#anti anna

[romanceclub-confessionss]

Confession:

"I hope this doesn't come off as hate but I just can't see how anyone could ever possibly romance Dmitry, Anna and Greg after they drugged and psychologically tortured the cr*p out of MC. Anna even kills Lane with no hesitation in an alternative "fail" scene and is generally a spying snitch. I could never get over something like that, not even in a dystopian fantasy world. I never forgave Vesper for poisoning Nova either, that's just not the kind of thing you can fix with a conversation"

[glorytoukraine2022]

I know there’s been a huge debate going on in the Frozen fandom about how Elsa sent Anna away to go to Ahtohallan in Frozen 2, so I want to voice my opinion.

I understand that Elsa pulling Anna and Olaf into a hug and sending them away in a boat seemed very harsh and sudden, but I personally think that Elsa made the right decision. There was no way that Elsa could have taken Anna and Olaf to Ahtohallan with her. Elsa couldn’t have tamed the Nokk and protected Anna and Olaf at the same time. And even if Elsa somehow managed to get herself, Anna, and Olaf to the banks of Ahtohallan safely, Anna and Olaf just would have frozen at the bottom of Ahtohallan with Elsa. There would have been nobody left to destroy the dam. No matter the outcome, Anna would have gotten herself killed and jeopardized the mission.

Throughout the entire movie, Anna was chasing after Elsa and treating her older sister as if she were a reckless toddler. I love Anna and Elsa’s bond and Anna’s unconditional, undying love for Elsa more than anything, but Elsa’s an adult. She can handle herself. Not to mention that she has magical ice powers. This means that Elsa can do things that normal humans can’t do. Like run into fire and crossing the Dark Sea to Ahtohallan.

When I read the arguments of Anna fans against Elsa’s decision, they seem to take Elsa’s decision to send Anna away as an insult to Anna’s capabilities. This simply isn’t the case. When we argue that it was right of Elsa to leave Anna behind, we aren’t trying to insult Anna. Anna is a very strong, fierce and tough individual. But not having powers means that she has limitations. Like any human would. That’s not an insult. It’s a fact.

Anna was being extremely overbearing towards Elsa and clinging to her like a lifeline. By the time Elsa felt the need to go to Ahtohallan, Anna JUST WOULDNT LET GO. By that time, it was too much for Elsa. Nothing she could say or do would get Anna to stop. As a result, Elsa had to send her away by force. Anna claimed that she didn’t want to hold Elsa back and prevent her from discovering herself, yet that was just what she was doing through her actions.

Going to Ahtohallan was something that Elsa had to do by herself. It was her journey of self discovery. Not Anna’s. Elsa was the protagonist of the story. Anna was an important character and still got development, but this story wasn’t about her. The journey across the Dark Sea and Elsa discovering herself within Ahtohallan’s walls during “Show Yourself” were moments that were very personal to Elsa and important to her story. Anna coming to Ahtohallan would have not only been a logistical issue, but it would have taken away from the story as a whole.

The frozen fandom tends to have a perception where Anna is always the voice of reason, and Elsa is always selfish and misguided. But that’s simply not true. Both sisters are equally flawed in their own ways. Both girls always have good intentions, but they are imperfect, as we all are. In Anna’s case, while she does have a big heart and is understanding of others, her extroverted personality sometimes tends to result in her overstepping other people’s boundaries, particularly those of Elsa, who is much more of a private person.

In the case of the boat scene, Anna overstepped her sister’s boundaries. She was clearly making Elsa feel uncomfortable and overwhelmed by the way she was treating her, when she should have listened and respected Elsa.

Anna’s entire arc in Frozen 2 was learning to respect Elsa’s boundaries and allowing her to become her own person. By saying that Anna was 100% in the right, you are hereby taking away from her own character development.

In conclusion, while Elsa sending Anna and Olaf away by force may have been extreme, it was in the best interest for Anna’s safety and the mission for Elsa to travel to Ahtohallan alone. It was only due to Anna’s own overbearing behavior and her inability to let her sister go that things were escalated to that point.

[laf-outloud]

https://www.tumblr.com/laf-outloud/709287595574706176/ppl-noticed-radioco-had-used-fan-pics-but-hadnt?source=share

Not gonna lie, kinda surprised Anna cares about photo credit since she is soooo far up his @ss. She literally makes new merch every time he breathes. I wonder how long before we get some russian propaganda video game shirts for her to wear at the next con... **

It's funny though that she's claiming "Y’all, yes they used our photos. Yes, we did know about it and sent them hi-res images" but somehow they don't know who they asked to give credit on the post? The fans themselves still have to ACTIVELY ask for credit. If RC "asked" to use the pics wouldn't they already know who they were from? So that half-assed "Apparently there is a 3rd. Working on that now" credit they put on the bottom of the post shouldn't be there, since they asked and all right? No reason for Anna to cover for Jensen.. right?

** just kidding, she ALREADY made multiple shirts... https://twitter.com/kunerksterphoto/status/1625522767180271619 https://twitter.com/kunerksterphoto/status/1625535414307115008

I knew there was a reason I had her blocked. I'd like to say I'm surprised when Jensen's fans act like this, but unfortunately, I'm not. I think we need a sign to tap every time AAs are being hypocritical, and a back-up for when the first sign wears out.

[alethianightsong]

Bioshock: Why Individualism is a shitty philosophy to build society on

Bioshock 2: Why Collectivism is a shitty philosophy to build society on

Bioshock Infinite: Why American Exceptionalism is a shitty philosophy to build society on.

[strwbrrs-r-nice]

- The Spirit And The Queen -

You better count yourself lucky that the Queen is benevolent, for the spirit will do as she asks, and no soul wishes to face the wrath of the Fifth Spirit.

i’ve always wanted to draw them as darker/scarier versions of themselves, and i finally did! shoutout to the following edits on tiktok that inspired me to make this:

kavmee.ae // aurelia // nicki

alternate version under the cut

[lover-of-mine]

it’s so interesting that with previous love interests, it was normal and fine to not ship them and to still want buddie in the future, but now, we have to sit down and shut up and accept that it’s never happening and B/T are forever

oh no wait, it’s not interesting, it’s annoying and confusing and frankly just weird. misogynistic and borderline fetishistic

shipping non-canon couples, especially ones with 6 years of history and love and shared experiences, is the norm in literally every fandom, but now suddenly it’s wrong and how dare we

a fair few of the people saying this are also, conveniently, the ones implying that B’s bisexuality is tied to T and T alone and if we don’t ship them, we don’t support bi!B

how. very. interesting! /annoying/confusing/weird

So interesting. Dude, I got called homophobic because I didn't immediately look at them in 703 and decided they were true love. In 703. Because I didn't look at the shoulder touch and immediately started shipping them. Homophobic with all the letters. I got yelled at. After 703. Legit almost deleted this whole blog over some of the things that got sent. I was legitimately crying with friends who are not in the fandom if I was being unreasonable or insane or whatever else I got called for not jumping in instantly and to ask if I was actually doing something wrong. People were saying we were being weird about queer storylines. That we needed to shut the fuck up and enjoy the way Oliver Stark was gonna make out with a hot guy. That not being on board the ship meant that we had an unreasonable and ridiculous necessity of making sure Eddie was the only guy for Buck. Literally every single person in this fandom hc Buck 1.0 also hooked up with guys. Most people never acted as if Buck needs to be guided through his queerness by this hot older guy. Oh, wait, no, they did. With T. People automatically decided that Buck needed a queer Yoda. That he needed someone to hold his hand and be a guide. They added a fucked up power dynamic from the get go. With no information, Buck was already a baby that needed his hand held through his own sexuality. And let me tell you one thing, I know for a FACT that if it was Eddie, the automatic reaction wouldn't be putting T in this idealized experienced gay guide position when that would've made more sense (not that I think any of them needs a guide) because Eddie is the one with the body count you can count with one hand and a weird relationship with sex. But somehow I'm the one who's weird about Buck's sexuality. I don't want Buck to explore. I need Buck to only have loved Eddie. Sure. Look, I don't wanna multiship. The same way everyone is allowed to ship whatever the fuck they want, I'm allowed to not ship whatever the fuck I want. If it was a woman no one would've been in my inbox basically demanding I make the same level of analysis I make for buddie for them (let me tell you one thing too, if I made the level of analysis I do with buddie with bt, no one would like what I have to say ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯) but I'm still getting asked for it for some reason when I never indicated I ship the two.

But I'm not allowed to have any critical thoughts about anything involving bt or else I'm being weird and that's the mild term that's being used. I can't point out the fact that T left Buck in a curb and failed to communicate shit properly even though it happened in canon. I can't say that I think it felt kinda callous for him to say "they had henleys in the 80s" to Buck being upset T didn't dress on theme (also, the job requires them to change into a uniform by nature, he could've put a colorful shirt and indulged Buck a little bit there without it interfering with the way he was on standby but I can't say that or else I'm a hater). There is no criticism allowed in the ship but somehow I'm the one being weird. I don't think Buck should be in a relationship. I think Buck is still exhibiting the same patterns when it comes to love interests. And yes, I would feel the same way if it was Eddie. Buck doesn't know how to be happy alone and he will never be happy in a relationship until he learns that. I was saying that when it was Natalia and getting praised for my understanding of Buck's character. Now I'm locking Buck onto Eddie. Buck's bisexuality is only valid if he's actively kissing a guy for some people but I'm the one being weird. BT have so many visual parallels to bucktaylor, but if I say that's a bad sign I'm being a hater. I need to sit my ass down, ignore six seasons of buildup, accept that it's over, and that now making Eddie queer and getting buddie together would suck because it would destroy the friendship they built so bt are endgame and gonna get married and somehow I'm the one who's being weird about queer relationships and attaching Buck bisexuality to a person. The fandom lost its fucking mind when they saw Oliver kiss a guy and, yeah, it does feel misogynistic and borderline fetishizing. But somehow I'm the one getting blocked by half the fandom when I'm not even pointing everything I want out. I lose at least one mutual every time I even suggest maybe we should look at things a bit more critically. I have to sit here and justify things to an insane degree while people's reaction to any of the criticism is "uH BuT T Is hOt aNd hE Is a gUy sO It iS DiFfErEnT oKaY?" Critical thinking skills went out the window because now there's a guy involved and that's fucking weird. People are straight up erasing Eddie, the actual main character of the show, Buck's established partner of years, Buck's best friend, the only person in canon who never left Buck in any capacity, because some guy kissed Buck and, he, uh *check notes* treats Buck as an actual human being? so that means he's perfect. It's nuts. The bar is hell.

Yes, I know this is not everyone in the fandom and I know this is not everyone who ships them but if what I'm saying feels like a personal attack to you maybe you should do some thinking. Anyone can ship anything, you want to ship them go off, power to you, the weird part here is the way some people are demanding other people ship it too. We could all be coexisting if people didn't get weirdly comfortable demanding shit from other people in the fandom and deciding their opinion is the only one that matters so they need to call out anyone who thinks differently, but alas, that's too much to ask.

[davidtennantgenderenvy]

Addressing The Tinhatters: A Statement in Solidarity With @dtmsrpfcringe And Others

I've been active in this fandom for a little over a year, and in my time here I've kept my slate pretty clean. I try not to involve myself in drama and discourse, and when I see something I don't agree with online, most of the time I keep it to myself. I've been aware of the blogs I refer to in this post basically from the onset, but I've stayed quiet, partially to not come across as disrespecting others' opinions and preferences and partially to protect my peace and my own life as a creator. But what started as mostly harmless, if a bit unhinged and delusional, behavior, has turned on some fronts into unimaginable cruelty the likes of which I never imagined this fandom to be capable of. As someone who it seems people in this fandom have come to respect, I think it would be unfair and selfish for me to stay neutral any longer.

Fanfiction has been a genuinely transformative force in my life. It has helped me discover so much about my own relationships to love and desire, and I would never want to tell anyone that it is wrong for any ship to be that source of inspiration for them, including RPF. Nor do I think, as I've said, that it's inherently wrong to have speculative thoughts about David and Michael's sexualities. As someone who has been lucky enough to interact with David several times now, and probably will again, I choose not to do so myself in a public forum out of respect, but curiosity doesn't have to be invasive, and David and Michael being in loving partnerships with women certainly doesn't mean they can't be attracted to other genders too. There's nothing wrong with liking the idea of a relationship between David Tennant and Michael Sheen, or even, really, with believing they might have feelings for each other. If that's all you're doing, this post isn't about you. What I absolutely cannot excuse is the proliferation of hypocritical, nonsensical, and nasty rumors about the women in their lives.

Nothing Georgia Tennant or Anna Lundberg seems to do is ever good enough. Every expression of positivity is curated and phony, anything that could be perceived as negative vile and mean. I see these women attacked on a daily basis as partners, as mothers, as actresses. Georgia is simultaneously presenting a false ideal of a perfect, happy family for her own gains, while somehow at the same time being too irresponsible and incompetent to be a proper parent. Anna, a still young and up and coming actress herself, is expected to perform the ideal of an affectionate partner on social media, is perceived as unsupportive of Michael when she doesn't, when in reality she may simply be trying to make a name for herself in the industry without people solely associating her with the man she loves. Both of these women share in David and Michael's advocacy for marginalized communities, sometimes in different, more or less obvious ways. David and Michael are always brave and sincere, while Anna and Georgia's actions are always self serving and performative, though no evidence is ever given to indicate that the things they post or charities they support are any sort of cover or deflection. Nor are there ever any reasons given for their perceived lack of onscreen talent, other than that they're "boring" or don't have as many jobs as their husbands- never mind that both of them are in an extremely competitive industry and get perfectly respectable amounts of work, especially for mothers of young children. Worst of all, I've seen them accused of things as awful as child abuse and rape, all for the crime of simply being married to the wrong men. It's all so horribly gendered too, David and Michael often referred to as the "men" while Georgia and Anna are reduced to negative stereotypes of nagging, shallow gold diggers. As a fandom populated with so many queer people, many of whom, myself included, have found freedom from gender roles with Michael and David's characters' help, I thought we knew better.

I've been lucky enough to meet both David and Georgia now, and have witnessed firsthand the easy, joyful affection they have for each other when no one of consequence is watching, the way they giddily hold hands on the street and make each other laugh while tenderly looking into each other's eyes even and especially after sixteen years together. Georgia when I met her was incredibly kind, down to earth, and approachable, and my partner, who's met her several times more than I have, gushes about her constantly- how funny, authentic, and intelligent she is, and of course, how much she and David love each other, how they look out for each other and adore each other's flaws and quirks. David of course still gushes about Georgia every chance he gets in speeches and interviews, her strength and brilliance as well as her beauty, and Georgia, while maybe not always as effusive, shows her love for David in plenty of ways, the beautiful candid photos she takes of him, for instance. There's such a soft, painterly tenderness and fondness in them, for the man, not just the dazzling star everyone else gets to see. Her David, gentle, devoted, goofy, aging, melancholy, imperfectly perfect David. Where would we be without Georgia giving us these little glimpses of him? I suspect the same people who deride Georgia's social media presence as try-hard, cringeworthy, artificial, would feel a bit differently if one day they stopped coming.

I can't speak as clearly on behalf of Anna and Michael, but the accounts I've gotten of her and Michael's relationship from eyewitnesses have presented it as no less loving than David and Georgia's, albeit in slightly different ways. Even then, why should I have to? She doesn't owe me anything. I doubt anyone who's made the posts accusing Anna and Georgia of being nasty baby trappers has ever had children. There's no such thing as a perfect mother, and even one child is a massive task. It's normal to not be a shining ray of affection all the time, and Georgia I know more than makes up for it with her fierce love and support for her children in all of their endeavors. Georgia is also a diagnosed neurodivergent woman, and so many of the remarks I see directed at her are clearly discriminatory and often directed at women with her diagnoses. Everyone coos over how charming David is when he shows signs of being AuDHD, but the second his wife does too, she's careless and cold. And don't even get me started on when photos of Michael and David looking anything less than beatifically happy get interpreted as them being miserable due to their wives treating them so poorly. THEY'RE HUMAN BEINGS!!! NEUTRAL FACIAL EXPRESSIONS EXIST!!! WOULD YOU BE A SPARKLING RAY OF SUNSHINE IF YOUR DISNEYLAND RIDE GOT STUCK!!!

I say all this now not even because I think I have any hope of stopping the people in question, but because one of the main fighters on the front of the opposition, @dtmsrpfcringe, has been both a wonderful online friend to me and dealt with even worse abuse than that which gets hurled at Anna and Georgia on the daily. When my blog was briefly overrun by TERFs in light of the Tennant/Badenoch/Sunak drama, Tori was the first person to stand up for me, and as she recieves more vitriol in one day than I've ever experienced in my entire life online, I think I've taken far too long to do the same for her. This woman has dealt with doxing threats, attacks on her character, and most horrific of all, wishes of death upon her and her baby. No one would blame her for stopping, but she has remained steadfast in her mission to call bs where she sees it, and she shouldn't have to do it alone. Tori, I think you are so brave, and I am proud to stand in solidarity with you against the misinformation, meanness, and misogyny that threaten to corrupt this fandom we call home.

Even after all we've been through over the past couple of months, I still believe the Good Omens fandom and David and Michael's individual fandoms to be places of kindness, empathy, and inclusivity. Which is why such cruel behavior (because there's no other word for it) is utterly disappointing and baffling to me. You should be utterly ashamed of yourselves. You're the exact kinds of people David and Michael speak out against on a weekly basis, and I guarantee that if you engage in the kinds of behavior I've highlighted here, they would be disgusted with you. Or maybe they'd simply pity you, because your lives are so empty that you've decided the only way to fill them is to sacrifice the reputations and peace of innocent women on the altar of a relationship that in all likelihood takes place solely in your own heads.

And if you read all this and find you still ship David and Michael, which even I do sometimes, well, there's always polyamory.

I'm sleepy! good night and kindly fuck off! - Lauren

[nando161mando]

'For the past hundred years, every seller in the tear gas business has spent thousands—if not millions—in legal settlements. They have watched as their products are used to kill, maim, and torture people around the world. They have bought new houses, seen their children off to school, perhaps spent $150,000 at a Christie’s auction to acquire historic souvenirs. Investigating the financial lives of the elite is crucial for understanding how the security industry operates.

Riot control is, and always has been, in the business of protecting the wealth of a tiny minority.'

— Anna Feigenbaum, Tear Gas: From the Battlefields of WWI to the Streets of Today

image: Ceyda Sungur, Woman in Red

[luciferslilith7]

"What do you want to be?"

THE VILLAIN

[punkeropercyjackson]

Cass stans calling out fanon Jason stans for antiblackness as they leave out Duke as a core Batkid,potray Kory as a muscle mommy with no personality in their D/K content,do an emphasis on Cass being 'obsessed' with Stephanie for being 'quirky white basic blonde chick' and shit on afrolatino Jason hcs with no nuance:

[romanceclub-confessionss]

Confession:

anna looks so average it hurts

[glorytoukraine2022]

Wish, Frozen and the Jennifer Lee problem

Am I the only one who has become wary of movies that Jennifer Lee has had a hand in developing? Don’t get me wrong, I love the Frozen franchise and remain a huge fan of how they depicted two strong, kind, yet flawed female characters and the presentation of sisterly love as the most important relationship in the franchise rather than romance. But ever since “Wsh” was released, I have become much more cautious of her work. Reports have come out that she was toxic to many beginner animators and other members of the crew that worked on the film. And if you’ve watched both Frozen and Wish, then you can detect her handiwork in the film.

If you notice the similarities between the portrayals of Asha and Anna and Hans and Magnifico then you should know what I am talking about. Now, before anybody bites off my head, I do NOT believe that Asha is a “black Anna.” They are two different women of mixed heritage who belong to completely seperate ethnic groups and have seperate personalities. My argument here is that both Anna and Asha’s personalities are derived from the same trope. They’re both quirky, goofy and extroverted.

I strongly believe that Jennifer Lee designed both characters’ personalities to fit that trope. Why? Because she relates to young women with that personality. She even confirmed in an interview that she relates to Anna more than Elsa. And Frozen, despite being a story about two sisters, clearly shows favoritism towards Anna in the way that she (and to a lesser extent, Elsa) are depicted.

For staters, A big message that Frozen tries to send to us about Anna is that she is special in her own right, even without magic. The message itself is not bad. And the audience understanding that message is important to understanding Anna’s character and her personal insecurities in the first film. It’s that it felt as if they were hammering it into us again in the second film, as if they felt that we didn’t understand the message from the first film.

On top of that, while they send us the message that Anna is special despite not having powers, they don’t give Elsa much of an identity beyond her relationship to her powers, whether she fears or embraces them. While Elsa’s powers are unique to her and have definitely effected her life, it would be nice if they fleshed out Elsa more. Showed us who she is beyond her powers and her connection to them. What made me connect to Elsa (and still does to this day) wasn’t her powers, but her fears, insecurities, her humanity. What are her hobbies (aside from family charades), interests and dreams beyond her magical abilities?

When you’re a writer, there’s nothing wrong with writing a protagonist that you relate to. After all, many writers are inspired to create characters that they base off of themselves and their own personal experiences. It’s part of what makes writing enjoyable. However, when you’re writing for an audience, especially for one as large as Disney’s, you have to keep in mind that you’re writing for a vast group of people, with vastly different life experiences that influence which characters they find relatable and which they do not. No two people will find the exact same character relatable. And even if they do, their reasons might differ.

Now, this isn’t to say that there aren’t people who find characters with Anna’s extroverted personality relatable. Matter of fact, there are plenty of members of the Frozen fandom who do. And that’s a wonderful thing. However, there are many others, like myself, who find less extroverted characters relatable, such as Elsa, Mulan, Merida etc… and these characters are still awkward in their own ways. Maybe they aren’t “quirky” or “adorkable”, but there are many ways that a person can be awkward or relatable without being overly extroverted and goofy.

We are all people, with different personalities and ways of expressing ourselves. If Jennifer Lee is so self absorbed that she only cares about making movies with female protagonists that represent characters that she can relate to rather than female characters that an entire audience can relate to, then it would be in Disney’s best interest to hire a different person as their executive producer.

[layla-keating]

It’s definitely a difficult holiday for him.

XO, KITTY — 1.05 “TBH”

[themattress]

Why are these Disney heroines "adorkable"?

Rapunzel (Tangled): Because she was raised in isolation her entire life. She doesn't have a clue about the outside world or social graces or other people besides her "mother" in general. But she's extremely eager to learn and eager to please, not to mention is a pent-up ball of energy waiting to run wild, which leads to her adorkability. It makes perfect narrative sense.

Anna (Frozen): While not as badly as Rapunzel, she was also raised in isolation for much of her life, largely having to rely on the books in her castle library to teach her about the world and things such as proper etiquette, life skills and romance. But real life is not a book, so when she actually has to do these things, she often flounders due to her nervousness, excitement or inexperience, which leads to her adorkability. It makes perfect narrative sense.

Moana (Moana): From early in her life, she was raised under a very strict set of rules and instilled with a strong sense of responsibility, which is at odds with her instinctive desire to break these rules and her fears that she isn't up to the challenge her responsibilities pose. All of this pent-up stress she carries within her will often cause her to explode with emotion at the slightest provocation, which leads to her adorkability. It makes perfect narrative sense.

Mirabel (Encanto): As a young child, she failed to receive a special gift and room the same way the rest of her family did. Now feeling like the failure of the family, Mirabel's coping mechanism became trying to make herself as extravagant and quirky as possible. She's an incredibly "Try Hard" person, which leads to her adorkability. It makes perfect narrative sense.

Asha (Wish): Um.....well, she.....yeah, I got nothing. There is no narrative justification here.

Disney doesn't have an Adorkable Problem. Just an Asha Problem.

[0dayssincejensenwasobjectified]

He is not your father. Danneel is definitely not your mother. You are not their kids!!

[vampirehizzies]

nicasia when cardan doesn't want anything to do with her after she cheats on him with their literal mutual friend