#and this production is quite good

[strawbie-doodle]

havent drawn all of them in a WHILE ✸

[riddlerosehearts]

oh, at least out loud, i won’t say i’m in love ♡

[afurtivecake]

It's easy to get the impression that Tetsuji never cared enough to rein in Riko's behaviour and temper but I think it's the opposite. I think Riko grew up constantly being told stuff like, "You have to learn to control your temper" and, "Is that any way to behave?" by Tetsuji. I think Tetsuji would have even disciplined him harshly every time he was caught acting out of anger. But all that is coming from Tetsuji - the man who would beat a kid if they displeased him in any way. How can you ever really take to heart the words of someone who demonstrates the exact opposite of what they preach? How are you supposed to not learn that the real lesson is, "Become the one who has all the power over everyone else and you will never have to suffer criticism for how you behave ever again."

[hikaruchen]

Commissions!

-

The Process ✨

[lesbiancolumbo]

So I did not like The Substance but people seem to be so determined to be dumb about it. Elizabeth is young and old, but the young self wants more time to be young, which has adverse effects on the older self, and eventually the obsession over youth and the reality of old age merge into something grotesque which cannot be hidden anymore. It's very obviously a parable about the beauty industry and how one person's life -here side by side to create narrative and done through horror conventions- can be destroyed by trying to stall time. Listened to a podcast about it where the first thing the two hosts ask is Where they really the same person? and talk for the first few minutes about how unclear it is wether they're the same or not. Then later one of them says she might be giving the film a generous reading.

thank you for being perhaps the first normal person in my inbox about this. i've never at any time stated that people have to like the substance (like, it's fine!). it's that the most vocal haters of it are seemingly going out of their way to deliberately misunderstand/be obtuse/be fucking stupid about it is what's compelling me to call out the double standards/bullshit, not that a minority of people aren't liking it. i honestly expected more people to find it polarizing! it's VERY polarizing. but it's NOT, at any point, hard to understand. one critic who i really do respect (or i did anyway lol) as a writer literally said that bc this film 'felt' surface level to her she was going to approach the analysis from a surface level also. and then proceeded to be like these are clearly two different people. girl you FAILED step one. anyway i would have turned that podcast off within minutes lol. but i also am the first person to just turn off a podcast the minute the analysis goes to a place that i find fucking idiotic, which is why i do NOT listen to many movie podcasts!

lollllllll, get his ass!!!!!!!

as someone who is already dreading having to deal with the one film podcast that i do listen to having to jerk off megaflop and "idk it just felt off to me! somehow!" handwave the substance in their end of the year coverage i am tired.

imagine watching the substance and then discussing/critiquing the substance and saying with your open fucking mouth "beauty is what we can control" congrats you failed step one. go directly to movie jail. do not pass go. do not collect $200.

[perenlop]

anyways i always find it more admirable when a fanwork takes an unlikable character and actually uses it to flesh them out or give them a chance to be more nuanced, rather than just bashing them like a piñata every five minutes

[rist-ix]

As an anon a few days ago reminded me, Tbhtbh is having its second anniversary today!

And I wanted to do a lil something for that. But I didn’t. Except I did.

So have this shading test of a wip I’m working on, which will hopefully be done this weekend so we can all pretend that THAT is the actual date and I’m not late at all.

[goldensunset]

third file of stardew valley and i actually went and died like some sort of noob… i only lost one item but it was my sword!! ik i can recover it easy but like can you believe it. still i feel like i got off pretty easy there

[jasontoddenthusiastt]

It is not classist that Jason, a vigilante in a *family of vigilantes*, is violent like the rest | just | because he comes from a poor family

What's (more likely) classist is writers thinking he needs to be taught right vs wrong from Bruce and co and that he consequently makes snap judgments out of some childish grudge-fueled rebellion which makes him dangerous the way a toddler holding a knife is dangerous

[skitskatdacat63]

Some matador studies :)

+ ref pic I like but couldn't even attempt to draw 😭

[skinzchoerim]

Finished watching Kaos, it was a really fun and creative (and queer, as it should be) take on greek myths. I really like that they didn't stick to simply retelling the myths, but instead they made them into new stories and weaved them all into a larger narrative. I would have loved to watch a second season if there ever was one.

Now, I wouldn't be saying anything new if I said fuck Netflix for cancelling such a good show, but I will say FUCK NETFLIX, because I wouldn't have even heard about this show if I didn't scroll down to the comments on a video complaining about their business model. Kaos came out two months ago, and by the time I heard about it, it's already been cancelled.

So yeah. Fuck Netflix.

[mariocki]

The Nesting (Massacre Mansion, 1981)

"It may come as a surprise to you that a physicist could even contemplate the existence of paranormal phenomena."

"But you admit to the possibility."

"I admit the possibility of the unknown. I admit that science is only beginning to understand its own discoveries. But I do not believe in evil spirits or painted phantoms in windows."

[study-lizard]

🎧 For Ever - Jungle

3/3/24 Trying to get a bit ahead of my work this Sunday so I can have a manageable week & get my room in order on my free day on Wednesday.

So far today: progress: sound design hw & research paper todo: costume design hw & german studying

[cdroloisms]

I just came across your post about vagueposting and I think I agree with it, but the situation you most likely wrote it about is hardly a "vagueposting" because you could say who it was about after reading it literally one time and that person got jumped and insulted in the anon ask anyway so discussing it in person could be safer...

I'm reeeally sorry for bring up a past situation, but I don't think it's a good idea to write nasty things about another person and specific details about how they interact with the fandom and their post, say things that will help to easily identify a person and at the same time insult them or say how you think they feel about the characters or the story based on your feelings about their one take that you didn't like and then call it's "vague" because there is no name in the post. I mean, It can lead to bad consequences, it literally did in that situation.

And yes, I do think people have the right to discuss bad takes or takes they don't like, but there's a way to do it without giving away every detail about the post and the person who wrote it so everyone knows who you're talking about, and if you're not good at being vague, just discuss it in a private chat.

this ask is old but i was busy last week, so forgive me for the late response. i was debating answering it at all, but i dont want myself to be misunderstood, so just. to clarify under the cut.

i'll agree with you that the post/situation in question wasn't vagueing. now, i don't know exactly the difference between the number of followers i have and the number of followers that the blogger in question has, and when it comes to the number of active dsmp followers i think both of us have even less of a clue. that being said, both of us frequent much of the same circles, so i think it's fair to say that many of my posts will end up being exposed to a very similar audience to his, and so therefore this response about the situation you're talking about will be just about as clearly traceable to a specific person as the post he made that started the situation in question. just as a general observation.

if i'm understanding your ask correctly, while vagueing a take is fine, the vague shouldn't be clearly identifiable if you're going to speak badly about it or disagree heavily. to which i have to ask what, specifically, is defined as clearly identifiable? i think most takes in this fandom can be pretty easily traced to a person, even if that person is not the only person that believes in that take--just as an example, c!tommy as a butterfly pinned behind glass was a take in response to the c!sam and c!dream stream after techno escaped, and grew to be a pretty prominent theme to the point of a zine being modeled after it, but i can also trace it to a pretty specific tumblr post with a name attached. i also think that that same statement probably isn't true for many fans who maybe joined later on in the fandom. i mean, i'm aware that i'm being pedantic here, i'm aware that the situation in question created conflict specifically due to it being within dreblr and in a space where multiple people would've seen both posts and felt ensuing awkwardness bc they know both people either on a personal or acquaintance level, but i mean the same applied ages ago whenever strategist-interpretation and trauma-interpretation c!dream apologists felt like going at it again on the dash.

in this scenario specifically, what made the situation clearly identifiable was the nature of the take that was being discussed. the main identifying detail was the take that the asker was asked about, imo, and i mean ... yeah i mean. most takes that haven't blown up pretty heavily do end up being tied to one or two people? i mean, staged finale is a take that can be tied to three people who argued in favor of it the most before the rest of dreblr got on board only in late 2021. i simply don't think that a take that maybe only one person has argued for (which, i dont remember the statistics of the take in this situation, so i dont remember how many notes it had or how many people in total may have expressed public agreement towards it, honestly) is exempt from discussion when it is posted in a meta or analysis space as an analytical piece, which i do think applies to this take from what i remember about it and how it was tagged.

and back to the discussion of what's acceptable as far as directly responding versus vagueing, i mean, a lot of the discussion i've had on my blog (abt discourse etiquette in General in meta spaces on dreblr moreso than this specific situation, largely bc i did want to avoid commenting on a situation that 1) i really had no business in and 2) i have reason to be biased about. the main reason why i'm talking abt it now is bc hopefully enough time has passed for feelings to be less fraught and bc i want to make certain thoughts of mine clear, in case they weren't clear enough in my original posts abt dreblr and whatever) revolves around both direct responses and vagueing having their reasons as well as pros and cons, and both will likely continue to exist in analysis spaces and generally i don't think it's productive to really comment on what people can or can't do on their own blogs. in this scenario, i don't think "vagueing about one specific person in a way that may be clearly identifiable to parts of their audience" is uniquely unacceptable? a direct response very clearly would make the person in question identifiable -- outside of how it's kind of impossible to make a post vagueing someone in a way where No One has Any Idea who you might be talking about without making the post like, incoherent inherently, if vagueing (not identifiable) is okay and directly responding (identifiable) is okay, then why is vagueing (identifiable) not okay?

now, i understand that any situation where the person in question might be identifiable, some people may take the open disagreement as permission to harass them. and obviously, harassment sucks. part of the whole point of opening up this conversation on my blog was bc i worry, with the way that a single conflict between dsmp opinions has kind of rippled through dreblr recently and the responses to this "situation," that an environment is being created with too much of a forced global consensus that punishes people for stepping out of the status quo in both opinions and behavior, which is obviously bad for the whole community, and was looking to voice some of that and have a conversation on solutions. and i understand that in this situation, a lot of your problem with the blogger has to do with his general attitude in discussing the take and his statements on the person who made it. now, i think you have every right to find his statements offensive and disagreeable and to unfollow and/or block him. that being said, i am not exactly a PR agent, and i want to reiterate that what people do on their own blogs isn't my business and i don't think it should be my business. or uh, anyone's business, for that matter. i don't think that everyone "in dreblr" is beholden to keeping to a certain person's standard for "acceptable" disagreement and "acceptable" sharing of their own opinions on their own blog as long as they're not inciting harassment, which entails, like, actively encouraging harm to happen yk. i mean, you can think that the blogger was being rude or an asshole and prefer to never see him again, that's fine. that's your prerogative. but i mean, i'm not gonna tell the guy how to interact with the fandom on his own blog, haha.

to be clear, im not telling you what you can or can't do on your own blog either. if you wanna make a post about how his posts contain harmful rhetoric, how he's an idiot, or how he's rude bc you disagree with his public posts on this situation or on the dsmp as a whole, i mean, i'm not gonna handwring over it and tell you that you're not allowed to do that. it's none of my business, and i like to think i'm not that hypocritical. and honestly, i think that in a space where we're talking about analysis, commenting on harmful rhetoric happens often and should happen often when it happens -- literally anyone can make an analysis post that has harmful rhetoric, and sure it's fiction and no one has to answer to the analysis police for making a bad analysis post, but i've also been in this space and seen enough truly mind-boggling amounts of parroting takes about torture that make people sound like CIA psyops to go "well saying that someone's analysis post contains harmful rhetoric is really rude" pfft. again, i'm not saying i'm immune to hypocrisy, but i've certainly malded enough times in public about the shit people have said in this fandom to take issue with that. now, getting a little less into the strictly-analysis side of things, i understand that insults like calling someone an idiot may not sit right with everyone, to which i say. block to your heart's content. but c'mon man i've called people idiots before i'm no saint 😭😅

anyway. i hope this clarified some things, anon. take issue with whatever and whoever you like, honestly, whether that's me, the person that i just not-vagued for the last however many words, etc etc -- again, your prerogative. and i agree, it's a shame the situation devolved into stuff like insults in both bloggers' inboxes when it really didn't have to be like that like. at all.

[age-of-moonknight]

“Tigra,” Vengeance of the Moon Knight (Vol. 2/2024), #2.

Writer: Jed MacKay; Penciler and Inker: Alessandro Cappuccio; Colorist: Rachelle Rosenberg; Letterer: Cory Petit

[turnedpalefromlackofsun]

.