plot twist or a character death, it can (and should) be little things that reward your audience for paying attention. Double points if it adds to rewatch/re-readability.

Example: In The Dark Knight, this exchange happens:

Harvey: “You’ve known Rachel all her life.”

Alfred: “Oh, not yet, Sir.”

You won’t think anything of it on your first watch. Alfred is just making a witty joke that throws Harvey off. Watch the movie again, when Rachel dies, and it becomes some incredibly dark foreshadowing. Turns out Alfred has, actually, known Rachel all her life.

2. Chekhov’s Gun

Chekhov’s Gun is a narrative concept where a seemingly inconsequential element introduced at some point in the narrative (a gun) must “fire” by the end of the narrative. Sometimes this element leaves audiences uneasy or anxious, because they know something bad must come of it. Sometimes they think nothing of it until it’s about to fire and you get a one-two punch of the realization that it’s about to hit, and then the impact of the hit. It helps create tension, and tension is incredibly important (if you want a whole post of my take on it, lmk).

It also helps your narrative look more cohesive, where nothing is left on the table. Your set-ups and payoffs leave no threads dangling.

3. Repetition

The Rule of threes can apply on a micro and macro scale. I like doing lists of adjectives in threes, (e.g. My cat is soft, fluffy, and adorable) because the cadence and the flow of three is something we’re familiar with in spoken language. We like three supporting examples for an argument. Any less doesn’t feel strong enough, any more feels like you’re trying too hard. This is not a rule it’s a suggestion.

On a grander scale, you can look at the script of Curse of the Black Pearl for a masterclass in macro rules of three, like three parlays. Doing this helps your narrative look more cohesive and like every detail is thoroughly interwoven and nothing is coincidence. Your audience will get to the third instance and mimic that DiCaprio pointing meme—they will absolutely notice.

4. Motifs

Motifs as well, beyond threes, help. Colors are a huge one. For example every time you mention the color purple, you could attach it to an emotion, or a character, or an important plot beat, like how leitmotifs work for character themes in movies and TV shows.

Obvious examples in film are like lightsaber colors or dressing up the good guys in white and the bad guys in black. I did this whole post about color in fiction.

It’s a lot of other things too. Weather elements and times of day, or specific inconsequential objects popping up over and over again, like birds, or litter, fallen leaves, clothing items. Whenever the narrative mentions them, the author is trying to clue you in on some subtext within that scene.

—

My new novel is here!!! Do you like supernatural fantasy? How about queer vampires? How about acespec characters? Then Eternal Night of the Northern Sky is for you!

[literaryvein-reblogs]

15 Ways to Improve Your Vocabulary

in response to:

1. Develop a reading habit. Reading is the most effective way to build your vocabulary. Read books, magazines, and newspapers that cover a wide range of topics, and pay attention to unfamiliar words. Look up their meanings and try using them in context. Vocabulary building is easiest when you encounter words in context. Seeing words appear in a novel or a newspaper article can be far more helpful than seeing them appear on vocabulary lists. Not only do you gain exposure to unfamiliar words; you also see how they’re used. In fact, 15 minutes is recognized as the ideal time for students to see positive gains in reading achievement; students who read just over a half-hour to an hour per day improve the most.

2. Utilize word lists. They are incredibly flexible tools that can help you organize your learning in a variety of ways. For instance, vocabulary can be grouped into small, easy chunks that can be revisited for maximum learning benefits. Research shows that a word needs to be seen up to 10 times before we really learn it, and researchers believe that staggered repetition is the best way to learn new vocabulary. Word lists help keep vocabulary terms in manageable chunks that a student can come back to as they gain mastery. I have posted some word lists HERE and will continue to add to this in the future.

3. Use the dictionary and thesaurus. Online dictionaries and thesauruses are helpful resources if used properly. They can jog your memory about synonyms that would actually be better words in the context of what you’re writing. A full dictionary definition can also educate you about antonyms, root words, and related words, which is another way to learn vocabulary.

4. Keep a vocabulary journal. Making a vocabulary journal is a great place to collect and interact with words you hear or see in your reading. Each page should be dedicated to a singular new word, including its definitions, synonyms, and antonyms. Review the journal regularly to reinforce your learning. 

5. Choosing appropriate vocabulary. It’s important to use words and expressions that fit the context so your meaning is clear. For example, different audiences for your writing will require different levels of formality: the vocabulary you use in an academic essay may not be effective for a blogpost targeting a popular audience. Consider the following questions to help you choose the most appropriate words for your audience and purpose:

a. What’s the exact meaning of the word? Words may be broadly similar in meaning but differ in important aspects of that meaning. Consider the difference between ‘the fragrance of flowers’  and ‘the odour of rotten eggs.’ Both words refer to the sense of smell, but fragrance has a positive core meaning while odour has a negative one. If you don’t know what a word exactly means, check it in a dictionary. b. Is the word attached to a feeling? Compare the two sentences: ‘The freeway snakes through the town’ and ‘The freeway meanders through the town’. In this example, snake indicates negative feelings about the freeway while meander doesn’t. c. What level of intensity does the word show? Many words with similar meanings describe different degrees of the same quality or action. For example, ‘comical’, ‘hilarious’ and ‘side-splitting’  show different degrees of funniness. Think about the intensity of what you want to convey when choosing words. d. Is the word formal or informal? Go for formal words and expressions in business communication and academic writing. In the following examples, the second expression in each pair is more formal than the first: (1) come up with / create (2) one after another / at regular intervals (3) huge / considerable (4) enough / sufficient e. Is the word polite? Words which describe negative qualities or sensitive issues too directly can be offensive. Good communicators consider the feelings of their audience. For example, when writing about childhood obesity, it’s more appropriate to use ‘children with weight problems’ or ‘children of an unhealthy weight’ than ‘fat children’. f. Is the word specific or general? Use words with specific meanings whenever possible to make your message clearer to your audience. For example, avoid overusing general verbs such as ‘be’, ‘do’, ‘have’ and ‘get’, especially in academic writing, as they don’t accurately convey specific ideas. It’s better to use a more specific verb or verb phrase to strengthen your message. Compare the impact of the verbs in these sentences: ‘To be successful, learners need to have high-level literacy skills.’ ‘To be successful, learners need to develop and demonstrate high-level literacy skills.’ g. What other words does the word often go with? Some words are frequently used together and therefore sound more natural in combination. This is called collocation. For example, we say ‘fast train’ not ‘quick train’, but ‘quick shower’ not ‘fast shower’. Similarly, it’s more natural to say ‘highly critical’ rather than ‘deeply critical.’

6. Play word games. Classic games like Scrabble and Boggle can function as a fun way to expand your English vocabulary. Crossword puzzles can as well. If you really want to be efficient, follow up rounds of these word games with a little note-taking. Keep a list of the different words you learned while playing the game, and then study that list from time to time.

7. Use flashcards. A quick way to build a large vocabulary is to study a number of words via flashcards. In today’s digital age, a wide array of smartphone apps make flashcards convenient and easy to organize. Aiming for one new word a day is reasonable. You can always go for more, but it may not be reasonable to assimilate dozens of English words every single day.

8. Subscribe to “word of the day” feeds. Some web platforms will provide you with a word a day—either on a website, an app, or via email—to help you expand your vocabulary. You can add these words to running word lists.

9. Use mnemonics. A mnemonic device is a form of word association that helps you remember words’ definitions and proper uses. For instance think of the word obsequious which means “attempting to win favor from influential people by flattery.” Break down that word into components: “obse” is the beginning of “obsessed,” “qui” sounds like the French word for “yes” (oui), and “us” is like the word “us.” So you can think of that big word obsequious as “obsessed with saying yes to us”—which is kind of what it means!

10. Practice using new words in conversation. It’s possible to amass a huge vocabulary without actually knowing how to use words. This means you have to take it upon yourself to put your personal dictionary into use. If you come across an interesting word in your reading, make a point of using it in conversation. By experimenting in low-stakes situations, you can practice the art of word choice and, with a little bit of trial and error, hone in on the right word for a particular context. Furthermore, speaking to native – or non-native – speakers of English (or any language you are learning) will guarantee you the chance to learn new words. Anyone who has ever wondered how to develop their vocabulary will know that the most important thing is putting your vocabulary to use and hearing what people say in return. This is how language works, and before long you’ll be finding ways to work those new words into your everyday use of the language.

11. Watch movies and TV shows. This simple activity can expose you to new words and phrases. When watching TV or a movie, pay attention to the dialogue and note any unfamiliar words. When the TV show or movie is done, look up the meanings of the new words and try to use them in context.

12. Build a story. Learning vocabulary words outside of their context is difficult, so why not create context with some creative storytelling? This can be an individual writing activity or you can do this in a group. A sample group activity: Choose a word list and determine an order in which your students or friends will take their turn. Every person gets to choose one word from the word list. You begin by writing the first sentence of a story; each student then uses their chosen word in a sentence to build on the story. This gets learners comfortable using the words in sentences, and putting those individual vocabulary words into a broader context. This is also an activity you can do via text, chat window, or email, which makes it perfect for remote learning.

13. Draw it. Sometimes the best learning activities are ones that don’t feel like a learning activity. This can be an individual activity but can also be used in group settings. Here’s a way to turn vocabulary acquisition into a game: Ask each student to have a piece of paper and a pen or pencil ready, and tell them you are going to be playing a drawing game. Using the private chat feature of your remote learning software, choose one student and give them a word from your vocabulary list along with its definition, and tell them that they have 20 seconds to draw it. While the student is drawing it, make sure that you make their screen the main screen of the software. You can do a countdown to keep up the momentum, or play music while you wait. At the end of the time, the student shows their drawing to the other students: The first student to guess which vocabulary word has been drawn is the next student to draw. This activity is not only fun, but also benefits students who are visual or tactile learners.

14. Be aware of idioms. Idioms are commonly used word combinations or expressions. These have very specific meanings that are not obvious from the words they contain, e.g. ‘a piece of cake’, ‘get the hang of it’, ‘an Indian summer’, and ‘after a fashion’. Many dictionaries list and define idioms if you look up the component words. For example, try looking up ‘Indian’ or ‘summer’ to find ‘Indian summer’. Idioms are generally more appropriate for speaking and non-academic writing.

15. Practice, practice, practice. In many ways, vocabulary is like a muscle – it will get stronger the more you use it. The key to building a strong vocabulary is to use it regularly. Try using new words in your conversations, writing, and everyday life. The more that you use them, the more they will become a part of your everyday vocabulary.

Sources & other related articles: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ⚜ More: Writing Notes & References

[artigas]

I’m really happy that Black Sails is experiencing a bit of a renaissance, but (predictably) some of the takes I’m seeing online are so busted. It’s wild to me that anyone would complain about the fact that Anne Bonny kisses Jack after she’s developed this life-changing relationship with Max. It’s absolutely wild to see anyone roll their eyes or feel uncomfortable about the fact that Flint has sex with Miranda when he returns to her in season one or that Max is most likely a lesbian but actively has sex with men for pay and knows how to make that pleasurable. It’s crazy to me that some of the very audiences who claim to want queer representation feel so discomforted when they actually see the mess and seeming inconsistencies of queerness that they asked for.

The reality is that there are lesbians who have had (and will have!) meaningful, mutually-gratifying, and deeply sexual relationships with men. There are gay men who’ve enjoyed having sex with women, who are gay as the day is long and nevertheless feel sexually attracted to a woman or two and are nevertheless gay men, full stop. There are gay cis men who are happily married to trans women. There are femme dom tops and butch bottoms and there are mascs afab people who like femme boys. There are non-binary people and trans men who actively identify as lesbians. There are ace and aro people who enjoy thinking about and engaging with sex — sometimes in fiction and sometimes in real life. Queerness, in fiction and in reality, defies neat categorization. That is the beauty, power, and (perceived) unorthodoxy of queerness.

Now, I’ll say this — do I think the straight men behind Black Sails were actively thinking deeply and insightfully about the paradoxes and fuckery of queer identity when they wrote Black Sails? No! By their own admission, Steinberg and Levine have owned up to the fact that some of the writing of the show was really hinged on their own blind spots as people who are not (to my knowledge) members of the queer community. If I want to be generous, I think that the beautiful mess of Black Sails is that, in not feeling like experts enough to designate specific identity labels to any of their characters, the writers stumbled their way into more authentic representation of lived queer experience, which is to say that the notion that James Flint was actively thinking of himself as a gay man was anachronistic. As many lesbian archivists and theories have noted, the notion of a queer identity — as in, queerness is who you are, not what you do — was patently unthinkable for most cultures in the past. In other words, the idea that Anne Bonny operates in the eighteenth century as a lesbian and thus would not willingly engage in relationships with men is not only untrue of the series, but untrue of most recorded lesbian experiences in the real world. The notion that a lesbian would operate her entire life without engaging sexually or romantically with men, for instance, is a very new privilege that some of us are very lucky to enjoy, but it is not true for the vast majority of human history — hell, it’s not even true of our present world.

This is all to say that think that there’s something really funny about how we want queer characters to fit into neatly organized boxes. This isn’t a new problem, either. When the show was still airing, the BS fandom would get itself into tizzies about wether or not Flint is gay or bisexual, wether or not Anne Bonny is a lesbian, wether or not Silver is queer when his only canonical relationship is with Madi, etc etc. We’ve been having these discourses for years and I don’t know. I get that much of it is fueled by how badly some people want to see themselves represented in media, but . . . well. The siloing of queer characters and queer narratives into neat little boxes has never felt very authentic to me and nine times out of ten, it’s also just so damn boring.

[cheeseandbretboy]

JOKER (2019) AND JOKER: FOLIE A DEUX (2024) SPOILERS !!!

still trying to sift through my thoughts but i liked joker 2. i dont get how the ratings are so bad?? were people expecting a romance???? a fun movie? i mean even i was surprised by the depressing end but im really glad it happened because thats what joker 2019 was about too. arthur was never the actual 'joker' we see in dc films, and we knew that. his whole story is tragic but a lot of people missed that in the first movie. the second speaks on that to humanise arthur (even though thats what they literally tried to do in the first one?? didnt work i guess) and shame those who use him as a symbol for misogyny and incel stuff. i think what most people are mad about is how hes not as 'villainy' as the other jokers BUT AGAIN he was never the true joker and im confused as to how people missed that !! personally i loved how it shows that even after he's secured himself the identity of joker he's still repeatedly exploited as he was before that, and he has to come to terms with it. harleys character was really surprising for me because usually she's the one being manipulated by joker- in this case it was the other way around. especially interesting was how joker was the one who sung 'bewitched' about harley (the original song is sung about a man, so they had to change he/him to she/her) and the scene of joker and harley's show where she continues singing 'to love somebody' without looking at him, instead basking in the attention the audience gives her. people were expecting a twisted sexy romance between them but instead we were given something really uncomfortable and unnerving- like that sex scene. her character also gives insight into parasocial relationships and how weird and dangerous they can get. she never really knew arthur- she knew joker. the film starts with us finally happy that he 'for once in his life, has someone who needs him' and ends with us absolutely distraught. in the first movie, he says stuff like 'you dont listen' and 'i never knew i existed' and STILL after becoming an infamous killer, getting a show about him, EVERYONE talking about him, he's still not seen. there are just so many things the film points out about its fanbase (incels, parasocial relationships, identity, the glamourisation/sexualisation of violence, columbiners, exploitation etc etc) and i guess people don't like that. they want capitalism=bad, 'men have it so bad', and mm gore! which is fair- i loved it too- but it doesnt hurt to delve into the identity of 'joker' (whatever that is) and how that influences its viewers. its quite meta i like it a lot. they didnt care that the ratings would be awful because they had to speak on what the first movie did to people

oh also the intertextuality is just amazing. the songs are great, like i mentioned before with changing the female and male roles with 'bewitched', and even though i absolutely hate musicals this really worked fo rme. i think it's because musicals often have songs smack bam in the middle of realistic scenes and the singing just ruins it for me- but in joker 2 they're more often a part of arthur's fantasies so it was actually better. i wasnt sure about the musical element at first but after rewatching joker for like the 1000th time i realised how much its intertwined in the first movie- we just never really paid attention to it. the end of 'gonna build a mountain' was amazing (you have to pay attention to the lyrics), 'the joker' was great, and the few instances of violence we see from arthur while hes singing is really entertaining i love it sm. i keep mentioning 'betwitched' but i love it. 'she is cold, i agree, she can laugh, and i love it' ahh. i loved the intertextuality with nolan's the dark knight. a lot of people hate it, but i think people should be more flexible with inspiration and interweaving similar but different stories into films. just because it follows a similar story doesnt mean that it should either perfectly fit the mould of nolan's batman, but neither does it mean they should abandon it altogether either. harvey dent really surprised me, and even though he was a pretty minor character i loved the few references to nolan's batman they give (like his gory face after the explosion at court being a possible villain origin story). most obvious is the end though, where arthur is gutted by that inmate who admires him. the use of the joke was amazing and i was really surprised by how he got stabbed. you can see in this moment that arthur has been relieved of his identity of 'joker' and can finally rest as himself, just a mentally ill guy with a history of tragic abuse. when lee and his fans betray him (the real life ones too hilariously) we realise no one truly saw or loved him, and he couldn't deal with that. so, the identity of joker was passed on to that inmate- "ah, what a fine young son to take my place"- while he cuts a glasgow smile into his face. in felt this was sort of missing from joker 2019, so im really glad they used ledger's joker as inspiration for this inmate.

there's a lot more to talk about, ESPECIALLY gary's reappearance which im so so glad about, it really fleshed out his character. when he walked up to the stand, you can see people whispering and laughing at him- arthur never made fun of him. it really helps to make people question what constitutes a bad person. sure, these people didn't kill 6 people, but how easy would it be for them just not to laugh? it showed arthur's empathy, and how uncomfortable he was with admitting to it when trying to paint himself as the joker. "you were the only one who was nice to me" was said by arthur in the first movie when he kills randal and gary says something similar to him during court.

anyways wow that was great people are mad the 2nd movie is as depressing as the first (if not more). at the end ofthe first, arthur has a whole revolution loving him, and we did the same. at the end of the second we realise we never truly knew him, but exploited his character.

[hallucinateonpaperspines]

Imagine a world thats like a butterfly.

It's pretty, and unique, something that you hold your breath and watch from a distance as those bright colors and patterns dance in front of your eyes. Some parts of it aren’t so pretty, the tongue is a little creepy, that segmented body disturbing if you examine it too closely, and lord hope you don’t learn about how the insect tastes with the very feet that are touching you.

Then again, some might find that cool.

The world is pretty, it's a little weird, it’s not something you’ve seen before, but most of all, it's fragile.

You could crush it without thinking. A sadistic child could rip it apart. A disconnected scientist could pin its husk to a wall. Even if it's not one of you that kills it, the beautiful thing has such a delicate balance, old generations passing within weeks and replaced by new in an endless cycle dependent on the environment around them. Not too hot, not too cold, not too soon, not too late. Life is dependent on factors out of control.

And what is this little butterfly’s defense? A facade of strength? The ability to hide in tiny places? A poison that will inconvenience a predator at the cost of their own end?

How soft. How delicate. How pathetically sad.

That's Earth to Cybertron.

But that’s Cybertron’s view. In quite a few ways it is correct, but there is a single factor that is missing; Humanity is terrifying.

That basically is the sum of my Once Upon a Time series.

We’re paradoxical, intricate, willful little buggers that don’t know how to quit. The transformers' continuities I’ve always seen tend to push humanity to the side, make us the damsels in distress, or a temporary side arc to examine as the big picture paints itself around us. 

I get, I mean, it's transformers, We’re here for transforming robots, not fleshy faces that you can see in any other version of media. Give the audience what they pay for. In those instances, I’d prefer if Earth/humans were written out entirely. Focus on the bots if there the only thing that narratively matters, please.

So imagine a little butterfly, so pretty and delicate, is crushed under a steal-toed boot. Butterfly dead. You walk away, unwilling to see the squished and paper-thin remains. There are more important things to do, so why waste anything other than disappointment on something so small?

The issue is that the planet was never a butterfly to begin with. 

The bug picks itself up and keeps crawling. Keeps living. We’ll find another dark corner, creep along outside, and slink our way into your home. We’ll repurpose, infest, and grow. We’ll survive and infuriate, disgust, and horrify those who learn what we really are. We aren’t butterflies, not entirely.

We’re space cockroaches.

[antimony-medusa]

I read your post on boundaries and the MCYT community recently and have been thinking about as posts that contradict it cross my dash, and I’ve been reflecting on how a lot of what we call “boundaries” are more just like. Community rules? Like take “no sexualization,” for instance. If I’m talking to someone at my workplace, I am not comfortable with them making sexual remarks about me. If someone did, I would tell them so, and not engage in that conversation with them. That’s an actual boundary — something governing how people interact with ME that I am in charge of enforcing. I don’t say “no one is allowed to think anything sexual about me at work ever or tell their friends I’m hot” bc that’s just insane and none of my business, quite frankly. Streamers are well within their rights to say they aren’t comfortable seeing people sexualizing them in their chat or like very publicly on Twitter, but saying no one can sexualize them ever is actually just a community rule, not a personal boundary. Based on how I understand what a boundary is, it can’t be boundary breaking to do something that a creator definitely will not see, because the creator isn’t interacting with the content, and boundaries are about governing comfort in interactions. And saying “I don’t want there to be sexualization or sexual content about me in the main tags bc my main audience is children who browse those tags and they shouldn’t be exposed to that” is a reasonable enough rule to ask your community to follow, but it’s just straight up not a boundary? Like am I misunderstanding what a boundary is? I’m confused bc I’m seeing all this stuff about boundary breaking content and how it’s disgusting even if the creator will never see it and I just don’t get it?

Yeah, I think this is a situation where we're using words to mean something they don't technically mean (see also, "lore"), and then this leads to us also having community arguments about what is acceptable, and it's all totally unnecessary.

Cause the workplace comparison is a good one! If I was telling fellow coworkers how hot they were when they'd said they didn't want to hear that, or walking up to the barista and saying that I wanted them to weigh in on the porn I'd written about them, that would be workplace sexual harrasment and, depending on the severity of the situation, literally a crime I could be charged with. Absolutely inappropriate to do, and I can't express how extremely fair it is that streamers get to say no to that. I am FULLY in support of CCs setting those limits for their spaces and think it's healthy and we all need to respect that.

But "boundaries", as a term, is technically about controlling your own behaviour and people's access to you. You set a boundary and say to your parents "if you bring up grandkids at the christmas meal I will be leaving", or "if you mention [latest discourse] on my blog I will block you". It's about controlling your experiences via your own behaviour and the stuff that you actually see. CC equivalent is saying that any sexualization or shipping in their chats or replies will lead to a block or a ban. That's them controlling their own experience and that's A-ok. Asking a CC to weigh in on what sort of fan work they're comfortable being shown, that's also about them controlling their own experience and is totally fair.

Asking a CC to weigh in on what sort of fan work exists in general— that's not boundaries any more, that's something else entirely. The closest equivilent is companies trying to control what sort of materiel their image or trademarked material show up in, I think? Which is a thing you can do when you're licensing your image, but isn't actually a thing you can do with fan works. Celebrities get to say no they're not going to appear in a commercial advertising an oil company, because they have a moral disagreement with oil companies, but that's because the interaction there is a company offering to pay them money for their image and them declining the money. That's not how fan works operate. The celebrity isn't in a position to decline the money for their "image" being used, because no money is being offered, because the fan isn't making money. It's not a copyright/licensing situation, it's fan works. The celebrity shouldn't be part of the conversation at all, because they should never see that.

And like, there's issues of impersonation or endorsement where it's bad form to do something that looks like it comes from the celebrity, as though they approve of what is being depicted, which is why AI voice lines and deepfakes are being increasingly spoken out against. But man, someone writing Captain Puffy's and PearlescentMoon's cubitos kissing each other on Ao3 and keeping it on Ao3 is not a situation where celebrity endorsement or licensing or impersonation comes in at all. That's a conversation totally within the fandom, without the creators involved. And I really disagree with asking the creator to treat all of fandom like their community, which they should moderate and like, control their image and make kids-and-advertiser-friendly, because that's not how fandom works and also that is unfair to ask of them.

Can one or both of the creators say they don't want to see that? Totally fair. That's a boundary. Can they say that it shouldn't exist in their main tag that kids check? I'm on the side of tagging things to keep them away from minors and people who don't want to see it anyways, rock on. That's a community rule. Can they say that it should never exist ever, anywhere on the internet? That's just not how this works. A) that's not how fan works have ever worked, fan works are for transforming and celebrating existing canon, not for creator approval, and we should stop shoving all of them in creators' faces or asking them to weigh in, B) "boundaries" is entirely the wrong word for what's going on there, like you said. Cause is the mere existence of a thing in a seperate space infriging on the creator's experience and reasonable for them to control? That's what a boundary is, this isn't. C) This isn't even community rules that it makes sense for them to moderate! When you are talking about an entirely different space, cut off from the CCs, doing their own thing to the characters, with age barriers and trigger warnings built in, "boundaries" isn't the right term, but also this doesn't make sense as a space that we're inviting creators into to moderate. This is a seperate space, and stories or art in it aren't hurting people, even if the cc's wouldn't want to see that or even want them in their main community tabs. So yeah when it comes to us enforcing our own community rules, keeping creator boundaries and community rules in mind, the mere existence of a thing does not seem to me like the end of the world. A lot of people have come out and said that all our work needs to be sqeaky clean and able to be shown in the creator's chat, as though the creator is moderating the space and their personal boundaries are involved. And (listing things yet again, this is a post of lists), first of all there's a real focus on sexualization in that case and never on things like family dynamic or kidfic or gore or whump that could also make creators uncomfortable if it was shoved in their faces. (But somehow when anyone brings up those "boundaries" everyone comes to the conclusion that something entirely off on the internet somewhere and never shown to the creators is not going to harm them. Curious.) And second of all, I just disagree that that's a good way to run a fandom community. This is a space for fans, not for the creators, bringing up the "weird stuff" publically to creators is incredibly cruel to people who shouldn't have to see that, AND it's a bad atmosphere for creativity to always want the creators to approve things, fandom is for saying "fuck the man" and doing your own thing. Just tag it to keep it away from people who don't want to see it, and filter the tags for your own experience. Keep everything in its own space and you're good. There's tons of stuff in the fandom that isn't to my taste, ranging from characters that just don't do it for me to tropes that are active turn offs to people writing and undertagging things in ways that is concerning to me. We have got to learn to say "that's not for me" and "that's not for the cc" and put it away (block if you have to) and move on.

[ingravinoveritas]

Hello, I hope you are doing well!! I am going to add into the growing pile of asks in your inbox, but I need to get this out of my system!! Seeing these new images (and the season 3 announcement) has watered my crops, cleared my skin and all that jazz ✨🌟 both of them look soo happy and soppy and smitten and I really can't stop smiling at those pics... They radiate warmth (and are a far cry from the last pics of MS we got) and the best thing is, the people around them are looking like '😏😏 yes homo 🏳️‍🌈? If it is then good for them, good for them' (I even edited the pics XD)

Would love to hear more of your thoughts on this and I hope you have a nice holiday season (if you celebrate). Cheers 🥂

(Grouping these all together for ease of answering.)

Good lord, my inbox has completely blown up since last night. I can see we've all been greatly affected by the photo(s) of Michael and David at the Donmar, and there is surely much to discuss.

I think I am losing my shit just slightly too, so I am with you, @enchantingdefendorarbiter. What a joyous turn of events--opening night of Macbeth and Michael in (almost) the front row watching David with rapt attention, and someone somehow capturing the exact moment when they lock eyes from across the room in a "movie moment" made into genuine reality.

When I first saw the picture last night, I was so struck by the intimacy of it. Part of me wonders if this is due to the actual space--the Donmar is such a small theatre that lends itself to intimacy just by its nature, with the audience being so close to the stage and the performers. But there is no denying the intimacy that exists between Michael and David themselves--deep friendship, certainly, yes, but after looking at this photo, unquestionably the possibility of more.

As I've said before, I will not ever tell anyone that they have to ship Michael and David. It is absolutely correct for people to look at this picture and see best friends, because they are best friends. But being best friends and falling in love aren't mutually exclusive, nor does the possibility become closed off just because both of them are in other relationships.

So, intimacy. Another thing that intimacy can mean is feeling comfortable enough to show your feelings openly. That was what also struck me about last night, was that this was so public, and yet we got this (non-staged, non-planned) picture of Michael and David looking at each other ostensibly the same way they do when they're alone together. In this instance, maybe they thought no one was paying attention, but more significantly, they don't seem to care either way.

I think we think of "being in love" as this big, grand thing that exists the way it does in the movies. But in real life, being in love isn't just one specific thing, or specifically saying "I am in love with you." Being in love can also be I am looking at you like this right now because I don't know any other way to look at you. And that can be in private, or it can be in the middle of a crowded theatre, proudly letting the world see what you feel without apology.

(I also agree with you, @yami-no-kokoro, that the new pictures of Michael (which to answer your question @angelsandfelines are indeed from last night) are worlds away better than the ones we saw of him at a previous event. I am never not moved by the difference between Michael smiling his 'showbiz' smile versus smiling his real, genuine smile, and I love that that's what we got last night and that he was beaming so brightly because of David.)

To your comment, @phantomstars24, I could very much see that as well. Because last night felt and still feels like it was David and Michael's night. It felt like something took center stage in a new and painfully lovely way. It felt like Michael could go to David's dressing room with flowers and wine, and that they could sit on the couch and snog slowly and sweetly while Michael holds David in his arms and no one would blink a damn eye. And that is truly a beautiful thing.

So yes, those are my additional thoughts on the Macbeth press night. I have to do some traveling today, but I will try my best to answer the other Asks still waiting in my inbox. Thank you all for writing in and sharing your thoughts! x

[ride-thedragon]

Imagine all the tasty drama we could've enjoyed if we hadn't been so fixated on Rhaenyra and Alicent with their whole "girlboss" saga. Especially in "The Blacks," there was so much potential in delving into the kids' lives.

Take Jace, Luke, Baela, and Rhaena, for instance, each navigating their own conflicts after their parents' hasty marriage following the deaths of Laenor and Laena. Baela and Rhaena could have harbored deep resentment toward Rhaenyra for replacing their beloved mother. Baela might still hold her father, Daemon, in high regard but feel betrayed by his favoritism towards Rhaenyra. The tension of Baela resenting Rhaenyra while loving Jace? Pure gold! Rhaena...isolated from her sister, neglected by her father, and full of loathing for Rhaenyra. Her development could’ve been so much more interesting, showcasing her growth in diplomacy, strategy, and politics. They could have shown us how she risked her life to claim a dragon! (Why does it have to be off-screen?!) Rhaenys and Corlys’ feelings towards the boys could've been so interesting! Did Corlys come to care for them genuinely, or only Luke? Did he view a grandchild or a political piece? How did Jace and Luke feel about their younger brothers, who look like true Targaryens? Did they harbor resentment towards them? The way Jace and Luke view Daemon, their new stepfather, could’ve been interesting too. Luke loses Laenor, and Jace loses not one father figure but two, Laenor and Harwin. And Daemon is so much different from Laenor... Watching Jace start to embrace his Targaryen roots, distancing himself from his Velaryon identity, would’ve been gripping! Did Jace push Luke to do the same, making them both painfully aware of their heritage and appearance? When did Luke start referring to Laenor as "Ser Laenor" instead of "father"? Did they ever feel guilty just for existing, knowing they’d never be enough? Ah, the juicy drama we missed out on!

I, too, wish they cared about the team black faction as a bunch of characters who are different with the same goal. They just don't seem to think any conflict can be allowed or that any character interactions matter past love interests, Daemon and Rhaenyra, which is just incredibly unfortunate.

Jace's anger this season being framed as wrong is so unfortunate because, in all honesty, what has he done that is so wrong? I would've killed to see him trying to bring Corlys into the fold.

None of the kids get to react, and when they do, it's never in a fair light because it can't last long enough before we as the audience forget they are a family, I guess. Season one was a rush to the start line, which I get, but season 2 has been so incredibly lacking. All the greens interact this season, past important relationships, and we see the way they play the game. Alicent and Larys were actively manipulating Aegon. We don't have anything close to that for the team black kids. Although they kinda are throwing Helaena to the wayside, we can still turn her around.

With the blacks, every relationship is strained to no real end because we don't get conflict. We are still left assuming 6 episodes in.

I don't like it at all, and I do think it's one of the bigger issues with the season. A lot of folks say it's boring or nothing is happening, but they took what should've been an introspective and character driven season and made it about the 'main characters'. I hope it pays off, but I'm halfway checked out, watching them rip Rhaena away and trying to mould her into Nettles and Baela.

To next season!

[baldurs-gape]

Noise Complaint

By their very nature, gods expected things to happen as they wanted. Clashes between them were inevitable but thankfully rare. Generally, Ao had a good grasp on how to handle disputes before they spilled into other realms. Alas, it wasn't always possible to intervene or to reach a sufficiently acceptable solution which was how so many wars and the like started. Then there were times when the argument stayed within Elysium and Ao desperately wished it wouldn't. This was one such instance.

"You've got to do something!" Tyr hissed, teeth gritted.

If it had been just Mystra coming to Ao, it would have been so much easier. Jilted lovers were common among gods and Ao could write a handbook on dealing with them at this point. Unfortunately, Mystra hadn't been the first to approach about the issue. She wasn't even the second.

Even Shar was there, arms crossed over her chest.

"My domain carries the echoes, this has to cease."

Helm nodded along, "He should be kicked out. We don't need this kind of disturbance here."

Murmurs of agreement went up from the gathered gods. When even Loviatar appeared to lodge a complaint, Ao knew it was serious. Head in hand, it was difficult to think. Ao had to admit that it wasn't the gathered gods that were the main source of the issue. No, it was the moans that carried through to all corners of Elysium since the new god arrived. It was all well and good to force one's way into their ranks, but surely some decorum and manners were to be expected. But no. The God of Ambition seemed to have taken his role rather seriously, assuming his personal ambition was to piss every other god off.

"Very well. I will pay him a visit." Cries of relief and mutters of 'about time' melded into a choir of pacified gods. It seemed Ao had a trip to make.

Travel through Elysium wasn't as most imagined. Especially not for a being like Ao, who just had to think and the realms warped around the wish.

Stepping into the freshly created realm of ambition, Ao peered around. It seemed very...confused. A cross between human creature comforts and grandiose excess. Obviously the new god had issues letting go of his past. An obnoxious, breathy moan reminded Ao about the purpose of the visit. At least the realm had rooms and doors still so Ao knocked on the door where the noise came from and counted out a decade on the Material Plane before entering. Regret was imminent.

There was the newest god, kneeling on the floor, deep purple ropes criss-crossing his body in a restraint and a harness. On the bed in front of him was the abomination of the Vampire Ascendent, booted foot pressed against the god's naked crotch.

"Look, puppy. We have an audience." As he spoke, the abomination turned the god's head. Ao didn't know whether to be glad or mortified to not have learnt the new god's name yet. In a way it didn't matter because the god whimpered, hips twitching against the boot.

All words were gone in every living, dead and not yet invented language. Ao had seen it all, thought nothing could be a surprise anymore. Being wrong was both a thrill and a disappointment.

A century passed in the Material Plane. Then another. The Vampire Ascendent shrugged and turned away from Ao.

"Darling." One single word and the new god's focus was back on him. "My little treasure, you've been so good for me, haven't you? I think you deserve a reward."

No god, old or new, should whine in submission like that. Ao regretted perceiving what happened next. It seemed ambition did away with shame.

"Good boy, Gale," the Vampire Ascendent purred, eyes fixed on Ao and a dangerous smile on his lips. "You're my good pup, aren't you?"

Very slowly, the door closed as Ao backed out of the room and turned away. Not before hearing a raspy, needy "Astarion" from Gale's lips. An eternity passed as the moans turned to cries then quieted into murmurs of affection and adoration that was close to worship.

The other gods needed to be soothed, reassured. Ao hadn't done anything other than walk in, get an eyeful then leave. Kicking the new God of Ambition out with no explanation didn't bode well. As a human, he had already achieved godhood once, and given that his realm was ambition, Ao had no doubt that he'd manage to rise again a second time. There was nothing for it. Elysium was to be abandoned to ambition. Ao set about creating a new, quiet and harmonius realm. One that had no place for ambition or vampires or noise complaints.

[astercontrol]

One more thing I love about the 1982 TRON movie (yes, yet another thing!) is how subtle some details are.

This is, of course, in addition to all the parts that feel genuinely unfinished and not-well-thought-out, or are unintended side effects of some technicality in filming. I mean, I love those parts too! I love trying to figure out exactly where in between scenes Flynn could have asked Ram about Tron, since we see Ram claiming he did, even though he clearly didn't during either of the two times he was in the cell with Ram (because the part where he did ask him was cut from the script)...

...I love theorizing about the program Sark defeated in the lightcycle battle of the first scene, and whether he really reappears as a warrior-elite lightcyclist in the scene where Flynn breaks out of the game grid? (The same actor seems to reappear, probably because of limited cast. But, in-universe, does that mean he's a different program by the same User? Or did Sark spare his life on the condition that he'd defect to the MCP?)...

... And I love trying to come up with a reason why blue is the Bad-Guy color for lightcycles, despite being the Good-Guy color for armor circuitry (the out-of-universe reason is they decided on Blue=Good after all the computer animation on the lightcycles was done already, but... couldn't there be a reason within the story as well?)

My pattern-recognition-program brain loves all of that-- to me it's just a bunch of neat puzzles to solve!

And in addition to those accidental puzzles, there are also plenty of details that clearly had thought put into them, but in return also require some thought from the viewer.

Ram's User is one example of that. Even though he's just credited as "Popcorn Coworker" at that point, it must have been intentional that he's played by the same actor as Ram and is also cubicle neighbors with Alan, in a "mirroring" of their programs being cellmates. But in the original movie, this goes by in a brief, easily-missed scene, and wasn't made any clearer until Legacy and The Next Day came out. Audiences in the '80s could have figured it out, paying enough attention, but it'd take effort.

There are plenty of other examples of stuff like this, many of them just in the props and scenery-- Alan's "Gort Klaatu Barada Nikto" cubicle sign; Yori's name appearing on the monitor when the laser activates, and so on.

And the Bit thinking that Flynn is its program, with the reason implied by the unspoken fact that Clu was its program and they look the same. The scene of Flynn absorbing circuit-color from a guard, clearly without meaning to or understanding how it works-- but it makes perfect sense when you realize he probably intended to steal a uniform for disguise, and his User-Power acted on his intent to disguise himself and simply transferred the red color to him. It's a beautiful goldmine of puzzles!

And then... then there are the social subtleties; the puzzles of emotion and intention, half-concealed within the acting.

Now, as someone who's spent a lot of my life struggling with social challenges and unspoken, unclear social rules, that sort of subtlety is... not always my friend.

But, in a movie like this... a beautifully complex film that's already such a wealth of half-hidden mysteries... I can, on occasion, enjoy the emotional subtlety, seeing it as just another puzzle to figure out.

There are so many cases of a character expressing something, on the surface, that may not be quite what he's feeling deep down. For instance...

Flynn and Lora are amicable exes, seeming to harbor no resentment about their breakup. When Lora brings her new guy, Alan, to visit Flynn at the arcade, Flynn is all laughs and smiles, showing nothing but happiness...

And yet, later, we see that laughs and smiles from Flynn don't always mean happiness.

After seeing him use a cheerful face to cover up whatever anger, fear and despair he must be feeling about Dillinger and the MCP, we start to wonder... how many of the darker feelings about his past with Lora might be covered up in the same way?

Tron, too, is a master of repression. Honestly, sometimes I think he took the directive "Secure and Protect the System, Stop Bad Things from getting through the Walls!" and applied it disproportionately to the walls of his own dingus self.

Look at him speedrun a dozen stages of bottling-up-the-grief, upon learning that Ram didn't survive:

And then, look how calm and cheerful he seems to be, when faced with the potentially faith-shattering revelation that the gods don't know WTF they're doing.

Now, I personally think this isn't a case of emotional repression; it's a case of "Tron does not actually believe that for a second." He is not, at this point, at all convinced that Flynn really is a User.

His choice to say "Stranger and stranger!" instead of "Bullshit!" is the only repression here, and, in my opinion, it's an act of diplomacy on Tron's part. Tron knows that whoever this guy is, he's gonna have to keep working together with him for at least a while, so he decided not to start any unnecessary conflicts over whether he believes the User thing.

Here's another subtlety, at the end, when Tron and Yori are reunited.

Now, I don't mean Yori's explanation of what happened to Flynn, which is unusually non-subtle here. With so many details of the film's plot so expertly revealed through Showing rather than Telling, it's a surprise to see Yori explain in such clear detail just what Flynn did, and just how it helped Tron defeat the MCP... when we, as the audience, already saw all that happen, and could figure it out as well as we could figure out any of the other, more subtle bits of the plot that aren't outright explained to us.

No, the subtlety here is in Tron's reaction. He's happy to see Yori, yes-- but when she starts talking about how great Flynn was, he gets a stone-faced, tight-jawed look to him, like he's... really not all that happy to see his partner fangirling so hard over that doofus.

He looks like he might be giving some very critical thought to just where Yori might've learned that "kissing" thing she just taught him, and struggling with some... complicated feelings about that.

Really I think there is lots of evidence that the Programs (Tron, Yori and Ram) all have complicated feelings about Flynn. To me it seems clear that even when they don't realize he's a User, all three feel the pull of his User-power, perhaps to the point of overwhelming their better judgment.

All three have scenes where they seem irresistibly attracted to him. Though of course Yori's the only one who actually went through with the kiss that... all three of them seemed to be gearing up for.

But just because Tron understands what it feels like to lose control a little, getting swept away in the attraction of a User's energy...

well, that doesn't mean he's happy about it happening to Yori.

Personally I don't see it as jealousy, in the traditional monogamous User-world sense. I see it as more of:

"you do realize that guy is kind of a dumpster fire of a person, even if he is a User? I know what his energy does to you, I felt it too, and that is why I'm... concerned. He has God Powers, but by his own admission he does not really have a clue what he's even doing with them, so... well, I don't know if he's gonna come back here again, but if he does, please please be careful around him, okay?"

I swear. This movie has infinite subtext to explore. I am gonna keep finding things for YEARS.

[rada-76]

Part 2. About Professionalism and Bullet Catching

This post is in Russian/Этот пост есть на русском, здесь.

Preface "Marvelous!" | Part 1 | Supplement one to Part 1 | Supplement two to Part 1 Reading the supplements is not necessary to understand this post.

This post involves some guesswork that might lead to doubt. However, we were shown a clear and insightful parallel between the scenes "in the magic shop" and "in Edinburgh," which helps us understand the techniques used to create these parallels. For instance:

One element can convey multiple meanings.

The significance of phrases, sounds, colors, and the spatial relationships of objects is crucial.

Characters can mirror the main characters, as couples do.

Emotions may be similar, but in the mirrored scene, they feel more genuine than in the original.

Here I’ll be referring to the final fifteen-minute conversation scene between Aziraphale and Crowley as "the final 15" for short. I see a cool system of parallels between this scene and the performance of the Fabulous Mr. Fell in the West End in 1941.

"Broken Bottles"

Broken bottles are associated with a cancelled breakfast at the Ritz: someone didn't get the pile of alcohol they were expecting, and the angel volunteered to do a magic trick instead.

"Beginning of the performance"

So, Aziraphale goes on stage. The owner of the theater, Mrs. H, urges him: "You're on. Get on with it!"

When Aziraphale enters the bookstore, having received Metatron's offer, I want to exclaim the same thing in his direction.

The angel hesitates and drags his feet for the first few minutes on stage. The manager in the theater yells "Get on with it!" at him in disgust. In the bookshop, too. Isn't that what everyone in the viewers wanted to yell at the angel along with Crowley when he interrupted the demon and started to hesitate and drag his feet in the bookshop? "Come on, Angel!"

However, Aziraphale gave Crowley at least two clues with his performance in the bookshop: a timeout sign with his palms and a silent phrase. And that's not counting the fact that he was grotesquely and contrary to his beliefs happy about the offer he received.

And Azi didn't waste any time on stage either! True, we, the audience, got the clues.

Hint 1. "Ladies from Camelot"

"They were the ladies from Camelot," says the angel, barely having entered the stage. Guessed? That's Nina and Maggie, who left the bookshop when he entered!

Hint 2. "Bees"

Then Azi says: "They're the bees knees!"

And remember when Crowley went to Heaven with Muriel?

- My office, but... - Lead on. - But... No, I can't! You're a demon! I can't just... Do you know how much trouble I'll get into for this? - It's fine. You're forgetting about the bees. - Bees? - Angels are like bees. Fiercely protective of their hive if you're trying to get inside. Once you're in...  - Well, I mean... Is it even faintly possible that an unauthorized demon might be just wandering around in Heaven unescorted? [Muriel shakes her head] - Mm, bees. - But you don't look like a bee. You look like a murder hornet or a snake or a... [Crowley changes his outfit.] - Bees. Right.

Michael met Crowley in the corridor of Heaven, but did not pay attention to him. Michael and other angels are bees that were fooled.

"Ladies of Camelot" Nina and Maggie went into a bookshop before the final 15. Aziraphale, entering the bookstore after talking to Metatron, met both ladies on the way out, but paid no attention to them, just as Michael paid no attention to Crowley in Heaven. Now were Crowley himself, together with Aziraphale, the bees that were fooled? Azi and Crowley let Nina and Maggie into the store thinking it was safe, but that was a mistake!

Oh, another poster in the fandom has argued this already! It was no coincidence that Nina and Maggie influenced Crowley's thoughts. And I did not believe this post initially. Well, now I bow to this transparent parallel. Maybe the girls were bewitched by Metatron, and it was not them themselves, but the fact of sabotage has been established.

Hint 3. "Portion (jigger)"

And Azi also says jiggery-pokery on stage. Remember Metatron's hefty jigger (huge spoon/portion)?

"Invitation for Crowley"

It's terribly sweet that Azi then says: "first, I shall require the assistance of a gentleman from the audience." That is, he needs Crowley as an ally in the final 15. But the demon doesn't immediately realize that he is being called from the audience, that he needs to raise his hand. He doesn't immediately realize in the final 15 that he needs to play along.

"Turn a turnip into an inkwell"

Aziraphale can't turn a turnip into an inkwell. And what a strange choice of objects, don't you think? I have the audacity to interpret this as Azi not being able to get through to Crowley. At least, the angel thinks it doesn't work. Oh, demon, you're being stupid, you're just a turnip! You've become so bright! You haven't done a single demonic mischief in the modern part of the second season, at least not intentionally! Where is your demonic ingenuity, where are your ink pens with sharp ends?

Although, to be fair, Crowley also tried to transform a turnip. But he couldn't either. Here, most likely, the parallel is this: he tried to stop time, but he couldn't. It's a pity that it is not yet known for sure about stopping time. We only have the clock hints.

But now that we can look, we have two confirmations in addition to the hands that stopped in the bookshop behind the demon! Crowley really tried to stop time in the final 15!

"Crowley is a Time Lord"

Hint 1. "Fez in a Trick Shop"

In the modern part of the story, Aziraphale and Crowley come to a magic shop and talk to a new salesman. It is no coincidence that Azi starts tempting this salesman with the book "Expert at the Card Table" to lure him to a meeting-ball, that is, he also seriously wants to share his expertise. Aziraphale worked like a real expert in the finale. Everything he did was great, necessary and correct.

And Crowley is cosplaying Doctor Who in a magic shop. It turns out that this famous Easter egg-reference to the time lord is not just there for fun, but works to understand the ending. Crowley's emotion is boredom, but maybe it rhymes with his impatience while Aziraphale was hesitating in the final 15.

Notice that Crowley, wearing the Doctor's fez, moves his hands over the glass ball, as if embracing and covering it. Why? We already know that there are no coincidences in parallels. Only now the ball is Earth. Because Crowley helped protect Earth from Armageddon in the first season by stopping time, like a true master of time.

It turns out that the demon in the final 15 did try to stop time. Now I find it hard to believe that the standing arrow was a blooper. Are bloopers even possible in the polished diamond that is Good Omens?!

Confirmation 2. "Doctor Who continued"

We were reminded that Crowley is a time lord by a shot in 1941 where he is sitting in the audience. The Good Omens team really did line up the shot with Crowley, as well as the return shot with Azi, so that I would notice the association of these shots with shots from Doctor Who, and Crowley himself with a time lord!

It's just a pity that the reminder of the power over time was given shortly before the key events on stage, and not at the same time as Crowley's attempt to turn a turnip into an inkwell. But wait a minute!..

Eureka!

Where else was "have a gold star" said by Crowley to Muriel? In the Season 1 scene at the airbase, Crowley said this to Adam shortly before he stopped time: "Well done. Have a gold star. Won't make any difference."

Update: And also at the airfield Crowley threw the book of prophecies into Anathema's hands, and in the bookshop he threw the book into Muriel's hands (thanks @kimberleyjean).

And in the final 15, we were given this reminder shortly before Crowley tried to stop time. Perfect symmetry with the first season and the audience in 1941 is guaranteed!

Now I need an assistant who will collect and analyze all the references to time in the series. Because the characters sometimes have too much time, sometimes not enough.

"Crowley takes the stage"

Although the miracles were blocked, and in both cases there was clearly some kind of crazy thing going on, but "sometimes you meet stubborn turnips." Crowley, despite suspecting something was wrong, still began his monologue-confession in the finale.

Well. “So... best get on to the main event. Tonight... I will take my life in my hands.” This is Aziraphale getting ready to catch a bullet. He is so cool, a real professional! In both scenes. Even though it is difficult for him. I am absolutely delighted!

When Crowley takes the stage, Azi, of course, tries to maintain the legend that Crowley is a randomly selected spectator. Look, audience, this is a complete stranger to me. Believe me, we are not friends. Do you hear that, Metatron, you bastard?

"Shot"

Well, about the angel's "aim at my mouth" only the lazy have not joked that it was about a kiss. In general, the phrase "aim at my mouth, but shoot past the ear" is too ridiculous to mean anything. But what does the ear have to do with it then? Is this the angel's words "I can't hear anything" about nightingales?

In the conversation shots, they often show Crowley from right behind Aziraphale's ear, and only his ear is visible. Not only is the angel's ear the only thing we see during the kiss, but Aziraphale also closes his eyes... Like in 1941 before the shot.

As for the meaning of the phrases "nothing lasts forever", as well as from 1941: "trust me", "at my signal" and "take this bullet and load it into the rifle.", I have not yet figured out exactly.   

But now we need to discuss the shot. And the shot is a kiss.

"Aziraphale in the crosshairs"

I noticed that the sight is the shape of the neckline of Maggie's blouse. She has a blue ribbon in the center of the dark circle of the neckline. Yes, the shape of the ribbon refers to the snake, because Maggie is an analogy with Crowley. But objects in the series often have a double meaning. Let me remind you that blue is Aziraphale's color, and red is Crowley's color. Just remember the paintball paint in the first season! They were both also shot at then. So now Maggie's blue ribbon is Aziraphale shown through the gun sights.

"The True Emotions of a Kiss"

When Crowley took aim, he was absolutely terrified. I wouldn't be surprised if he was in the same state when he realized he was kissing an angel. Aziraphale was also very scared to stand under the gun. But he trusts Crowley infinitely, and the fear during the kiss was most likely caused by Metatron watching them.

I think we shouldn't discount the incredible happiness and relief when they successfully completed the trick. Because in fact, if not for the circumstances, the kiss would have been a happy one for them. I add this hint to my collection of confirmations that the third season will end happily.

"Bullet in the teeth"

Apparently, that glimpse of spit in Aziraphale's mouth that fans noticed in the final 15 after the kiss was added by the creators to rhyme with the bullet in his teeth in 1941. I don't think there's a physical bullet in the ending. A shine of spit is just what is needed to connect scenes and sequence events. Paralleling objects are never completely identical. For example, even when we had three mirrors, they were still different: wall, table and pocket. So my opinion is that in the end it’s just saliva.

Update: I've already changed my mind. Crowley could have given Aziraphale an object through a kiss. I was convinced by the scene in which Maggie walks from her record store to the meeting-ball in a black and red T-shirt with a picture of a man in black glasses.

I'll quote from this Russian post.

"She locks her little store with a ✨key✨ and holds it at the level of the ✨lips✨ of the man depicted on the T-shirt. Then she puts the keys in her other hand and throws them into a ✨tartan✨ bag, which closes with difficulty. Probably, the kiss was so strange and long because the "bag" at first resisted the transfer of important information.

"I forgive you"

This phrase has a reference to the first season, so we can assume that this nightmare phrase for Crowley hints at something. Aziraphale, of course, was shocked, but remember that he also managed to behave Professionally. Maybe he wanted Crowley to at least later draw an obvious parallel: "Demon, you call me to go somewhere together, and I tell you that I forgive you, and then we overcome a huge threat together."

"Prediction for the third season"

The Magnificent Mr. Fell's speech has ended. What happened next in the fourth episode? In other words, what can we expect in season three? Friends, you don't have to wait any longer! The main thing is to look carefully!

Aziraphale saved Crowley with his utmost Professionalism by stealing an incriminating photograph from Furfur.

It all ended with a happy celebration in a safe place, complete harmony and mutual adoration.

"The Terrible Magician and the Ink Pens"

There, in 1941, in the book Crowley said that Aziraphale no longer needs to maintain the professionalism of a magician. Moreover, professionalism in each case is of its own kind. In 1941 - the art of a magician. And in the finale of the third season, Aziraphale will be able to leave behind the art of overcoming deadly threats.

Crowley himself at the end of the third season also no longer wants to be an aggressively sharp, honed ink pen. That's why he says immediately after the shot on stage, beaming with relief from happiness: "No paperwork."

Yes, there is some scatter in the timeline, but I still like this version. In both cases, hints to the third season are placed in the circumstances of a happy outcome of a deadly situation.

In short, we were promised that in the upcoming finale, the angel and the demon will be able to relax in each other's company. We will see them again in the finale of the third season with celebratory glasses in hand.

-

That's my main point. Thank you very much for your attention!

End of Series of posts "Breaking the "Good Omens" Code".

I invite you to read the two-part post "Crowley, Death, and Cups" about the false continuity error at the link, but only in Russian.

All my posts with analyses are here. Author @rada-76 Translator into English @kimberleyjean

[foursthemagicknumber]

Essay on erasure under cut

@roze-realm @kis5ki5skai

The Marvel Cinematic Universe has a very big problem: the erasure of minorities in their characters. They continuously change parts of characters in order to appeal to a larger demographic of audiences. When in reality- the Marvel comics were never about that. In comics we have characters that aren’t even subtle about being minorities. There’s even an entire franchise based around the idea of superpowers creating a minority that faces major discrimination. All whilst telling a cohesive story. In the movies however, the characters that are portrayed as a minority like in comics don’t get a good story.

This is most present in a certain family. The Maximoff’s are a jewish-romani family. However in age of ultron where the scarlet witch and her brother were introduced they are cast as white. As well as had them work with literal nazis. Not only that but the movie immediately killed off one half of the twins. Peitro despite at least keeping his name unlike his X-Movies counterpart, was somehow shot to death by bullet’s he is meant to be faster than. 

In the new show Agatha all along they cast Joe Locke as Billy Kaplan. Many may argue that Agatha all along is playing the representation game well, having a mainly female cast with a black and asian characters and the only male on board being established gay and jewish. However this view fails to point out the fact that we only ever see William Kaplan as portrayed as jewish. Any associations to religion with Billy Maximoff, who appears to be a completely different character, are to witchcraft adjacent religions such as wiccan and paganism. This paired with the fact that by extension of his mother’s erased romani identity, his was erased as well, it’s not looking good for him. Fortunately there’s still hope for his brother. 

Now as much as a good example as the Maimoff family is, there are many others. Such as, America Chavez. Now my knowledge on the comic book character is limited due to the fact that simply haven’t gotten there yet, however I know quite a bit about her appearance in Marvel Rising, a series of short films focusing on new jersey hero’s such as Ms. Marvel or Inferno. And in such she was displayed as a dark skinned Spanish aligned queer woman working a job that was barely paying for her schooling. And in multiverse of madness, she’s practically the definition of white washing. Not to mention the down play of her character’s strengths and sass. Everything that makes America, America is taken away. It’s one thing to play down what makes a character a minority but that alongside with the down play of her characterization makes her into a weak link in the very weak chain that is multiverse of madness.

Now another great instance would be Loki, who in comics is gender-fluid and pansexual. In the movies however is treated solely as male and straight. In an attempt to give him a love interest the writers posed the question, “What if Loki was a woman?” However if they were simply comic accurate, there would be no alternative female version of Loki, because sometimes he is she. Loki is the epitome of a shapeshifter who’s gender-fluid. In fact they are the first that comes to mind when asked to think of the trope- simply because it’s done so well. Loki is meant to be a character who simply is, and is unapologetic for who they are good or bad, male or female, unfortunately the MCU gave us a bratty theater kid and called it a day. 

After this point tw: Child abuse

Now all of this is well and good- but the final straw would be the Hulk. In comics the Hulk, or Bruce Banner has an incredibly tragic backstory. He is a demonstration of how at times the greatest danger to a child, is the one in their own home. Bruce was abused by his father as a child which eventually led to him forming dissociative identity disorder. The alter to Bruce being Hulk an angry and out of control monster, whom is eventually given its own form different from Banner in a very Jekyll and Hyde fashion. The movies however completely ignore this idea even to such an extent that a character tells him roughly“I control my anger infinitely more than you do” almost as though it were a competition as to who has suffered more. Bruce Banner’s trauma was downplayed so parents would take their children to see his movies.

To me this is a very personal essay. I want to love the MCU as blindly as I did as a child. But I have found that the more source material I read. That harder that becomes. A character in Daredevil once said roughly ‘To love something is to forget what you don’t like about it.’ If that be true then I no longer hold this same love. I fortunately believe in a different idea, that love is something that people love to think is inherently blind. But in reality, the most complex loves are the wary ones. I love the Marvel Cinematic Universe, however I grow more and more wary of the cinematic universe as I grow more and more in love with the comics.

[sonkitty]

The Sideburns Scheme Post #39

(For reference: The Sideburns Scheme)

Crowley, Good Omens 2, Episode 3, I Know Where I'm Going, wicked

...

Sideburns Check

The sideburns are still pointing to Crowley's mouth, as expected for most of the minisode.

The space has plenty of humans and looks to be a more wealthy area than the previous scene.

There are lanterns and lamps and lights from nearby windows. There are no fires.

All three characters are walking and wear their hats during the whole walk.

...

Comparison

In case you wanted to see a few comparison shots of Crowley between this scene and the last, here you go. The one furthest to the left is the previous scene. The middle one and one furthest to the right are this particular scene.

...

Earthly Objects

(For reference: Earthly Objects)

Crowley is touching the cart the whole time. He has a question with, "Anyway, is it wicked?" Aziraphale doesn't do anything I know of that gets a point until near the end of the scene when he says Elspeth's name.

Elspeth doesn't have any lines but does eventually touch the cart.

...

Story Commentary

Discussion on class issues continue.

This time only Crowley and Aziraphale talk. I read a theory once, one of those I nod along with and forget to bookmark, that these two can talk without the humans really noticing what they are talking about. Elspeth's behavior is like that. She's already had her conversation with Aziraphale, but Aziraphale's saying things like Elspeth is wicked Crowley is evil quite openly in front of her. She pays it no mind and looks generally tuned out of the conversation.

Crowley and Aziraphale are noted as having a version of this discussion in the Good Omens book, but it was a little over 800 years earlier with a split of 3 years in between points being made.

For pockets, I can't figure out much. The scene starts off with the barrel pocketed between Elspeth and then the pair that is Crowley and Aziraphale. Elspeth progressively closes the distance to eventually rejoin Crowley in moving the cart.

As such, Crowley ends up visually pocketed between Elspeth and Aziraphale. His hair makes a few pockets, including a stray strand that goes over his eyebrow and above his right eye.

...

The Drive

Let's check in on how the forming connection between homes is going.

Aziraphale can get the Bentley to play the music he wants. I've already admitted I don't like Aziraphale, and I don't, so I don't find this music thing endearing besides its value within the games. Otherwise, I'm just annoyed.

But let's go over the value in the games in case you haven't read my The Window Trick post or just want a refresher on the matter.

The value in the games is that Aziraphale sent the nightingale song at the end of episode 6. By having Aziraphale send the song, the game confirms his success at The Door Catch and that the connection between homes is maintained, even with him behind the closed doors of the Heaven threshold.

Crowley turning off the music shows more clearly that the reflections of people in his sunglasses is based on the window to the door to his car instead of from any other direction.

While I still have to ultimately guess as any audience member not bothering with these games might, I end up feeling more sure of that guess with the amount of effort required in playing Earthly Objects and finding The Door Catch on accident. For instance, because I don't like Aziraphale, I would rather not think he sent the song, but it's rather hard to pretend otherwise because I would like to think that The Door Catch matters.

Alright, enough of that.

Let's move onto Crowley calling in.

He sounds like one annoyed demon.

We learn that Crowley can feel if the Bentley is going under the speed limit, hear and/or feel if Aziraphale is getting a travel sweet, and feel if the car changes color. He can also hear not just Aziraphale but the horn Aziraphale honks. He communicates these things with a remote call through the radio while music is being played.

So, all of that is to say, Crowley has strongly connected feelings to the car itself. This information is good to know when it's going to look like he doesn't notice things later but is I think him not drawing verbal attention to what he already has noticed.

Over time, my understanding of the speed limit thing is that Aziraphale pretended to not be able to accelerate. Once the car heard Crowley make his threat on selling books or even giving them away, it took over and sped up.

Yellow is an important color for the door trickery in the Final Fifteen. If my play is on the right track, Yellow has to be hit twice and connects with Aziraphale before each of them switch to Green in the Rainbow Connection.

Crowley complains about the exterior color of the car but not the interior, which also changed. The seats were brown. They are blurry in this scene, but they are darker. If they aren't already black, they will be. That part of the car's transformation will remain.

The car is still a 2-door car and not a 4-door car yet. It will transform further to acquire those new doors later.

As the scene draws to a close, the horizon looks rather fantastical compared to how things usually look, allowing us to suspect things are not quite right or as they seem in this story.

Aziraphale doesn't eat anything during the season 2 present day...except this travel sweet while the connection is being formed between homes.

So, how is the connection doing? It's forming with some frustration between the two making it. The car is transforming in the process. Despite the frustration, the connection will be made and maintained in the end. Theoretically, that is. It is one of my theories I believe more strongly in.

...

That's it for this post. Sometimes I edit my posts, FYI.

...

Main post:

The Sideburns Scheme

[zalrb]

This is awkward because I made it seem as if there was actually a lot more I had to say about constructing couples I find epic or cosmic or transcendental in movies and I don't really 🤣 but let's give it ago.

So, one thing I think anons should do when thinking about couples in movies is consider the type of movie they're watching.

If you're watching something like a romantic comedy, you're watching the 'why' of a relationship. This is why these two people end up falling for each other, these are the reasons

If you're watching something like Atonement, you're watching the 'how' of a relationship. The feelings exist and the movie is communicating to the viewer how they exist, how the characters express that to each other and to the audience

and usually within the how, the why is embedded

I think anons are curious about the 'how' movies rather than the 'why' movies and that goes back to paying attention to the director's choices - framing, lighting, mise en scene - that communicates the emotional interiority of the characters/couple.

In The Mood for Love gives us a reason as to why our two leads end up spending more and more time together i.e. their spouses are having an affair with one another -- and it should also be noted that we don't see the faces of their respective spouses, we hear their voices, and at most see the back of their heads, which again is a choice, it reinforces that their spouses aren't what's significant here -- but I find it more concerned with illustrating the how of their growing intimacy and yearning. It's a movie about unfulfilled desire and said desire is illustrated effectively with framing

Their growing closeness is communicated with positioning

So we're watching the progression of this relationship in mostly unspoken instances of glances and proximity helped along by framing and music in the span of two hours and it's devastatingly beautiful

The other day, I was at the hairdresser and we were talking about the importance of chemistry in kdramas particularly for the 'face off' i.e. the leads just stand a couple of feet apart and stare at each other and then we get a close up and then a medium shot and then a long shot of them just looking at one other. And we were like the chemistry between the two leads is meant to be so strong and so palpable that all they need to do is look at each other and as a viewer, you can interpret/infer/feel the emotion attached so as a viewer, you should be moved by the fact that they're just staring at each other.

Everything needs this but it's particularly true for a movie because of how the story is streamlined. The chemistry is necessary to propel the plot forward because it's entwined with/sells/elevates the cinematic language/choices that the director makes to communicate the 'how'.

For Arwen and Aragorn,

the primary 'how' is a physical embodiment i.e. the evenstar. But it's not just the evenstar, it's the reverence with which the evenstar is treated.

If he's touching the evenstar like this

If she's touching it like that

I know what the possibility of it breaking means

I know what it means to have it returned

I know what it means when he's wearing it while another woman who loves him hugs him

Of course he rejects Eowyn when she confesses her feelings for him, he's always wearing the evenstar. It's a choice that communicate that depth of a relationship that two lines of dialogue explicitly reveal

Does this make sense?