#both became money making trends for companies

[thevalleyoftriumph]

the fact ai art is dying out the way of the nft is endlessly hilarious to me. hindsight is 20/20, like.. knowing what we know now it makes sense that it wouldnt last. but its so funny seeing all these companies and tech bros constantly lose their collective shit over the next Big New Art Thing that makes them not need to pay artists anymore, or whatever new Theft Machine is created to spend their money on, only for the exact next year to come by and theyre begging and pleading for people to keep using their shit because nobody wants it - and when they force ai generated slop at people, its so bad that even those who were into it are turned away. theres just no way to make ai generated content sustainable and its so funny to watch it wither away and die

[mochatsin]

MC as a Dating Sim Character

An AU in which the seven brothers knew you as a dating sim character from a game they love to play so much. Has nearly the same functions as the Obey Me app. 

It started off as a trend in Devildom, a new app that a lot of citizens and RAD students play with recently. Great reviews when it came to the storyline and the characters. The brothers gave it a shot and surprisingly became attached to it. The reason? You.

Levi is the first to fall down that rabbit hole because he’s been waiting for this game’s release for a while now. He saw the roster of dating sim candidates and he fell for you first. Something about your design was alluring to him and when he finally had the app downloaded, he spent the first night playing the storyline to understand you. Learning your lore is what made him fall even harder to the point he has a shelf dedicated to your merch. He grinded so hard to upgrade all your cards (he definitely got those UR and UR+ ones)

Asmo started playing when he saw the trends about it and he wanted to jump on that bandwagon. Play the game and talk about the characters, which ones he like and whatnot right? It was easy, but when it came to your character he found himself playing on the game longer than he wants to admit. His fans can immediately tell whose Asmo’s favorite character is with how much he talked about you in his videos. He makes sure to get all the pretty skins that get released because in his opinion, there’s not a single outfit that doesn’t look good on you. 

Mammon plays the game as well when he attempted to sneak into Levi's room to sell something and ended up finding his brother’s merch of you. Mammon doesn’t want to admit how many hours he’s spent on the game trying to max out the affection level with you. Definitely spent so much money to get the UR cards since he can’t grind as much as Levi does, and he’ll buy those limited gifts to hear those special voice lines from you.

Satan gets curious and downloads it because he’s wondering how good was this game to even make Mammon lessen his casino gambling habits. The storyline is great, but the writing for your character was what made Satan stay in the game. He doesn’t hesitate in approaching Levi to ask about the game mechanics and tips, and Satan has it covered from there. He focuses on the story to get as much lore he could out of you. He wants to learn about every single fact about his favorite character. 

The twins played at the same time, and it’s funny how they both ended up liking the same character. They found out when they were playing the game together and saw you were their home screen character. Beel loves listening to your voice lines while he works out to motivate himself, while Belphie always has your voice lines wishing him goodnight that he uses to fall asleep with. 

Lucifer will never tell anyone that he plays the game. Not as much as his brothers though, this is something he wants to do in his free time or when he’s alone in his private study, he’s more casual about this than others. Your character is honestly pleasant company, it’s nice to hear you cheer him on while he works. Though he’s sure that if his brothers knew he found comfort in a dating sim character, they would mock him for sure (even if they’re all the same).

Though something weird happens one day when all users log in the app. Levi is practically screaming when he runs out of the room with distraught in his face. You’re his home screen character, but for some odd reason you’re not where you’re supposed to be. He thought maybe it’s the game being laggy, but you don’t reappear no matter how many times he refreshes the app. 

The brothers are just in shock, phones on the table during breakfast to check what was going on exactly. Your cards are all glitched out and corrupted, though everyone else’s was fine. People are wondering if this was all part of the game, if there’s some sort of event or what but there’s nothing. It’s like the game actively tried to erase you.

The devs eventually released a statement that due to some complications and unforeseen circumstances, the game will be deleted. Of course a lot of people are outraged, why would the devs suddenly discontinue the game in the middle of its peak? It was gaining a lot of attention and some people have already spent so much money for it. Everything was just unfair when there’s no answers.

Despite any attempts to keep the game, it was somehow deleted from everyone’s phone. Levi only has some of his screenshots and recordings to keep, whining from time to time as he looks longingly on his merch line. Some brothers sulk more than others, though they’re all upset regardless. Why you? Why did it have to be you specifically? You suddenly disappeared from the game, and they never knew why. With the game gone, there doesn’t seem to be a way for them to get their answers. 

Satan wanted to use his connections to figure out the truth, try to find the devs to get the answers everyone is looking for. The truth seemed much more disappointing for Satan though, learning that the devs actually didn’t know either where your character went. They thought it was a virus at first, but all your data was just missing. No matter how hard they tried to fix it, there was nothing they could do. They can’t handle running a faulty game, so they chose to discontinue and start fresh. 

Some fans would probably be thrilled to hear a new game already in the works, but it doesn’t feel the same. You’re the character that these brothers were invested in. There’s just something about you and your charms that had them drawn in the game, so the brothers weren’t exactly excited hearing about the new set of characters. Clearly it upsets the demons.

That’s until Lucifer called the brothers to Diavolo’s castle, as there’s some sort of emergency that requires their attention. Lucifer drags each and every one of their brothers out of their rooms, they can pout and whine about you later. 

Diavolo called in all of them, talking about that dating game that took Devildom by storm once. No matter how hard they tried to hide it, the young prince knew that each and everyone of them were playing it. They’re all embarrassed at being caught, but surely they’re not here just to be exposed by Diavolo right? He says that an unexpected guest has been found in Devildom recently, bringing the boys to a room in a castle.

There you are, standing in the room in front of the seven demons that are staring at you with awe. You’re here… in Devildom? At first they thought you were just some cosplayer, but the way you introduced yourself and your name was the same as the one in the game. There’s no way you’re real, but all the evidence is standing right in front of them. 

Diavolo says that he’s entrusting you in the care of the seven demon brothers. Barbatos somehow knew that you were all of their favorites, so they probably know what you like and how to take care of you. Maybe it would be a good idea. 

To be continued… i think?

[probablyasocialecologist]

Ex-Meta employee Madelyn Machado recently posted a TikTok video claiming that she was getting paid $190,000 a year to do nothing. Another Meta employee, also on TikTok, posted that “Meta was hiring people so that other companies couldn’t have us, and then they were just kind of like hoarding us like Pokémon cards.” Over at Google, a company known to have pioneered the modern tech workplace, one designer complained of spending 40 percent of their time on “the inefficien[cy] overhead of simply working at Google.” Some report spending all day on tasks as simple as changing the color of a website button. Working the bare minimum while waiting for stock to vest is so common that Googlers call it “resting and vesting.” ​ In an anonymous online poll on how many “focused hours of work” software engineers put in each day, 71 percent of the over four thousand respondents claimed to work six hours a day or less, while 12 percent said they did between one and two hours a day. During the acute phase of the Covid-19 pandemic, it became common for tech workers to capitalize on all this free time by juggling multiple full-time remote jobs. According to the Wall Street Journal, many workers who balance two jobs do not even hit a regular forty-hour workload for both jobs combined. One software engineer reported logging between three and ten hours of actual work per week when working one job, with the rest of his time spent on pointless meetings and pretending to be busy. My own experience supports this trend: toward the end of my five-year tenure as a software engineer for Microsoft, I was working fewer than three hours a day. And of what little code I produced for them, none of it made any real impact on Microsoft’s bottom line—or the world at large. For much of this century, optimism that technology would make the world a better place fueled the perception that Silicon Valley was the moral alternative to an extractive Wall Street—that it was possible to make money, not at the expense of society but in service of it. In other words, many who joined the industry did so precisely because they thought that their work would be useful. Yet what we’re now seeing is a lot of bullshit. If capitalism is supposed to be efficient and, guided by the invisible hand of the market, eliminate inefficiencies, how is it that the tech industry, the purported cradle of innovation, has become a redoubt of waste and unproductivity?

[garbageday]

Last night, a handful of journalists from outlets like the New York Times, Vox, and CNN, the Twitter account for Mastodon, long-running antifascist news site It’s Going Down, and, also, Keith Olbermann were suspended from Twitter without warning. The reason eventually given is that they had violated Musk’s new vague and worthless anti-doxxing policy that will almost certainly never be enforced on right-wing accounts sharing real-time information about the location of the drag brunches that they want to victimize. According to the Washington Post, the suspensions came from Musk’s new Hand of the King, Ella Irwin, the site’s new “Trust” and “Safety” head.

But if I can attempt to answer both the question of “what is Twitter?” and also “why is Elon Musk acting like a maniac all the time?” I’d like to argue that there has actually always been one core Twitter experience, going all the way back to its very beginnings, that has remained consistent. 

Twitter’s core experience has been, and still is, disruption. And we have spent over a decade trying to determine if it’s good disruption or bad, left-wing or right, progressive or conservative, but the truth is, it’s just disruption. It’s a random social chaos machine. Over the summer, as Elon Musk finalized the purchase of the site, that chaos machine was turned in on itself. The company was overrun with leaks and drama, which all became trending topics. And after Musk bought it, the company literally began livetweeting its own dismantling. Now that it has toppled itself, and all that’s left is Musk’s various whims, the manic energy of the app appears to be localized entirely inside of Musk’s brain. The man is jacked directly into the feed and it turns out the feed is screaming back at him, “you fucking suck.”

And so we all have to sit around and watch the richest man in the world process in real-time how cringe, how embarrassing, how hated he is. The joke has always been that Twitter causes “psychic damage,” but that joke is real now. Twitter is currently doing to one man’s psyche what it has done to countless societies around the world. He paid $44 billion for a website he believed was a “biological neural net,” a digital collective unconscious that he could use to take us to Mars, and it turns out that frothing Id hates him. Can you imagine how painful the cognitive dissonance must be? If people boo you and think you’re a shameless loser then what’s all the money for? Why are you sleeping in your office? If money can’t make people like you then what was any of it for?

[Read more at Garbage Day]

[fibula-rasa]

Cosplay the Classics: Nazimova in Salomé (1922)—Part 2

My cosplay of Nazimova as Salomé

As the studio system emerged in the American film industry at the start of the 1920s, many of the biggest stars in Hollywood chose independence. Alla Nazimova, an import from the stage, was one of them. In 1922, she made a series of professional and creative decisions that would completely change the trajectory of her career.

In part one of CtC: Nazimova in Salomé, I described how Nazimova’s independent productions were shaped in response to trends and ideas surrounding young/independent womanhood in America after World War I and the influenza pandemic. Here in part two, I’ll fit these productions, A Doll’s House and Salomé, into the broader context of the big-money business of film becoming legitimate in America.

While the full essay and photo set are available below the jump, you may find it easier to read (formatting-wise) on the wordpress site. Either way, I hope you enjoy the read! Oh and Happy Bi Visibility Day to all those who celebrate!

My cosplay of Nazimova as Salomé

Artists United? Allied Artists and the Release of Salomé

When Nazimova made her screen debut in War Brides (1916), the American film industry was undergoing a series of formative changes. Southern California became the center of professional filmmaking in the US—fleeing New Jersey (where War Brides was filmed) largely because of Thomas Edison’s attempts to monopolize the business. Preferences of audiences and exhibitors shifted away from one and two-reel films and towards feature-length films. The Star System emerged in full force. Nazimova soon relocated to Hollywood, signed a contract with Metro, and reaped the benefits of this boom period for American film artists.

The focus on feature-film production and the marketing of films based on the reputations of specific filmmakers or stars required a greater initial outlay of resources—time, money, and labor. But, it also paid dividends—the industry quickly grew into a big-money business. The underlying implication of that is that a larger share of the profits were shifted from the people doing the creating (artists and technicians) and towards other figures (capitalists). In practice, this also meant film companies would become eligible for listing on the stock exchange and could secure funding from banks and financial institutions, both of which were rare or impossible before the mid-1920s. The major players on the business end of production, distribution, and exhibition, therefore, wanted to consolidate their power and reduce the power and influence of the filmmakers.

To illustrate how momentous this handful of years was in the history of the US film industry, allow me to highlight a few key events. Will Hayes’ office was set up in 1922 to make official Hollywood’s commitment to self-censorship. Eastman Kodak introduced 16 mm film in 1923, a move which, while making filmmaking more accessible and affordable, also widened and formalized the division between the professional industry and amateur filmmaking. Dudley Murphy’s “visual symphony” Danse Macabre[1] was released in 1922—considered America’s first avant-garde film. Nazimova’s Salomé was considered America’s first art film from its initial release in 1923. That these labels were deemed relevant in this period illustrates the line being drawn between those films and film as a conventional, commercial product. The concept of art cinemas in the US was first proposed in 1922 spurring on the Little Cinema movement later in the decade.

from Danse Macabre

from Salomé

As any industry matures, both the roles within it and its output become more starkly delineated. That is to say that, as the US industry began differentiating between art/avant-garde/experimental film and commercial film, the jobs within professional filmmaking also became more firmly defined. Filmmaking has always been a collaborative art, but in the period prior to the 1920s, it was common for people in film to do a little of everything. As a result, what sparse credits made it onto the final film didn’t necessarily reflect all of the work that was done. To illustrate this using Nazimova,[2] at Metro, she had her own production unit under the Metro umbrella. While her films were “Nazimova Productions,” she didn’t have full creative control of her films. However, Nazimova did choose her own projects, develop said projects, and contribute to their writing, directing, and editing. When those films were released, aside from the “Nazimova Productions” banner, her only credit would usually be for her acting. Despite that impressive level of creative power, the studio still had the ultimate say on whether a film got made, and how it would be released. As studios grew and tightened control of their productions, this looser filmmaking style became much less common.

The structure of the industry at this time was roughly tripartite—production, distribution, and exhibition. Generally speaking, the way studio-made films traveled from studio to theatre—before full vertical integration—was that the production company would make available a slate of films of different scales. (Bigger productions with bigger names attached would have a special designation and come with higher rental fees.) Famous Players-Lasky was the biggest production house at the time, though other studios, like Metro, were quickly catching up. Distribution companies would then place this slate of films on regional exchanges, centered in the biggest cities in a given region. Exhibitors (this could be owners of chains like Loew’s in the Midwest and Northeast, the Saengers around the gulf coast, or individual theatre owners) could then rent films through their local exchanges. (This was an ever-shifting industry, so this process was not true for every single film. This is only meant as a quick overview of the system.) As the 1920s wore on, exhibitors began entering the production arena and producers further merged with distribution companies and exhibition chains. Merger-mania was the rule of the day.

My cosplay of Nazimova as Salomé

As merger upon merger took place and a handful of businessmen tried to monopolize the industry, American filmmakers responded by championing the artistic legitimacy of filmmaking in the US. Leading this charge were the very filmmakers on whose backs the big business of film had been built. As noted in Tino T. Balio’s expansive history of United Artists, The Company Built by the Stars:

…Richard A. Rowland, president of Metro Pictures, proclaimed that ‘motion pictures must cease to be a game and become a business.’ What he wanted was to supplant the star system, which forced companies to compete for big names and pay out-of-this-world salaries for their services. Metro, he said, would thenceforth decline from ‘competitive bidding for billion-dollar stars’ and devote its energies to making big pictures based on ‘play value and excellence of production.’”

It’s notable for us that these ideas were espoused by Rowland, head of the studio where Nazimova was currently one of those “billion-dollar stars.” (“Billion-dollar” is obviously a massive overstatement.) It was a precarious time for any filmmaker who cared about the quality and artistry of their work. It was this environment that birthed United Artists, a new production company built around the prestige and reputation of its filmmakers, Douglas Fairbanks, Mary Pickford, Charlie Chaplin, and D.W. Griffith. As the statement announcing the formation of UA detailed:

“We also think that this step is positively and absolutely necessary to protect the great motion picture public from threatening combinations and trusts that would force upon them mediocre productions and machine-made entertainment.”

It’s an accurate assessment of industry trends at the time. If the desired product is a high-quality feature-length film, production is necessarily more expensive. As the UA statement intimates, monopolizing the entire industry and sacrificing quality for quantity to fill the exchanges and theatrical bills was the studio heads’ solution to rising costs. Not a great signal for filmmaking as art in America.

My cosplay of Nazimova as Salomé

So, Nazimova was in good company when she chose to go independent, believing in film as art and that American moviegoers deserved better than derivative, studio-conceived films. Some of the other artists who went independent included George Fitzmaurice (one of the most revered directors of the silent era, though most of his films are now sadly lost), Charles Ray, Max Linder, Norma Talmadge (in alliance with Sam Goldwyn), and Ferdinand Pinney Earle (whose massive mostly-lost artistic experiment Omar Khayyam, I profiled in LBnF). If these filmmakers shared the motivation of UA to create higher-calibre productions, where would the money come from? For Nazimova, the answer was her own bank account.

In 1922, Nazimova’s final film for Metro, Camille (1921), was still circulating widely due to the rising popularity of her co-star, Rudolph Valentino, after the release of Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (1921) and The Sheik (1921). While Nazimova had the funds to complete A Doll’s House and Salomé, there was no sure bet for the films’ releases. Nazimova’s initial concept for her independent productions was the “repertoire” film. This scheme would have seen A Doll’s House released as a shorter film with Salomé as a feature and the two could be rented as a package by exhibitors.  It was a creative response to growing tensions between producers and exhibitors over a practice called block booking. Block booking was a strategy studios employed to leverage the Star System to its fullest. They would take the most in-demand films associated with the biggest drawing stars and only make them available in a package deal with productions that were perceived as less marketable. Nazimova was aware that her films at Metro had been rented this way (as the special feature). It’s not completely clear from my research if the decision to release Salomé and A Doll’s House as two features was creative, practical, or a combination of the two. The “repertoire” concept may not have gone according to plan, but it was an early indication that Nazimova was well-informed of the nuances of distribution and exhibition.

Nazimova’s need for proper distribution was met by United Artists’ distribution subsidiary, Allied Artists. United Artists’ first few years were a struggle. Fairbanks, Pickford, and Griffith[3] needed significant time and money to finish the high-quality productions that they promised and Allied was their solution. This distribution arm would release the work of other independent talent using the same exchanges as UA, but under a different banner. Though Allied used UA’s exchanges for distribution, the subsidiary had its own staff. Allied having different branding would also protect the prestige of the UA name. (An unkind, but not entirely inaccurate summary: the money your work brings in is good enough for us, but your work is not.) Allied would have a full release slate to generate the revenue that UA needed to remain in operation.

Nazimova was one of the filmmakers who signed a distribution deal with Allied and had reason to regret it—though she and Charles Bryant didn’t openly rag on UA/Allied.[4] Notably, Mack Sennett had arranged the release of Suzanna (1923) through Allied and was vocal about the company bungling its release. Differences over distribution and exhibition would also lead to Griffith’s exit from the company and a major rift between Chaplin and Pickford-Fairbanks. After 1923, Allied reduced its operation, at least in part because of the bad reputation they were garnering with other filmmakers. Despite numerous independents losing money on productions released through Allied, by 1923, Allied had netted UA 51 million dollars in revenue!

Trade ad for Salomé from Motion Picture News, 10 March 1923

The questionable deals that these independent filmmakers received with Allied are often mentioned in discourse about the period, but very, very rarely does anyone offer details of what Allied’s inadequate distribution looked like. Using the information available to me via Lantern, I collected and analyzed data regarding the release and exhibition of Nazimova’s final two Metro films and both of her Allied films.[5] Looking at the trade publications Exhibitor’s Trade Review, Moving Picture World, Motion Picture News, and Exhibitors Herald, I categorized every item I found about the release or exhibition of Billions (1920),[6] Camille, A Doll’s House, and Salomé. The “release” items are primarily advertisements, reviews, and news items about release dates or pre-release screenings. The number of these items for all four films were comparable. 

The items in the “exhibition” category, however, reveal a marked difference between the Metro and Allied releases. This category includes items like first-run theatre listings, exhibitor feedback, and advertising advice for theatre owners. Only counting exhibition items from the first two years (24 months) from the initial release of each film, Billions and Camille had twice as many items as A Doll’s House and Salomé!

While this isn’t necessarily hard data on how many theatres ran each film, it is a rough indicator of how well the films circulated. This data suggests that neither A Doll’s House or Salomé had distribution comparable to the Metro films. In order to compensate for the Rudy factor—Valentino’s major rise to stardom in 1921—which could have affected Camille’s numbers in a big way, I included Billions as well. Billions was sold as a special (a bigger production with premium rental fees) on Nazimova’s name alone. It was not especially well received. Exhibitors/theatre owners had mixed feelings on the film because Nazimova’s previous film, Madame Peacock (1920), had underperformed. Many exhibitors viewed Billions as an improvement, though it still did not meet their perception of Nazimova’s standard of quality. Despite that, Billions had 76 exhibition-related items across its first 24 months of availability to Camille’s 80.

To get a little deeper into this data, I wanted to see how the feedback from exhibitors and theatre owners compared. I broke down the exhibitor feedback for each film as positive, middling, or negative based on how the exhibitors assessed audience response and/or box office receipts. (I discounted feedback that only reflected theatre owners’ own personal assessment of the films without mention of their patrons or receipts.) Positive feedback could be good reception and/or good receipts, middling suggests only average business and no noteworthy reception, and negative indicates poor response and/or poor ticket sales. Since there are so many more items about Camille and Billions than A Doll’s House and Salomé, I compared ratios as an indicator of exhibitor satisfaction. The results were truly surprising.

Theatre owners who rented Salomé may have been in significantly smaller numbers than those who ran Camille, but their satisfaction with ticket sales and audience feedback was roughly equivalent. (Though slightly more positive for Salomé!) The numbers for Billions line up with the qualitative assessment I summarized above, displaying a roughly equal 3-way split. A Doll’s House was the most divisive with the highest proportion of negative feedback of the four films, yet with a higher proportion of positive feedback than Billions.

Taking all of this into account, it’s clear that Salomé did not flop because it was too artsy or esoteric for the American moviegoing public. Such assumptions are obviously not very thoughtful or informed by reliable data.[7] A more historically sound reading is that, as professional filmmaking matured into a “legitimate” industry in the US, the various arms of the business were rigidly formed to fit conventional output. The conservatism that this engendered made the American industry ill-equipped at marketing anything too unconventional or experimental. While Hollywood insiders were lamenting European filmmakers artistically outdoing Americans—especially following the US release of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)—very few people with the power to shape the industry did anything to support experimentation. Given this environment, Salomé could only have been produced independently, but the quickly ossifying distribution and promotional systems didn’t have the range to give it a proper release. Two films contemporary to Salomé, Beggar on Horseback (1925) and The Old Swimmin’ Hole (1921) offer further evidence of the industry’s limitations.

The Old Swimmin’ Hole is a feature-length production by Charles Ray, experimental in that it uses no intertitles. The story is simple and familiar with Ray playing the Huck-Finn-type character he was well known for. Ray’s experiment was not an expensive one and the film was successful. However, decision makers at First National, the film’s distributors, felt that The Old Swimmin’ Hole was simply too complex for small-town Americans to comprehend and it wasn’t released outside of cities. To put it plainly, the distributor’s unfounded concept of ignorant yokels meant that a film about country living was largely inaccessible to anyone actually living in the country. Though the film was well received and turned a profit, this distribution decision likely limited its audience as well as possible revenue from small-town exhibition.

Stills from The Old Swimmin’ Hole from Motion Picture Magazine, April 1921

Beggar on Horseback was produced by one of the biggest studios in Hollywood, Famous Players-Lasky, and distributed by Paramount. Starring comedian Edward Everett Horton, Beggar was an expressionist comedy based on a popular play. The film had a popular star, popular source material, and was made and released by a major company, but Beggar was apparently too unconventional for that major company to adequately market it. (Unfortunately, only a few minutes of the film survive, so we can’t fully reassess it unless more is found/identified!)

Stills from Beggar on Horseback from Picture-Play Magazine, August 1925

With all these complicating factors at play, how might have Salomé found its audience in 1922-3? Nazimova and Charles Bryant had innovative ideas for the film’s release that might have done the trick, if they had been able to act on them. Nazimova and Sam Zimbalist had finished cutting Salomé in late-spring 1922. Having spent practically all of her money to finish the film, and following A Doll’s House’s disappointing results, Nazimova was eager for Salomé to hit theatres. Though the film was in the can and private preview screenings had been held by Bryant by summer ‘22, Salomé wouldn’t be released until February of 1923. In studio filmmaking, holding a film in extended abeyance wasn’t ideal but it was not disastrous. Studios had significantly more resources and revenue streams than independent producers. If, for example, the release of Billions had been delayed for seven months, Nazimova still had two films on the Metro exchanges (and therefore in theatres) and Camille would have entered production in the meantime. But for Nazimova as an independent producer, this situation was wholly untenable. (In fact, Pickford, Fairbanks, and Griffith were in a similar untenable situation when they founded Allied.)

Initially, Bryant proposed roadshowing Salomé. Roadshowing is a release strategy for notable film productions where a film is toured around major cities, often with in-person engagements by stars, writers, and/or directors. Nazimova expanded the idea of touring with Salomé not simply as a roadshow, but paired with a short play in which she would star. Double the Alla, double the fun. As far as I can tell, there isn’t publicly available information about why Salomé wasn’t roadshowed. However, we do know that Griffith, as the only non-performer in UA, wanted to utilize different approaches for the release of his films—like roadshowing—and it became one of the major points of disagreement with his fellow UA decision makers. That could be taken as an indication that something similar might have occurred with Nazimova and Allied.

As time dragged on without a release date for Salomé and Nazimova returned to theatrical work—openly admitting to audiences that she was broke—Bryant took matters into his own hands. At the end of December 1922, Bryant negotiated with the owner of the Criterion Theatre in New York City for Salomé to run on New Year’s as a special presentation. In two days, Salomé grossed $2,630, setting records for the theatre. Adjusted for inflation, that’s $48,988.96. It was successful enough that the owner of the Criterion opted to hold the film over. This bold move must have lit a fire under Allied’s tuckuses, as Salomé finally had its first-run release a little over a month later.

In the 1920s, the first-run booking of a film was a crucial part of its further success. Concurrent nationwide release of films wasn’t the norm yet, and if a film was a big production, getting booked at high-capacity motion picture houses in major cities was a necessity. These big city releases would, in theory, generate interest in the film with exhibitors across the country and internationally. Basically, if you spent a lot on a movie but couldn’t land a first-run release, you weren’t likely to turn a profit or even break even. Salomé had a handful of first-run bookings and local reviewers from those cities believed the film would succeed. A reviewer from the Boston Transcript in February 1923 wrote:

“…this newest Salome is something far better than a photographed play. Considered both as picture acting, and as an interesting experiment in design, “Salome” is a notable production. It will have a far and wide reaching influence on future films in this country.”

But, as I mentioned, only a handful of first-run theatres played Salomé, and, taken collectively, the notices I analyzed from contemporary trades imply that it didn’t gain traction once it was made available beyond its initial run.

My cosplay of Nazimova as Salomé

During this regrettably short theatrical run, exhibitors and reviewers from trade publications advised that Salomé was a unique film that called for unique promotion. The overall assumption was that theatre owners knew their patrons and recognised whether out-of-the-ordinary movies were popular with them. Rather than purely judging a film’s quality, exhibitors and trade reviewers had concerns specific to exhibition when providing feedback. These concerns cannot be overlooked if you want to understand their assessments. For example, exhibitor feedback was very often informed by how high the rental fees were for a film, even if exhibitors don’t directly mention said fees. That is to say, a mediocre film might be rated highly if the rental fees were modest (and if block booking wasn’t an issue). Reviewers in the early 1920s, both for popular magazines and trade publications, were already accustomed to the formulaic nature of most studio output. Their reviews commonly expressed fatigue with studio films’ lack of originality. And, perhaps surprisingly, this sentiment was shared among theatre owners as well—particularly when a run-of-the-mill film was sold to them as anything other than a “programmer” (a precursor to B-movies).

What I have learned, not just by analyzing feedback for Salomé, but also for all of the films in my LBnF series, is that when a 1920s reviewer calls out bizarreness in a film, it’s not always a negative quality, even when the review isn’t positive. In the case of reviews written for exhibitors/theatre owners, focussing on what makes a movie different is purely pragmatic. It guides how exhibitors might market films to patrons and helps exhibitors judge if a film would be suitable for their audiences. And, from that same research, I’ve found significant indications there were numerous markets throughout the US that were hungry for novelty—contrary to what studio apparatchiks wanted to admit. So, pointing out Salomé’s bizarreness was a recommendation for those markets to consider renting it as much as it was a warning against renting for theatre owners who only had success with more conventional films.

Cover of the Campaign Book for Salomé reproduced in Exhibitors Herald, 9 February 1924

In the case of Salomé, reviews and feedback upon its release focused on two major points:

 The film isn’t “adult” in nature. Well-known productions of Strauss’ opera and the 1918 Theda Bara film of the same name led to a presumption of salaciousness. (I talked a bit about that in Part One!)

The film deserves/requires a build up as an artistic event film.

Nazimova’s company helped exhibitors with the latter point in a few ways. The company provided Aubrey Beardsley inspired art posters conceived by Natacha Rambova and executed by Eugene Gise. They printed a book to guide promotion of an artistic spectacle. (So far, I haven’t been able to find a physical or digital copy, so I can’t assess how good the advice was!) Salomé was also distributed with an official musical score, apparently written for a full orchestra.

Art Posters designed by Rambova and painted by Gise as reproduced in Exhibitor’s Trade Review, 10 February 1923

The exhibitors who ran Salomé—and put at least some of this advice into practice—were satisfied with the business it did. By these accounts, the American moviegoing public was attracted by the novelty of Salomé, but what chance were they given to see it?

While this evidence of Allied’s poor distribution work may be circumstantial, it certainly complicates the narratives that Salomé was an unqualified flop or that average Americans weren’t (or aren’t) receptive to artistic experimentation. Given that Nazimova was not the only independent filmmaker who suffered from Allied’s inept distribution, it does seem like the underwhelming business Salomé did was due more to a poor choice of business partners than to any quality of the film or of American moviegoers. That said, with the increasing monopolization of the industry, Nazimova did not have a wealth of options.

Though Salomé was made and released at an tumultuous period for the US film industry, it did eventually find its audience through circulation in art cinemas. As the gap between experimental/avant-garde film widened in the US and the professional industry became less and less tolerant of departures from convention, Americans concerned with film as an art form rallied around amateur filmmaking clubs and art cinemas began popping up in cities by the middle of the decade. Salomé played in these theatres even after the advent of sound—occasionally even today. This is likely the key reason that Salomé survives and we’ve been able to continue to enjoy and reevaluate it one hundred years later.

Salomé is a significant film made at a significant moment in American film history. Nazimova took a major risk in going independent and personally funding two artistic projects. These films were founded on the beliefs that American moviegoers wanted art made by human beings with unique imaginations, feelings, sensibilities and that there was an audience for more than derivative, “machine-made” film. In my opinion, through close analysis of the circumstances of Salomé‘s release, we can see that Nazimova was likely correct, but didn’t get a genuine chance to prove it in her lifetime. Additionally, it’s important to note that Nazimova’s risks did not “ruin” her as is occasionally said. The state of her finances were more greatly affected in the 1920s by her fake husband’s habit of spending her money and by getting swindled by a pair of con artists over her estate, The Garden of Alla. Soldiering on, Nazimova continued to work in both theatre and film for the rest of her life and found more stability with the partner she would meet at the end of the 1920s, Glesca Marshall.

——— ——— ———

Once I finished this “Cosplay the Classics” entry, I realized that it would way too much for me to include a section on another relevant topic to Salomé: Orientalism in Hollywood. But, I feel that the topic is too important to just edit that writing out. Look out for a shorter “postscript” entry soon!

——— ——— ———

☕Appreciate my work? Buy me a coffee! ☕

——— ——— ———

Footnotes:

[1] Danse Macabre is also thought to be a major influence on Walt Disney animating to music, as seen in “Silly Symphonies” and later Fantasia (1940) and Disney’s other musical anthology features. It was also in this period that Disney fled from his debtors in the Midwest to California with his first “Alice” movie. However, the wide-ranging effects of Disney’s business practices were not felt until much later, so that’s another story for another time!

[2] Nazimova was one of a handful of women in Hollywood at the time who held significant creative power. June Mathis and Natacha Rambova, both of whom Nazimova regularly worked with, Mary Pickford and her regular tag-team partner Frances Marion are among some of the others.

[3] Chaplin wouldn’t produce a film for UA until 1923’s A Woman of Paris, as he was fulfilling a pre-existing contract with another studio.

[4] According to Gavin Lambert’s biography of Nazimova (which I discussed as a largely unreliable source in Part One), Robert Florey supposedly advised Nazimova against signing with them, citing Max Linder and Charles Ray as artists who had been “ruined” by their deals. However, the timeline does not quite match up. Though Florey did visit the set of Salomé, Nazimova had already signed the Allied deal by then and Ray had not finished The Courtship of Miles Standish (1923) when Salomé was in production. In fact, there was almost a year and a half between the completion of Salomé and the release of Standish. Whether this was a lapse of memory by Florey or misreporting by Lambert, I can’t be sure.

[5] Originally, I wanted to include Madonna of the Streets (1924) in my comparisons but, at the moment, Lantern has gaps in their Moving Picture World archive for 1924-5. I didn’t want to draw conclusions from incomplete data.

[6] Billions was also a Rambova-Nazimova collaboration. Rambova designed a fantasy sequence for the film.

[7] A mindset that’s still common among commercial media outlets today unfortunately. I could rant and rant about “content” and “content creation” all day but that’s another story for another time.

——— ——— ———

Bibliography/Further Reading

(This isn’t an exhaustive list, but covers what’s most relevant to the essay above!)

Lost, but Not Forgotten: A Doll’s House (1922)

“Nazimova in Repertoire” in Motion Picture News, 29 October 1921

“Alla Nazimova Plans for Her New Pictures” in Moving Picture World, 29 October 1921

“Nazimova Abandons Dual Program for Latest Film” in Exhibitors Herald, 24 December 1921

“Plays and Players”in Photoplay, February 1922

“PICTORIAL SECTION” in Exhibitors Herald, 4 February 1922

“New Nazimova Film May Be Roadshowed“ in Exhibitors Herald, 15 April 1922

“Newspaper Opinions” in The Film Daily, 3 January 1923

“Splendid Production Values But No Kick in Nazimova’s ‘Salome’” in The Film Daily, 7 January 1923

“Claims “Salome” Hit New Mark at N. Y. Criterion” in Exhibitors Herald, 27 January 1923

“Salome” in Exhibitors Trade Review, 20 January 1923

“Nazimova in SALOME” in Exhibitors Herald, 27 January 1923

“Nazimova Appeals To Exhibitors In Behalf of ‘Salome’” in Exhibitor’s Trade Review, 27 January 1923

“Novelty Features Paper and Ads for ‘Salome’” in Exhibitor’s Trade Review, 10 February 1923

“SALOME’ —Class AA” from Screen Opinions, 15 February 1923

Nazimova: A Biography by Gavin Lambert (Note: I do not recommend this without caveat even though it’s the only monograph biography of Nazimova. Lambert did a commendable amount of research but his presentation of that research is ruined by misrepresentations, factual errors, and a general tendency to make unfounded assumptions about Nazimova’s motivations and personal feelings.)

Lovers of Cinema: The First American Avant-Garde 1919-1945 ed. Jan-Christopher Horak (most notably, “The First American Avant-Garde 1919-1945” by Horak, “The Limits of Experimentation in Hollywood” by Kristin Thompson, and “Startling Angles: Amateur Film and the Early Avant-Garde” by Patricia R. Zimmermann)

United Artists: The Company Built by the Stars, Vol. 1 1919-1950 by Tino Balio

[deliciousangelfestival]

Good Guy, Bad Guy - Lloyd Hansen Series

Part 5

Character: Lloyd Hansen x Rich!Female Reader

Summary: Y/N got what she wanted. The status of CEO is in her hand. But the sudden confession from Lloyd made her think twice about the divorce. Did she make the right decision?

Words Count: 4,050

A/N: This chapter timeline is set after Lloyd confessed to the reader. This chapter will be focused on Y/N learning her feelings. 

Hope you guys enjoyed it. Comment and Reblog from you meant so much to me. Thank you so much. 💓🥹

This chapter is from Lloyd Hansen's Series - 3 Billion Divorce.

Check out Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7 (Extra Story)

And check out my other stories from Masterlist.

A fool in love. 

If someone called him that last year, he would laugh because, to him, love is a joke. 

Lloyd Hansen a sociopath and the most dangerous man; he is the type of man who eliminates everyone in his way. He never let any task or mission affect his feelings. 

But now, he looks clueless, thinking about which plan to get you back. 

After everything both of you've been through.

You tossed him after the contract expired. No one ever plays with him like this. He waited three months, thinking you regretted it and will call him back. But no, nothing, Nada!

At first, Lloyd thinks you’re not his type, but he likes it each time you catch him off guard with your crazy ideas; he likes it when you become annoyed every time he provokes you. 

And your love for money is also up to his taste. 

Right now, he looks out of place at Carmichael offices. Carmichael knew his long-time friend was a chatterbox. But something felt wrong because this sociopath was silent the whole time. "What's wrong,Lloyd? Is this about your ex-wife?"

Lloyd clicked his tongue and then punched the table "Wife. I never signed the damn paper."

“Hahaha.” That laughing voice already made Lloyd's ears itchy. Her presence already makes his mood get worse. 

Susan's sudden appearance worsened Lloyd's mood because of what she would say. "Y/N already found your replacement."

'Ouch!’ her words just added more salt to his wound. 

"What do you mean b**ch?"

Susan gave him a middle finger. "Let me just say he's so much better than you. Wow, he still related to the royal family."

Lloyd snatched the phone from her hand. When he saw the photo of you hugging another man, his mind had already planned 100 ways to get rid of that person. He opened the photo comment and found the name of the person hugging you. 

"Where did you get these?!!"

Susan grabbed her phone because she knew he would have smashed her phone into the wall. "It's trending on social media. Your ex-wife became famous after the divorce."

The truth is, she followed your fans' account.

That's one of the biggest secrets she won't tell him.

Susan is one of your biggest fans. She applauds anyone who could tame Lloyd. And her favourite part is you made him in a dilemma. 

It's her turn to laugh at his misery. 

He gave her a side-eye. "She's still my wife." 

Lloyd grabs a keyboard and use CIA database. Carmichael doesn't even want to know how Lloyd knew his passwords. With facial recognition favourite, he could find out who it was. 

Earl Thomas Kimberley. Thomas is a top photographer, travelling worldwide, famous in design, and shooting in a country with a refugee crisis that can move everyone's heart. 

After his step-brother humiliated the family name, Thomas became the CEO of the family business in a shipping company. They owned 500 vessels, including travelling ships, car carriers, gas and oil tankers, submarines, and cruise ships. 

A successful man with a bright future. 

Compared to him, Thomas came from a prestigious family, just like you. 

A light hum resounded in the silent room. Lloyd looked at the computer with an expressionless face. 

“Something is off.”

“What?”

“Nobody has a perfect life. He must have a deep secret.” He grabbed his phone to give an order to his team.

Carmichael patted his shoulder. “Good luck with that.”

Lloyd told his IT team to dig deeper into Thomas. His habit of buying stuff online, his friends, his female friends, and even his porn history. 

But after a few hours, they found nothing terrible about Thomas.

It made Lloyd anxious.

Looking out the window, where the sky is blue, Lloyd wishes it could calm his insecurity.

What if you like him? A good guy like Thomas. 

Eight hours ago before the photo.

The sky is grey, and the strong wind gives the plane turbulence. 

"Ladies and gentlemen, we're experiencing some turbulence. Please return to your seats and fasten your seatbelts."

You were in the private jet on the way to England. Your former professor invited you to give a speech. Of course, you agree. 

Even if you must defeat your fears, plane travel still brings goosebumps.

Your hands gripped the armrest tightly when the plane got turbulence. 

“You should listen to music for distraction.” Jimmy was sitting in front of you, worried, looking pale, and he could see the sweat on your forehead even though the inside temperature was cold. 

Jimmy sighed heavily; there's nothing he can do with your stubbornness. He knew you needed Lloyd but didn't know why you let him go. 

It was Lloyd's job to make you at ease every time you travel by plane. 

Before Jimmy, one of the people who disagree with your choice of a husband even though it's a contract, of all the men in the world, you choose Lloyd. 

But now, he became the parent who was sad because his favourite son-in-law had left the house. 

Even though Lloyd could be selfish and childish most of the time, at least when you were in trouble, he knew exactly what to do. 

“If I listen to music, I will forget my speech.”

“Were you able to sleep last night?”

“Only for a few hours." You try to find a comfortable position to close your eyes, not looking at the window. 

You usually get at least 6 hours of sleep when Lloyd is beside you. Since you moved back to your childhood home, the bed feels strange. And nobody helps to calm down your nightmares. 

When you moved out from the house shared with Lloyd, you said this would be a new start.

You finally became the official CEO and could live alone without any worries. 

But something unexpected happened. 

‘My dear wife, I love you more.’

Lloyd's confession caught you off guard, and his words echoed in your mind, making you unable to sleep. 

You’ve been pushing the divorce and moving out, mainly because you started to feel comfortable with him. It was supposed to be fake marriage, but you made a mistake with a sexual relationship with Lloyd. 

‘Kill your emotion. You need to be a ruthless f*ck to rebuild L/N & Co.’

That’s your grandfather's last word to you before he died. You promised not to get f**ked by feelings and to prioritise the company. 

You know your weaknesses. Good at business but stupid in romance. 

But since you spend time with Lloyd.  You kept thinking about him. And it's suffocating because of your ego; you held back from calling him.

That's why you said yes when your professor invited you to be the speaker. Remembering the youthful memories you had back in college was nice. If you go back, you could put behind all your trauma and ex-husband.

At the Debating Chamber.

In front of hundreds of people, you were relaxed while giving a speech and answering all the questions because your former professors and classmates were present to help you. 

It felt like you went back to being a teenager again. There's no family drama because of your grandfather's will. You just focus on your study—simple time. 

After the speech was done, you immediately rained with questions. Even with Jimmy beside you, he can't just push them away. 

Until a blinded camera flash made anyone close to you feel uncomfortable. Somehow it worked to make people move away from you. 

But the photographer keeps taking pictures of you. "Excuse me,sir, could you turn off the flash?"

The person behind the camera laughed. "I'll stop if you give me 100 dollars." 

His voice sounded familiar. When the camera is put down, you finally get a closer look. You knew who it was. 

Thomas Kimberley, your former classmate. It's been years since the last time you met. From everyone in your class, you are much closer to Thomas. 

Probably because he also has the same family drama. He's the second son of Kimberley's family, but his mother is a mistress. He doesn't get along with his stepmother and step-sibling. 

How did you know his drama? His stepbrother announced it inside the class to humiliate Thomas since he failed to become an Oxford student. 

But you didn't graduate together. Last semester Thomas suddenly left and followed his dream to be a photographer. You heard this is his way to rebel against his father. 

It turned out fine; he got what he wanted, travelled worldwide, and became a famous photographer. His appearance also changed. 

Back then, he only wore a cardigan with a dull colour and jeans. But now his appearance has turned him into a good-looking man, especially when he wears black suits and thin gold frame glasses.

"Thomas. You jerk." You gave him a playful punch to his shoulder before you gave him a side hug. 

You didn’t know some students took a shot the moment you gave a friendly hug to Thomas and sent it to social media. 

Thomas laughed, “When they told me, you were coming, I thought you would buy this place.” 

He linked his arm with you. “Ah, that’s our friend, let's meet them.” His act caught you off guard because Lloyd was the only man who could be this close to you.

And there it is; you thought you could forget him, but everything reminded you of Lloyd. You let this slide for once because you don’t want to ruin the reunion. 

It was supposed to be a quick hangout at the pub. But one of your friends got this idea to visit another pub then another pub. You've never been this carefree and hungover. Looking at your friends singing at the karaoke and being happy. You suddenly have a thought. 

After graduating, you couldn't hang out with them since your grandfather dragged you back to the States. 

You were having a second thought. If you stay back then, do you still have a chance to have a normal life?

You stop daydreaming when someone hands you a glass of water. 

"Thank you."

"When was the last time you drank after you became the CEO?"

You sip the water while thinking about the moment you get the position; you become more ambitious and almost sleep daily in your office. "Hmm, never."

You put down the glass and rested your head on your palm while looking at him "Thomas, are you happy after you achieved your dream?"

"Wow, wisdom time because of the alcohol." He chuckled and then was silent for a while. "To be honest, I'm not 100% happy. Because it ruined my marriage."

Your eyes widened when you heard his confession. You didn't know he got married. "You? Married? Divorce?"

Thomas nodded; he stared at the wall of liquors. "She doesn’t like my job."

"Because you always travelled around?" You put your hand in front of your lips. That was a slip of the tongue. You were too honest because of the alcohol. "I'm sorry."

Thomas doesn't feel offended. "That's right." He put down his drinking glass and turned towards you. "It's my turn to ask a question. I want to know how the famous ice queen finally fell in love."

You gulped. You will not tell Thomas how you met Lloyd when he was supposed to kill you. You waved your hand and acted shy. "He helped me deal with my family. That's why I…" 

You were silent when you wanted to say the following words. Your mind suddenly recalled everything that happened between you and Lloyd. Both of you have been through heaven and hell together. 

"...love him." Your voice became softer; maybe only you could hear it. Is it because of the alcohol that made you say those words or because of something else?

You suddenly stand up from your seat, making people beside you almost jump. "I… I think I should go."

Thomas looks at his wristwatch. "You're right. It's already late." He stood up to grab his coat and yours. "My driver will drive us both."

"Thank you."

"It's nothing ,Y/N compare how often you drag me every time I get hungover." 

You hummed, remembering he always got drunk whenever he fought with his step-brother. 

While in the car on the way to your hotel, Thomas saw you looking at your phone screen, not doing anything; he asked, "Is your husband still awake waiting for you?"

You shook your head. "No. He didn't come with me."

"What a pity. I want to meet him."

You wonder if you heard it wrong. He sounded sulking. Did your friend want to meet Lloyd?

You waved goodbye to Thomas when the car arrived at the hotel. 

When you enter the building, Thomas' smile disappears from his face. He took out his phone to make a call. "Cancel it. We chose plan B."

The next day you woke up; you weren’t that drunk. You picked up your phone to check on your schedule. There’s nothing. You remembered last night you told your secretary you want a day off.  

It was a sunny day. 

You decided to take a walk from your hotel to clear your head. 

You don’t have any plans. When you saw the nearest coffee shop, that became your first destination. 

The coffee shop has a lovely aesthetic and is not too crowded. After you order a coffee, pick a seat at the corner near the window that faces the street. 

While you enjoy your drinks and cakes, other customers keep coming; you notice the queue line getting longer. 

When you look up, a man has his hands full. One hand holding a laptop bag and one hand holding a baby. His kid was uncomfortable with his arms, making him unable to make an order. 

“Kendal, please hold on a second.” He tried to calm his baby.

“Professor Watson.” You greet him. He's one of the professors you adore because of his intelligence and wisdom. 

He turned his head and saw you. Both of you met yesterday but didn’t have the chance to talk.

"Y/N. Haii…" He struggled to hold his daughter. You can't bear looking at your favourite professor looking like a mess.

"Let me hold her."

"Thank you, but I don't think,-" His daughter already stretched her short arms towards you. That was unexpected. 

"Both of us will be sitting there."

After a few minutes, Professor Watson joins your table with his coffee and cake. 

"Thank you for your help."

"No problem. What happened? You look… lost?" Every time you see him, he always looks like a perfect scholar. It's pretty difficult to approach him. Even though he seems scary, he will help his students. 

After ten years, his style has become easygoing, and he is more welcome. He never smiled at his students. It's been ten years, and now you see the smile stay on his face.

"Haha, today is my day off. But my wife suddenly got called to the hospital. I thought it would be a good idea to bring my daughter to the coffee shop while I make new material for my book." 

Wow, his personality completely changed. Before, he never shared his personal life. But now he still tells you about his wife working as a doctor and his son joining the football team even though you didn’t ask. 

He seemed happy after he got married. If you get married, will your personality change too?

“You’ve changed, Professor. Back then, if we asked about your day, you would say ‘Nothing besides crying myself to sleep.”

“That’s true.” He laughed. “I used to be pessimistic about life, especially marriage.”

Kendall, the cute baby, is still sitting on your lap. She is fascinated with shiny things on your head, which as your hairclip. 

"Wa, is?" Her chubby finger pointed to your hair. 

"Ooh, this is a hairclip."

"Hai,- cip,-" Kendall keep mumbling, ‘Hai,- cip,’ for a long time. You are weak to her cuteness. You take off your hairclip and let her play with it. 

“I’m sorry, Y/N, she’s on the stage where she likes to play with sparkly things.”

“It’s okay.” You don’t mind if she breaks it. Anything to make her comfortable on your lap. The scent of a baby tickled your nose when you put her into your arms. Your maternal instinct suddenly kicked in. 

“You’ve changed too Y/N.”

“Back then, we only talked about your assignment, but I could see that you carry an enormous burden. Right now, I can see that you have become more confident and brave.”

He pointed to your finger that was wrapped with a diamond ring. “Was it because of your partner who is the biggest support?”

After you heard his question, you remembered everything Lloyd had done to help you, guard you, and get your position right now. He didn’t ask questions when you asked him to do complex tasks. He just says yes and provides a great result.

Like today, you can enjoy your walk without worrying anyone could hurt you. 

Even though you have to pay billions, with his help, you gain your freedom. 

If that means excellent support, the answer is “Yes, yes, he is.”

You forgot about the time until Kendall made a fuss since it was her time to nap.

That means it's time to go back. You still carry Kendal in your arms until both of you arrive at Professor Watson's car. 

On her baby seat, Kendal is still holding your hairpin, her father tries to open her palm, but she's persistent. 

"It's alright Professor she can have it." You brushed her fluffy cheeks. 

"Haha, you'll be a great mother, Y/N. Say, thank you to Aunty Y/N, sunshine."

Your body cringes when you hear the nickname. Damn Lloyd, for keep calling you that name.

He said while tightening his seat belt. "Let's meet again on your next visit."

After the car left, you went back to the hotel through the park. While walking, you sighed heavily. Your plan to travel so you could forget Lloyd failed. Because it seems like life doesn’t want you to move on from him. 

“Did you enjoy your coffee sunshine?”

Your footsteps halted when you heard his voice. 

He is sitting on the bench wearing a polo shirt, beige pants, brown loafers, and his favourite aviators. 

"Lloyd?!!"

Lloyd followed you back to the hotel. When he entered your room, he jumped to the couch and rested his feet on the table. 

He didn't talk on the way here; it's out of his character. If you look closely, he seemed to be sulking. After staying together for a year, you knew he would act like a child. 

"Lloyd, are you alright?"

He scoffed and shook his head. "How can I be alright when I found my wife is getting close to her best friend?"

You were taken aback; did he just accuse you of Thomas? 

"There's nothing between me and Thomas." You don't have romantic feelings towards Thomas even though he's a good guy. 

There's a memory about Thomas that you buried. 

Lloyd clicked his tongue. You are still clueless and dense with the opposite gender. From the photo, he could read Thomas' expressions towards you. 

Lloyd took away his aviator and threw them on the table. He smiled softly, strode forward and stood in front of you. 

You remained frozen, wondering what he was going to do. The next moment Lloyd stroked your cheek with his index finger and pulled you into his arms. 

"Let's go to bed." He rested his head on your shoulder.

'Huh?' 

Lloyd pats your back gently. "I'm tired. I haven't slept for 7 hours because I'm worried about you."

Without breaking the silence, you agreed with his request. 

Inside the bedroom, you were nervous when you lay beside him. While you are anxious, the man beside you has closed his eyes.

You tried to twist out of his arms, but it was no use. 

Lloyd brought your head to his chest. He held you tight as if to keep you from escaping. 

"I missed my wife so much I thought I would die.”

You gently patted his back as if you knew what he was thinking. He buried his nose into your hair and took a deep breath. 

"While I'm gone can you sleep?"

You sighed heavily. "No. Living alone made me more depressed."

He chuckled, "Stop pushing me away then."

You pinched his arms even though you knew it didn't affect him. Instead, he giggled more. But he was right; the answer for your insomnia is him.

But something has been bugging you for these couple of months. You break the silence by asking the big question. 

“Do you think there’s something else after this?”

There was silence, but you felt Lloyd loosen his grip. "Like what?"

You gulped. "You know, like building a family?"

"..."

"Forgot what I said." You pulled your blanket and turned your body to the other side. But Lloyd's strong arm turns your position back to face him. 

Lloyd didn't expect that question out of your mouth. 

'Family.' Of course, that idea had crossed his mind. But the desire is getting stronger because of what he saw today. 

He had arrived when you went to the coffee shop. From the car, he saw you talking with an older man; he didn't open the car door when he saw you holding a baby in your arms.

The image of you inside the house holding the baby. Their tiny hands touch your cheeks. And then you greet him with 'Good morning.'

He decided not to join your conversation and stay in the car. Looking at you holding the baby gave him a feeling of joy. 

"Do you remember my confession?"

"Yeah."

You met his scorching gaze, and he smiled.

"The confession means I want to spend the rest of my life with you, sleep with you, have sex with you."

You remained frozen but still looking at Lloyd's gleamed eyes.

"It also means I want to get you pregnant, build a family with you."

Your heart began to race wildly inside your chest. Hearing his confession once again sounds completely different now. 

Because you want to have the same goal as him. 

It was dark inside the room, but Lloyd could feel your heartbeat.

"Tell me what I want to hear Y/N."

"I love you too Lloyd. I'll give you my everything."

Lloyd pulled you into his arms again, almost squeezing you. He finally found the answer. 

The next morning. 

The sounds of the alarm make both of you wake up together. 

You grab your phone and see the notification that tells you the schedule for today. When you wanted to leave the bed, your waist suddenly got held. 

"Don't go." Lloyd grumbled on your back while his eyes were still closed. 

"I'm meeting the PM today. I can't miss it." Your finger tickled behind his ears. That's the sensitive part of his body. The technique makes you free from his hold. You immediately ran to the bathroom. 

Lloyd growled while his hand ran through his face. He hates it when the quality time with you gets disrupted. 

'RING.' He silently cursed; another interruption kept coming. He picked up his phone, turned out it was from Carmichael.

"Lloyd."

"Yeah?"

"I know you have plans to get rid of Thomas. But I suggest you don't."

"Give me one reason."

"Hermes."

Lloyd's breath hitched when he heard that name. Before he met you, he'd been searching for this weapon dealer called Hermes. 

"The agency has been looking for this person for a long time. When you were looking for Thomas' flight schedule it's the same with Hermes everytime he made a deal and the description also matched."

So the agency finally got the answer. Thomas Kimberley is Hermes. He is hiding in plain sight using his famous status. No one would think a charities photographer was also a dangerous weapon dealer.

"You were right. He's not a good guy. But,-"

"What?"

"He seems pretty close with your wife."

Lloyd clenched his fist. “Don’t say anything that makes me want to kill you.”

Carmichael was silent for a while until he said “Be friends with him and make Hermes the agency's asset.”

A/N: Wow, Carmichael is heartless towards his friend, does he? What will Lloyd go to do? Is he going to help his friend or not?

Wait for the next chapter. 

If you want to be tagged in the series, you can tell me from the comment. 💓💓💓

And if you have any questions or want to send any prompts and drabble, you could send them to my inbox. I'll be happy to answer.

This chapter is from Lloyd Hansen's Series - 3 Billion Divorce.

Check out Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5,-

And check out my other stories from Masterlist.

Taglist:

@motivation-idontknowher

@evansce1

@chibijusstuff

@jasminxts

@alchemxx

@imsolatetothegame

@thorinmistress

@bree-lyrie

@another-tblr-fangirl

@buckysteveloki-me

@cherrybubblebullet

@supraveng

@avery-1999

@ridingthehotmessexpress

@hoely-maria

@katymae12344

@g-c-e

@rookiemartin

@my-regrets

@openup-yourmind

@magnificentsaladllama

@patzammit

@krissy25

@stressed-out-gisele

@eralen

@readingislife

@ara-theo

@rebeccapineapple

@spikeluv84

@sebsgirl71479

[ziskeyt]

i work in making proposals. for those who don't work in business (and even those who do) you may not know what an RFP is, which is just a Request for Proposal. Sometimes it's RFI (information) RFQ (quote) or some other term, but it all leads to the same thing: a company needs something so they go out to the market with their documents detailing what they need and their terms, and other companies as suppliers or consultants then answer how they would solve their need. in my job i make proposals for any organization that needs the services my company provides: universities, private institutions, banks, the government, hospitals, it doesn't matter, at my level what matters is the size of the contract for my team to be called in to respond. this means i'm only seeing the bigger spends. it means i'm seeing where corporations and organizations see value in investing their time and money in. i give you this preamble to set the table for what i have to say.

i do not live nor work in the usa right now, though i do vote there as an expat. so i'm well aware of a lot of the social issues, fears, and predicted trends regarding both. DEI as a term became fashionable several years ago, and as we've seen in the recent past it has lost that lauded status as companies slowly close up their public facing support for these endeavours. this is disheartening and it feels like we're sliding backward on the ride of progress. and we are, in public. and, it is important to note these issues are not restricted to the usa, we are seeing this tide change in many places, the usa happens to have a lot of influence on the world stage, for better and for worse.

again, my job is making business proposals to solve a need a company sees monetary value in working on. so i want to tell you about an aspect of a proposal that i just saw: a company is asking for solutions on how to manage differing lighting needs in the office environment. you may read that and think: oh okay so changes in overhead lighting. not the case here. no, they are asking for solutions so an individual can be at their desk and have some control over how much light from the overheads they are exposed to. they are asking for solutions to help accommodate neurodiverse workers who have light sensitivity issues. my coworker tells me two very well known companies who write about workplace trends, workplace think pieces, workplace strategy, and so on, are both coming out with literature about neurodiversity in the workplace in the coming months and how to accommodate neurodiverse employees.

we may be seeing a rise in very obnoxious people gaining power, we may be seeing a rise in fascist rhetoric, and we may be seeing a rise in organizations stepping back from public support for "liberal" things -- and yet, business continues to see a value in investing in accommodations and diversity. and yes, a piece of the puzzle of this rise in hate is a reaction to exactly this happening. but the important thing here, for me, is that this rise hatred hasn't stopped this from happening. it hasn't stopped me from getting request after request asking how we invest in our communities, how we ensure we hire diverse subcontractors, what our dei policies are at our company, are we minority owned, do we work with companies owned by Indigenous people, what is the make up of our workforce, and more. the money, in the business world, is still in working with diverse companies, accommodating workers, or, at the least, speaking to it. we just have to keep pushing. people do care about each other. for some of them you just have to find the in to get around the hateful propaganda that transformed their thinking. but that's a different conversation. the point i'm making is, do not give in to despair. the money in business is still in diversity and this is a good thing.

[bridgeportbritt]

We're back for another edition of SimDonia Style Through the Years! You may have remembered a post I did not too long ago which showed how SimDonia style has evolved throughout history. Well, we're diving back in for a part 2 where explore more looks and the lore around them!

Before the Revolution

As mentioned in the last post, women had to wear modest clothing. Fully covered, long dresses, with their hair up, no matter the class due to Bella Goths desire to be best dressed in the land. SimDonians (at the time called Pendites) did not have access to the outside world, so even though modern fashions/technology/etc. were becoming prevelant, Pendites were intentionally kept in the dark.

The biggest fashion difference between classes is the working class didn't get access to the nice fabrics that the wealthy classes did. Working women tended to their families, gardens, homes and often had jobs doing the same for the wealthy women. Wealthy women lived lives of leisure as their husbands had jobs in government or other high powered roles.

During the Revolution

The best way to rebel for women was to wear shorter lengthed and sleeved dresses or even wear their hair down. Some would go as far as to practice Jacoban openly (which was banned) as seen in Look #4. You could spot if a wealthy woman was supportive of the revolution the same way. Though, many found ways to play both sides by wearing off the shoulder sleeve dresses that could quickly be brought up or down depending on their company.

During the revolution, working women supported their husbands who were fighting but some fought themselves, as well. Wealthy women also tried to support their high powered husbands and keep their help away from the revolution as they didn't want status quo to change. Many were stuck between wanting to keep the hostility away from them and wanting to keep their money and power.

After the Revolution

Once the war was over, wealth became better distributed as the new government tried to build a better society by the people for the people. Nations started embracing Pendites (Now officially known as SimDonians) and rejoicing from the end of threat of war from the power hungry Goths. It was a new day in terms of both society and fashion.

Working women finally had access to fine fabrics and colors. Many working women especially those with husbands in the war, moved up in terms of wealth and were able to find better jobs in the new society or saw higher pay for their old jobs. Depending on which side their husbands were on in the war, some wealthy classes fled after the death of the Goths while others on the right side were able to hold on or even gain more wealth and even power. In terms of fashion, women felt the need to differentiate themselves by dressing more lavishly than the working class.

The Experimental Phase

Over the years, the government was establishing itself, borders were opening, and modern society has began making its way to SimDonia. More and more people were prospering, getting an education, being paid fairly for their work. During this phase, people were finally free to travel and explore other countries, especially to get an education.

What we saw happen was styles from all over the simverse get brought back to SimDonia especially from more advanced societies like Simerica (Look #2,3, and 7), Komorebi (Look #1 part of 4, 6), Sulani (Look #4), and Kiwa Bonde (Look #8). While seemingly harmless in practice, looking back it was clear SimDonians were appropriating these styles which eventually blended into the modern fashion we see today.

Present Day

Today, SimDonia has caught up to modern societies at a fast pace thanks to establishing a government passionate about being progressive and effective, plus other nations coming together to assist the newly formed nation securing foreign bonds.

In terms of fashion, SimDonia is a melting pot of different cultures, trends, and styles. The difference in class is harder to spot through dress with styles reaching both and varying based on personal style instead. SimDonia is currently on its way to become a fashion capital of the simverse as new designers and the fashion industry continues to grow.

[jpeg-dot-jpeg]

Happy Halloween! Trick or treat?

Ahhh yes!!!!! Since no specific request was made, I'm going to go off on a headcannon I'm kind of obsessed with. I'm so glad I finally get to talk about this.

So, Tim's parents, right? Jack and Janet Drake. We love making them terrible guardians in fics for angst potential, and that's all well and good, but I've noticed a very specific trend of people portraying the Drakes as very upper crust, high society people, which I don't think is accurate.

We don't know a ton about Jack as a character, and even less about Janet, but we know they travel a lot, and we know they are very wealthy because Jack is the exec/CEO of Drake Industries. Janet's involvement in the company varies based on the comic. It is also generally accepted canon that they are both archaeologists, or at least are extremely interested in archaeology as a hobby.

Know onto the actual headcannon part, I like to think that Jack and Janet met and married in grad school when they were both studying archaeology. While in school, as part of a project, Jack designed some kind of device for identifying specimens in the field, and it ended up being super useful in crime scene analysis so every police department in the country bought a dozen and Drake Industries became a multi-million dollar company basically overnight.

I imagine that sudden wealth like that could put a strain on family relationships (i.e. relatives getting cut off for money grubbing) and that's why none of Tim's distant relatives are in his life.

Furthermore, the Drakes being 'new money' (which is also specified verbatim in a comic dont ask me which one) means they don't really fit in with the rest of upperclass society. All those galas and parties? Yeah, the Drakes don't get invited to those. Seriously. The uber rich will discriminate against people who weren't born into generational wealth, its a thing. It doesn't help that the Drakes spend all their time abroad doing dirty working class labor. The billionaires who spend all day in air conditioned offices can not fathom why anyone would continue to work a middle class job by choice.

Had they not died, I think Jack and Janet would have eventually gotten divorced (idk why, i just feel it) and Jack would have still ended up with Dana (*cough* younger woman *cough*). Janet would have continued working abroad and on digsites, or maybe become a professor and focus more on research, possibly get a phd, while Jack gives more of his attention to the company.

So in conclusion, I headcannon that Jack and Janet were at best neglectful, but I don't think it makes sense for their abuse to really be linked to their reputation among the elite, if a story involves them being abusive at all.

Thank you for coming to my ted talk

[haggishlyhagging]

According to Google Trends, the word "empowerment" hit a high in 2004 and 2005, as it became more deeply entrenched everywhere—feminist discourse, consumer marketing, corporate culture. "Empowering" joined "synergy," "scalable," and "drill-down" in boardroom conferences, vision statements, and business plans, and was eventually called "the most condescending transitive verb ever" by Forbes. It's become the name of a range of businesses, a national fitness event, and an almost mind-boggling number of yoga studios. It's become a company-jargon fave at Microsoft, with former and current CEOs Steve Ballmer and Satya Nadella both using it to impressively vague effect in memos and public talks. (At Microsoft's annual Convergence event in 2015, Nadella told attendees, "We are in the empowering business," and added that the tech giant's goal was "empowering you as individuals and organizations across every vertical and every size of business, and any part of the world, to drive your agenda and do the things you want to do for your business.")

Elsewhere in discourses and debates around sex as both an activity and a commodity, "empowerment" has become a sort of shorthand that might mean "I'm proud of doing this thing," but also might mean "This thing is not the ideal thing, but it's a lot better than some of the alternatives." Feeling empowered by stripping, for instance, was a big theme among moonlighting academics or otherwise privileged young women in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and you can find countless memoirs about what they discovered about themselves in the world of the sexual marketplace; the same is true of prostitution, with blogs like Belle de Jour, College Call Girl, and books like Tracy Quan's Diary of a Manhattan Call Girl. There was a point in the mid-to-late 2000s when you couldn't swing a cat through Barnes & Noble without knocking a slew of sex-work memoirs off the shelves: Lily Burana’s Strip City, Diablo Cody's Candy Girl, Jillian Lauren's Some Girl, Michelle Tea's Rent Girl, Shawna Kenny's I Was a Teenage Dominatrix, Melissa Febos's Whip Smart, and Sarah Katherine Lewis's Indecent among them. The crucial thing these often incredibly absorbing and well-written books had in common? All were written by young, white, and no-longer-hustling sex workers.

I want to be clear that standing with sex workers on the principle that sex work is work is an issue whose importance cannot be overstated, and also clear that my complete lack of expertise on the subject makes it well beyond the scope of this book. But I am interested in the idea that "empowerment" is so often used as a reflexive defense mechanism in discussions of this kind of sex-work experience, but less so in describing the less written-about experiences of people whose time in the industry is less finite and less bookworthy—transgender women, exploited teenagers and trafficked foreigners, men and women forced into sex work by poverty, abuse, or addiction. And I'm fascinated by the fact that we see thousands of pop culture products in which women are empowered by a sex industry that does not have their empowerment in mind, but far fewer in which they are empowered to make sexual choices on their own terms, outside of a status quo in which women's bodies are commodities to be bought and sold. Indecent author Sarah Katherine Lewis has written that, during her time as a stripper, "I felt empowered—as a woman, as a feminist, as a human being by the money I made, not by the work I did"; but hers is just one story. Belle de Jour and other sex workers have written about truly enjoying their work. If the market were just as welcoming of narratives in which young women were empowered by their careers as, say, electricians—if personal memoirs about a youthful, self-determining layover in the electrical trades were a thing publishers clamored for—then a handful of empowered sex workers would be no big thing. Until that's the case, it's worth questioning why the word is so often the first line of defense.

-Andi Zeisler, We Were Feminists Once

[linolinoing]

it's actually insane to me that charles has comparable if not more line distribution than the boys combined... like how does ONE person have almost the same amount as EIGHT members and he's just the feature. from their intro video where they talk about it, it breaks my heart that they think they had to do this to get recognition here in the US. i became a stay after seeing them at gcf when i was there for someone else so their own music speaks for itself. i'm scared the single will be on the album for the upcoming comeback and i'm scare they will lose their touch for the take of western validation or making it big here. we've seen it with an act like bts and i feel like now jype is trying to follow their lead to attempt for that same kind of success. i'm actually heartbroken for the guys and fuck div1/jype bc i can't even imagine the bs they got into their head with about breaking out in the west

Hi! Sorry for the late reply, I just got home!

He definitely has way more lines for my liking because I would prefer he didn't have any but stays don't get to smile so... Tbh I think that's how collabs usually work, it's probably around half him and half skz, but since there's 8 members it seems like he sings more.

Still, this collaboration is getting more and more disappointing by the day. Idk how stays can still support it when there hasn't been one good thing about it. Not one but two whole zionists in the credits, puth has been saying and doing disgusting things for years, he barely acknowledged the song, doesn't seem to care about it and he is already posting about his upcoming single and album. I haven't listened to the whole song, but judging by the teasers, it sounds like the most basic puth song ever, skz are more than capable of making amazing songs without leeches like him.

I haven't watched the intro but that sounds really sad. One of the main reasons skz gained so many fans is the fact that 3racha are the main producers and songwriters. They follow their own path and have their own distinct sound. So to think such a bland artist like puth is the only way skz can get recognition in the usa makes no sense to me. Especially since they're already very big there, they're already gathering stadiums, and all tickets for their day at lolla are sold out. They're headlining at the biggest festivals while puth has been irrelevant for a long time.

It's very valid to be concerned about the direction jype/rr is taking skz. I have no problem with skz trying new sounds, or if they want to release an english song or album, but not how it's happening now. If jype/rr wanted a viral song in the usa so bad they could've done it in better ways.

I saw someone say they made this song in the song camp with puth so I'm little worried that this song might be not the only one, maybe next time it won't have puth as a feature, but still produced by him or that other man.

I never really deep dived into bts, but I liked some of their songs, and around the time butter came out i just lost interest in them tbh. Mostly cuz of the way their fans were acting. The thing about big fandoms like armys and stays is that there are a lot of different people, with different views, yet loudest ones have created a reputation for armys as bullies, racists, sexists and so on. They harass and doxx ppl, they're always up in everyone's business, trending hateful tags, full of akgaes and most importantly have no morals whatsoever. And well this year *someone* is moving exactly the same. And this collab just proves where stays as a fandom are heading. Even tho there's a lot of people who still have morals unfortunately the loudest ones are creating a very negative image for both stays and skz. Btw on twt whenever armys are trying to educate others armys about the hybe boycott they face the same hate and 'yOu ArE aN aNtI yOu ShOuLd lEaVe tHe FaNdOm' as stays do now.

Those big companies almost never prioritise artists and their ideas or fans, they want more money, so they will keep pushing more of what makes them that money. And kpop stans are the perfect audience for this. Cuz at least half is obssesed with their fave to the concerning levels, and companies use that for their own benefit. Bubble, fancalls and etc help to create the illusion that kpop idols are your best friends and boyfriends. Remember how some stays were genuinely upset and heartbroken when Chris "broke up" with them, called him toxic, manipulative, hated him, cried on tt about it, that's not normal. When you're that invested in the parasocial relationship you're gonna end up hurt. Our brains and nervous system are experiencing stress whether it's a real thing happing or just our imagination. It's not healthy to be so dependent on the artist and creating a bond with someone who doesn't know you exist.

And in order to continue living in this imaginary world, people are willing to throw away whatever morals they have left in them. That's why they get so angry when you try to interfere with it, they need their faves to be *perfect*. As much as I love skz, the success of a kpop group will never be more important to me than my own values.

And just a reminder to everyone that if you don't support this collab, it doesn't mean you're sabotaging skz, nor does it make you an anti. If you feel overwhelmed by everything going on in the fandom, it's okay to take a break, it's okay to just enjoy skz's music without obsessing over charts and streams. Just take your time and do what's best for you! 🫂

This got so fucking long for no reason I'm so sorry 😭

[crof-fwf]

My thoughts around the "#GreenLightVolume10"

Well this is going to be a mix of some topics of which also goes hand in hand with the main topic about what I'm going to talk:

The Hashtag: "#GreenLightVolume10" have a truly impact when is about "Helping RWBY" ? Without the #,Is RWBY gonna be in a bad situation?

My quick answer for it would be: No, i dont think so, i know the hashtag made noice as a way to “encourage” but we know Vol10 will get the green lights, and why are you even thinking that RWBY is in a "red situation"?, seriously.

But for the Long answer im going to start:

Context:

The hashtag #GreenLightVolume10 was created in early April (approximately). It is unclear for me which tweet started it. I know that at least two Twitter users were among the pioneers who initiated the trend. The primary objective of the hashtag is to encourage Rooster Teeth to confirm the 10th volume or season of RWBY.

At the moment where the trend spread, a committed sensation was created to spread the hashtag so that it would be possible to continue with the RWBY story.

Many fans started to create numerous fanworks to this day, with a significant amount of new fan art featuring the included hashtag.

Where even the CRWBY members on the "RXT Austin 2023 panel" utilized that hashtag to promote it to the audience.

Source of the image.

Making in that way to impulse even more the support of the # which is still active.

And here is where i start to make a reflection about the way that # represent and if it really show us that: RWBY is in a real “critical moment”? As also in how the fandom is reacting about that and how probably RT/CRWBY are taking advantage of it.

And in my perception this topic involve 3 “main actors” what are related:

The fandom

CRWBY

Rooster Teeth

The Fandom:

In my perspective the fandom has fed this # given the context about the fear that RWBY will be cancelled, this being a fear since Rooster Teeth became a subsidiary of Warner Bros, adding to the fact that the WB itself has been canceling projects lately. This news It has created fear to the Fandom, which caused the motivation to promote RWBY in order to attract as many new people as possible with or without the use of the # (Leaving the possibility that in more radical cases this could spam, both in comments that are or are not associated with RWBY).

And the point what I’m trying to reach is what the fandom itself is in a state of Gaslighting themselves due to that constant and uncertain fear of “RWBY being cancel” leading to the compromise of promoting that hashtag more and more.

CRWBY

CRWBY at the moment of seeing the reaction of the fanbase, they decided to support and encourage to continuing promoting the #.

From examples im in completely aware is Kerry by saying to continuing the #

Since I cannot find the post that directly mentions "continued support" other than the one seen in "RXT Austin 2023 panel", I can at least confirm that the mention was made. (Where I allude to a possible post by Kerry; in case he made more mentions)

Well, and another example what we all know is of the “RXT Austin 2023 panel”.

These shows of support show that (from a fan's point of view) the CRWBY is capitalizing on the feeling of: "The people have spoken", to show "pressure” on Rooster Teeth, and so the fan feels that the CRWBY is also playing this role of "saving RWBY" and continuing to support and promote the # because they are "backed" by the same CRWBY.

Rooster Teeth

Talking about Rooster Teeth is undoubtedly something "complex" given the controversies the company has been involved in, but in this case I will limit myself to mentioning the following. From my point of view, RT can be anything (in terms of its controversies) when it comes to being a bad company, but I attest that RT is not stupid, knowing that it depends on money to continue to exist and not go bankrupt, it needs to keep its main sources of income afloat, with RWBY providing it with the most funding.

Where I have the expectation (and my comprehension) on how RT distributes the financial source, then I have the idea that Rooster should give more importance to those projects that bring them more profit, so it could lead to a hypothetical situation where other RT projects or shows have to be on a long hiatus or, worst case scenario, end up being "canceled" so that RT saves its funds to invest in its most profitable projects

Also i have to add in how recently Rooster Teeth generated money and incomes based in 4 situations:

Bumbleby Merch:

Thanks to the fact that the shippers "starved" through this time step until their confirmation in V9. Finishing by ecstatic the community and adding the fact that BB shippers are a large majority in the fandom, being the perfect opportunity to present the "Official BB merch" a few weeks after its confirmation. The merchandise in price aspects, I consider it (on a personal level) a bit overpriced…

But hey, "if it's official BB merch, then it's worth buying, right?"…

And, unsurprisingly, by the end of the day, the merchandise had sold out.

This image was taken in 06/04/2023

And that’s the merch what were release in the few weeks, and not forget the addition of new ones and finally the merch that was promoted in “RXT Austin 2023 panel”.

Source

Where the merch which was sold out was there Wall Scroll.

Picture taked in 14/08/2023

So this is how I want to express that one of the factors in making money is the number of "BB shippers" showing their support for CRWBY (and indirectly Rooster Teeth,"But hey, who is the owner of the shop like the one that makes and distributes BB merchandise?)

Gains given with the distribution by Crunchy Roll

I want to clarify what in this point is more speculative from my point of view.

Their distribution in the platform of “Crunchy Roll” has contributed with the amount of 15.5K reviews of 4.7. Where the comments what i saw in the reviews were in general positives.

Making look RWBY at least something “fine”…

And i remember something else related to it and i wanna talk about it quickly: Is Crunchy Roll gonna acquired RWBY?. Honestly I’m doubt because i don’t see it beneficial for RT to give the show by the same reason in how RWBY benefits RT. But still Crunchy Roll gonna be the distributor of the series.

The tiny gains with the Crossover with DC

Well, in this case, the film that was released I consider "50/50", taking into account that it received a mixture of opinions about what revolves around the film, so I can't confirm if it managed to obtain a good income, nor can I confirm if the film turned into a disaster. As I also add the fact that "RedBox" premiered the film before the official date, which may have affected the film's revenue.

Well, maybe we have to wait for the second part and see the “final results”

Gains given by the “RXT Austin 2023 panel”

The convention of Rooster Teeth which started on 7-9 of July, was also a good source of income for the company, where in this case: Selling merchandise of RWBY (Also by the fact that RWBY being celebrated for its 10th anniversary) oh and a few BB merchandise what i made mention in the first point.

Note: With the confirmation of more “Camp Camp” and “RvB” makes me doubt: "If your best project is in danger, how can you give the green light to 2 other projects? 10?". I really want to believe that RT has this "control" over the management of investment in its projects.

And I want to clarify something!

I am NOT supporting or defending RT!. Although I know that I argue that RT knows how to manage its projects and how it should be in a "stable" situation. I am NOT putting aside all the controversy surrounding RT, honestly RT can "fuck off", but as I said at the beginning of the post, RT is not stupid enough to not give attention to their best "gold mines". ", because without money, RT collapses.

And I add at the last moment: I doubt that RWBY will become independent of RT due to the fact that some members of the CRWBY are associated with RT (leaving aside if they knew about or covered up these controversies) and also how RT benefits the members of the CRWBY.

Everything mentioned was to indicate that RT must be "playing his cards right" in order not to lose RWBY, and NOT for showing support or something related.

My conclusion:

With all of the above, I hope to make my point clear and show why I think the "purpose" of using #GreenLightVolume10 has been somewhat exaggerated by pointing out how it has been exaggerated for something that is very likely to happen.

Also, I’m not trying to stop you from promoting it with your artworks, comments, or etc. My intention is to point out how scandalised the purpose of the # has become, to the point of having to cling to it as if the series depends on how active the # is. I don't deny that the # is a kind of "support" or "reminder" that people want more. But really, so much noise has been made to promote the #, for a thing that depends on the budget that RT has to give it to RWBY and thus generate their "investment".

In summary:

The fandom deludes itself into believing that RWBY is "in danger of not continuing with Vol10" (as if RT didn't make the necessary profits). Add to this that CRWBY, along with RT, are using the # trend as a way to save the ad section, as this # works as a "hype train" for them as a good marketing medium. Making a lot of noise so that in the end always the vol. 10 got his green light like that.

Leaving "#GreenLightVolume10" on the brink of becoming a media circus…

- F0under

Extra:

If (RWBY) has a good ending, at least it was worth it .

But if it has a bad ending, there is nothing you can say or regret, because you have already invested in it, they have done their thing, and you just have to eat the ending you were so excited about because you wanted it to go on.

- Ady.

[mariacallous]

“Money is accountability,” announced Stephen Shackelford, a lawyer for the voting machine company Dominion, moments after a Delaware superior court judge announced that the company had settled its lawsuit against Fox News. The case was set to be a blockbuster defamation trial, a challenge to the many lies told on Fox after the 2020 election about Dominion’s supposed role in stealing a second term from President Trump. But in the end, the parties chose to settle just before opening statements were set to begin. Fox ultimately agreed to pay $787.5 million, a hefty fraction of the $1.6 billion that Dominion originally sought in damages and one of the largest defamation payouts ever reported in the United States. In a statement, Fox said, “We acknowledge the Court’s ruling finding certain claims about Dominion to be false.”

For many onlookers who were hoping to see Fox hauled over the coals in court for its election lies, news of the settlement was a disappointment. All the same, the pretrial discovery process allowed Dominion to make public an extraordinary amount of damaging information about Fox’s operations and the mechanics of the Big Lie of 2020 election fraud. And there are other cases yet to come. Dominion v. Fox is best understood not on its own, but as the most prominent example so far of a trend toward using defamation litigation to counter election lies—and what the case has and hasn’t achieved along those lines speaks to both the promise and the limitations of this strategy.

The Big Lie cohered over the weeks and months around the election. It was stitched together out of an enormous number of smaller lies about the actions of specific companies and individuals, which Trump and his allies used as fuel for their larger claims. As the Jan. 6 committee documented, Rudy Giuliani and others seized on video of ballots being counted in Fulton County, Georgia, as evidence of misconduct—accusing election worker Shaye Moss and her mother, Ruby Freeman, of rigging the vote. Eric Coomer, an employee of Dominion Voting Systems, received a deluge of threats after a right-wing podcaster falsely claimed he had schemed with “Antifa” to prevent Trump from winning the election. 

Along with another voting technology company, Smartmatic, Dominion quickly became a major villain on the right. Standing alongside Giuliani at a now-notorious press conference, Trump-aligned lawyer Sidney Powell falsely claimed that both companies “were created in Venezuela at the direction of [former president] Hugo Chávez” and were involved in a scheme to interfere with American elections. On Nov. 8, 2020, the day after news networks declared Joe Biden the president-elect, Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo invited Powell on her show to discuss how Dominion was “flipping votes in the computer system or adding votes that did not exist.” As Trump continued to insist that he had actually triumphed in the election in the following weeks, Fox Business host Lou Dobbs and Fox hosts Jeanine Pirro and Sean Hannity continued giving airtime and credibility to the conspiracy theory. 

Dominion alleges that they did so as part of an editorial decision by Fox to feed conspiracy theories about the 2020 election. In Dominion’s telling, Fox faced a backlash from its viewers—and in particular its most powerful viewer, Trump—after calling Arizona for Biden on election night. Meanwhile, other far-right networks like One America News Network (OAN) and Newsmax continued to peddle claims of election fraud. In an effort to win back its viewers from competitors like Newsmax, Dominion argued in its motion for summary judgment, Fox decided to commit to selling election lies, “caring more about protecting its own falling viewership than about the truth.”

Dominion filed its first defamation lawsuit—against Sidney Powell—on Jan. 8, 2021, just two days after the insurrection. It was a few weeks behind Eric Coomer, who on Dec. 22, 2022, sued Giuliani, Powell, the Trump campaign, and a number of right-wing media personalities, networks, and publications for spreading lies about him.

Over the rest of 2021, the lawsuits poured in. Separately, both Dominion and Smartmatic filed cases in both state and federal court against Fox News Network and Fox Corporation, as well as the far-right networks Newsmax and OAN and a suite of other television hosts and election deniers. Coomer docketed a second lawsuit against a conservative talk show host who, he alleged, continued to spread lies about Coomer’s supposed involvement in interfering in the 2020 election. Moss and Freeman, the Georgia election workers, sued Giuliani, OAN, and the right-wing website The Gateway Pundit. A Pennsylvania postmaster who had been the target of lies over his supposed role in stealing the election filed suit against the conservative media organization Project Veritas for amplifying the allegations.

As defamation cases go, these are unusual. Traditionally, defamation litigation, particularly against the press, has often been a tool used by the powerful to silence their critics. This was the Supreme Court’s rationale in Sullivan for requiring plaintiffs to clear the high bar of showing “actual malice” on the part of the defendant: The Court objected to “the possibility that a good faith critic of government will be penalized for his criticism,” writing that such an idea “strikes at the very center of the constitutionally protected area of free expression.” When Americans think of defamation litigation in connection with preserving democracy, they often think of the importance of defending journalists or members of the public from defamation suits meant to shut them up. 

But the post-2020 slate of defamation cases invert this pattern. Here, the plaintiffs often position themselves as defending democracy from falsehoods. “One thing our cases have in common is that they are on behalf of people who’ve been targeted for participating in the basic functioning of our democracy,” Sara Chimene-Weiss, counsel with the group Protect Democracy, told me in an interview. Protect Democracy represents Moss and Freeman along with the Pennsylvania postmaster, Robert Weisenbach, and is also representing Mark Andrews, a Florida voter suing over his portrayal as an illegal “ballot mule” in the conspiratorial film 2000 Mules. (Full disclosure: Protect Democracy has represented Lawfare editors in certain FOIA and other matters unrelated to defamation.) Chimene-Weiss went on, “It’s essential for democracy that we protect the right to participate in free and fair elections, without fear of consequences.” 

Dominion has leaned into this framing as well. In a statement released after the announcement of the settlement, company CEO John Poulos thanked “the election officials we serve,” saying, “Without them there is no democracy, and they work tirelessly to that end and deserve much better.” 

In positioning these cases as battles for democracy, advocates focus not only on the need to defend the electoral process but also on litigation as a tool for countering falsehoods. “The truth matters. Lies have consequences,” said Dominion attorney Justin Nelson in the post-settlement press conference. Likewise, Protect Democracy attorney John Langford told NPR in March 2022, “We can’t have a functioning democracy if we don’t have a shared understanding of facts. And we can’t have a shared understanding of facts if there’s a universe of groups out there that are intentionally, willfully or recklessly spreading lies about things like the legitimacy of elections or important public facts that are critical to public debate.” 

The run-up to the Dominion trial saw a great deal of rhetoric around the courtroom as a space uniquely suited to cut through the noise and get to the truth—a place well-suited, perhaps, to responding to the Big Lie in a way that other forums may not be. “It appears that disinformation itself is on trial,” said media law professor Jonathan Peters in the Washington Post. In a March 2022 interview, Dominion lawyer Rodney Smolla told the New York Times that defamation law is “one of the few legal avenues in which civilized countries have attempted to distinguish between truth and falsity.”

These cases are also unusual in the sheer strength—and volume—of the evidence marshaled by the plaintiffs. The Sullivan standard of “actual malice” is a difficult one to meet: In cases involving alleged defamation of a public figure, the plaintiff must show that the defendant either knew the statement in question was false or made it “with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” For that reason, relatively few defamation cases make it to trial. But in almost all of the post-2020 suits, judges have denied defendants’ motions to dismiss—the first major hurdle at which the litigation might have fallen. These cases tend to center not on a single comment or article but instead on an extensive story of falsehoods told over and over again, in many instances after the defendant was told that the information in question was dubious or outright untrue. 

During the pretrial discovery process, Dominion unearthed an enormous amount of material damaging to Fox. The documents, which received extensive attention in the press, showed Fox hosts, producers, and leadership repeatedly expressing doubts about the conspiracy theories around Dominion—before the network went on to air more of those claims anyway. They also underline just how flimsy the evidence supporting those theories turned out to be: One of the strangest documents uncovered in discovery is an email that appears to be the source of the claim that Dominion was involved in a conspiracy to flip votes from Trump to Biden, which was sent to Sidney Powell—and forwarded by Powell to Bartiromo—by a woman who also wrote that “[t]he Wind tells me I’m a ghost, but I don’t believe it.” In news coverage of the case, defamation lawyers emphasized again and again just how unusual it was to see this detailed a record of a media organization’s awareness of potential falsehoods. The evidence was “incredibly damning,” Sonja R. West, a First Amendment scholar at the University of Georgia law school, told the Washington Post.

On the strength of this evidence, the judge in Dominion’s case handed the company a major victory on March 31, finding in a ruling on both parties’ motions for summary judgment that Dominion had shown Fox to have broadcast lies. Using both italic and bold font for emphasis, the judge wrote, “The evidence developed in this civil proceeding demonstrates that is CRYSTAL clear that none of the Statements relating to Dominion about the 2020 election are true.” Such a ruling in a defamation case is extremely rare and left for the jury only the question of whether Fox had acted with “actual malice” as well as the matter of damages incurred by Dominion. 

For this reason, in the run-up to the beginning of the trial—and what turned out to be the settlement—Fox was playing with an unusually weak hand. It’s not hugely surprising that the company chose to settle. 

Dominion CEO Poulos commented in his statement that “we have sought accountability and believe the evidence brought to light through this case underscores the consequences of spreading and endorsing lies.” Even in the absence of a trial, it’s worth underlining just how significant the discovery material released by Dominion was: Media reporter Brian Stelter, one of the closest observers of Fox and the author of a book on the network, wrote in The Atlantic that the documents brought him a new understanding of Fox’s pathologies. That forcible transparency is worth taking seriously as a victory.

The other defamation cases have notched wins as well. Georgia election workers Moss and Freeman reached a settlement with OAN, which according to the Wall Street Journal involved an agreement by the network to air a segment explaining to viewers that the two women “did not engage in ballot fraud or criminal misconduct.” Newsmax published an apology and retraction of its coverage of Eric Coomer following his suit against the network. 

And there is real reason to think that the threat of litigation could dissuade future lies. In fact, there’s reason to think that it may already have done so. Fox canceled Lou Dobbs’s show—which pursued 2020 conspiracy theories with particular enthusiasm—immediately after Smartmatic filed its suit against the network. OAN has lost much of its audience after being dropped by both Verizon and DirecTV. Dinesh D’Souza, the right-wing media personality who produced and starred in the film 2000 Mules, complained on Twitter that Fox News and Newsmax had declined to bring him on air to discuss the movie. D’Souza’s book on the same subject was briefly recalled by its publisher and had incendiary and potentially libelous language removed. It’s also noteworthy that the 2022 election saw far fewer of the kind of targeted lies that characterized the environment around the 2020 election—suggesting that news organizations that might have been interested in broadcasting such claims might have been deterred. 

At the same time, the frustration around the Dominion settlement is a reminder of the limitations of defamation law as a tool for cutting through lies. The nature of a defamation lawsuit is that it requires an individualized injury to a particular plaintiff, and that plaintiff’s interests will often be best served by the certainty of a settlement rather than the gamble of a trial. Despite its victory in the judge’s ruling on summary judgment, Dominion faced plenty of hurdles in proving actual malice. It was also far from certain that the company would be able to secure a hefty payout. The incentives cut in favor of Dominion taking a settlement, even though a trial might have served an important public function. 

And this will continue to be true in other defamation cases. Defamation law “often meets its narrow aim of compensating the defamed party for its reputational injury without serving the broader, more amorphous goal of unringing the bell, let alone correcting a lie circulating in society,” law professors RonNell Andersen Jones and Lyrissa Lidsky write. Along those lines, reporting suggests that the settlement will not require Fox to admit or apologize to spreading false claims about Dominion. “Defamation suits can be a tool in the disinformation battle but are never going to be the full solution,” Andersen Jones told me over email after the settlement was announced. 

What’s more, there’s no guarantee that news of victories against lies in court will travel to the audiences that most need to hear it. The right-wing media has largely been silent on the matter of the Fox case—and in at least one instance, the outlet The Gateway Pundit misrepresented a filing in the Dominion litigation as actually providing evidence of 2020 election fraud. After news of the Dominion settlement, Fox remained relatively quiet; the story about the settlement published on the network’s website is remarkably short, doesn’t mention the amount of the settlement, and provides few details about what exactly Dominion was suing over. The courts are only one institution in a larger civic ecosystem, and they can’t substitute for the larger political and cultural failures that prevent truths about the 2020 election from being communicated by trustworthy outlets to audiences, and that prevent those audiences from believing those truths. 

How much of an effect will this litigation have on Fox, in the end? Smaller outlets like Newsmax and OAN are more vulnerable to lawsuits like these, which could create genuine financial problems. But Fox is a juggernaut: According to the New York Times, the Fox Corporation “had about $4.1 billion ‘of cash and cash equivalents’ on hand at the end of last year.” And when I spoke with Andersen Jones last week, before the trial was set to begin, she emphasized that Fox’s financial incentives could well cut in the direction of continuing to air politically palatable falsehoods when its audience demanded it. “Dominion thinks that it can prove there was a conscious corporate decision to tell defamatory lies for audience share and profit,” she said. “Assuming the environment is as Dominion claims it to be, that same gravitational pull is going to continue regardless of the outcome of this case.”

But the Dominion case could do a real public service by bringing attention to that dynamic, Andersen Jones suggested. Acknowledging the problem of the demand for falsehoods, as well as the supply, “is itself really helpful in focusing our public conversations about disinformation,” she said. It helps build a more nuanced understanding of the problem of falsehoods polluting our politics and of just how complicated it will be to formulate an adequate response.

However the incentives align for Fox in the aftermath of the Dominion settlement, other plaintiffs were eager to remind the press that Dominion’s suit was only one of many and that this story of seeking accountability is far from over. The voting machine company Smartmatic, whose own lawsuit against Fox is moving forward in New York state court, made a pointed statement to reporters immediately following news of the settlement. “Dominion’s litigation exposed some of the misconduct and damage caused by Fox’s disinformation campaign,” the company said. “Smartmatic will expose the rest.”

[nickgerlich]

Get Ready To Shop

It’s fun to think back to the 80s. While it seems like they weren’t that long ago, we must sober up and realize that was—um—40 years ago, depending on which year you’re recalling. Those were good years for me. I earned a BA, MBA, and PhD, and started my job at WT. Oh, and got married the first time. OK, four out of five ain’t bad.



It was the time of hair bands, women in colorful leotards and cozy leg warmers, and Ronald Reagan. Actually, if you could mash up all of them into one, it would be pretty funny. And it was also the decade that televised home shopping clubs took root, thanks to the prevalence of cable TV.



Home Shopping Club (later Home Shopping Network, or HSN) was founded in 1982, and four years later, QVC (Quality Value Convenience) came along to compete. They’re both still in existence today, although the company that owns QVC now also owns HSN. It’s an alphabet soup, but the premise is the same: nonstop 24/7 live selling.



While these started out primarily as liquidators, they quickly grew into a variety of categories, especially clothing and accessories sought by women. Fashion designers jumped on board, drooling at the prospects of a sales platform that could stretch as long as the company wanted. Create excitement, show a quantity available countdown clock, and voilá! The phones were ringing off the hook as folks called in (remember, this was pre-internet!).

To be honest, I think those original stations preyed upon lonely old women. My mother was one of them. She bought a lot of worthless junk from them, but at the same time, they provided entertainment. For the life of me, I cannot understand how having someone sell to you nonstop is entertaining, but it was.

I never tuned in to those stations on my own, but would be subjected to them whenever we visited Florida. And now that both are gone, I haven’t even given a passing thought to them. Well, until right now, when I discovered that livestream shopping may be the new rage, and outlets like Amazon, TikTok, and YouTube are actually banking on them.

It’s a new spin on an old idea, and looks and feels a lot different from the 24/7 onslaught on cable. This time around the people doing the selling are influencers, and they call the shots for when they go live. And among the three platforms duking it out for prominence, only Amazon can actually stock the inventory and make for seamless transactions.

All of which means that, if you are a fan and potential customer of someone you follow, you better be ready to go shopping whenever they pull the trigger. In some regards, this now sounds like BeReal, in which users have no control over when they are called to action.

Perhaps the most ironic aspect of livestream shopping is that it became a “thing” in China a few years ago, especially during the pandemic. And while Amazon found it could not export its ways to China, the opposite may very well prove to be true here. Looks like another weather balloon to me.

Personally, I’m just not that much of a shopper. I tend to be very purposive, having done my homework for a long time on pricey objects, saving my money, and waiting out the periodic sales. I do not, however, respond well to someone barking out orders and telling me to get on this.

But then again, it may very well work stateside, where I suspect the demographics will trend sharply toward Gen-Z, and, depending on the product categories, probably more female than male. I cannot speak for all of the people of my gender, but I’ve got too many things going on during my waking hours to even consider being on-call for a sale. That’s me, though. YMMV. And to be fair, I can’t picture many women beyond their 20s—working, with children, bills to pay, spouses or partners—yeah, this may be a non-starter with them as well.



Thankfully, online shopping and app usage is lowest among seniors, so people like my mother are probably not in the new target market. Otherwise, we might see history repeating itself.

Just leave the bad clothing in your closet.

Dr “Hard Pass“ Gerlich

Audio Blog

[anneangel]

A (lengthy, and probably therefore not read) note on Tolkien as a person, Tolkien's work, classics, societies, copyright, capitalism and the public domain.

Tolkien himself demonstrates that those who keep the work in the popular imagination are those who consume it, that is, the public. Who determined the existence of LotR was The Hobbit, whose attachment of readers required new content that addressed more about hobbits.

I amazed in a Tolkien letter claiming to have nothing more to write about them (hobbits) and that their inspiration for what would become LotR was limited. Still, by their own inspiration and to satisfy readers' desire to consume more "hobbits stories", Tolkien wrote LotR as a result of setting aside the "stories of ancient days" he wanted to write so much (which he never launch/publish in life, all being posthumous works).

And so, at the expense of leaving his interest in the first era aside, LotR was finished and became a success, determining the events of the third age of his fantasy world.

The public determined that the work "started from the end, so to speak", after all it is the public that consumes, so also has a word in what will be produced. So Tolkien's publisher slammed the gavel, in the final decision to fund "more hobbit stories" (money is needed to finance projects, and a publisher will pay for what seems most favorable in terms of profit).

Later, Tolkien himself ceded the rights to The Hobbit and LotR. Money still rules, even if Tolkien wanted to unite the useful with the pleasant (ie, write what you like and still earn money for it). so, there is the money that regulates what will be produced and the public that consumes it, authors have to balance themselves on that scale, Tolkien was no exception.

But what is a classic works? It's are loved, studied and re-read for the way it impacted the respective genre and the culture around it, especially as such work spoke and still talks with themes of its century and centuries to come. A classic is a classic because it addresses themes that don't become obsolete. However, the way in which it will be approached can be relative, as the centuries change, the vision about such themes too.

Allied to this, it is not surprising that, in a world where money is the ultimate language, that companies produce what will bring them the most profit.

Warner produced The Hobbit with the intention of making a profit, but produced something that current audiences could identify with and consume. We're talking about a generation that has its own trends, so the film followed trends of the time in relation to "action & adventure" films and put "a little bit of everything", action, romance, RPG (...) with the original work.

Obviously readers would argue that the adaptation should exist to satisfy fans of the original work, but that's in the "perfect world". By way of understanding, the rule has always been for the company to buy the rights and define for itself what it will do with the content, even if it does no go what the author intended (this not only with Tolkien, it is not exclusive to this Fandom). In theory, the adaptation should cater to the fans. But the rule of money is clear: what they think will generate the most profit will be produced.

In The Hobbit, this caused three films and the inclusion of themes/scenes that did not exist in the original, and the statistic is obvious in pointing out that the amount of audience that followed such a trilogy in the cinema decreased according to the releases. Still, Warner made a lot of money (as well as Tolkien Estate, or who do you think selling books with prints/jackets of the film, favors?). The Hobbit movies made the list of those that raised more than 1 billion at Warner. And the sale of products from both The Hobbit and LotR became more visible to the general public, making money for all investors and stakeholders.

And even if the films do not cater to literary fans, who are unhappy with the changes, they have been serving a lot of children and young people (and adults) who watch them, as they are in line with what they currently consume in other media and platforms for games and movies.

You see, the fan is both the important link, in his place as a consumer of the content, as well as the lowest link, for only consuming and not being part of the profits. Furthermore, the fan is plural, since there is not only the "book fan" but also the "adaptations fan". And as the rule of good coexistence dictates: everyone needs to be respected without anyone being ridiculed or poorly evaluated and segregated based on their personal tastes.

Now, in business terms, for Warner or for Amazon, who have spoken good or bad about their productions, it only serves as marketing, the important thing for them is that they consume what they produce. That's how it is for content producers, correct? The ideal would be to speak fine, but speaking badly is not so bad as long as there is profit. It is a capitalist world.

In fact: Classic works remain classic because of their relevance. Still, as the term Adaptation suggests that it can be reproduced outside its initial scope. The difference is that while the content of the classic remains due to its timeless theme (understandable regardless of the century in which it is read), the adaptations may become less relevant because they (possibly) meet more changing demands and agendas in the social fabric, which can no longer make sense and/or be of little relevance in the near future (but only time will tell, in all).

For the rest, I believe that fans "upset with the adaptation that did not come out as they wanted or did not meet their expectations" are entitled to complain. An adaptation that meets current guidelines and modifies the original content disappoints the reader who is more focused on "because that work is the classic that it is", but it is also fans nostalgic and lacks flexibility in accepting that societies change, as well as the vision it will make of that content, depending on the changing guidelines addressed in our century.

Honestly? Both the original work and the adaptation talk about different places in society. While one is registered in the timeless, the other in the elements and guidelines of a certain time. But BOTH can be studied as long as the society that generates and consumes them is analyzed.

You see, for someone who specializes in "Tolkien" such adaptations are "aberration". For a sociologist? Study material. Saying then that the adaptations are "bad", depends on the point of view of who speaks and/or studies, is relative.

Getting here we have: As well as the public will mediate what it will consume (without judgment of what is "good" or "bad", just meeting its own will to consume certain media/content) and money will mediate what is produced. It will not be produced if there is no public. Such books and adaptations were produced because there was someone to consume them, so there was someone to pay for them.

The maximum rule is not moral, it is "it doesn't matter who produces or what is produced, it matters more to whom the content is intended" (in general, especially if that recipient pays for it, after all it is a capitalist society).

Tolkien wrote "more about hobbits" because the recipient wanted it. And companies produce adaptations that deviate from the original because the recipient wants it. Companies printed and distributed Tolkien's books because there were buyers (but buyers interested in Hobbits), as well as Warner and Amazon producing adaptations with current agendas because it's a trend in the market.

No, dear Tolkien fans, it's not an issue with you, it's not with your sole and exclusive purpose, it's not meant to just annoy you, it's not an attempt to misrepresent "values". To think like this is to reduce the theme, it is almost narcissistic. Unfortunately, things don't revolve around your navel. To understand movements of change it is necessary to study such changes from century to century. Since the 19th century, at least. And not just in the fantasy world, but with social movements in general.

I don't see it as misrepresentation because changes between centuries are notable, and sometimes necessary, just as we are not the same society as in the XIV century, we are not the same as in the twentieth century (in which Tolkien lived). Society is changeable because the people in it are. Wanting her to stagnate is retrograde.

When studying societies, their malleability content is perceived, perhaps that is why the endless interest in ancient societies is so intrinsic to us, whether in academia or in popular culture (why study them if really was exactly as we are today? But It no is). So, I don't see the guidelines of this century as "distortion of values", only as a change of paradigms, common from century to century (and often necessary).

Returning to the subject, understand the recipient not as a fan, but as a general public attached to an idea (if such an idea will become timeless or just a product of its time, only centuries will tell).

Honestly, I find the social study of works and their diverse and plural impacts on the cultural milieu that surrounds them to be very interesting, and not necessarily about the work itself. Because to reduce the work in itself is to deny the existence of the public that consumes it and that it has a different understanding of the same material and how it should be used.

And that is who Tolkien himself said about Allegories and Applicability. This idea talks about the annulment of the author as a producer of allegorical images predetermined by him and inserted in the work, in favor of the public applying their own understanding and repertoire of allegories and ideas to the read content, based on their own experiences.

That's it. This is the author limiting himself and recognizing the recipient who consumes his content as one of the determining elements in the creation process, as well as the acceptance of such a reality in the popular imagination, which will always be plural given that no one is obliged to see the content with "the same eyes".

This is so real that it is why the Public Domain exists, which is nothing more when a work is no longer under the domain of who created it (or heirs of Copyright), but in the domain of who consumes it, the public.

Tolkien's work is under the control of whoever owns the Copyright, which currently is who has enough money to have bought it, and the other half is under the ownership of the heirs, who also need money, well, look, capitalist society, I already said.

This does not mean that the public does not have their own opinion about the work and adaptations, whether these opinions are positive or negative. But they are nothing more than that: plural and diverse opinions of the public that consumes, commonly known what really matters!

Returning to the subject of Allegory vs Applicability, one of the things I found most interesting when reading Tolkien and Lewis was precisely that while Lewis makes a fantastic allegorical parody based on themes of Christian origin, Tolkien (albeit extremely Catholic) refused to alienate the reader from your own world view. I've always understood that it's as if Tolkien said that, if there was religious inspiration in his work, he didn't do it that way with the intention of inducing the reader to such a perception. Therefore, the reader is free to understand the work in his own way and apply it to his own knowledge.

So that there are several religious and Christian/Catholic contents that link with his work are making use of APPLICABILITY. However, this does not mean that everyone has to see the work in the same way.

It is curious that many fans ignore Tolkien's entire speech about Allegory and Applicability. To say that Tolkien's work is summarily Christian/Catholic is to make a mere allegory. Since Tolkien himself says that his work is not allegorical, he may be religious, but he tried not to force his readers to see his work that way. When talking about it, he opted for the freedom of the reader to see the work as us wished.

Obviously, while alive, Tolkien was proud of his work (and rightly so) after all, he was very dedicated to it and its details, there was never a fantasy author like him. But fans need to separate the work from the author.

It is curious that Tolkien was able to do this, for although he proudly loved his Work, in the essay/thesis on "Allegory vs Applicability" he relinquished control. He, as few authors could, realized that he owns what he does/says/writes BUT he doesn't own how the other will understand, he doesn't own how the reader will look at and understand the work. And he realized that and STILL accepted it and was in favor of the reader's freedom to understand the work and apply it to whatever they want, based on their own personal experiences.

It's as if he turned around and said: look, I thought like this while I was writing, but if you want to look at it that other way then okay, you're free.

That is, you liked the book, great! Did you like the movie? Excellent. All are being produced for the enjoyment of the public, and for the profit of the investors involved.

You are the consumer, your individual opinion matters. Now, if you want to conform to the discourse of the "Team books" or the "Team adaptations" and repudiate everything that is said to the contrary, it's completely your choice.

Now, what's the point of becoming so extremist to the point of not being able to list "positive and negative" points about the same content? Where is the good sense? And the basic rules of good coexistence and respect for other people's ideas, even if this idea is different from ours???

I recommend the same good sense that Tolkien had in giving up control (of an "absolute rule meaning" about his work), giving freedom to those who consume (to idealize the meaning of what it seems to be). Recognizing the consumer with plurality of opinions.

Tolkien DONT tryed to master them all us with an idea. Lmao!

So, NO try too! Please abandon the idea of "One Ring(Idea) to rule them all, One Ring (Idea) to find them, One Ring(Idea) to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them"

Lmao!!

[chanbinlee]

29/OCT/2024

WEEK 12 - COMPULSORY QUESTION 2

My main strengths in design are graphic design and ambition. Since I was young, I have loved working and found great satisfaction in earning money. After finishing my military service, my desire to earn became even stronger, so I started working as a freelance designer and offering online tutoring that I could balance with my studies. With this ambition, I took on freelance projects from companies while managing school assignments, which helped me both earn money and quickly improve my skills in Illustrator and Figma.

As I continued freelancing, I mainly focused on app and web design, and Figma which I initially learned from free YouTube tutorials a year ago became my favorite and most used tool. However, I know that consistency is essential, so I plan to continue increasing my skills and value, making sure it doesn’t interfere with my studies or lead to complacency. In a few years, I hope to become a skilled graphic designer.

FREITAG, founded in 1993, was created by Markus and Daniel Freitag, two brothers who were ordinary designers living in Zurich. Their shared passion for cycling deeply influenced their work. The inspiration for their eco-friendly brand stemmed from their experiences cycling through the city. While cycling in the rain, they found it frustrating that water would soak their bags, leading them to create waterproof bags made from discarded PVC tarpaulins and nylon belts.

The uniqueness of FREITAG's products lies in the way they reimagine synthetic fibers, typically seen as pollutants, into eco-friendly materials. By using waste materials to create sustainable, durable, and distinct bags, they reduce environmental impact while offering individuality in every piece. Their approach encourages designers to rethink traditional materials and find creative, eco-conscious solutions. With sustainability becoming a core value for consumers, FREITAG has shown how sustainable practices can become central to a brand's identity and appeal.

FREITAG is also known for significantly reducing waste, contributing to social good. Today, the brand is a global success. However, I believe their concept and business were destined to succeed from the start. With the rise of Y2K and vintage trends, FREITAG's rugged, seemingly worn bags appeal to consumers not only for their design but also for the unique value of being upcycled products, making each bag one of a kind.

FREITAG has greatly inspired me. Their success in creating products through upcycling and their transformation from ordinary designers to successful entrepreneurs has shown me the power of combining personal passions with social engagement. I now aspire to create designs that solve real-world problems and connect with society. Rather than just producing mass-market designs, I want my work to reflect my personal passion and respond to contemporary trends, creating meaningful products that engage with and reflect society.

454 words

Reference: