#i made it more 2000s than 1980s | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

tavolgisvist · 4 months ago

Text

Once upon a time…

JOHN: [Paul] even recorded that all by himself in the other room, that’s how it was getting in those days. We came in and he’d – he’d made the whole record. Him drumming, him playing the piano, him singing. Just because – it was getting to be where he wanted to do it like that, but he couldn’t – couldn’t – maybe he couldn’t make the break from The Beatles, I don’t know what it was…. But we’re all, I’m sure – I can’t speak for George, but I was always hurt when he’d knock something off without… involving us, you know? But that’s just the way it was then.

(August, 1980: interview for Playboy with David Sheff)

‘More than anything,’ he says, ‘I would love the Beatles to be on top of their form and for them to be as productive as they were. But things have changed. … I would have liked to have sung harmony with John, and I think he would have liked me to. But I was too embarrassed to ask him. And I don’t work to the best of my abilities in that situation.’

(Paul McCartney, interview, Evening Standard, April 21-22, 1970)

PAUL: On 'Hey Jude', when we first sat down and I sang 'Hey Jude…', George went 'nanu nanu' on his guitar. I continued, 'Don't make it bad…' and he replied 'nanu nanu'. He was answering every line - and I said, 'Whoa! Wait a minute now. I don't think we want that. Maybe you'd come in with answering lines later. For now I think I should start it simply first.' He was going, 'Oh yeah, OK, fine, fine.' But it was getting a bit like that. He wasn't into what I was saying. In a group it's democratic and he didn't have to listen to me, so I think he got pissed off with me coming on with ideas all the time. I think to his mind it was probably me trying to dominate. It wasn't what I was trying to do - but that was how it seemed. This, for me, was eventually what was going to break The Beatles up. I started to feel it wasn't a good idea to have ideas, whereas in the past I'd always done that in total innocence, even though I was maybe riding roughshod.

youtube

I did want to insist that there shouldn't be an answering guitar phrase in 'Hey Jude' - and that was important to me - but of course if you tell a guitarist that, and he's not as keen on the idea as you are, it looks as if you're knocking him out of the picture. I think George felt that: it was like, 'Since when are you going to tell me what to play? I' in The Beatles too.' So I can see his point of view. But it burned me, and I then couldn't come up with ideas freely, so I started to have to think twice about anything I'd say - 'Wait a minute, is this going to be seen to be pushy?' - whereas in the past it had just been a case of, 'Well, the hell, this would be a good idea. Let's do this song called "Yesterday". It'll be all right.'

( The Beatles Anthology, 2000)

‘There’s no one who’s to blame. We were fools to get ourselves into this situation in the first place. But it’s not a comfortable situation for me to work in as an artist.’

(Paul McCartney, interview, Evening Standard, April 21-22, 1970)

‘It simply became very difficult for me to write with Yoko sitting there. If I had to think of a line I started getting very nervous. I might want to say something like “I love you, girl”, but with Yoko watching I always felt that I had to come out with something clever and avant-garde. She would probably have loved the simple stuff, but I was scared.’ ‘I’m not blaming her, I’m blaming me. You can’t blame John for falling in love with Yoko any more than you can blame me for falling in love with Linda. We tried writing together a few more times, but I think we both decided it would be easier to work separately.’

(Paul McCartney, interview, Evening Standard, April 21-22, 1970)

JOHN: "I was always waiting for a reason to get out of the Beatles from the day I filmed 'How I Won The War' (in 1966). I just didn't have the guts to do it. The seed was planted when the Beatles stopped touring and I couldn't deal with not being onstage. But I was too frightened to step out of the palace."

(John Lennon, Newsweek, September 29, 1980)

PAUL: As far as I was concerned, yeah, I would have liked the Beatles never to have broken up. I wanted to get us back on the road doing small places, then move up to our previous form and then go and play. Just make music, and whatever else there was would be secondary. But it was John who didn’t want to. He had told Allen Klein the new manager he and Yoko had picked late one night that he didn’t want to continue.

(Paul and Linda McCartney, interview for Playboy, December 1984)

PAUL: I must admit we'd known it was coming at some point because of his intense involvement with Yoko. John needed to give space to his and Yoke's thing. Someone like John would want to end The Beatles period and start the Yoko period; and he wouldn't like either to interfere with the other.

(The Beatles Anthology, 2000)

PAUL: I think, largely looking back on it, I think it was mainly John [who] needed a new direction – that he then went into, headlong, helter skelter, you know, he went right in there, doing all sorts of stuff he’d never done before, with Yoko. And you can’t blame him. Because he was that kind of guy, [the kind who] really wanted to live life and do stuff, you know. There was just no holding back with John. And it was what we’d all admired him for. So you couldn’t really say, “Oh, we don’t want you to do that, John. You should just stay with us.” We felt so wimpy, you know. So it had to happen like that.

(Paul McCartney, November, 1983, interview with DJ Roger Scott)

The Beatles split up? It just depends how much we all want to record together. I don’t know if I want to record together again. I go off and on it. I really do. The problem is that in the old days, when we needed an album, Paul and I got together and produced enough songs for it. Nowadays there’s three if us writing prolifically and trying to fit it all onto one album. Or we have to think of a double album every time, which takes six months. That’s the hang-up we have… I don’t want to spend six months making an album I have two tracks on. And neither do Paul or George probably. That’s the problem. If we can overcome that, maybe it’ll sort itself out. None of us want to be background musicians most of the time. It’s a waste. We didn’t spend ten years ‘making it’ to have the freedom in the recording studios, to be able to have two tracks on an album. This is why I’ve started with the Plastic Ono and working with Yoko… to have more outlet. There isn’t enough outlet for me in the Beatles. The Ono Band is my escape valve. And how important that gets, as compared to the Beatles for me, I’ll have to wait and see.

(John Lennon, New Musical Express December 13, 1969)

PLAYBOY: In most of his interviews, John said he never missed the Beatles. Did you believe him? PAUL: I don’t know. My theory is that he didn’t. Someone like John would want to end the Beatle period and start the Yoko period. And he wouldn’t like either to interfere with the other. As he was with Yoko, anything about the Beatles tended inevitably to be an intrusion. So I think he was interested enough in his new life to genuinely not miss us.

(Paul and Linda McCartney, interview for Playboy, December 1984)

Yoko: Paul began complaining that I was sitting too close to them when they were recording, and that I should be in the background. John: Paul was always gently coming up to Yoko and saying: "Why don't you keep in the background a bit more?" I didn't know what was going on. It was going on behind my back. Yoko: And I wasn't uttering a word. It wasn't a matter of my being aggressive. It was just the fact that I was sitting near to John. And we stood up to it. We just said, "No. It's simply that we just have to come together." They were trying to discourage me from attending meetings, et cetera. And I was always there. And Linda actually said that she admired that we were doing that. John: Paul even said that to me.

(John Lennon interviewed by Peter McCabe and Robert Schonfeld at the St. Regis Hotel, September 5, 1971)

Paul: They’re onto that thing. They just want to be near to each other. So I just think it’s just silly of me, or of anyone, to try and say to him, “No, you can’t,” you know. It’s like, ‘cause – okay, they’re – they’re going overboard about it, but John always does! And Yoko probably always does. So that’s their scene. You can’t go saying – you know, “Don’t go overboard about this thing. Be sensible about it. Don’t bring it to meetings.” It’s his decision, that. It’s – it’s none of our business, to start interfering in that. Even when it comes into our business, you still can’t really say much, unless – except, “Look, I don’t like it, John.” And then he can say, well, “Screw you,” or, “I like it,” or, “Well, I won’t do it so much,” or blablabla. Like, that’s the only way, you know. To tell John about that. Michael Lindsay-Hogg: Have you done that already? Paul: Well, I told him I didn’t like writing songs… with him and Yoko. Michael Lindsay-Hogg: Were you writing much more before she came around—? Paul: Oh yeah, sure. Michael Lindsay-Hogg: Or had you – cooled it a bit, then? Before her. Ringo: Before Yoko got there. Paul: Yeah, cooled it, cooled it. Sure. We’d cooled it because… not playing together. Ever since we didn’t play together… Michael Lindsay-Hogg: Onstage, you mean? Paul: Yes. With the band. Because we lived together, and we played together. We were in the same hotel, up at the same time every morning, doing this all day. And this – I mean, this, you know, it doesn’t matter what you do, [but] just as long as you’re this close all day, something grows, you know. In some ways. And when you’re not this close, only, just physically… something goes. Michael Lindsay-Hogg: Right. Paul: So then you can come together to record, and stuff, but you still sort of lose the… Actually, musically, you know, we really – we can play better than we’ve ever been able to play, you know. Like, I really think that. I think, like – we’re – we’re alright on that. It’s just that – being together thing, you know.

(Paul McCartney, Get Back sessions, 13 January, 1969)

What actually happened was, the group was getting very tense, it was looking like we were breaking up. One day, I came in and we had a meeting, and it was all Apple and business and Allen Klein, and it was getting very hairy, and no one was realy enjoying themselves. It was – we’d forgotten the music bit. It was just business. I came in one day and I said, “I think we should get back on the road, a bit like what you and I were talking about before, small band, go and do the clubs, sod it. Let’s get back to square one, let’s remember what we’re all about. Let’s get back.” And John’s actual words were, “I think you’re daft. And I wasn’t gonna tell you, but – we’re breaking the group up. I’m breaking the group up. It feels good. It feels like a divorce.” And he just sort of sat there, and all our jaws dropped.

(Paul McCartney, November, 1983, interview with DJ Roger Scott)

Wenner: You said you quit the Beatles first. John: Yes. Wenner: How? John: I said to Paul “I’m leaving.” John: I knew on the flight over to Toronto or before we went to Toronto: I told Allen I was leaving, I told Eric Clapton and Klaus that I was leaving then, but that I would probably like to use them as a group. I hadn’t decided how to do it – to have a permanent new group or what – then later on, I thought fuck, I’m not going to get stuck with another set of people, whoever they are. I announced it to myself and the people around me on the way to Toronto a few days before. And on the plane – Klein came with me – I told Allen, “It’s over.” When I got back, there were a few meetings, and Allen said well, cool it, cool it, there was a lot to do, businesswise you know, and it would not have been suitable at the time. Then we were discussing something in the office with Paul, and Paul said something or other about the Beatles doing something, and I kept saying “No, no, no” to everything he said. So it came to a point where I had to say something, of course, and Paul said, “What do you mean?” I said, “I mean the group is over, I’m leaving.” … So that’s what happened. So, like anybody when you say divorce, their face goes all sorts of colors. It’s like he knew really that this was the final thing…

(John Lennon, December 1970, interview with Jann Wenner for Rolling Stone)

PAUL: But what wasn't too clever was this idea of: 'I wasn't going to tell you till after we signed the new contract.' Good old John – he had to blurt it out. And that was it. There's not a lot you can say to, 'I'm leaving the group,' from a key member. I didn't really know what to say. We had to react to him doing it; he had control of the situation.

(The Beatles Anthology, 2000)

Allen was there, and he will remember exactly and Yoko will, but this is exactly how I see it. Allen was saying don’t tell. He didn’t want me to tell Paul even. So I said, “It’s out,” I couldn’t stop it, it came out. Paul and Allen both said that they were glad that I wasn’t going to announce it, that I wasn’t going to make an event out of it. I don’t know whether Paul said “Don’t tell anybody,” but he was darned pleased that I wasn’t going to. He said, “Oh, that means nothing really happened if you’re not going to say anything.”

(John Lennon, December 1970, interview with Jann Wenner for Rolling Stone)

And – that was it, really. And nobody quite knew what to say, and we sort of then, after that statement, we then thought, “Well… give it a couple of months. We may decide. I mean, it’s a little bit of a big act, to just break up like that. Let’s give it a couple of months. We might all just come back together.” And we talked for a couple of months, but it just was never going to be on.

(Paul McCartney, November, 1983, interview with DJ Roger Scott)

Postcard from John and Yoko to Paul from Danmark January 1970

John: George was on the session for Instant Karma, Ringo’s away and Paul’s – I dunno what he’s doing at the moment, I haven’t a clue. Interviewer: When did you last see him? John: Uh, before Toronto. I’ll see him this week actually, yeah. If you’re listening, I’m coming round.

(John Lennon interview 6th February, 1970)

Interviewer: What about the Beatles all together as a group? John: …You can’t pin me down because I haven’t got- there’s no- it’s completely open, whether we do it or not. Life is like that, whether I make another Plastic Ono album or Lennon album or anything is open you know, I don’t like to prejudge it. And I have no idea if the Beatles are working together again or not, I never did have, it was always open. If someone didn’t feel like it, that’s it. And maybe if one of us starts it off, the others will all come round and make an album you know.

(John Lennon interview 6th February, 1970)

Interviewer: Why do you think he [Paul] has lost interest in Apple? John: That’s what I want to ask him! We had a heavy scene last year as far as business was concerned and Paul got a bit fed-up with all the effort of business. I think that’s all it is. I hope so.

(John Lennon interviewed by Roy Shipston for Disc and Music Echo, February 28, 1970)

‘Anyway, I hung on for all these months wondering whether the Beatles would ever come back together again…and let’s face it I’ve been as vague as anyone, hoping that John might come around and say, “All right lads, I’m ready to go back to work…”

(Paul McCartney, interview, Evening Standard, April 21-22, 1970)

PAUL: For about three or four months, George, Ringo and I rang each other to ask: 'Well, is this it then?' It wasn't that the record company had dumped us. It was still a case of: we might get back together again. Nobody quite knew if it was just one of John's little flings, and that maybe he was going to feel the pinch in a week's time and say, 'I was only kidding.' I think John did kind of leave the door open. He'd said: 'I'm pretty much leaving the group, but…' So we held on to that thread for a few months, and then eventually we realised, 'Oh well, we're not in the band any more. That's it. It's definitely over.'

(The Beatles Anthology, 2000)

PAUL: I started thinking, 'Well, if that's the case, I had better get myself together. I can't just let John control the situation and dump us as if we're the jilted girlfriends.'

(The Beatles Anthology, 2000)

‘John’s in love with Yoko, and he’s no longer in love with the other three of us. And let’s face it, we were in love with the Beatles as much as anyone. We’re still like brothers and we have enormous emotional ties because we were the only four that it all happened to…who went right through those ten years. I think the other three are the most honest, sincere men I have ever met. I love them. I really do.’ ‘I don’t mind being bound to them as a friend. I like that idea. I don’t mind being bound to them musically, because I like the others as musical partners. I like being in their band. But for my own sanity, we must change the business arrangements we have…’

(Paul McCartney, interview, Evening Standard, April 21-22, 1970)

‘Last year John said he wanted a divorce. All right, so do I. I want to give him that divorce. I hate this trial separation because it’s just not working. Personally, I don’t think John could do the Beatles thing now. I don’t think it would be good for him.’

(Paul McCartney, interview, Evening Standard, April 21-22, 1970)

‘I told John on the phone the other day that at the beginning of last year I was annoyed with him. I was jealous because of Yoko, and afraid about the break-up of a great musical partnership. It’s taken me a year to realise that they were in love. Just like Linda and me.’

(Paul McCartney, interview, Evening Standard, April 21-22, 1970)

John: Well, Paul rang me up. He didn't actually tell me he'd split, he said he was putting out an album [McCartney]. He said, "I'm now doing what you and Yoko were doing last year. I understand what you were doing." All that shit. So I said, "Good luck to yer."

(John Lennon interviewed by Peter McCabe and Robert Schonfeld at the St. Regis Hotel, September 5, 1971)

I think he claims that he didn’t mean that to happen but that’s bullshit. He called me in the afternoon of that day and said, “I’m doing what you and Yoko were doing last year.” I said good, you know, because that time last year they were all looking at Yoko and me as if we were strange trying to make our life together instead of being fab, fat myths. So he rang me up that day and said I’m doing what you and Yoko are doing, I’m putting out an album, and I’m leaving the group too, he said. I said good. I was feeling a little strange, because he was saying it this time, although it was a year later, and I said “good,” because he was the one that wanted the Beatles most, and then the midnight papers came out.

(John Lennon, December 1970, interview with Jann Wenner for Rolling Stone)

Q: "Why did you decide to make a solo album?" PAUL: "Because I got a Studer four-track recording machine at home - practiced on it (playing all instruments) - liked the results, and decided to make it into an album." Q: "Were you influenced by John's adventures with the Plastic Ono Band, and Ringo's solo LP?" PAUL: "Sort of, but not really." Q: "Are all songs by Paul McCartney alone?" PAUL: "Yes sir." Q: "Will they be so credited: McCartney?" PAUL: "It's a bit daft for them to be Lennon/McCartney credited, so 'McCartney' it is." Q: "Did you enjoy working as a solo?" PAUL: "Very much. I only had me to ask for a decision, and I agreed with me. Remember Linda's on it too, so it's really a double act." … Q: "What has recording alone taught you?" PAUL: "That to make your own decisions about what you do is easy, and playing with yourself is very difficult, but satisfying." … Q: "Is this album a rest away from the Beatles or the start of a solo career?" PAUL: "Time will tell. Being a solo album means it's 'the start of a solo career…' and not being done with the Beatles means it's just a rest. So it's both." Q: "Is your break with the Beatles temporary or permanent, due to personal differences or musical ones?" PAUL: "Personal differences, business differences, musical differences, but most of all because I have a better time with my family. Temporary or permanent? I don't really know." Q: "Do you foresee a time when Lennon-McCartney becomes an active songwriting partnership again?" PAUL: "No." Q: "What do you feel about John's peace effort? The Plastic Ono Band? Giving back the MBE? Yoko's influence? Yoko?" PAUL: "I love John, and respect what he does - it doesn't really give me any pleasure." … Q: "What are your plans now? A holiday? A musical? A movie? Retirement?" PAUL: "My only plan is to grow up!"

(Paul McCartney, April 9th 1970, press release 'McCartney')

SCOTT: Did you not realize that this was going to happen to you after you’d been the one to actually do it, and say, “Right, that’s it”? PAUL: No – it’s – wrong. Wrong. Sorry. It wasn’t me, it was John. SCOTT: Well, he said it first, but he said it quietly, he didn’t let everybody know. PAUL: No no no no, but the point – what I’m talking about is, see, this is – see, I love this legend stuff, god, you know, you have to actually live with this stuff…

(Paul McCartney, November, 1983, interview with DJ Roger Scott)

Int: I asked Lee Eastman for his view of the split, and what it was that prompted Paul to file suit to dissolve the Beatles' partnership, and he said it was because John asked for a divorce. John Lennon: Because I asked for a divorce? That's a childish reason for going into court, isn't it?

(John Lennon interviewed by Peter McCabe and Robert Schonfeld at the St. Regis Hotel, September 5, 1971)

"And I've changed. The funny thing about it is that I think alot of my change has been helped by John Lennon. I sort of picked up on his lead. John had said, 'Look, I don't want to be that anymore. I'm going to be this.' And I thought, 'That's great.' I liked the fact he'd done it, and so I'll do it with my thing. He's given the okay. In England, if a partnership isn't rolling along and working -- like a marriage that isn't working-- then you have reasonable grounds to break it off. It's great! Good old British justice!

(Paul McCartney, Life Magazine, April 16, 1971)

‘… So, as a natural turn of events from looking for something to do, I found that I was enjoying working alone as much as I’d enjoyed the early days of the Beatles. I haven’t really enjoyed the Beatles in the last two years.’

(Paul McCartney, interview, Evening Standard, April 21-22, 1970)

'Eventually,' McCartney recalled, 'I went and said, "I want to leave. You can all get on with Klein and everything, just let me out." Having not spoken to Lennon for several weeks, he sent him a letter that summer, pleading that the former partners 'let each other out of the trap'. As McCartney testified, Lennon 'replied with a photograph of himself and Yoko, with a balloon coming out of his mouth in which was written, "How and Why?" I replied by letter saying, "How by signing a paper which says we hereby dissolve our partnership. Why because there is no partnership." John replied on a card which said, "Get well soon. Get the other signatures and I will think about it.” Communication was at an end.’

(Peter Doggett, You Never Give Me Your Money, 2009 - P.88)

John phoned me once to try and get the Beatles back together again, after we’d broken up. And I wasn’t for it, because I thought that we’d come too far and I was too deeply hurt by it all. I thought, “Nah, what’ll happen is that we’ll get together for another three days and all hell will break loose again. Maybe we just should leave it alone.”

(Paul McCartney, November 1995 Club Sandwich interview)

Int.: … What else was Klein doing to try and lure Paul back? John Lennon: [laughs] One of his reasons for trying to get Paul back was that Paul would have forfeited his right to split by joining us again. We tried to con him into recording with us too. Allen came up with this plan. He said, "Just ring Paul and say, 'We're recording next Friday, are you coming?' " So it nearly happened. It got around that the Beatles were getting together again, because EMI heard that the Beatles had booked recording time again. But Paul would never, never do it, for anything, and now I would never do it.

(John Lennon interviewed by Peter McCabe and Robert Schonfeld at the St. Regis Hotel, September 5, 1971)

There’s no hard feelings or anything, but you just don’t hang around with your ex-wife. We’ve completely finished. ’Cos, you know, I’m just not that keen on John after all he’s done. I mean, you can be friendly with someone, and they can shit on you, and you’re just a fool if you keep friends with them. I’m not just going to lie down and let him shit on me again. I think he’s a bit daft, to tell you the truth. I talked to him about the Klein thing, and he’s so misinformed it’s ridiculous.

(Paul McCartney interviewed by student journalist Ian McNulty for the Hull University Torch, May 1972 [From The McCartney Legacy, Volume 1: 1969 – 1973 by Allan Kozinn and Adrian Sinclair, 2022)

JOHN: We’re not – we’re not fighting too much. It’s silly. You know I always remember watching the film with, uh – who was it? Not Rogers and Hammerstein. Those British people that wrote those silly operas years ago, who are they? WIGG: Gilbert and Sullivan? JOHN: Yeah, Gilbert and Sullivan. I always remember watching the film with Robert Morley and thinking, “We’ll never get to that.” [pause] And we did, which really upset me. But I never really thought we’d be so stupid. But we did. WIGG: What, like splitting like they did? JOHN: Like splitting and arguing, you know, and then they come back, and one’s in a wheelchair twenty years later— YOKO: [laughs] Yes, yes. JOHN: —and all that. [laughs; bleak] I never thought we’d come to that, because I didn’t think we were that stupid. But we were naive enough to let people come between us. And I think that’s what happened. [pause] But it was happening anyway. I don’t mean Yoko, I mean businessmen, you know. All of them. WIGG: What, do you think they were – do you think businessmen were responsible for the breakup? JOHN: Well, no, it’s like anything. When people decide to get divorced, you know, you just – quite often you decide amicably. But then when you get your lawyers and they say, “Don’t talk to the other party unless there’s another lawyer present,” then that’s when the drift really starts happening, and then when you can’t speak to each other without a lawyer, then there’s no communication. And it’s really lawyers that make… divorces nasty. You know, if there was a nice ceremony like getting married, for divorce, then it would be much better. Even divorce of business partners. Because it wouldn’t be so nasty. But it always gets nasty because you’re never allowed to speak your own mind, you have to talk in double-dutch, you have to spend all your time with a lawyer, and you get frustrated, and you end up saying and doing things that you wouldn’t really do under normal circumstances.

(John Lennon, Yoko Ono, October, 1971, St Regis Hotel, New York, interview with David Wigg)

Q: "If you got, I don't know what the right phrase is… 'back together' now, what would be the nature of it?" JOHN: "Well, it's like saying, if you were back in your mother's womb… I don't fucking know. What can I answer? It will never happen, so there's no use contemplating it. Even is I became friends with Paul again, I'd never write with him again. There's no point. I write with Yoko because she's in the same room with me." YOKO: "And we're living together." JOHN: "So it's natural. I was living with Paul then, so I wrote with him. It's whoever you're living with. He writes with Linda. He's living with her. It's just natural."

(John Lennon, Yoko Ono, St. Regis Hotel, New York, September 5th, 1971, interview with Peter McCabe and Robert Schonfeld)

'Dear Mailbag, In order to put out of its misery the limping dog of a news story which has been dragging itself across your pages for the past year, my answer to the question, “Will The Beatles get together again?” … is no.’

(Paul McCartney, Melody Maker, August 29, 1970)

‘Just tell the people I’ve found someone I like enough to want to spend all my time with. That’s me…the home, the kids and the fireplace.’

(Paul McCartney, interview, Evening Standard, April 21-22, 1970)

+ this

#accidental divorce #thanks god for The Beach Boys particularly for Here Today otherwise I wouldn't went through this #the beatles #john lennon #paul mccartney #george harrison #ringo starr #interview: paul #interview: john #yoko ono #john and paul #Youtube

191 notes · View notes

thekillingvote · 1 year ago

Text

No Birds Allowed: Batman without Robin

The usual claim is that Jason Todd was singularly hated by audiences. Dick Grayson, Carrie Kelley, and Tim Drake are proper, beloved Robins—and Jason Todd is the one and only outlier so unlikable that audiences killed him off by popular vote.

But this claim ignores a massive piece of the puzzle—the Robin role has long been treated as an outdated remnant of a childish era, not only by a significant share of Batman fans, but also by Batman creative teams. While there were definitely fans who hated Jason Todd, he was at least partly chosen to be killed as a scapegoat for some long-standing complaints about the Robin role in Batman stories.

The 1988 poll to kill Jason Todd wasn't just a poll to kill Jason Todd—the poll to kill Robin was a poll to kill Robin.

Fan letters columns from Batman #221 and Detective Comics #398, reacting to Dick leaving for Hudson University in Batman #217 (1969):

Denny O'Neil Batman/Detective Comics writer (1970-1980) Batman group editor (1986-2000) on sending Robin away to Hudson University:

Dan Greenfield: Actually, last night I went back through my comics and the one thing that always strikes me is that before you came onto the character, they’d already made the decision to have Robin leave. Robin was up at Hudson University and was used sparingly from that point forward. Denny O’Neil: Well, that was a conscious decision of mine. Greenfield: Oh! O’Neil: Yeah, I mean … I had been offered Batman a year before I did it. Greenfield: No kidding? I wanna hear this. O’Neil: Because that was in the (Batman TV show) camp thing. The comics were very half-heartedly following in the footsteps of the camp because it was having a palpable effect on circulation. That’s not always true but it was in that case. Camp as in the sense — as opposed to the more erudite sense — this one-line joke about: “I loved this stuff when I was 6 and now that I’m 28 and I have a bi-weekly appointment with a therapist and a little, mild drug habit and two divorces, ‘Look how silly it is.'” I would go into the most literary bar in Greenwich Village on (Wednesday) or Thursday evenings and there would be writers and poets and college professors, all looking at Batman! But when that was over, it was over. It was like somebody turned a switch. And that’s when (editor) Julie (Schwartz) said, in his avuncular way, did I have any ideas for Batman? And at that point, I wasn’t going to be asked to do camp. I was going to be asked to do anything within the bounds of good taste, etc., that I wanted to.

O'Neil, quoted from “Notes from the Batcave: An Interview with Dennis O’Neil” in The Many Lives of The Batman: Critical Approaches to a Superhero and His Media:

There was a time right before I took over as Batman editor when he seemed to be much closer to a family man, much closer to a nice guy. He seemed to have a love life and he seemed to be very paternal towards Robin. My version is a lot nastier than that. He has a lot more edge to him.

O'Neil in 2015:

Modern Batman does not do camp. He has to evolve but to stay true to the concept he has to stay lonely. The kids, there shouldn't be many. Keep him the lone, obsessed crusader and the stories will be better. We did a story called Son of the Demon. It told a story where he had a kid, a baby. It wasn't in continuity. These days, the kid came back and became the new Robin, and I hear that Batman's got a few more running around.

Jim Starlin, Batman writer (1987-1988), writer of A Death in the Family:

I tried to avoid using [Robin] as much as I could. In most of my early Batman stories, he doesn’t appear. Eventually Denny asked me to do a specific Robin story, which I did, and I guess it went over fairly well from what I understand. But I wasn’t crazy about Robin.

I thought that going out and fighting crime in a grey and black outfit while you send out a kid in primary colors was kind of like child abuse. So when I started working on Batman, I was always leaving Robin out of the stories, and Denny O’Neil who is the editor finally said, "You gotta put [Robin] in."

youtube

In the one Batman issue I wrote with Robin featured, I had him do something underhanded, as I recall. Denny had told me that the character was very unpopular with fans, so I decided to play on that dislike. [...] At that time, DC had this idea that they were gonna do an AIDS education book, and so they put a box out and wanted everybody to put in suggestions of who should contract AIDS and perish in the comics. I stuffed it with Robin. They realized it was all my handwriting so they ended up throwing all my things out. About six months later, Denny came up with this idea of the call-in thing. [...] I didn’t find out about it until I came back [from Mexico] and found out that, just as I expected, my ghoulish little fans voted him dead. But by a much smaller margin than I’d imagined. It was only like 72 votes out of 10,000, so statistically it was next to nothing.

Dan Raspler, assistant editor/associate editor to Denny O’Neil (1988-1990):

Denny wasn’t really interested in comics continuity, and he didn’t like superheroes. And if you read his work, you see his influence was really a pushing away from the conventions at the time—it was growing old, that sort of Golden Age-y, Silver Age-y stuff, and Denny sort of modernized it, and he never stopped feeling that way. Jim Starlin’s Batman appealed to Denny. It was a little more ‘down to Earth. Nobody liked Robin at the time. For a while Robin was not—it didn’t make sense in comics. Comics were darkening, and so having the kid was just, it was silly, and even at the time I kind of didn’t. Now Robin is my favorite all-time character, but at the time when I was twenty-whatever, I accepted kicking Robin out, the short pants and all the rest of it.

Comic shop owner Phil Beracha on A Death in the Family, quoted in The Sun Sentinel (October 22, 1988):

"I got 100 copies, and I don't expect them to last past the weekend," said Phil Beracha, owner of Phil's Comic Shoppe in Margate. "I usually get 50 copies of Batman. I doubled my order, and I still expect to sell out." The readers voted right, Beracha said. "Robin is an outdated concept. He was created in the `40s, and back then in a comic book you could have a kid beating up grown men. I don't think that works today."

Writer Steve Englehart, quoted in "Batman, the Gamble; Warner Bros. is betting big money that a 50-year-old comic book vigilante will be a `hero for our times'" in the Los Angeles Times (June 18, 1989):

Writer Steven Englehart, who did a series of Batman stories in Detective Comics, also worked up some movie treatments. In a letter to Comics Buyer's Guide, he revealed the approach he had in mind, which would have pleased Batfanatics: "My first treatment had Robin getting blown away in the first 90 seconds, so that every reviewer in the country would begin his review with, `This sure isn't the TV show.' "

Michael Uslan, producer and film rights holder for the 1989 Batman film:

I only let Tim [Burton] see the original year of the Bob Kane/Bill Finger run, up until the time that Robin was introduced. I showed him the Steve Englehart/Marshall Rogers and the Neal Adams/Denny O'Neil stories. My biggest fear was that somehow Tim would get hold of the campiest Batman comics and then where would we be?

"Death Knell for the Campy Crusader" in the Orlando Sentinel (23 June 1989):

For most people, the name Batman summons up a picture of a clown in long johns, a Campy Crusader who - with the young punster Robin - ZAPed and POWed his way into our lives. That's the Batman that appeared on TV in the mid-'60s, and that's the Batman that the world at large knows. Such is the power of television. But this ludicrous image may become obsolete now that the new, $40 million Batman movie has opened. Robin is absent from the film, as are the perky Batgirl and the utterly superfluous Aunt Harriet of the TV series. And though the movie has plenty of sound effects, they don't appear on the screen as words, spelled out in neo-Brechtian absurdity.

Sam Hamm, writer for Batman (1989 live-action film):

The Case of the Disappearing Robin is high comedy. Tim (Burton) and I had worked out a plotline that did not include the Boy Wonder, whom we both regarded as an unnecessary intrusion. Really: Our hero was crazy to begin with. Did he have to prove it by enlisting a pimply adolescent to help him fight crime? Was Bat-Baby unavailable? But the studio was insistent: There was no such thing as solo Batman, there was only Batman and Robin. So, after holding off the executives for as long as we could, Tim and I realized we had better try to accommodate them. He flew up to my house in San Francisco and we walked around in circles for two days, finally deciding that there was no way to shoehorn Robin into our story. [...] We figured that if we managed to squeeze him in, the lame hacks who were making the sequel could worry about what to do with him next. When the film went into production in London, and ran seriously over budget, WB started looking for a sequence that could be cut to save money. And there was one obvious candidate: Intro Robin! So Robin was cut from the movie and shoved back to Batman Returns— from which he was cut yet again and shoved back to Batman Forever.

Grant Morrison on creating Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth (written 1987-1988, published 1989) with Dave McKean (see the annotated script's fourth page):

The original first draft of the script included Robin. Robin appeared in a few scenes at the beginning then remained at Police Headquarters for the bulk of the book, where he spent his time studying plans and histories of the house, in order to find a way in to help his mentor. Dave McKean, however, felt that he had already compromised his artistic integrity sufficiently by drawing Batman and refused point blank over for the Boy Wonder — so after one brave but ridiculous attempt to put him in a trench coat, I wisely removed him from the script.

Paul Dini on Batman: The Animated Series (1992), as told in the 1998 book Batman Animated:

The Fox Network, on the assumption that kids won't watch a kid’s show unless kids are in it, soon began insisting that Robin be prominently featured in every episode. When Fox changed the title from Batman: The Animated Series to The Adventures of Batman & Robin, they laid down the law-no story premise was to be considered unless it was either a Robin story or one in which the Boy Wonder played a key role. Out were underworld character studies like “It's Never Too Late"; in were traditional Batman and Robin escapades like “The Lion and the Unicorn.” A potentially intriguing Catwoman/Black Canary team-up was interrupted in midpitch to the network by their demand, “Where's Robin?” When the writers asked if they could omit Robin from just this one episode, Fox obliged by omitting the entire story. Looking back, there was nothing drastically wrong with Robin's full-time insertion into the series—after all, kids do love him. Our major gripe at the time was that it started turning the series into the predictable Batman and Robin show people had initially expected it would be. For the first season, Batman had been an experiment we weren't sure would work. We were trying out different ways of telling all kinds of stories with Batman as our only constant. For better or worse, having a kid forced him, and the series, to settle down.

Christian Bale, star of Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight trilogy (2008):

If Robin crops up in one of the new Batman films, I'll be chaining myself up somewhere and refusing to go to work.

Summed up

Among the keepers of Batman, there has been a vocal contingent arguing against the inclusion of Robin. They argue that Robin damages Batman's brooding, solitary persona. They argue that the concept of Robin is too ridiculous and fantastic for the grounded, gritty ideal of Batman. They argue that a respectable version of Batman shouldn't allow, encourage, or train "child soldiers" to endanger their lives fighting against violent evil-doers.

The original and most iconic Robin, Dick Grayson, has definitely benefited from his deep roots in DC lore and his consistent popularity among fans—and yet even he has been shunned from various Batman projects over the decades. When even he struggles to get his foot in the door, his successors face stiffer opposition.

So it's not quite correct to say that Jim Starlin hated Jason Todd. In his own words, Starlin wasn't fond of Robin, and his storytelling (most obviously A Death in the Family) set out to argue against Batman having any kind of "partner" at all. This, following the wildly successful comic that treated Barbara Gordon as a disposable prop. A growing audience welcomed the Dark Age, and the gruesome spectacles made of kid-friendly elements like Batgirl and Robin.

This trend could be broken by the upcoming sequel to The Batman and by the planned slate of upcoming DCU films. But most Robin fans will tell you that many movie-going Batman fans still have their doubts about Robin sharing Batman's spotlight.

263 notes · View notes

posttexasstressdisorder · 8 months ago

Text

I remember the heat wave of 1980, there were even shirts made about it! It reached 107 in Waco that year, where I was in college. The heat waves got hotter from there. I remember one year in the mid 2000s, it was 112 in Austin.

And here's the thing that drives it home, though: it's gotten hotter every year in the eight years I've been here in California. We've had more days in the 90s in the last five years than before. And most days, the high temps are a good 5-10 hotter than they predict.

70 notes · View notes

sleepyking · 1 month ago

Text

The Science Behind Adventure Time

Hello and welcome to my TED Talk-

@forphysicsandimagination and @brokenmilkcrates this is for you:)

WARNING: THE FOLLOWING IS A NINE PAGE ESSAY ABOUT THE SCIENCE BEHIND THE END OF THE WORLD IN A KID'S CARTOON SHOW, AND CONTAINS DISCUSSIONS OF NUCLEAR FALLOUT, CANCER, RADIATION, AND OTHER HEAVY TOPICS. VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED.

Also, if there's anything I say in this that I'm repeating from someone else(because let's be honest there's probably something), and it bothers you, lmk!

Introduction

Adventure Time is a show that ran from April of 2010 to September of 2018, totaling ten seasons and 283 episodes. It followed Finn the human and Jake the dog, who went on weird adventures and got into trouble. Other major characters featured are Princess Bonnibel Bubblegum, Marceline the Vampire Queen, BMO, and Lady Rainicorn, along with others like Flame Princess, Lumpy Space Princess, and the Ice King. The Ice King was the main antagonist for most of the first season, until the Lich was introduced near the end of season one. Adventure Time is known for its far-fetched, wacky, and odd creatures and characters. But what if I were to tell you that they aren’t as far-fetched as they seem?

Background Information/What We Know

The strange things we see in Adventure Time were caused by the end of the world—also known as the Great Mushroom War(GMW). The GMW was a nuclear war that resulted in the near extinction of humanity, as well as the creation of new races and species, ranging from vampires to hug wolves to mutated coyotes. Not much is known about the war, but we do see bits and pieces of it in flashbacks.

The exact time of all of this is unknown, but it is speculated that it happened in the late twentieth to early twenty-first century. It most likely took place between 1998 and the early 2000s, as sitcoms from the 1980s are referenced by multiple of the surviving human characters, the appearance of a Generation 3 iMac computer in The Lich (which became available to the mass public in 1998), modern smartphones in flashbacks, and internet phrases and expressions frequently used by the characters.

The cause of the end of the world was a nuclear bomb—most likely more than one, as two bombs can seen exploding at opposite ends of the planet in the episode BMO. We also know that the Enchiridion was finished after the war, most likely on August 13th, 2021, going off of the numbers that are on the back of the book.

Part One

During a flashback, Simon is shown looking up at the sky. In the sky, there are more than thirteen planes, which are most likely what was used for dropping the bombs. These planes are probably Boeing B2-9 Superfortress planes, which were used to drop nuclear bombs during World War II. In the episode Finn the Human, we get our first look at the actual bomb, which is nearly identical to the Fat Man bomb that was used in WW2, and was dropped by a Boeing B2-9 Superfortress.

We’re told by Farmworld-Marceline that the bomb was poised to bathe the Earth in mutagenic horror, meaning that it was a mutagenic bomb. Now, you might be thinking, what’s the difference between a mutagenic bomb and a nuclear bomb? Are there any differences? The simple answer is yes.

Nuclear bombs are made to cause mass destruction using the energy released when the nucleus of an atom is split or merged. Mutagenic bombs are bombs that can cause direct DNA damage. However, nuclear bombs can be mutagenic, so Marceline could mean that it was a mutagenic bomb, or a nuclear bomb with mutagenic effects. Going by how much damage it caused, it was probably the latter.

For this study, I’m going to say that the mushroom bomb is the same as a Fat Man bomb, and the fallout happened in 2010 (because, well, that’s realistically the time it probably happened). This bomb was dropped on the Japanese city Nagasaki on August 9th, 1945, and resulted in the deaths of over 70,000 people.

However, I don’t think that the Fat Man(FM) was the only bomb used.

In the intro of every Adventure Time episode, we can see things from the old world—a broken TV, cassette tapes, and, most notably, warheads. Warheads that are different from the mushroom bomb.

So I went digging. I dug even deeper into history and everything we know about nuclear fallouts, and I found it—the first of two nuclear weapons ever used in warfare; the Little Boy.

The Little Boy(LB) was used in the bombing of Hiroshima, another Japanese city, on August 6th, 1945—three days before the FM—and had an explosion force equal to 20,000 tons of TNT. 80,000 people died as a direct result of the bombing, and tens of thousands more died later.

Out of the 120 FMs and the five LBs made, only one of each was used, leaving 119 FMs and four LBs left. There are three warheads in the intro, which means that three of the four remaining LBs were dropped but didn’t detonate.

Scientists have estimated that an all-out nuclear war between the United States and Russia would result in over five billion deaths.

The Great Mushroom War took place in approximately 2010. In 2010, there were around 6.7 billion people on Earth.

The Great Mushroom War almost wiped out the entire human race. See where I’m heading with this?

The Great Mushroom War, a nuclear war, almost caused the extinction of humanity. If roughly five billion people died as a direct result of the fallout, that would leave around one billion people left alive on the entire planet. Due to radiation, food would be destroyed, and temperatures would drastically change, which would cause more deaths. The people we see, the actual humans we see, are very few, because there are very few actual humans still alive.

Part Two

The only characters we see that have five fingers are Marceline, Simon/Ice King, Marceline’s mother, Elise, and the Lich, who were all born before the end of the world. This means that either all of the future generations lost a finger, or these four characters all got an extra finger, both of which are possible.

Oligodactyly is the term for having less than the normal amount of fingers/toes, and is the exact opposite of polydactyly. Oligodactyly is a congenial condition that is often, but not always, a genetically inherited disability, and can also be caused caused by mutations. So, if people born after the fallout all have less than five fingers, it’s very likely that it was caused by exposure to radiation.

Children born after nuclear fallout commonly have polydactyly. However, since Marceline, Simon, Elise, and the Lich were all born before the fallout, this is less likely to be the reason that they’re the only characters with five fingers.

The tribe of people that Marceline meets all have four fingers, which supports my theory on oligodactyly.

“My mom and I didn’t talk about bad stuff. When she got really sick, she didn’t even tell me,” [Distant Lands: Obsidian] Radiation can cause multiple kinds of cancer, the most common being leukemia. While it’s very likely that Elise just had radiation poisoning, I want to mention leukemia as well, because she has some of the symptoms of it as well—irritability, coughing up blood, sleep problems, feeling cold, and excessive sweating. Coughing up blood is the most obvious, as we see her cough blood onto her hand. Feeling cold is based on the fact that she’s wrapped up in a blanket while in the middle of the desert, and depending on what time of the year it is, the temperature could be higher due to radiation. The entire time we see her in Obsidian, she has eyebags(and noticeable ones at that, which means that the animators wanted us to know that she was having trouble sleeping). When she’s trying to fix the motorcycle and tells Marceline to go to teh secret clubhouse, she’s very irritable. Excessive sweating is the biggest stretch, but I added it because she’s sweating a lot of the times she’s on screen.

Skin conditions. Exposure to radiation causes skin conditions.

Ice King is blue, Marceline looks like a walking corpse. See where I’m going with this?

It does seem like Marceline’s skin has always been grey(and it makes sense that it has because Hunson is blue-ish grey), but there is a difference in her skin color between her when she was younger and her when she’s older. Her skin is lighter and more blue. Now, it’s not lighter by that much, but it IS lighter, and it’s not something that you’d notice while watching the show. Radiation doesn’t cause skin to turn blue, but remember that Marceline isn’t fully human—radiation probably affects demons and demon hybrids differently than how it affects humans.

If you look at Simon before and after the fallout, you’ll probably be able to tell the differences. Even before his skin turns blue, it’s definitely lighter than it is in scenes like flashbacks and the tapes Finn and Jake watch in the season three Christmas special. This isn’t the only way he suffers from exposure to radiation, though—he also has several psychological issues that were caused by the fallout. The crown is what makes his mind deteriorate, but constant exposure to radiation definitely doesn’t help, and, if anything, probably made the crown worse.

I would talk about the Lich, but it’s been said that he wasn’t originally human, and it seems like he’s meant to be a kind of primordial being.

Back to Marceline, in the Stakes finale, she says “Smelled something bad.” This is similar to something an actual survivor of nuclear warfare said; “There was a strange smell all over.” You could make the argument that this doesn’t have anything to do with the fallout, but while she was saying this, it showed flashbacks of when she was younger and living in the apocalyptic world.

Part Three

The first species I’m going to talk about are the gums, as they’re some of the most humanoid creatures, but they’re still very supernatural. I talked previously about skin conditions, and that’s what I believed caused the gum people. Radiation can change the texture of your skin, and can make it appear pink, red, tanned, light, or dark. It can’t turn your hair pink, but you want to know what can? Sun exposure, chlorine exposure, chemical reactions, and nutrient deficiencies. Hair can also become squishy due to protein deficiency. Hair that lacks protein can feel mushy, sticky, and gummy, and clumps together. It’s safe to assume that in an apocalypse, nobody is going to be getting all of the nutrients and proteins that they should be.

The mutated coyotes are probably the most realistic creature in the show other than humans. Yellow sclera and red irises are commonly caused by radiation. The mouth on the chest and the extra eyes are less likely to happen, but they are theoretically possible in terms of evolution.

Radiation can also cause abnormal brain development, which means that animals could possibly mutate to be able to do things humans can, like how most of the less humanoid creatures are able to talk, or how that creepy FUCKING deer can STAND ON ITS BACK LEGS LIKE A PERSON (I really don’t like him-).

The oozers are, essentially, zombies, which are scientifically possible. Zombies can’t be caused by radiation, but cells can be changed. There are diseases that cause animals to basically become zombies, and while humans aren’t affected by these diseases, cells can change because of radiation. If the cells change, it could make it possible for humans to catch these viruses.

Conclusion

Now, obviously, this is all just speculation, and a lot of Adventure Time isn’t able to be explained by science, and it was meant to be fantastical. This was made for fun, and I wanted to show how even though it’s clearly a magical world, a lot of it can be explained by science.

Two-headed lizards exist, why can’t any of Adventure Time’s creatures exist? After Chernobyl, cats living in the area went feral, meaning that radiation can change the mental state of an animal. Cows produced radioactive milk. Taking all of this into account, the things in Adventure Time seem a lot less far-fetched.

(Side note: maybe the crown was affected by the radiation, too, and that’s why it caused Simon’s mind to deteriorate-lmk if you'd like me to go more in depth about that as well.)

I'd love to do something like this again if anyone has any ideas:)!

#king speaks #adventure time #science #radiation #simon petrikov #ice king #marceline the vampire queen #chernobyl #nuclear fallout #mutagenics #analysis #theory #i wrote this for my science teacher #RIP my nonexistent sleep schedule

23 notes · View notes

theofficialpresidentofmars · 2 months ago

Text

have not watched legend of Korra and in deciding whether and when i want to, i have compiled a list of pros and cons of watching it:

pros:

Korra <33

more official Avatar universe content

expansion on lore and worldbuilding mechanics

Varrick and Zhu Li

A cast of new and silly characters to get attached to

The revival of the Air Nomads

The older Gaang and their children

DILF ZUKO

cons:

the concept of the Industrial Revolution and sudden change on a global scale is deeply frightening to me. watching humanity evolve from fighting with clubs and swords to driving cars and listening to the radio within the span of a lifetime gives me chills down the spine, especially when part of the first series’ appeal was the fantasy setting of the past, a time when things were simpler and the ignorance of the world made things appear more magical. but suddenly the old ways of the world being overturned as machines replace magic and machines replace people and individual culture is diluted as borders are broken down and larger societal structures are established and communication improves until everyone is irrevocably connected for better or worse and suddenly this large and fascinating world is small and understood and plain and we can never go back because we’ve opened a box that cannot be closed because ignorance is bliss but wilful ignorance is shameful? the jarring experience of watching characters move further away from the world they knew into a world that only looks more and more familiar to the viewer. the knowledge of where this leads, and the use of fantasy as escapism being invaded by the cold truth of reality. Korra being a natural fighter in a world that needs a diplomat, only one cycle too late for the world that needed a fighter. born too late for her time. every single moment we make decisions that cannot be undone, that will leave a mark on our world and on time forever and ever. it happens whether i start watching it or not, but it doesn’t happen until i begin watching. I’d say that I might be happier living in such a time myself, but the truth is that modernity and convenience has poisoned me and I wouldn’t last a day. The other truth is that we hold onto the good memories of the past and find it easier to discard the others, and as such everything will be tinted in rose coloured glasses forever and the past will always be painted with the pretty certainty that it all ends well, which is more than what we can say for the future, or even the present. Do we really miss the 2000s, the 1980s, any decade as you would have it, or do we miss being small enough to be carried by our parents into our bedroom when we pretended to be asleep, comforted by their embrace and with the knowledge that they were definitive rocks of strength in our lives, before we grew old enough to realise their own fears, weaknesses, and humanity? Was it the way old classrooms were decorated, was it the trends and music of the time that made the past better or was it that we only heard terrible news from the radio or the television and had the privilege to simply turn it off? Was it the bliss of the time or, again, the bliss of ignorance? What are we losing right now that we aren’t even aware of? What won’t we miss until it’s gone? What happened to Suki? What happened to the world?

All in all, I’m currently undecided, although from the various clips and edits I have seen scrolling TikToks, both Korra and older Zuko are making strong cases.

(Don’t take this too seriously lol)

#legend of korra #avatar korra #korra #atla #avatar the last airbender #zuko #industrial revolution #the extinction #varrick #nostalgia #atla zuko #atla aang #avatar aang

23 notes · View notes

baroquepopcorn · 5 months ago

Text

Can we talk about Paul McCartney twink death

Because here’s the thing — It never even really happened!

No but seriously why aren’t more people talking about how gracefully and beautifully Paul McCartney avoided twink death. He is nearly the gold standard for how to age as a twink

Obviously yeah he’s in his 20s it’s the 60s he’s a twink sure

absolutely beautiful. flawless, loveable, amazing, adorable

we get it

As he aged a bit he got into facial hair

But he still clearly had a beautiful face underneath

He got into his mcbeardy era when he was all sad the band broke up

Obviously not a twink at this point, but iconic for that and still really pretty looking

But he still looked just as good clean shaven well into his 30s

And then

this is a picture of him from 1980. he was 38 then. and he still looked like his younger self. How???

and he just kept going

now its the 90s, he's well into his 50s and still looks like that. Bravo Paul!

And I have to say

there's something about 90s paul in particular...

just gorgeous.

obviously it couldn't last forever though

his beautiful wife linda sadly passed away of breast cancer in 1998

and you can see

his looks

started to take a downturn

culminating in my least favourite paul era aesthetic-wise

the mid 2000s.

He's married to the infamous heather mills, bears a slight resemblance to an overripe grapefruit, and is about to enter one of the nastiest divorces the tabloids ever got their grubby little mitts on

still, quite impressive for a man in his mid 60s

and after the divorce, he seemed to be growing out his hair again, he's got a new wife

quite aged, but consistent figure

and then, what a mercy! He finally stopped dyeing his hair, and allowed it to transition to a gallant silver

and there's something there. There's an elegant repose. A satisfaction. A twink who has made it farther than any twink has come before. A graceful aging

Look at any photo of him now and you'll see a surprisingly dashing old man, now entering his mid-eighties. Obviously his looks can't compare to what once was, but it provides a reassuring model of how twinks can more forward through their years, maintaining an essence of the beautiful

Time at least, hasn't taken a toll on his spirit

though i wish i could still say the same thing about his voice...

#paul mccartney #shitpost #but not really a shitpost #the beatles #twink #twink death #graceful aging #random #thanks for coming to my ted talk

32 notes · View notes

coimbrabertone · 1 month ago

Text

A Self-Indulgent Blogpost About My Motorsports Fiction

So, this weekend, MotoGP had a good sprint while the main race was a snoozer, and NASCAR ended with a twenty-eight-car pileup followed by a plate merchant winning the race.

Which makes me not really want to talk about either of them.

I could talk a bit more on Andretti - Michael revealed today that stepping back was a personal decision after forty years of being involved in Indycar, half as a driver, half as a team owner - but I don't really have a ton more to say on that either.

So, what do I want to talk about?

Well, I kinda want to talk about my writing.

I've kinda wanted to do that for a bit now, but I always thought that one: it was a bit self-indulgent to promote my fanfic on here too much, and two: I wasn't sure if people would particularly care. Well, I talked to some friends about it, and they encouraged it, so I figured...why not?

Thus, today I'll be talking about my motorsports fiction, my racing fanfics that I primarily post on AO3. I've completed one story Life at the Speed of Formula One, I wrote a 1950s Grand Prix one-shot called A Beautiful Race, and I'm currently writing two stories: An 1980s CART Indycar story called The Fastest of the Prancing Horses, and a 2000s NASCAR story called Racing in the Golden Age.

For this blogpost, I will mainly be talking about LatSoF1 because it is finished and because as my first real motorsports story, it more or less set the mold for the rest.

The link:

So...where to begin but the tags?

I have this story labeled under two fandoms, Original Work and Formula 1 RPF, why is that?

Well, it boils down to the fact that I don't quite think it fits firmly into either category. It is an original work about Formula One, but it's not really RPF either.

RPF, for those unaware of fanfic terms, means Real People Fiction.

In my stories, however, I've decided to fictionalize living people, particularly those central to the plot. There's a few reasons for this, one is that I felt odd having my OC (original character) interacting with real drivers - and admittedly a part of that is that I didn't really want this to read like a self-insert fic, where my Mary Sue gets to race with Lewis Hamilton and Fernando Alonso and Sebastian Vettel and all that - especially when I'm going to tackle things like tabloid rumors and opinions on homosexuality and driver feuds in these things.

The long and short of it is that I feel more comfortable having fictionalized driver Felipe Alvarez as an antagonistic figure rather than Fernando Alonso himself.

Does that matter to people reading it who are just going to connect the dots and see Alvarez as Alonso anyway? Maybe, maybe not.

Anyway, I'm getting a bit ahead of myself. Let's get back to establishing the context.

The story begins in 2007, with Kazakhstan-born ethnic-Russian driver Tamara Shchegolyayeva signed to Williams banked by Kazakhstani oil and gas companies.

Let's unpack that a bit.

Why 2007?

The initial idea of the story, before it branched off into something larger, was to cover the tight and dramatic 2007 championship battle from the perspective of someone in Formula One but outside of the proper title battle. Almost like a third-person view on the title challenge from a first-person perspective.

Tamara Shchego-what's it?

Okay, so admittedly Kazakhstani driver with a really long name probably isn't the most believable package for a late-2000s Formula One driver, but I think that's part of what made this idea interesting to me.

I'm a geography and history nerd, so I'm drawn to off-the-wall places where so many different cultures and histories intertwine. Kazakhstan has the Silk Road, the Mongol Empire, Russian Imperialism, and Soviet Communism all in its history. Its people are like a microcosm of all of Asia with East Asian, Turco-Persian, and Indo-European phenotypes all present, with people ranging from literal nomads to Kazakh Muslims to ethnic Russians.

Thus, I decided that it would be interesting to write a protagonist from there.

However, Formula One is also...Formula One. So how does a person from there get to the cynical, cutthroat world of big money global motorsport?

Well, I made her the daughter of a petty oligarch and sponsored by oil money.

This also allowed me to explore a number of things. The legacy of Russian Imperialism, the question of where she belongs - I placed her ancestry right on the tripoint border of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus, had her born in Kazakhstan, and had her grow up and live in Monaco - the morality of oil money, the morality of sponsorships in general, and, eventually, of being a gay woman in a male-dominated, conservative, globe-spanning sport.

I won't pretend I covered these areas perfectly - and at least in some cases, I wrote Tamara as having complicated, potentially problematic feelings on things - but I think it was at least interesting.

Fictionalized Drivers.

My general rule with people in the story is that the more involved in the plot they were, the more I'd differentiate them from the drivers they were based off of.

Thus, German Nico Rosberg became Finn Tommy Koskinen. The background was generally the same - Finnish father, German mother, raised in Monaco - but by distinguishing him from the driver he was based off of in these ways, I felt more comfortable having him interact with Tamara, to show his opinions, to have a teammate dynamic with her.

This extended to Anthony Harrison, probably the most fictionalized of the drivers. Based loosely off of Lewis Hamilton, Anthony is the son of a black American army mechanic and a white Englishwoman, growing up in that background to become a top Formula One prospect with McLaren.

He enters the plot as a fellow rookie to Tamara, and eventually, the two of them bonding leads to tabloid rumors that they're a couple. A bit of drama that Tamara wants no part in, but foreshadows a later storyline that turns her career upside.

Kazakhstan and Russia.

I mentioned before that Tamara struggles a bit with representing Kazakhstan as an ethnic Russian, but as part of her caught between two worlds storylines, I also had her struggle with her Russian identity as well. She's got it in her blood, but she wasn't born there, didn't grow up there, and has no love for the regime there.

This got more complicated because, in real life, Russia escalated the war in Ukraine a month after I started this story.

One of the cited reasons was Russian-speaking minorities in Ukraine.

That made writing about a Russian from another post-Soviet country awkward, and I wanted to find a way to address it within the context of this story.

Thus, during the 2008 season in LatSoF1, I talked a lot about the Russian invasion of Abkhazia and South Ossetia within Georgia, where Putin and Medvedev tried more or less the same tricks. Using Russian minorities in those countries to justify naked landgrabs.

This allowed me to solidify Tamara's position as someone who was born in Kazakhstan and is of Russian descent, and loves the people of both countries, but does not love either regime.

And come 2009 and 2010, the final two seasons featured in the story, and she gets away from depending on either country for sponsorship.

So, that's a whole lot of background out of the way, now...let's talk about how I wrote the story itself.

Writing Races.

LatSoF1 was my first real racing focused work and therefore in the early days, there were some adjustments to how I wrote things.

I decided on two races a chapter being the norm, thinking it would be an efficient way to get through the season without getting bogged down too much in yapping about a fictionalized version of a real race.

And to a degree, it did its job.

However, I did also end up more or less skipping the Malaysian Grand Prix that first year as I jumped to the race results. I don't think I'd do that now. I'd write about how the race was going overall and what Tamara was doing and then end on the results.

How did I get the results? Well, to keep things grounded in reality, I based Tamara's 2007 results on what Alexander Wurz achieved in that 2007 Williams irl. I can get the results real quick on Wikipedia, maybe go to Racing Reference for an obscure race or if I need more detail, and another thing that helped a lot for LatSoF1 specifically is the old F1 season review videos. I watched the reviews for 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 in the making of LatSoF1.

For CART stuff more recently, it's been a bit harder to find some specific information for like qualifying sessions from 1989. Some of that stuff is preserved on VHS rips on youtube and I've used those before, but what I've found to be helpful is actually some skills I picked up as a history major in college: old newspapers.

The LA Times and Chicago Tribute have tended to be my personal favorites because they have a significant digitized backlog, and don't require signing up to read through it like the New York times.

Hell, earlier this very day I was looking for some information on the Galles-Kraco merger ahead of the 1989 season - I wanted to know if Kraco stayed in the Compton garage or if they moved in with the Galles team in Albuquerque - and finally found the information in a brief mention at the bottom of an LA Times article.

This one, to be exact:

Thank you very much LA Times for making random stories from June 1989 accessible.

So yeah, sometimes it's easy and I can just get what I need off of Wikipedia and work from there, other times I need to go digging deeper, but the point remains: I find the real results and use them a s a baseline.

All that being said, it would be a bit boring to just slap my OC's name on a real driver's results and call it a day, so once I find what I need, I tend to change things around a bit.

First thing that comes to mind from LatSoF1 is the 2007 European Grand Prix, where Mark Webber finished third, just barely holding off Wurz.

In LatSoF1, Tamara got him in the last corner and took a podium finish.

That being said, I made sure not to get too carried away either.

At the end of 2007, Tamara finished on 18 points with two third places (Canada and Nürburgring) being the highlights of her season. In comparison, Nico Rosberg - and indeed Tommy Koskinen - finished 2007 on 20 points, whilst Wurz irl finished on 13.

Five points gained on real life is hardly Mary Sue behavior imo, so i don't consider that too obscene.

Who did I take those points off of? Well, I tried to keep that pretty even-handed as well, switching Mark Webber's third for Martin Weaver's fourth place in Europe.

Tamara also took Ralf Schumacher's eighth place in Australia from Roland Ziegler. Another eighth in Turkey off of Robert Kubica/Piotr Kaminski, a third eighth place in Italy off of Jenson Button/James Buxton, and a fourth eighth place in Brazil off of Jarno Trulli/Ivan Tripoli.

Pretty even-handed overall. No one driver was bullied for his results, and I didn't cause any massive swings in the championships.

Speaking of all those drivers I just named...

Fictionalized Names.

How did I come up with driver names? It varies.

Some names, particularly for people who didn't feature too much in the story, were just playing around with their real name. I'd put Martin Weaver for Mark Webber and James Buxton in that category.

Other names are little inside jokes I have with myself. I can't think of any from LatSoF1 off the top of my head, but in my CART story, real life driver Rich Vogler is renamed after Saints Row 2 antagonist Dane Vogel.

Why? Because I love Saints Row 2 and that popped into my head when I saw Vogler. Vogler-Vogel, it makes sense.

A good amount of names are ripped from players I had in Football Manager saves. Piotr Kaminski (Robert Kubica) I had at Cracovia in a save on FM21, and later on that same manager moved to Napoli, where I had a Japanese winger named Yoshikazu Higashiyama. I loved that player so much I used his name for Kamui Kobayashi once I included him in the story.

And other names are in reference to other drivers. In the late 2000s, Red Bull had a fetish for drivers named Seb: Sebastien Bourdais, Sebastien Buemi, Sebastien Loeb, Sebastien Ogier, and of course Sebastian Vettel.

In LatSoF1, that's replaced with a fetish for drivers named Max, in reference to their current boytoy Verstappen: thus, it's Maximilien Lecroix for Bourdais, Maximilien Longpre for Buemi, and Maximilian Renner for Seb Vettel.

Oh, and I made Longpre a Luxembourger in place of Buemi who is Swiss. Why? Because I like throwing in a comparatively underrepresented country every once in awhile.

Fringe Benefits.

On a lighter note, this is something I enjoyed about LatSoF1 a lot: it was a Formula One story, but being set in the near past, there was so much little stuff I could touch on. Tamara would have thoughts on geopolitics, video games, TV shows, other racing series, other sports, she'd get to tour a nuclear reactor at one point, she's get to rock some cool outfits, and she'd build up a bit of a car collection.

It was cool!

Most of the stuff I wrote before LatSoF1 was like historical fiction or Star Wars stuff, so it was nice to just be able to write about a person who, outside of an extraordinary job, is more or less just a regular person.

When I was getting into MotoGP for the first time, I could write a scene about her discussing MotoGP with some Italian engineers.

When I was watching Chernobyl, I got to have her tour a Soviet nuclear reactor in Saint Petersburg.

When I wasn't loving Formula One as much as I used to, I had her dabble in sports cars and Indycar during a bit of a sabbatical I had her in.

Speaking of, that brings me to...

What I'd Do Differently Now:

I started LatSoF1 in January 2022 and finished it in June 2023. I still consider it to be one of my best works and I'm proud of it, however, part of writing - and this is for everyone, not just me - is that you're always learning more. I'd say my writing back then was good, but I think it's gotten better now - certainly not perfect, but better - so...what would I do if I was doing it now?

The first two things are more technical:

One: I think I'm better at breaking up big blocks of text now, alternating between paragraphs and short lines, which I think makes for a more readable experience.

Two: I was getting better at this as I was writing LatSoF1, but I still think I could've been better about dialogue. I think dialogue is a bit of a weakness in my writing, one I'm working on, but a weakness nonetheless.

I probably could've done a better job with dialogue in LatSoF1.

Beyond that...I struggle at having my protagonists do things that are out of my character. Part of that is inevitable - write somebody long enough, particularly in first person, and parts of you will bleed into that character whether you like it or not - but it also led to me dropping one and a half plotlines.

One and a half? Let me explain.

There is a part of LatSoF1 after the 2008 season where Tamara loses her sponsorship in F1 and goes on a bit of a downward spiral. I initially had the idea that she'd develop a drinking problem during this point and eventually recover for it, to the point where she wouldn't drink podium champagne and would always just spray it before handing it off to the team.

I chickened out on this because I didn't feel comfortable writing about someone struggling with alcoholism given that I don't drink.

Then we move onto the half.

I initially wanted Tamara to be a bit more promiscuous once she comes out, and she'd have a few different girlfriends and maybe a few one-night stands throughout the storyline. It the end, I chopped this storyline way down.

Roksana is her first girlfriend, she has a one-night stand with Daniella, and then she's with Ysabella for the rest of the story.

Alexis was supposed to be another girlfriend, but in the end she's just the Ferrari PR that follows Tamara around for that little half a season she did there.

Again, my only romantic experience has been monogamous, so I chickened out of writing something I didn't know.

Now, who knows if writing out of my comfort zone would be any good, but I do wish I tried.

As I move on from LatSoF1 and onto new projects, I'm trying to be better about writing outside of my comfort zone. Right now with the CART story I have Vincenza Taghzouti becoming more assertive and combative in the media, arguably taking a bit of a villain role as she battles the American "boys club" of established drivers.

Meanwhile in the NASCAR story, Lilith Zilinskas has been more promiscuous and had a bit of a self-destructive streak for awhile, and now is dealing with her ex-girlfriend reentering her life...with a daughter, no less. This lets me explore some of the themes I chickened out of doing with Tamara, and also adds in a bit of a parenting aspect in the current day that I've never touched on before.

I'm excited to see how these attempts play out, and I hope that by the end of them, I'll have sufficiently differentiated my three protagonists.

Anyway, this has been a long and self-indulgent blogpost, but I very much enjoyed writing it. Please feel free to ask questions below, because I could go on much, much longer about my writing if given the chance.

#motorsports #racing #formula 1 #formula one #f1 #indycar #indy 500 #nascar #nascar cup #my writing

12 notes · View notes

teh-kittykat · 9 months ago

Text

Tron: The Animated Series (1986-1989)

What do you mean you haven't seen Tron: The Animated Series? It was my favorite cartoon when I was a kid!

So this all started as an exercise in how to explain why Sam inexplicably had merch for a 2010 movie in his 1989 house. In-universe there would have probably been toys using the 1982 aesthetic since that was what the video game used (and Sam DOES have an 82 Tron figure in his house!) but why the Grid stuff?

Enter THE CARTOON.

It was the 1980s everybody who was everybody made cartoons to sell toys. Encom made home gaming consoles by this point, and they would have had peripherals like Nintendo did. They had licensed characters like Nintendo did. You see where I am going.

Encom wants to sell Encom Gaming Power Gauntlets. Kevin wants to introduce kids to the ideas about the Digital Frontier since he's a futurist and knows kids will be mentally flexible enough to digest the new zeitgeist if it's fun and animated!

Production of the cartoon ran from Kevin's official retirement as CEO until his disappearance. Three official seasons with a fourth in production. Season three's airing was cut short due to the furor surrounding Kevin's going missing, but the "lost" final episodes of S3 were restored when the DVDs were eventually released for an anniversary collection.

The cartoon was also successful in syndication through the 1990s and early 2000s since it successfully anticipated the Educational/Informative movement-- Tron: The Animated Series actually does teach kids some of the basics of computer science around the silly adventure stuff. Think Captain Planet meets Captain N the Game Master for the overall tone of the series. It's not realistic, but you get the general concepts and issues.

The cartoon's popularity among millennials keeps Tron alive in pop culture to the present day. The IP remains a perennial revenue stream for Encom, and every so often they'll throw the fanbase something to keep the money going. (This is an ordeal to the program himself, since he has to deal with hackers sent by groups named after him on the reg.)

What's it about?

Young video game enthusiast Jethro "Jet" Keene lands himself the after school internship of a lifetime getting to work at Encom in a special new program for teenagers with attitude run by Kevin Flynn (voiced by himself).

However, it's not all fun and video game testing with the sweet new Encom Power Gauntlet. Thanks to some cartoon physics hijinks, Jet finds himself transported into the Grid, the Boss's new experimental computer system!

Jet gets to work with Clu (they hired a voice-alike for him) and Tron (ditto) to find a way back home to the real world, solving problems and learning how to code along the way... and that was the pilot episode.

Because this is a cartoon for children, Jet is naturally the regular User of the Grid instead of Flynn, though Flynn makes occasional appearances to dispense Yoda-like wisdom and is revered by all the programs inside the system as the Creator.

There are also no lasers or anything like that-- Jet does a silly toku-like thing with the power gauntlet to commute into the system.

Clu is more likable than in real life. He's mostly benevolent, trying to make a more perfect system but the show's writers actually picked up on the idea that making a perfect system is kind of an impossible lift and made it central to his character development. He's a little obsessed with copying the User world, and there's an arc in S3 where a lot of the conflict revolves around why can't programs be programs about it.

Tron's not a mayhem goblin, which is a crime. He's portrayed as a little bit Optimus Prime, since Jet's the primary mayhem source, and Fighting for the Users is otherwise his defining personality trait. He gets a surprisingly deep fate/free will arc in S2, since naturally several episodes revolve around attempts to reprogram him since he's the Champion and all. Afterward, he's a bit more chill.

Jet's storyline parallel's Kevin's real-life one a little bit-- a lot of the episodes focused on him as a character revolve around him trying to balance his double life.The cartoon also does not mention the time dilation jetlag. Jet, unlike Kevin, does learn how to ask for help, especially as S3 decides to diversify a little more and adds a girl intern, Paige.

S3 in general has a lot of emphasis on diversity and tolerance of others and their differences. The ISO-Basic tensions were running high in the real Grid. It was on Kevin's mind a lot. He was also starting to make thinks on introducing the ISOs to the rest of the world at the time.

Like Reboot in the 1990s, Tron has a lot of episodes devoted to video games and playing games on the Game Grid is a frequent trope. (Hardcore Tron partisans accuse Reboot of stealing this.) Unlike in Reboot, there's no derezzing the losers if the User wins. Games are sometimes the entire plot and sometimes an obstacle or diversion from solving an episode's actual problem.

Since the Grid is open in Tron, there is a recurring cast of villains in the form of viruses and hackers from other systems in addition to technical problems that have to be solved through coding and computer science know-how.

The fourth season didn't get much past a few animatics for the S4 pilot, but what was there got a release for the fancy anniversary collections as special features. Design docs indicate that some new characters were about to be introduced-- Jalen and Radia. Kevin Flynn disappeared while voice actors were being cast for these roles.

NGL I am extremely mad this wasn't a real cartoon.

#writing tag!#glowstick rave nonsense hours #mountains of pi #tron #tronblr #let's goooooo #troncharov #tron: tas

39 notes · View notes

anhed-nia · 28 days ago

Text

BLOGTOBER 10/14-10/15/2024: JUNGLE HOLOCAUST and HOLOCAUST 2000

For these two days I chose two Italian movies that featured the word "holocaust", end of the world scenarios, primordial caves, gross awkward sex, and Massimo Foschi. If you think I put a lot of thought into this, you'd be wrong! But one of these movies was a lot better than I expected, and one was much weirder, so that's a net positive.

If you heard the title JUNGLE HOLOCAUST and the name Ruggero Deodato in the same sentence, you might fairly assume that the infamous Italian director made a second movie about a white Westerner fighting off man-eating primitives to capitalize on the notoriety of his name-making 1980 video nasty CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST. But you would be wrong! Though to be fair, I'm not sure when his 1977 movie LAST CANNIBAL WORLD got that alternative title--like if it was for home video releases after 1980, or if JUNGLE HOLOCAUST really was Deodato's first "holocaust" title. I'm curious about the use of that word in exploitation movies in general; post-1980 genre films would certainly be trying to associate themselves with CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST, but what meaning did it have for exploitation producers in the 1970s? Obviously it was enough for two different groups (Erre Cinematografica, and Titanus and The Rank Organization, respectively) would put out JUNGLE HOLOCAUST and HOLOCAUST 2000 the same year. I'm not even sure how to estimate the place the actual-Holocaust held in the public consciousness at the time; it wasn't even a lifetime away in the '70s, but we know how the events of past decades can suddenly, crazily seem like literally-ancient history to younger people. The Frankfurt Auschwitz trials took place in the mid-60s, which I mention just to say that Holocaust-related legal processes were ongoing for some time. Evidence of ongoing processing in the collective unconscious can be found in the nazploitation boom of 1976-77; MARATHON MAN was '76 and THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL was '78.. JUNGLE HOLOCAUST and HOLOCAUST 2000 have little or nothing to do with the events of WWII, but so I don't know if that I've added anything meaningful with this rant; I'm just curious about it.

Um anyway. JUNGLE HOLOCAUST is a much better movie than you probably think it is. Massimo Foschi plays an oil prospector who gets stranded in Malaysia and captured by cannibals, whereupon he forces cavewoman Me Me Lai to help him fight his way back to civilization. Of course, it bears all the hallmarks of its fairly-maligned genre--extreme racial caricatures, extreme rape, extreme animal cruelty, and extreme gut-munching--but it's also surprisingly good, if you can eat around that stuff. Foschi's stay in the cannibal caves is like a Boschian fever dream, beautifully photographed with a fascinating soundscape to match, and there's a certain subversive power in the way the gleeful cannibals dominate Foschi--and by proxy, the viewer. Sadly I haven't been able to remember who, but one critic pointed out that the cannibal movies (of which JUNGLE is only the second, though really the first recognizable one) are usually sun-drenched affairs, which makes the chiaroscuro imagery of the cave quite unusual.

It's also worth saying that Foschi really lives this adventure. I mean of course he wasn't really kidnapped by cannibals, but he really spends the whole movie nude or nearly so, really braved the hostile jungle with its leech-infested waters for the shoot, really eats everything from beetles to putrid offal, really spars with an angry toucan. In a way JUNGLE HOLOCAUST has more in common with some forms of experimental theater than it does with a regular old exploitation movie. It is the real deal, and I recommend it if you have the stomach for it.

HOLOCAUST 2000, on the other hand, is like, all crazy. This is going to be spoilery, but probably the best way to discuss this movie is to tease out how convoluted it is. Kirk Douglas plays entrepreneur Robert Caine who plans to open a nuclear power plant near a sacred cave in Israel, amid protests and prophecies of doom. Foschi plays a madman who tries to kill him, in one of a series of events suggesting that the power plant is going to trigger the apocalypse described in the Book of Revelations. The plant itself, which seems semi-sentient, is likened to the Biblical Beast of the Sea with all its destructive power, and there's a pretty fun dream sequence about this...but then there's a separate prophecy about how Caine's seed (ew!) will beget the Antichrist, which presumably comes about when he knocks up a girl reporter (Agostina Belli), who then starts acting more or less like Damien in THE OMEN. But then also there's the matter of Caine's androgynous adult son Angel (Simon Ward), who strangled his twin brother in the womb, and there's some hemming and hawing about which twin embodied goodness and which one embodied evil, for whatever reason. So there's sort of two Antichrists in this movie? I don't know. There's a lot going on.

I don't feel great about this, but I cannot avoid talking about the graphic sex scene between 30 year old Agostina Belli and Kirk Douglas, who is 61 and looks even older. We all know that the entertainment industry prefers to take "an old American fossil and put it next to some young rising star," as Sergio Martino put it; I'm forever thinking about Maggie Gyllenhaal losing a role because she was told she was too old to play Clint Eastwood's girlfriend. But even so, I think we rarely or never see naked Clint Eastwood in bed with his too-young costars, and HOLOCAUST 2000 offers the startling and protracted spectacle of Kirk Douglas's wrinkly, hairy, mottled old fingers roving over Agostina Belli's young, poreless flesh. It's really intense and I don't know how the audience is supposed to feel about it exactly; the dialog occasionally concedes that she's too young for him, but it really feels more like he's too old for HER, and the prophecies about his "seed" made you think, you know, a guy in his 60s might not be able to give a woman a very healthy baby. That's a thing, whether we talk about it or not. But I really started to wonder if it would change anything if there were always graphic sex scenes in movies that have a male lead who is 50+ and a love interest who is 20 years or more his junior. If viewers always had to see the guy's aged body pressed against the dramatically different-looking woman, it might be a helpful visual representation of how problematic these casting decisions are. Like unless the story is really focused on how two people in love overcome a gap in age/experience/health/etc--or unless the story is specifically about gerontophilia--people should either stop doing this, or be more frank about what they're proposing.

7 notes · View notes

practically-an-x-man · 1 day ago

Note

Talk Shop Tuesday! How do you decide how much IRL is in your sroeiea? For example when Rose goes to NYC in the 80s and sees the twin towers, she has a reaction, but there is no Covid or Trump in the Hazelverse.

Thank you!

Thank you! Presuming that funky word in there is meant to say "stories"?

Talk Shop Tuesday

Oooh, that's a tough one, since the vast majority of my stories don't take place in the current present. For the most part, I tend to stick to the timeline established by the canon media, which means that most of my fics are at least a few years "behind schedule"

My X-Men fics take place between the 1960s-1980s

Vivienne's story takes place in the 1890s

My DC fics take place around 2021

Heartstrings takes place in 2013

Taking Flight takes place in the early 2000s

WWFA? takes place in 2014

Nom De Guerre (my other 6 Underground fic) takes place around 2019

Even when my fics do take place in the present (or near-present), I don't have a strict rule for what events I include and which I don't. I suppose I kind of fall into a similar vein as when I decide what's canon and what I'm changing when I write fanfic: if it's something that has a reason to be changed directly, I'll change it, otherwise I'll generally leave it be.

For example: Catch and Release takes place in 2024, but there's no mention of a COVID pandemic having taken place. Half the population Blipped during the prime years of COVID, plus the MCU has a fair bit more technological advancement than the real world, so even if COVID did still exist, transmission would be limited enough to not cause a worldwide event.

However, Heart in Your Hands also takes place in 2024, and I would say that the COVID pandemic absolutely did happen there. For one thing, there's not anything to really prevent that from happening; and for another, I think it can fit into the story in an interesting way. Coney Island is completely empty for the first time Jimmy's ever seen it, it's even more isolating than it was before... all over the world, people are being quarantined in their haunted houses and forced to interact with ghosts they weren't entirely sure really existed before... the Spenglers have just moved onto the Dirt Farm at the tail end of the quarantine period and things aren't quite normal yet... it works for the story, even if it's not overtly mention in the movies or HIYH.

Plus, I feel like there's a bit of a distinction in how the movies were made. Both the new MCU movies and the new Ghostbusters movies were made in a post-COVID world, but I think there's a difference in approach to their atmosphere. The MCU tends to focus on its superhero threats and uses the Blip almost as a stand-in for the COVID pandemic - there's symbolism there, how the world was suddenly changed and people had to adapt to a new way of living, but COVID itself doesn't exist in that world. And while there's no mention of COVID in the new Ghostbusters movies either, there's almost a feel that it still took place: again, not in any overt way, but there's just something about the atmosphere and the way people behave that tells me COVID still happened.

I feel like I'm not articulating this well, and I really didn't mean to focus solely on the COVID pandemic, that's just the main recent event that could go either way on whether or not I include it in my story - especially since most movies choose not to mention it, even if they were made in a post-pandemic world. The long story short is: unless there's a reason for it to deviate from the real-world timeline, it generally follows the real-world timeline. Otherwise you just have to balance a whole lot of Butterfly Effect stuff, and things just get way more complicated.

#my friends!!!#witchy-self-shipper #answered asks #ask game #my writing

6 notes · View notes

myloudintrerestsandthought · 2 months ago

Text

How do politics affect fashion? Blog #1

HI! You can call me AverageOverlord! lol I'm deeply sorry. This is my first post! Each week I'm going to try to do one post about pop culture and one about my interest. And if you have ideas lmk (if anyone actually reads this XD)!

Lots of people are thinking about the election, so I started thinking how does politics impact fashion? After thinking for a while I started to notice a pattern. When the country (America) was more conservative, people dressed more modestly and used trends from other conservative decades. When we were more democratic, our fashion would be looser, shorter and more freeing. For example during the 1920s, woman's clothing took a drastic turn compared to the previous decades. The 1910s had a more natural silhouette, woman had long sleeves and the dresses were below the ankles. The 1920s were dresses were shorter and boxier. Woman even started to cut their hair into bob which was extremely rare. It was a time were the woman's suffrage movement flourished and a good number of woman started to not dress according to men's standards. Credit had become immensely popular during the 20's. This was heavily directed in the fashion. Flappers were covered head to toe with glitz and glam. I've also noticed that when consumerism is bigger the fashion is more bold and extravagant. In the 20s, people had more free time so they started to buy more things. In the 1950s, after the war American's turned to a more conservative lifestyle. The Nuclear family was heavily marketed and the suburbs grew. The 50s fashion was heavily inspired by the late 1940s. Which was a was a very patriotic decade because of WW2. The fashion was modest and extremely feminine. It was a comfort for people who just wanted the normal life before the war back. The president for most of the 50s, Dwight D. Eisenhower, was a Republican. All these things influenced the reclamation of conservative fashion and values. 1960s and 70s fashion was very free and bold. Big hair, bright makeup and bold clothing. Disco-esque and Hippy/Bohemian clothing were extremely popular. Hippy and bohemian clothing were made up of elements taken from other cultures (that were often viewed as inferior). The Romani people is where this 'trend' originally started from. (so please if you want to dress Bohemian and you can afford it, don't buy from fast fashion brands, buy from local and small businesses, that are run by and supported by Romani people. They deserve the credit for THEIR clothing. THAT is cultural appreciation vs appropriation.) Also the civil rights movement was growing during this time. So people of color started to straighten and perm their natural hair less, It was a protest and a statement. This was called the Afro Hair Movement, It challenged Eurocentric beauty standards and celebrated Black people's natural hair and ethnicity. So as we can see the 60s and 70s were leaning towards liberalism. The 1980s was HEAVILY inspired by the 50s. It was after the Vietnam war and consumerism was booming. During the 70s bold colors were popular, But in the 80s that only increased! Neons, loud makeup, hair and bold layered fashion. Ronald Regan was the president for a majority of the 80s and he was VERY republican. Poodles skirts from the 50s came back and Polka dots were popular in both decades. They also had bright colors and cinched waists in common. I also noticed how in the 60s and 70s wedding dresses were getting shorter and less traditional. But in the 50s and 80s, the wedding dresses were huge ball gowns with long sleeves, The 80s was definitely a consumerist decade, it was full of game consoles, new technology, shopping malls and movies. I would say the 80s was one of if not the most consumerist decade in the 20th century. The 2000s was full of metallics and iridescence makeup and fashion. We had LOW cut jeans (yes lower than your mid rise lol). And red carpet fashion that was mostly street wear. (lol idk if you can feel by tone but I'm very salty about that XD). The 2000s were inspired by a revival of the 70s and 80s. The late 2000s had to stock market crash of 2008. After this fashion was never the same. We started to lean heavily on fast fashion because people couldn't afford anything else. I hope you liked this! ;)

#fashion #history #60s #50s #70s #80s #2000s

9 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 1 year ago

Text

In 2007 I published what was probably my most-read book What’s Left. It asked novel questions.

"Why is it that apologies for a militant Islam which stands for everything the liberal-left is against come from the liberal-left? Why will students hear a leftish postmodern theorist defend the exploitation of women in traditional cultures but not a crusty conservative don…Why, even in the case of Palestine, can’t those who say they support the Palestinian cause tell you what type of Palestine they would like to see?

“After the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, why were you as likely to read that a sinister conspiracy of Jews controlled American or British foreign policy in a superior literary journal as in a neo-Nazi hate sheet? And why after the 7/7 attacks on London did leftish rather than right-wing newspapers run pieces excusing suicide bombers who were inspired by a psychopathic theology from the ultra-right?”

In short, I asked why was the world upside down? In the past conservatives made excuses for fascism because they mistakenly saw it as a continuation of their democratic right-wing ideas. In the early 2000s, overwhelmingly and everywhere, liberals and leftists were more likely than conservatives to excuse fascistic governments and movements, with the exception of their native far-right parties. As long as local racists were white, they had no difficulty in opposing them in a manner that would have been recognizable to the traditional left. But give them a foreign far-right movement that was anti-Western and they treated it as at best a distraction and at worst an ally.

I say my questions were novel because, although socialism was one of the great political movements of the 20th century, few discussed the consequences of its collapse in the 1980s. The decline of the socialist religion had as profound and as perverse consequences as the collapse of Christianity in the late 19th century. But no one, or next to no one, wanted to think about them.

As a good atheist I hated to paraphrase GK Chesterton, but there’s no escaping the old Catholic apologist. My argument boiled down to saying that what Chesterton said about God applies just as well to socialism. When men stop believing in it, “they don't believe in nothing; they believe in anything.”

After dreams of socialism and communism vanished in the 1980s, large sections of the radical left preferred any enemy of the West to the West having no enemies at all: radical Islam, insane Sunni and Shia dictators, Putin’s Russia, violent misogynists and homophobes. As long as they were anti-western, and in particular the enemies of the US and Israel, the radical left was happy to form alliances.

Or as Judith Butler explained the new orthodoxy in 2006, “Understanding Hamas, Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left, is extremely important.”That by any normal standard Hamas and Hezbollah were tyrannical, inquisitorial, and misogynist was irrelevant. They were anti-western and that alone made them “progressive”.

Not everything I wrote in 2007 stands up well today. In the 2010s we began to see Conservatives fawning over trash like Viktor Orban, and from 2016 on we have seen the wholesale abasement of the US right before Donald Trump. The lure of authoritarianism was by no means confined to the left

But overall, what I said remains true. And just to be clear, I did not then and do not now believe in the horseshoe theory. The far left is not the same as the far right. There is a huge difference between living in a country ruled by Donald Trump and a country ruled by Nicolas Maduro or between Iran and North Korea. The far left and far right target different people, and serve different interests.

It is better to think of radical Islam seducing elements of an exhausted radical left. The white western working class would no longer die for the revolution (truth be told, it was never that keen on dying for the revolution even at the best of times for the left). But young Muslim men would fight and kill Americans and Israelis. And if you could forget about the obscurantist religious tyranny, the hatred of every human right, the persecution and murder of Arab and Iranian leftists, they might in a certain light appear to be a replacement for the western working class that had let the far left down so badly.

When What’s Left came out respectable critics said words to the effect of “come on, Nick, you are just talking about tiny groups of post-Stalinists and post-Trotskyists. The real left was in the then Labour government, trade unions and charities and campaign groups.”

I replied with words to the effect of politics is downstream of culture. Look at academia, the comment pages of the Guardian, the organisers of demonstrations, the left trade unions and many of those supposedly respectable campaign groups and charities. They are getting drunk on a weird mixture of far-leftism, far-rightism and postmodernism. They will embrace medieval levels of superstition and regimes they would have no hesitation in describing as fascist if they were white.

I asked where this was leading. The far left provided an answer when, to the astonishment of my respectable critics, it took over the Labour party under Jeremy Corbyn.

Now the Gaza war has led to another pact being formed between the western far left and radical Islam. Over at Quillette, an American academic, Susie Linfield, has gone through the whole hideous detail of how leftist thought leaders and academics celebrated the murderers. Some of those she indicted are so predictable you would miss them if they were not there.

Linfield notes that in the New Left Review, Britain’s leading Marxist journal, Tariq Ali praised the terrorists for “rising up against the colonizers” and implied, bizarrely, that the murders resulted from Palestinian frustration with Israel’s recent enormous pro-democracy demonstrations against the Netanyahu government.

Elsewhere depression replaces tedium. Anyone who remembers the scrupulous work of Michael Waltzer on what constituted just war will be appalled about what has happened to Dissent, the journal he edited. Dissent used to believe that the deliberate targeting of civilians was a war crime. Not so now when the civilians are Jews. In its pages, one writer described Israel as a ‘genocide machine’ and argued that Israeli victims should not be grieved.

“It is not possible to publicly grieve an Israeli Jewish life lost to violence without tithing ideologically to the IDF—whether you like it or not.” So grief is impermissible. Indeed, it’s worse than that: grief is colonialist.

Elsewhere tenured academics were unable to contain their enthusiasm: the attacks were “innovative,” “astonishing,” a “major achievement,” “awesome,” “incredible,” and “a stunning victory,’’ one wrote.

Ah professors. They write in ink and dream of blood.

The essential point to bear in mind is that these expressions of joy at the death of Jews on 7 October was almost instantaneous. It came before a single Israeli bomb fell on Gaza. It was not a condemnation of Israel’s disproportionately violent response. That was still to come. Instead of rational protest there was a celebration of the mass murder of Jews by Hamas, a terrorist group inspired not only by Islamism but by European fascism. As if to confirm my argument in What’s Left the far left was cheering the far right because it has no one else to cheer.

The same question I asked in the early 2000s can be asked now: where is this heading?

I do not go along with the view among conservatives that all who march with Islamists and their leftist allies are antisemites by definition. From the start of this war, I have said that Israel’s aim of destroying Hamas is impossible. I was going to say that it is impossible without unacceptable civilian casualties. But in truth it is impossible in all circumstances. The Israeli forces simply cannot find Hamas fighters as they melt into a population of two million disorientated people. This is not simply my view. Military specialists are noting the low level of Israeli casualties and the small number of Hamas kills the Israeli Defence Forces are claiming to have made. The odds are that Hamas is refusing to opt for a direct confrontation, and allowing civilians to pay the price. It is always reasonable to protest against futile wars and needless suffering, and this war is no exception to the rule.

And yet before I turn too accommodating, let me say there is no other area of progressive life where liberals and leftists ally with racists and don’t show even the smallest embarrassment about their behaviour.

Here’s a thought experiment. There is a growing concern on the western far right about low birth rates. Rather than allow immigration, Viktor Orban in Hungary is offering tax exemptions to women who have four or more children. The left naturally wants higher welfare payments for mothers, too, and in the case of the UK wants to end a nasty Conservative policy which penalises families on benefits if they have more than two children.

For all that, no progressive would join a demonstration of neo-Nazis or alt-right supporters in favour of encouraging British mothers to have more children. They would think that there was a serious flaw in a campaign that attracted ultra-right white support. They would worry about inciting prejudice against ethnic minorities in the UK. And yet they see nothing wrong in going along with campaigns that attract ultra-right Islamist support or in worrying too much about the UK's Jewish minority.

If the grim absurdities of the left of the early 2000s presaged Corbynism and the collapse of the Labour party, what do the 2020s have in store? I am trying to be objective and so won’t go off into long laments about the moral health of the sacred “Left”. I long-ago gave up worrying about that in any case.

First and most obviously the failure of the white left for more than a generation to oppose Israel while also opposing antisemitism has mainstreamed racial prejudices. The explosion in anti-Jewish attacks since 7 October is an inevitable consequence. I have never seen Jewish people feel so isolated. It’s not simply the far left and Muslim agitators who scare them. BBC presenters and others in the mainstream, who make their indifference to the massacre of Jews plain, foretell a future where Israel is a pariah state and Jews are damned by association and must pay the price. Perhaps that future is already here, and we will be permanently in a Corbynista world where Jews are seen as sinister agents in a Zionist conspiracy manipulating western policy.

Second, the uncritical treatment of Hamas naturally reinforces the most bigoted and reactionary elements in British Muslim communities. The consequences we can only guess at, but I think we can say by looking back at the last time the British left ran off with radical Islamists, they will lead us down new spirals of extremism.

29 notes · View notes

courtana · 11 months ago

Text

I’m mostly typing this for myself to help process and organize my thoughts but… feel free to read if you want, especially if you have been annoyed lately too.

I’m cutting my ties with Call of Duty as a fan of the games.

Prepare for my unsolicited thoughts under the cut:

This game has always had shady politics and racial discourses. This is known, lol. It has always depicted Arabs, Eastern Europeans, and Latin Americans as caricatures, even if sometimes they sometimes succeeded in portraying their countries as being the victims of European and U.S. imperialism. But in light of the rapid intensification of violence toward Palestinians with the genocide in Gaza, this tendency just leaves a worse taste in my mouth. While the gameplay and plot structure for the new BO game next year will probably be better than MWIII, I have low hopes with how they’ll portray the goddamn Gulf War. The fact they've added an Israeli operator called "Doc" to MWIII in this particular moment in history tells me all I have to know about where Activision stands as a company.

Furthermore, the last Modern Warfare campaign was so bad, it just signaled to me once and for all that Activision does not care about the future of their games or the legacy of any of their previous good games. I’ve mostly been playing Zombies, not even traditional MP / Warzone. But even then, it’s easy for me to get burnt out playing Zombies. And Zombies is not worth the 100 dollars I paid thinking the campaign would be more enjoyable. And season’s 1 battle pass that came with the 100-dollar edition of the game is awful in my opinion.

Not to mention, the voice actors of both the Modern Warfare and Black Ops series have been either totally racist or highly indifferent about the genocide in Gaza. First, Barry Sloane's tone-deaf Beatles post about "peace" he posted on October that he quickly deleted was more insensitive than I think he even realizes. Samuel Roukin liking a racist article that equates calls decolonization as a "false narrative" was despicable. Of course, that article targets Palestine specifically in its racism, but it also indirectly charges all Third World countries with its accusation of their independence and claims to sovereignty as being "a false narrative." As someone who is of both Latin American and Asian descent and whose countries of origins had to fight for independence more than twice (!!), I cannot accept that.

Then Claudia—a woman of Lebanese descent—and Elliot—a queer black man—encouraging and offering condolences to an ex-IOF soldier was downright evil. The IOF actively bombs Lebanon as part of their current genocidal campaign. It has waged brutal wars against the Lebanese people in the 1980s & 2000s [x] [x]. And it has carried out both anti-Black violence [x] and sexual violence—including against Palestinian men and women [x] [x], and it engages in its frequently-exposed pinkwashing [x]. Rather than allying with Lebanese, queer, and Black people who have been victims of Israeli/Zionist violence, Claudia & Elliot as people with major platforms instead are disappointingly choosing to legitimize Zionist propaganda.

I don't know a lot about Julian, Warren, Neil or Alain's stances on this genocide, but I never take silence in the face of genocide or war to be a good sign. Lastly, since Oct 7, María Elisa Camargo (more like caga'o) posted her support for Israel, equating Palestinian existence and resistance with "terrorism." I already did not like her for engaging in indigenista discourses and tropes and for seemingly being very nonchalant about playing the role of a narco-terrorist, trying to girl-bossify a very real source of fear & terror to contemporary Latin American and Mexican people's lives. This was not surprising for her, but it's still worth highlighting.

In terms of Black Ops actors, the former actor for Frank Woods also made incredibly shitty comments in a live stream about the genocide, talking about a so-called "Middle Eastern mentality," (essentializing all Middle Easterners, really), practically equating all Palestinians with Hamas, and roughly stating that people keep on going further back in history to justify their acts of violence—and I'm sure he was not just referring to Israelis weaponizing the Holocaust to commit atrocities against Palestinians. Like many other people, he gives the impression that he dismisses Palestinians and Arabs as incapable of producing a coherent political thought, and that they only resort to violence out of instinct or because of their religion (which is a gross idea—Islam is not a religion of violence at all!)

Again, I didn't have much expectations for Call of Duty to be anti-Zionist, let's be real. But I see these actors as creatives whose literal jobs are to empathize with other people's stories and experiences as part of their work. The fact that they're trained to put themselves in another person's shoes but are incapable of putting themselves in the shoes of Palestinian people right now, when nearly 20,000 have been recorded as killed—and many more injured or displaced—is very telling.

Anyone who knows this blog knows I have formed a lot of beef with other COD blogs for stuff like fanfic tropes, sexual politics, and about the idea of watching playthroughs vs. playing the game. For once, I'm actually relieved and oddly glad most of this fandom has rallied around the idea that Palestine is not the villain, and that we almost all understand that what Israel's doing is unacceptable, and that these actors and creative industry workers have a duty as humans to stand with victims of genocide and to call out crimes against humanity. For this, I actually have to commend this fandom. We're so trivial about shit like fanfic tropes and headcanons, but I'm glad we have our heads on straight for things that truly matter—like real life war and mass violence.

Honestly, the last straw today—although much minor in its gravity compared to genocide apologism—was Barry's childish behavior toward COD fans on twitter who expressed that they agreed with Christopher Judge's joke at The Game Awards last night that the MWIII campaign was too short. You do not get to talk down, mock, or be childish to your fans when they give you feedback on a public platform as an actor. Judge did not even attack the quality of the game or the VAs' performances—he only joked about the game's super short length. Yet, Barry chooses to act out on Twitter because of these harmless jokes. He seems to care more about protecting his ego as "Captain Price's actor" than about the quality of the game or story that fans are receiving and sometimes paying upwards of 100 dollars for.

I thought to myself, okay, this is just one actor letting his ego get to him. That's not that extraordinary. But the fact that COD devs on Twitter today also starting getting defensive about the jokes and trying to excuse the shitty game they produced? That truly showed me that the horrible launch of the campaign and of MP that happened with MWIII was not a learning opportunity for these studios or devs, but rather only made them stick their heads further up their own asses.

I have little faith in this franchise and honestly am not enjoying it, both in terms of game play and the political discourses coming from its creators. After the Season 1 BP is completed (because I fucking paid for it—sadly), I will be planning to uninstall and shelf the game. If I ever play a COD game in the future, it'll be after it goes on a sale because I won't be paying full price. But the thought of giving this company any more money turns me the fuck off right now.

I also realize I'm co-admin for @dailycallofduty and I will still be participating in running it. I'll be promoting the actors' signings less and promoting the game's new content less. Nonetheless, I'll still be reblogging posts that dailycallofduty is tagged in, like art, graphics, and gifs. On my personal blog, I'll still be reblogging COD gifs that I'm tagged in by friends & mutuals. Just don't be expecting more gifs from me. Not that there were many great scenes to make gifs from this new game anyway.

If you made it this far, thanks for reading.

Here are some useful ways to advocate for Palestinians:

Donate to Doctors Without Borders, where in Gaza they are providing medical and psychological assistance to people affected by the ongoing conflict.

Tell Congress: Support the Ceasefire Now Resolution (call now w/ a script)

Donate to Palestine Legal, an org dedicated to defending and advancing the civil rights and liberties of people in the US who speak out for Palestinian freedom.

Donate to National Students for Justice in Palestine, which supports over two hundred Palestine solidarity organizations on university campuses across occupied Turtle Island (U.S. and Canada).

Read DecolonizePalestine's Reading List to expand your knowledge on all things Palestine

Find a Palestine Protest near you.

Support the BDS Movement, a Palestinian-led movement for freedom, justice and equality that calls for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel until it complies with international law and universal principles of human rights.

#mari.txt #cod fandom critical #call of duty

45 notes · View notes