#gangster!beatles | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

gardenwalrus · 26 days ago

Text

Albert Goldman, The Lives of John Lennon (1988), p.148

So I read this part of the Goldman bio some days ago and was absolutely baffled and tried to find any other information about this. Which then turned into a bit of a rabbit hole of me trying to find any sort of information about this particular incident Goldman claims had occurred, to then information surrounding David Jacobs himself.

I couldn’t really come to any real conclusions based on the information available, but what I did decide on was:

Brian Epstein likely was not involved in ordering a crucifixion as he was already nearly a year dead from an overdose.

Brian’s lawyer David Jacobs did have a connection to a crucifixion case. He was also very likely murdered in 1968. The Krays could have been involved.

I’m just going to a lot of quotes from the information I found here (with a couple thoughts in-between) even though it’s a bit tangential, as I don’t know what to do with all of it. Also I’m putting it under a cut because it is long + mentions of violence & suicide etc

TIMELINE

1963 - Brian Epstein hires showbusiness solicitor David Jacobs to represent himself & The Beatles when NEMS moves down to London

28 Aug 1967 - Brian Epstein is found dead from barbiturate overdose.

May 1968 - Notorious gangsters Ronnie and Reggie Kray are arrested

25 July 1968 - Joseph de Havilland is found half-naked, nailed to a cross on Hampstead Heath, London

~September 1968 - David Jacobs represents three men in court, accused of grievous bodily harm in the case of the Hampstead Heath crucifixion

15 December 1968 - David Jacobs is found hanged by a satin cord in his garage at his seaside home in Hove.

WHO IS DAVID JACOBS?

John Lennon’s liaison with Brian Epstein was not confined to sexual dalliance. From the start, Brian took pleasure in showing off his famous rude boy to all his gay friends in the West End theatre world. Soon this company included a circle of S/M freaks centred upon a depraved peer who rubbed shoulders with the most dangerous criminals in the kingdom.* Brian’s guide down the queasy slopes of this hellbent underworld was the glamorous David Jacobs, lawyer for many prominent homosexuals in the capital. As Mario Amaya, art journalist, museum director, lifelong S/M queen, observed: “Jacobs was the lawyer you called if you got into trouble for drugs, sex, etc., the rescue lawyer, gay and showbiz, highly popular and successful.” Also very kinky.

- Albert Goldman, The Lives of John Lennon (1988), p.148

[*Note - when ‘depraved’ or ‘notorious’ peer is mentioned, it is referring to Conservative peer Robert Boothby. In this context the ‘dangerous criminals’ are Ronnie and Reggie Kray. If you need basic detail on the Krays read here, and on the connection between Boothby and Ronnie Kray here].

Within the 1950s and 1960s, David Jacobs was Britain’s top showbiz lawyer. He represented clients such as Diana Dors, Judy Garland, Zsa Zsa Gabor, yet most importantly here the Beatles’ manager, Brian Epstein.

In 1963, Brian Epstein’s office begins to receive countless offers for merchandise licensing for the Beatles, and although Brian’s office handled these requests at first, he soon decides to look for a solicitor in London who would take care of the merchandising issue for him.

Brian wanted an attorney who would be a confidant as well as a legal advisor, and he was always referred to the firm of one David Jacobs. Of course, Brian had already heard of David Jacobs, the flamboyant celebrity attorney whose exploits were carefully covered by the Fleet Street press.

- Peter Brown, The Love You Make: An Insider's Story of The Beatles (1983) p.121

Jacobs was a distinct personality, and represented a large clientele who kept their sexual preferences secret. He became close friends with Brian, soon becoming his chief solicitor.

The two men were similar in many coincidental ways. Their families were both in the furniture business, both were born and bred of money, and both had doting Jewish mothers. Both were homosexual.

- Peter Brown p.122

“Brian hired David to represent the Beatles when he moved down from Liverpool,” says a showbiz writer who knew both men well. “In return, David introduced Brian to the London gay scene. David was 6ft 2in tall and openly gay - he wore make-up, even in court in front of disapproving judges. He intimidated everybody, not only the other side in court cases but his clients as well, and he was incredibly pompous. The only person who wasn’t a bit frightened of him was John Lennon. John was mercilessly cruel to him; he was always taking the piss.

- ‘Murder mystery of Ronnie Kray and the Beatles' showbiz lawyer’, Mayfair Times (2004)**

[**The article is now inaccessible, and I struggled to find it on the wayback machine, however it was copied in full on this livejournal post (x)]

Jacobs’ law office soon took on the task of taking care of the merchandising offers.

Jacobs finally advised Brian to set up a completely separate company for the merchandising end, from which Brian and the Beatles would simply take a percentage of the profits, while they did the work.

- Peter Brown p.122

Jacobs suggests one man for the job - Nicky Byrne, whom he, according to Peter Brown, admired

‘...because he gave wonderful parties, and Jacobs, who loved parties, considered himself an expert. [...] Jacobs gave notorious, elaborate theme parties on weekends at his Brighton mansion […] once a guest expired in the bedroom in the service of a young male courtesan. Jacobs simply locked the bedroom door and didn’t mention it until the party was over.’

- Peter Brown p.122

(This merchandising deal would notably end in disaster in the long run, as Jacobs signs over the merchandising for the Beatles to Byrne at a rate of 90%, leaving just a 10% for the Beatles and NEMS combined.)

Still, Jacobs is the go-to man for any of the problems his clients would face. For example in the case of the Beatles, he dealt with quietening the paternity claims against Paul by Erika Hubers and Anita Cochrane. [See Brown pp.138-140]

BRIAN EPSTEIN'S DEATH

More significantly for what I was looking at here, Jacobs was also present at Brian Epstein's house after his death to deal with the press, and also went with Peter Brown to identify Brian's body.

Another phone call went out to David Jacobs, Brian’s attorney, who was spending the weekend at his country house in Brighton. Jacobs got on the next train for London. By the time David Jacobs, Geoffrey, and I converged on the house at Chapel Street, the press had assembled on the front doorstep. Jacobs most likely had called them himself, as it was he who took over making statements to reporters. Jacobs’ legal officiations at Brian’s death were some of his last duties as NEMS chief solicitor.

- Peter Brown p.259

In August 1967, when Epstein was found by his housekeeper, dead from an overdose of sleeping pills at his London home, Jacobs was quickly on the scene. Peter Brown remembers arriving shortly afterwards. “The street was full of reporters and David was holding court, bossing everyone and generally taking charge of things. David and I then had to go and identify the body in the mortuary. It still horrifies me to think about it.”

- Mick Brown, 'The mystery of David Jacobs, the Liberace lawyer', The Telegraph (June 2013)

So from these statements from Peter Brown, we know Jacobs was at the house. As would make sense - he was Brian’s lawyer and close friend as well as NEMS chief solicitor. Of course he would arrive. However, Goldman takes a real stretch with this information, using it to imply Brian Epstein was in fact murdered.

David Jacobs, Brian’s lawyer, told Wendy Hanson that he was the first man to enter Brian’s bedroom after his death, though no one else reported his presence at the scene. He even boasted of having removed from Brian’s bed a tattletale article by Paul’s ex-housekeeper that had appeared in the Italian press. It’s not likely that Jacobs stopped with such a trivial precaution. Jacobs would have known how to prejudice the coroner’s judgment by removing and planting evidence that would point to a finding of misadventure. The enormous number of pills found on the premises and the brandy bottle near the bed figured prominently in the inquest; yet according to the pathologist’s report absolutely no alcohol was found in the body and no significant amounts of any other drug. According to the buzz of the London gay world, Brian Epstein died of asphyxiation produced by a mask over his face. Such a death would have entailed no violence and left no telltale marks. If the S/M paraphernalia or women’s clothing or other evidence was removed, it would be virtually impossible for the coroner to reconstruct the manner of death.

- Goldman pp.277-278

This is an absolute stretch here. All other accounts of Brian’s death do not have Jacobs as being the first into Brian’s room, and if Jacobs had said this he was likely lying or exaggerating his presence in conversation to Hanson. It also doesn’t have to be said that Jacobs allegedly picking up an article from Brian’s bed does not also automatically mean he planted evidence? Also, ‘according to the buzz of the London gay world’ is second-hand gossip, not the most reliable source. There’s the issue of whether Brian’s overdose was accidental or intended, but murder is not a possibility I’m entertaining.

THE CRUCIFIXION

Moving onto the main matter of the crucifixion.

Goldman claims that a man who had been ‘rescued from crucifixion in Soho’ in the late 60s later named ‘the notorious peer, as well as David Jacobs and Brian Epstein, as the men who ordered his crucifixion.’

Well, as Goldman doesn’t use citations here (I’m guessing the majority of this would just come from his conversation with Mario Amaya), and searching for information on a Soho crucifixion came up blank, it would look like a dead end. HOWEVER, there was a man who was rescued from a crucifixion by three men on Hampstead Heath in 1968 - a case which involved David Jacobs, who represented the three men in court.

Some basic information to start:

Afternoon, 25 July 1968. During summer on the green space of Hampstead Heath, London, interior decorator Joseph Richard de Havilland*** is found nailed to a cross, wearing only a pair of trousers. Three men are stood around him; one is taking photographs.

The three men are Desmond Patrick Pollydore (28), unemployed, David Kenneth Conklin (17), unemployed, and Eric Leslie Leach (41), interior decorator.

All, including de Havilland, reside at the same address of Surrendale Place, Maida Vale, London

The three men are then arrested and put on trial for grievous bodily harm.

[***Different newspaper reports use 'Havilland' or 'Haviland'. I'm using the former. Havilland's age is also reported differently in most reports - usually from ages 25-30]

Jacobs represents these three men in court.

Two of the men were unemployed; the third was another interior decorator: hardly the glamorous showbusiness figures who usually constituted his clientele. Police, it was said, had been questioning Jacobs himself over the case. At around that time, Jacobs was admitted to the Priory clinic, allegedly on the verge of a breakdown. “It was all hushed up,” remembers Peter Maddock, who saw him shortly after he had been discharged, at a dinner party in Knightsbridge. “He was very much a shadow of himself. He’d lost an enormous amount of weight. There was clearly some major issue preying on his mind, a number of things, perhaps. It was obvious he was in trouble.

- The Telegraph article

I couldn’t find a lot of reliable information about the crucifixion (which I thought was a bit odd, considering it was a literal crucifixion in one of London’s popular spaces), so I started looking through newspaper archives that were reporting on the case proceedings at the time.

Interior decorator Joseph de Havilland was crucified for money, a court was told yesterday. […] Three police officers described the scene of the crucifixion, which took place in the middle of the afternoon only 100 yards away from a main road. PC Gilbert Lindsay said he saw Leach standing in front of the crucified de Havilland. Leach said: ‘I nailed him to the cross. I want to see him off.’ […] Inspector Philip Holmes said he saw Leach in front of the cross and saw him drop a hammer. People on the edge of the clearing were watching. Inspector Holmes said: ‘I said to Leach: “What’s all this about?” He replied: “It is the will of God.” ‘Then I asked him: “What’s he doing up there?” He replied: “I did it. It is the will of God.” […] The hearing continues on September 9. Restrictions on reporting were lifted at the request of the defence.

- "Prosecution Alleges: Crucifixion for cash." Daily Mail, (30 Aug. 1968)

Now this is where the case starts to get even stranger. De Havilland is said to have had an interest in black magic, tried to get in touch with the Archbishop of Canterbury to tell him he will be crucified to fulfil ‘the first stage of a prophecy’, said that this was part of twelve prophecies made by things ‘not of this dimension’, and according to the three accused men neither bled nor was harmed by the nails driven into him.

Joseph de Havilland (27), of Surrendale Place, Maida Vale, London, said he left a message at Lambeth Palace: “I would like to inform the Archbishop, head of the English Church, that a testament will take place whereby a young man will be crucified with real nails and on a real cross to the fulfil the first stage of a prophecy to act on the will of God.” […] Earlier, de Havilland, who wore a metal cross on a chain around his neck, told the court of 12 prophecies made by “some things not of this dimension.” The prophecies, over a three-and-a-half year period, all related to the crucifixion. De Havilland said the “things” - neither human nor animal - asked him to be crucified and told him where it should take place. [...] De Havilland said that during the crucifixion, he had directed Leach's mind before he had hammered in the nails. "Then Mr Leach reacted because he was not himself," he said.

- 'Man on cross tells of visions', The Guardian, (1 Oct. 1968)

A man who was nailed to a cross on Hampstead Heath, London, was alleged at the Old Bailey yesterday to have said that his crucifixion would be “the greatest conjuring trick for 2,000 years.” […] Pollydore said Leach used a hammer to drive the nails through de Havilland’s hands, and that he thought it a trick. “I thought I had seen a mystery,” he said.

- 'Accused Thought Cross an 'Illusion'', The Guardian (16 Jan. 1969)

So, all really odd. On first glance it would seem like some drug-fuelled madness. However Jacobs' involvement (as well as the fact the police were questioning him as well) adds a strange element to it. Maybe de Havilland was told to say these statements about visions? Either way I don't have a clue for this.

The case comes to a close in January 1969.

Desmond Patrick Pollydore […] was found not guilty of unlawfully wounding Joseph de Havilland (27), interior decorator, of the same address. [...] Eric Leach (41), interior decorator, and David Conklin (17), unemployed, also of Surrendale Place, had earlier pleaded guilty to unlawful wounding. Leach was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment and Conklin was granted a conditional discharge for 12 months. The judge […] told the jury: “You may think any sane person would know if a nail was, in fact, driven through a man’s hand that it would cause some injury, and nobody could be such a mug as to believe it would not.” Referring to de Havilland, the judge said: “He was clearly a willing victim and might have had his own interests to serve. He is an odd man, making some remarkable claims for himself, and saying some extraordinary things, speaking about his visions and saying he was directed by someone who appeared to him in a vision that he was to crucify himself.”

- 'An Acquittal in 'Crucifixion' Case', The Guardian, (17 Jan. 1969)

The crucifixion Goldman mentions is in Soho, not Hampstead Heath. Considering there isn’t a citation, and the only source he mentions in this section is Mario Amaya, the Soho crucifixion mentioned could actually just be the Hampstead Heath incident? In which case, Brian Epstein had been dead for nearly a year, and there is no way he could’ve had a hand in ‘ordering’ the crucifixion.

Obviously here there is then the possibility there is ANOTHER man saved from another crucifixion in London before August 1967. Which therefore implies there’s multiple crucifixions being set up by a sadomasochist group in 60s London. Which Beatles manager Brian Epstein is a part of. Okay.

Also, Goldman states that the ordered crucifixion ‘went well beyond the customary punishment for an informer, which is slashing the snitch’s mouth from ear to ear’, implying this is not a common occurrence, making it far more unlikely that there would be TWO incidents in late 60s London.

I’m not doubting the existence of some underground group involving Boothby and the Krays, of which David Jacobs potentially had some sort of link to. I can believe that. It absolutely seems that Jacobs had some deeper involvement in this case and had various other dubious connections. I’m also not doubting that Brian knew/at least knew OF some of these connections - a lot of these higher society types in 60s London frequented the same places and moved within similar circles. Peter Brown mentions that Brian would spend his nights drinking, taking pills and feeding his gambling addiction at the Cleremont Club [Peter Brown p.171], of whom Lord Lucan was a member, if you want an idea of the types of people in these crowds.

However this doesn’t immediately mean he was part of any secret groups. I just cannot see it whatsoever. Goldman seems to jump to conclusions a lot, and just because Brian was a) gay in 60s London, and b) friends with individuals such as Jacobs, he somehow is now at the centre of some sadomasochist group conspiracy and was actually murdered instead of the very obvious answer of an overdose, accidental or otherwise. And all of this based on one person’s retelling of gossip to Goldman years later? Again, not seeing it.

However, although I’m discounting what the Goldman text says in relation to Brian and further Brian’s death, I’m not when it comes to Jacobs’ death in 1968.

DAVID JACOBS' DEATH

By the time of the acquittal in January 1969, Jacobs had been dead for almost a month. He had been found hanging by a satin cord strung from a beam in his garage at his seaside home in Hove on 15 December 1968. It was ruled suicide. It likely wasn’t.

It was reported that following his death, police had found “almost indecipherable notes” in Jacobs’s hand in his red smoking jacket, leading them to question a number of young men and “several well-known and titled people” about parties in West End flats and country houses. Jacobs, it was further reported, had been helping a peer of the realm who had paid £30,000 to silence a blackmailer, following an incident in which a naked man had been found crawling through Soho; Jacobs was possibly being blackmailed himself. John Merry, a private investigator who had been employed by Jacobs, told newspapers that there were “certain things” going on in Jacobs’s life.’ [...] It is said that shortly before his death, Jacobs was approached by an emissary of the gangster Ronnie Kray – himself well known in London’s gay world – seeking his help. Ronnie and his brother Reg were due to stand trial at the Old Bailey, charged with the murders of George Cornell and Jack “The Hat” McVitie. Jacobs, it is said, refused to help, and had asked for police protection. Peter Maddock doubts the story, or that Jacobs and Kray were acquainted. “Bob [Lord] Boothby was famous for courting the criminal, and Francis Bacon. It was very fashionable in the 1960s - that East meets West thing. But David was not involved with gangsters. It wasn’t his style.” But Maddock has another story to tell. Shortly after Jacobs’s death, Maddock visited the playwright Robin Maugham, a close friend of Jacobs, at his home in Hove. Maugham had something to show him. It was a Christmas card from Jacobs. “All love and best wishes for the New Year. David.” It had been posted two days before his death, Maddock says. “Does a man planning to take his own life write Christmas cards?”

- The Telegraph article

[Jacobs] was a leading member of the London gay scene and he certainly knew Ronnie Kray.” […] Suzanna [Leigh] was heartbroken to read in the newspapers of Jacobs’ death on 15 December 1968. A few minutes after she had read the news, a postcard dropped through the letterbox; it was from Jacobs, inviting her to lunch at La Caprice the following week. “I was holding the newspaper telling me he was dead in one hand and the postcard inviting me to lunch in the other,” she said. “It didn’t seem right.” […] Suzanna was so disturbed by the incongruity that she rang Scotland Yard and told them of her suspicions. Two detectives visited her. Her boyfriend at the time, a society hairdresser, witnessed the conversation. The policemen told Suzanna that Jacobs had been murdered and that the murder had been carried out because the lawyer had refused to represent the Krays. The police then said the Krays were facing other murder charges that would put them behind bars for life; it would not be necessary to charge them over Jacobs’ death. […] It has since been learned that Jacobs had asked for police protection shortly before his death and it is probable that he told the police about turning down Ronnie Kray's plea for legal help. […] A private detective who worked for Jacobs at his Pall Mall practice says: “I last heard from David two days before his death. He telephoned my secretary and told her it was urgent that I contact him. When I rang back, he burst out, ‘It’s no good, I’m in terrible trouble. They’re all after me.’” The private eye asked who he was frightened of and Jacobs reeled off a list of six famous people in show business.’

- Mayfair Times article

- Goldman p.278

So there is most of the information I found (that would fit into this post). Not very satisfying or conclusive. But overall as I said at the start at of the post, I don't believe that Brian could have been involved in the 'ordering' of the mentioned incident and neither was his death suspicious. Jacobs’ was. However that's just my own feelings, you can make your own conclusions.

#all the bolds here are my own #the titles are in diff colours because personally it makes it easier for me to see #but i can change it #long post #brian epstein

8 notes · View notes

sweet-but-vicious · 1 month ago

Text

Alright folks get your tin hats on and your delulu glasses ready because I've had some thoughts about the Kiwi music video!

Hello, I don't think we've met. My name is Cass and I have been bestowed with all the letters of the alphabet and my psych meds are messed up this week so you get to be dragged into my barely medicated current hyperfixation fugue, i.e. Larry Stylinson.

Run away now those who fear the truth!

I take that back this is literally my opinion.

It's also not strictly romantic Larry, this could easily also be platonic Larry.

I had some possible realizations about the Kiwi MV and decided I needed to share with the class...

Ok, so first off, I'm of the opinion that Louis had some, if not a LOT of involvement in the writing of the song Kiwi or that H wrote it from his perspective and in his style. We saw it being worked on while 1D was still together and I think it was either meant for the band or was written for Harry to sing but about/from the mindset of Louis. All my future thoughts are based on this premise so if you disagree I'm sorry you wasted a click.

I know L isn't credited but that doesn't mean he wasn't involved. Kiwi just sounds so much more like Louis than Haz, add in the fact that L would NOT have been allowed to release anything close to those lyrics nor would it suit L's voice, and we get what we have now, H releasing a banger that shows off his voice but doesn't quite fit in with the rest of his album. I think lyrically it's a proper mix of H's metaphors and L's candor while musically it has L's percussive driven vibe and very long stretches of singing on a single breath that are super common in L's music. So either L helped or H wrote it to sound like L.

OK, so now that we've established the basis for my theory let's move on to the video...

The video is 3:03 min long, and H is not seen until 2:12.

Now because of the matching suits and the hair, we have all assumed that the main young lady is supposed to represent Harry, but what if the girl is supposed to be the writer of the song i.e. Louis?

For the sake of this essay(lol), I'm going to refer to the girl as Lou from here on out.

We first see Lou enter an institutional building holding a plastic box of cupcakes. From the box and the look of the cupcakes we can infer that they are brought from home.

In other words, young child Lou entered the the building/music industry with assets/talents/gifts she already had before she arrived. Also supporting this is the fact that the frosting on the fairy cakes is Louis blue and rustic, implying untrained raw talent compaired to the fancily decorated cakes we see piled in the middle of the room possibly representing all the songs and music or other resources the studio had to offer.

Next we see all the other children/talent/musicians each with their own personal weapon/song/gift getting ready to fight.

For what? Space in the industry? A place on the album? Money? Success? All of the above? We never really see what they are fighting for, just that they are being pitted against each other.

Next we get this spectacular child;

He and this shot are truly amazing. Now the video has a look and a feel that is not super modern, but this child above and beyond the others has a 60's vibe. The clothes and the hair are giving early Beatles while the toothpick is giving gangster. So a "boss" from the 60s? Someone older who is in charge perhalps? Also, note that this child never throws or even HOLDS any cake, and after the initial stage of the battle, he is never seen again.

He quite obviously is challenged by Lou but he doesn't actually throw anything, nor does Lou fire the first shot. We don't actually see what starts the battle but we do see his obvious glee at shots being fired.

Next we see shots of the battlefeild, children throwing cake at each other as well as a few just quietly consuming their own cake which I take to mean that they perhalps gave up and decided not to partake in the fight at all.

Lou Then looks down to find her ammunition depleted, which could be interpretted as being used up or burnt out, and runs to the center pile of cake to grab an armful and crawl back out, she is the first to pull from the pile. Perhalps, she is too tired to walk or is attempting to sneak away with a piece of the "pie"?

At this point Harry finally enters the video, holding a puppy.

So I believe that Harry is playing himself and that the puppies are the fans. Harry has opened the door to the industry and hand carried the fans inside. Then with an epic war cry he unleashes(heh) hell! Sending in a brigade of puppies right when Lou was on the ground looking ready to give up!

The dogs/fans all come running into the room and begin consuming all of the cake/music that has been strewn all over the floor, one going right up to Lou and eating directly out of her hand.

This could be the doorway the boys always tried to give us into how they were treated and what they wanted to do vs what they were told they had to do.

Some of the puppies/fans find other children/musicians and stay protected with them while Harry, Lou, and one puppy hide behind a chair baricade. Harry, like the boss, does not throw any cake. Instead, he hands a cake to Lou for her to throw as a grenade while Harry protects the puppy.

So H is being supportive and helpful while protecting what matters, and allowing Lou to fight for herself. Like maybe releasing a song of words that L would never be able to say himself? Telling the fans the truth in the only way they could?

Next we see more carnage including this genius shot of a presumably dead child being mourned by a friend.

Casualties of the fight? Two boys who appear to be important to each other not surviving the industry?

Finally we end on this;

The survivors, battered(heh) but not broken, standing proud and together after the fight. Harry with his little smirk.

Now I may be streching here but H is a very expressive person and having seen many of his smirks I feel like this one is giving a little fuck you I just did that and no one could stop me vibe. I definitely see a whiff of "come at me bro" in that smile.

What do you think? Did I just manage to make sense out of one of the most chaotic videos of all time or am I a whackadoodle?

Nevermind, I know the answer lol

PS Did you know that kiwi birds mate for life and that the males incubate the eggs? Just some trivia for you... obviously doesn't mean anything... obviously...

#harry styles #kiwi #kiwi video #louis tomilson #larry stylinson #video analysis #kinda #ramblings #kiwi music video #harry styles kiwi #kiwi song

7 notes · View notes

bambi-kinos · 2 years ago

Text

excerpts from the McLennon server (hamburg part 1)

This is Part One of an ongoing conversation in the McLennon server about John and Paul in Hamburg. Part Two is here: https://www.tumblr.com/bambi-kinos/718388247258136576/excerpts-from-the-mclennon-server-hamburg-part-2

In Part One of the Hamburg Conversation, we discuss why John and Paul ended up being so close after their stint in Hamburg during 1960, since this was the period where the Exis ostracized Paul and John and Stuart were up each other’s asses a lot.

***

Leggy「little love of mine」 — 02/27/2023 4:10 PM alright beatle babes big fucking thunks time

1960 kinda sucked for Paul, Hamburg was the big thing and John was busy hanging out with Stuart and the Exis and was super teenagery about it. Paul felt abandoned and was super teenagery about it. There were a lot of sex workers, beer, and amphetamine pills going around. Gangsters roamed about, mostly not giving a shit about the Beatles tbh. They re-discovered girls. Paul gets deported.

Then we hit 1961 and this is happening: https://twitter.com/BeatlesArchive2/status/1630289665323589632?s=20

Leggy「little love of mine」 — 02/27/2023 4:19 PM Stuart stayed with Astrid and John seemed to be okay with this whereas he went to extreme lengths to separate Paul from his dad upon returning to Liverpool (which was a good thing), Paris happened, Stuart and Paul had a fistfight on stage where John de facto chose Paul by not disciplining him over the fight. What changed

Personally I think Hamburg changed how John viewed Paul. He got to see Paul in an adult context for the first time. I legit don't think John saw Paul as anything other than another friend -- that's not because of Rule 10, that's something I really believe. John simply didn't take Paul seriously until they got to Hamburg. They were friends and they had a tight bond thanks to Mary/Julia's passing, I don't doubt for a second that their friendship was already very close. John knew Paul was attractive but I don't think he fully put together what that meant until later. Hamburg slowly transmuted that into something else for John, he saw Paul in a brand new context and watched him flourish into a young adult away from the childhood context of Liverpool. And that lead him somewhere else.

Stuart didn't have prospects in Liverpool, his application to be a TA had already been rejected so he was ready to move on. John was able to respect that and let Stu go....because he figured out what he wanted. So he pursued Paul and very heavily too.

louiselux — 02/27/2023 4:33 PM Paul said that they felt somehow they were headed for big things, but i wonder when that feeling coalesced for them? Maybe beyond all the teen psychodrama, the side effect of Hamburg was getting technically good for the first time, and that’s when that feeling happened, like a mutual sense growing of ‘this man can take me places’

Leggy「little love of mine」 — 02/27/2023 4:34 PM ohhh i like this

louiselux — 02/27/2023 4:38 PM You know, them getting to know all these other bands and maybe realising that Lennon/McCartney together was a different better creature

Leggy「little love of mine」 — 02/27/2023 4:40 PM Especially since they were experimenting with the songwriting at that point. Not a whole lot but they were doing it, that was a way for them to distinguish themselves from the other bands. They were trying to find their niche and the Lennon/McCartney thing started clicking into place.

louiselux — 02/27/2023 4:41 PM Also very much YES to your point about Paul becoming a hot adult man rather than cute boy baby

Leggy「little love of mine」 — 02/27/2023 4:42 PM So you take the hypercharged atmosphere of Hamburg, put that with them starting to push themselves creatively and not just do cover songs....

louiselux — 02/27/2023 4:42 PM And Paul growing shoulders and forearm hair

Leggy「little love of mine」 — 02/27/2023 4:47 PM Maybe they also set their flirting pattern in Hamburg -- John being an ass, Paul being cold in response to get John's attention, making each other jealous on purpose etc. Even if they didn't realize what they were doing in the moment.

I'm fascinated at how much of a slow motion thing it all was, this attraction between them. It wasn't sudden, it was a long burning thing. They spent that first trip getting with women, boozing, going pro, there's the psychodrama going on in the background and John's very intense no matter what.... And when it all finally ended John sought out Paul in Liverpool....

louiselux — 02/27/2023 5:09 PM It's clear that they excited each other in various ways ever since they first met, but it seems like it did take a while to click into place. With Stu, I really get the sense that John had met someone he thought of as his equal at that time, in adulthood and sensibilities, and that he didn't consider Paul an equal in that way. So maybe that is the thing we are tracking here, the realisation that Paul is like...The One? Over those Hamburg years

Leggy「little love of mine」 — 02/27/2023 5:19 PM yeah! I think that's it exactly :ogeyes: Stuart was loved and lovable to John but Paul had a special impact

mynamesbetty — 02/27/2023 6:53 PM John had his blinders on to everything but success as a musician - he'd failed out of art school and couldn't hold down a regular job, so he made music his life

Before Hamburg Paul had prospects to continue in school and go to university, and he was still living at home and listening to his father (where John had stopped caring what Mimi said and may have moved out into the flat on Gambier Terrace by this point

In Hamburg, Paul starves and stinks and plays 6-8 hours a night, just like John, putting his all into the group and mach schau and living in squalor for the music

Where Stu was never that enthusiastic about the group, John had to convince him to buy an instrument and join, and when he met Astrid it was a done deal

So John can let go of someone who's already letting go of him because it's obvious what's happening and Stu is going to be happier an an artist, and they're good enough friends to accept this

But he looks at Paul, who's working just as hard as he is to make the Beatles a success, and something clicks for him

Leggy「little love of mine」 — 02/27/2023 7:14 PM something clicks for him...

Morrigan — 02/27/2023 9:18 PM I, too, find this time fascinating. I agree that while he was drawn to him and attracted to him (maybe even subconsciously), John didn’t see Paul as an equal adult quote yet. Two years difference can feel quite big at that age. But then I also find it fascinating that John said they were both horrible to Stu in Hamburg. I wouldn’t put it past John to have played them against each other, especially after Stu got with Astrid

Misery — 02/27/2023 9:27 PM Trying to see which one of them would stick it out through his behaviour maybe

mynamesbetty — 02/27/2023 9:32 PM Always hiding his soft mushy center under a hard layer of nasty humor and bad behavior

Leggy「little love of mine」 — 02/27/2023 9:32 PM John absolutely played them off each other. He was a jerk to both of them in Hamburg and would team up with the other one, peak frat bro honestly.

mynamesbetty — 02/27/2023 9:32 PM King John sits on his throne and says "which one of you loves me more?"

Leggy「little love of mine」 — 02/27/2023 9:33 PM 😂 but also 😭

Misery — 02/27/2023 9:33 PM Mhm mhm mhm

This exactly

VeggieRavioli — 02/27/2023 9:37 PM Tony Sheridan quote RE: J&P in Hamburg that’s relevant here

Leggy「little love of mine」 — 02/27/2023 9:39 PM They were like two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle: they needed each other and fitted together.

pain

It was very menacing for me to hear the Liverpool accent when it was aggressive, especially when it was John. He was so caustic, and though he never scared me he could cut you down with a couple of words and a glance, and did. We got on OK because he had a bit of respect for me - I'd been on the telly - but we never got close. He was full of complexes, and to compensate for that he had a big ego. He was the intellectual and extrovert driving force, the natural leader. Paul was very talented, a frisky kind of guy, completely extrovert. His whole life was the show.

interesting that he characterizes both of them as extroverted

VeggieRavioli — 02/27/2023 9:49 PM there's another quote in my head that I can't find, about how the interplay between John and Paul was the epicenter of the Beatles' mach shau-ing in Hamburg

Hamburg is where they truly tapped into their onstage chemistry. They might not have been songwriting during this time - too exhausted and overworked for that obv - but it's where they realized how their partnership could electrify an entire room, not just their music and their singing

mynamesbetty — 02/27/2023 9:52 PM Lesley-Ann Jones, The Search for John Lennon, on John's motivations for having Stu in the band - she's harsher on him than I would be but I can't say she's completely wrong

But John can't needle and bitch about Paul's musicianship to make himself feel better because Paul is just as good and maybe ever more talented than John, so he stops complaining where Paul is concerned and starts thinking about what they can accomplish together

Morrigan — 02/27/2023 9:54 PM It’s truly fascinating how evident that was to so many people I think the whole Stu situation was majorly messy…teenagers or young adults in over their heads..ego, sexuality, hormones and messy emotions running rampant all of the place …add to that drugs and alcohol. It must’ve been fascinating to watch from afar though

VeggieRavioli — 02/27/2023 9:57 PM I don't agree with the latter part of this passage tbh, John didn't need any propping up in terms of having his ability recognized versus Paul's

mynamesbetty — 02/27/2023 9:58 PM Yeah, that part I disagree with from our outside perspective, but John was always insecure about his abilities as a musician

Morrigan — 02/27/2023 9:59 PM Yeah I also disagree on that part

Leggy「little love of mine」 — 02/27/2023 10:01 PM John respected that core of iron, the fact that he couldn't maneuver Paul endlessly fascinated him. I still don't know how to judge John's feelings about his own musicianship, I guess that's where the competitive aspect comes in, but it is fascinating that he decided to prioritize the health of the band over his personal feelings about Paul's abilities.

mynamesbetty — 02/27/2023 10:02 PM John's nascent case of imposter syndrome couldn't stand up to the blazing pillar of self confidence that was eighteen year old stinky rat boy Paul McCartney

VeggieRavioli — 02/27/2023 10:06 PM but the part about Stu entrancing the chicks is dead on lol — of all the Beatles, was Stu the first to provoke an on-sight orgasm out of the audience?? We will never know

louiselux — 02/28/2023 3:12 AM He’s gonna ride that stinky rat boy all the way to the top!

louiselux — 02/28/2023 3:30 AM John seemed to be very incisive about people’s musical abilities in general, but seemed to get stuck when assessing his own.

alfenbalf — 02/28/2023 3:54 AM Tony Sheridan giving off big "I'm from Norfolk" energy here. Baby, John has the softest, gentlest Liverpool accent ever

I love Klaus

louiselux — 02/28/2023 4:14 AM Ha! That explains it - John's accent is the softest

Leggy「little love of mine」 — 02/28/2023 8:22 PM John had the classic "mildly clever kid trapped in the american school system" problem where he was able to coast on his natural gifts for years and then struggled to respond to situations that challenged his abilities. And then he has the help/hindrance of being with Paul and Paul is able to challenge him, and get his skill levels up, but Paul was also a crutch for him in a lot of ways so John didn't learn how to deal with challenges on his own. Most people wouldn't in his situation.

People like John benefit immensely from mentorships preferably from a young age. Hence the proliferation of masterful artists during the Renaissance. In ideal circumstances John would have been apprenticed to someone as eclectic as he was who could educate him and grow his talents. His real talent lay in the fact that he was able to self teach everything he needed to know.

He really was a natural leader.

mynamesbetty — 02/28/2023 8:25 PM That rich old lady (or man) to support him while he focused on his art never materialized so he pulled his socks up and did it all himself

#mclennon #hamburg #hamburg days #beatles meta #my meta #the beatles #john lennon #paul mccartney #stuart sutcliffe #mclennon server

106 notes · View notes

denimbex1986 · 6 months ago

Text

'Steven Zaillian’s choice in what he chooses to write comes down to two simple questions, as he explains: “Is it interesting to me? Do I think I could do it well?” And in the case of Netflix’s “Ripley,” his eight-part adaptation of Patricia Highsmith’s 1955 novel “The Talented Mr. Ripley,” the answer to both was yes. But Zaillian — who often pens meaty tales of men in morally gray areas, including “Gangs of New York,” “American Gangster,” “Awakenings” and the one that earned him an Oscar in 1994, “Schindler’s List” — didn’t stop with sole screenwriter credit on “Ripley.” He’s its director and an executive producer too. Zaillian spoke with The Envelope via Zoom about taking on the equally gray-area Tom Ripley in stark black-and-white … and one splash of red.

What drew you to Patricia Highsmith’s books in the first place?

I gravitate to things that have a kind of timelessness to them. Even if “Ripley” does take place in 1955 or 1960 or whatever, it’s a timeless story.

Timeless, though the details might not work in today’s world.

At one point, a company I was talking to said, “Yeah, we’d love to make it as long as you make it in the present day.” I said, “I can’t. This story will not work with cellphones and all that stuff.” That’s the reason to keep it in the period. It’s a great period: pre-Beatles, pre-Italy being overrun with tourists. But we’re always going to have these kinds of people in our lives.

Anthony Minghella‘s 1999 sun-splashed film “The Talented Mr. Ripley” is almost a diametrically opposed version from what you’re doing on Netflix. Was that intentional?

It wasn’t a conscious effort to do that. It was a conscious effort to capture what I imagined it would look like when I first read the book. I just couldn’t see this story in color, and I didn’t feel that it was a fashion show or a happy, like you said, sunny postcard look. In the book, [Highsmith] spends a good 50 pages describing his life in New York. It felt important for me to establish this guy who’s really just a petty criminal, and I had enough time to do that.

It’s almost a shame to spend so much time in Italy and not see it in color.

Go back to neorealist films — they’re in black-and-white. “La Dolce Vita” is black-and-white and pretty Italian. Those were the looks of Italy I had in mind.

So had you thought of shooting in—

Film? No. I’m not sure in this day and age what the point is of doing that when you can shoot digitally and have that look like film. But we were careful while shooting; no color monitors on the set. We recorded in color but never looked at it in color.

Though there is that moment when the cat walks through blood and leaves behind red marks. Why single that out?

You’re in the editing room for a year, and you’re playing with things. I said one day, “Know what? Maybe it’d be fun to have the cat paws be the only shot that’s in color.” There’s no hidden meaning. I found it fun.

You directed, wrote and executive produced, which you also did in 2016’s “The Night of.” What’s beneficial about having your hands in so many pies?

The biggest benefit of directing something I’ve written is, whether it turns out good or not, it’s what I intended. I don’t write any differently. I’m one of those people who can’t write it unless I can see it in my mind. So I’ve kind of already seen the movie by the time I’m done writing the script. I’m lucky I can do both.

What made Andrew Scott your Ripley?

I’d only seen him in a few things — “Sherlock,” “Fleabag” and a movie called “Locke,” where he was just a voice on the phone. He created quite a character with just his voice. I was making something where we were going to be with somebody who’s on their own a lot. He has to somehow bring the audience in and have them experience things as he’s experiencing them.

He’s 47, though; the character in Highsmith’s books is in his 20s. Scott isn’t playing mid-20s, right?

When I cast him, he was 41. I felt the characters should all be about the same age — Dickie and Marge and Tom — and around 35 felt good. If you’re 35 and you’re a trust-fund kid, I can see your parents getting pretty concerned about your future. With Tom, I felt he’s this desperate con-man character, so he needed more history behind him than a 25-year-old would have.

And did you have other actors in mind?

He was the first choice. One and only.

You mentioned including a splash of color for fun. Was including John Malkovich, who played Ripley in 2003’s “Ripley’s Game,” also for fun?

He plays a character who’s not even in “The Talented Mr. Ripley,” and I found a use for that character in the story and wanted to — if we ever do any more of them — to establish this character in the first one. I told that to John, like, “Can you see that this would be fun and cool?” And he said, “Let’s do it.” He was just delightful.

So will you make another of Highsmith’s Ripley novels?

If [executives] asked me that now, the answer would be no. Will enough time go by where I recover and think about it? Yeah. And if I did it, [Malkovich] would definitely be in it. I want him in it.

What makes Tom Ripley so endlessly fascinating?

Con men are interesting characters and make for good drama. But Tom is much more than that. The total of who he is makes him such an enduring character. He’s such a complex and distinctive character. He’s one of the few characters that does bad things that we want to see anyway.'

#Steven Zaillian #Netflix #Ripley #Andrew Scott #John Malkovich #Patricia Highsmith #The Talented Mr Ripley #Anthony Minghella #Locke #Sherlock #Fleabag

4 notes · View notes

singeratlarge · 8 months ago

Text

SUNDAY MATINEE MUSIC VIDEO “Dancin’ by the River (Tex-Mex Garage Mix)” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L14-hl4IEss — The lyrics came from a dream: I saw a clear summer day with a water baptism happening at Pine Creek, a scenic waterway that flows southward through north central Pennsylvania (and shown in this video). There was a romantic undercurrent between a man and a woman, visibly in love and grateful to be getting baptized. Surrounding them was a group of happy people having a festival—kind of like a Grateful Dead concert (minus certain substances).

This spicy jangly-guitar pop track was inspired by early Beatles, vintage Chicano rock’n’roll, Mexican gangster films, Roy Orbison’s “Pretty Woman,” and The Everly Brothers’s cover of "Lucille." On a cosmic jukebox it would play next to Richie Valens, Neil Diamond, and The Monkees ("Little Bit Me Little Bit You")—in fact, Davy Jones said it should be “top of the pops.” This recording (mixed by Tim Breon) has gotten airplay around the world and features the drum work of Bill Matlack, Jr. + vocals & percussion by evinrude a.k.a. Kevin Spyker. The song has been in my live set for years, including with Paul Farnham and The Gypsy Lizards, and the band October (with Ron Davis and Chris Haggerty).

youtube

#texmex #garagerock #pinecreek #pennsylvania #appalachia #baptism #beatles #chicano #rocknroll #mexican #royorbison #prettywoman #everlybrothers #lucille #richievalens #neildiamond #monkees #davyjones #johnnyjblair #timbreon #billmatlack #evinrude #kevinspyker #paulfarnham #rondavis #chrishaggerty #victorvalverde #october #singersongwriter #singeratlarge

5 notes · View notes

ariel-seagull-wings · 2 years ago

Text

FICTIONAL CHARACTER ASK: JOHNNY FIAMA

Asked by @princesssarisa

@moonbeamelf @fragglesesamemuppetz2 @softlytowardthesun @themousefromfantasyland @angelixgutz @amalthea9

Favorite Thing About Them: His passion for a period in music history and genre that is not really popular in modern times. He doesn't care that is not a trend, he sings crooner music and dresses in a rat pack style gangster suit because that is what he loves and identifies with, and that is a nice message of encouragement that the character presents in a subtle way.

Least Favorite Thing About Them: He can be arrogant and frequently force himself into other people's spaces, even trying to force other people to eat his mother's spagetthi when they just don't want to or can't at the moment.

Three Things I Have In Common With Them:

* I love pasta;

* I enjoy the melody of the song Goldfinger;

* I probably would get nervous in awe when meeting an idol;

Three Things I Don't Have In Common With Them:

* I'm not italian american;

* I don't have a monkey working for me as my security guard;

* I'm not a crooner singer;

Favorite Line:

This exchange he has with Clifford and Sal Minella about his Tony Bennet fanboy memorabilia:

"Johnny Fiama: Oh, Clifford! I'm so glad you stopped in. Listen, in honor of Tony being on the show, I thought I'd bring in a few of my collectibles from home.

Clifford: You brought in all this yourself?

Johnny Fiama: Oh, you better believe it, kid.

Sal Minella: I got the last one here, Johnny.

Johnny Fiama: Oh, thank you, Sal. Listen, put it over there, huh, pal?

Sal Minella: Okay.

Johnny Fiama: Great. Look, Clifford, I got every album Tony Bennett ever made, including this very rare, Sergeant Tony's Lonely Hearts Club Gang, which, by the way, came out a week before the one with those other guys.

Clifford: The Beatles?...

Johnny Fiama: Whatever. Anyway, look, I got the Tony Bennett lunchbox, huh? And then, and then I got the Tony Bennett action figure with kung-fu grip. And then, I got a full case of his canned pasta, Rig-a-Tony Bennett!

Sal Minella: You want I should open a can, Johnny?

Johnny Fiama: Sal. Is it New Year's?

Sal Minella: No. Sorry, Johnny."

These line he says when playing the role of Prince John in the comic Muppet Robin Hood:

"Look, boys, I really don't care what he does to Marian, but this whole thing makes me look bad, and you know I hate to look bad."

"Now that I think about it, I could really go for some cookies right now! Can we get some cookies here?"

brOTP: Clifford, Big Mean Carl, Dr. Phill van Neuter, Seymour the Elephant, Pepe the King Prawn, Spamela Hamderson, Bobo the Bear, Rowlf the Dog.

OTP: Sal Minella, Dr. Teeth.

nOTP: Clarissa, the lady who hates his music style and who sitted with Johnny Fiama in a dinner table because Sal Minella forced her.

Random Headcanon: He only imitates the fashion of gangsters that he saw on movies, but he isn't really in the mob.

Unpopular Opinion: He is a great Muppet character who is specially fitting to play antagonistic roles (like Prince John in the comic Muppet Robin Hood) and should be considered an important member of the gang just like Bobo the Bear and Pepe the King Prawn have becomed.

Song I Associate With Them:

The Year of the Chick

youtube

We Hardly Heard Ya

youtube

Shaking the Blues Away

youtube

Favorite Picture of Them:

#Youtube #muppets #the muppets #johnny fiama #muppets tonight #fictional character ask #character ask meme

14 notes · View notes

agentnico · 1 year ago

Text

My Most Anticipated Movies of 2024

Here we are - Christmas behind us and right at the precipice of the end of the year with 2024 ready to rock and rumble. So naturally as per usual this time of year I do all my film-related Top 10 lists, with the first up My Most Anticipated Movies of 2024. An interesting aspect of 2024 is that it is in fact bare bones when it comes to superhero flicks with both Marvel and DC taking a little break as they reorganise that respective cinematic universes, with the only major flicks of that genre being Deadpool 3 and the Joker sequel. As such, I’m really hoping we will get some stand out releases from the indie and more niche market, so looking forward to those surprises down the line, as for now here are the movies on my radar who I see having potential at being the stand outs in 2024…

10) KUNG FU PANDA 4 - Jack Black’s Po the Dragon Warrior is back for another round of hijinks. DreamWorks animation sequels recently have been nothing short of superb, with the genuinely laugh-out-loud hilarious Croods 2 and then the fantastic Puss in Boots: The Last Wish that had no right to be THAT good! Like honestly, how the hell was Puss in Boots 2 so awesome!? From the striking and ambitious animation style, to the soundtrack and one hell of a title track with “Fearless Hero”, to the narrative itself tackling surprisingly mature themes and honest depictions of panic attacks - Puss in Boots: The Last Wish is a masterpiece! There, I said it. As such really high hopes now for DreamWorks’ other projects, with Kung Fu Panda always a reliable series, yet I must say the trailer was a tad underwhelming hence why it’s so low on the list. Still though, the previous 3 have been solid so no reason for this one not to. Let’s give this panda some love!

9) THE MINISTRY OF UNGENTLEMANLY WARFARE - Director Guy Ritchie has been on a real hot-streak lately, delivering quality after quality. 2019’s The Gentlemen is one of the coolest gangster flicks in recent memory, 2015’s The Man from U.N.C.L.E was an entertaining action espionage caper with some great humorous banter, and this year’s The Covenant was one of the more underrated surprises, delivering a tense and realistic pulse pounding war thriller that was so out of character for Ritchie, yet honestly delivered such an edge of your seat experience. Then there’s that Aladdin remake with a blue Will Smith. Look, everyone’s gotta pay the bills, but nonetheless Guy Ritchie really is hitting the mark non-stop, so really looking forward to this World War II based action spy film produced by Jerry Bruckheimer. Love the title alone. Also Henry Cavill’s in the lead and that guy’s simply cool.

8) ARGYLLE - So much so that this is the second film on the list featuring Henry Cavill in the lead. What a cast - John Cena, Sam Rockwell, Dua Lipa, Bryce Dallas Howard, Samuel L. Jackson, Sofia Boutella and Bryan Cranston. Talk about an ensemble! This comes to us from Matthew Vaughn who made those Kingsman movies, and one could argue that this looks and feels like a Kingsman movie. Wouldn’t even be surprised if at the film’s end there will be a twist connecting it to that franchise Cloverfield-style. Looks like a good time though, as long as they brush up on their special effects, as that CGI cat is Garfield-level bad!

7) BOB MARLEY: ONE LOVE - When a music biopic is done right then it is SO right! Taron Egerton rocked as Elton John in Rocketman, and Baz Luhrmann visual frenetic style paired really well with the crazy life of Presley in 2022’s Elvis. And who can of course forget the incredible tale of Dewey Cox, as he walked hard through his drug-filled Bob Dylan-stealing life where absolutely nothing bad happened to him. I’m of course kidding, but if you’ve never seen Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story then you’re missing out on of the funniest music biopic satires ever. That movie is hilarious and the Beatles scene alone is worth the price of admission. Anyway, in regards to One Love, the trailers for this Bob Marley biopic have actually been really intriguing. Kingsley Ben-Adir seems to be impersonating the famous reggae singer really well and the movie itself seems to offer a powerful depiction of Marley’s journey behind his revolutionary music. At the very least I’m going to enjoy listening to “Buffalo Soldier” on the big screen, and that’s gotta count for something.

6) FURIOSA: A MAD MAX SAGA - One of the stand-outs of George Miller’s absolute batshit insane wasteland hit Mad Max: Fury Road was Charlize Theron’s headstrong Furiosa. Well Theron is not returning and instead Anya Taylor-Joy takes on the role as a younger version of the character. I am always hesitant with prequel stories as I always wonder what’s the point of them, however Miller’s Fury Road was visually incredible with some outstanding action sequences, and additionally the trailer for Furiosa features an unhinged Chris Hemsworth, and for those of you who’ve seen Bad Times at the El Royale you’ll know the guy can play insane really well.

5) DRIVE AWAY DOLLS - The Coen Brothers are behind some of the most thrilling crime capers in film history, yet recently they temporarily parted ways to focus on their own projects. Joel went on to direct a truly spectacular Shakespeare adaptation of Tragedy of Macbeth that gave Roman Polanski’s original a run for its money, and now Ethan Coen has got his first solo directorial outing with Drive Away Dolls. It’s a queer roadtrip buddy comedy about two friends whose spontaneous trip to Tallahassee is undermined by a gang of amateur criminals. Should be a fun time at the movies with hopefully some of the Coens’ signature wit, and the supporting cast featuring Pedro Pascal and Matt Damon simply sounds delightful.

4) MICKEY 17 - Bong Joon-Ho’s highly anticipated science fiction film starring Robert Pattinson. Not much is known about this however Joon-Ho is fresh of winning an Oscar for Best Picture for his incredible Parasite, and Pattinson has really proven in the last decade that he’s a very talented actor, and that the quicker we forget about his Twilight times the better. Look, it’s a movie that is made by a very talented group of people, so I’m really rooting for this one to be a hit.

3) DEADPOOL 3 - One of the few superhero flicks of 2024, and the only one I really care about, as, well, it’s fricking Deadpool! The first two were awesome, and we have Ryan Reynolds back in this one, this time with the highly anticipated return of Wolverine himself - Hugh Jackman. Again, there are reasons to be worried, as the MCU’s Multiverse saga has been very underwhelming and this film is posed to be at the centre of this cinematic plot line. Additionally, due to the writer’s strike earlier in 2023 Ryan Reynolds was not allowed to improvise on set, and I feel like Deadpool thrives of the ad-libbing and actors being allowed to act in the moment, so take that away and what do we have? Fingers crossed the team know what they are doing and I’m still really looking forward to it, yet Deadpool 3 has a lot to prove come it’s summer release day.

2) MAXXXINE - The final entry is Ty West’s horror trilogy X. Following the only survivor of the bloody incidents of X, Maxine continues her journey towards fame to be an actress in 1980s Los Angeles. Both X and Pearl really reinvigorated the horror genre as they both took inspiration from the old yet managed to blend in something new, as such making this third installment one of my most anticipated this year. In fact, I don’t enjoy horror films that much, so when one gets me so invested it really proves a point that it is something truly special.

1)THE LORD OF THE RINGS: WAR OF THE ROHIRRIM - Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy are my favourite set of films ever. So of course anything to do with Lord of the Rings gets my blood pumping. Amazon Prime’s recent Rings of Power show was an absolute slap to the dick, and was such a disservice to the fans, however War of the Rohirrim sounds more promising. The prequel will be an anime adaptation of Tolkien's world and will take inspiration from the look and feel of Peter Jackson's original trilogy, with Miranda Otto returning to narrate, and as you may recall Otto played Eowyn, the daughter of Theoden, in the original trilogy. The film is directed by anime industry heavyweight Kenji Kamiyama, known for his work on Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex and Blade Runner: Black Lotus, promising excitement for both Tolkien and anime fans with his impressive track record. It sounds like The War of the Rohirrim will be worth the wait at least because at Annecy Film Festival in June 2023, an exclusive first look was screened and the first reactions are very positive. And look, it is a new Lord of the Rings movie that will be playing in cinemas! I am very afraid but also very excited!

4 notes · View notes

obey-moi · 1 year ago

Text

Angels and demons can live centuries, millennia even. There’s no arguing about that. Even Solomon has lived hundreds on hundreds of years.

Another fact is that both races also have visited the human world (demons more often than angels, if I’m assuming correct).

What I would LOVE to see is what the characters got up to during the decades, what styles they would wear in order to blend into the human world, stuff like that.

(Keep in mind this all comes from a Very American POV of history, which is not to discredit or forget other events around the world. I’ll even cover Belphegor’s whereabouts despite being grounded in the attic for a while. I just want to keep this light-hearted, yeah?)

Like. 50’s gangster/beatnik bs, of course. I’m sure many of us have written plenty of 50’s AU fics. Not much I can say here. I’m sure Asmo adored Mod back then, as well as the little well-known Marilyn Monroe, and was incredibly heartbroken over the deaths of James Dean and Buddy Holly. Satan fell in love with “Catcher in the Rye” and is just behind most riots and protests in general, here and in the future. Belphie gets more and more interested in the developments between America’s and Russia’s space race.

Then the 60’s, Belphie REALLY getting behind the hippie movement, where more teens and young adults became disillusioned with the status quo and stopped working, started living in vans, and taking crazy drugs. That must have been a groovy time for Bels. Not to mention Asmo is probably one of the biggest inciters of the free love movement. Without that 57 brother duo, The Beatles, The Monkeys, all those bands might not have ever existed. Mammon gets super inspired by Oceans 11 and tries to get his brothers in on a heist plan (Lucifer shuts that down QUICK).

And when they hit the 70’s?? Leviathan discovering PONG?? Lucifer going with Diavolo to a fucking discotheque wearing those silken half-open button-downs and flared pants??? (I’M GOING CRAZY. I’M GONNA TURN INTO A BUG. I think I just want to see those two wearing silk shirts with all the sexual tension between them of the covers of gay romance novels). On the other end of the subgenre scale, Satan gets into punk and blasts The Clash and The Ramones on Lucifer’s record player 24/7 in an act of defiance.

Then in the 80’s, Mammon got up to terrible corpo-schemes, going crazy over the stock exchange. And Beel. Ohhhh god Beel is going crazy keeping up with the Fast Food development. He’s running around, going from one fast food joint to another like a strained addict who needs his next McRib fix. Asmo? Oh honey, he is WORKING. He is SERVING. He is becoming a TRENDSETTER, an ICON. The clothes, the hair, the makeup, the colours and prints and fabrics, the whole god damned EVERYTHING. Prince? Madonna? Jane Fonda? Uplifting and inspiring each other (or at least their stylists). Although, if you ever find photos of Asmo in his 80’s era, no you didn’t. (Mammon keeps entire photo albums of all his bro’s in the decades in secret. Claims it’s for blackmail or to sell to fans.) The NES comes out and it all goes downhill for Levi.

I could go into more decades, but I wanna hear from Y’ALL! I wanna read what era events or trends you can see the characters getting into and influencing/being influenced by. Please, share your thoughts!

#obey me #obey me shall we date #obey me!#obey me! shall we date?

3 notes · View notes

notgrungybitchin · 1 year ago

Text

Twenty Questions for Fic Writers

Thank you for the tag @theoldmixer !!!

How many works do you have on ao3? 10

What's your total ao3 word count? 26,197

What fandoms do you write for?

Currently only The Beatles. In the past Boardwalk Empire. I also wrote some Good Omens fic that I never published way back in 2011

What are your top 5 fics by kudos?

The Great and Powerful (Boardwalk Empire, Charlie/Meyer)

I Don't Care Too Much (The Beatles, John/Paul)

Was I So Unwise (The Beatles, John/Paul)

A Cup of Kindness (Boardwalk Empire, Margaret/Arnold)

All The Odds Are In My Favor (Boardwalk Empire, Margaret/Arnold)

Do you respond to comments? Why or why not?

Yes! There might be a few times I forget to, especially on old fics, but I always try to. They genuinely make my day and keep me motivated, so I want to say thank you!

What is a fic you wrote with the angstiest ending?

Probably I'm No Good at Aiming (Boardwalk Empire, Benny/Meyer) I was a lot more committed to pure angst writing in Boardwalk fandom because the show was so dark. Now that I'm into rpf I still love angst, but I always try to give them a happy ending. (I realize that my Boardwalk fic was also partly gangster rpf, but I guess I wasn't as attached to happy endings because gangsters? Or maybe I've just gone soft.)

What's the fic you wrote with the happiest ending?

Probably I Don't Care Too Much. It's a very sweet and hopeful ending.

Do you get hate on fics?

I haven't yet thankfully. Although when I get a comment from that one troll that pops up on Mclennon fic every so often, I'll know I've made it!

Do you write smut?

I didn't until I got into The Beatles and J/P! I used to be a little uncomfortable writing it, and usually just had a steamy makeout session or fade to black. But something about those two idiots just gave me the bug and now I plan on including smut in all my fic.

Do you write crossovers? What's the craziest one you've written?

I never did, though I had an idea for an overly complex Star Wars/Boardwalk Empire AU back in the day.

Have you ever had a fic stolen?

Not that I know of.

Have you ever had a fic translated?

I don't think so.

Have you ever co-written a fic before?

No but I think it would be fun!

What's your all-time favorite ship?

John Lennon/Paul McCartney. It's infected my brain and taken over my soul. And it's the only thing to get me back into writing after years AND to get me writing smut.

What's a wip you want to finish, but doubt you ever will?

I have some fun Good Omens ficlets that I never published because they are just dialogue. I just doubt I'll ever get around to them again.

What are your writing strengths?

I always find it way easier to write dialogue than anything else. Sometimes my very early drafts just look like scripts with no description added yet.

What are your writing weaknesses?

I think it comes out okay, and I've gotten better at it, but I find writing descriptions and internal monologues difficult. I often get frustrated trying to get my characters from points A to B. I always get bored writing anything but action and dialogue. I used to think I would like to be a screenwriter for this reason.

Thoughts on writing dialogue in another language for a fic?

I wrote some lines in Yiddish for Boardwalk Empire fic, but I always ran them by my Yiddish-speaking friend to make sure they made sense. I also had a few French lines in I Don't Care Too Much, but they were mostly spoken by non-French speaking characters so I worried less about them. I don't think I'd try writing more than a few lines without a native speaker's input though.

First fandom you wrote for?

Good Omens! I wrote some fluffy Aziraphale/Crowly ficlets but I never published them.

Favorite fic you've written?

I think probably Was I So Unwise. It holds a special place in my heart as my first fic in eight years. It's for last year's Beatles Secret Santa, which I associate with the first time I really joined the community of the Beatles fandom, and it's hurt/comfort, one of my favorite subgenres!

I'll tag @aquarianshift, @goatsandgangsters, @meyerlansky, and @muzaktomyears if you want to!

#thank you so much for the tag!#it was fun to go back and look at my fics from my past fandom #especially since I barely remember writing my most kudos'd fic!

6 notes · View notes

septembersghost · 2 years ago

Note

me listening to Elvis: this music is so wholesome and fun and nice why did people have a problem with it? me listening to Steamroller Blues: they let him sing this on the radio? 😳

ASFASHSDHSDKGLJHS

he's only singing about sharing his love for the rhythm and blues, whatever do you mean? 😌😏

the funny thing about that song, which is a much later one from him, is it was originally written by james taylor as a parody: "[He] had heard one too many pretentious white blues bands and wrote 'Steamroller' to mock them." but something about the vocal of the cover sells it.

a lot of subversiveness in old music was subtext (especially like anywhere from the 20s-60s), but it was still enough for certain people to get mad about. then with elvis, add in the forbidden wiggling (how dare! there should not be suggestion of rhythm onstage! what if it conjures...sexiness?! 😱), the pervasive idea of some level of sinfulness that was associated with rock and roll, and the underlying racism towards r&b that extended to anyone presenting it to a mass audience, and you get, well, trouble.

on the personal side of this, my maternal grandparents were both teachers and very faithful people, so despite their deep love of music (and musical theatre of the day) and living in california, they were quite conservative about what was acceptable. my mom was a child when elvis' career first took off, but a teenager when he made his comeback, and she wasn't allowed to listen to/watch him, because, you know, hips and rock music! she wasn't allowed to listen to the beatles (that shaggy hair!), and though they listened to the radio, they disapproved of artists like frank's "lifestyle" (they kind of saw him as a gangster lmao), marilyn was scandalous, and so on. they did let her listen to the beach boys, because they were so nice and clean cut (hilarious irony given what was going on behind-the-scenes, and what's more is elvis' faith and overall personal beliefs probably would've been something they'd have liked). my grandpa had an incredible baritone and was offered a record contract when he was young, after he came back from wwii, but turned it down because he believed his voice should only be used in church to uplift the lord. my mom was asked to do a screen test in highschool and they wouldn't allow it. i think all the time about how different their lives might have been (i wouldn't exist to comment, but that's not a great loss to the universe lol). my mom actually shocked me this christmas when she told me she couldn't remember them ever listening to secular holiday music growing up. this wasn't true by the time i was a kid! i loved my grandparents very much and was lucky to grow up so close to them and know them well, some of my favorite memories are watching old films and listening to music with them, and maybe it was because i was a grandchild so they could be more open, but my grandpa in particular always wanted to know what i was reading or listening to, and i shared so much with him. i vividly remember playing the phantom cast recording for him and how he enjoyed it, how he even listened to 'n sync with me (he especially liked their acapella rendition of o holy night). so much of my appreciation for musical theatre and classic cinema started with them, it just stretched far beyond what they tended to gravitate towards.

meanwhile, my paternal grandmother was a total sponge for the culture, she loved all types of music, movies, and theatre, and they were in brooklyn so closer to that nyc melting pot and broadway. she worked for composer frank loesser for a while, she met a young barbra streisand, she loved frank and bing and tony bennett, all the crooners of the day, she at least liked elvis' ballads, she enjoyed the romantic comedies and the noir. so my dad had all that growing up, and then he was a huge beatles fan. my dad introduced my mom to sinatra's and streisand's work and they jointly passed that on to me, while she gave me the beach boys and fleetwood mac and carole king and the carpenters and james taylor, and he gave me things like the hits of the beatles and elvis and was my introduction to interest in marilyn. i'd hear whitney and mariah and celine with my mom, and reba and the judds and george strait with my dad. but somehow the old things really stuck and are what i ended up expanding on my own (and it probably says something about me psychologically that i held onto the things i could bond over with my dad because we are such different people, whereas my mom and i are alike and she often ends up loving everything i love anyway). i'm always grateful for those early sparks of passion and seeds that i got to water and cultivate and let blossom in my own love of various art.

tl;dr this reply got so away from me but yes, in hindsight and given the many boundaries that have come down in art and expression today, it's hard to imagine why certain seemingly innocuous things were considered so spicy back in the day. and while the culture is ever-changing, those foundations and what was beautifully created and impactfully shifted as time went by still has a powerful presence and ties into so much that continues to exist, and that's part of why much of that music and many of those films are evergreen to me.

#sorry this became a personal essay #i've been thinking about all of this a lot #anonymous #letterbox #music expresses that which cannot be said and on which it is impossible to be silent #bubble wrap around my heart #i was a dreamer

8 notes · View notes

cellarfulofnose · 2 years ago

Text

a taste of honey

Short ficlet from the Hamburg days. Ringo, pre-Beatles, is intimidating but sweet. part 1 of 2

"Oi, it's him again," George said in a low voice.

Paul frowned and leaned in closer. They'd been playing going on three hours now, and George's words were garbled noise to Paul's ringing ears. Well, all right--they'd been on stage going on three hours, but they hadn't been playing much just now. As the last patrons either trickled out in search of someplace to shack up, or fell asleep in their seats, there hadn't been much of an audience to play to. So they vamped twelve-bar blues. Improvised a little, fucked around. Paul didn't mind. He wasn't tired, exactly; it'd be ages before he could fall asleep, even without any pills, but he felt out of it somehow. Not all there. Like a waking dream. So even if his hearing hadn't been blown to hell, he might not have understood what George was saying.

George stepped closer and tried again. "He's here." He stood facing Paul upstage, his back to the pit, but he gave a pointed glance and a slight nod to the side, as if to gesture over his shoulder without being seen.

"Who's here?" Paul squinted out at the audience (for lack of a better word). The place looked empty. He shielded his eyes against the garish stage lights. For a while, the room was washed in a green glow as his eyes adjusted to the dark. But once they sharpened, Paul saw, unmistakable--him.

John had joined them by now, peering hawkishly out at the dark for whatever it was that had caught their attention. Paul knew he'd never get a good look from this distance, no matter the light, so he ducked his head and muttered, "It's Ringo."

Bearded, heavy-eyed, and pissed as a newt, he had sunk onto a settee at the back of the room and didn't appear eager to move. God, even in his drunken splay and pink-flamingo suit, he looked dangerous, every bit the gangster. He almost seemed to glint, as if he'd got a blade hidden somewhere. Paul swallowed.

"Better play well, lads," John said, his voice dancing, too light not to be a front, "or Richard the Lionheart here'll have our heads off."

Paul turned to shush him, but a heavy groan and a creak of furniture from the back of the room made him spin to attention. Shit, Ringo was headed their way. Shit, shit, shit. Paul glanced at the other three, who were all rooted to their spots. Pete had stopped playing, though he was probably safe behind his drum kit, it was the guitars who were exposed, he'd nab them first, they were done for, this was all John's bloody fault--

Ringo struck a match against the edge of the stage and lit his cigarette in one fluid swipe. He didn't give them so much as a glance, but turned around--wobbled a bit--and began to lumber back to his seat, puffing smoke like a locomotive.

The group seemed to sigh with relief. But John, apparently chasing some sort of adrenaline fix now that the prellies had worn off, called out to Ringo's back, "Any requests, Herr Sailor?"

Ringo answered, true to his craft, without missing a beat. "Three--" He interrupted himself straight out of the gate with a hair-raising hiccup. "Three-thirty Blues," he finished, and dropped onto the settee, legs spread, arms back, smoking indulgently. His voice was something of a wonder to Paul. It wasn't deep, mind--there were times when he would've said it was a high voice--but it had this roughness to it. His accent wasn't even as thick as George's, but there was no mistake. This was a boy who...

No, Paul corrected himself; boy, nothing. This was a man. A man who'd ask you a question once and expect an answer and not be keen to repeat himself. And he'd asked them for Three-thirty Blues.

John looked at Paul. Paul looked at George, and they launched into Three-thirty Blues.

John didn't know this one. They hadn't practiced it. But he was a class above the rest at following their lead, and it wasn't exactly Mozart anyway. It was blues, for God's sake; one-four-five, Bob's your uncle. Even so, Paul began to sweat as the solo approached. This was the make-or-break, quintessential section of the song. If they fucked this, it was a thumbs-down from Caesar and they were goners all.

But George, the Boy Wonder, rang it out perfectly, note-for-note. Their savior. Paul flashed him a big grin to garnish John's attaboy, Georgie. It really did sound good. Paul could've sung, only this tune didn't have any words. He turned out to see if their audience was enjoying it as much as he was.

Ringo's face was blotted by smoke. As the cloud thinned, Paul could see him frowning thoughtfully up at the stage. He wasn't looking at them, though, but almost above them. Paul's spirits sank a bit. He clearly wasn't focused, though Paul tried not to let it get to him. The less he focused on them, the less likely he was to knock their teeth in. And the man was nearly blind-drunk, after all. Looked like he was having trouble just keeping his eyes open.

When his eyes fell shut at last, Paul was sure they were about to watch Ringo pass out. But instead, his mouth dropped open in a gasp and he launched forward with a ferocious sneeze. And another-and-another, right on top of each other, aimed at the ground between his legs. Smoke drifted through the room.

Paul jumped so badly he lost the beat. Not only was it sudden, they were loud; and not like a frightened shout, either, like John, but like rolling, growling thunder. Hurricanes, indeed. Christ.

(That was probably how he punched, too, Paul caught himself thinking. One-two-three before you could get your hands up. Guaranteed fatal. He tried not to shiver.)

"Gesundheit," John called proudly to the back of the room, determined never to use English when mocking German would do.

Paul felt strange that John had acknowledged Ringo's sneezing that way, but true, it wasn't easy--or possible--to ignore. Maybe even from across the street. In any case, even a blessing sounded like a provocation coming from John.

But Ringo still didn't rise to anger. He dipped his head in a modest bow and lifted his cigarette, like Gatsby toasting Nick Carraway. It was a gesture of acknowledgement, a thank-you, but it looked like an explanation, almost penitent: sorry, mate. It's them that do it. Whatever the cause, he leaned back with a sniff and continued smoking, looking like he hadn't a care in the world.

Paul shook his head, but he was still dizzy. It must have been almost time for their set to end. He was dying to get out of there, to get some rest and a drink, and yet...

The song crawled to an awkward end, and Ringo broke out in laughter. Paul's heart only dropped for a second--it wasn't cruel or mocking, he realized, but but boisterous, joyful laughter.

It was applause.

At that realization, Paul's head swelled with pride, and he bent smartly in half with a sweeping bow. Standing back up almost made him lose his vision, he was so dizzy. He knocked into George and Ringo started laughing and hiccuping all over again, but Paul didn't mind. All right, they'd made it. They'd played to live another day.

George seemed too giddy to complain, either, all teeth as far as the eye could see. Stuart wasn't smiling, but even he couldn't ruin Paul's mood tonight. He could have kept playing forever--but that marked the end of their set.

Over John's theatrical Thank yous, Ringo called, "Another one!" No threat behind it. Just an invitation. He was so cavalier about it, his confidence as plain as the nose on his face (and what a fucking nose it was, Paul couldn't help noticing. Downright regal.) You know you want to.

Stuart, who apparently didn't want to, shrugged off his bass and left. Pete looked ready to die, but he held up his drumsticks. Paul and George looked at John.

They all looked at Ringo.

Paul scooped up Stuart's bass and slung it over his shoulder. He shook out his hair, cleared his throat, and began to pluck out Rebel Rouser.

5 notes · View notes

nokingsonlyfooles · 2 years ago

Text

Today's longform content will be a reblog! Let's talk about how capitalism and copyright strangle originality!

I'm not ready to go full-manifesto yet, so let's confine this to the originality problem.

Human beings have always loved to tell stories. We especially love never-ending stories where we get to see our fictional friends go through all kinds of situations. Just look at how many variations we made of "trickster gets in over his head, and gets out again" before we ever dreamed of writing each tale down and selling them.

We now have collections of Coyote, Anansi and Robin Hood stories that, taken as a whole, look very much like a modern franchise or IP - including continuity errors and strikingly different takes on the characters and their situations. Aw, but we know ol' Robin when we see him - and if the "fandom" disagreed to strongly with the latest tale, the storyteller was standing right there on their level, free to be criticized or killed with a good-sized rock. Then someone else could take a turn.

This lateral structure - where the rules are established by mutual consent, and if we don't agree with the guy calling the shots, we punch them and it hurts - is still visible on playgrounds and around RPG tables today. But the big stories, the cultural touchstones, the "Intellectual Properties" worth buying, are subjected to a rigid top-down hierarchy, a profit-based selection model, and a "protection" system that can prevent even the people who came up with the original from us telling more of that story ever again.

Of course we want more Foster's. We loved Foster's! We didn't want it to end in the first place! But if it wasn't making enough money for the people producing and broadcasting it, and/or if the people who made the original were ready to make something else, what could we do? Fanfiction and fan animation are not impossible, but you can't offer them to a major production company, or sell them and buy food. And if your work starts to look a little too popular or legit, like it might threaten profits from the resale of the original, say hello to your takedown notice! The image of Bloo that exists in your memory and brain does not belong to you, because we lost our damn minds and decided ideas were property.

You can't just draw a mischievous little dome-shape with eyeballs and allow it to continue Bloo's adventures however you imagine. You can't re-tell any of his original adventures with your own spin either. Hamlet can reappear on stage nightly, with a rotating cast, set-design, and endless variations on the theme. Do you imagine Hamlet as a musical animated feature with lions in Africa? Wow! So creative! Have an Oscar or two!

But, wait! Wait-wait-wait! Doesn't copyright force you to go make a story of your own, with a trickster dissimilar enough not to get hit with a takedown? It's all well and good that Hamlet can hold up to endless reinterpretation, but if all we did was remake Hamlet, we'd never have Foster's!

What's that? Oh, no! It's Capitalism! With monopolization, corporatism, artificial scarcity, and a steel chair!

Even an original from an established creator has to run a gauntlet to get produced. 16 original ideas get gunned down like gangsters in the street, to say nothing of the infinite worlds imagined by more obscure creators (ahem) that don't even have the apparent financial viability to stagger their way up to Netflix and be killed.

This is not a process motivated by quality. A long crawl on their hands and knees over broken glass is standard for new creators, even the ones who go on to make billions. The Beatles got rejected by a record label on their way up because guitar groups were "on the way out." Nevermind that as soon as they dropped a little acid and earned a little clout, they were unlike any "guitar group" that came before. Guillermo del Toro relates the process of making his second film, and the first one that made it big, as "having a beautiful daughter and watching her arms get cut off." Mimic, as imagined, didn't look profitable, so the studio with the production rights tore it up until it did. We relate these stories as parables of tenacity, somehow ignoring the evidence that the system that produces and markets the stories we see has no idea what talent looks like.

New things, truly new and ground-breaking things, can only be compared to the things that came before them. If they don't fit into some existing standard, they'll be forced to fit. How else are we supposed to market and manufacture them?

"What's that thing?"

"It's a better mousetrap."

"What? Like a cat? Here, kitty-kitty. Here, kitty! Ow! Son of a gun, this is the worst cat I've ever seen!"

"No, no, it's a machine, it..."

"Hello, production? Yeah, can we get a couple dozen of these, but cover them in fur, give them some ears and a cute li'l bell, and get rid of this painful metal bit right here? And get me a couple focus groups, I think mostly ladies. Ladies love a kitty..."

"Wait! It won't WORK if you..."

"Listen, pal, I'm agreeing to produce your shitty cat, but if we can't get the major pet stores interested, I'm afraid you'll have to cover the costs and take a walk."

"Is there anyone else I can take this to?"

"Hmm, a few, but I promise they'll all tell you the same. Time is money, pal, what do you wanna do?"

"I guess if you let me talk to..."

"Swell. Sign over your rights on the dotted line right there and we'll get started."

Oddly enough, when you insist that an original look as much like the things that came before it as possible, it doesn't do very well. Or seem very original. But it makes success seem really difficult, and scarce, and it keeps new creators desperate, pliable, and cheap.

Coincidentally, it makes remakes, reboots and reimaginings look like a much safer investment. Intellectual Property is a cash cow offering exclusive ownership, and it takes a long time for everyone to notice the milk's started tasting a little off. As long as the corporation that wants to hire you is big enough to afford the the cow, chances are, they'll treat your creativity just like any other product. Your brain is the factory, and the best thing it can do is endless, industrialized repetition. Moo.

But, is that why we liked Foster's and wanted more of it? Because it was so consistent and samey? I thought we liked it because it was one of those rare, new, innovative things that made it through the process with most of its originality intact. We'd never seen anything like that before! We didn't know what was gonna happen next! With a shiny new interpretation, even tired old narrative tropes can be exciting.

"Wow, that's a cool trickster character."

"Thanks. I made him out of a child's imagination."

The endless repetition of reboots and remakes wouldn't be quite so repetitive if they didn't come off a corporate-owned assembly line. But the freeform chaos that claims stories from the public domain just isn't as controllable, or profitable. Who's getting the money off the rights to Hamlet? What? Nobody? Quick! Put that in a new package and copyright the shit out of it!

Ah. There. That's better. Well, better for the corporations.

Not for the creators. Or the stories. Or you.

Nice going, Capitalism and Copyright. Another case solved.

fucking constant reboot remake reboot remake reboot remake reboot remake!!!!!!!!!! the tv has only been around for like a century you literally cannot be out of ideas already

#capitalism #copyright #new stories #old stories made new #new stories inevitably made old though confinement and repetition #foster's home for imaginary friends #remakes #reboots #bloo lives in my mind now and you can't have him back #so the solution is to make sure no one ever sees what i imagine with him #sure that's not dystopian at all #no kings only fooles

122K notes · View notes