#i was considering making it more realistic but that meant drawing a rope and i was like mmmmm nah. | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

likehandlingroses · 4 years ago

Text

“Realistic” Tom/Thomas Relationship Timeline

The S3/S4 Tom/Thomas affair is a theory that has been making its way around lately, and it is centered around the contrast in the interactions between Thomas and Tom during the Season 3 Christmas Special and their interactions in the Season 4 Christmas Special.

This means that usually the start of the relationship is viewed as coinciding with the immediate aftermath of Matthew’s death, which occurs in the Christmas Special of Season 3 (September 1921). Due to the interactions between Tom and Thomas in the Christmas Special of Season 4, the relationship can almost certainly be considered over by that time (May-ish of 1923). But what happened in between, and how long were they actually together? There’s one view that the affair occurs in between Seasons 3 and 4, which means that at the very longest they lasted just under six months (generally I think this view cuts it even shorter than that)...but this leaves some unanswered questions and some peculiarities, so I took another look at the canon to determine when, in fact, Thomas and Tom broke up.

(Note: I definitely know that Julian Fellowes did not intend for them to be having an affair, but also Julian if I’m right just DM me)

Let’s start with what we know about September 1921 and May 1923—the definite before and after points—for reference:

Christmas Special Season 3—September, 1921

In this Christmas special, we see Tom left behind while the rest of the family goes to Duneagle, and we see Thomas still dealing with the Jimmy situation a year after its apparent resolution. On its face, this episode features Tom being challenged in his new role in the house—and being encouraged to step up and face that role—and Thomas finding a way to resolve things with Jimmy.

Except there’s a whole lot of other stuff going on in the periphery of those stories: Tom knows that Jimmy is bothering Thomas and appears to want to intervene at the fair, but he is stopped by Edna, who at one point uses Thomas’s injuries as an excuse to visit Tom and assure him that Thomas is “feeling much better.” And—of course—there’s the fact that Tom and Thomas hug at the fair (and lest you think this was a RJC/Allen Leech moment not caught by editing, it was in multiple takes! Someone—multiple someones actually—included it on purpose). They are friendly, aware of each other, and to be honest it isn’t impossible to argue that maybe the relationship predates Matthew’s death! I’m going to argue otherwise, however, based on how Tom breaks down when Edna kisses him—I think Edna is the first time he’s even really thought of himself in romantic terms for a long time! But Thomas is right there in the wings, and he just finally made some progress on the emotional problem that’s been plaguing him for over a year!

It’s a big difference from what we see in the next Christmas special, big enough to start the theory of the affair in the first place...

Season 4 Christmas Special—Summer 1923

Once again, Tom is left alone at Downton while the rest of the family goes to London...and the difference in how Thomas responds is striking. He’s furious at having to wait on Tom, for reasons both we and the characters cannot quite understand. The excuses don’t add up—at this point, Tom has been living at Downton for three YEARS, and this has never been a problem before. Now all of a sudden Thomas is slamming trays and clenching his fists and provoking Tom into admitting that he sees himself as Above sitting next to him...what?

Then there’s Sarah Bunting, a Miss Sarah Bunting...whose presence infuriates Thomas while also making him eager to use her as a way to embarrass Tom. And Tom knows it, immediately. He’s embarrassed, he’s uncomfortable, but still he’s quick to pull rank with Thomas when challenged. Something has fundamentally altered the way they interact with and perceive each other while sharing the same space.

All of this speaks to a breakup, and a messy one at that...so with the knowledge we have, WHAT exactly happened between September of 1921 and May of 1923? Let’s look at what Season 4 has to say:

4.1/4.2–February, 1922

“That’s right: it’s Valentine’s Day.”

This is an important piece of the puzzle, because Thomas—Nanny West drama aside—is in a pretty good mood for the Valentine’s Day episode! He engages with Daisy and Jimmy’s Valentine’s card drama with good humor and even some genuine interest...something I do not believe he’d do if he’d only recently been broken up with, and by someone who lived in the house! The big one here, though, is the dialogue Thomas has with Nanny West in which she calls him “Thomas” and he says, “that’s Mr. Barrow to you...”

Now, where did Nanny West hear him referred to as Thomas? The episode makes a point of the fact that nannies do not as a rule spend much time with the downstairs staff—and even if they did, not many of the downstairs crew call Thomas “Thomas” on a regular basis. Nor do the upstairs folks...with one notable exception. Tom, who has to be reminded by Thomas in 4.3 to address him as “Barrow” (more on that later), routinely messes up names and titles.

To me, this suggests that Tom and Thomas are still talking, and it’s pretty clear from Thomas’s attentions to Sybbie in the episode that it would have been easy for Nanny West to overhear it in that context. Now, this doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re still seeing each romantically, but the “Mr. Barrow TO YOU” element implies that the correction was NOT made to whoever Nanny West heard using the name (we presume it’s Tom)...and the distinction is that Nanny West does not *get* to call him that! It definitely seems like whoever she grabbed the name from has been granted permission to do that, and she Has Not. And if it’s Tom...well.

So does that mean that Thomas and Tom were done by 4.3, when Thomas DOES correct Tom on his title? Not exactly...

4.3/4.4–The House Party (pre July 1922)

(tw on this section for discussions involving sexual assault)

The party features Edna’s schemes and assault on Tom in order to extract a promise of marriage from him. It also features a Tom who is incredibly vulnerable and entirely out of his element with the introduction of the Crawley’s friends. This is somewhat of a contrast from the Tom of the first two episodes, who stands up to Robert several times to intervene on Mary’s behalf, and even ropes Carson into the mission. It feels, for a moment, that despite Matthew’s death Tom has taken up the challenge presented to him at the end of Season 3 and begun seeing himself as a valuable, contributing member of the household and family.

But here, Tom speaks of himself as a fool, as walking a tightrope, and of not being understood. He relies on alcohol to get through the event, which Edna takes advantage of—and which gives us a Tom/Thomas interaction that speaks to, in my opinion, a continuing relationship (although perhaps an altering one):

Now, if I had to guess, I would say that Tom might be less *keen* than usual, given his overall demeanor and the new scrutiny placed on him by Edna coming back to the house (not to mention the house party itself). It’s very possible there’s been a lull between the two of them as of late. I do not believe, however, that there is evidence of a clear break between Tom and Thomas as of the house party.

For one, Tom doesn’t just say the wrong thing when addressing Thomas in the drawing room—he says, “Thomas, would you get me a drink for God’s sake?” That is Not how he talks to him in the Christmas Special, where he is stilted and uncomfortable and concerned about how the words will be taken. He isn’t worried about any of that, and while Thomas corrects him, he doesn’t seem all that bothered by it. Tom’s look of irritation at the correction isn’t overdone either.

“It’s Barrow now,” also has flexible meanings. Of course it literally is what Tom is supposed to call him now...but “now” seems like a weird word to use when it’s been what Thomas is meant to be called for several years. It could be a post-breakup smackdown, but we’ve seen what those look like in the Christmas Special, and this doesn’t feel like that! I believe, rather, that Thomas is making reference to the fact that it is incorrect at that moment, something Tom should know and has been discussed!!!

The house party has both of them overworked and tense (this is also the time where Thomas has to fill in for Jimmy because Jimmy hurt his hand...which is SO ridiculous if you think about it for more than two seconds), but Edna’s transgression still draws Thomas’s attention

And that’s important! Thomas had been friends with Edna until this point, largely for convenience it seems—she is a new lady’s maid, and she can feed him information. Thomas even worked with her to mess with Anna, who had earlier made a comment to Edna about his intentions in befriending her. There’s a bond forming there, and while I don’t believe Thomas would genuinely support the literal details of Edna’s plot, I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion that he would be Opposed to Edna taking advantage of what she would frame as an indiscretion on Tom’s part. Not if he disliked Tom or was predisposed to believe Tom was at fault (ie: someone who expects to be “waited on Hand and Foot while he decides what Might Please Him Next”).

But right away, Thomas is suspicious the morning after. We see Thomas spying on Edna as she corners Tom, and he specifically brings it up to her later to catch her out. Already his tone is soured where she’s concerned. He’s sensed she’s up to something and he can probably guess the vague idea if not the particulars...and it turns him against her almost instinctively.

So what’s that about? Could it just be jealousy? The thing is, we know what Thomas would do if he believed that Edna and Tom were simply having an affair—we see what happens in the S4 Christmas Special with Sarah Bunting. This isn’t like that at all.

Thomas immediately blames Edna for what’s happened, calling her a manipulative little witch and declaring that he’s delighted her plans didn’t work. There’s no question of Thomas’s loyalties, even though Edna assumes he’ll want to “keep in with” her. Not for one second does he appear to consider this, and that seems to distinguish this incident from later ones.

4.5/4.6–What Are These Episodes (pre-July 1922)

There isn’t a lot to remember about these episodes for Tom or Thomas, and so what people may not remember is that these are the episodes Tom starts floating the idea of leaving for America—a full season before he tries starting that conversation again, and over two years before he actually DOES temporarily move to Boston. Now, that kind of decision takes time, but it’s kind of...strange that he begins making it here in the spring of 1922 and will not seriously consider it again until well into 1924!

Whether this has anything at all to do with Thomas can’t be determined, but I do enjoy hearing Tom say it will be impossible for him to marry anyone at Downton because an upper class woman won’t have him, and would an “nice Irish working class girl” make everyone “comfy?”...and Thomas is standing Right There! What does it mean...

Thomas is also getting more paranoid, he’s got Baxter in the house feeding him information...and he’s generally giving off a different vibe than he has all season.

Here is where I think the connection is starting to see some serious cracks—Tom is realizing he doesn’t belong and is making moves to change that. Meanwhile, Thomas is making moves to ensure Nothing Ever changes without him knowing about it ahead of time! Tension abounds, though we don’t see any evidence of it being directed at each other just yet...

4.7/4.8–Interesting and Modern (July 1922)

Thomas goes to America and Tom meets Miss Bunting...weird how that just happened like that!

Thomas is excited to go to New York, and it seems...pretty clear he fucked while he was there. I think if you’re gay and you go to New York in the 1920s and you come back and all you can tell your coworkers is that it was “interesting and modern” you definitely were not doing anything you can actually talk about

Now, that doesn’t necessarily mean that he and Tom are Done (they may not have ever been exclusive on paper), but the overall feeling from Tom is a dejected man in limbo...he can’t even say he’s a Socialist anymore. It’s not going well. So my inclination is to say that Tom hit pause (maybe not for the first time), and Thomas is dealing with it by getting some in New York (great!) and bullying his coworkers (bad!) So why do I think they weren’t totally done at that time? Because these episodes happen in the summer of 1922...the Christmas Special for S4 takes place in May of 1923. That’s a long time to have passed! A long time for Tom to keep Miss Bunting at arm’s length, a long time for Thomas to be fuming over something...I believe that in the Christmas Special what we are seeing is the last stand of two people who are grappling with finally cutting a fraying thread.

Another Look At The S4 Christmas Special

These scenes are truly some of the most incomprehensible things Downton Abbey ever presented to us with virtually no explanation. So let’s take another look at what’s happening here.

First of all, we have the scene with Tom and Thomas entering the house after sending Edith off and leaving Tom offically on his own--they don’t appear openly hostile, though there’s some tense looking when the other person isn’t and looking back down again when they are energy...but nothing egregious.

Not until we see Thomas slam down a tray, that is. In fact, this whole thing seems to be coming from Thomas’s anger, while Tom appears eager to just smooth it over by not causing trouble and following the rules set forth by the household norms. This seems in line with Tom’s general dispositon--with both Edna and Miss Bunting he tries to ease out rather than break things off.

But Thomas interprets this as dismissive, and while he says to Ivy it’s about their positions in the house...as discussed above this really doesn’t logically check out. I do think it irritates him that Tom is essentially avoiding Thomas because it’s what “pleases him,” but it runs deeper than “he used to be the chauffeur.” Because that was always the case.

And then Tom brings Miss Bunting back without telling anyone, and he takes her upstairs. And this makes Thomas INSANE, and Tom knows IMMEDIATELY that it will! And Tom is eager to assure “Mr. Barrow” that nothing happened (actually, what he’s really eager to do is have Thomas not stand there while he eats, but Thomas is not budging).

Thomas is furious. He’s said to Ivy that he is SICK of this man, he’s tired of dealing with him...and then he tries to get Tom to sit next to him the car?

Thomas stole a dog one time, and I still think this might be his wildest attempt at controlling a situation we see on the show. What is going on? If Tom HAD let him sit in the back, would Thomas have still gone to Lord Grantham about Miss Bunting? If Thomas hadn’t been such a jerk about Miss Bunting, would Tom have LET him? What is poor Ivy even processing this as? Am I the only one hearing Taylor Swift’s Better Than Revenge playing?

Thomas acts immediately on coming to London, dropping the line of “Mr. Branson is stil a young man, and he can’t be expected to stay single forever”...he’s Angry Angry!! If they were on a break before, I don’t think it had fully set in for Thomas that it might be Permanent until now. And I think Tom’s newly avoidant personality we see in other scenarios gave him the wrong impression in this respect.

In Summary

I think that the relationship was relatively “on” from the period of September 1921 through whenever the house party took place. The house party caused some huge issues, mostly for Tom (understandably)—he may have unfairly blamed himself for what happened and drew wrongful parallels to what’s happening with Thomas. I think that after that it was very “off,” but I believe that neither Thomas nor Tom really committed to ending it either...and when we see them in 1923 they are in the peak stages of finally facing the end of things.

So what caused the final shift? Perhaps Thomas came back from New York with expectations, expectations Tom found himself intimidated by. Perhaps Thomas’s increasing paranoia and Tom’s growing agnosticism towards his own beliefs and identity are related and fed off of each other until they both just did not like the person they were seeing! Maybe it’s just that Downton Abbey is a really bad place for both of them, and even though they started off trying to protect each other from that, they got sucked in and turned on each other!

In any case, by Season 5 the romantic relationship appears over for good, though there is some evidence in later episodes that Tom and Thomas settled down a bit over time (Thomas defending Tom in S5 at Brancaster, and Tom saying he hates goodbyes in reference to Thomas).

We will just have to see what happens when they realize they both are dating someone new, and they work together too :)

#this is way too long to actually be Fun but to be clear I did it for Fun #anything to avoid actually writing #thomas barrow #tom branson

120 notes · View notes

coppolafrancis · 6 years ago

Text

Jewelry That Boogies When You Do

Saoirse Ronan wore Fernando Jorge’s Disco earrings on the red carpet at the Palm Springs International Film Festival gala in January.

A client recently told Solange Azagury-Partridge, the designer of her Fringe ring — a series of diamond-set gold chains that drape across the fingers and move freely — that the ring attracts more attention than anything else she owns.

“It does the flirting for you,” Ms. Azagury-Partridge said. “You can be very buttoned-up, but the ring is dancing away on your hand.”

Movement is an underused and underappreciated quality in jewelry today. In the 18th and 19th centuries, the en tremblant technique, the complex engineering by which diamonds were set on tiny concealed springs to quiver with the wearer’s every move, was widely used, at least in part because gem-cutting techniques at the time could not be relied upon to provide sufficient sparkle under candlelight.

“Everything moved then,” said Marion Fasel, a historian and editor of The Adventurine, a website about jewelry. “It was part of the creation of jewelry at the time.”

The complexity involved in creating a jewel that incorporates movement, whether it be en tremblant or a piece that transforms from a necklace to a brooch to a ring, meant that movement for the most part eventually fell out of favor. Items like the Van Cleef & Arpels transformable zipper necklace or Bulgari’s hinged Serpenti pieces have endured, but over all the fashion has been for a more static, casual look.

Now, however, a number of contemporary jewelers are finding that the mesmerizing effect achieved by motion is worth the considerable effort required.

Fernando Jorge’s Brilliant collection has attracted as much attention for the way it moves as for the way it looks. Mr. Jorge, a Brazilian designer based in London, said that when clients tried on his Disco earrings (the large version of which cost $54,000), they could not stop moving their heads as they looked in the mirror.

The oversize pear-shaped silhouettes of parallel diamond-set gold bars, connected by a flexible central spine of concealed hinges, are precisely balanced so they move easily when the wearer does. “The beauty of their movement draws you to them,” he said.

The seemingly effortless Calder mobile-like effect was, in fact, achieved after many hours of experimentation in the workshop. Mr. Jorge set out to explore all the qualities that affect a diamond’s appearance, like the refractive qualities of the cut, the setting style and, of course, the movement. But he said he hadn’t realized until the piece was completed how striking the result would be. “Any movement in jewelry is complicated to achieve, but it creates an immediate emotional reaction,” he said.

The earrings are named for a disco ball, which, he said, “without movement or light, does nothing.”

They have since become the best-selling pieces in the collection and have been worn on the red carpet by the Oscar-nominated actress Saoirse Ronan and Tracee Ellis Ross, star of the TV series “Black-ish.” Doubtless seeing the earrings sashay down the red carpet with their wearer highlights another reason for renewed appreciation of movement in jewelry, as does the dominance of video in social media.

The popularity of Instagram, for example, has provided a kind of animated store window for many jewelers. “It demands a Boomerang,” Ms. Fasel said of Mr. Jorge’s collection, referring to the Instagram-owned app that loops short videos.

Delfina Delettrez has made a short video for her latest collection, called ZIP code, to illustrate how movement is an integral part of its concept. She has long been intrigued by the idea of motion in jewelry, she said, and uses it to playful effect. In one drop earring, for example, a silicon-lined pearl mimics a zipper; the wearer can easily slide it up and down the two parallel gold wires that hold the piece securely in the ear.

“Throughout my work I like to play with the idea of contrasts,” she said. “I’m always incorporating a sense of fun into the designs to create an element of surprise in each piece.”

Jessica McCormack has lightened the seriousness of important diamonds in her new Cable Car collection, resulting from a client’s commissioning a convertible sautoir with 15 two-carat diamonds. The jeweler’s head craftsman created a spring mechanism inside each collet setting, so the diamonds can slide along the gold rope chain. The piece can be worn as a choker, bolo necklace or wraparound bracelet. “My focus was on creating something that works whether you’re doing the school run, attending a board meeting or dancing on tables,” Ms. McCormack said.

Playfulness also has a role in Ms. Azagury-Partridge’s kinetic pieces. Her Spinner and Cog rings, bejeweled wheels that turn, appealing to the human habit of playing with one’s jewelry. “They’re like worry beads,” she said.

Her Lucky Number ring took months to perfect in the workshop, so the wearer could turn its digital clock-style diamond-baguette bars to create the wearer’s chosen number.

Not only did it need to work mechanically, it had to look and feel good on the hand, too. “Jewelry may be artistry, but you have to consider the human body,” Ms. Azagury-Partridge said, adding that comfort is paramount in any jewel.

Mr. Jorge echoed the idea, saying jewelry has an intimate and sensual relationship with the body. Of the flexible snake chain in his Fluid collection, he said, “I wanted the pieces to move with you and caress you.”

Anything that does not move freely, Ms. Azagury-Partridge said, is like a cartoon in which one part of the body arrives seconds after the rest. A piece that fails this test is destined for a lifetime in the jewelry box, she added.

“For something to be comfortable, there has to be a little give,” Ms. Fasel said. She recalled holding the snake necklace that Cartier created in 1968 for María Félix, the Mexican actress. It took a year to perfect the armature that created the serpent’s lifelike movement.

The life that such motion can bring to a piece has kept movement in fashion in animal jewelry. At a Christie’s auction scheduled for Wednesday in Geneva, two hand-size starfish brooches by René Boivin carry top sales estimates of 100,000 Swiss francs and 120,000 Swiss francs ($100,400 and $120,500).

The lifelike undulations created by the complex network of hinges beneath their bejeweled surfaces are intrinsic to their charm, said Jean-Marc Lunel, a senior international specialist in Christie’s jewelry department, adding, “Realistic animal jewelry creations that move are the most desirable as it makes them come to life.”

Creatures also abound in Ms. Azagury-Partridge’s Metamorphosis collection from 2013. Created as objets d’art, the bespoke pieces can be disassembled to be worn as multiple pieces of jewelry.

In the Ark of the Covenant, for example, the miniature gold box decorated with multicolored cabochon stones opens to become an outsize cross pendant. “It’s like a toy for a woman,” she said. “It gives you so much pleasure.”

The charm of transformability is apparent in the new Marina B collection, which stays true to the creativity of Marina Bulgari, its founder and a granddaughter of Sotirio Bulgari, founder of the family jewelry brand.

It included a tasseled pendant of ruby and amethyst that can be worn four ways — with or without the swish of its matching tassel.

“A transformable jewel is a lot of extra work,” Ms. Fasel said, “but at the end of the day, it gives the owner more options in ways to wear it. That’s the sign of a great piece of jewelry.”

If you are in search of half carat diamond earrings then please contact us and send your queries.

0 notes

freshmandarin · 7 years ago

Text

K-Drama Review: Rebel: Thief Who Stole the People

Hey everyone! I finished up Rebel: Thief Who Stole the People and am finally reviewing it on my blog- give it a read! I break it down into categories: story/plot, romance, characters, cast/acting, impact, substance, music/OST, and overall impression. This review below has spoilers, but you may read my non-spoiler review here!

[SPOILERS BELOW CUT]

Story/Plot:

The overarching plot was a refreshing presentation of the Joseon era. Rather than focusing on the King and his court, we see life through the eyes of servants; not merely just commoners, but the lowest caste of servants. Of course, later in the drama the King and political struggle are eventually roped in, but the major heroes and focus of this drama are the common people of Joseon rather than the crown prince’s romances *ahem, every Joseon mini-drama ever*.

To put it in simplest terms, the plot isn’t astounding, and I like it that way. Incredibly complex twists (like in Nirvana in Fire per se) would muddy this drama’s brilliance. The straightforward rise in ranks of a commoner and overthrow of a tyrant king isn’t necessarily groundbreaking, but it’s the perfect framework to add complexity through detailed writing and characterization. The way that Ah Mo Gae and the Hong people rise to prominence is interesting, and the comeback of a hero (Gil Dong) after tragedy (Prince Choong Won’s destruction of their town and separation of the siblings) is a classic trope that never seems to get old. The story is nothing new as rebellion results from an overbearing and cruel king, but it’s certainly written carefully and coherently enough to not become trite.

Verdict? The story definitely works.

Romance:

Another plot point I loved was the portrayal of love. The romance was more realistic and practical than most in other dramas. The “love triangle” was so well done that I can’t even call it a love triangle; it was natural and made sense. To elaborate, the first instance of attraction is seen between Gil Dong and Gong Hwa. Gil Dong is taken by her beauty, and loves her regardless of her flaws. The key here is the freedom in their initial relationship, Gong Hwa doesn’t hold back in honesty about her motivations and her past, and Gil Dong isn’t judgmental nor possessive of her. Gong Hwa leaves the parlor despite Gil Dong’s promise to return, but that was her own choice and sacrifice; in the end Gil Dong despairs, but doesn’t blame her, and Gong Hwa chooses to live without regret.

The next phase of romance is between Gil Dong and Ga Ryung. The pure fluff and joy of this pair aside, what I love about this relationship is that their romantic love was preceded by platonic love: caring for each other, recognizing what’s important to each other, and supporting each other. Ga Ryung falls for him first, but it’s not in an unhealthy and obsessive way; she resolves to help him even before he end up loving her back. Rather than desiring to be in love with him, she starts off just loving him for who he is. Once they actually get together, their support for each other is hoenstly just beautiful. Great chemistry, great scenes, and great interactions. Ga Ryung’s devotion to Gil Dong becomes a devotion to his cause, and by the end she would rather sacrifice her life rather than the integrity of Hong Chum Ji’s cause. The only part that could be considered over the top was her plot to avenge her husband, but hey- what kind of sageuk doesn’t have a revenge plot? Honor is on the line here ladies and gentleman!

The additional complexity introduced is between Gil Dong and Gong Hwa after becoming Nok Soo. It’s clear that they still love each other, but they no longer wish to be together. In Gil Dong’s case, he’s moved on after she left him. In Nok Soo’s case, she has decided to let go of the past and stick with her choices. Nok Soo still does everything she can to save Gil Dong, and Gil Dong still wishes to save her from the palace. Love manifests itself in different ways; although marriage and romantic pursuit is most common, things like sacrifice, letting go, respect, and protection from afar still count, and I’d like to see more portrayals of this kind of love rather than pure romance. Now, some viewers may be wondering: “I’m not sure how I feel about Gil Dong still loving Nok Soo after marrying Ga Ryung.” Well, personally, I differentiate polyamory with unfaithfulness. I think Gil Dong’s character is strengthened by his love for others in tandem for his commitment to Ga Ryung. Conflict of emotion is a part of being human; just because Nok Soo abandoned him doesn’t mean he’s vengeful and hateful. Just as Gil Dong is patient and caring of the people of Joseon, he’s patient and caring towards Nok Soo, but that doesn’t make him unfaithful to Ga Ryung. Therefore, I can’t even call this a love triangle because it’s not. I view it as Gil Dong being a decent and caring person without any other agendas.

A special note on romance is the hinted one of Mo Ri’s attraction to Ga Ryung. It seems a little bit thrown in there, but I appreciate Mo Ri’s desire for Ga Ryung to be alive and happy rather than a desire to be her lover.

Verdict? You’ve got fluff, you’ve got a bit of angst, but mostly, you have reality- and this one’s a happy ending (for the main couple at least).

Characters:

As a whole, Rebel really brings it with its amazing characters. As I said earlier in my story/plot section, the plot itself isn’t what is astounding. Swap out any of these characters and the whole immediately becomes weaker. We have Ah Mo Gae, who is strong and intuitive despite being a servant. He fights for his community in a way that is admirable and respectable. We have Gong Hwa/Nok Soo who is resolute in her actions. She makes mistakes and falls into despair, but I admire how she accepts her actions and takes full ownership of her life. The consistency of her character is something more dramas should take note of. Her character is able to remain true to herself without stagnating in development, to grow without losing her sense of self. Lastly, the people of Ilkhwari are simply amazing and lovable characters. They’re not only badass, but a heartwarming family, especially the scenes when they dote on Uh Ri Ni.

Verdict? Characters are well-written so viewers have a solid grasp on who they are and what they want.

Cast/Acting:

In general, I thought the entire cast was phenomenal. Kim Sang Joon’s amazing performance as Ah Mo Gae and Yoon Kyun Sang’s performance as Hong Gil Dong are just wonderful and unnecessary of explanation; from their first appearances you’ll love them. In this section I’m actually going to highlight 2 of my favorites: Honey Lee and Chae Soo Bin.

We’ll start with my absolute favorite: Honey Lee’s portrayal of Nok Soo. First off, a nod to Honey Lee for her ability to convey deep emotion through a song, a facial expression, and even the mere nuance of what I call “acting within acting.” When Nok Soo is in the palace, she has ulterior motives and lies to the King frequently. Honey Lee is able to maintain a semblance of the Gong Hwa the viewers once knew from the kisaeng parlor, while balancing out the obsequious persona she takes on to appease the king. For me personally, a huge measure of acting quality is the the actor/actress’ ability to ascertain who exactly is the character they are assuming and the ability to maintain it. Therefore, when an actress must act as a character who herself is acting/pretending within the show, the actress’ ability to identify with her character is tested, and Honey Lee’s accomplishment of that was perfect. Honey Lee was a captivating as Gong Hwa in the first half of the drama, but absolutely stunning as the multi-faceted Nok Su of the palace. Beyond acting ability, what surpassed my expectations was her commitment to the role. From her singing to her dancing, Honey Lee pretty much convinced me that she was born for this role. From what I read on Soompi, she apparently rehearsed for three months with traditional dancers in preparation for a drum dance scene. That is commitment to a role.

Next is Chae Soo Bin as Ga Ryung. Now, I have absolutely loved her ever since Sassy Go Go and Love in the Moonlight, and this may be slightly biased since I have prayed to the gods ever since for her to finally snag a leading role. Although I am a big fan of hers, I admittedly kept my expectations low since I’ve only seen her as a second female lead in shows directed towards younger audiences. However, she completely blew me away, especially in the last few episodes.

What I appreciate about Chae Soo Bin is that she’s already got the “cute” vibe nailed as someone who’s a younger actress, a solid articulation of melodramatic expression as someone who’s played an antagonist, and the classic spunky heroine attitude that I knew was residing within her. Ga Ryung is character who is meant to be lovable like a younger sister, but absolutely lethal when it comes to fighting for Gil Dong. I’m convinced that only Chae Soo Bin is the only younger actress that could fit this role both before and after time skips. While most actresses of this generation can certainly pull off Ga Ryung’s cute side, Chae Soo Bin draws upon years of antagonist experience to capture post-time skip Ga Ryung’s more mature demeanor and emotional outbursts. Although I preferred Honey Lee’s performance over hersoverall, she certainly suited the role and is taking a step in the right direction. I’m excited to watch her grow and improve and see what she has in store for her next drama!

Verdict? Even though the male characters drive most the story, the female actresses absolutely shine through their respective characters.

“Oomph” factor:

In every drama, there’s a certain highlight. Something about the drama that makes to squeal out loud, smile fondly, spam the “Next Episode” button, or possibly all of the above. I call this the “oomph” factor. While a drama can be amazing overall, certain aspects really pack a punch. For Rebel, the “oomph” factor is found in the song “If Spring Comes.” There are two versions: one by 62-year old Jeon In Kwon with a folksy sound, and one by spunky pop-traditional fusion singer-songwriter Ahn Ye Eun (who actually wrote the song) with a more upbeat vibe. Whether if it’s setting an action scene or playing during the ending credits, it never fails to get me to raise my hands and scream out loud “MANSAE!” during the chorus. As a huge fan of traditional and older music, I live for this kind of modern take on an old genre of music.

youtube

Substance:

This drama is probably the epitome of why I love period dramas. A setting that is removed from the current era, yet still set in a time that once existed, provides a great framework for both excitement and relatability. The relatability comes from the fact that history often repeats itself, allowing modern messages to work in these settings. The excitement comes from the romanticization of the past often seen in sageuks through sword fighting, class struggles, palace intrigue.

First off, this drama conveys political statements that are clearly very applicable to modern day. Officials that may not necessarily want to harm society ultimately do so while pandering to a tyrannical king in effort to secure their own livelihood. Those who are governed only have power over their ruler when they come together. What is right and what is lawful do not necessarily align; law is dictated by those who have power, while morality is decided by the individual.

This drama nails two ideas: justice and morality. Justice is clearly portrayed throughout all of Gil Dong’s fight with the king. Not much elaboration is necessary when talking about a rebel leader fighting to save innocent lives from a violent king. So next is morality. Morality can often be confused with lawfulness. Law in Joseon is meant to maintain order: punish sin, stay in your lane, and don’t cause trouble. Most people can see the merits in order; however, Hong Chum Ji is breaking order left and right, yet he’s a hero nevertheless. Rebel is able to unambiguously draw a line between law and morals. I also really appreciated how Hong Chum Ji evolved from being a vigilante to an idea. Hong Chum Ji isn’t a single person. Hong Chum Ji is a cause, a fight, and a beacon.

Now for the criticism of substance. Here’s where the villains disappoint. Even though the overall drama wasn’t hindered too much by these lackluster villains, better ones could have taken this drama to the next level. I personally enjoyed unequivocally rooting for Gil Dong and his gang; however a next-level drama would have made the villains more convincing. Yes, I understand the Jo family’s motivation of vengeance and their value of class order. However, they seemed more malicious than complex. Yes, I understand Teacher Song following the teachings of Mencius. However, the disappointing part was when I realized that Teacher Song, while following Mencius, was primarily interested in blatantly grabbing power. They touched upon how he was mocked before, but I wasn’t wholly convinced of his side of the story. As for the King, Kim Ji Suk did a phenomenal job portraying his descent into madness, but the way the character was written didn’t do it for me. I’m not quite sure what exactly was behind his method of cruelty and violence. The villains were mostly one-dimensional (especially the prince), but the drama was still amazing in spite of this.

Music/OST:

10/10. Just listen to it. If Spring Comes is legendary. Ahn Ye Eun is legendary. It’s all so good that you’re practically transported into the drama as soon as you hit play.

Overall Impression: 10/10 stars!

Great drama, probably the best sageuk of the past year. It’s certainly more substantial and well-written than a lot of what’s out there right now. It’s fun, exciting, heart-wrenching, and humorous all throughout, and I enjoyed every minute of it.

#rebel: thief who stole the people #rebel hong gil dong #kdrama #review #kdrama review #mp #drama review #drama

7 notes · View notes

arthurtristankingsmen · 8 years ago

Text

@phantoms-lair replied:

Go for it. Headcannons are always fun to play with and everyone can have their own interpretation. You’re not anniying anyone, you’re drawing us in

(Oookay as long as you’re sure-!

This will be in relating to this post here:

Well, I really like the idea. Like, it makes perfect sense given those rope things (stanchions! the more you know!), and the way things are developed in the cave. I always kinda thought the skulls were symbolic of the three: one on the top, two on the bottom; one next to a spike, and another turned away so it ‘doesn’t see’.

And then one at the top still, and the one that can’t see, still there, but the third is gone.

The whole idea could explain why the others were relatively curious but at ease.

I think my biggest issue with the idea that might need altering is based on their reactions. Like...showing it in that way makes it seem as if Arthur really is a scaredy-cat, if they went into the situation knowing it was meant to look haunted, which kinda sucks because i liked how i did him that he’s a realist but not cowardly. And if he’s going into a place that’s like a tourist trap....nine times out of ten those are cheesy or only slightly creepy, so his level of freaking out just seems over the top for someone who isn’t scared of their own shadow.

Like how he reacts in the bifurcation above, and earlier when he’s clinging to Lewis’s shoulders and even when it does the big pan-out where you can see him nervous near Lewis and the cliff.

My other issue is that if they are just checking out an old tourist place, then I don’t like how the others are treating Arthur. Because if this his normal reaction to something that is a little creepy, then you have friends who dragged him along to these creepy places even though it’s obvious that he doesn’t like them and they scare him, and it’s kind of like taking a kid through a haunted house where you know it’ll upset them but you want to have fun so they have to go, or they don’t care that it’s obvious he doesn’t want to but he goes in for them which is kinda sucky.

And if it’s not his regular reaction (which i hope it isn’t), then he is obviously reacting to something about the place (which i dig for my medium!arthur headcanon), but then....they don’t seem to care nor mind. Only Mystery seems to pick up something is wrong.

And considering both, it feels sad to me not to see Vivi and Lewis being better friends.

Of course, it’s not that hard a fix. But to make it work, I think I’d go for something like....the place got shut down under mysterious circumstances and the rumor was it’s haunted, so the gang did go in looking for a ghost. Maybe they’d run into spirits before, so Arthur picking up on something and getting nervous wasn’t out of the blue, but they’d never run into anything malevolent so they never could have expected what happened. Arthur might’ve been a little more freaked out than normal because he can kinda feel that bad juju or whatever, but they’re young adults and Lewis and Vivi are probably pretty overconfident in the ‘bad stuff never happens to me’ kind of way. Which i like, because them being sure something wouldn’t happen because they were there and could help Arthur if he needed it, but they’re there to help the spirit too, feels like they’re better friends. Mystery is pretty old and probably more sensitive to the paranormal given his lineage, so he might’ve felt the same thing Arthur did to a greater degree and knew they were dealing with something malevolent.

If they’re amateurs they probably don’t have lots of protections, and I like it for Vivi angst in that she knows she was too overconfident and that got arthur hurt at least. so she’s more careful and studies more and prepares extra for anything after, because she doesn’t want a repeat. And if it was just a rumor that it was haunted, it could’ve slipped Lewis’s mind after when he’s in angry-mode. And it would fit in with Arthur being nervous without confirming him as a fraidy-cat, and without making it seem like the others cared more about exploring some abandoned place than they did how he felt.

But honestly i’m leaning into that headcanon, with the minor adjustments. like the sign outside probably really was a warning. But the gang had only heard rumors and while Arthur took that actual warning at face value, Lewis and Vivi just assumed it was part of the attraction. And the one outside would make sense. Because it was a paper nailed over a wooden sign, so maybe it was the original sign advertising it, and then the paper covers it with the skull to signify actual danger, but the gang except for Arthur took it as part of the attraction. Because once they went inside, there was no warnings. just the signs with question marks and the skulls that might not have been real as decor.

And THEN I like it doubly for this reason!! in the part of freaking out when Shiromori goes to the cave, you see a door, on the right side. It could have easily been an employee only place given the sign. if it was an attraction I’m sure they had a place for them.

#phantoms-lair #mystery skulls #mystery skulls animated #reply post #ooc #Tagging you because there was a big delay thanks to me grocery shopping and then eating #soooo basically i' think i have it as a headcanon now but with an addendum #honestly i love the idea. just had that one alteration to them knowing so arthur isn't a coward #or his friends don't mind that something is obviously up #phantomslair #headcanon

24 notes · View notes

mychristopherstokes66world · 5 years ago

Link

The government has become the enemy of the people. No one can deny that they are colluding with social media to censor everyone on the internet. Both parties are calling for unconstitutional gun control measures from bump stocks to silencers to Red Flag Laws. How long are we going to pretend that our government serves the people? Or that the people really have any say? I for one will not abide tyrants and have every intention in engaging in open rebellion against Jews, pedos and traitors. They are clamping down hard on free speech, gun rights, going after "hate crimes" and pushing the idea that whites are domestic terrorists. Day of the Rope draws nigh. http://bit.ly/2JWUqOh You can call for violence and revolution as much as you want with ZERO legal culpability in the US. http://bit.ly/1B8OCb1 What this means: Unless your speech directly inspires some one to commit a violent crime in your immediate vicinity immediately after expressing your speech AND this was your intent, you are 100% protected. Here, let's try it out: You can even directly threaten some one online: Don't be afraid of being put on a 'list'. We are all on the list already. See: mass surveillance. They are just trying to intimidate you. Look at the legal precedents and firmly exercise your rights. Who are our symbols or important figures? I've made a small list but we should add more. We need to develop a year-round schedule of events and people to remind the public of what we are fighting for. Ted Kaczynski Brenton Tarrant Seth Rich Aaron Swartz Reddit founder Marvin Heemeyer The Killdozer Julian Assange Gary Webb We must win the infowar before we can fight the race war. A fuckton of people have woken up the the Jewish agenda but we still need more to reach that oh-so-essential critical mass. We also need to start getting organized IRL in "friend groups" that meet and train and discuss tactics. Don't openly call yourselves militias or white nationalists but work towards those ends regardless. Symbols: Tricorn hat Revolutionary Figures New Figures: Ted Kaczynski Brenton Tarrant Seth Rich Aaron Swartz Reddit founder Marvin Heemeyer The Killdozer Juliana Assange Gary Webb Terry A. Davis Symbolic events Waco Ruby Ridge POSSIBLE ALLIES: Amish Japanese Hindu Indians Mormons Ethnic Europeans THE ENEMY: Jews Pedos Traitors Muslims Jews Chinese Socialists Should Terry A Davis be considered? I believe he holds a special place in this Pantheon. He is the most Chaotic of the bunch.

the revolution you speak of is already underway - there is no putting it back into the box - there are tens of millions of people that have “nothing left to lose” they’re fukin pissed and ready to kill - they’re not rednecks but 18 - 35 yr old’s who have lost hope - they work at wal mart and ready lubes and starbucks who spend 1/2 their income to degenerate hypocrite boomer landlords who will feel the full wrath of their anger - sonif yer legit pray for a carrington event - it will make it much easier with the comm system down...

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the House? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free2 if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending2if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? hall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitableand let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come. It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! The truth and violence, but it MUST be in that order. Most importantly though, whites need to start viewing each other as blood-brothers and allies. (((Individualism))) has poisoned out society and eroded community bonds. This damage must be healed but I'm not exactly sure how other than pointing at a common enemy. We need to start organizing into small, unofficial militia groups with similar agendas. Jews are so powerful today because they ENJOY working together to cause mayhem and to further their own wealth and power. Jews almost never betray each other and seem to have evolved to mob together to get what they want collectively. It's literally instinct for them. We must emulate this to an extent but with waging an actual war rather than the soft-power games that kikes excel at. Also, JOIN THE MILITARY. We need lot's of allies embedded within the armed forces, because without their help we will never win.

I think you doth glow too much. But just in case you don't, you need to be realistic. The few hundred people here and the 'tards with their own militias are way too small to accomplish anything before getting mowed down by the national guard. You can't do it like this. You have to start with a militia, start in small towns where people see this kiked bullshit and grow yourself a movement. How did the revolution succeed? With wide support, like over 60%. You have like 0.6% and want to take down a heavily funded and well oiled machine. You can't. Build an "SJW" like movement and then we can talk.

We are going to take this seriously and go step by step. Create a list of grievances, a list of enemies, and discuss ways to move forward in ending Tyranny in the United States. We need a calendar of events to draw peoples attention and give us reason to make noise constantly. Ebba Aukerlund Waco Ruby Ridge Seth Rich Otoya Yamaguchi

We need the minds before the power goes out. That's why we need to start propaganda now. Detail who the problem is, what crimes they have committed, start a public discussion and demand change. We need another name for this besides Open Insurrection... so we can talk about it on other forums Organize and train in your local community. But don't just prepare for the day of the rope. If you bunker up with MRE's and guns you will be called a cult and the swat team will descend upon you. The proper course of action is to nominally engage with society as it is, while changing the communities you occupy. This doesn't mean riots or protests, it means starting projects to improve neighborhoods, and following through on them. The ONLY way to avoid being false flagged is to present yourselves consistently as above reproach. But the only way to cause bigger reverbrations is to be seen as better men. This means you and your lads must relentlessly pursue intellectual and physical supremacy. To be /fit/ and /lit/, one and all. By happy coincidence, lifting together and deb8ing each other will foster comeraderie, trust, and solidarity. THE WAY TO TAKE BACK OUR LAND IS INCH BY FUCKING INCH. This is my whitepill, and I hope it's yours as well, anons\\ word from the editor the only way to do this is to red pill as many as we can.. once people know what is going on no one will stand for it and they will all stand up... we have the right to take our country back remember that we can do this with out fighting or anyone getting hurt.. why destroy all we built https://thedevilman666.blogspot.com/https://www.facebook.com/groups/qanonreports https://twitter.com/CIACLOWN1 https://www.bitchute.com/channel/ciaclown16661/

#CIA CLOWN #RED PILL #REDPILL #ANON #HONKHONK

0 notes

crossbow360 · 8 years ago

Text

Youth Crossbows

Youth crossbows are an excellent and efficient way to introduce children to the fun and exciting world of archery or hunting. Regular, adult-sized crossbows are too heavy and require an exceptional amount of weight to be able to cock the weapon. A youth crossbow is often lightweight and smaller in size, making them easier to hold all around. Youth crossbows are also great for teaching children how to cock their own bow as they have lower draw rates and often come with a cocking aid that cuts down the draw weight by 50 percent. I have decided to review a few different youth crossbows to figure out which ones are going to work better for the kids in my family, and you can read my reviews below to see which crossbows are best suited for your little ones as well!

Factors to Consider before Buying a Youth Crossbow

– Safety.

With children, teaching them how to use any kind of weapon safely is the first thing you should be doing. Try to find a crossbow that has safety features like rounded bolt tips. This will prevent them from accidentally scratching themselves when shooting or even when holding the crossbow at their side.

– Overall size.

Because children are obviously smaller in stature, you want to consider getting a crossbow that does not weigh a lot, nor should it be too long or too wide. This will help children learn how to maneuver a crossbow without tiring out their arms.

– Draw weight.

Consider the draw weight of the youth crossbow that you are interested in. Having a low draw weight will allow kids to learn how to cock their own bows which is a great skill to have and will build up their ability to use heavier bows in the future.

– Cocking aid.

Help teach your children how to cock the bow all by themselves without the need for parental assistance. A cocking aid such as a rope cocker will reduce the draw weight of the string, allowing kids to take the act into their own hands.

Tips on How to Choose the Best Youth Crossbow for their Needs

– Consider getting a crossbow that comes with a few features such as a scope to help them get a feel of what an adult sized crossbow is going to feel like. This will encourage a lot of practice as they will want to move up as soon as possible. – Consider a youth crossbow that features pass through fore grips. This will allow children to gain a proper understanding on how they need to be holding the crossbow in order to make the most accurate shots possible and will help them know how to hold an adult sized crossbow once they graduate up to one. – Read online reviews for youth crossbows such as the ones that I have written below. By doing this, you can gain an in-depth understanding of each crossbow to see if it will be suitable for use by your child.

Daisy Youth Crossbow

Top Features of the Daisy Youth Crossbow

Perfect for Training Kids

The weight of the Daisy Youth Crossbow is not only light and easy to handle, the draw weight is very low. It weighs only 29 pounds which makes teaching them to cock their own crossbows a breeze, helping them feel more comfortable with the process and getting them ready to take on a bigger bow in the future without parental assistance.

A Comfortable Weight

I mentioned the weight of the Daisy Youth Crossbow a moment ago, so let me touch on that. It only weighs 4.4 pounds, which is easy for children to maneuver around and get comfortable with in order to make the perfect shot. With this weight combined with the draw weight, firing the Daisy Youth Crossbow is easy, making me think it might be the best youth crossbow in terms of ease of use.

Safety First

Teaching children to use any weapon can be nerve wracking, so take comfort in the fact that the Daisy Youth Crossbow has considered safety in the production of this bow. The Daisy Youth Crossbow comes with bolts with rounded tips that don’t affect the speed or the ability to puncture a small target. They won’t pierce their own skin while getting the hang of the bow, either.

Pros of the Daisy Youth Crossbow:

– 2 aluminum bolts included measuring 16 inches in length – Draw weight of 29 pounds – Easy to pull string – Lightweight – Rear sight adjustable for elevation and windage – Rounded bolt tips for safety

Downsides of the Daisy Youth Crossbow:

– Exterior.

The Daisy Youth Crossbow comes as a black and red bow and not a camo one, but this is mainly for at home practice, anyway, so it isn’t a big deal!

Barnett Recruit Youth 100 Crossbow Package

Top Features of the Barnett Recruit Youth 100 Crossbow Package

Adjustable for Little Bodies

The Barnett Recruit Youth 100 Crossbow Package features an adjustable butt stock pad that allows your kids to get the crossbow down to a comfortable size in order to rest it against their body the proper way. A few of my kids use this same bow when practicing and it can fit each of their different statures.

Helpful Finger Reminders

The key to accuracy lies in holding the bow the correct way. Help remind your little ones where to place their fingers on the Barnett Recruit Youth 100 Crossbow Package with the help of the fore-grips. These fore-grips are pass through and remind the children where they need to be placing pressure.

Easy Draw Weight

It goes without saying that children are going to need a lesser draw weight in order to learn how to cock their crossbows. The Barnett Recruit Youth 100 Crossbow Package comes in at only 100 pounds, perfect for a realistic understanding of how heavy and tough it can be to draw a full sized crossbow.

Short and Compact

Finally, because children are smaller, they are naturally going to need a smaller bow. The Barnett Recruit Youth 100 Crossbow Package measures only 17 inches from the tip of each limb, making it the best youth crossbow in terms of size.

Pros of the Barnett Recruit Youth 100 Crossbow Package:

– 17 inches in width – Adjustable butt stock pad – Fore-grips for accuracy – Light 100 pound draw weight

Downsides of the Barnett Recruit Youth 100 Crossbow Package:

– Price.

The Barnett Recruit Youth 100 Crossbow Package is the most expensive youth crossbow of the roundup, but it is really designed to help kids learn in a real-world way, better preparing them for an adult sized bow. To me, this makes it worth every dollar.

SA Sports Fever Crossbow Package 543

Top Features of the SA Sports Fever Crossbow Package 543

Perfectly Sized

The SA Sports Fever Crossbow Package 543 is comfortable and easy for children to carry around and hold at the proper angle and height. Weighing 4.85 pounds, children are able to pick it up with ease. It measures 31 inches in length without the foot stirrup and 27 inches from limb to limb, making this a wonderful youth crossbow for kids slowly working up to adult sized ones.

Comfortable and Efficient

The SA Sports Fever Crossbow Package 543 not only has great measurements, it is comfortable to wear while moving from target to target as not to tire out the children’s arms. It comes with a padded shoulder strap along with a quick-release quiver that makes it easy for children to quickly get the hang of releasing their bows when it counts the most.

Cocking Device

Helping children get a hang of cocking can be hard with heavier bows, but the SA Sports Fever Crossbow Package 543 features a cocking device that reduces the weight of the 175 draw weight by half. This allows them to learn how to cock it without parental assistance.

Pros of the SA Sports Fever Crossbow Package 543:

– Camo pattern – High-compression fiberglass limb – Includes cocking device that reduces draw weight – Shoulder strap – Weighs less than 5 pounds

Downsides of the SA Sports Fever Crossbow Package 543:

– Assembly.

A few reviews online said that it took a bit of time to set up. I did not experience this issue. Personally, I found that following the instruction manual closely and looking at a few videos online had my kids ready to shoot the SA Sports Fever Crossbow Package 543 in no time at all.

Barnett Youth 30 Compound Crossbow

Top Features of the Barnett Youth 30 Compound Crossbow

Accessories Galore

The Barnett Youth 30 Compound Crossbow gets kids familiar with some of the accessories that come with a standard crossbow. It features a premium red dot scope to improve their accuracy, a 3-bolt quiver, and a rope cocking device that reduces the draw weight of the Barnett Youth 30 Compound Crossbow, making it easy for them to learn how to cock it on their own.

Fast and Easy to Use

The cocking device lowers the 30-pound draw weight to a mere 15 pounds, allowing children to effortlessly cock the Barnett Youth 30 Compound Crossbow. Once cocked, it shoots at an impressive 140 feet per second considering its size, so children can begin practicing becoming more accurate right away.

Adjustable for All Sizes

Finally, the Barnett Youth 30 Compound Crossbow comes with a butt stock pad that can be adjusted to fit several different shapes and sizes of young kids to ensure the most accurate shot possible.

Helpful Fore-Grips

The Barnett Youth 30 Compound Crossbow even comes with fore-grips that naturally teach your children where they need to be holding onto the crossbow in order to make the most accurate shots possible. These finger reminders will help train them to hold a bow properly for when they graduate to a larger one.

Pros of the Barnett Youth 30 Compound Crossbow:

– 30 pound draw weight – Adjustable butt pad – Fore-grip finger reminders – Included cocking aid – Red dot scope

Downsides of the Barnett Youth 30 Compound Crossbow:

– No camo print.

The Barnett Youth 30 Compound Crossbow is black and yellow instead of camouflage, but considering that these are meant to be shot at home with a target, the lack of camo is a non-issue!

Barnett Youth 60 Recruit Recurve Crossbow

Top Features of the Barnett Youth 60 Recruit Recurve Crossbow

Powerful but Simple to Use

When training kids, you want to show them that they are using a powerful weapon that should not be taken lightly. At the same time, you want it to be easy for them to use and to get the hang of. The Barnett Youth 60 Recruit Recurve Crossbow does both of those things at once with its speed of 195 feet per second and its 60-pound draw weight!

Convenient Fore-grips

Teach your children the proper way to hold a crossbow by encouraging them to take advantage of the fore-grips on the Barnett Youth 60 Recruit Recurve Crossbow. These pass through grips remind them where their hand needs to be at all times to get the most accurate shot.

Adjustable for Comfort

The Barnett Youth 30 Compound Crossbow features an adjustable butt pad that allows children of any size to adjust the stock as they grow, encouraging them to keep using the comfortable crossbow.

A Number of Accessories

The Barnett Youth 30 Compound Crossbow comes with a lot of the features that a full sized crossbow does, such as a 3-bolt quiver, a rope cocking device that reduces the draw weight, and a red dot scope so that they can get an understanding of the full range of features on a crossbow.

Pros of the Barnett Youth 60 Recruit Recurve Crossbow:

– 195 feet per second speed – 60 pound draw weight – Adjustable butt stock – Cocking aid – Pass through fore-grips

Downsides of the Barnett Youth 60 Recruit Recurve Crossbow:

– Price.

One of the more expensive crossbows in this roundup, you may want to consider skipping it because of the price, but this crossbow has everything your child needs to learn how to use one properly, making it perhaps the best youth crossbow for the money.

Final Verdict

I have chosen the Daisy Youth Crossbow as the winner of this roundup because it is hands down the best size for children. Weighing hardly anything and with a draw weight of 29 pounds, it is easy for them to maneuver and aim. It also features bolts that have a rounded tip for safety, and even comes with features such as an adjustable sight perfect for gaining an understanding of elevation and windage. I recommend this youth crossbow for children who want to take their lessons in crossbow training seriously.

from Crossbow360 http://crossbow360.com/youth-crossbows/

0 notes

jacobdsmithus9 · 8 years ago

Text

Youth Crossbows

Factors to Consider before Buying a Youth Crossbow

– Safety.

– Overall size.

– Draw weight.

– Cocking aid.

Tips on How to Choose the Best Youth Crossbow for their Needs

Daisy Youth Crossbow

Top Features of the Daisy Youth Crossbow

Perfect for Training Kids

A Comfortable Weight

Safety First

Pros of the Daisy Youth Crossbow:

Downsides of the Daisy Youth Crossbow:

– Exterior.

The Daisy Youth Crossbow comes as a black and red bow and not a camo one, but this is mainly for at home practice, anyway, so it isn’t a big deal!

Barnett Recruit Youth 100 Crossbow Package

Top Features of the Barnett Recruit Youth 100 Crossbow Package

Adjustable for Little Bodies

Helpful Finger Reminders

Easy Draw Weight

Short and Compact

Pros of the Barnett Recruit Youth 100 Crossbow Package:

– 17 inches in width – Adjustable butt stock pad – Fore-grips for accuracy – Light 100 pound draw weight

Downsides of the Barnett Recruit Youth 100 Crossbow Package:

– Price.

SA Sports Fever Crossbow Package 543

Top Features of the SA Sports Fever Crossbow Package 543

Perfectly Sized

Comfortable and Efficient

Cocking Device

Pros of the SA Sports Fever Crossbow Package 543:

– Camo pattern – High-compression fiberglass limb – Includes cocking device that reduces draw weight – Shoulder strap – Weighs less than 5 pounds

Downsides of the SA Sports Fever Crossbow Package 543:

– Assembly.

Barnett Youth 30 Compound Crossbow

Top Features of the Barnett Youth 30 Compound Crossbow

Accessories Galore

Fast and Easy to Use

Adjustable for All Sizes

Finally, the Barnett Youth 30 Compound Crossbow comes with a butt stock pad that can be adjusted to fit several different shapes and sizes of young kids to ensure the most accurate shot possible.

Helpful Fore-Grips

Pros of the Barnett Youth 30 Compound Crossbow:

– 30 pound draw weight – Adjustable butt pad – Fore-grip finger reminders – Included cocking aid – Red dot scope

Downsides of the Barnett Youth 30 Compound Crossbow:

– No camo print.

The Barnett Youth 30 Compound Crossbow is black and yellow instead of camouflage, but considering that these are meant to be shot at home with a target, the lack of camo is a non-issue!

Barnett Youth 60 Recruit Recurve Crossbow

Top Features of the Barnett Youth 60 Recruit Recurve Crossbow

Powerful but Simple to Use

Convenient Fore-grips

Adjustable for Comfort

The Barnett Youth 30 Compound Crossbow features an adjustable butt pad that allows children of any size to adjust the stock as they grow, encouraging them to keep using the comfortable crossbow.

A Number of Accessories

Pros of the Barnett Youth 60 Recruit Recurve Crossbow:

– 195 feet per second speed – 60 pound draw weight – Adjustable butt stock – Cocking aid – Pass through fore-grips

Downsides of the Barnett Youth 60 Recruit Recurve Crossbow:

– Price.

Final Verdict

source http://crossbow360.com/youth-crossbows/ from Crossbow360 http://crossbow360.blogspot.com/2017/03/youth-crossbows.html

0 notes

gunservant · 8 years ago

Text

By David de Beer

All You Need To Make A Movie

Movies and TV have a strange relationship with guns. On the one hand you regularly have some actor coming out and declaring him or herself anti-gun. This is to be expected from people who are mostly liberal democrats. On the other hand you have lots and lots of guns in movies. Guns add drama, conflict and even humour. Frankly, without guns in movies and TV, there would be far fewer movies and TV series made, and what would be available to watch would be pretty boring.

It is pretty strange how a lot of the actors that come out as anti-gun are the very ones who have made a career out of portraying characters who use guns. Let me correct that, they play characters who use guns BADLY. Yes, these very same characters who are supposed to be CIA assassins, FBI agents, cops and Special Forces regularly do things that even new gun owners know are unsafe and stupid, never mind unprofessional.

Now you may say “Dave, what the fuck does it matter? It’s fiction, DAVE! It’s just some light hearted fun!” Of course, nobody ever imitates what they see on TV, right? So you could imagine that a person with very little formal firearm training or experience could be doing things he’s seen on TV, and in that way the anti-gun actor’s reckless portrayal is probably contributing to accidents and injury in real life. Irony can be a bitch that way.

And stupid gun mistakes aren’t only made by anti-gun actors. Despite an actor’s proficiency with firearms and the advice of a skilled armourer or consultant, a director might instruct them to do something totally insane with a gun because it looks good on film. Yes, I do realise there are times when you have to break the basic safety rules to tell a story. How can you show someone threatening suicide without having them point it at themselves? I do realise sometimes there’s artistic merit to it, and that it’s usually done in a controlled, safe environment. But the portrayal is often skewed, and characters who are supposed to be extremely proficient with firearms make glaring, basic mistakes.

So what is Hollywood & Co. getting wrong about guns? I’m not talking about physics defying acts like bending bullets in Wanted, I can concede that that is fiction, and if people try to imitate that, they have bigger problems with reality than I can help them with. I’m talking basics here, so let’s look at the four basics rules of firearm safety:

All guns are always loaded. Treat them so.

Movies guns can range from real guns shooting blanks to rubber guns with no moving parts, so no real guns with real ammo are used in the movies, why should we care about this?

Well, firstly, there is the example being set. These guns represent real guns. Even sci-fi ray guns used on screen can show people how to handle and treat guns. Without a real life influence to guide them away from the stupidity, this is how they think guns should be used.

And secondly, who remembers John Erik Hexum? He’s a shining example of why all guns are always loaded, and where do you think he got the idea for the Russian roulette joke that ended his life? Probably in a movie or on TV.

Never let the muzzle cover anything you’re not willing to destroy.

The sweeping, oh dear lord the sweeping! A character moving with a gun is bad, more than one character moving in the same scene is so much worse. They sweep the muzzle across their own body; they sweep it across friends, enemies, children, animals, aliens and every sort of background actor. They even sweep the leg. (Yes, that’s a Karate Kid joke, deal with it)

Moving the muzzle of a gun, where metal exits it at high velocity, across anything that’s alive is extremely stupid. In any situation this is at the very least frowned upon, even if the gun is obviously unloaded (All guns are always loaded, remember?)

Next time you watch an action movie, keep an eye on the muzzle direction and you’ll spot it some serious sweeping going on:

Jay Baruchel sweeping Jack Black’s ass, if not the whole squad.

Jack Black about to return the favour in Tropic Thunder.

Some Suicide Squad sweeping at head level.

I know some will say “But in a conflict/contact/group situation sweeping someone is almost inevitable!”

Yea, it’s not. If you’ve ever seen properly trained professionals do their job, you’d know they go to great lengths not to sweep the muzzle of their gun across anyone’s body.

Here’s how it happens in real life:

��Keep your finger off the trigger until you’re ready to shoot.

Obviously nobody has ever told Pinewood Studios to keep their booger hooks off their bang switches. I have always considered this to be the most fundamental rule. None of the four basic rules may be broken, but even if you break the other three, someone can only get hurt if you also break this rule.

I suppose if you look at the bright side, at least James’ gun is pointed in a safe direction. But pay attention, you will often see actors walking, talking and sweeping their friends with their fingers on the trigger.

Be sure of your target, and what’s behind it…

..and what’s behind that. Captain Deadpool knows this rule and uses it to good effect in his triple headshot.

In the movies you have good guys shooting at bad guys with crowds in the background, in busy marketplaces, in subway stations and while driving. No concern is shown for innocent bystanders, crouching down a little always seems to make sure they survive (Unless killing an innocent civilian is a plot point).

So there you have the very basic rules of firearm safety. Just safety, something most people who use guns learn early, and practice religiously. And yet our friends in the entertainment industry seem to feel shooters trained to a point where their ability is almost mystical, wouldn’t practice these basics.

Besides basic safety, there’s a lot more the movies get wrong.

Does your gun say “Leatherman” on the side? Because some movies seem to think guns are multi-tools. Splitting the rope above someone about to be hanged is the classic here, but you also have them shooting chains, shooting out lights, shooting levers to activate gears and close doors and using their guns to hit people with. Ricochets only happen when the story needs them to.

Then there’s accuracy. Not only can this vary wildly for the same character during the course of a movie, but it can also reach superhuman status in movies with no super humans in them. The same character that repeatedly missed an entire car elsewhere in the movie can suddenly shoot the gun out of someone’s hand or shoot them in the ear, arm or leg right from a quick draw.

Use of optics and sights is also pretty dubious. If you’ve seen any kind of Walking Dead meme recently, you probably know thatRick is especially bad at this. In this photo he’s doing even worse than usual.

And then you have all the people who shoot by feel, mostly because it’s a movie and we need to see their faces. Who cares about accuracy, either of the shooting or factual kind, when we’re paying Bruce Willis’ salary? Show the face!

Now, how about humanity and compassion? Surely writers, directors and actors can get that right? I mean, almost all of them are human after all. Wrong again!

How many of you have seen a real person directly after that person has successfully and justifiably defended their own life from an attacker that meant to physically harm them? I hope very few have seen this for themselves, because it’s not pretty, but it can also be a big eye opener. Experienced policemen who deal with violence on a daily basis and who have been in those situations before are very shaken up by an experience like this, civilians do much worse.

Think about that the next time the hero of the story breezes through a building full of people, killing one after the other, or executes the villain after finally defeating him. Do you know who reacts to violence and death that way? Psychopaths, that’s who.

The last point I’d like to make has less to do with guns directly, and more to do with the general culture of gun ownership. The core reason why most of the things above are mentioned is that they go so strongly against what most gun owners stand for. We are a lot more concerned with safety than people who do not own guns, we want to enjoy a day at the range without anyone getting hurt, and if the shit hits the fan big time we want to be able to protect those we love and not be the ones who cause them or anyone else harm. Safety is drilled into us, and rightly so, until it becomes second nature.

So to “advertise” gun ownership the way these characters do, as reckless, unsafe, and uncaring already portrays us in a bad light. For the person who brings that character to life and makes millions of Dollars in the process to then turn around and tell us we’re the threat is a double betrayal.

Movie and TV studios in general don’t care how they portray gun use, gun ownership or gun owners. They care about making money from things that look flashy and exciting. It seems unlikely that guns will disappear from popular culture anytime soon, and equally unlikely that Hollywood & Co. will suddenly decide to portray the use and handling of these guns in a realistic and responsible manner. So I guess it’s up to the real life gun owners to show the public that we do not behave like the irresponsible sociopaths Hollywood sells to them as heroes.

Anti-Gun Actors/Directors/Writers/Producers Who Have Used Guns On Screen

(Source : NRA/2A Check, verified on IMFDB)

Jessica Alba – Actor Krista Allen – Actor Richard Dean Anderson – Actor David Arquette – Actor Ed Asner – Actor Alec Baldwin – Actor Drew Barrymore – Actor Kevin Bacon – Actor Lauren Bacall – Actor* William Baldwin – Actor Candice Bergen – Actor Richard Belzer – Actor Beau Bridges – Actor Benjamin Bratt – Actor James Brolin – Actor Mel Brooks – Actor/Director Steve Buscemi – Actor George Clooney – Actor Kevin Costner – Actor Sean Connery – Actor Billy Crystal – Actor Matt Damon – Actor Danny DeVito – Actor Michael Douglas – Actor Richard Donner – Director David Duchovny – Actor Mia Farrow – Actor Carrie Fisher – Actor Sally Field – Actor Jane Fonda – Actor Jodie Foster – Actor Richard Gere – Actor Louis Gossett, Jr. – Actor Ethan Hawke – Actor Mark Harmon – Actor Dustin Hoffman – Actor Helen Hunt – Actor Diane Keaton – Actor Stephen King – Author Kevin Kline – Actor Lisa Kudrow – Actor John Leguizamo – Actor Spike Lee – Director Rob Lowe – Actor Mike Myers – Actor Jack Nicholson – Actor Leonard Nimoy – Actor Julia Ormond – Actor Sarah Jessica Parker – Actor Rhea Perlman – Actor Michelle Pfieffer – Actor Aidan Quinn – Actor Dennis Quaid – Actor Debbie Reynolds – Actor Paul Reiser – Actor Robert Redford – Actor/Director Julia Roberts – Actor Tim Robbins – Actor Tim Roth – Actor Renee Russo – Actor Meg Ryan – Actor Susan Sarandon – Actor Martin Sheen – Actor Mira Sorvino – Actor Sylvester Stallone – Actor Meryl Streep – Actor Patrick Stewart – Actor Sharon Stone – Actor Uma Thurman – Actor Steve Tisch – Producer Eli Wallach – Actor Harvey Weinstein – Producer Sigourney Weaver – Actor Catherine Zeta-Jones – Actor Jennifer Aniston – Actor Jason Bateman – Actor Kristen Bell – Actor Steve Carrell – Actor Courtney Cox – Actor Zooey Deschanel – Actor Cameron Diaz – Actor Will Ferrell – Actor Jennifer Garner – Actor Debra Messing – Actor Julianne Moore – Actor Gwyneth Paltrow – Actor Jeremy Renner – Actor Chris Rock – Actor Paul Rudd – Actor Mark Ruffalo – Actor Brooke Shields – Actor Reese Witherspoon – Actor Quentin Tarrantino – Writer/Director/Producer/Actor

Guns 'n Hollywood By David de Beer All You Need To Make A Movie Movies and TV have a strange relationship with guns.

#guns #hollywood

0 notes