#don’t know if this is john corbett or the writers

[msculper]

the thing about chris stevens is he just constantly pours love and affection on the people around him

[adamwatchesmovies]

The Silence (2019)

While The Silence is based on a 2015 book and production started in 2018, let’s not kid ourselves. This lousy movie was released because of its similarities to the far superior A Quiet Place. Poorly written, with unmemorable monsters and frustratingly stupid characters, even if you’re starving for a movie in which blind threats stalk a family that knows sign language, you won’t be satisfied.

An underground expedition unleashes ancient creatures dubbed “vesps” upon humanity. These blind, carnivorous pterosaur-like beasts will tear you to pieces if they hear you make a noise. Luckily for the Andrews, they’ve all learned sign language following their daughter's partial hearing loss. Ally (Kiernan Shipka), her brother Jude (Kyle Harrison Breitkopf), their parents Hugh (Stanley Tucci) & Kelly (Miranda Otto), their grandmother Lynn (Kate Trotter) and family friend Glenn (John Corbett) flee the city looking for someplace quiet but soon learn the monsters aren’t the only threats.

Upon release, there was some controversy surrounding the fact that Kiernan Shipka isn’t actually deaf (unlike Millicent Simmonds from A Quiet Place). In this film’s defense, Ally isn’t quite deaf; she’s just losing her hearing. The movie makes it pretty clear she can occasionally understand what people are saying even when they’re not signing. Unless that’s just a mistake on the filmmaker’s part. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was.

The casting isn’t the problem. Everyone’s charismatic, sympathetic or appropriately sinister. The issue is the writing. I know these characters don’t know they’re in a horror movie but their situation isn’t THAT difficult to understand. There are flying monsters that eat anything that makes noise. DON’T MAKE NOISE. As soon as they jump in the car and bring in their dog but no cookbook entitled “Man’s Best Friend Makes a Tasty Dish”, you know these people are going to struggle with even the most basic life-or-death scenarios. They've seen the same news footage of sidewalk-covered gore and people screaming for their lives as us. Why so dumb?

Our heroes prove themselves too stupid to live numerous times. They forget to lock doors, invite shady (and murderous) strangers into their homes, fail to establish lookouts when there might be signs of trouble, discard useful weapons, etc. You’re so frustrated with them that when the flying devils whittle down the party, the odds of survival seem to increase. You start wondering if it's deliberate. "Maybe this movie will have a sense of humor about itself." It sure would help make The Silence more fun.

The story feels like a YA novel crossed with one or several other, better movies. Time is spent fleshing out the world by introducing religious cults and director John R. Leonetti establishes a romance between Ally and her “best friend”, Rob (Dempsey Bryk). All so we can map out exactly where the story will go before we get into the dystopian, post-apocalyptic world that’s sure to come in the sequels. We’re left on an ominous note. Will the vesps adapt to the one environment that keeps humanity safe, or will humans adapt to a soundless lifestyle first? To this question, all you can do is roll your eyes. There’s a reason why movies like A Quiet Place and Reign of Fire skipped right to the world being nothing but smoldering ruins. Deadly as the monsters in this movie may be, they’re not that smart. In fact, they’re hilariously dumb in at least one scene. I’m pretty sure you guys will be fine if you learn to shut up.

The film isn’t all that clever or well written. For instance, the idea of a soundless world isn’t well explored at all. Tremors was doing this kind of thing way back in the day and it isn’t the only one but writers Carey and Shane Van Dyke only scratch the surface when it comes to the concept. Without likable characters, novel twists or some kind of out-of-the-box thinking, you can’t help but notice the unconvincing special effects.

If you’re determined to watch The Silence, here’s what you do: first, you watch A Quiet Place. You have fun getting scared. Then, you watch this and you laugh at the attempt. Otherwise, don’t bother. (May 29, 2021)

[docrotten]

LET’S SCARE JESSICA TO DEATH (1971), Interview W/Dir. John Hancock – Episode 192 – Decades Of Horror 1970s

“I sit here and I can’t believe that it happened. And yet I have to believe it. Dreams or nightmares? Madness or sanity? I don’t know which is which.” Sounds like an unreliable narrator, yeah? Join your faithful Grue Crew – Doc Rotten, Bill Mulligan, and Jeff Mohr – as they talk with director John D. Hancock about his 1970s classic, Let’s Scare Jessica to Death (1971).

Decades of Horror 1970s Episode 192 – Let’s Scare Jessica to Death (1971), Interview w/Dir. John D. Hancock

Join the Crew on the Gruesome Magazine YouTube channel! Subscribe today! And click the alert to get notified of new content! https://youtube.com/gruesomemagazine

A psychologically fragile woman has nightmarish experiences that lead her to believe that another strange, mysterious young woman she has let into her home may actually be a vampire.

  Director: John D. Hancock

Writers: John D. Hancock (credited as Ralph Rose), Lee Kalcheim (credited as Norman Jonas)

Produced by:

Bill Badalato (co-producer) (as William Badalato)

Charles B. Moss Jr. (producer)

Music by: Orville Stoeber

Cinematography by: Robert M. Baldwin (as Bob Baldwin) (photography

Selected Cast:

Zohra Lampert as Jessica

Barton Heyman as Duncan

Kevin O’Connor as Woody

Gretchen Corbett as Girl

Alan Manson as Sam Dorker

Mariclare Costello as Emily

The 70s Grue-Crew has a special episode for you with this one! Joining Doc, Jeff, and Bill is the talented director of Let’s Scare Jessica to Death (1971), John D. Hancock. Not only does he discuss what went into making that extraordinary and creepy classic, but he also shares insights into his involvement in Jaws 2 (1978) and Wolfen (1981) along with industry insights. Join them as they get a special peek behind the curtain with John D. Hancock.

The 70s Grue Crew only touch on Hancock’s experience with Jaws 2. For a comprehensive interview with Hancock on the subject, check out this video podcast episode of The Daily Jaws.

At the time of this writing, Let’s Scare Jessica to Death is available to stream from multiple PPV services. The film is also available as a Blu-ray disc from Scream Factory.

Gruesome Magazine’s Decades of Horror 1970s is part of the Decades of Horror two-week rotation with The Classic Era and the 1980s. In two weeks, the next episode, chosen by Doc, will be The Killing Kind (1973), directed by Curtis Harrington (Queen of Blood, 1966; Whoever Slew Auntie Roo, 1972), featuring Ann Sothern, Jon Savage, and Cindy Williams.

We want to hear from you – the coolest, grooviest fans: comment on the site or email the Decades of Horror 1970s podcast hosts at feedback@gruesomemagazine.com.

Check out this episode!

[according-to-the-laura]

StackedNatural Day 163: 3x13, 8x20

StackedNatural Masterpost: [x]

April 24, 2022

3x13: Ghostfacers!

Written by: Ben Edlund

Directed by: Phil Sgriccia

Original air date: April 24, 2008

Plot Synopsis:

Sam and Dean inexplicably encounter the Hell Hounds while investigating a case that John failed to crack years earlier and become fixtures in their pilot for a reality show called Ghostfacers.

Features:

Return of our favourite paranormal investigators, the origin of the ghostfacers effect, a leap year ghost, supernatural lockdown, death echoes, gay love piercing through the veil of death. 

My Thoughts:

I remembered this being a goody episode but honestly? It’s a delight to watch. I wasn’t expecting the comedy to have aged well, but I laughed so much throughout the whole thing. The aesthetic of extremely low-budget pretending it’s high budget is nailed perfectly, especially with the cameras that go in and out of focus and then wobbly-ass whiteboard in their “office”. Usually I find found footage stuff kind of annoying (not a big fan of the werewolf episode), but them having go-pros stuck all over the place and a specific goal made it way more interesting, and they absolutely nailed the 2000s “reality” style with the camera work and editing. 

I love the introduction of what fandom has dubbed “the ghostfacers effect”, in that this episode proves that there is a filter between what really happens and what we see. It’s very meta, but Sam and Dean do swear a lot - it just gets edited before we as viewers see it. It’s a really early accidental set up of all of this being a narrative in-world, and I love it. Dean, even though he thinks the filming is bullshit, plays perfectly to every camera, like he was born to do. 

Dustin Milligan is amazing as Corbett, I haven’t seen this episode since I got really into Schitt’s Creek and Dirk Gently during quarantine so it’s extremely funny to watch him be a messy gay intern. 

I had fully forgotten that they scrubbed all of the footage before leaving, but the best part is that they went back with them, waited for Harry and Ed to film the armchair intro and outro, waited for them to cut it all together, and THEN scrubbed it. That’s malicious, and hysterical. 

Notable Lines:

“We know you've had it hard during the crippling writer's strike.”

“I'm not gonna whine about my [Bleep] problems to some [Bleep] reality show. I'm gonna do my [Bleep] job.”

“Ed...You got to go be gay for that poor, dead intern. You got to send him into the light.”

“nd here we were thinking that, you know, we were teaching you and all this time you were teaching us, about heart, about dedication, and about how gay love can pierce through the veil of death and save the day.”

“I mean it's bizarre how you all are able to honor Corbett's memory while grossly exploiting the manner of his death. Well done.”

Laura’s (completely subjective) Episode Rating: 9.8

IMdB Rating: 7.7

8x20: Pac-Man Fever

Written by: Robbie Thompson

Directed by: Robert Singer

Original air date: April 24, 2013

Plot Synopsis:

While searching for Kevin, again, Charlie joins up with Sam and Dean as they track down a creature that's been liquefying its victims. Plus, a new side of Charlie is revealed.

Features:

Dean in a military uniform, Sam’s fluffy bedhead, Charlie’s shopping montage, liquefied bodies, a djinn coroner, Charlie’s mom, Dean reeking of fear, Dean dreamwalking, Charlie’s origin story, Sam being sick from the trials, Charlie’s video game nightmare. 

My Thoughts:

This is a nice episode - I think the relationship between Charlie and Dean is very sweet, specially when he kisses the top of her head at the end of the episode. I also love her little dressing room montage, some of those outfits straight up kicked ass. Dean looks very pretty in the military uniform, it makes his eyes look very green. And I loved the brother hug at the end too, because I don’t know if we’ve ever seen them hug outside of a life and death situation before. 

Otherwise, it’s just kind of fine for me - a lot more could have been made out of the mother-child combo for the monsters. I wish there had been more of a conflict over killing a literal child, rather than just giving Sam something to do while Dean and Charlie were out of commission. I think the original djinn strain is more interesting as well, it has so many opportunities for false realities and showing us what the characters really want and that is the core of the character. 

Notable Lines:

“What about, uh, Castiel? He seems helpful, and dreamy.”

“I love you.” “I know.”

Laura’s (completely subjective) Episode Rating: 7.7

IMdB Rating: 8.5

In Conclusion: We have officially less than 50 episodes remaining in StackedNatural and, as my roommate says, then end of the stupidest obligation I've ever given myself.

<< Previous Day  |  Next Day >>

[starwarsfandomh8speopleofcolor]

a brown woman,Nosheen Iqbal, made an interview with Daisy Ridley where she said she isn't privileged. Now rey and daisy fans are defending daisy and saying the journalist did a terrible work. Of course the journalist of color is "wrong" not the 27yo white woman who grew up in Maida Vale.

Ok so here’s the article

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/dec/07/daisy-ridley-jj-abrams-star-wars-a-religion

and this is the relevant section:

I ask if she thinks it has been easier to be confident and navigate her celebrity because of the privilege in her life – of boarding school, her upbringing and so on? Ridley is suddenly incredulous.

“The privilege I have – how? No, genuinely, how?”

Well, I say, in terms of wealth, class, education – that kind of privilege, in knowing how to decode the rules in certain spaces. As a caveat, I add that both of us have privilege, and it’s not a criticism; I was simply curious to know what she thought. Things take an awkward turn.

“Well no, because, no… ” There is a very long and tense pause, before she insists that, actually, there is little difference between her experience and that of her co-star John Boyega, who grew up in south London to British Nigerian immigrant parents. “John grew up on a council estate in Peckham and I think me and him are similar enough that… no.” I don’t point out that members of Ridley’s family were establishment figures (her grandfather, John Ridley OBE, was head of engineering at the BBC from 1950 to 1965; his brother was the Dad’s Army actor and playwright Arthur Ridley), while Boyega had to apply for a hardship fund to join Theatre Peckham.

“Also,” she adds, “I went to a boarding school for performing arts, which was different.” (Her publicist later calls to clarify that Ridley won a scholarship.)But surely nine years of private education gave her some additional confidence?“No.” Ridley leans on her elbow while twirling a small knot in her hair. “No. I think, also, it has taken me a little while to be OK with it. I was always fairly confident, and I think that comes from being part of a big family who are all quite chatty.”It’s an unexpectedly defensive detour, as if the mere mention of privilege is an attempt to diminish Ridley’s hard work or talent. I try to change the subject but get the distinct feeling that her publicist, sitting behind me in Ridley’s eyeline, has made some sort of silent intervention. “I’m not saying what you’re saying is wrong,” Ridley adds. “I’ve just never been asked that before, so I’m like, oh. I don’t think so.” We move on.

Now here’s the thing. What Iqbal didn’t include was this bit that was in the Daily Mail https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-7767115/Daisy-Ridley-slammed-tone-deaf-claiming-isnt-privileged.html :

Daisy is the youngest of three daughters born to Louise Fawkner-Corbett, a banker, and Christopher Ridley, a photographer.

She has two older sisters, Kika Rose and Poppy Sophia.

Her mother's family, the Fawkner-Corbetts, were landed gentry with a military and medical background.

I bring out both of these sections to make it clear that its not just Iqbal who noticed that Daisy has privilege.  Daisy fans can scream all they want about the biased brown woman who took down their beloved Daisy but at the end of the day the reality is Daisy Ridley is absolutely blind to her white privilege and class privilege. 

Now I know nothing about Iqbal but she says they both have privilege which I thought was wise of her to point out but if you look at her photo she’s still visibly brown. So like she might have class privilege or a good education but her skin color still singles her out.  

Daisy fans can try and condemn Iqbal all they want but this was a legitimate line of questioning that frankly should have been asked much earlier. But of course white writers don’t dare ask the real questions. 

mod m

[just-a-girl-and-her-ships]

Slibbs Writers - Jennifer Corbett

Season 15

Skeleton Crew (15x04) dir. by Rocky Carroll (introduction of Jack Sloane, lots of great scenes including the first elevator scene at the end, and she pushes the button!)

Keep Your Enemies Closer (15x14) dir. Thomas J. Wright

(The conclusion of the Gabriel Hicks two parter. Return of Paul Triff. At the beginning we see Gibbs' concern for Jack after being injured. Great Gibbs/Fornell/Sloane collaboration)

Two Steps Back (15x22) dir. Michael Zinberg

(The infamous poker night! With The Dream Team!)

Season 16

Friendly Fire (16x08) dir. Thomas J. Wright

("The key has to do with Afghanistan."

"I sent McGee and Bishop yesterday."

"Don't ask me. I don't know how he does it either.")

Crossing The Line (16x15) dir. Michael Zinberg

(We learn who was in Sloane's position before her. This is the ep when Nick mentors 3 kids. )

Hail & Farewell (16x20) dir. Michael Zinberg

(Deceased is Ellen Wallace, ex-fiancee to Gibbs. Interrogation scene between Gibbs and Jack is amazing! "It's like watching John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors at Wimbeldon." "That's the whitest thing I've ever heard.")

None in Season 17.

[sircolinmorgan]

i’ve literally spent all day thinking about line of duty and i have thoughts

why did they spend a weird amount of time on steve’s bedroom issues and all kate had was a whiny husband. why does jed mercurio hate vicky mcclure. i still don’t trust kate and i think she might end up being dodgy but why give her zero character development in the meantime??

so they really built up Lisa as a character and it turned out she was just a random OCG member who..got upset for reasons?? i guess she was just a red herring but it’s a lot of wasted potential!

why was sam so suspicious all series. why was she practically stalking steve and asking him nosy questions

how did steve magically notice Dot was doing morse code and nobody else did

and while we’re on the subject the morse code reveal was really dumb

why did steve and kate’s friendship disappear. i know she’s his boss now but they were so close! WHERE WAS MY ONE-PER-SERIES HUG??

there was an interview with jed on digital spy where he explained some stuff. like apparently ted DID tell lee banks about john corbett, perhaps thinking corbett would get to safety in time but it backfired. and ted wasn’t calling lisa in episode 1 he was calling his wife and it was clever editing

but i feel like a writer just going “yep this happened!” and not showing it in the episode is such a cop out

why did Ted keep hold of the 50k and where? was he always going to give it corbett’s wife?

why were the OCG hyped up as a huge, terrifying thing when it consisted of like 5 people 

aren’t we basically going into series 6 in exactly the same position as series 5? there’s still one person who is H and we don’t know who that is. it could still be Ted! i wish we the audience had found out and series 6 would be AC12 closing in

anyway believe it or not i love this show (although it definitely peaked in series 3) and i did enjoy the episode but it really frustrated me too! i know they have to set up series 6 but series 5 was sort of pointless in the end.

[lost-in-books94]

To All The Boys I’ve Loved Before (Film Thoughts)

Oh my God! I think I’m still fangirling- damn!

Wow, just wow. This movie is literally everything and I’m so glad that it’s in my life, and I’ll definitely be re-watching this over and over for all of eternity. 

To All The Boys I’ve Loved Before, is one of my all time favourite series. I instantly fell in love with it when I first read the books, so when I first heard they were making a film about it, you can imagine how excited I was. 

*contains spoilers* 

Okay, okay. Let’s get down to business (hmm that reminds me of that song in Mulan)... anyway. 

I actually wrote some notes as I was watching it so I can reference some things that were my favourite features in the film. 

I admit, every time there’s a film adaptations of a book, I do get nervous. Just because there’s a chance it can go really well or very very bad. But this was not the case with this one, which I’m so relieved because it would have really sucked if the film didn’t live up to the books. 

I thought Lana Condor was absolutely amazing at playing Lara Jean, I had never seen or really heard of her before this, but she really did manage to capture Lara Jean. At first, I wasn’t too sure what to think of Noah Centineo as Peter Kavinsky, I mean I know from the trailer there’s not a lot you can really judge from it but he didn’t really scream “Peter Kavinsky” for me (if that makes sense lol), however I was so deeply wrong and I would now like to apologise for not believing in you Noah Centineo. 

Kitty was absolutely adorable, I don’t know why I thought she’d be a little older. And John Corbett *sigh*, I had a massive crush on him when I was younger and I saw him in My Big Fat Greek Wedding (damn, I gotta re-watch that now), he was great as the father and pretty much what I had imagined him to be when reading the books. 

So now, do some of my favourite bits in the film *opens up phone and refers to my notes, because I’m such a nerd*. 

- The library bit at the beginning, where Lara Jean takes a bite of her carrot stick and then that girl points to the sign on the wall that says “Soft foods only” was AMAZING! 

- When Kitty keeps wearing that helmet every time Lara Jean drives. I can’t remember if that was in the books or if they just added it in?

- I loved the part where Lara Jean first kisses Peter, then the gym coach just yells at her and says “Two more laps for you”. In the book, I loved that scene as well- so to see it in life was just great. 

- When Josh visits Lara Jean’s house after receiving the letter, then Lara Jean just jumps out the window (amazing!)

- Oh my gosh! My absolute favourite bit was when Chris was talking to Lara Jean’s dad in the kitchen, about how he would want to become a gynaecologist. And she asks him if he suddenly thought in college that, “I’d really love to look at vaginas all day”. Then Lara Jean’s dad gets super uncomfortable and just says, “I’m gonna leave now”. 

I mean, EVERYTHING about this film was just brilliant. But, I’d have to say- I sort of wished that we got to see more of Chris and Lara Jean just hanging out. I know that in the book, we got to see more of them just hanging around and stuff, but it felt as if in the film Chris would only appear every now and then, say a few lines and that was it. I wished that we got to see more of their friendship. This also applied to Josh I guess, I don’t know- it just felt like there wasn’t as much depth in his character and he was only there to sort of be the complication. 

They did change the fact of why Kitty would send those letters out. In the book she and Lara Jean had a fight, so she was mad which resulted in her sending them out. However, in the film it seemed as if Kitty was just trying to put a bit of excitement in Lara Jean’s life. Which, either way I would have been okay with the way they did it. This wasn’t a massive deal and I wasn’t bothered with it in a way, but it was just nice to see a little difference between the book and the film. 

Can I just say how much Genevieve pisses me the fuck off. She was a dickhead in the books and an even bigger dickhead in the film. And I always felt her reason for hating Lara Jean so dumb, that she would still hold something that happened in middle school against her. 

I actually liked the way they ended things in the film. Because from what I remember in the first book, it sort of ends on a “cliffhanger”. As in it was New Year’s and Lara Jean starts to write a letter to Peter, then it just stops there. So when she did her cute little power walk across the field to Peter, then they resolve things and kiss. I think was a really great way to end it. 

It also makes me think if there will be a second and third film? I know at the end John Ambrose shows up and he plays a fairly important role in the second book, P.S. I Still Love You. I mean of course I would hope that the second and third films will be made. 

Also, I can’t get over Jenny Han’s cameo in the flashback scene during the school dance. I really love when writers are able to make an appearance in film adaptations. 

But wow, I just can’t get over that. There were so many amazing bits and it was one of my favourite movies this year, this along with Call Me By Your Name- another great adaptation, if I may add. Although that one broke my heart into a tiny little pieces. 

This one still does, but not in a sad sort of a way. More of an emotional, gives me a lot of nostalgia about when I was in high school and had super intense crushes. 

[aion-rsa]

Line of Duty Series 6 Episode 7: H, The Fourth Man, the End of AC-12 & All Our Questions & Theories

https://ift.tt/2SmUqg7

Warning: contains spoilers for the Line of Duty series 6 finale.

Perhaps thanks to the extra half hour of screen time, or perhaps because there was a genuine sense of threads being tied up as AC-12 went into storage for potentially the last time, there are fewer questions left to answer than usual after Line of Duty series six. The finale gave us lots of certainty, and just a few things still to mull over. After you’ve read our weekly episode review, catch up on the post-finale theories and questions below.

So, Buckells was H all along?

He was bent all along, ever since being part of the corrupt team that investigated the racist murder of Lawrence Christopher. But Buckells only stepped into the shoes of ‘H’ or ‘The Fourth Man’ or whatever you want to call the senior corrupt officer coordinating OCG criminal activity, after the death of ACC Derek Hilton at the end of series four. As Buckells tells it, Marcus Thurwell and Patrick Fairbank were working with Tommy Hunter’s OCG until Thurwell left the force and Fairbank retired. Then ACC Derek Hilton and DI Matthew Cottan took over, but after their deaths, Buckells took over from them. When Lisa McQueen and John Corbett were getting orders on their laptop in series five, they were being typed by Buckells, and he was the one who ordered Jo to “get rid of” Kate.

Does this mean CC Osborne isn’t bent?

Technically, that’s still unconfirmed. If you rewatch Buckells explaining the historical chain of command, he lists pairs of corrupt officers who worked with the OCG: Fairbank and Thurwell, Hilton and Cottan… then he’s interrupted by Ted Hastings, who names him as “the last man standing.” Perhaps Buckells was working alone, perhaps he was working in collusion with CC Osborne, we don’t know, and honestly, it doesn’t really matter.  

What we do know is that, even if Osborne didn’t personally collude in OCG activity, he certainly turned a blind eye to it to protect his own reputation and that of the force. And he conspired to cover up police wrongdoing in the murder of Kareem Ali. He’s a PR-man with no backbone who surrounds himself with cronies. Osborne has done everything in his power to suppress anti-corruption, including forcing Ted to retire, Sindwhani to resign, and dramatically restructuring the department to minimalize its power. He doesn’t have to be working with the OCG to be a villain.

Who ordered the hit on Gail Vella? 

That had to be Buckells and/or Thurwell, with or without the collusion of CC Osborne. All the other murders – Denton, Waldron, Cottan, Hilton, Corbett, Thurwell, Lakewell… were carried out by the OCG in their own interest. The only people who stood to benefit from Vella’s murder were Buckells, Thurwell, and Osborne, to silence her investigation into their corrupt suppression of the Lawrence Christopher murder. 

How did Buckells disguise his IP address?

In the search of Marcus Thurwell’s house in Spain, computer equipment was discovered that had communicated with IP addresses belonging to Joanne Davidson and Lisa McQueen. Buckells’ UK-based laptop was rerouting through this Spanish equipment to throw cyber-investigations off the scent. 

Why did Tommy make Jo think Fairbank was her father?

To control her through fear. Tommy was skilled in grooming young, vulnerable people, and he made up the lie that Patrick Fairbank was the dangerous corrupt copper who’d raped Jo’s mother so that Fairbank could be used as a kind of bogeyman to scare Jo into doing Tommy’s bidding. What an evil piece of work.

Read more

TV

Line of Duty Series 6 Episode 7 Review: H Unmasked At Last

By Louisa Mellor

TV

Line of Duty: Will There Be a Series 7?

By Louisa Mellor

What was under the concrete floor in the industrial unit?

Insurance in the form of murder weapons covered in the blood of their victims and the fingerprints of the killer, or the person the OCG were threatening to frame as the killer. There was the gun Carl Banks had used to kill Gail Vella. There were the knives Ryan Pilkington used to kill Maneet Bindra and John Corbett, and the knife an OCG member had used to kill Jackie Laverty before contaminating it with Tony Gates’ fingerprints while he was unconscious. 

Was Chris Lomax bent?

When Lomax was named as the requesting officer on the forged paperwork extracting Davidson from HMP Brentiss, it looked like he was definitely bent. But then Kate Fleming was named on that same paperwork as the supporting officer for the production order, and we know that Kate is true-blue. So Chris’ name could equally have been forged, meaning that there’s no hard evidence as yet that he’s corrupt. 

What about Patricia Carmichael?

We didn’t really learn much more about Pat this episode, apart from the fact that – as Buckells accurately detected – she wanted to stay as far from his interview and arrest as possible, so that she could continue to do the CC’s work and pretend that institutionalised corruption doesn’t exist. Is she bent? I wouldn’t say so. Is she only interested in her own career? I would say so. Will she carry the fire? What do you reckon?

Which fan theories were right, and which were wrong?

Speaking to The Caddy himself, Craig Parkinson on a special episode of BBC Sounds podcast Obsessed With… Line of Duty, writer-creator Jed Mercurio confirmed that Chloe Bishop is definitely not Tony Gates’ daughter, calling the idea “preposterous.”

The idea of a character turning out to be the surprise daughter of someone from series one though, clearly wasn’t preposterous, as the fan theory that Jo Davidson would be related to Tommy Hunter proved to be absolutely right. 

In the finale, Chloe poured cold water on the idea that Marcus Thurwell wasn’t really dead when she confirmed that the bodies were officially identified as Thurwell and his wife, who’d been strangled some weeks ago. Dead as el doorknob, amigo.

All the hubbub about Steph being bent/H/keeping Marcus Thurwell in her loft was just hot air too.

Is this the end of AC-12? 

It could very well be. As things were left, Ted was being forced into retirement, and 90 percent of AC-12 staff were going to be redistributed or let go as the units merged into one. Depending on how his medical evaluation goes, Steve could go to work for Jolly Rogerson at Serious Crime. Kate could stay in command of MIT. And Hastings could take up bird-watching and Italian cookery. If it is the end, then at least AC-12 got their man. 

However, to leave things open for a potential seventh series, Ted has lodged a complaint against his forced retirement, and Kate told Steve that she’d be willing to come back to anti-corruption. So we’ll see. 

Is there going to be a seventh season?

We ponder that in more detail here. 

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

Read more about Line of Duty on Den of Geek here.

The post Line of Duty Series 6 Episode 7: H, The Fourth Man, the End of AC-12 & All Our Questions & Theories appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/338txyt

[samisadeangirl]

What’s also wrong are the reasons that most bi!Dean stans use to justify their demands, which are rife with biphobia and bigoted stereotyping.  For example:

“Dean can’t be straight because he likes [cooking, telenovelas, Dr. Sexy, etc.]”  Wow, toxic masculinity stereotyping much??  Sexuality is NOT influenced by what a person likes regarding hobbies, media, celebrity, or anything else.

“Dean looked at [male character], so he totes wants to bang him”  Looking at someone does NOT mean you’re attracted to them--not even Dean’s supposed “eye-f*cking” since he looks at everyone like that, including his mom and his car.  Plus bisexuals are NOT automatically attracted to everyone they see, which is another biphobic stereotype.

“Dean wore [certain colored shirt] or ate/drank [cake vs. pie, vegetable water] or slept/walked [certain side of the bed/hallway] and so on”  First, this is complete nonsense.  Sexuality is NOT determined by what someone wears, eats/drinks, or whatever.  There isn’t some rule than only bisexuals can wear red/pink, blue, and/or purple--Sam has several shirts in those colors too, but you lot don’t insist that he’s bi!  Second, that’s NOT how subtext works in media.  Subtext is meant to support the existing narrative, and it’s obvious enough that the general audience can understand it.  It’s NOT meant to tell an entirely different story from the narrative, and it’s NOT so subtle that only a few obsessed fans notice it.  So there aren’t any “sooper sneakret klewes” showing that Dean is bi while the actual narrative states that he’s straight.  Plus the producers, writers, set designers, etc. have explicitly stated that there is NO bisexual subtext included in SPN.

“What Dean says about his sexuality doesn’t matter because [he’s repressed, he’s still in the closet, I know better]”  This is not only rude and entitled AF, it’s also a form of homophobia called erasure.  When someone states (repeatedly) that their sexuality is X, you gorram well RESPECT that--you, some rando stranger on the Internet, do NOT know them better than the person himself (and in the case of Dean, the actor who’s portrayed him for 15 years, the showrunner who created him, and the other cast and crew who help bring him to life).  Even if that person turns out to be in the closet, it is NOT your place to force them to out themselves.  Oh, and Dean Winchester is hardly “repressed”--he talks about his feelings more than any other character, and he’s very open with his sexual interests.  if Dean was actually interested in guys, he wouldn’t be afraid to show it (particularly since John being homophobic is not supported anywhere in canon, Sam is obviously not, and there’s nothing to suggest that Mary, Bobby, or anyone else whose opinion matters to Dean is either).

“Dean needs to be bisexual for representation.”  This is complete bullshit, and you all should know it.  SPN has plenty of queer representation.  God Himself, the most powerful being in the canon universe, is openly bisexual.  The former King of Hell was unashamedly pansexual.  Angels are asexual and genderfluid.  Multiple recurring characters (Charlie, Max Banes, Claire, Kaia, Max & Stacy) and one-shot characters (Lily, Alan Corbett, Damien & Barnes, Dwight & Rod, Kristen & Siobhan, Naoki Himura, Cesar & Jesse Cuevas, etc.) were gay, lesbian, or bisexual.  And TPTB are hardly “afraid” considering just how many shows on the CW feature queer main characters, such as Batwoman, Legends of Tomorrow, Black Lightning, Supergirl, and more.  The vast majority of fans claiming they want “representation” only do so for their own selfish agenda, which is to further their ship.

What's wrong with people thinking dean is bisexual???? I'm bisexual and I like to think he is too, what's wrong with that?

there’s nothing wrong with THINKING it.  but people don’t stop there.  they INSIST he is.  they harass the actors, writers, producers, etc. DEMANDING it be made canon on the show, when everything on the show in CANON has proven he’s not.  you can think it all you want.  write it in your fanfiction all day and all night.  i don’t care.  but it will never become canon or a reality.

[nigeiadigitalmarketingcompany]

‘This Is the Beginning’: New Study Warns Climate Crisis May Have Been Pivotal in Rise of Drug-Resistant Superbug

Digital Elixir ‘This Is the Beginning’: New Study Warns Climate Crisis May Have Been Pivotal in Rise of Drug-Resistant Superbug

By Jessica Corbett, staff writer at Common Dreams. Originally published at Common Dreams

A new analysis warns that “global warming may have played a pivotal role” in the recent rise of a multidrug-resistant fungal superbug, sparking questions and concerns about the emerging public health threats of the human-caused climate crisis.

Reporting on the research Tuesday, CNN outlined the history of Candida auris:

Until recently, scientists considered it a mystery how C. auris popped up in more than 30 countries around the globe a decade after it was first discovered in 2009. It emerged simultaneously on three continents—in India, Venezuela, and South Africa—between 2012 and 2015, each strain being genetically distinct.

The study—published Tuesday in mBio, an open-access journal of the American Society for Microbiology—argues that Candida auris “may be the first example of a new fungal disease emerging from climate change.”

“The argument that we are making based on comparison to other close relative fungi is that as the climate has gotten warmer, some of these organisms, including Candida auris, have adapted to the higher temperature, and as they adapt, they break through human’s protective temperatures,” lead author Arturo Casadevall, chair of molecular microbiology and immunology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said in a statement.

Fungal diseases are relatively uncommon in humans because of body temperature—but if they adapt to rising temperatures, and aren’t easily treatable with medications, they could increasingly endanger human health on a global scale. Casadevall warned that while C. auris may be the first fungal disease whose emergence scientists have tied to rising temperatures, it potentially won’t be the last.

“Global warming may lead to new fungal diseases that we don’t even know about right now,” he said. “What this study suggests is this is the beginning of fungi adapting to higher temperatures, and we are going to have more and more problems as the century goes on.”

“Whether C. auris is the first example of new pathogenic fungi emerging from climate change … its emanation stokes worries that humanity may face new diseases from fungal adaptation to hotter climates”https://t.co/GpV3obWVYt

— Jeffrey Duchin (@DocJeffD) July 23, 2019

Stat News published a piece Tuesday that mentions the new study but also addresses a series of pressing questions about the emerging superbug with help from experts who include Tom Chiller, chief of mycotic diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Tejas Bouklas, an assistant professor in the department of biomedical sciences at Long Island University.

Among those questions is: “Could C. auris help other fungi adapt to be bigger threats to humans?”

That’s a question Bouklas is wondering about. “The more ubiquitous it becomes, the more problematic. Because now it could potentially transmit DNA to other Candida species. And maybe even bacteria,” she said.

That idea is not far-fetched. Fungi can mate sexually, Chiller pointed out, allowing them to swap large amounts of DNA.

In light of the potential impacts of the climate crisis on public health highlighted in the study, Casadevall charged in his statement that “we need to make investments in better surveillance of fungal diseases.”

“We are pretty good at surveilling influenza and diseases that cause diarrhea or are contagious, but fungal diseases are not usually contagious and therefore nobody has really bothered to document them well,” he said. “If more fungi were to cross over, you really wouldn’t know until somebody started reporting them in the literature.”

Chiller, in his interview with Stat News, agreed that more research on the superbug is vital to protecting the public.

Understanding C. auris‘s backstory is crucial, Chiller said, because “these things are going to continue to emerge. And understanding how they emerge and where they emerge might lead us to prevention strategies or reactive strategies or preparation strategies for the next big thing.”

‘This Is the Beginning’: New Study Warns Climate Crisis May Have Been Pivotal in Rise of Drug-Resistant Superbug

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2JKSsPQ via IFTTT

[limejuicer1862]

Wombwell Rainbow Interviews

I am honoured and privileged that the following writers local, national and international have agreed to be interviewed by me. I gave the writers two options: an emailed list of questions or a more fluid interview via messenger.

The usual ground is covered about motivation, daily routines and work ethic, but some surprises too. Some of these poets you may know, others may be new to you. I hope you enjoy the experience as much as I do.

Sue Hardy Dawson

is a poet & illustrator. Her debut collection, ‘Where Zebras Go’, was shortlisted for the 2018 CLiPPA prize. Sue’s poems and teaching resources can be found on the CLPE website. Her second, ‘Apes to Zebras’ co-written with poetry ambassadors, Roger Stevens and Liz Brownlee won the North Somerset Teachers Book Awards. Sue has a First Class Honours Degree. Sue loves to visit schools and he has worked with the Prince of Wales Foundation, ‘Children and the Arts. As a dyslexic poet, she loves encouraging reluctant readers and writers.  Her new solo collection, If I Were Other Than Myself is due out with Troika, February 2020. Look for her on Twitter @SueHardyDawson, Facebook, Poet Sue Hardy-Dawson https://www.facebook.com/poetsinschools clpe.org.uk/poetryline/poets/hardy-dawson-sue Book her with Authors Abroad https://www.authorsabroad.com/search-authors/sue-hardy-dawson

The Interview

1. What and who inspired you to write poetry?

When I was a small girl my father used to march around the bedroom reciting poetry. He grew up during the infancy of accessible radio and most people had, a party piece back then. He actually had a rather wonderful singing voice as well, but he had a way of sort of acting out the poems. He was a great fan of AA Milne and would do the Kings Breakfast and The Dormouse and the Doctor. He knew by heart great long stretches of Hiawatha and the rhythms and repetition, exquisitely crafted language I loved. He would do the Highway Man, The Green Eyed Yellow Idle, Night Mail and the now somewhat none PC Cargoes with its cargo of ivory. However I loved to listen to his voice and his enthusiasm was infectious. Of course I didn’t understand all of the words but I was mesmerised by them. I wrote a kind of tribute to Auden’s Night Mail, you can find it in Where Zebras Go.

Like myself my father was dyslexic, though I didn’t know until after I was diagnosed aged 16. He was an extremely well read man but deeply embarrassed by what he couldn’t do. I didn’t particularly enjoy school either, though like my dad an avid reader, I struggled to spell legibly and had terrible handwriting. Dyslexia was largely unheard of and little understood then. I enjoyed art though and had a vivid imagination. When I was about 8 faced with the dreaded task of writing holiday postcards I wrote a little poem. It seemed to please everyone and was something I seemed to be quite good at. When my Nana died many years later, she still had that poem in her bedside drawer.

But in the meanwhile I became disillusioned, fearful even of writing, the sheer effort of it and when I left school I didn’t write for many years. Then fate intervened I had children and I started writing poems and stories just for them. Next one of them was diagnosed with dyslexia and dyspraxia and kicked off big style, they didn’t want to be stupid like me. Computers were in fact my saviours, when I first saw one it had to be filled with binary codes, not very dyslexia friendly, but suddenly I was helping a reception class and four-year-olds were using them. I learned and went on to do a degree and yes began to send poems out.  I went to a library event and Nick Toczek put two of my poems into a Macmillan Collection, Toothpaste Trouble, 2002, my first step. It would be 14 years before I got my first collection accepted. Poetry lists for children died and came back again during that time and it was essentially an apprenticeship. Yet I don’t regret it, I think my poems grew as did my family. It was the right time for me.

2. How aware were you of the dominating presence of older poets?

When I was 14 in an English lesson I first discovered Ted Hughes, his poems were quite different to the ballad style poems my dad recited. I was struck particularly by ‘The Thought Fox’, it was as if he saw into my head. The best poetry, however simple or complex reaches out to a common experience and shows it in a different way. I think then was the first time I had actually thought about poets being people who wrote, that I might write poems. It changed my view of what a poem was and I felt I need to read as much of it as I could, to experience its constantly evolving form. From Hughes and those before him right back to 16 century and forward to the Mersey Sound, Kay, Duffy and too many to mention I absorbed them.

Many years later and two collections later, I found to my delight that I was in an anthology called A Poem For Every Night of the Year,  with Ted Hughes’s Thought Fox, still one of the most exciting things I have ever achieved.

Here also I owe a great debt older wiser poets, children’s poets, well at least those I have had the pleasure of knowing, are wonderfully kind and generous people. I have had lots of support and encouragement. I met Roger Stevens some years back and through him, Liz Brownlee, Gerard and Cathy Benson, Rachel Rooney, Jan Dean, Michaela Morgan and many, many other wonderful poets. I feel so very lucky and at first was more than a bit star-struck, poets whom I had read for years, I felt like a child at a grownups’ party. But though we span the country the internet means we can stay in touch, because writing is essentially a lonely business.

3. What is your daily writing routine?

On a writing day I like the first few quiet hours, I will take those thoughts once formed out for a dog walk, do admin on my return. Then late at night when the house quietens again I will work on until I feel my brain is too sleepy. I find that things become clearer if you put them away for a few days. So I’m always on with multiple things. If I get a block I read through old notebooks until something comes. A deadline has a great capacity to focus the mind. Essentiality, though, a good idea can arrive at any time, so I have paper pens, phone, notebook, Dictaphone always. I have a bad memory so if I lose the first line it’s lost forever. But if I scribble that even on my hand the rest will return.

4. What motivates you to write?

Everything and anything, I need to write or I feel quite lost, even if it’s not working out as I’d hoped I need to try every day. Sometimes though the best days something flies into your head and you just feel it has wings, it might obsess you for days and that for me is the best feeling, the constant surprise of not knowing quite where you are going but that it is worth the search.

5. What is your work ethic?

I write something every day, even if I don’t think it’s good, because without words on the page you have nothing to craft to work on. Sometimes a line is just shorthand for where you are going so it’s a case of don’t think too hard about good or bad just write. I will spend days, weeks or even occasionally years crafting and changing bits, for me that is the joy, the shaping and smoothing.

6. How do the writers you read when you were young influence you today?

I think immensely, first you must know what has been before so you don’t write it again, or at least provide a new way of looking at it. I think whatever you write you must read because there is no substitute for reading if you are a writer. I read once for pleasure and closer to see why it is wonderful or in some cases terrible. I unpick why and that informs my writing process. Not that I think about any of this when I’m actually writing. Writing is a bit like diving into a pool, you can control the way you leave the ground, but how you land and the bit in the middle is free falling.

7. Who of today’s writers do you admire the most and why?

I have very diverse tastes in writing, for poetry, apart from all of the above I love, Pie Corbett, Philip Gross, John Foster, Joseph Coelho, Roger McGough and not exclusively Billy Collins. Literature, David Almond, Andrea Levy, Lucy Waters I could go on for pages.

Why I like writing that transports me, I love poetic prose, essentially if I read something and aspire not to recreate it but to write as well then I love it with a passion.

9. Why do you write, as opposed to doing anything else?

Well, because I can’t stop, in a way. I do have other things that I do but nothing that fulfils me in quite the same way. I also paint and illustrate though so I have times when those things take over, but even so I have to stop every couple of days just to write something or it gnaws at me and I can’t concentrate.

10. What would you say to someone who asked you “How do you become a writer?”

I would say that we are all writers, but write what is inside yourself. Read as much as you can and not just what you think you like, writing that is bad can tell you as much about process as good writing. Write something every day even when you feel like you don’t have anything to say. Read what you write to others, draft and redraft, keep going. Write for the pleasure it gives you and because you can’t help it. If it gives you no pleasure you probably should do something else. Being a writer is a tough life because inevitably you need a thick skin. I thought when I got my first book out how wonderful, then a second later what if no one likes it? It’s not easy but if you try and keep going it’s possible even for someone like me who finds manual writing difficult.

11. Tell me about the writing projects you have on at the moment.

Well some things are still top secret, however, I have a new book due out February 2020 with Troika Books, ‘If I were Other Than Myself’, I have done all of the illustrations and I am very excited about it.

Wombwell Rainbow Interviews: Sue Hardy-Dawson Wombwell Rainbow Interviews I am honoured and privileged that the following writers local, national and international have agreed to be interviewed by me.