#i think i'm at war with me finding importance in critical thinking and also just enjoying

[corpocyborg]

(so... uh... how far into dai do you have to get before it starts being good?)

[pinayelf]

also LAST THING

I can't help but feel that I'm stupid because I like this game bc I feel like I HAVE to dislike it as logically I agree with the critiques

but that is a ME issue and I need to work it out

bc I do enjoy a lot of ~bad media but I don't feel guilty or stupid for liking it but for some reason this specifically is just making me feel like something is wrong with me for liking it

[phoenixyfriend]

How to Call Your Reps About Gaza

I make a lot of posts telling you to call your reps! Anyway, here's the overall shape of how to argue to them.

Disclaimer: I am not in politics. I do not have experience as a staffer. I am just someone who cares a lot about where things are going, and wants to help. Also, this is specific to the US, because that's where I'm based. Hopefully, people with expertise can add more suggestions on.

Find your elected officials.

My Ko-fi: this took me two days to write up, so uh. If you've got a few dollars, send them my way so I can keep doing this sort of thing, and maybe move out of my parents' house sooner.

General tips:

Be polite, or at least civil. Do not swear or shout at whoever answers the phone. This will quite possibly get your number blocked. Fifty civil calls over the course of several months will do more than one where you shout. You can be frosty, you can say you are disappointed, you can say you find the actions of your reps to be reprehensible or morally bankrupt, sure. But keep calm and aim criticism at the rep, not the staffer.

Keep it short. The staffers who answer call centers are busy. They usually start trying to hurry me off after about two minutes. I've yet to manage a call longer than four or five minutes. Pick one or two topics for the day, and focus on those. Cycle through them every time you call. Stick to just one from day to day if it's a large, ongoing issue like Gaza.

Plan for voicemail. I get voicemail more often than not. My House rep usually has a staffer free, but the Senators are almost always voicemail. This will give you a minute and a half max. Be ready to get your point squeezed into that.

Only call your representatives. The important, powerful word here is "constituent." You will be ignored or even counted against if you are from a different district or state. The first thing you start with is your name and address. A staffer will ask for the information they need. On voicemail, leave your full name, your city and state, and zip code before you go into your message. Do not lie, either. They look these things up in the system when you call. I'm not sure how--I think maybe they have access to a database of registered voters--but every time I call, they ask for my last name and address and at some point say, 'oh, yep, I've got you right here,' which indicates a database of some sort.

Research at least a little bit about their opinions. If they already agree with you, then it's much easier to leave a quick "I support you and want you to know that" to combat anyone who's arguing from the other side. If they don't, then you're best off finding out what specific issue they have so you can know the best kind of comment to leave.

Look up specific bills or arguments. I get daily emails from GovTrack about bills that are on this week's docket or have been voted on in the past day. IDK about anyone else, but being able to say that I disagree specifically with HR 815 or something makes me feel powerful, and possibly like I will be taken more seriously. Sometimes you can start with articles like this one, which include links to specific bills on the official congress website.

Email after if you can. Reportedly less effective, and takes longer, but you are more likely to get a written (canned) response, and it reinforces whatever you called about.

Basic structure of a call, at least as I've been doing it:

"Hi, my name is ____ ____, and I am a constituent from [city, state], [zip]. I am calling to express my opinion on [topic]. I am concerned about [short argument with a clear impact on the topic]. I ask that you support [measure or fellow congress member]/vote [yay/nay on specific legislature]. Thank you for your time, and I hope you keep my opinion in mind."

For this post, the topic can be stated as the war in Gaza, military funding for Israel, or unrest in the Middle East, depending on which you think your elected official will respond to best. That said, the structure should work for whatever your call is about.

Arguments to use against your elected official... or your on-the-fence cousin:

I'll be honest, some of these are not going to do much against your representative. They know the arguments, and have been going over them with each other for months. You just need to have one locked and loaded that they consider relevant instead of a nonstarter, in order to back up your opinion as 'founded' instead of 'nonsense, can be swayed with a good marketing campaign.'

I'll include explanations if I don't think something is self-evident (or needs more evidence to tell your cousin), but in most of them I'll provide some suggested verbiage that you can tweak as needed, and for a few of them, that's really enough.

THESE ARE FOR THE TOPIC OF CONCERN, ONLY. You still need to end each one with "I ask that the [official] votes to [action]" at the end. Give them something actionable (example from Feb. 13th). My go-tos right now:

Both chambers: Reinstate funding for UNRWA

Both chambers: Place mandatory restrictions on any aid to Israel, with contractual threats to cut funding if Netanyahu and his government continue to disregard civilian life

Senate: Put support behind Bernie Sanders and his motion to restrict funding to Israel until a humanitarian review of the IDF’s actions in Gaza has been completed (S.R. 504) (Tabled by the Senate on 1/16, but it is being brought back in as conditions continue to escalate)

House: Put support behind Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s petition for the US government to recognize the IDF’s actions in Gaza as ethnic cleansing and forced displacement, and put a stop to it.

House: Put support behind H.R. 786, introduced by Rep. Cori Bush, calling for an immediate deescalation and cease-fire in Israel and occupied Palestine.

What Not to Say

"There is no threat to Israel." I've talked about this elsewhere, but the short version is that this will be basically laughed out as you not knowing what you're talking about.

Anything generically antisemitic. (I mean, it might work on some of the white supremacists, but do you really want to encourage that thinking? No, so don't do it.)

Facts that you "heard somewhere" but cannot find a reliable source for. If it's being reported by the New York Times, NPR, or the BBC, it's probably trustworthy by government standards. If it's not a super common statistic, cite the journal you got it from by name. Remember, you aren't arguing to tumblr mutuals. You are arguing to your elected official or your 'I don't really pay attention' cousin. When it comes to this, big name news sources are better.

Unrealistic demands for complete isolationism, permanently abandoning Israel to its own devices, supporting Hamas, etc. Again, you will not be taken seriously. Pick an argument they might actually listen to, and use it to press them towards a possible solution. You want them to believe that if they adjust their position, they will be doing the will of most of their constituents, and thus more likely to get reelected.

The Ethics Argument

Third-party reporting has stated that that nearly 29,000 Gazans are dead since Oct. 7th, as of 2/18/24. The vast majority of those are civilians, and over half are children. Palestinians in Gaza are facing an acute hunger crisis threatening to become a full-blown famine.

The International Court of Justice has found that there is credible reason to believe that the state of Israel is committing a genocide against the Palestinians of Gaza.

This does not mean that every single Israeli is complicit. It does mean that the government, particularly Netanyahu and his associates, has been reprimanded by a large, diverse coalition of countries, and has consistently refused to listen to that court since.

This argument will possibly work on your cousin. Less likely to work on your elected official. They already know the numbers. I just wanted to get it out of the way first.

The Re-Election Argument: Michigan vs New York

Meanwhile, this is possibly the most effective. Again, this is not an argument of ethics. This is an argument of "how can I make my elected official do what I want." We do not use only the purest moral argument. We use what works.

What to say to your elected official: Michigan, as a swing state, was won by democrats on the power of the Arab-American vote in the 2020 election. We (either party) are at risk of losing Michigan due to the current Congressional approach to the Gaza conflict, as that demographic is now polling as likely to abstain from voting entirely. The risk of losing several congressional districts due to the Jewish vote is a real one, but the risk of losing the the executive branch is greater, especially after what we saw with Suozzi. Supporting Palestine might lose us parts of New York, but supporting Israel will lose us Michigan.

Explanation: Something that has been taking up a lot of time and space in the election coverage is the situation in Michigan, and more recently, there has been attention paid to the special election of New York's third district, AKA the "who gets to replace disgraced George Santos" competition.

Michigan is traditionally a swing state. While 2.1% doesn't sound like a lot, that is some 211k-278k people (depending on your source), and while not all of them can vote... Michigan was won by about 154k. Arab-Americans are not the only relevant demographic, but they sure are an important one, and they are vocally opposed to the situation. Approval has dropped from 59% to 17%. From that same article:

As Axios notes, Biden won Michigan in 2020 by 154,000 votes, but there are at least 278,000 Arab Americans in Michigan. Biden took Arizona, a state with an Arab American population of 60,000, by only 10,500 votes. In Georgia, Biden prevailed with a margin of 11,800 voters, in a state that has an Arab American population of 57,000.

Democrats cannot afford to lose these states. Pressure your congresspeople about that, especially if you live in one of those states. I assume most Arab-Americans in said states are already calling every day; the rest of you can join in.

Meanwhile, most Jews (considered the most pro-Israel demographic by strategists) in America are concentrated in a very small number of electoral districts. Of the twenty most-Jewish, ten are in New York, which is why I put it up in the section header.

One of those districts was won by a Republican in 2022: George Santos, New York's third congressional district. Following his scandals and ousting, the seat was up for a special election, and the two candidates were Tom Suozzi, a democrat who held the seat previously (he decided to run for governor, and lost), and Mazi Pilip, a Nassau county legislator who was of Ethiopian Jewish background and had been in the IDF. She ran on a campaign that leaned strongly pro-Israel and anti-immigration, and when Suozzi won, she interrupted his victory speech to accuse him of supporting a genocide against Israel due to his rather centrist, rather milquetoast stance on the conflict during his election campaign.

Now, Suozzi's win probably had more to do with Pilip being anti-choice than her pro-Israel arguments, but he still won.

Democrats can better risk possibly losing a few seats in NY than definitely losing three swing states.

"But I don't want Dems to win their districts after what they've been--" Nope. Listen to me. Surveys indicate that Republicans are on average more pro-Israel, because Trump and Netanyahu are buddy-buddy, and we do not have a viable third option.

Also, again, this is about convincing Dems to be better. "If you do not vote to put restrictions on funding to Israel, I will not vote for you in November" is a lot more powerful than "I will not vote for you either way, because of what you've been doing, but you should do what I say anyway."

The Re-Election Argument: Risk of Escalation

So, that thing I said about Trump and Netanyahu?

Yeah, so, while Biden is giving Israel military aid while cautioning them to slow down and be careful, Trump is... complicated, but suffice to say he's much closer to Netanyahu on a personal level than Biden is. Biden's relation with Netanyahu is reportedly pretty frosty, while Trump's is based on relations through the Kushners.

Just from wikipedia:

Netanyahu made his closeness to Donald Trump, a personal friend since the 1980s, central to his political appeal in Israel from 2016.[21] During Trump's presidency, the United States recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and brokered the Abraham Accords, a series of normalization agreements between Israel and various Arab states.

Trump's been more all-over-the-place recently, badmouthing Netanyahu for being what Trump perceives as a loser, which complicates understanding what his approach is. It's kind of incoherent right now.

Given Trump's general history of being pro-Israel, though, and the attempts by House Republicans to push through a bill of unconditional funding for Israel. It failed, but notable is that the more recent bill passed in part because it was paired with aid for Ukraine and Taiwan (something Dems are much more invested in having happen).

What to say to your elected official: If Trump is reelected due to his current appearance of being more critical of Netanyahu, there is evidence from his presidency to indicate that he will support Israel much less critically if elected. While he claims to want to settle the Middle East, it seems incredibly likely that he will worsen the situation for Palestinians, and ramp up retaliatory strikes to groups like the Houthis in a manner that will impact non-military parties, igniting tensions that are already tenuous.

The Disrespect/Wild Card Argument

This particular argument is best used against the Very Patriotic Politicians who are more concerned with the US's image and Being The Alpha Nation than with other things. Basically, this might work on Republicans.

This isn't really something I believe in, as a matter of foreign policy, buuuut it might work on your rep, so. Consider it!

What to say to your elected official: With Israel's recent actions in ignoring Biden, blocking US-sent aid like those flour trucks that got stopped at the Rafah border because they'd be distributed by UNWA, and generally Disrespecting The USA and Being Unpredictable is not only making the US look bad for being unable to wrangle a smaller country, but also making it so we are less able to wrangle other countries in the future, because Israel cannot be predicted and might set someone off.

The Europe and Reputation Argument

What to say to your elected official: The United States is losing credibility as a world power known for its military and ability to manage international disputes on behalf of the UN, because it is seemingly unable to influence Israel, and losing credibility as an upstanding moral state that is not doing foreign coups and banana republics anymore, as it appears to be tacitly supporting Israel's ICJ-labelled genocide, which is a really bad look with the other Western Powers.

I'm not entirely sure who this might work on, but there's gotta be at least a few politicians who are really concerned about America's image, more than about actually doing the right thing. Figure out if your politician is one of them.

If necessary, you can bring up how Trump is threatening to pull US support for NATO if Russia attacks someone.

The Middle East Stability Argument: Iran-backed Militias

What to say to your elected official: I'm concerned that the continued support of Israel, and thus the funding of their actions in Gaza, will increase the instability of Iran-backed militias, as we have already seen with the Houthis and Hezbollah. Entire Muslim-majority nations are showing increased displeasure not only with Israel, but with the US by extension. We cannot afford another war in the Middle East when we haven't yet pulled all our troops from the last one, not with the recent and recurring economic recessions. Any situation would also very likely be complicated or inflamed by the growing tensions among Eritrea, Djibouti, and Ethiopia regarding Red Sea access as well.

Use this on the ones that claim to be pro-military or pro-veteran. See what they said about HR 815 before the foreign military funding amendment was added.

The Middle East Stability Argument: Egypt

What to say to your elected official: Egypt's government has been unstable since the Arab Spring, and even now the military government is incredibly unpopular. With that existing instability, the addition of economic strain from the reduced usage of the Suez canal, the international disputes occurring because they're the main throughway for aid into Gaza, and the threat of a sudden influx of nearly one and a half million Palestinian refugees should Israel continue to push south... Egypt is looking at a possible near-collapse as we've seen in nearby nations suffering similar instabilities.

Explanation: It took several years for Egypt to really start recovering from the revolts in 2013, and it has applied for four IMF loans in recent years. The current government is unpopular to such a degree that they are looking to build an entire new capital from scratch in the middle of the desert so that they're less open to the risk of civilian uprisings; one of the primary causes for civilian dissatisfaction is economic issues.

Due to Houthi attacks at the Bab al-Mandab Strait, traffic through the Suez canal is down massively, and since the canal "represents almost 5% of the GNP and 10% of GDP and is one of Egypt’s most important sources of hard currency." (src) Various sources are reporting that trade through the canal is down 40-50%, which is putting more strain on the already unstable economic and political situation.

Finally, Egypt's population is about 110 million, but the governorate that shares a border with Israel and Gaza, North Sinai, has a population of barely 500,000. A push of one and a half million starving, injured people will, very suddenly, nearly quadruple the population of the governorate, and require extreme aid response from Egypt's government to keep alive and prevent a larger crisis in North Sinai and neighboring governorates.

The Middle East Stability Argument: Normalized Relations

What to say to your elected official: I am concerned that Israel's continued attack on Gaza is jeopardizing any chance of normalized relations with the Arab states in the future. American has put a lot of work into trying to get these various countries to normalize with Israel, and our funding of the current attacks on Gaza are sabotaging all that effort.

This one can be combined with the Iran-Backed Militias argument: Israel, in pursuit of revenge against Hamas, is setting itself up to be in more danger long-term, rather than less.

The International Trade Argument

What to say to your elected official: I am concerned about how the war in Gaza is impacting international trade and shipping costs. With the Suez Canal down to half its usual capacity and the Panama Canal raising costs and dropping capacity in response to the water restrictions, along with rising fuel costs in Europe and Asia, global trade is incredibly strained. We are being relegated to the Cape of Good Hope, Cape Horn, and the Malacca strait for much of intercontinental trade, and the macroeconomic projections are looking very bad for America.

The Domestic Economics Argument

What to say to your elected official: Many of the plans for Israeli military funding cause damage to other parts of the budget. For instance, a recent plan put forward by the Republicans of the House suggested IRS cuts in order to move that money, a plan which would impact the US budget negatively in the long term; we need those 14 billion being spent domestically, not supporting an overreaction/possible genocide in Gaza.

Explanation: In general, pick something receiving budget cuts that your congressperson will care about. I care about IRS funding, and saw it mentioned as a target in an article, so that's what I've got in my suggested verbiage up there.

The fewer people that are working for the IRS, the more they focus on auditing poor people (simple, easy taxes) and the less they can effectively audit rich people (complicated, time-consuming taxes), which means rich people are more likely to get away with evading millions or even billions in taxation. So yeah, you want more funding in the IRS if you are poor. They are already auditing you. You want them to audit the big guys.

The Russia and China Argument

What to say to your elected official: I am worried that the current focus on funding Israel without restriction is causing us to lose sight of the international threat posed by Russia and China. Russia is actively invading Ukraine, which continues to put massive strain on the European economy with regards to oil prices, especially with the Suez situation, and China has been testing missiles near Taiwan, and thus testing US responsiveness to those threats, for months now. We cannot afford to support an internationally unpopular war if we want to remain ready for Russia and China.

This is less likely to work on Republicans, since Trump is friendly with Russia, but hey, give it a shot if they're one of the ones who aren't fully in his camp.

EDIT 2/22/24: I'm a bit unsure of this tactic, but I'm putting it out there with hopes that someone with more political experience can offer feedback:

"Congress, and the US government in general, has promised to sanction Russia for the alleged assassination of one man within a week of the suspicious death, after five months of refusing to enact even slight consequences on Israel for the deaths of nearly thirty thousand, half of which are children. This is ethically questionable at best, but for the interests of elected officials, it is a very bad look. The mismatch shows a massive bias by the American government in regards to Israel's ongoing mass murder, with over two million facing famine as a result of Israel's aid blocking, and America's reputation on the world stage, as well as individual politicians' reputations domestically with constituents, is plummeting."

-------------------------------------

Finally, my ko-fi again. I spent a long time on this and I'd like to move out of my parents' house sooner rather than later. If you appreciate my time and effort, please feel free to donate a couple bucks.

[qqueenofhades]

Hello! This is kind of a weird ask, I'm sorry to bother you, but seeing as you're a very intelligent studied historian that I deeply respect, I was hoping you could offer some advice? Or like, things i could read? Lately, i feel like my critical thinking skills are emaciated and its scaring the shit out of me. I feel very slow and like I'm constantly missing important info in relation to news/history/social activism stuff. Thats so vague, sorry, but like any tips on how i can do better?

Aha, thank you. There was recently a good critical-thinking infograph on my dash, so obviously I thought I remembered who reblogged it and checked their blog, it wasn't them, thought it was someone else, checked their blog, it also wasn't them, and now I can't find it to link to. Alas. But I will try to sum up its main points and add a few of my own. I'm glad you're taking the initiative to work on this for yourself, and I will add that while it can seem difficult and overwhelming to sort through the mass of information, especially often-false, deliberately misleading, or otherwise bad information, there are a few tips to help you make some headway, and it's a skill that like any other skill, gets easier with practice. So yes.

The first and most general rule of thumb I would advise is the same thing that IT/computer people tell you about scam emails. If something is written in a way that induces urgency, panic, the feeling that you need to do something RIGHT NOW, or other guilt-tripping or anxiety-inducing language, it is -- to say the least -- questionable. This goes double if it's from anonymous unsourced accounts on social media, is topically or thematically related to a major crisis, or anything else. The intent is to create a panic response in you that overrides your critical faculties, your desire to do some basic Googling or double-checking or independent verification of its claims, and makes you think that you have to SHARE IT WITH EVERYONE NOW or you are personally and morally a bad person. Unfortunately, the world is complicated, issues and responses are complicated, and anyone insisting that there is Only One Solution and it's conveniently the one they're peddling should not be trusted. We used to laugh at parents and grandparents for naively forwarding or responding to obviously scam emails, but now young people are doing the exact same thing by blasting people with completely sourceless social media tweets, clips, and other manipulative BS that is intended to appeal to an emotional gut rather than an intellectual response. When you panic or feel negative emotions (anger, fear, grief, etc) you're more likely to act on something or share questionable information without thinking.

Likewise, you do have basic Internet literacy tools at your disposal. You can just throw a few keywords into Google or Wikipedia and see what comes up. Is any major news organization reporting on this? Is it obviously verifiable as a fake (see the disaster pictures of sharks swimming on highways that get shared after every hurricane)? Can you right-click, perform a reverse image search, and see if this is, for example, a picture from an unrelated war ten years ago instead of an up-to-date image of the current conflict? Especially with the ongoing Israel/Palestine imbroglio, we have people sharing propaganda (particularly Hamas propaganda) BY THE BUCKETLOAD and masquerading it as legitimate news organizations (tip: Quds News Network is literally the Hamas channel). This includes other scuzzy dirtbag-left websites like Grayzone and The Intercept, which often have implicit or explicit links to Russian-funded disinformation campaigns and other demoralizing or disrupting fake news that is deliberately designed to turn young left-leaning Westerners against the Democrats and other liberal political parties, which enables the electoral victory of the fascist far-right and feeds Putin's geopolitical and military aims. Likewise, half of our problems would be solved if tankies weren't so eager to gulp down and propagate anything "anti-Western" and thus amplify the Russian disinformation machine in a way even the Russians themselves sometimes struggle to do, but yeah. That relates to both Russia/Ukraine and Israel/Palestine.

Basically: TikTok, Twitter/X, Tumblr itself, and other platforms are absolutely RIFE with misinformation, and this is due partly to ownership (the Chinese government and Elon Fucking Musk have literally no goddamn reason whatsoever to build an unbiased algorithm, and have been repeatedly proven to be boosting bullshit that supports their particular worldviews) and partly due to the way in which the young Western left has paralyzed itself into hypocritical moral absolutes and pseudo-revolutionary ideology (which is only against the West itself and doesn't think that the rest of the world has agency to act or think for itself outside the West's influence, They Are Very Smart and Anti-Colonialist!) A lot of "information" in left-leaning social media spaces is therefore tainted by this perspective and often relies on flat-out, brazen, easily disprovable lies (like the popular Twitter account insisting that Biden could literally just overturn the Supreme Court if he really wanted to). Not all misinformation is that easy to spot, but with a severe lack of political, historical, civic, or social education (since it's become so polarized and school districts generally steer away from it or teach the watered-down version for fear of being attacked by Moms for Liberty or similar), it is quickly and easily passed along by people wanting trite and simplistic solutions for complex problems or who think the extent of social justice is posting the Right Opinions on social media.

As I said above, everything in the world is complicated and has multiple factors, different influences, possible solutions, involved actors, and external and internal causes. For the most part, if you're encountering anything that insists there's only one shiningly righteous answer (which conveniently is the one All Good and Moral People support!) and the other side is utterly and even demonically in the wrong, that is something that immediately needs a closer look and healthy skepticism. How was this situation created? Who has an interest in either maintaining the status quo, discouraging any change, or insisting that there's only one way to engage with/think about this issue? Who is being harmed and who is being helped by this rhetoric, including and especially when you yourself are encouraged to immediately spread it without criticism or cross-checking? Does it rely on obvious lies, ideological misinformation, or something designed to make you feel the aforementioned negative emotions? Is it independently corroborated? Where is it sourced from? When you put the author's name into Google, what comes up?

Also, I think it's important to add that as a result, it's simply not possible to distill complicated information into a few bite-sized and easily digestible social media chunks. If something is difficult to understand, that means you probably need to spend more time reading about it and encountering diverse perspectives, and that is research and work that has to take place primarily not on social media. You can ask for help and resources (such as you're doing right now, which I think is great!), but you can't use it as your chief or only source of information. You can and should obviously be aware of the limitations and biases of traditional media, but often that has turned into the conspiracy-theory "they never report on what's REALLY GOING ON, the only information you can trust is random anonymous social media accounts managed by God knows who." Traditional media, for better or worse, does have certain evidentiary standards, photographing, sourcing, and verifying requirements, and other ways to confirm that what they're writing about actually has some correspondence with reality. Yes, you need to be skeptical, but you can also trust that some of the initial legwork of verification has been done for you, and you can then move to more nuanced review, such as wording, presentation of perspective, who they're interviewing, any journalistic assumptions, any organizational shortcomings, etc.

Once again: there is a shit-ton of stuff out there, it is hard to instinctively know or understand how to engage with it, and it's okay if you don't automatically "get" everything you read. That's where the principle of actually taking the time to be informed comes in, and why you have to firmly divorce yourself from the notion that being socially aware or informed means just instantly posting or sharing on social media about the crisis of the week, especially if you didn't know anything about it beforehand and are just relying on the Leftist Groupthink to tell you how you should be reacting. Because things are complicated and dangerous, they take more effort to unpick than just instantly sharing a meme or random Twitter video or whatever. If you do in fact want to talk about these things constructively, and not just because you feel like you're peer-pressured into doing so and performing the Correct Opinions, then you will in fact need to spend non-social-media time and effort in learning about them.

If you're at a university, there are often subject catalogues, reference librarians, and other built-in tools that are there for you to use and which you SHOULD use (that's your tuition money, after all). That can help you identify trustworthy information sources and research best practices, and as you do that more often, it will help you have more of a feel for things when you encounter them in the wild. It's not easy at first, but once you get the hang of it, it becomes more so, and will make you more confident in your own judgments, beliefs, and values. That way when you encounter something that you KNOW is wrong, you won't be automatically pressured to share it just to fit in, because you will be able to tell yourself what the problems are.

Good luck!

[dumbass-tumbler-cryptid]

Guys I just read through the original Avatar way of water and I can't be normal about it and neither can you so lets get into it...

(Apologies for the bad quality btw. I was taking pictures with my phone of my tv.)

For starters Na'vi age faster than humans in the og script!

It says point blank in the script that Spider is 14

And it says this about Neteyam and Lo'ak

They're the equivalent of a 13 and 14 year old not they are 13 and 14. Coupled with the fact that in this version of the script Spider was five during the original war and he's only 14 himself in this script then if my math is mathing it's only been NINE YEARS since the og movie. In human years Neteyam and Lo'ak are 9 and 8 years old! That is crazy!

Speaking of crazy we get some interesting lessons on Na'vi anatomy

They birth chrysalis! Like mammals can be born still in their amniotic sac but a chrysalis?! Like a bug?!

and then..

Like the chrysalis just unfurls after the mother breaks tsalnu. That is so wild.

And then..

Like we already knew Kiri's "father" was eywa but a genetic clone of Grace? and we learn this in the first act of the movie?! Wild.

Also this conversation...

Like I'm shookith why👏🏽was👏🏽 this👏🏽 not👏🏽 in 👏🏽the👏🏽 movie! This seems pretty important not only for the plot i.e where Toruk is but also developing Jake as a character.

Anyway here's some little things that had me gobsmacked for better or worse.

First...

If my jaw was on the floor from the not dad i'm your commander line (after which Spider tells Lo'ak it could have been a lot worse and I'm like how?) then my jaw hit earth's core from Jake completely blaming Neteyam's death on Lo'ak. Like I know he's grieving but good god that's your son! who just watched his brother die! And you don't even know what happened! You just found them like that! Like...COME ON!

Second...

Lo'ak is really mean to Tuk. I didn't screenshot it but also there was a line from when Tuk tagged along at the beginning of the movie and Spider joked "well if she gets eaten it's not our fault." and Lo'ak said "that's what I'm saying" and as a youngest child I took that personally.

I have no commentary this was just really funny

Third

Ao'nung's name was orginally Nu'ung and I find that interesting.

Forth

I gasped. I'd get smacked if I talked to my mom like this. Like they don't seem to have a good relationship in this version because earlier Kiri calls Grace her real mom not her bio mom or even just her other mom. And Kiri also really wanted to know who her real dad is. I'm just glad they changed this angle because adoptive parents are real parents and the actual movie does a good job of showing that.

Fifth

This is right after Kiri's seizure. I think this should have been in the movie. A criticism I've heard about Jake is what a dumb move it was to call for help when Ronal was right there. This shows what a quick panicked decision that actual was and while it's still not smart it is understandable.

Sixth

Neytiri having P.T.S.D

and finally

yeah I think the only reason they cut this is because they knew we'd all be SOBBING to hard to actually pay attention to the end of the movie.

Anyway that's my general thoughts on this and I'd love to know what you think. 💙

[aphrmoosun]

What can we expect from the upcoming apes movies??

The success of the new Planet of the Apes movie is obvious, it far exceeds what was expected at the box office and the critics are very positive. The only thing missing is the official confirmation of the fifth installment of the saga but seeing the numbers it has done, we should trust that we are going to have apes for a while.

So we can create our own ideas of what we think will come in the future of the saga.

Noa's first film in the saga opens up endless possibilities, we can also follow the clues given during the Caesar triology. And it is obvious that the new saga is not only inspired by the original saga from the 70s but also presents stories and ideas that were made known to us in those films. It was Cornelius himself who told us the story about Caesar who at that time called Aldo. So it is unreasonable for us to expect that, as happened in the Caesar films, the main ideas that were implemented in the films of the 70s will continue.

In the films of the 2010s we were already introduced to the idea of astronauts and although I think that the second film would be too hasty to present them, I do think that they could appear at the end of this film or in a kind of post-credits for the third film of Noah. Travels in the time? World's End? Humans destroying the planet? These are arguments that I still see as feasible in the movies. If the casting team is looking for an actor to be human in the next film, it gives me to understand that he could be the villain of the second film. And not Mae as many theorize.

It is true that she was the first human that is introduced to us in the new story and that her ideals direct her to be an antagonist. I don't doubt that that could be the case, but that Mae is a gray character is clear from the final scene of the movie. At one point Mae is going to lose her way and will surely find herself against Noa, but she is a character who screams to redeem herself. Noa and Mae are going to work together in the future, as an ape and a human.

Noa and Mae are clearly the same. They follow the same path: Noa does not know what the Echos are until Raka tells him about them. And Mae? She probably hasn't met an ape before either. Ignorance is mostly what separates us from ideals. And they both take the same path of getting to know each other. But just because they understood that, doesn't mean that everyone does. We already saw Proximus Caesar in the first film, who represents an ideal contrary to what Caesar represented. And very likely in the next movie we will see the humans in the bunkers who can take two arguments. The war against the apes or the search for a cure or becoming immune to the ape virus.

That's why we can theorize about the second movie. It has already been made clear to us that Noa and Mae are the protagonists of this story, and so far we have seen a lot of Noa and very little of Mae. If we come to any conclusion with the end of the movie, it is that Noa wants to follow Caesar's ideal and the one that Raka taught him when he hands the necklace to Mae. Because Raka gives him the necklace so that Noa remembers in the worst moments what was important. And now it's time for Mae to understand it too. I know that the next movie will be difficult for her and that she will also have to make difficult decisions, and that is the reason why Noa gives her the necklace.

I would especially like to mention Tim Burton's film from the 2000s. It is the film with the worst reviews in the saga and yet I see a lot of similarity between that film and the new one from 2024. I don't think they dare as much as in that film or that have some creative freedom to do some of the things they did in that one. And I'm talking about the romance within the movie. In the 2024 movie it is not very important and presents us with relationships that go beyond that interest but the relationship between Ari and Leo in that movie has been highly criticized by the general public and that could affect any attempt at a human/ape relationship that they would like to experience. So I don't see intermediate points, either they give us a story of enemies to lovers between Noa and Mae or I don't think it is very important for the story, because if they end up putting Noa and Soona together (which I doubt) it will not be important in the plot.

I don't want to make it longer so at another time I will develop it because I think they have thrown the stone into the river of a possible relationship between Noa and Mae hoping to see the public's reaction and because I think it would be a good idea to continue developing it.

To summarize, I think that the next movie will introduce us to a human villain and it will be the first time that Noa has to face one.

Human culture and how they have been living until now is also important and the reason why Mae lives isolated and away from humans. If she is immune but can still infect humans, no one will want to get close to her unless she is immune too. How does Noa and Mae's story continue to develop? Noa's clan taking a more leading role and getting to know Anaya and Soona more deeply. etc

I'm excited to see how it continues.

[theotterpenguin]

I really like the nuanced take about Zutara and why it makes some people uncomfortable and I can see both sides of it. I ship Zutara now but at first I didn’t and it made me really uncomfortable but I think it was just because of certain fan content I was coming across. Some people do portray Zutara in an extremely fetishized & creepy Stockholm syndrome way that makes Katara come off like some helpless damsel stereotype. It made me feel really gross thinking about as a young WOC but rewatching the show and seeing the true dynamic of these characters made me fall in love with them again. So I guess my feeling is that in canon i really love the dynamic but I hate the way *certain fans* twist it and refuse to acknowledge the racism & misogyny in what they’re doing

this is a complicated topic with many layers to it but first - i am sorry if you have ever felt unwelcome in the zutara fandom due to experiences with racism/misogyny.

it would be ignorant to claim that the zutara fandom is somehow uniquely unaffected by systemic racism or sexism, but it would also be disingenuous to claim that these issues only exist in certain parts of the atla fandom. racism, sexism, and general bigotry exist in every fandom due to institutionalized inequality in social structures. and to make it clear, i'm not directing this criticism towards you, anon, you are entitled to your own personal experiences, but i have seen a broader trend of people attempting to use fandom racism to moralize their position in ship wars, which is diminishing from the actual problem - the focus should be on acknowledging the existence of fandom racism/sexism, combatting implicit biases, and creating spaces that can uplift marginalized voices, rather than focusing only on optics in an attempt to gain moral high ground in a silly *fictional* ship war.

however, given all this, the reason that i am still in the zutara fandom is because i appreciate how many people in the fandom are dedicated to unpacking issues of racism and sexism and cultural insensitivity in atla's source material, which i personally haven't seen in many other sides of the fandom (that often sanitize what actually happened in the text to avoid acknowledging these issues in their favorite show). of course this is a broad generalization, but that's generally why i stick with the non-canon shipping side of the fandom because fans that are willing to stray away from canon are often less afraid to engage in critical analysis.

i also do think the zutara fandom has come a long way from the early 2000s when the show first aired. for example, when i first joined the fandom i had mixed feelings on fire lady katara, but i have since read some fanfics that have done an excellent job deconstructing some of the problematic ways that this trope could be interpreted and balancing respect for katara's cultural heritage and autonomy with the political and personal difficulties of being involved with an imperialist/colonialist nation. the fire lady katara trope, capture!fic, and other complicated topics/tropes are almost never inherently racist/sexist, but rather, their execution is what matters. and all this is not to say that issues of systemic racism/sexism do not still exist in this fandom, but it personally has not significantly negatively impacted my experience in the zutara fandom due to the wonderful content that so many other fantastic people produce, though everyone's mileage may differ with what they are comfortable with. anon, i hope that you are able to find a place in the zutara fandom for you! but i also know many people that have stepped back from other fandoms due to experiences with racism/misogyny, so i understand that decision as well.

on a final note, i think it's important to acknowledge that fandom doesn't exist in a vacuum and broader issues of racism and sexism are rooted in the media, the entertainment industry, and mainstream societal norms. while i do sometimes focus on fandom dynamics/discourse in my criticisms, i think it is equally as important to acknowledge how issues of prejudice and inequality are perpetuated through larger social structures, which is why it frustrates me when the atla fandom refuses to acknowledge the flaws of the original show, which has far more influence and social power over the general public than discourse over fandom tropes ever will. personally, i don't understand the phenomenon of holding fan-made material to a higher standard than mainstream media.

[hard--headed--woman]

I briefly talked about it with someone here and it made me think so much that I had to make a post about it - why don't misandrist men get as much hate as misandrist women ?

They are men who think men are horrible and say it. Yet they do not receive the same amount of hate as a feminist saying "I hate men".

There's an example that I find interesting and that I thought I'd share : some decades ago, a very famous leftist french singer, Renaud, made a song that quickly became very popular and loved. It's called "Miss Maggie" and it basically says that men are trash and that women are superior. The thing is, absolutely everyone praises him for it and loves that song. I guess there are some conservatives and incels who hate it, but the vast majority of the country, men and women, loves it ; people say Renaud is amazing and a genius for writing it and that the song is wonderful. Here is a link if you want to listen to it :

(He also criticizes Margaret Tatcher in that song but I won't talk about it in this post because it's not the point).

Here are some lyrics (with the english translation) just so you understand what I'm talking about :

(Bourgeois women or whores

Who are often the very same

Normal women, stars or uglies

Females of all kinds, I love you

Even to the worst moron

I dedicate these few verses

Born of my disgust for men

And their warrior morality

Because no woman on the planet

Will ever be more stupid than her brother

Nor prouder nor more dishonest)

(Woman I love you because

When sport becomes war

There are no chicks, or very few

In the hordes of fans

Crazy fanatics

Drunk on hate and beer

Defying the morons in blue

Insulting the bastards in green)

(The atomic bomb

Didn't come from a female brain

And no woman has on her hands

The blood of Native Americans.

Palestinians and Armenians

Testify from their graves

That genocides are a male thing

Like SS, bullfighters

In this fucking humanity

Murderers are all brothers

Not a woman to compete)

(Woman I love you, above all, at last

For your weakness and for your eyes

When a man's only strength

Is his gun or his cock

And when the last hour comes

Hell will be full of morons

Playing soccer or war

Playing who pisses the farthest)

Everyone loves that song and Renaud didn't receive any hate for writing it. Now imagine if a woman had written it? Just imagine the amount of hate a female singer would receive if she wrote a song like this. That could ruin her carreer and I am not exaggerating.

Renaud is also known for saying other misandrist things. I remember watching an interview with him, in which he's said that "Women are always there to heal wounds, repair damage, get things done... Unfortunately, there are still too few of them in important positions where they can participate in decision-making", "The oldest form of discrimination is discrimination against women. They are the first group we decided to hate and oppress", "Politicians and religions don't want to let women be more than virgins or whores. They don't want to let them be human beings, women, fulfilled people, with a personality, who work...", "It's not long since women have had the right to vote in France. And what's more, when I see women voting for a man, it gives me the same feeling as if I saw a crocodile going to a leather shop of its own free will...".

And in the comments, absolutely everyone was praising him, calling him a king, an angel and what not. No one to call him names or to tell him horrible things. No one to act as if he's said the craziest thing ever, no one to act as if he committed a crime. Sure some people disagree and insult women, but there is not a lot of hatred against him. Again, a woman would have received a lot of hate if she had said things like that. Just read what men have to say about Delphine Seyrig criticizing the patriarchy and the "indifference of men".

The point of that post isn’t to say that Renaud is The Feminist Ally, that he's perfect and one of the good guys or whatever. I just want to point out that a man criticizing men, saying he hates them, calling out their behaviour (and even saying women are superior!) will never receive the same amount of hate as a woman barely saying "I hate men" or ever way "nicer" things. Sounds like everyone knows why we hate men and even agrees with us deep inside, and just hate when women speak up about it. Sounds like they don't have a problem with misandry but with women 🤷🏽‍♀️

[briarfox13]

So after 80+ hours I've finally finished Dragon Age: The Veilguard! And boy do I have some thoughts (it's going to be a long post, sorry)

SPOILERS AHEAD

Firstly what an incredible journey from start to finish, I laughed, rejoiced and cried along the way. I loved it so much! The main story was engaging, and some of the side quests are the best Bioware has ever made.

However, I do have some criticisms with the writing and some lore. The beginning feels rushed, I wish we had more time before shit hit the fan. The faction backgrounds sound awesome and I wish we'd played those as a prologue and met Varric through those rather that tiny scene we got.

And I do wish the game was darker in some aspects. It felt weird that as an Elf I could just wander around Minrathous without a single problem, even the Venatori didn't comment on my race? Which felt off. Never thought I'd say this, but I miss the dark political plot points that the other games had (Looking at DA II here).

Expect The Blight, that was incredible, disgusting was just what I wanted to see.

I also don't like the concept of Ancient Elvhen magic being like advanced tech? I'm not fond of that. I play DA for the fantasy not the sci-fi. But that's a minor nit-pick.

But damn, Act 3? That was an explosive, incredible set of quests, and those twists broke my heart 😭 IYKYK

Honestly though, it's hands down one of the prettiest game I've played since probably Metro Exodus.

The environments, the lights and atmosphere is top notch; I know it wont happen but I'd kill for an Origins remaster with this engine (and combat system). The combat is my favourite so far.

Music is pretty but kind of unremarkable, Trevor Morris' Inquisition music was a 100% times better and more memorable, they should have stuck with him.

No offence to Mr. Zimmer but all his music sounds the same to me 🙈

The Grey Wardens, my babies are back ❤️ They've been my favourite faction in gaming since Origins and I'm so happy to finally play another Warden.

The reactivity was just amazing, I felt so connected to the plot by playing as one, especially with the Blight plotlines. Declaring for the Wardens at the end made me cry 😭 In War, Victory!!

And finally some good Grey warden armour!! XD I hated DA II and DAI's armour for them with a passion XD

Emmrich my love 💚

While I think it's too short (please Bioware add more romance content, I'm begging 🥺) I haven't loved a Bioware romance like this since Garrus'. (Sorry Alistair I still love you but, you're now joint second with Emmrich)

His romance was so sweet and charming, it felt so real. And so beautifully written; as someone who finds necromancy and death in religion fascinating but the reality of death terrifying, Emmrich was perfect for me.

I just adore it so much, I'm way too attached to him and my Rook 💚🥹 And obviously Manfred my son

To let you all in on a secret, even before I booted up Origins for the first time (2015) I was originally a Solas girlie (thanks to the internet) and now just under 10 years later I am so happy to have a happy ending to his and Zephyr's story 🥹❤️

I wish they interacted more with each other, and we'd got more about Solas' love for the Inky but ultimately I am happy with what we got. After all it wasn't entirely their story.

But, what I am not happy about is the Inky's personality. I respect it's kind of a soft reboot, but only 3 choices and none of them about how the Inky was like? Zephyr would never in a million years work with Morrigan (even with her Mythal fragment). It just didn't feel quite like my girl (even though I was happy to see her).

I do wish we'd got a couple more choices when making the Inky to make them feel more ours than slightly generic.

So finally, I will say that personally I adore this game, it's not perfect by any mile but I had fun, and that's important to me. It might even be joint top with Origins as my favourite DA game!

I've always been a Mass Effect girlie, but Dragon Age is important to me too. And I'm so happy to finally see a new DA release that has somewhat succeeded.

Now I'm done, do expect Tabitha spam! I'll make sure to tag them with spoilers for those who haven't finished/played!

And to my non DA followers, I'm very sorry about my current hyper-fixation (blame the ADHD) but bear with me! I have some tasty Halo art pieces cooking in the background 👀

[high-voltage-rat]

Actually I'm still thinking about it. Another interesting way in which RvB is anti-war is the way that the Director fills the role of a villain and antagonist (especially in the Recollections trilogy, where he's a faceless villain we never see but is responsible for everything that happens).

In his memos to the Chairman, the Director emphasizes his sense of duty and obligation to the military- he becomes irate for the first time when he feels that it's being implied that he was derelict in his duty... or that the work he did out of that duty is being criticized for being against the military's interests. He also talks about Allison's death in a way I find... interesting.

"You see; I never had the chance to serve in battle. Nor did fate provide me the opportunity to sacrifice myself for humanity as it did for so many others in the Great War. Someone extremely dear to me was lost very early in my life. My mind has always plagued me with the question: If the choice had been placed in my hands, could I have saved her? [...] But, given the events of these past few weeks, I feel confident that had I been given the chance, I would have made those sacrifices myself... Had I only the chance."

The idea of sacrifice is central to the way he talks about his wife's loss, to the way he talks about the war in general. He talks of sacrifice with a sense of veneration- that it's something he aspires to do, that he longs for. There's a few ways we can interpret "I would have made those sacrifices myself"...

-That in Allison's place, he thinks he would have laid down his life too.

-That if given the chance, he would have given his life to save hers.

But most interestingly...

-That he would have sacrificed Allison's life for the continued survival of humanity, if that was what duty called for.

...And personally, I think all 3 are true.

In most war media, the Director's perspective on sacrifice is very common. Sacrifice is glorious and heroic- to die in battle is an honour- and it's the only way to ensure the group you serve survives. This is a tool of propaganda- nobody wants to go to war just for the sake of it, you have to give them a reason that the risk of dying or being permanently disabled isn't just acceptable, but desirable. Beyond that, most people don't want to do things they think are immoral- you have to convince them it's important, a necessary lesser evil. You teach them to sacrifice their morals, too.

The way they train soldiers to follow orders and to kill, is to convince them that they, and the people around them, and the people they care about, will all die if they don't. It's drilled into your head from day one. It's the way they ensure their commanding officers won't shy away from sending their men off to die. The message is constant- sacrifice is your duty, and duty ensures your people's survival.

In the Director's eyes, the damage Project Freelancer caused was his sacrifice. He never got the opportunity to sacrifice himself during the war- so he sacrificed others, as military brass do. The Freelancers- including his daughter. The countless sim troopers. Any people he considered "collateral damage" on missions. And when the opportunity to do so presented itself, he sacrificed a copy of himself- Alpha- and he sacrificed a copy of Allison- Tex.

The very thing that derailed his life- the loss of his wife- he made it happen again. He put her copy in dangerous situations, let her exist in the position of constant repeated failure, created the circumstances that would eventually lead to her death. He put their daughter in deadly situations that nearly killed her repeatedly, provided her with impossible expectations leading to self-destructive behaviours in the name of duty, implanted her with two AI knowing they could cause her permanent harm. He was confident he "would have made those sacrifices himself" because he did.

The Director is the embodiment of the military war machine. As an antagonist, he is a warning against buying into the glorification of sacrifice. He's a condemnation of the idea that one should be willing to do anything to win a war- that duty to the military is the thing that ensures survival... All the messages that are pushed to ensure recruitment and obedience of soldiers.

He's a reminder that swallowing the propaganda leads to you doing terrible things... and in the end, you're a broken man left mourning the losses that you suffered even as you repeated them, convinced that it was all necessary.

[jq37]

Seeing you describe your opinion on Wish (the movie itself) as "def do have oh boy" just has me curious now. What is it?

OK, so I let this sit in my inbox for a while because I planned to see Wish and I figured that it would be more fair to wait until I had a full picture of what the movie was before I started talking about it and...yeahhhhhhh having seen it my opinion has not changed. It's just intensified. 

MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW (lol, this got past 7k words)

And, fair warning, it's pretty critical so if you don't want to read something critical about this movie then this is your exit.

tl;dr: I think the movie Wish fails at basically everything it sets out to do and it's an absolutely awful 100th Anniversary movie for Disney. 

When I say it fails at everything, I mean EVERYTHING*. I'm going to break this into sections for organizational purposes. 

*The one thing I'll give it a slight pass on is the art style which I don't love but also wasn't like make or break for me. I would have preferred true 2D or a better implementation of the blended 2D/3D style, but if the movie was otherwise of the quality of something like Spiderverse or Puss in Boots, the animation wouldn't have bothered me. Like, I watched S1 of The Dragon Prince with no problem. I can forgive janky animation--and it wasn't even super janky. Just odd. What I can't forgive is literally everything else about the movie. 

Characters

How is this movie so full of characters and yet devoid of characters that matter? There are a million characters in this movie and basically only two of them matter: The King and Asha. But neither of them are compelling in any meaningful way.

There's a lot of to do about the last batch of Disney protags being very same-y in a quirky, all fluff and no substance way and I don't really buy into that. I don't think that Raps, Anna, Moana, and Mirabel are palate swapped carbon copies of each other. They have unique backgrounds and struggles and motivations. I feel like they're all quirky, sure. But they all also have an identity BEYOND being quirky. 

I do NOT get that with Asha. I don't feel like I have a good idea of what makes her tick at all. Like, she's kind. She wants her grandpa to get his wish. She wants to be the King's apprentice so she can help people. The queen (we'll get to her) exposits to us that she cares about people. But being kind isn't in itself an entire personality. The way Mulan is kind (defying the law to spare her father the ravages of war in his old age) isn't the same way as the way Cinderella is kind (making clothes for her mouse friends and protecting them from the cat). Asha just has a generalized want to help people, which is an admirable trait, but doesn't give us much to latch onto. It's so telling to me that in a movie called "Wish" our main character's wish is just, "To have more than just this" And yes, Disney princesses wanting "more" is literally their whole thing, but it's always more specific than that. Mirabel wants to prove herself to her family. Rapunzel wants to experience life beyond her tower. Even Snow White--the Disney princess with the flimsiest story--wants to find her true love. That's a concrete motivation! Asha doesn't feel real to me as a character. It feels like the thing that drives her is that the plot needs to happen and that's it. 

The other important character in the movie is King Magnifico who was supposed to be a return to form for Disney in introducing another classic villain but he just fails at that so hard. The idea that he could stand toe to toe with any of the OGs like Lady Tremaine or Scar or even the latest villains like Dr. Facillier or Mother Gothel is laughable. He just doesn't have any gravitas. And his characterization is so odd. You can tell that they were trying to give him a "reasonable man doing unreasonable things for a good reason” backstory (both because of some images in the film and some stuff in interviews I read) but then they just...don't actually give the backstory? Like, they imply that the backstory exists but I don't remember them going into it at all. Which like, he doesn't NEED a tragic backstory. He can just be doing what he's doing because he's evil. Ursula didn't need a reason to want to rule the seas. She's just a boss bitch and she wants power. I don't need to dissect that any further. BUT if you tell me there’s a reason your villain is doing something, I need to see that reason. I don't understand why they would include that in the movie, just to do nothing with it. 

Beyond that, he's written in such a weird way. Like, despite the "maybe he has a point" angle they seem to want to go with, he's very obviously a self-absorbed ruler--like he'll say things like, "Yeah, I am super handsome" to his wife--which immediately dumps him into the camp villain category. But he's doing the controlling things he does in the movie of his own accord to get people to stick to the status quo he set up. Fine. That's a fine thing for a camp villain to be doing. But then, at a certain point in the movie, he just uses a forbidden magic evil book (which he has for some reason) that just fills him with evil, green magic and makes him 100% unhinged all of a sudden. And that's just...boring? Like, anything interesting you might have been able to do before that point about power and control and how sometimes you make a wrong choice with good intentions is just gone at that point. It sucks because there were a lot of right answers here. You could just make him evil because he's evil. That works. You could have him be seriously convinced that what he's doing is right and be willing to do whatever he needs to do to keep things that way. That works. You could say that he started out trying to be morally upright and then slid into enjoying the praise and control just a bit too much--and I think maybe that's what they were going for. But it does not come across that way. He just seems like a dick to the point where you're kinda questioning how he's pulling any of this off. Asha asks him one question and he flies off the handle. How does everyone not know he's an asshole if it takes so little to fluster him?

So I don't like our main hero or villain. But there are still SO MANY CHARACTERS in this movie. 

You've got Asha's SEVEN FRIENDS. Yes, SEVEN. they're based off of the seven dwarves, which is cute enough but do you know what happens when you give the hero seven sidekick characters? None of them get developed at all and you have to treat them like a unit. Only two of them matter at all--Dahlia (her best friend and the one who actually does more than just make dumb jokes or, worse, nothing at all) and Simon (the one who betrays them--more on that later). There is no story reason for them to have shoved in this many sidekicks. Especially since she also has…

Her animal sidekick, Valentino. Who is a very cute goat until he gets sprinkled with stardust and boom. He can talk. Which immediately made me like him less. Flounder he aint. The whole joke with him is that he's a baby goat with a rich, deep, baritone voice. That's it. Almost every joke he makes is either about that or his butt. Boo. 

Then, there's the Queen--Queen Amaya--who is such a NOTHING character. There's no effort made to build up her relationship with the king so that her flipping on him later has an emotional impact. I have no idea what she cares about or desires. When she shows up, she's basically acting like the king's secretary, which is weird. I don't think that's what a queen does. There's a moment during a later song when she joins the "revolution" and it just has zero impact because again, it's like, I don't know who you are in any significant way! She seems nice, and I would love to live somewhere ruled by someone boring and benign, but that makes for an awful movie character. 

I almost wrote "lastly, there's the star" because I totally forgot about Asha's mom and grandpa. They're in this movie too but even though Asha's whole motivation at the start of the movie is getting her grandpa's wish granted, we never get a good idea of what their relationship is. They have like, one quick scene at the top which tells us nothing, then they're in a crowd scene later, then Asha has dinner with them later the same day and that's it. And, again, we get nothing significant. Compared to something like Mulan where you have a good idea of what Mulan's relationship is with every member of her family by the time the military order comes in or Encanto where between the musical number at the top and the first group scene, you get an entire picture, this is really weak. Again, so weak that I completely forgot that they were even in this movie. 

And NOW lastly, there's the star. Who is like, cute enough but he really makes me annoyed because I've seen the original concepts and they would have been so much more interesting! That's the case for the queen too, so I'll talk about both of them together here. 

I am sorry to inform you if you didn't already know but the queen was originally supposed to be evil too.

She was supposed to be a part of an evil power couple with Magnifico and how dope would that have been? We've never gotten that from Disney before. Imagine! Disney Villain Song Duet! A Hot couples costume for next Halloween! An actual relationship that's developed in this movie! But nope. They unflavor-blasted her into the paper thin, placeholder of a character we have in the movie. 

And the Star went through a couple of concepts. One, was the spirit of her dead grandpa, taking a younger form, which isn't my fave one but it at least would give her a relationship with this person who is supposedly an important person in her life, something we don't have in the movie right now. My favorite alternate concept is that originally, the Star was supposed to be her celestial love interest. And listen, anyone who's followed me for long enough knows that I am a big advocate for platonic relationships and FRONTING platonic relationships. I don't think that a story needs a romantic relationship to be compelling and I think forcing one in almost always makes it worse. But there is NO central relationship in this movie to carry it. Asha has too many friends for any one of them to make a serious impact so it's not a friendship story. Her mom and grandpa are nothing characters, so it's not a family story. She interacts with the star a lot, but that's basically just her talking to herself because the start doesn’t talk. So nothing is really there to latch onto. If they'd decided to go with the romance angle, it would have forced them to focus on at least ONE relationship and it would have been a nice way to throwback to classic Disney movies from the past. Much better than just sticking her with SEVEN WHOLE USELESS FRIENDS. Literally, all they provide is backup vocals in the fight song. Special Dishonorable Mention to Gabo. Man I hate that dude. 

So, to recap this section, Asha's personality is only sketched out in the loosest possible way, King Magnifico is entirely half-baked, and there are so many side characters that no one can form meaningful relationships with each other. And it's really a shame because (1) they very easily could have pared down the cast and (2) very recently Disney put out Encanto which handles a large cast beautifully. There are a ton of Madrigals but I can tell you what the deal of each and every one is. This could have been done well and they fumbled so hard. 

Concept

OK, so next up is the general plot and concept. This story takes place in the city of Rosas which is ruled by King Magnifco. It is supposedly a paradise, but much like a YA dystopian novel, it has a twist: When you turn 18, Magnifico takes your wish away from you and puts in in his wish room with the promise that it might be granted at one of the monthly wish granting ceremonies. Once your wish is taken from you, you are "unburdened" and you're "free" from having to pursue it. You don't even remember what it was. 

There's a kernel of something interesting there. A ruler making his subjects docile, placid zombies that won't challenge him by taking away their ambition? That's interesting. People willingly giving away a part of their heart to dull the pain of trying and failing? Interesting. Someone doing this with no ill intent, but rather genuinely thinking that this half-existence is better than the heartbreak of the alternative? Interesting!

But the actual implementation of this idea? Ughhhhhh. 

So first off, just logistically, Magnifico grants one wish a month more or less (Asha says once a month and in his villain song, he said he granted 14 wishes "last year"). So like, realistically, most of these people have to know their wishes will never be granted, right? Because of like...how math works? Asha acts like it's a big shock when she learns that most wishes won't be granted but like girl...math. 

Secondly, there are two moments that are meant to imply that having your wish taken away turns you into a shell of yourself. Asha's friend (who betrays her) Simon is said to be all sleepy and more boring since he turned 18 and had his wish taken. And then, later in the movie, we see two new residents have their wishes taken, and they look a little disturbed after it happens. But, here's the thing. NO ONE ELSE IN THE MOVIE ACTS LIKE THAT. Asha's mom and grandpa act like normal people. So do all the other characters. It’s not consistent enough to establish that this is what’s on the line. Does taking your wish away make you a robot or not?

And does everyone just have one wish? I know I could fill a full sheet of paper, front and back, with things that matter very dearly to me. If you took away my wish to write for TV someday, that would still leave my wishes to travel the world and get a comic book adaptation of one of my novels and a whole lot of other things! Does taking your main wish away make you lose your ability to form new wishes? Logistically, how does any of this work? And you can't just say, "It's a metaphor. Don't think too hard about it," because there's a scene where the citizens start asking these questions. Like, "What happens if we have a new wish than from when we initially made it?" As if having unnamed side characters ask the questions first will alleviate the need to answer them. It's not lamp shading at that point. You're just being lazy. 

Also, this is more a me thinking about the implications too hard than an actual plot problem but if he's taking the wishes at 18 I feel like a lot of peoples' greatest desire at that stage in their life is, "I want a romantic partner." And if the central conceit of this premise is that once your wish is taken, you stop wanting to pursue it then the city of Rosas is gonna have a population Collapse problem very soon. 

The characters--especially Asha--get so emotional about wishes. It's like they're giving a My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic speech every time they talk about it (except MLP has MUCH better writing). It's bizarre to see Asha's mom get her wish back and be like, "Oh my wish. My precious wish!" when she doesn't act any differently than a normal person before or after she has it back (Sidenote: She says this and she's holding the wish ball but we never see what that wish is and that's maddening. Why do I know what the dream of every patron in the Snuggly Duckling is, but they didn't show that? Ridic.) It almost is like, being in contact with a wish ball is a quasi-religious experience that drives the characters’ actions (Asha and the King are both totally enraptured while singing together in the Wish Room), but because we, the audience, are very much not in contact with the wish balls, we're not getting ANY of that. 

Anyway, to recap this section: the central premise of how wishes work and how taking them affects people is not treated consistently or explained well, which makes the stakes feel very undefined and sloppy. 

Pacing

This has to be its own section, because it's the thing that baffled me most when I watched this movie. So, here's the setup. Asha is going to interview for the internship with the king. She wants to help people and she has the secondary motive of wanting to try and get her 100-year-old grandpa's wish granted because he's not getting any younger. 

Here is the entire sequence: Asha is led into the interview by Queen Amaya. Asha is awkward but makes a good enough first impression that Magnifico is moved to show her the wish room (for some reason). They sing a duet about the wishes where they’re both dazzled by the Wish balls. During the song, Asha finds her Grandpa's wish and after the song, she asks him to grant it. He looks at the wish and says while she has good intentions, it's too dangerous to grant--as are most wishes. She asks why not give them back then and he immediately flies off the handle and starts ranting about how HE decides which wishes get granted and what everyone deserves! 

Their first meeting and him showing his true colors happens in the SAME SCENE. It's like 7-10 minutes and they just RUSH through all of that. And it's like, why? Did they really need to get to that dumbass star song (we'll get to that) faster? 

I know that he isn't a twist villain so we don't need to keep the fact that he’s the bad guy under wraps. And, the way the story is structured, she needs to learn what he's doing before she can rebel against him. But it's not gonna be a big, impactful moment if you're rushing from beat to beat like this is an essay that's due in twenty minutes and you started five minutes ago. 

And it really makes you wonder, if Asha can blow the whole lid off this conspiracy within ten minutes of meeting this guy, why is this not happening more often? Between how obviously smarmy the King is, how paltry the wish granting system is, and how easily Asha was able to start asking questions and get him to blow his top (something that happens again later when the citizens start asking question–it literally drives him into his villain song) I don't believe that this wouldn't have happened earlier (Sidenote: Finding out that it HAD happened earlier and that Asha is the latest in a line of failed apprentices who questioned him? More interesting premise). 

So to recap: I have no idea why this movie is paced like this but it's not doing it any favors. 

Humor

Humor is very subjective so you can take this with a huge grain of salt but I think this is a deeply unfunny movie. 

The jokes fall into about three main categories:

(1) Quirky Humor: This is like Asha babbling and tripping over her words. The scene in the trailer where she's like, "Is my face drooping?" is a good example. It's not really a joke but it's clearly an attempt at humor that I don't think meets the mark. It's also in the songs with, for instance, the animals or the King saying slang that doesn't match how they talk or you'd expect them to talk at all and it just feels deeply incongruent, not funny. 

(2) Referential Humor: This is probably what bothered me the most because it was just so so very eye-roll inducing. And listen, I love a good reference. Enchanted is my favorite movie of all time. I don’t begrudge them for putting a few references in their 100th Anniversary movie. But ugh. There is a scene after the king's gone crazy where he's destroying wish bubbles for power and he's like, looking at the wishes and making a quip before he crushes them. And for the second one he goes, "Oh you want a nanny for your kids? Definitely  POPPING this one!" And he might as well have looked at the camera and said, "Get it? Get it?" and it took 6 months off my lifespan. (Sidenote: He he does a direct ref with the first two wish bubbles--Peter Pan and Mary Poppins–and then he just makes a general ref to the concept of true love with the last one and it's like, come on at least rule of threes this if you're gonna do it. Commit to your awful bit!)

(3) Kiddie Humor: This is where things get especially subjective because maybe a little kid would find this stuff really funny and they are a part of the target audience so that's valid. But it doesn't add much substance to the movie. This is like the goat being like, "I found a secret passage with my butt" or leading a chicken choir or singing the line, "So that's where all the balls of gas come from" while sticking his butt in the air--a lot of these have to do with the goat and his butt now that I think about it. 

I think I only laughed at one thing in the movie that was meant to be at least partially funny--when the Queen interrupts the fight song and everyone is like "Oh shit, we're busted!" before she starts singing along. 

So to recap: Sometimes a movie has a weak story but it's super funny and that makes up for it. This is not one of those movies.

Music

This is the one thing I already knew before I watched this movie: The music in this movie is bad. 

Like, fullstop, no qualifications bad. Not bad for a Disney movie. Not bad for this story. Just bad.

I was a little confused by the choice to pick a pop artist instead of someone who specializes in musical theater style music for this project, but a more pop-y musical doesn't automatically mean a worse musical. Sure, maybe it's a weird choice to pay homage to the past 100 years of Disney movies, but it could be good. I love Six the Musical.

But that's the problem. The songs aren't just unfitting. They're not just un-Disney. They're fully BAD. They feel so half-baked and God, I've never been so assaulted by slant rhymes in my life. Like, this bothers me to the point where I have to go through the entire tracklist. I can't just make a blanket statement, I have to show you what I mean:

1) Welcome to Rosas: This whole song sounds like someone listened to “Where you Are” from Moana (the "consider the coconut" song), “Belle” from Beauty and the Beast, and “The Family Madrigal” from Encanto and was like, "I could do that". And then they couldn't. It's not really catchy and it's pretty repetitive. Super forgettable. 

Worst Line: Honestly, this song is too boring to have a worst line. 

2) At All Costs: This is the duet that Asha and Magnifico sing. Before I saw the movie, I thought it was going to be Asha singing about a wish and Magnifico singing to his wife to set up the eventual rift between them but that was before I realized that this movie doesn't believe in relationship building. Some of the movie's worst musical sins are on display here. Turns of phrases that seem like they were written by AI and bizarre syntax. 

Like what does, "You pull me in, like some kind of wind" mean? That's not what wind does. Why would anyone ever say, "Felt this? No, I haven't" instead of "I haven't felt this?" That's so awkward. 

Worst Line: "Leave you here, I don't wanna. I wanna [promise as one does]." My feelings about this line could be a whole other essay, but I've been writing this for 2 hours already so I have to move on. 

3) This Wish: This is the big "I Want" song and it fails on several levels. It fails in comparison to all the songs it’s standing in the shadow of--like the last “I Want” song we got is, I believe, “Waiting on a Miracle” and man! How can you not feel for Mirabel after watching her go through everything she goes through at the start of the movie and it getting topped with her being excluded from the family portrait? You see all the build up (including the implied build up from before the movie started) and you see why it's all bubbled up to the point where she has no choice but to sing about it! With Asha, there isn't a whole lifetime of angst that's bubbling up to make her sing this song. Everything that's happened to her has happened over the hour of like eight hours tops. She meets the king, finds out about the king, realizes the whole system is bad, and then gets into an argument with her family who's drunk the Kool-Aid and doesn't wanna hear what she has to say (which makes no impact on us because we have no idea what their relationship is). That's it. It doesn't feel like the movie has earned the song.

And then with “Waiting for a Miracle” the music itself is plaintive and soaring. Like, I just paused writing to listen to it and I couldn't help but sing along and pour a little of my actual IRL "I Want" energy into it. It's a song that feels very real. “This Wish” isn't any of that. And it's not the actresses' fault! She's pouring her whole heart into it and she consistently does all movie. But the song is just, bland. Like I said, "I want to have more than this" is too weak a hook to hang your whole song on–especially when it’s the song that’s supposed to be the thesis of your whole movie.  

Worst Line: "So I look up at the stars to guide me/And throw caution to every warning sign." That's not a thing people say and also it doesn't mean anything. If anything, it sounds like she's saying that she's being extra cautious at the warning signs! You can't just throw words together haphazardly and expect them to retain their meaning!

4) I'm a Star: This is, imo, the worst song on the whole track. A friend of mine described it as sounding like a song from a preschool science show and that's exactly it, but there's more to it than that. 

First of all, a big part of the reason this song exists is to set up the fact that humans are made of stardust because that's a plot point in the climax. But there didn't need to be a song about that. That would be like if Frozen 2 had a song about how water has memory. But like, OK. If the song was a bop, it wouldn't matter that it was superfluous. Haus of Holbein in Six does NOT need to be there, but I enjoy it! I do NOT enjoy this song however. 

This is something I alluded to earlier, but this soundtrack in general and this song specifically sounds like it's trying to do LMM's schtick but poorly. And I know some people don't like his whole style of music (I personally like it) but love him or hate him, his style without his skill? Awful. The presentation of fun facts in the middle of a fun song makes me think of his "Look it Up" in “Shiny” or "That's true" in “A Winter's Ball”. And there's a part where a turtle (we'll get to the talking animals) sings "See we're all just little nebulae in a nursery/From supernovas now we've grown into our history/We're taking whys right out of mystery, closure/Now we're taking in all the star exposure" And it really sounds like someone doing their best to emulate Lin's flow in things like Mirabel's aside to Mariano in “The Family Madrigal” or any number of songs I could name from Hamilton. But it just falls so flat here. It sounds so preschool and cheesy. And not preschool in a fun way. Backyardigans would never. 

Also, this song is sung by a bunch of talking animals (the Star gives them the ability to talk) and I find them so obnoxious. They say stuff like, "Did we just blow your mind?" with the "boom" sound effect and I hate it. Maybe kids will like them, I dunno. I refuse to get into it further. 

Worst Line: This song completely misuses the word allegory, which I hate, and it rhymes it with "excitatory" which I hate more (and I am saying this as someone who has made peace with the fact that Schwartz rhymes "nasty" with "flabbergasty" in Disenchanted) but there is only one line in this song that can be considered the true worst line because it's my least favorite line in the whole movie. A dumbass, stoner-sounding deer named Bambi (boo) sings, "Ooh, I'm a star! Watch out world, here I are"

They rhyme the word star--not a hard word to rhyme at all--with HERE I ARE. 

I firmly believe someone should go to jail for that. 

5) This is The Thanks I Get?!: This is the much anticipated and extremely disappointing villain song. There's just no gravitas and it's not clever enough to be very fun. It's just kinda bopping along which is eh, kind of fun at best, but like everything else in this movie, doesn't leave an impact. A musical number doesn't have to be obviously sinister like “Be Prepared” or, the holy (unholy?) grail, “Hellfire”, to be impactful. “Mother Knows Best” is bright and filled with false cheer but it still works because we can see the manipulation that Gothel is doing and she spins Raps around in mental circles to keep her docile. This is just an egotistical rant--and not even in a fun, Gaston kind of way! (Sidenote: Gaston is a good example of a villain who is preening and pompous and kind fo campy, but who you see why he’s beloved AND he can be menacing when the scene calls for it). 

Also, it's so full of weird slang that Magnifico doesn't use at any other point in the movie. "Peep the name", "Ungrateful much", "Mmm, are you sure you're not the prob?" It's like he suddenly got possessed by Urban Dictionary. It's bizarre. 

It also comes weirdly late in the movie, which isn't a complaint, just an observation. 

Worst Line: I think "peep the name" is my least fave but, because I already said that, the opening lines of this song are, "I can't help it if mirrors love my face. It's genetics! Yeah, I got these genes from outer space" and that's such a weird thing to say. I got these genes from outer space? He wasn't even there for the star song so what the hell does he mean by that?

6) Knowing What I Know Now: I feel like this is the song that had the most potential. But for all its build, it never builds to anything. It starts and ends so abruptly (which is the case for multiple songs on this list). We don't really get to know any of the characters well except for Asha so them joining the revolution has no impact. The Queen turning on Magnifico really doesn't have much impact. 

(There's a line in this song where a character sings, "I was sweet but now I'm something else" which is so funny because we literally know nothing about her except that she surprises people when she's in a room which, lmao, me too. Fully forgot you were in this movie, girl). 

Worst Line: "The good in him, I've watched it melt". There's technically nothing wrong with this line but I hate it because melting with regard to emotion is never, "Oh, his goodness is melting". It just hits the ear so wrong. You can watch the good in him disappear or fade or vanish. Not melt. Hearts melt. 

There's also a reprise and a credits song but I have talked about the music for too long as is so to sum up, there is not a single song on this list that I will ever purposefully listen to for enjoyment ever again and there are a few lines that I feel calls for someone being forced to go to whatever the musical version of the Hague is to explain themselves. 

MISC

This is just a section for things that annoyed me that didn't fit anywhere else. 

There's a moment where Asha sees Star which is a star that has fallen to earth and is shaped like a star and she's not able to put together than he's a star until she looks up at a ball of yarn that's tangled in the trees and sees that the yarn is shaped like a star...which again, Star is ALSO shaped like a star! Baffling. 

Gabo at one point makes a comment to the effect of, "Wishing on a Star? Grow up Asha, this isn't a fairy tale." And it's like, dude shut up. Your king is a sorcerer. This movie isn't funny enough to pull off that kind of wink to the audience. 

The actual funniest part of the movie is when a talking mouse (not a thing that usually exists in this world) runs onto the Queen's shoulder during a big speech in front of a crowd and not only does no one notice, but she has no stronger reaction than if a messenger was telling her that her dinner was ready. And not in an underreaction for the purposes of a joke way. Like, in a they forgot to write in a reaction for her way. It's so unintentionally hilarious. 

They specifically set this in the real world–off the coast of the Iberan Peninsula–but I didn’t get any of that influence in any significant way here. It could have been any generic island town. Rosas sounds like a Spanish name and “Welcome to Rosas” there is some dancing that looks like traditional Spanish dancing. But on a whole, it feels pretty bland. When I think about studying abroad in Spain, one of the big things I think about are all the moments with food–patatas con bravas, pan con tomatae, paella, and so so much coffee. The only food I remember from this movie are the novelty cookies Dahlia is always baking. Which is wild to me because their last big musical was Encanto and you could feel the cultural influences in every scene and it was seamless. This wouldn’t even bother me if that hadn’t made a point to set it in a specific part of the real world and call it out. 

A lot of the dialogue is super expository in a way that both makes me think the writers think we’re stupid and that they realized at certain points that they forgot to establish things but instead of fixing the script they just shoved in a line. Like, to the first point, there’s a part where Magnifico crushes a wish and it’s very clear that he’s getting a high from it. But instead of letting the moment stand he’s like, “Oh yes. Who knew crushing wishes would feel so good? I must continue to crush wishes so I keep feeling this good feeling,” and it’s like…why did you need to say all of that? Old Power Rangers episodes have their villains monologue less than that!

This movie opens on a storybook–just like Snow White–and it has a voice over of Asha narrating the history of Rosas as the pages flip. Not a bad idea–until you push into the scene and realize she’s telling all of this to…her grandpa? Who is 100 years old and lived through all of this? What? Why not have that scene be a kid flashback and the story is being told to her? Or have her be doing the little kid thing of telling a story to an adult? Either way, that would help establish their relationship which is ostensibly very important to this movie. Or, wild thought, just have her be telling this story to kids! Like Mirabel explaining all the Madrigal gifts in Encanto! Like, if you’re gonna take cues from that movie, at least go all the way so your movie makes sense. 

It’s very unclear how Star’s magic works. It seems like he mostly just gives wildlife the ability to talk. I thought he was just granting wishes but he never does that to any of the humans. And I find it hard to believe that the wish of every animal (and mushroom)  in this movie is just to be able to talk.

Easy Fixes

And all of this is compounded by the fact that this isn’t just any random movie or even any random Disney movie. It’s the *100th ANNIVERSARY*. You only get one of those and this is what they wasted it on. My hopes were really high here! I was expecting a lot of love and care to be put into this one, but it just fell absolutely flat. It feels so rote, so by the numbers, so lacking in care. It feels like the shell of an outline of a movie that relies on the fact that we know what a movie of this sort should be and can fill in the blanks. 

And the worst part? The absolute worst part?

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A REALLY EASY MOVIE TO FIX. 

Like, I’m serious. If you watch this movie, you will be able to, off the cuff, name tons of things that would have solved problems without breaking a sweat. 

For instance, just cutting her friend group down from seven to two would have helped immensely. If she, Dahlia, and Simon have a Three Musketeers relationship, then when he betrays her to the king, it actually means something now! 

For a bigger but still obvious change, why not have Asha have an existing relationship with Magnifico? So then this story can be about her losing faith in this relationship she’s had for a long time after she’s seen behind the curtain and become jaded over time and not a 7 minute “Don’t Meet Your Heroes” speedrun.

And making it clear what taking a Wish from a person means–and following through with that portrayal all movie–would all be a game changer. Show that Magnifico’s magical wish granting still leaves the people hollow. Show that Asha is a vibrant, bright person amongst a sea of robotic adults. Show me some worldbuilding! 

Also, just hire a musical theater person to do the music. Seriously I can’t believe I have to say this? How is there not a single good song in this movie? There are DCOMs with more bangers than this. Almost every song in High School Musical is a bop. How are you getting outshone by High School Musical?

And these are just changes that preserve the bulk of the story as is. This movie could have been even better if they’d change the direction to go with some of their scrapped ideas!

This is just a movie that absolutely baffles me. I wouldn’t think it would be possible for a movie with this high of a profile to be this bad. You would think that even accidentally they’d have to get SOMETHING right. But they really don’t. I can’t recommend this movie, even for a fun-bad watch. It’s like eating unsalted saltines while you have dry mouth. Just watch a better movie. And here are three movies I think are more in the spirit of Disney’s 100th anniversary than Wish:

(1) The Princess and the Frog does literally everything that this movie is trying to do but better. You’ve got a movie that used a 2D style in the 3D era. You have integration of cultural elements–in this case New Orleans in the 20s. You have a classic princess story with the classic trappings: romance, villain, fairy godmother. You have a rocking villain song. Hell, you even have a wishing star motif! 

(2) Encanto is the latest Disney movie of the modern era to have that classic Disney magic, imo. It sidesteps a lot of the classic Disney tropes–no princess, no serious romance (Delores and Mariano end up together but it’s very much a side thing), no villain beyond generational trauma–but it still feels musical and magical and full of character and life. It shows that you can keep the big emotions that we expect from Disney even with more modern sensibilities. 

(3) Enchanted is my favorite movie of all time so I’m biased, but I still firmly believe that it stands as a better movie in general and tribute to Disney specifically than Wish. THIS is how you do an homage. The whole plot is a loving roast of all the quirks of classic Disney movies, but it’s also a sincere story that stands on its own. It has references to old movies, but they’re integrated very naturally. And it’s funny enough to get away with things like a character mid-musical number being like, “What the hell is happening? Why is everybody singing?” without it feeling like lazy, “Well that just happened” humor. And the music is so good! 

(A quick note on the music btw: Most of the songs in Enchanted are musical theater style songs but there’s one song near the end called “So Close” which is like a pop ballad. And it totally makes sense why they’d depart from the musical theater style in that moment in context but, even if it was jarring and totally unfitting for the movie, it’s still objectively a strong song. Out of context, it would be a great, sad, romantic song. And if the music in Wish was all like that–good but unfitting–this would confuse me less than it does.)

Anyway, I would shell out a LOT of money for a making of documentary for this movie in the style of the Frozen 2 one because as writer and a fan of a lot of Disney’s past stuff, it is completely beyond my comprehension who a team of accomplished people get together to create the 100th Anniversary project with their vast resources and produce this. It just doesn't feel like a movie with any serious care put into it. Which is separate from quality, btw. I don’t like the movie Raya very much but I think it’s obvious a lot of care went into it and I respect this. Wish feels like a movie that was made to fill some kind of contractual obligation and it makes me sad because I really wanted to like it. 

[dust-jacket-analysis]

There's a lot of discourse going on over on TikTok right now regarding Booktok. And as an avid reader, Booktok watcher, and someone who has a deep love for analyzing the media I enjoy, I'd feel remis if I didn't get my thoughts out there.

I know these particular posts never got much engagement when I posted on my old account, but if I could please just have a bit of your time. This is all apart of a larger subject of which I'm extremely passionate on.

Four days ago Booktoker @bookishwithb aka, Celine, posted a video. In that video she talked about the rise of anti-intellectualism, specifically on booktok. She addresses the way books are "marketed" or presented on booktok, and also how that has an impact on the publishing industry.

Her main talking point was how a lot of books are being recommended based on what tropes are in them. More specifically, reduced based on those tropes. Her example being the Poppy War, by R.F Kuang.

She talked about how she's seen it marketed as a book with "a strong female main character." And how infuriating that was to her. She went on to explain how there was so much more to the book and how it was about war, and trauma, and how dark and deep and impactful it is. I highly recommend this video to anyone interested. Because while controversial it says a lot about the "tropeification" of media (which will probably be a post by me sometime in the future).

And as is the ways of the internet, this sparked something huge.

So many different creators responded to her video. Some agreeing, most disagreeing. There's been outrage, and healthy debate. But mainly (and most importantly) conversation. Everyone throwing their two cents in, people defending the right to read what you want how you want.

And since the original video went up, this conversation has taken on a life of it's own. It's now become about reading for fun Vs. reading for analysis.

Many argue that it doesn't matter why people read, or how. Just that they are. Others argue it's a sign of a bigger issue that readers no longer engage in the story's their reading.

I have my own opinions. I agree with both sides on certain things, and am overall enjoying the discussions. But, as always, I have things to say.

There are some books that, while entertaining and a fun read, have no substance per say. No analytical value. I think a lot of those three-hundred page medium spice romance books you find on a table at Barnes and Noble fall under this category.

Now, I really love reading those books. Their quick easy reads that keep me entertained. But, they really cannot be analyzed past surface level. Very much not a time to try and think critically.

Those are the books I read for escapism. When I just want to decompress and turn off my brain. Or make a long car ride pass by quickly. And that's okay. Yes? Because it's still reading. I am still gaining something from it. Physiological benefits, it's encouraging and strengthening my empathy. I am still (in some cases) increasing my Lexile, and keeping my brain working. Which is amazing.

Other times I read things with very high analytical value. Such as High Fantasy Novels with social commentary reflecting our world. Or Dystopia packed full with metaphor, allegory, and symbolism. Or even my most recent read for college: Brown Girl In The Ring, by Nalo Hopkinson. An amazing book commenting on the suburban sprawl, and urban decay. Sprinkled with magical realism regarding Afro-Caribbean culture, and even mentions of Romani practices such as Tarot.

These are books I read knowing I need to turn on the part of my brain that's very analytical. That enjoys breaking things down in that way. Storylines I have to engage with on an additional level, otherwise I miss the entire point of this story. It's not only important, but necessary.

So, yes. Reading is reading, now matter what. And any reading is better than no reading. And we should foster that mindset, especially amongst younger generations. But, that doesn't mean you should never engage critically with a book or show or movie you're consuming. Because some media requires that for a base level understanding. And saying that doesn't make me elitist. Or pretentious or judgmental or a snob. Because it's really just true.

I've seen a lot of creators bring up the literacy crisis in youth, specifically in my country (America). How many kids can't read at a level they should be in elementary schools. Even in Highschool. And that we really should all just be content there's an entire community at least reading at all. That we should encourage any and all reading.

And to that I say... yes, but no.

Because here's the thing. There is in the most literal sense, a literacy crisis. The kid's can't read. And it is absolutely devastating. As someone who grew up devouring books every week, reading three grades above my own, it's soul crushing. So I do think reading should be more pushed and encouraged. In school, in the home, everywhere. As much as possible and appropriate for children. Any and all.

But, there's also another literacy crisis. A Media literacy crisis.

Media literacy, the ability to critically analyze and engage with media, is at an all time low. According to a survey done by Media Literacy Now and, the Reboot Foundation, 42% of respondents were taught how to analyze media. Let that sink in. 42%. That's less than half the people who participated in the survey.

(More statistics generated by AI with the following prompt: Give me reliable statistics regarding media literacy in terms of books/reading:

A Survey done by the National Endowment for the Humanities states 65% of adults have low literary skills when it comes to reading comprehension, critical thinking, and expression.

Pew research conducted a survey with resulted in 57% America adults having read at least one book in the last year. With 26% American adults not having read any form of book in the past year. Including audio books.

The American Library Association has said that the average American only reads four books per year. And more developed countries only have average citizens at ten books a year.

An Survey done by Reading Partners has said that 1 and 4 children read at a below basic level by the end of 4th grade.)

And we see this sentiment echoes all over the internet. Constantly videos are made with people talking about how they were never taught Media literacy, and their should be a class all about just that (Which... I have thoughts on. Again, another post).

Even though you can (rightly) argue that this skill was taught. In English class. That's not the point. The point is that people cannot only not read, but most young adults and fully grown adults cannot read critically. Cannot, will not, and aren't.

And in some cases it's because they don't and still don't have the resources. But these statistics aren't just minorities, people in poverty. These surveys and statistics cover people from every walk of life. Poor, Rich, White, Black, Asian, Hispanic. Queer, Straight, Trans, Cis. All ethnicities, wealth brackets, identities. Every demographic. It's indictive of a larger issue.

So we should encourage reading for fun. Reading to read. Reading for escapism. Reading of every kind. But, to claim that there isn't an issue? To trample creators addressing these issues with insults? To claim it's them being pretentious, snobby, elitest, Privileged etc.? That's feeding the issue.

Recently my friend recommended me a video essay, which I unfortunately can't find (Will edit the title when I can).

But in that video, my friend told me that the creator says something... so insightful. She defines stupid as this: Not a lack of knowledge, but the unwillingness to accept new knowledge.

Which is just... such a perfect way to look at it.

You aren't "stupid" for not knowing how to think critically. For not having learned to analyze media, and for not having the resources to do so. But if you have the resources, have the ability to learn how, and you don't/refuse? That makes you stupid.

And by burying your head in the sand and claiming that there is no issue, by hiding behind pseudo offense and that claims of judgement, you're being stupid.

Don't be outraged that the creator of the video that started this all. Don't feel "called out" or judged. Don't put words in her mouth. She wasn't saying people cannot read for enjoyment. She was simply pointing out a larger issue.

--------------------------------------------

To end this very long and tedious post, I'd like to provide a couple of videos in order to help improve Media Literacy! Just some videos I've watched that I found helpful (Also if you just go on youtube and search up "how to analyze..." you'll find so much more)

Crash Course Media Literacy: A playlist series that breaks down media literacy and the history of media as a whole.

How to analyze a Book- 101: This video gives techniques on how to better understand what you're reading, and how to find the main themes and organize them. It gives tips and processes.

How to Read (and Understand) Hard Books: This video breaks down the three types of reading and even gives book recommendations that touch on that.

A beginner's guide to Critical Literary Analysis: This video is made by fellow tumblr user @bluemooniegif (One of us ✊One of us✊). A very good video for beginners. They literally opens the video telling the viewer you don't need any prior knowledge. They also has another video on her channel, which is just the next step up from this one! It's super great, and perfect if you're younger or have less of an understanding on any of this.

Diving into and developing media literacy skills takes effort. It's not a skill you can gain over night, and requires time. But, if you're willing to take that time, a whole new world opens up to you. And you begin to look at everything through a whole new light.

[bisclavret]

hello I'm thinking about that gifset you did. yaoi cocaine. whatever it was. with gwaine and merlin having figured each other out. and gwaine looking betrayed while merlin looks elated is SO IMPORTANT TO ME YOU DON'T EVEN GET IT.

GWAINE USES HAVING MERLIN FIGURED OUT TO BRING HIM JOY. MERLIN USES HAVING GWAINE FIGURED OUT TO HURT HIM.

fuckkkk it just. you can sort of see it with how they distance themselves too and what their relationship looks like in s4 & 5. ESPECIALLY 5 bc at the end of the season merlin uses his knowledge of gwaine (that gwaine cares about him and would risk his life for him without hesitation) to hurt him (not being honest with him about his magic or allowing him to help get it back) LIKE OH MY GOD. THEY HAVE EACH OTHER FIGURED OUT. MERLIN KNOWS IT'LL HURT GWAINE IF HE DOESN'T TELL HIM THINGS BUT HE ALSO KNOWS GWAINE WILL DO ANYTHING FOR HIM AND I JUST. AUGH. I THINK THAT SHOULD BE EXPLORED MORE BC LATER SEASONS MERWAINE TOXIC YAOI IS EVERYTHING TO ME

oh im so glad you picked up on that too! theyre literally ideological foils to each other in that episode: even as they bond over some shared values and trauma (and attraction), the key conflict between them is that gwaine's life experiences have made him a staunch anti-royalist while merlin is prophecy-pilled into believing he lucked out with "the good ones". from the moment merlin learns gwaine's dad was a knight he relentlessly uses this fact to convert gwaine back to catholicism nobility so he can stick around as a knight of camelot, which merlin rationalizes as a kindness because gwaine seems lonely and leads a dangerous life.

but the way gwaine reacts to merlin's attempts at persuasion is conflicted and suspicious because "what's this guy's agenda?" and i don't think that ever fully lets up. even as gwaine concedes that arthur is one of "the good ones" i do believe it's just for merlin's sake because there are no "good ones" in a class war lol he sees how rooted merlin is in his beliefs (not to mention the repressed sexuality) and wants to reassure him that even though he's in no rush to join him, he's not judging him either. and merlin is relieved and happy with this outcome because gwaine kindly didn't call him out on the homosexuality and he stopped trying to threaten his beliefs. that whole episode is the equivalent of being a leftist on a dating app in 2022 wondering how low you'd stoop for a cute british twink that's unironically mourning queen elizabeth. but i digress.

merwaine is toxic yaoi to ME because not only does it start with them butting heads ideologically, merlin's ideology WINS and gwaine abandons everything he stood for to become a knight in the hopes of finding love and community. and then of course by the time s4 and s5 roll in there is so much grief and shame and fanaticism in merlin that he refuses to indulge, refuses to go off-script and allow gwaine to be anything except a tool and a weapon. which is obviously not the vibe gwaine was getting off of merlin in s3, but by his last episode he's surrendered himself to the reality that that's all merlin allows himself to want from him to the point where after merlin rejects him one last time he literally gives him his sword and lets him walk away. grim!

then again, they're both complicit in making each other feel worse! gwaine sounds like he already has some mistrust of magic when we first meet him, and by s5 he's parroting camelot-isms about magic, "you are a sorcerer and a heretic", and killing sorcerers who did nothing. and then merlin quietly marks their grave and keeps repeating to himself that "it'll get better one day" while refusing to listen to anyone who has any criticism whatsoever.

and to circle back to the point of "they figured each other out": THAT'S WHY IT'S SO POTENT. TO ME. merlin knows that gwaine loves him best of all but whenever gwaine tries to act on his love merlin recoils because of catholic fanaticism he's convinced everyone he shares his secrets with will die. the repression is off the charts. and gwaine resents repression but he's forced to abide by it because he's disarmed by merlin's apparent selflessness and bravery (and the fact that merlin gets to live a life of adventure and self righteous fighting while not actually being a noble - that's literally gwaine's dream!) but i simply cannot look at gwaine in honestly ANY of the seasons he's in and go "oh he doesn't mind :) he just wants to be involved!" the man practically died of a broken heart. merlin broke his heart. and gwaine let him, he was also an active participant! i like to overanalyze eoin's acting decisions and try and pinpoint moments where he bites his tongue lest he says something that goes against merlin's (and the show's) ideology that will cost him his place. which is not unlike hiding a secret identity if you think about it

[spiderfreedom]

historical revisionism of second-wave feminism

I'm wondering where this idea that "second-wave feminism" didn't bring up race came from. It seems to be conflating liberal feminism, starting with Betty Friedan's "The Feminist Mystique", for the entire movement. But "second-wave feminism" refers to an entire era of feminist organizing, including lesbian feminism, socialist feminism, radical feminist, and numerous Black feminist works with multiple intersections. Why should Friedan and NOW's 'liberal feminism' be the representative of an entire era of feminist writing? What do we have to gain from pretending that there were no Black feminist writers during the second wave?

The US women's movement has always had ties to anti-racist movements like abolitionism and the civil rights movement, as well as the New Left and socialist/anti-war movements. White feminists tried to include racial analysis in their books - to mixed effect, e.g. Susan Brownmiller's book "Against Our Will" proved to be contentious for its treatment of interracial rape of Black men against white women (example).

It feels like there's been a wave of historical revisionism to make the second-wave seem more limited and single-issue focused than it really was, in order to make "third-wave" feminism seem novel, exciting, and necessary. It's resulted in a whole generation of feminist writers and cultural critics who don't read or quote or engage with the feminist works of the second wave. They are dismissed out of hand as irrelevant or limited. It feels like another way to say "stop paying attention to women's history, just believe me when I say the first and second waves were irrevocably damaged and that the third wave is the only way to go."

I think this article does a good job of capturing one of the reasons why an interracial feminism failed to form, which is that white women assumed Black women also wanted an interracial feminism, when many Black women, especially at the start of the movement, were not interested in solidarity with white women. The fantasy of a racially integrated society was often much more important to white organizers than to Black organizers, who may have instead wanted Black self-determination. I disagree with some of the points of the article (can elaborate if anyone is interested) but I recommend reading it anyway for a retrospective on why white attempts to reach out to Black women failed - white feminists did attempt to reach out, but failed to focus on issues that were relevant to Black women, failed or were offensive in their racial analysis, and failed to understand the importance of racial solidarity for Black women.

Correcting the record on the racism and failures of white feminists in the second-wave is necessary work to building a strong movement. But there's a difference between correcting the record and pretending that white feminists didn't try to talk about race at all. They did! They were participants of anti-racist movements! But they failed to understand their own racism. They failed to understand the complex dynamics between white men, white women, Black men, and Black women. They failed to focus on issues that resonated with Black women. They were failures of bad attempts, not that no attempt was ever made... and that's the part I find weird.

The idea that there was no racial analysis made during the second wave, by white women or Black women, flattens a complex history. Like fun fact - the Combahee River Collective Statement which is the foundation of intersectional feminism and third wave identity politics? Is a second wave text! It was published in 1977, in the late era of second wave activism in the US!

I have more to say later, but for the moment, I'd like to present you with some examples of second-wave feminist texts written by Black women. Read them, and avail yourself of another myth - that there is One Black Feminism. Black Feminists have always had internal disagreements, which frightens white feminists, because white feminists want to know The Correct Answer On Race. I highly recommend reading these (and modern Black feminist texts too!) to understand the situation Black feminists faced in the 60s and 70s. All of these texts were published between 1960 and 1980. They are all essays or excerpts - links provided where possible.

Black Women’s Liberation group of Mt. Vernon, New York - Statement on Birth Control

Mary Ann Weathers - An argument for Black Women’s Liberation as Revolutionary Force (https://caringlabor.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/mary-ann-weathers-an-argument-for-black-womens-liberation-as-a-revolutionary-force/)

Frances M. Beal - Double Jeopardy: to be Black and Female

Doris Wright - Angry Notes from a Black Feminist (https://yu.instructure.com/courses/49421/files/1918241/download?wrap=1)

Margaret Sloan: Black and Blacklesbian

Alice Walker - In Search of Our Mothers’ Gardens

Angela Davis: Joan Little: The Dialectics of Rape (https://overthrowpalacehome.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/ms.-magazine-from-the-archives.pdf)

Michele Wallace: A Black Feminist’s Search for Sisterhood (https://www.amistadresource.org/documents/document_09_03_010_wallace.pdf)

The Combahee River Collective (https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/combahee-river-collective-statement-1977/)

Barbara Smith - Racism and Women’s Studies (https://hamtramckfreeschool.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/smith-barbara-racism-and-womens-studies.pdf)

[james-stark-the-writer]

terrible news, i tried to watch the Friendly Space Ninja Riverdale finale video again and i think i've pinpointed my problem with his videos, specifically the Riverdale ones but also just his general approach to media criticism, it's just the terrible wave of "objective criticism" we had on youtube with shitheads like Mauler but framed as just a more subjective opinion and it tries to pretend like that makes it any better, which it doesn't, like it really doesn't, because the underlying assumption that there is only one way to tell any type of story is just such a terrible thing for art but also he just fundamentally doesn't understand what type of art Riverdale is and there's just such a sheer lack of even attempting to treat it as a serious piece of art because the assumption is already that because popular consensus is that it sucks (the critical consensus has actually been consistently fucking great, you could just go look at the Rotten Tomatoes scores or even check out the legacy section on Riverdale's Wikipedia page), that means it automatically is trash, it never gets the opportunity to fight for itself because it's never given the chance to be thought of as a piece of art. it's an insistence that writing is the only way to analyze an audio-visual medium and like sure, writing doesn't "age" the same way other elements might, but audiences do age and change and evolve, media criticism does too, there's a reason people appreciate the Star Wars prequels more now than they ever did at release because we understand different ways of appreciating art now beyond the base insistence that conventionally "good" writing is the only thing to aim for (the prequels are actually well written but let's not get into THAT rn), that doesn't make the prequels "bad," it just means the prequels are different. i find the whole good/bad paradigm pretty suffocating in the first place but this is just so exhausting and i cannot believe that I've just managed to articulate it bc it seems shockingly obvious in retrospect.

also the video in question is just like factually wrong multiple times, he flat out admits he skips a lot of the season but then complains that the season doesn't make sense when he's jumping in at a random point, he complains that the previous seasons are meaningless but it's like has he forgotten that the audience doesn't forget stuff even if the characters have (and they even get their memories back in a thematically important and resonant moment the defines who the characters want to be so it's not really even entirely sound criticism) and that the show is intentionally trying to do interesting parallels and reversals of the stuff we've seen before, it's like commenting on itself because season 7 is a nostalgic look back at what the comics have been and what the show started from, and about the nostalgic feelings of that time and their appeal contrasted with the brutal truths of the reality of the situation, like this is just basic art criticism, i'm not even like trying to defend the season, like i don't even like season 7 that much, i think it's one of the more boring seasons and it ranks towards the middle for me, but like this is not like deep criticism where you're thinking and analyzing a lot, this is just seeing what the plot of the episodes is and what they're trying to communicate, it's just really irritating how fucking exhausting the objective criticism shit is but it's actually even more grating when you don't pretend to be superior about it because it makes it seem like you're not even bold enough to stand by your opinions and actually embrace the implication present in the shit you are saying, like it's just cowardice, honestly. but anyway, glad i figured it out, because it was honestly irritating me that i couldn't articulate why i didn't like those videos beyond just them being wrong about Riverdale on like a factual level and him just not understanding what it's trying to say as a piece of art.

the point of this isn't to say that i think he's making these arguments in bad faith or anything, i do think these are genuinely opinions he holds, and they are valid opinions for him to hold, i'm not saying they're invalid, you can prefer one aspect of a piece of media over other aspects because it's more important to you, that's okay, i'm just saying they're misinformed takes and generally display a shocking lack of imagination and respect for art and no desire to broaden his horizons.

anyway, if you actually want to understand the appeal of Riverdale, go through the Riverdale tag on my blog for my own analysis (but here's somewhere to get started), or if you want videos, the Super Eyepatchwolf video is pretty good, i still disagree with it a lot but at least the man tries to understand why people like the show and he even gets some part of the appeal, and we are going to get 4 5-hour videos from Lily Simpson over the next few months so i'm looking forward to those, bc Lily generally tends to at least understand the appeal of the stuff she talks about, and the title of the first video ("the captivating madness of Riverdale" [though i don't love the use of "madness"]) is already enough to make me feel like somebody kinda gets it and hopefully it'll be more coherent actual art analysis.

[mx-lamour]

I noticed a new detail in I, Strahd that has me screaming.

So I'm doing a critical writing essay on the way that P. N. Elrod uses the first-person perspective in I, Strahd to enhance the narrative, with Strahd himself as, you know, the unreliable narrator of his own life (which just... mmm! It's so good).

And I'm just going back through the book to look for the page number where he says, "That's what I told myself, anyway."

But, I then found this instead:

You would spill my blood, armsman?

HOLD. THE F**K. ON.

armsman???

So I rifle back through the pages, because that is not what he said. That's not the quote. It's Commander. It's "You would spill my blood, Commander?"

And I find it. And I'm right.

OOGH.

Oh, does it hurt.

Strahd is removing himself from Alek in this moment. He's taking him down already in his mind. Trying to make Alek less important, so that it's less of a blow to himself when he kills him, just a moment later.

Commander is a title, and one of respect. It shows that Alek occupies an important position. And even that, I realize now, was a point of distance, because the two of them often do call each other by their given names. When Strahd was in danger of assassination, Alek yelled "Strahd!" multiple times, which is very personal. When they were out on tour, dealing with the local burgomasters, Alek got perhaps a little too excited and Strahd chided him by just quietly saying his name, "Alek."

When he called Alek "Commander", Strahd was hanging over the edge of a cliff to grab his hand, almost ready to die himself if Alek fell. Alek was in danger of death. In that moment, Strahd chose to focus on the fact that he might lose a leader in his ranks, rather than a close personal friend. It was a little bit of distance, so that he could focus on the task in front of him. To keep his head in that unexpected crisis.

When Strahd calls him "armsman", though... Alek is now faceless. He has been stripped of name. He has been stripped of rank. He has been stripped of all personal attachment. Because that is what Strahd needed to do in order to complete the task ahead of him.

Alek has also just stabbed him in the chest, when Strahd inaccurately recalls that moment, and they are both in shock. Given a chance, Alek would never have done this. "Only a drop or two," he had answered, dangling from the cliff, "if it spares the rest, my lord." (Alek follows his lead in this act of distancing. "Didn't have to, my lord," he murmurs this time.) It can't be Alek, so this is just another soldier. This is just another fight. It's just another war.

So, Strahd thinks of him as "armsman" here, to avoid a truly devastating layer of grief.

Neither of us had a choice. That's what I told myself anyway.

The quote I was looking for is on page 137. One page before all that.