#i cannot understand anyone who calls jason boring when his character stands out so much

[sunsetsentiments]

[[repost from my reblog bc i'm definitely reblogging this specific parallel in the future lmao]]

no bc let's talk about percy going,, "i'm sally jackson's son!" in the tv show vs. jason in blood of olympus when he sees the mania of his mother and he tells her, "i'm a child of greece and rome. i'm no child of yours."

percy has always been grounded in the love of his mother who taught him to choose his own path and stay true to himself. meanwhile, beryl literally abandoned jason to the wolves. not only did he have to fend for himself at three years old,, he also soon learned that he was the son of jupiter, meaning he was meant for greatness. from the moment his name was given out of an obligation to please hera,, his character was destined to believe that his path was chosen for him. it's why he struggles with his identity, and who he is vs. who he's expected to be.

the saddest part?

just when he was breaking free and started doing things for himself,, he gets himself killed for the sake of the greater good. saving piper's life. helping apollo on his quest to free the oracles. he died a hero's death, unable to escape the prophecy that seems set up for him from the very beginning.

[sunsetsentiments]

no bc let's talk about percy going,, "i'm sally jackson's son!" in the tv show vs. jason in blood of olympus when he sees the mania of his mother and he tells her, "i'm a child of greece and rome. i'm no child of yours."

percy has always been grounded in the love of his mother who taught him to choose his own path and stay true to himself. meanwhile, beryl literally abandoned jason to the wolves. not only did he have to fend for himself at three years old,, he also soon learned that he was the son of jupiter, meaning he was meant for greatness. from the moment his name was given out of an obligation to please hera,, his character was destined to believe that his path was chosen for him. it's why he struggles with his identity, and who he is vs. who he's expected to be.

the saddest part?

just when he was breaking free and started doing things for himself,, he gets himself killed for the sake of the greater good. saving piper's life. helping apollo on his quest to free the oracles. he died a hero's death, unable to escape the prophecy that seems set up for him from the very beginning.

people going "Jason and Percy are just the Greek and Roman versions of eachother." and reducing their character dynamic simply to that have it ALL wrong. Percy and Jason are like yin and yang, they couldn't be any more different from eachother than they already are.

Percy tends to be more carefree and less uptight because, even though he's been through a lot, in the end of the day, he has more people to lean on, than the people expecting him to lead all the time. But Jason? He has more people expecting him to lead, than people whom he can lean on.

Percy is the embodiment of everything that could go successful in a Hero, his fate was sealed the moment Sally named him Perseus, because he was one of the Greek heros who had a happy ending. Percy's mother lovingly got to choose his name sentimentally to protect his son. The name Perseus had provided Percy more luck to dodge a gruesome fate.

Jason is the embodiment of everything that could go wrong in a hero, despite him doing everything he could. Jason's name was the first biggest tragedy. His mother was forced to name him after a hero with a bad ending because his father's wife got jealous. Beryl Grace had unwillingly named him. And Zeus had done nothing to prevent it. That amount of negativity surrounding his birth, was enough to seal his tragic fate.

Percy's mother was a brave protector, willing to go through years of abuse and sacrifice her adult years to shield her son. She even humbly refused Poseidon's lavish offer to build her a castle under the sea. So much so that even after their split, Poseidon still regards Sally as "the queen amongst all mortal women"

Jason's mother was a cowardly narcissist, willing to sacrifice her son to wolves if it meant that she could be free of burden. In contrast to Sally's refusal for Poseidon to build the castle, beryl BEGS Zeus to marry her so she could be the queen of all gods. Now all Zeus has of beryl are bitter memories.

Sally Jackson could proudly speak of Poseidon to Percy, even going "you look so much like your father" in an endearing way.

But all the fragment of beryl Grace could do was to complain about how Zeus had abandoned her, and that he prevented her from seeing jason. Ultimately wanting to wipe the blame out of herself.

Percy was born to live, Jason was born to die. That's how it always was, simply because of their external fates.

But you know what they both have in common? They were always just little boys, with a burning desire to live life to the fullest.

[andsmile]

do you think b/rchie is bad for betty?

I’ve been postponing answering these questions because...welp. I talk about BA too much, but you guys seem to enjoy my discourse, so.

I think I have to be clear that I don’t think that fundamentally Archie and Betty are bad to each other. They’re “good people”, they’ve been friends their whole lives, in a bubble where you have Archie and Betty growing up together with their friend Jughead or without their friend Jughead and they date other people along the way etc, Veronica shows up or doesn’t, but BA end up together, childhood friends to lovers or whatever it is that attracts the shippers, I think it’s whatever. 

It’s just another ship and it’s a valid one. Archie is fundamentally a good character, he’s not gonna hurt her or anything, and Betty is fundamentally a good character, she’s not gonna fuck his life or something. 

Even though the idea of them bores me I think that if written the right way, they can be good and interesting. If you want to write a fic about how their journey went I am pretty sure your fic will be a good, compelling story, and it might even be as in character as possible for characters we met in the pilot...in season one, if I stretch.

H o w e v e r, and my point every time I explain why I don’t like BA, 

These two characters don’t exist in their bubble. They don’t exist in the universe you created. They exist within a certain universe that is already established by four seasons of a certain canon, portrayed in a certain way, and I don’t think some people realize how this universe is established:

In the canon universe, Archie and Betty had childhood crushes on each other. Archie moved on, Betty didn’t. She confessed her feelings and dreams, that are very paralleled to becoming her sister and Jason Blossom. Then, Archie rejects Betty because he doesn’t have feelings for her and even though he says to her that it’s because she’s too perfect for him (and he says that because he feels guilty for hurting her) it’s not what he said to the girl that caught his eye before (I have never felt whatever I’m supposed to feel with Betty is a the line he says to the girl that caught his eye, and yeah okay we could play into the denial narrative but then two seasons later he tells Veronica Ronnie, when I first met you, you were it for me so I think Archie knew exactly what he was supposed to feel) and Betty got sad for a bit, but she moved on and found a connection with Jughead. Who was Archie’s best friend. And even if Archie felt jealous or not (I have said before what I think about his jealousy, and BAs have called me delusional, but anyway), that’s what happened. Betty found in Jughead both a boyfriend and a best friend and became the power couple that had nothing to do with the childhood dream. Archie got with the girl who was “it” for him from the beginning and went through hell and back for her. Every once in a while, they look over their shoulders to each other, especially when things with Jughead and Veronica are shaky -- and boy, they’re often shaky -- and are reminded, in different intensities and timings, of things they could’ve been.

This is the canon narrative, and if you support BA in canon understanding this, that’s probably fine. But most people go by some narrative created by the great majority of the BA fandom that, essentially, says that the story these four seasons of canon is telling us is a bunch of lies. That the Archie has only dated who he did (three woc) because he couldn’t get his hands on the perfect, virginal, white girl-next-door that he wasn’t ready for. That Betty’s main character traits, that have only actually flared up after she got over him, changed her and made her someone insufferable, and that she was better around Archie, even though he didn’t feel anything for her before. A narrative that reduces Betty to a girl who actually found out who she really was so she could “claim her prize”, and that reduces Archie to be “her prize”, because none of his choices matter either. He was just regretting making “the wrong choice” all the time. In the middle of the way, this fan-created narrative still says that the very deep and meaningful relationship Archie has with a latinx is just sexual. It also says that the very deep and meaningful relationship Betty has with Jughead is “rebound”, “incest”, “bland”, just because it’s not sexual enough, according to them. Even though it is. But of course, the main and the latinx woman are all about sex. Betty and Jughead act like siblings, they’re boring. Archie and Betty? The perfect combination of the main and the virginal, perfect girl who can’t do no wrong. But now the main sees that she isn’t perfect! He knows her better than anyone, even better than her boyfriend/bestfriend, even though they haven’t interacted in years. And now that she has proved herself not perfect, not virginal, she can be with him, and she won’t be oversexualized even if she is--they’ll be crazy about each other, romantic! Exciting!

If you support this made-up narrative in the bubble of Riverdale, you are invalidating all the growth and the choices these two characters have done in four seasons of content. That’s why many reviewers that aren’t up on the idea of BA stemming from the comics or in the idea that the show “needs a change”, said “this was so out of character for them”, because it was. You reduce their journey as characters and turn them into each others love interests and that’s all, they’re nothing else. And you do that in the expense of friendships (that aren’t well developed but that we are still meant to believe in), the entire character of Veronica (I will never shut up, if you think Veronica is a bump in the road for Archie you are simply an asshole), the gigantic amount of trauma Archie’s been through, the gigantic amount of change and growth Betty’s been through aaaand---

The comics! That’s an usual argument I see around to be pro-BA in the show, because they stem from the comments, and it always flabbergasts me because...the ARCHIE COMICS? REALLY? Who basically created the girl-next-door stereotype in the 1940′s and numerous Betty’s have been portrayed here and there always taking all the bullshit from their husbands who are often pursuing the “Veronicas” of the world and coming back home where they wait and suffer for them? I can mention at least 10 characters from the media that are made in Betty’s molds and the cathartic moment for all of them are when they finally get the fuck away from their “Archies” who never love them enough, but then you have, in the very AC live action, the actual Betty Cooper’s character who makes a vow with Veronica for boys not come between them, look over her shoulder and stop focusing on Archie for the first time in seven decades to focus on someone else in a cinematic moment that should go to feminism in media (I swear) with how symbolic that shit was, and you want... you really want... her to go through this so soon in her journey so she gets Archie as her prize in the end?

You cannot convince me you are a fan of Betty Cooper in any universe if that’s what you want for her.

So, yeah. I think BA is bad for Betty. I don’t think Archie is bad for Betty, I don’t think Betty is bad for Archie, but I think their ship in the canon context of Riverdale and the ~representation game they play, it’s a menace. You can all send me inboxes again saying people should be able to ship whatever they ship - and they should. And they will. I won’t change that. I am only giving out my opinion, and I stand by it. 

[bansheemilktales]

Proof You Are A Dummy If You Think Jack Nicholson Is Overrated

          People make too big of a deal about actors, don't they? They call some geniuses on a regular basis. Don't get me wrong, some are amazingly talented. But actors are told where to stand, what to say and what to do. They're people who are paid to pretend, okay? They're like hookers faking an orgasm. So maybe we could calm down on the genius talk. Some are good at it and some are not. It's that simple. And yet, as simple as this concept is, I have noticed most people don't understand it at all. 

      I've heard dumb people of my generation say that Jack Nicholson is overrated a million times. Here is why you are dumb if you say this: MATH exists.

     With MATH, one can use the ancient art of counting the skills a person has at acting to determine whether or not an actor is good without having to rely on feelings which are an invalid way to form an opinion. I know we have a right to feel what we want, guys, but be reasonable. Feelings are for feeling, not for thinking. If you dropped acid this morning you might feel you are an orange. But you are not an orange. If you say, "I think ___ is a bad actor" you must back it up with evidence.

     The reason I hear dummies of my generation (Generation X) give when they say Jack is overrated is that "All he does is use a nasal voice and twitch his eyebrows...he is always the same." And then they give nothing but examples from 1980 and on. Movies like Batman, Wolf, The Shining, As Good As It Gets.

     Listen here, dumb folks. His career begins in 1958. That's when Eisenhower was President. If you only watch movies made when you were alive you are a fucking idiot. QUESTION: Why would Hollywood have waited until you were born to start making movies good? Answer: They didn't. They haven't even heard of you.

     You see, even if you do not like a movie, that doesn't mean it is bad. It simply must succeed at the majority of it's goals to be good. Because you hated "that one part" does not mean the whole movie stinks. There have been good movies being made for over 100 years. Good meaning it succeeded at it's goal. Meaning a comedy that makes people laugh, a thriller that made people feel excited...etc. 

Here is a list of the 5 things a great actor should be able to do:

1) Can they emote well? Do they convince you that they are feeling what their character is supposed to be feeling in the scene? Do they seem angry, happy etc.? Most actors who have been successful for more than a decade can do this at least competently whether we like them or not. People get tired of watching someone who cannot simply pretend they are feeling something. It is a useful skill and perhaps the most common among decent actors.

2) Chameleon Powers: Can they do accents, can they change their body language and physical tics, are they willing to change appearance drastically due to make-up, dieting, etc? This skill is a bit more rare. Good examples of this style of acting are Marlon Brando, Robert De Niro, Daniel Day Lewis, Robert Downey Jr, Al Pacino and Gary Oldman. In fact, Day Lewis and Oldman are probably the best chameleons currently working. De Niro, Nicholson & Pacino in the 70s and Brando in the 50s and 60s. (Yes, Nicholson has done it many times whether you saw the films or not).

3) Do they pick challenging scripts that will force them out of their comfort zone and into new territory as an actor? It is a good thing to do but sadly, dramatic actors and action stars are the worst at this meaning, once they are successful at a genre they tend to stick with it. Jason Statham does not appear to be interested in picking something out of his comfort zone. In the 70s, Stallone showed great range and was compared to Brando, James Dean & De Niro but then he mostly played guys who blew stuff up ever since. So with few exceptions like Copland and Oscar, picking challenging parts is not one of his best attributes. While many enjoy his action films, he desperately needs to do something challenging or his memory will always be as the guy who had a good relationship with the pyrotechnic crew. That gets boring. 

4) Do they ever pick something that is a crowd pleaser? This one is tricky. We want them to pick challenging work, yes, but if they never pick a "fun" movie or a "popcorn" movie, actors come off as self important. For all the money actors make they owe their audience a good time now and then and, let's face it, a movie about babies dying in the congo doesn't cut it for most people. So I am referring to comedy, action, horror, sci fi...some kind of a tentpole picture. Do they ever even try at these things? Daniel Day Lewis for example, will not do a movie unless it has a disturbing death scene, and/or a scene where he yells needlessly. (We heard you say "Now" the first time, Lincoln) Is he good at these things? Hell yes. He is perhaps the best "intensity" actor working today. But since acting is not necessarily always about being intense, Day Lewis needs to lighten the fuck up sometimes. Makes sense, right? If you knew a great chef would you tell him to just make one type of meal all the time? Perhaps you criticize an action guy like Stallone for doing the same "type" of movie repeatedly. Day Lewis, like Stallone, is an great actor who needs a new trick. Look at Gary Oldman. Every bit the chameleon Day Lewis is but he will throw in a Batman or Harry Potter role to mix things up. Gary Oldman delivers to both his "artsy fartsy" fans and his "I wanna see something blow up" fans. Demand more from actors who have shown great skill. Don't let the Daniel Day Lewis types off the hook of responsibility to their audience if you are quick to ridicule the Stallones. Be consistent or you are one of the dummies I'm referring to in this article.

5) Comedy. Virtually every actor says it is the hardest genre to perform in and many people do not understand why. Allow me to show you why this is absolutely true. When watching a really good drama, one can have many reactions, right? You can cry, you can think, you can even become disturbed to a point you have to leave the room. For a comedy to be good, it is forced to try to get one reaction: Laughter. If it does not make you laugh, it has failed. Since the target they are aiming for is smaller, they are taking a more difficult shot. This is why so many comedies suck balls. Serious films are shooting at a bullseye the size of a battleship. Hence, whoever the greatest actor on Earth is, he or she MUST be able to handle comedy. Without some funny, you are at best, in the second tier of great actors.

     So, all one has to do to form an opinion that matters is see how much of this criteria an actor fits. I won't tell you who the greatest actor on Earth is, but clearly they excel at all 5 things on this list. If it is 4, they are damn good, too. Just not the best. 

     Let's look at Jack Nicholson and see how he holds up: #1 is chameleon abilities and yes, if you have looked at his pictures as much as I have you will notice accents and characteristics changing (lesser so in the last 35 years which is why my generation fails to see this talent in him as they tend to only watch movies made after Star Wars. Seriously guys, it is a fact. He changes. Read up on it. He just became so famous after 1980 or so that audiences wanted to see a certain persona from him and won't accept another kind.).  #2- He emotes well. Even his detractors agree about this. The man convinces you he feels what his character feels. #3- He has done every single genre. Seriously. So while I don't know what his comfort zone is, he definitely left it since he has done every type of movie under the sun. #4- Does he ever do one for the audience-a "crowd pleaser"? Yes, he has. Again, he has acted in every genre except perhaps silent. #5- Comedy? He has won Oscars for his performances in BOTH comedies and dramas. Think about that. Whoever you think is the best, did they win in different genres?

You don't have to like him if you don't want to. But he fits the bill. This is a great actor and you are just dumb to say otherwise.

     Again, keeping emotion out of this, let's look at Daniel Day Lewis, who clearly holds up numbers 1 (chameleon) and 2 (emoting) quite well, perhaps better than anyone else alive. But if we are honest, he suffers in the other 3. This is the guy who everybody says is the greatest actor of his generation. Yet, he won't do anything outside of drama and he stays in his comfort zone of playing super intense dudes who make everyone else in the scene nervous. What's that? I forgot about that hilarious comedy he made? No, I didn't. Cuz he didn't make it. 

     But don't worry, Day Lewis fans. I will now go after someone else you probably love to hate. Let's look at Stallone. Yeah, Stallone may have proven he emotes well in films like Rocky, and he may have proven he has the ability to change up his mannerisms and voice in movies like First Blood and Copland, but, let's face it, he fails pretty miserably at #3 by making way too many action movies and he hasn't strayed from his comfort zone since 1997's Copland. What's that? 1997 is a real life date that happened? Wow, you're right. So while it has been too long, he has, in fact, strayed from his comfort zone. Maybe not enough but he has done it. What's that? He just made a comedy with De Niro and was lauded by many as being very funny? And did you just say that half of his lip and jaw and tongue are paralyzed from an accident at birth and this gives him the "snarl-like" smile and slurred speech that you so readily make fun of? So he has given ALL of his performances disabled and he never uses that to sell himself or ask you, the asshole public, to stop mocking his disability? Holy shit. You're right. Stallone is one of the greatest actors on Earth. Writing is a talent, as is acting, bodybuilding, doing stunts, painting and overcoming immense physical obstacles.

     See what I mean? You thought Jack Nicholson sucked because you've seen 5 of his 100 movies and were disappointed. Now you know that he is awesome. You thought Stallone sucked and now, unless you are close-minded and screaming "No, No, No, No" you see that he is a disabled guy who manages to be way more talented than you, a person who judges actors by a "gut feeling". No? You disagree? You think feelings are more real than facts? So you really are an orange when you drop acid? Just a quick FYI: Another great thing about some actors is when they have other talents outside of acting that can inform their performances. Nicholson can write & direct. Stallone is a successful painter, directed 5 of his most successful films, a gifted writer (he wrote Rocky in 3 days and it won Best Picture), a talented body builder who was willing to throw that away and get fat for Copland, and you still are going to say DD Lewis is more talented than him? Is this because he is good at pretending? I agree. He is awesome at pretending. I also used the art of counting and it turns out pretending is only one talent. Sorry. MATH wins again.

Jack Nicholson: 5 out of 5 required skills in acting.

Stallone: 4.5 out of 5. I am taking half a point off because while he has gone out of his comfort zone it has been far too infrequent.

Daniel Day Lewis: 2 out of 5. 

        Dumb people of the world, stop saying people suck when you haven't given it much thought. You might be mocking someone with a disability you didn't even know about. Plus, it isn't your opinion that Day Lewis is the best since his skills end at pretending and being intense. It is your feeling that he is the best. And yeah, he feels like the best to me, too. We hear it being said so much on TV that we tend to believe it. Or some of you feel like agreeing with the masses so you won't get mocked. I have OCD. I obsess about my opinions and analyze them. Then I destroy people who say stupid shit. Seriously, every actor picks a stupid script sometimes. People used to say "Not Johnny Depp". You still saying that lately? It's been like 5 bad movies in a row. Day Lewis did a movie called "9". That movie is a fart of a movie. I am convinced the director was just a butt. Dustin Hoffman did Ishtar. De Niro made 3 movies about the "Fockers", each one more Focking stupid than the last. So, yes. Jack Nicholson and Stallone have made some stupid movies. But so did your favorite actor. And did your favorite actor WRITE his or her Best movie? No? Then shut the fuck up with your hand me down thoughts while the rest of us invent our own. 

written by Michael Anthony (Tony) Santiago, painting by Michael Anthony (Tony) Santiago @BansheeMilk