#i don't think it's a groundbreaking film

[kattahj]

The Barbie movie isn't about girl power. It's not about how women can do everything they set their mind to. It's about how sometimes women are tired and average and that has to be okay too, because you don't have to do everything to be worth anything. (And that this is also true of men.)

[pinktinselmonstrosity]

wooooo i did it!!! i watched every film nominated for best picture and here are my final rankings. if i could rank maestro any lower than 10th i would

[starrypawz]

Saw Barbie yesterday finally

It was good

[sheryl-lee]

hello I am so curious to hear a more indepth review of glass onion from u if you are so inclined!!! Ty 🤩

hey, and yeah for sure! i just watched the film yesterday so i'm still processing my thoughts and feelings about it, but i'll try to be as articulate as possible.

overall, i'd give glass onion like a 3 out of 5 (or maybe a 3.5 if i'm being generous). it honestly just feels a bit like a rehash of knives out in my opinion, and doesn't really add much to what that film was trying to say. daniel craig was wonderful as usual, janelle monáe fucking killed it, and the film did make me laugh a lot. but it was also unncessarily long, dragged out and took like over an hour to get to the actual plot of the story.

without getting into spoilery specifics, i'll just say that the killer's identity was very obvious and the actual "whodunit" aspect of the original that made it so compelling was completely absent from this one (which i understand was like The Point of the film or whatever, but it just came off as sloppy and underbaked to me). the characters were not as interesting or entertaining to watch as the first one, and the entire film just felt like a glorified cameo fest of "how many actors can we name-drop and stuff into this film for zero reason?" and while it did make me laugh, it just felt too silly for me and i didn't really feel invested or intrigued by anything i was watching. it was literally just a movie you pop on to kill 2 hours at home - idk why people are acting like it's some masterpiece or even a valid contender to knives out when, in my opinion, it isn't.

i was much higher on the film immediately after watching it, but the more i sit with it the less i like it. it's just not memorable to me in the way that the first was, and i was super underwhelmed by it all. the hype for glass onion was extremely high, and that definitely played a role in the ultimate disappointment i felt when i actually watched the film itself. it was just a bit of a letdown for me, honestly. i still enjoyed it just fine, but it's not anything special to me.

[tastytofusoup]

If I could press a button to never have to hear anything about The fucking Last of Us, I would’ve firmly pushed that shit at least 5 years ago.

[i-aint-even-bovvered]

Apparently some people think America Ferrera's speech in the Barbie movie is "corny" or "obvious" or something like that. But here's my personal perspective

First thing out of the way: I am nonbinary. I am not a woman. I am AFAB, though, and was therefore socialized like a girl and young woman, even if I felt like those words never really applied to me. Most of the time, though, other people who don't know me will see me as a woman. It's whatever.

No, this movie is not saying anything new. It is not a groundbreaking statement to say women face all these exhausting contradictions that cause them to bend over backwards to do the slightest thing.

But I don't think it's supposed to be groundbreaking. I don't think most people at the Barbie movie are going to have a huge revelation because America Ferrera said something that never heard or thought before. In the context of the movie, the character is speaking to a literal doll who has only recently learned that the real world is kinda shitty for a lot of people. Because this doll is literally something little girls project on, and little girls very often grow into women who deal with this shit. Yes, this is feminism 101, because it's speaking to a character who, until a day ago, lived in a matriarchal society where she never HAD to learn feminism 101. The oppression she faces is literally new to her!

And let's not forget that this is being said by a Latina woman in a blockbuster film. How often do you see that? She describes herself as a "boring mom with a boring job," and then she gets to rant about the fact that she's expected to always be extraordinary, but at the end of it all, she just wants her daughter to love her back and have a good day. And because of that, she's the hero of Barbieland!

Yes, it's cheesy. No, it's not subtle in the slightest. But sometimes, it's nice to hear someone say the words out loud.

And honestly, if you're going into the Barbie movie expecting subtlety, that's on you.

[hotvintagepoll]

Propaganda

Hedy Lamarr (Samson and Delilah, Ziegfeld Girl)—Look. I'm sure someone has already submitted Hedy Lamarr because she was spectacularly beautiful, and a very strong lady too: she fled both an abusive marriage AND nazi persecution at a very young age and rebuilt a life for herself pursuing her love for acting all on her own!! Her career as an actress was stellar; while she began acting outside of Hollywood (her very first movie, Ecstasy, won a prize at the Venice Film Festival), she conquered American hearts very quickly with her first movie in the US, Algiers, and then just kept getting better and better. If all this isn't enough, she was also an inventor: her invention of the frequency-hopping spread spectrum radio transmission technique forms the base of bluetooth and has a lot of applications in all kinds of communication technologies. I think that deserves a prize, don't you?

Diahann Carroll (Paris Blues, Carmen Jones, Porgy and Bess)— Face of an angel. She had the range. She brought chemistry with every romance she portrayed. She also had a great fashion sense, and was so pretty Mattel made a doll based off of her.

This is one of two semifinals in the Hot & Vintage Movie Women Tournament. All other polls in this bracket can be found here. Propaganda is not my own and is on a submission basis. Please reblog with further support of your beloved hot sexy vintage woman.

[additional propaganda submitted under the cut.]

Hedy Lamarr:

The only person you can find both on the Hollywood Walk of Fame and in the Inventor's Hall of Fame--her radio-frequency-hopping technology forms the basis for cordless phones, wi-fi, and a dozen other aspects of modern life. She was also passionate in her efforts to aid the Allies in WWII (unsurprising for a Jewish-Austrian Emigree to America), and her name served as the backbone for one of the best running jokes in what is possibly Mel Brooks' best movie. Look, Louis B. Mayer apparently believed he could plausibly promote her as "The world's most beautiful woman". Is an entire website full of people going to be less audacious than one Louis B. Mayer? I didn't think so!

Described as "Hedy has the most incredible personal sophistication. She knows the peculiarly European art of being womanly; she knows what men want in a beautiful woman, what attracts them, and she forces herself to be these things. She has magnetism with warmth, something that neither Dietrich nor Garbo has managed to achieve" by Howard Sharpe, she managed to escape her controlling husband (and Nazi Germany) by a) Disguising as her maid and fleeing to Paris or b) Convincing the husband to let her wear all of her jewelry to a dinner, only to disappear afterwards. Also she was particularly clever and helped develop Frequency-Hopping Spread Spectrum (I can't really explain it but anyway...)

Her depiction of Delilah and Samson and Delilah just lives rent free in my head. The woman was gorgeous.

One of the most beautiful women ever in film, spoken by many critics and fans. Beautiful shapely figure, deeper seductive voice, and often played femme fatale roles. She was also brilliant and an inventor. Mainly self-taught, she invested her spare time, including on set between takes, in designing and drafting inventions, which included an improved traffic stoplight and a tablet that would dissolve in water to create a flavored carbonated drink, and much more.

Gorgeous and brilliant pioneer of modern technology and the middle part.

Diahann Carroll:

Another groundbreaking black actress, although she might be better remembered for her television roles. She was also an activist and worked with charities to support women in need.

here she is hanging out with shadow prince anthony perkins :3

[mariacallous]

Twenty years ago, MySpace and Facebook ushered in an inspired age of social media. Today, the sticky parables of online life are inescapable: Connection is a convenience as much as it is a curse. A lot’s changed since those early years. In June, the US surgeon general, Vivek H. Murthy, called for a warning label on social platforms that have played a part in the mental health crisis among young people, of which “social media has emerged as an important contributor.” Social Studies, the new FX docuseries from documentarian Lauren Greenfield, bring the unsettling effects of that crisis into startling view.

The thesis was simple. Greenfield set out to catalog the first generation for which social media was an omnipresent, preordained reality. From August 2021 to the summer of 2022, she embedded with a group of teens at several Los Angeles–area high schools for the entire school year (the majority of the students attend Palisades Charter), as they obsessed over crushes, applied to college, attended prom, and pursued their passions.

“It was an unusual documentary for me,” Greenfield, a veteran filmmaker of cultural surveys like The Queen of Versailles and Generation Wealth, says of how the series came together. “The kids were co-investigators on this journey.” Along with the 1,200 hours of principal photography Greenfield and her team captured, students were also asked to save screen recordings of their daily phone usage, which amounted to another 2,000 hours of footage. Stitched together, the documentary illuminates the tangled and unrelenting experiences of teens as they deal with body dysmorphia, bullying, social acceptance, and suicidal ideation. “That’s the part that is the most groundbreaking of this project, because we haven’t really seen that before.”

The depth of the five-episode series benefits from Greenfield’s encyclopedic approach. The result is perhaps the most accurate and comprehensive portrait of Gen Z’s relationship to social media. With the release of the final episode this week (you can stream it on Hulu), I spoke with Greenfield over Zoom about the sometimes cruel, seemingly infinite experience of being a teenager online today.

JASON PARHAM: In one episode, a student says, “I think you can’t log in to TikTok and be safe.” Having spent the previous three years fully immersed in this world, I’m curious if you think social media is bad?

LAUREN GREENFIELD: I don't think it's a binary question. I really went into this as a social experiment. This is the first generation that has never grown up without it. So even though social media has been around for a while, they are the first generation of digital natives. I thought it was the right time to look at how it was impacting childhood. It’s the biggest cultural influence of this generation’s growing up, bigger than parents, peers, or school, especially coming out of Covid, which was when we started filming. You know, I didn't go into filming with a point of view or an activist agenda, but I certainly was moved by what the teenagers said to me and what they showed in their lives, which is that it's a pretty dire situation.

Without a doubt.

Jonathan, in episode five, says it's a lifeline, but it's also a loaded gun. So I don't think it's about whether there are good things in it and bad things. We see both in the show, but we also would not let our kids be around a loaded gun. So I do think that we need to change the engineering of it so that we can keep the good and not have the bad.

I entered high school in 2000, before the social media boom, and I always joke with friends how I probably would not have survived if we had it the way kids do now.

The genie is out of the bottle. But there is regulation now to get rid of it in schools, which I think is great. We also see the problem of distraction in the show. And we see the need of this generation for person-to-person connection, which they don't have enough of. We've also seen how for people like Nina, LGBTQ+, even some of the social justice reactions that happen in the series, it has a use. It also is a means of creativity and entrepreneurship. And we see that with our characters too.

But there are also just things that make life extremely toxic for teenagers—the 24/7 comparison culture, the algorithm bringing them down harmful paths of learning. What some of the new information coming out of TikTok’s internal research shows us is that these apps are engineered and they can be engineered differently.

Have you seen the Jim Henson movie? It’s called Idea Man.

No, I haven’t.

One thing that really moved me that I thought was relevant to social media and thinking about the good and bad of it, is that Joan Ganz Cooney—the TV producer who started Sesame Street—had this idea of bringing in people who know what kids love, which was Jim Henson and the creatures, with people who know what kids need to learn and what they need. It’s that second piece that has never been relevant to tech designers and engineers who have only been designing for maximum engagement, even if it's at the expense of the health and well-being of young people. We have a mental health crisis on our hands because of it. Technology is important and important for so many reasons, but I think we have an untenable situation with the current engineering of social media.

So you’re saying we need even more guardrails?

Now having filmed the show—and I hope people get it—we have to have empathy for these teenagers. Like, it's not fair to ask them to self-regulate when the apps have been designed to be addictive.

How did you land on Los Angeles as the petri dish for this social experiment?

I've been looking at youth culture for 30 years. My first book, Fast Forward: Growing Up in the Shadow of Hollywood explored how kids were influenced by the values of fame, image, and materialism. Those themes are also really relevant in the social media age. Fame is something that is not for celebrities anymore, it's for every kid looking for likes. And likes have become a rite of passage, in terms of popularity. Image making, FaceTune, Photoshop, styling, curating your brand—all of these things that used to be the realm of celebrities are now the realm of everyday children. And a lot of times in my work, I'm trying to document the air we breathe, the popular culture that's all around us. Sometimes it's hard to see. So for me, with LA, I wanted to look at where that was the most pure and strong, rather than where it was average.

The point of view shifts between students and parents. Ivy’s mom in particular has very sharp views about trans people, vaccines, and politics. Why also include their voices in a series so acutely focused on teen life?

When I started, I didn't know I was going to include the adults, but they ended up being so important. There are a lot of loving, caring parents in the show who have no idea what's going on in the social media lives of their kids. I didn't know a lot as a parent either. I think that the show is very entertaining for teenagers, twentysomethings, and thirtysomethings. For parents, it's more of an education and I hear more of them being shocked by it. It was important to see the disconnect between this generation and their parents, how much things have changed, and how much parents don't realize what's going on.

Many of the kids started taking action into their own hands.

One of the most important things I came out of this with is, parents, teachers, and administrators are not addressing the problems. They might not even understand the problems. So we get this world of young people helping each other. We have Jonathan, Cooper, and Dominic all working at a crisis hotline doing peer counseling for kids in distress. We have Anthony who becomes a vigilante because he's so frustrated that nobody's doing anything about the racist incidents and sexual assault that he’s seeing. And we have kids also making media, like Cooper having a podcast about body image. That stuff is sprouting up because they're very alone in this.

Why do you think there is such a disconnect?

They’re just from a different generation. My youngest, who is 20, I remember I would ask to see stuff. And this was in the earlier stages of social media. You know, I kind of demanded that he would show me. But he refused. He had a different view of everything. He felt it was his private space. We need to move off that and open up a dialog. This show, it's really meant more to open dialog rather than have solutions, even though the kids give us some solutions. But the parents are an important part of the equation.

Like Ivy’s family?

Ivy's family story was a really important social media story. It's kind of the story of the division that we're seeing in our culture now—how algorithms and silos take us into these different ways of thinking and split us apart, how they make the other the enemy. We’re seeing how terrible the disinformation problem is, how tragically it could affect all of us in this election. Their story came about very unexpectedly. But I thought it was fascinating, and getting to know all the members of that family, you can see how both parents love their kids, how both kids love their parents. I didn't want to vilify anybody. But we also see how tragic it is when ideas and algorithmic silos divide family members.

Watching the series made me wonder if these kids are doomed, in a sense, because they are so beholden to platforms like TikTok and Snap. It’s all they know. Is this a tragic story?

No, I don't think so. The hope we see in episode five and their resilience is a testament to the resilience of this generation and the way they can help us carve a path forward. If anything, the adults have been a little bit irresponsible and kind of unknowing. The tech companies have been downright irresponsible. Safeguards like we have in all other media have been missing. Not to point fingers, this is a medium that has come up very quickly—

Please point fingers.

Look, it's relatively new what we're learning. In episode five, Sydney says, “Once we knew the harm of cigarettes with lung cancer, there was change made, there was regulation. And now we know there's a connection between social media, mental health, eating disorders, and suicidal ideation.” So once this knowledge is here, we have to act. To me it's very hopeful, and I know at the end the kids are like, “What do we do? We can't live without it.” But understanding that ​​there are actually a lot of things that can be done, between regulation, between asking tech companies to change the algorithm, and also legally if they were responsible for their publishing, like every other publisher, we might be in a different space.

[ot3]

A while back there was a post going around about how you shouldn’t rate or leave negative comments in your bookmark tags on ao3 because the author could see it. But it kinda shows a weird discrepancy where the diehard fanfic folk want fanfic to be seen as a legitimate art form but also can’t handle criticism of it because “it’s for fun.” Anyway there’s fanfic I like but don’t think is particularly well done and I don’t think I can ever comment that without getting eaten alive on ao3

To add onto my last ask about criticism on fanfic. I think ultimately any piece of art you put out to the world is going to be criticized no matter what. And as any artist or writer you should probably prepare for that

i definitely agree that anything public is subject to criticism but i dont think that necessarily means it's a free for all. my stance in the case of hobbyist works is that you're allowed to be as critical as you like in your own spaces but if you're somehere where the creator is almost guarantee to see it, that's just kind of a dick move more than anything else. i dont think fanfiction is beyond criticism at all and am in fact constantly bitching about how i also think its almost all bad. but i also don't think its really productive or cathartic in any way to say this to peoples 'faces' so to speak.

i'm not super familiar with the ao3 bookmark system so i don't really know what the etiquette there but maybe its kind of analogous to tumblr tags, in the effect that it's supposed to be Your commentary and Your organization system but also op also has immediate access to it. i definitely don't think you should go around tagging people's art just to rag on it, so i dont think i'm super in favor for doing that in bookmarks either.

its lke if you were someone who doesnt exercise a lot and you got into jogging would you want some sort of Running Expert filming a tiktok directly next to you about how your form could be improved? i don't really think it would matter how constructive or well intentioned they were it would still probably kinda feel like shit. but then on the flipside i think they have a right to go home and post to their #RunningTok or whatever the fuck about how they hate these annoying mistakes beginners always make.

i agree that 'any artist or writer' should be prepared to deal with a level of negative feedback for their work. and the people who turn around and write a post about how fanfiction is important and transformative queer art one moment then follow it up with a post about how if you ever have anything bad to say it you're just being a nasty little hater and need to shut up are ridiculous. The 'let people enjoy things' crowd are easily one of the worst demographics on this website. But i think the level of negative feedback an artist or writer should be prepared to deal with is vastly different in the case of people who are Creating as their profession vs people who are doing it as hobbyists.

the amount of people who think they fanfiction theyre producing is Groundbreaking Literature and deserves to be lauded as such while also demanding no critique are a small but vocal minority. one that pretty much 1:1 overlaps with people who view Fandom as an identity rather than an activity. the rest are like... teens just starting to dabble with narrative writing or people with day jobs who think its fun to do every now and then.

[judesmoonbeauty]

Since there is a LACK of PV still, I've been holding off on one of my main theory posts, but I don't know, I may post it later on. Anyway, here are some thoughts I had today...

I was thinking about one of the last sentences from his, "Evil Behind The Scenes" premium end, and how it reminded me of this line from one of his bond stories:

There's always a lot of tension between him and Kate in events, and I especially eat up his POVs of how much he fights his desire of wanting to be with her. I LIVE for that.

We know he is probably do some irritating, twisted, and down right cruel stuff to her in order to drive her away, and honestly I cant' wait to see how far he goes......Is it wrong that I want it to be harsh?

And I don't mean harsh because I want Kate to suffer, but I want it to be as harsh as possible because it proves just how much he cares for her well-being. We know that there is going to be a wall there, and it'll be nice to see how Kate blows that up (I mean we know she'll be a fighter and stuff), but I'm hoping they present it in a fresh way.

In the end, he's not going to be able to resist the "root of all evil," which he considers to be love. Just like he couldn't bring himself to let go of her hand in the event I mentioned. I can't wait to see how that root plants itself so deeply within him, that his desperation shows (in his style of course.) That's what I thought about.

Totally random, but I was thinking how that "root of all evil" bit may also be an nod to Maleficent calling herself the "mistress of all evil," in the 1959 SB film. I know I said that it may indicate he had religious instruction in a ragged school from a previous post (and that may be), but it just hit me as I was typing this.

That's it. That's the post. Nothing groundbreaking or important. Just me and my delusional thoughts.

[bibibbon]

You know? It's kinda of funny how LOV fans treat the whole "I want to be a hero for villains" of Shigaraki as something groundbreaking, when the same concept was already introduced in the series (and was done better) with Nine.

Unlike Shigaraki, Nine literally meet his team members when he saved their lives. In Chimera's case it was when a bunch of racists were about to execute him just for being a mutant.

Nine also was a hero for them in a more thematic level, as he not only save their lives but actually give his team mates a reason for live and fight. He offered them the chance to fight for create a better world. For me it's quite remarkable how Nine despite being a homeless and chronically ill person, go for save people he view as equally oppressed by the world.

He was selfless enough to sacrifice his own health using his quirk to save Chimera despite it was destroying his body, and without expecting nothing in exchange for share a dream Nine a hand to people at their lowest point.

That's much more of an "All Might for the villains" or whatever Horikoshi tried to make Shigaraki in the final moments. Or hell Nine even acts better as a foil to Deku in the sense both are selfless individuals who fight despite their bodies are crumbling, just for the save of the persons who are important to them.

How ironic is that Nine, the original movie villain that was supposed to be just a prototype for the "final villain" of MHA, ended executing the same themes way better than Shigaraki.

Hi @nyc3 👋

A main reason as to why people treat shigaraki's I want to be a hero for the villains ideology better than nine's is simply because I assume a lot of people forgot the plot of the 2nd movie or haven't read the one shot manga chapter mha leauge of villains undercover. All of this is a shame because I heavily agree that nine's version of I want to be a hero and hope for the villains is executed and built up 10000x times better than shigarakis and nine had a fraction of the screentime that shigaraki got which is saying a lot.

Actually rewatching the film and rereading the manga one-shot has showed me that nine and shigarakis arcs are pretty similar with nine's having a better execution and shigaraki having more wasted potential.

The movie sets it clear that nine and shigaraki are supposed to be foils for one another so it makes sense that they would share parallels. However, you would expect that by the time nine is defeated that shigaraki would naraatively prove to us that he is ultimately the better character but in truth he doesn't and nine's downfall by shigaraki ends up being quite disappointing to me.

Another problem within the narrative is also the lack of interactions that nine and shigaraki have. I think that nine is essential to helping shigaraki and start to infulence him to realise that he is just a puppet and should develop a goal outside of just destruction. If shigarakis goal stays as destruction then the destruction of what? Everything? And how would that benefit anyone including him?

Nine like you said meets his teammates and saves them. He sees his teammates suffer like him and chooses to help them and they choose to help him. There is a clear relationship being developed and all the characters come together for the same goal, with similar backgrounds and varying styles yet they work.

When nines team see him in distress they run to help him and vice versa. The team has trust and overall everything that a lot of the leauges dynamics and development lacks.

Nine seeks destruction but his path is clear. He seeks to liberate and let nature flow its course with the strong overtaking the weak and finally being leaders instead of feared and abused because they don't fit into the small little box that is the mha's status quo. Nine plans to get stronger while being fully conscious and knowing the consequences. He makes a logical and heroic decision where we see him realise that he is trading his own autonomy and agency in becoming a lab rat all in exchange for power and a slim chance at achieving his goal.

This is all contrasted with shigaraki and his actions. We don't see his goal of destruction develop into a much more consistent and precise idea like destroying the giver and status quo. We don't see shigaraki fully conscious to come to the conclusion that yes the doctor is evil but he needs power. We lack everything from shigaraki and the information of chapter 419 just makes his character worse as shigaraki was a lab rat through and through.

Horikoshi tries to make shigaraki the better character but nine outclassed him in every way possible from the traumatic beginnings, to the developed flawed goal and to the final bitter end where we see nine crumble due to various factors 1)shigarakis decay and 2) his illness whereas shigaraki dies due to afo still being a lab rat that fulfills his purpose.

All of this reminds me of the ask that said mha's manga ending is a sloppy edited 2nd movie ending (except I was only looking at it from a hero perspective but it even applies to the villains)

Nine deserved better!

[markantonys]

i already made a joke post about it but genuinely, the whole "wot s1 sucked, which was 100% the show's fault and not the source material's, but now s2 is so much better! shocking! who could've seen that coming!" narrative is SO annoying

like, the eye of the world is boring as shit! it's generic as shit! of COURSE an entire season based on it is not going to be the most groundbreaking or thrilling fantasy television you've ever seen in your life! how on EARTH can the readers who've been saying for decades that the books don't start to hit their stride until book 2 or 3 or 4 fail to grasp the correlation with season 2 being better than season 1? but even so, s1 alone IS more groundbreaking and thrilling than book 1 alone, because the showrunners knew that book 1 is boring and generic as shit and did their absolute damnedest to pull in as many unique elements from later books as they could conceivably fit in this early on.

second, s1 had to do a HUGE amount of heavy lifting in terms of setting up characters, relationships, lore, and worldbuilding. s1 did all this groundwork so that s2 could have the payoff you're enjoying so much, s1 constructed the basic building blocks so that s2 could explore the more advanced concepts you're gushing over. s1 ran so that s2 could soar! put some respect on its name!

third, stakes tend to get higher, characters to get deeper, and plotlines to get more exciting as you go along in a story. this is how stories work. why are you shocked that s1 only built the basic foundation of the story and s2 has the space to grow and deepen that story? that's how stories work, that's how TV works, and that's most certainly how the WOT books work.

fourth, practical constraints s1 had that s2 had less of

budget: s1 was starting from scratch, whereas s2 had more budget to spare since some things could be reused from s1 AND it got a bigger budget than s1 in the first place.

experience: second seasons almost universally tend to be better than pilot seasons, simply because everyone involved in making the show has gotten into the groove and solidified how they want to do this thing. this is how television works.

covid: it should go without saying that s1 would have been One Million Times more difficult and expensive to make than s2 due to covid stuff. whatever effect we may think covid had on s1, the true effect was probably astronomically higher than what we imagine. the majority of "looks too cheap" "looks too empty" complaints likely come down to this (notice that most of those complaints are about episodes 6-8 and not the early episodes; 6 was filmed pre-covid, yes, but i wouldn't be surprised if some covid-related restrictions were starting to rear their heads before production was officially shut down).

the worst part is the people who end their above-mentioned take with "they must have listened to audience criticism of s1 and made changes accordingly." [moiraine voice] the arrogance. s2 had already been written and filming was WELL underway (if not finished or close to finished?) by the time s1 even started airing. if you're impressed by what a great season they've delivered, the credit for that lies entirely with the people who made the show, not your stupid ass.

[filmnoirsbian]

Things read and watched in January

Essays & Articles:

Inside A Neo Nazi Homeschool Network with Thousands of Members

I Cut the 'Big Five' Tech Giants From My Life. It Was Hell.

Social Media, Social Factory

The Not So Hidden Israeli Politics of 'The Last of Us Part II'

The Okinawa Problem: The Forgotten History of Japanese Colonialism and Ryukyuan Indigeneity

How the Pentagon Leaned on Hollywood to Sell the War in Afghanistan

Get Out and the legacy of sundown suburbs in post-racial America

There is No Mary Problem in 'It's A Wonderful Life'

Why Do Rich People Love Quiet?

John Mulaney's Jokes About His Jewish Ex-Wife Suddenly Don't Seem So Funny Anymore

Kansas Research Shows Reintroducing Bison on Tallgrass Prairie Doubles Plant Diversity

"Alien" chestburster was inspired by writer's Crohn's disease

It's Frustratingly Rare to Find a Novel About a Woman That's Not About Love

The 50 Greatest Apocalypse Novels

Something in the water--life after mercury poisoning

Do You Have To Win A Nobel Prize To Be Translated?

Co-Author of Affluenza: "I'm Appalled by the Ethan Couch Decision"

Data Reveals Loneliest Cities in America

Groundbreaking effort launched to decode whale language

Ireland offers basic income for artists

Unhinged 'Transvestigators' Think They're the Only Cis People Left

Werner Herzog 'gives blessing' to pirates who want to download his films on Torrent sites

Music on Mars: If you thought space was silent, take a closer listen

The Singularity is Here

The Average Fourth Grader is A Better Poet Than You (and Me Too)

If Black English Isn't A Language, Then Tell Me, What Is?

Poetry:

Guts by Julia Armfield

the guessing game: a mother's love by Silas Denver Melvin

The Sea is Rising by Rakyah Assam

You Were You Are Elegy by Mary Jo Bang

Stop and Look, Alicante by Layla Benitez-James

ANWR by Sherwin Bitsui

Self-Portrait as Daily Sustenance by Ae Hee Lee

On Asking My Mother About Winter 1990 by Abhijit Sarmah

Finally Writing the Poem by Tarik Dobbs

Pound and Brodsky in Venice by Megan Fernandes

Books:

Engine Summer by John Crowley

No One Cares About Crazy People by Ron Powers

My Favorite Thing is Monsters by Emil Ferris

Hybrid Heart by Iori Kusano

Films:

[daresplaining]

Do you think a blind person could play Daredevil or is Matt a bit too "competent" considering his super-senses? Like once he stops hiding his super-senses? Tho, by my honest and humble opinion, if the actor would get a proper tour of the sets, instructions and (if the actor would want to do his own stunts) training and co-operation, he could do the work pretty well (and with the help of stunt-doubles). Whitch while i love Charlie Cox, his performance and i know he loves the character and cares for him, and i am not even blind so i don't think i have any authority or even right to say anything (whitch is fine tbh) but i'd love to see that sort of authenticity and representation.

I'll go one step further: I think a blind actor should play Daredevil, full stop. I wish Charlie Cox all the best and success in his career, but I truly feel that casting him was a mistake and a huge missed opportunity, and the more effort that the MCU makes to start actually casting disabled actors (Alaqua Cox as Maya Lopez, for instance), the more awkward it feels to still have a sighted actor hanging around playing Matt.

To me, this is not really an issue of whether a blind actor is capable of playing the role, because of course they are, for all of the reasons you mentioned and more. What it comes down to is this: If accommodations are required to allow an actor to play a role successfully, then the answer is for the studio to make those accommodations. If screen acting or action film/TV acting or whatever is not accessible at this stage, the answer is to make it accessible, not to avoid casting disabled actors.

But to me, this isn't even about that. It's about the fact that there are very few blind characters in media, that Matt Murdock is arguably one of the most high-profile blind characters in media, and that this is a role that would have changed a blind actor's life and provided groundbreaking representation for the blind/visually impaired community. Plus, as you point out, having a blind actor in the lead role (not to mention in the writer's room, etc.) would ensure authenticity and add nuance. It's not about whether a blind actor is capable of playing Matt (they are), or about how well a sighted actor is able to embody the blind experience; it is about giving opportunities to actors who historically have not received them.

I really appreciate your question, and I'm sorry if this reads a bit rant-ish. This topic has been stewing for quite a while, as you can imagine, both in my brain and in the wider DD fan community.

[castlebyersafterdark]

I agree with you. The people who have problems with byler having sex are the younger fans. It has nothing to do with sexuality or gender. They are always calling people pedophiles for liking "their teen ship." It doesn't belong to them. I know many people have said this, but I think Will and Mike are meant to give a coming-of-age to people who never got one in the 80s. I think teens today have a hard time relating to it. Which may be part of the reason they are uncomfortable when people talk about it being groundbreaking. It's also noteworthy that no one gives a fuck when people were talking about mileven having sex at 14. A thing that was far more problematic for a lot of reasons. But byler having sex when they are older and emotionally mature is an issue for people. Adults tend to be more mature about sex. But this fandom in particular has been crazy to witness. The younger fans don't really get how to act in a fandom in general. They get upset if people have crack ships or do anything that isn't strictly canon. They get upset if someone has a theory that goes against what they like. They get upset if anyone actually has a background in a topic and knows more than them (i.e. there used to be a lot of people here who studied film and talked about that. At least up until a lot of younger people got upset they were proving their theories wrong. Then they got attacked for it.)

Being freaked out by sex falls in line with the rest of their behavior. Which is odd considering how many porn bots Tumblr has. You'd think they'd be more comfortable with it. But the people who are discussing spicy byler stuff are doing totally normal fandom things and I personally haven't witnessed anyone being creepy about this. So the outrage is (what a shock) out of proportion to the discussion that people are having about it. I think with this fandom in particular, there may have been more gay men in it at one point, but so many people have left now due to the hostility. I know Will means a lot to them so it's a shame if this is true. But I've seen a lot of homophobia coming from young people as well. Especially directed at Noah. It's possible they just left because they didn't want to listen to it anymore. I also thought it was funny and really odd that that one ask specifically mentioned lesbians being uncomfortable with byler having sex. WHY? No one is forcing them to have sex with a man if they watch it! It won't make them straight. People tend to like sex in general regardless of their own orientation. I'm sure there are lesbians around here who support the ship and the rep it brings and want it to be a good story too.

I don't have much more to add but this is a very good read on the current fandom culture in general!!

My hope moving forward is that well-adjusted and mature, level-headed fans just trying to have a good time exploring all a fandom/ship offers can find their people and seek out these little circles until the greater fandom changes as time moves forward, don't engage with contentious people who are probably teens ill-equipped to handle the world outside their own perspective yet, and keep speaking up against any hatred. Wish I'd done that in the past but, well. Here I am now. Continuously crossing my fingers for change on the horizon 🤞🤞🤞

[audioroleplayconfessions]

Media literacy applies to audios. Say it with me! MEDIA LITERACY APPLIES TO AUDIOS! Depicting something in audios isn't "glorifying" it. Enjoying a morally grey or morally bad character doesn't mean you condone their actions or would like them if they were real. Exploring dark topics in audios is just as valid and important to creative free expression as in novels and films. A person doesn't have to be perfect or even good at all to be a protagonist either. You can enjoy exploring topics in fiction that you wouldn't enjoy experiencing in real life.

People need to get this. Some people commenting on audios sound like boomers who think video games cause violence, except now we have young people participating in the pearl-clutching and moral panic. It's exhausting. I don't want to hear any more "yandere audios promote toxic relationships". I don't want to hear anyone saying that drawing fanart of a villain they love is problematic because of some bad thing the villain did in the story. It's not the groundbreaking progressive take you think it is. It's authoritarian bullshit that serves only as a blunt weapon for people who want creative censorship.

.