#it looks 60s or 70s but they talk about a lot of modern things

[random-kido]

When does archer happen

[sirfrogsworth]

Let's talk about vintage lenses.

Here is your cool samurai show with modern lenses.

Here is your cool samurai show with vintage lenses.

Hollywood is no stranger to fads.

We are currently in the middle of a "make everything too dark" fad. But that fad is starting to overlap with "let's use really old lenses on ridiculously high resolution cameras."

This is Zack Snyder with a Red Monstro 8K camera.

He is using a "rehoused" vintage 50mm f/0.95 Canon "Dream Lens" which was first manufactured in 1961.

This old lens is put inside a fancy new body that can fit onto modern cameras.

Which means Zack is getting nowhere near 8K worth of detail. These lenses are not even close to being sharp. Which is fine. I think the obsession with detail can get a bit silly and sometimes things can be "too sharp."

But it is a funny juxtaposition.

The dream lens is a cool lens. It has character. It has certain aberrations and defects that can actually be beneficial to making a cool photograph. It's a bit like vinyl records for photography.

[ Peter Thoeny ]

It has vignetting and distortion and a very strange swirly background blur.

[ Gabriel Binder ]

Optical engineers have been spending the last 60 years trying to eliminate these defects. And I sometimes wonder if they are confused by this fad.

"I WORKED 70 HOURS PER WEEK TO GET PERFECT CORNER SHARPNESS!"

And whether you prefer to work with a perfect optic or a vintage one... it is a valid aesthetic decision either way. I think vintage glass can really suit candid natural light photography. You can almost get abstract with these lenses.

[ Peter Theony ]

Personally I like to start with as close to perfect as possible and then add the character in later. That way I can dial in the effect and tweak how much of it I want. But even with modern image editing tools, some of these aberrations are difficult to recreate authentically.

That said, it can be very easy for the "character" of these lenses to become distracting. And just like when someone first finds the lens flares in Photoshop, it can be easy for people to overdo things.

Zack Snyder decided to be his own cameraman and used only vintage glass in his recent movies and it has led to some complaints about the imagery.

I mean, Zack Snyder overdoing something? I can't even imagine it.

Non camera people felt Army of the Dead was blurry and a bit weird but they couldn't quite explain why it felt that way.

The dream lens has a very wide aperture and it lets in a lot of light. But it also has a very very shallow depth of field. Which means it is very difficult to nail focus.

[ Peter Thoeny ]

Her near eye is in focus and her far eye is soft. You literally can't get an entire face in focus.

There is no reason you have to use the dream lens at f/0.95 at all times. But just like those irresistible lens flares, Zack couldn't help himself.

Here is a blueprint that you can't really see.

Extreme close ups of faces without autofocus at f/0.95 is nearly impossible to pull critical focus on.

Looks like Zack nailed the area just above the eyebrow here.

Let's try to find the point of focus in this one.

Ummmm... she is just... blurry. Missed focus completely.

But Zack isn't the only one going vintage. I've been seeing this a lot recently.

Shogun is a beautiful show. And for the most part, I really enjoyed the cinematography. But they went the vintage lens route and it kept going from gorgeous to "I can't not see it" distracting. And perhaps because I am familiar with these lens defects I am more prone to noticing. But I do think it hurt the imagery in a few spots.

Vingetting is a darkening of the corners of the frame.

Light rays in the corners are much harder to control. A lot of modern lenses still have this problem, but they create software corrections to eliminate the issue. Some cameras do it automatically as you are recording the image.

Vintage lenses were built before lens corrections where a thing—before software was a thing. So you either have to live with them, try to remove them with VFX, or crop into your image and lose some resolution.

It's possible this is the aesthetic they wanted. They felt the vignetting added something to the image. But I just found my eyes darting to the corners and not focusing on the composition.

And then you have distortion.

In this case, barrel distortion.

This is mostly prominent in wide angle lenses. In order to get that wider field of view the lens has to accept light from some very steep angles. And that can be quite difficult to correct. So you kind have to sacrifice any straight lines.

And sometimes this was a positive contribution to the image.

I thought the curved lines matched the way they were sitting here.

But most of the time I just felt like I was looking at feudal Japan through a fish's eye.

It's a bit more tolerable as a still, but when all of these verticals are bowing in motion, I start to feel like I am developing tunnel vision.

I love that this is a tool that is available. Rehousing lenses is a really neat process and I'm glad this old glass is getting new life.

This documentary shows how lens rehousing is done and is quite fascinating if you are in to that sort of thing.

But I think we are in a "too much of a good thing" phase when it comes to these lenses. I think a balance between old and new can be found.

And I also think maybe Zack should see what f/2.8 looks like. He might like having more than an eyebrow in focus.

[scoobydoodean]

so i’ve always been annoyed by the belief that “sam and dean are toxically co-dependent, especially dean!” like it just baffles me once i remember all the times they’ve been apart without one of them being dead (and actually including post swan song to an extent), but i’ve never been able to properly articulate why i think dean at least isn’t really co-dependent on sam. like there’s a difference between being (co)dependent on somebody and dean’s parentification right? thanks!

I'll preface this by saying I am not a medical professional nor have I studied academic literature on codependency in great detail. That said, "codependency" is usually just a buzzword used colloquially to describe people who are obsessed with each other anyway. I address the colloquial use and how Sam is much more unhinged here. I'm guessing the colloquial use is really more what you mean, but if you're looking for something different or a little more specific than that, I can probably write or point you to some other things I've written if you give me something more specific to go on.

That said, there is something about the way fandom talks about "codependency" between Sam and Dean that bothers me, and I think by reading around about codependency today after I got this ask, and finding out that this term is controversial among mental health professionals as well... I finally figured out why.

I think to a lot of people, "codependent" has become synonymous with words like "needy" and "suffocating". However, the WebMD type articles I started with, suggest that the partner of the codependent party is the one whose needs seem to constantly overshadow and outweigh the needs of the codependent partner in the relationship. While the codependent partner can exhibit negative behaviors, the primary problem of the codependent party is that in being a caretaker, they can lose all sense of their identity and boundaries, and don't know who they are outside of being a caretaker for others. However, this is a more modern take on the term. Because these articles I started with mentioned academic controversy, I then found a few academic papers to skim, and this proved to be even more helpful in understanding why I... don't like this term very much.

First, the historical origins of it are... off-putting. The term "codependency" first emerged in academic literature in the 1940s to describe wives with alcoholic husbands who behave as "enablers" [1, 2]. I probably don't have to point out how different things were for women back then, and how rampantly sexist that context makes this first wave of literature sound, but it's discussed extensively in this article. Second, there is more stigma associated with the term partly because Alcoholics Anonymous (shocking /s) latched onto it starting in the 60s and 70s:

The influence of the AA culture in shaping the concept of codependency as an illness offered the idea that people who were close to the substance user were themselves suffering from an illness (O’Briean and Gaborit 1992). These people were viewed as enablers and coalcoholics (Cotton 1979). [ 1 ]

I... think I am probably not the only one who finds that utterly rancid to read (some academics writing on the subject certainly seem to):

According to Gus Napier, a noted family therapist, it is "ridiculous" to label codependency as a disease, because it is a culturally conditioned response of an overfunctioning person in relationship with an underfunctioning person (Meacham, 1990-1991). [2]

Some researchers who have pushed the term "codependency" as a diagnosis have actually suggested that literally anyone who is living with someone with an addiction should be called co-dependent by definition, regardless of any behavior they may exhibit, which tells you a lot about the lack of consensus and how meaningless the term can be [2]. The term (especially within the disease model where codependency itself is a from of addiction) has been criticized by many researchers for the misogyny through which the term originated, for unproductive negative labeling and pathologizing of people (especially women) dealing with incredibly difficult situations with their loved ones, for victim-blaming people (especially women stuck in abusive relationships) for the actions of their partners, for tangentially—negative stereotyping about people with serious addictions, and for conflating addiction with interpersonal problems, and in the extreme case—for suggesting separation from ones family is the solution to addiction and supporting someone with an addiction somehow always enables them [1, 2].

Since the original stream of literature related to addiction, codependency has rebranded and expanded into literature on family experiences with abuse and mental and physical illness. Which is where we get articles like this one I already linked. The codependent party is still a caretaker in these settings, caring for the needs of a loved one who is ill. Still, "codependency" is not an official medical diagnosis (i.e. not in the DSM-5). It's a term that has been used in academic literature by mental health professionals, when trying to describe a range of behaviors within dysfunctional families. These researchers do not agree on the term's meaning or on whether it even is or should be a diagnosis. Many are interested in it only from an interpersonal or personality perspective, which is also where we should stick.

Taking all of this into account though, I think the very first thing we have to ask ourselves is what exactly we get out of using the term "co-dependency" to describe Sam and/or Dean when the term doesn't even really have an agreed-upon meaning. Is the intention to write interesting character analysis, or is the intention to glorify or criticize using a term that has historically stigmatized understandable human reactions to troubled family situations? I think the goal has perhaps too often been the latter.

That said, I've already been referencing it, but I think this article does a good job of summarizing much of the literature, and then actually focusing on people who do choose, of their own accord, to identify with the term "codependent" because it is helpful for them in understanding their own lived experience and their patterns within relationships. I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to explore this as it relates to Sam and Dean with the right motivations. If you read the accounts of the respondents who choose to identify with the term, you'll see shades of Sam and Dean I think (I have written something pretty close to the chameleon-self about season 1 Dean, and I can apply that one to Sam too through his attempts to fit in at Stanford). When it comes to my experience with these characters however, I just don't find that I personally see any value in analyzing Sam and Dean through the word "codependent" given it's lack of agreed-upon meaning professionally and colloquially.

It seems to me that the term itself leads to more confusing conversations instead of less confusing ones because of the lack of clear definition, and the potential for negative stereotyping instead of actual edifying analysis is extremely off-putting to me. It just doesn't do anything for me personally. The issues to which it relates I think are interesting (especially parentification which is a term I do find useful), and I think criticisms leveled against the term are also useful to read in understanding ones own struggles with how fandom tends to frame Dean as a caretaker who they believe is actually somehow responsible for everyone else's decisions. But I think that perhaps I prefer words and concepts that are better defined than the muddiness of the term "codependent".

Lastly: Even if I'm not a particular fan of the term, the fact is that the actual show uses the term twice—in season 5 (shoutout to butch--dean's transcript search engine). Once in 5.11 "Sam, Interrupted" (to Dean):

DR. FULLER Well, to be frank, uh, the relationship that you have with your brother seems dangerously codependent. I think a little time apart will do you both good.

First, this dude doesn't really know what's going on and thinks Sam and Dean are having delusions. However, in season 5, Sam's experience with demon blood is repeatedly paralleled with drug or alcohol addiction, and Sam is someone for whom Dean has been made to feel responsible for most of his life. This episode addresses Dean's overly burdensome responsibilities in other ways and it's also come up in the past in 1.12, 2.09, 2.10, and 4.05. I prefer to discuss this theme with much more specific terms. In this case, I would say Dean has an "overactive sense of responsibility to others", originating first with his childhood experiences with parentification. Sam also has a tendency to try and make Dean shoulder responsibility for his decisions when they backfire, and does so multiple times related to the demon blood (4.04, 4.21, 5.05). Cas and Zachariah also both blame Dean for Sam breaking the last seal because he didn't stop him in time (5.01, 5.02) and Bobby criticizes how Dean responds to Sam's addiction (4.22).

And then again in 5.18 "Point of No Return", specifically when Zachariah (my favorite manipulative angel) tries to get Adam to be on his side by basically calling Sam and Dean creepy incestuous weirdos:

ZACHARIAH So you know you can’t trust them, right? You know Sam and Dean Winchester are psychotically, irrationally, erotically codependent on each other, right?

This one honestly to me is just Zachariah doing Zachariah things. I'll reach these episodes on my rewatch fairly soon though, so we'll see if I end up talking about it more then.

Bacon, I., McKay, E., Reynolds, F. et al. The Lived Experience of Codependency: an Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Int J Ment Health Addiction 18, 754–771 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-018-9983-8

Anderson, S. C. (1994). A Critical Analysis of the Concept of Codependency. Social Work, 39(6), 677–685. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23717128

[read-write-thrive]

part 1 (both girls in their full outfits) ; part 2 (Edwina in several other outfits/sketches) ; part 3 (the companion to this piece aka Edwina getting ready :)

part 4 of my fem!payneland fanart series!!!! as I talked about with the poll, I have quite a few variations of this piece as I couldn’t make up my mind on a few of the elements, but I listened to your feedback and have included them all here !! the winner of the poll is above the cut with the rest of the variations below to hopefully make this not take up too much of your dash lol

lmk what you think - especially people who voted on the poll!! I’ve also included my thought process below the cut since I know y’all are interested :)

- first and foremost: I have absolutely no idea what order someone would get ready in with all these outfit components, so if you’re sitting here like “why is her makeup done when she has to pull a shirt over her head?” or something like that: you’re probably correct but my getting ready process is always chaos and there aren’t exactly articles on this sort of thing

- along with that: her straightening her hair is probably not accurate to how hair works but again I’ve got v little experience to pull from and trying to find a proper reference was a pain in the ass

yes her bra is fully rendered and then got covered up by her arm. I'm still mad that I did that to myself but I like the pose too much to change it so oh well

- (onto actual historical stuff!!)

- her hair is being straightened here despite straight not being in style during this era for several reasons:

1. I based her hair (and a lot of her style, as per part 1) on Rhoda Dakar of the band The Bodysnatchers, which was an all-female band that was part of the ska revival in the late 70s/early 80s. Rhoda Dakar in particular is a British artist (who’s still making music!) with an English mother and Jamaican father—so not only was she one of the only women of color I could find as part of this subgenre/in ths era/with plenty of photo references, but considering Jayden Revri is Jamaican and English (alongside Indian) himself I thought it was fitting! Her Bodysnatchers look is also much more femme leaning than the rest of the band, as well as her hair styled in a way that suggests straightening, so I carried that over to Charlotte here as well.

2. On a related note, there is a clear historical and modern difference in hairstyles worn/made popular/deemed fashionable by non-white versus white individuals and I thought it only appropriate to acknowledge that in my design of her. I even went so far as to research how her mom’s hair may have been styled since I assume that’s who would’ve been teaching her how to care for her hair in the first place. With that, I looked at popular Indian hair trends from the 60s (figuring that’s when Charlotte’s mom could’ve still been in India and following those trends) which also involved a preference for straight/wavy hair, with soft fringe made popular by Sadhana and the styles ranging from long and luscious to styled up into a very 60s beehive. Charlotte could easily also rock a beehive, especially since the 60s revival was a part of the ska revival movement and Dakar herself styled her hair as such, but I figured Charlotte is a little too much of a rebellious teenager to go for a look she’s seen her mom wear!

- her makeup is based off of the different members of The Bodysnatchers as well as other punk/ska fans at the time. The look usually required more blush that what I gave her here, but I wanted to make sure the eyes were the feature (since Charles wears eyeliner himself) and then the lips being any less just looked weird to me. Also, Dakar doesn't seem to wear the same heavy blush that the other members do, which could be a stylistic choice but could also be the potential lack of blush shades that would work well on her skin tone, so I went that route for Charlotte here

- her underwear is all based off of meticulous searching of historical advertisements, though I will admit the sources are (presumably) American since I couldn't find British equivalents (I'm hoping the styles were similar enough...) in particular:

1. Her bra is based off of: Playtex’s New Made for Me, Playtex’s Right For Me, and Playtex’s Thank Goodness It Fits (which are seriously the names of these as per the ads—how creative /s)

2. Her panties (or pants or underwear or whatever term you want to use) are based off of: Sears Best’s Nylon tricot panties, Sears Very Impressive Panties Nylon panties, and JCPenny’s eiderlon fashion panties

3. (In the below variations) Her pantyhose are theoretically based on L’eggs and Spirit by Stevens’s Slim & Slender pantyhose. But, honestly, they’re mostly based on my own experience wearing hose bc almost none of the ads showed how the gusset of the pantyhose actually looked so I needed to fill in the gaps (one of the many reasons I’m still unhappy with them—plus the wrinkles would not look right no matter what I did !!)

4. Her socks are called slouch socks! I don’t have a specific brand for them but the style was all the rage in the 80s-90s (and I want to own some so bad ngl)

- the hair straightener is just a blob based on the reference photo since trying to research historical hair tools was beyond me at the time apparently, but the style of outlet/plug is accurate to Britain in 1989 so there’s that at least (I have no idea why my brain works like this)

- since I talked about it in the poll I feel like I should address it here: technically having a bush was well out of fashion by 1989 due to the grooming boom and new types of hair removal popular throughout the 80s and 90s. However, she’s wearing multiple layers over it and is technically a teenager (in an abusive household and a catholic all-girls school, at that) so I kept going back and forth on it. It won the poll so it’s in the main post, but you’ll see in the below variations that I really went back and forth on it. that being said I do think it’s interesting given her nylon pants being semi-sheer besides at the gusset, so I’m not mad at it. plus I figured she was definitely shaving her legs/underarms, so maybe that balances it out ?

and finally here’s the other seven variations of this piece :) lmk what you think!!

[max1461]

Thought for a moment in the 2010s that we were entering a new serious era (e.g. 1920s, 30s, 40s), but it seems that we're instead in an increasingly tacky era (50s, 60s, 70s). Like look at the change in YouTube. Well you all are textheads you don't do video, I know that. But like. In 2017 there was ContraPoints. Agree or disagree with her opinions, what she was doing was conceptually and aesthetically serious. Even her early, low-production-value stuff. She was talking about incels and other internet shit, but the internet is part of the real world, that's fine. In fact that's what gave me hope for another serious era, people were finally talking about internet stuff the way 1920s German intellectuals or whatever talked about the cultural trends of their day. Maybe because Contra has half a philosophy PhD and was explicitly influenced by those German intellectuals.

Another example from a totally disjoint cultural niche was Digi a.k.a. Trixie a.k.a. Ygg Studios or whatever they go by now. Drunk, smelly, and unkempt—yes. Or at least so went the persona. Talking seriously about anime—also yes. When they claimed they were the only good anime reviewer on the internet it made a lot of people mad. But they were right!

There were thinkers, we had thinkers. My generation, or roughly my generation, had thinkers. To be clear, when I include Contra here I'm not including all of her ilk, I'm not including the leftist-theory-regurgitators and so on. But Contra herself was a thinker! Digi was a thinker! We had thinkers.

But that era is over now, on YouTube at least. I go on there and it's all algorithmic drivel. I look for anime content and as I've explained it's all about #hype and #epic and how the new season of whatever #hits different and other empty meaningless bullshit. No analysis, no thought, fundementally unserious bullshit. Tacky! It's tacky! The the YouTube thumbnail O-face is fucking 70s-ass fake wood paneling tacky bullshit!

MrBeast. I've never seen a MrBeast video but I hate him for what he represents. I used to watch this channel called Wranglerstar, he made videos about different types of axes and forest fire fighting equipment and various other stuff. "Modern homesteading" I believe was the tagline. And it was always evident that he was a far-right guy but who gives a shit, his videos where good. Serious videos about interesting topics, that a fucking normal guy might watch. Well around 2020 he basically started flooding his channel with covid conspiracy bullshit and "the Chinese are going to attack us any day!" bullshit and other unserious crap. And I had to stop watching. How could I find any of that compelling? It's vapid nonsense.

And I don't know if it's a shift in the algorithm or people becoming more savvy to the algorithm or what, but all of YouTube is like this now. Vapid clickbait empty meaningless bullshit for another tacky commercialized bullshit era.

And you know, I felt like it might just be localized to YouTube for a while, but I started to look around, and it just feels like everything is like this. Backsliding to the tacky times. God I hate tackiness. I hate unseriousness. I'm having a little meltdown. At least SMW kaizo hacks are having a renaissance. People are doing serious shit in that space, serious shit that is also not anachronistic, you know, it's kept up with the modern world. It addresses modern concerns (fun to play hard Mario). But it's serious. People are serious. One of the few serious things happening in my orbit.

Even in science it feels like people aren't serious anymore. You know, standard Sabine Hossenfelder complaint about particle physics. But I don't really know enough about that to say. Get the vibe that biology is still serious these days.

To be clear, everything I'm saying here is pure vibes. I'm just saying shit. I'm just saying shit that I feel. But I'll be deeply disappointed if I have to live my youth in another tacky era, god damn it. Even the 80s seem like they were better than this.

[starfleetshrimps]

i love star trek bc it's actually a high school theater production most of the time. We focus a lot on the over-acting, theatricality of the actors and the directors, and that's all well and amazing, but /I/ want to focus on the /TECH/ bc ASHAijnjsdnbhgaARREghghhuuagjkshdmhbAHJBSSHJHIEJBnkjsdjhbsdhjBmahbsjshsbHkjnswkjshsn yea.

FIRST THE SETS?!? they're so silly and stupid? i know they get a lot of shit but the amount of work (not to mention styrofoam) that went into building individual sets for each planet they went to? like sure about 50% of the away missions take place in the california desert (the arena, *cough cough*, etc) but the rest of them have individually made sets that look PRETTY GOOD MAN. they get the point across, they're FUN, and innovative, and they really don't reuse planet sets all that often as well.

PLUS they used traditionally /theatrical/ cycloramas with painted backgrounds and classical cyc lighting (reminiscent of mariano fortuny's domed cyc! i WILL talk more about lighting) which look really cool and once again get shit for being unrealistic.

it's not supposed to look realistic it's supposed to look cool as shit. and it does. shut up. <3

if you view the sets as being modern TV sets then yeah, they're weird, and they look sorta bad, but THEYRE NOT modern TV sets: they're THEATRICAL SETS FROM THE 60-70S. AND I LOVE THEM.

SECONDLY, THE

lighting

while it's true that some shows in the 60s were developing new lighting styles specifically for TV, remember that in the year 1950 less that 10 percent of US homes had a television. this shit was new. COLOR tv was ESPECIALLY new. nobody knew how to light these things! and actually why would you need a new lighting style, we already KNEW how to light dramatic productions, why would we ever need to reinvent the wheel Stanley Mccandles, Mariano Fortuny, and Gene Rosenthall already invented says Gene Roddenberry and Jerry Finnerman (the head lighting designer). and oh my god i am so ridiculously glad. because the lighting. is so good.

i HAVE seen others talking about how good it is in the super early episodes (Charlie X and the conscious of the King, etc.) and i do agree! but i disagree that the quality goes down. i think it just got a tad bit more subtle as the show went on and it gets less in your face, harder to notice. but i noticed. because I'M the WORST (and also a lighting tech)

the impossibility of listing every example of amazing theater lighting choice they made is absolutely horrific and nasty so i'll just lost some my my favorites:

the cyc! i mentioned before but the cyc they used on away missions was only painted when they needed a specific scene in the background, otherwise? that bitch was LIT. and i LOVE IT.

any of the scenes where they light spock's face have green and half pink? or even just washing the walls behind him? i eat that shit UP. the METAPHOR. the CONFLICT. i will acquiesce that green and pink are (and were) pretty goddamn industry standard gels (color-films) to add to lights, for subtle contrast, but this is not subtle. it is LOUD. was it purposefully done from a storytelling perspective? no idea. is it cool as shit and interpret-able as hell? absolutely. also sometimes they do it with just green when they want to emphasize his vulcan-ness and other him a bit. like they do it a lot when he's in his room in amok time. anyway.

whenever they shutter a light so they can emphasize a character's (kirk, we're talking abt kirk here. and *sometimes* spock, and also Charlie in Charlie X but yeah mostly kirk) eyes when they say something #Deep, or just pre-commercial break closure worthy line. it's so SHJSDJBFEJNKN. to add onto this, they'll do a striking half-wash over half of their face sometimes in conjunction and it looks So Good

The GOBOS. sometimes, they'll just throw light through a gobo, or wall screen, or something, for /visual interest/ and it looks so silly i love it sm. does it make sense from a realism pov? nO. but star trek is a theater production actually and they lit everything using mainly naturalistic techniques! amazing!

honorable mentions: the glowing time donut, and the entirely random colors in the hallway.

there are so many other examples but this post is long enough lmao. notice the lights next time you watch tos!!,! please!!! <3

[the-nado-hunter]

Random Hetalia character head cannons/hc histories and characterizations that float in my brain but I’ve never written down - starting with England, America and Germany since I’ve thought about them the most lol:

England:

- Was the reverse of Alfred where he actually physically and emotionally aged much slower than most nations. He was barely not a teenager when he first took in Alfred (and his other “kids” by extension) when he was not at all ready/had even fully matured himself.

- I have a hc that nations who “get too big” (meaning the territory under their name grows) they kind of lose themselves and get less distinct and coherent in their motivations and sometimes don’t feel themselves at all, too many voices in their head so to speak. Unfortunately Arthur “lost it” during a pivotal part of his relationship with his family, hence all his strained relationships.

- Once he took on those responsibilities he suddenly jumped in physical age a bit. So while Alfred sees him as being SO much older (calling him an old man) his time in the nation equivalence of life stages was uneven and all over the place.

- it wouldn’t be until the 60s/70s/80s that Arthur had the time and ability to “make up for lost time” hence his musical and punk phases. He finds himself in some ways.., also likely dissolves into addiction problems at the same time.

- In the modern era he still has many anger issues but he’s a lot more calm and sure of himself, however he’s got a built up emotional wall and a whole lot of hidden self hatred that’s going to take a long long time to resolve, and he isn’t quite there yet and tends to lash out and push people away rather than deal with things.

America:

- He was very sheltered by Arthur at first, he was kept out of almost everything for most of his early life. If Arthur wasn’t present (which he often wasn’t due to the two having vastly different understandings of the passing of time) there were people hired and cycled out to take care of him. He can’t help himself though, even if he’s being treated like a sheltered little prince he wants to go run free in the fields and get into shit. He’s basically a Disney princess in his early life is what I’m saying lol.

- reality hits him like a ton of bricks when he’s roughly looking/acting about 14-15. He realizes likely through being exposed to other nations starting to come in and managing to slip out to talk to people just how much has been hidden from him and the resentment grows. And he starts REALLY growing even faster.

- Despite all that he went full on into a “fight” coping mechanism and never stopped. He put on a “mask” at one point in his life and it hasn’t come off. He’s never really deeply dealt with anything so he progressively seems more and more obtuse and seemingly arrogant to overcompensate for not wanting to face any sort of pain.

- He’s deeply deeply lonely and desperately wants closeness and to open up- yet at the same time the idea of seeming “weak” or “vulnerable” is terrifying to him. Him and Arthur are more similar than they would like to admit with how they mask and push people away despite really REALLY needing love and closeness.

Germany:

- it depends on if you accept the “Germany is HRE” theory or not, but either way I tend to think they at least have the same body but might be different entities or ‘spirits’ so to speak. That being said I imagine Ludwig specifically not only was “born” into a body that was preexisting and therefore already past a decent part of childhood, I imagine that his body was at first incredibly weak, frail, and he was very sickly for quite some time.

- I’ve written a fic about this, but I personally hc Ludwig from about 6-15 years old in appearance being almost completely unable to walk and needing braces and assistance to get around. His brother obviously loves and cares about him, but Ludwig couldn’t help but feel frustrated and like a burden. He really does look up to his big brother and is worried about being weak and reliant on others for the rest of his life.

- Ludwig GETS his strength, and as soon as he’s able to walk on his on he becomes obsessed with being as strong and capable as he possibly can be. He wants to never have to rely on anyone again, feeling an odd sense of guilt for needing so much help.

- he’s, in the end… kind of socially inept. Gilbert isn’t exactly the pinnacle of a socialized man himself - So despite being mostly independent and capable he doesn’t really understand social situations, or how to understand himself and others. Feliciano is both jarring and someone I think he becomes interested in him because Feli is capable in something he never has been and really is teaching him a lot.

- Unfortunately Ludwig had in face overcompensated for his past feelings of being a burden he’s taken so much on and has become such a protector that he’s almost unable to set boundaries and say no to requests to take on extra work- malicious or not.

- we already know Ludwig tends to explode and bark directions at people, to me it’s always been a clear sign of how much stress he’s under- but he winds up just appearing scary and he once again takes on more responsibilities and feelings of “something must be wrong with me”.

- i think many in the fandom have joked about it but Ludwig to me is SO repressed and SO gay it’s not even funny

-I would expect poor Ludwig to hit a breaking point and have a nervous breakdown eventually, which I do want to write at some point, just gotta not procrastinate lol

[docholligay]

What western novels do you recommend? I don’t think I’ve ever read one and was hoping to give it a try!

I LOVE Westerns. I love them even when they aren't particularly good. Whenever people accuse me of hating genre fiction, I'm like, "I think my collection of Westerns begs to differ. I just have DIFFERENT bad taste." (My collection of horror books too)

OKAY SO, MUCH OF THIS DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU'D LIKE TO FIND IN A WESTERN NOVEL.

Perhaps the best Western Novel ever written: Lovesome Dove, by Larry McMurtry.

It's not just me that would say this of Lonesome Dove, I think you can find this on lists of the world's greatest Westerns, it's fairly largely acknowledged as a great American Novel, many books have TRIED to be Lonesome Dove and are not. This book was one of the things Jill and I talked for HOURS about on our first date. We almost mutually changed our last names to McCrae instead of her taking Holligay. She walked down the aisle to the theme from the miniseries.

To MASSIVELY OVERSIMPLIFY, this is the story of a cattle drive from Texas to Montana. But it's about relationships, and dedication, and doing everything right and losing anyhow, sometimes. It's about finding connections. It's about dreams and failures. It contains one of the greatest versions of "the grumpy one is soft for the sunshine one" in platonic form. Also the idea that a friend, who is never anything romantic, can be the love of your life.

A fun revival Western: The Shootist by Glendon Swartout

I actually just reread this! So in the 80s and 90s, Westerns became 'grittier' sort of like comic book movies did in the 00s. This is not an altogether bad thing, and it certainly wasn't all the way to 'gritty' until we get to, movie wise, things like 3:10 to Yuma, which actually is incredible. ANYWAY, so The Shootist breaks from a lot of the molds of 60 and 70s Westerns (upstanding law officer, gang of mustache twirling villains, etc) and is about the last great shootist--what a gunfighter would have been actually called in the 1800s--who is dying of cancer.

I know that does not make it sound fun, but it is, actually, and it is an easy read. Lots of fun Western colloquialisms and there IS depth there if you want to go looking for it, but it's totally extraneous to the enjoyment of the book and also might be half made up in my head.

A great classic Western: Riders of the Purple Sage by Zane Grey

Riders of the Purple Sage is actually responsible for helping form a lot of what we understand as being the Western genre today. This puppy has it all: Gunfights, cattle rustling, the moral code of one's own pride, falling in love with a lonely little woman hell bent to make it on her own.

There are so many things in this novel that will come to define the genre, but because it is a little pre-genre, at least in a strong and stratified way that separates itself from the dimestore novels, it's not as formulaic as you might expect and borrows heavily from early 1900s literature wrought large.

A WESTERN Western: Literally anything by Louis L'amour

Am I here to defend Louis L'amour? No I am not. Do I love Louis L'Amour? Yes absolutely. I am not even so much suggesting that you actually read a L'amour book because I think you really have to love the genre to get into them, but boy are they GENRE. Love them. There's like 5 or 6 plotlines between them. I read them in the tub all the time. I don't even count them toward my books read they are such popcorn. Delightful. I gave them away as favors at my wedding.

A modern Western: All The Pretty Horses by Cormac McCarthy

Now we're getting into the weeds a bit because there are some people who would argue that a lot of what modern Western literary fiction is, isn't really "Westerns" and I know what they're saying but I don't think I agree. There can be great novels of any genre that break genre, and I think this is just one of those. It has all the hallmarks of a Western.

Anyway, anyone who tells you The Road is Cormac McCarthy's best novel is out of their fucking minds and also probably very boring and controversially either doesn't read much or doesn't read much serious stuff. All of McCarthy's border novels are better than The Road, All the Pretty Horses just happens to be my favorite.

A Western that is probably more fairly slotted into Historical Fiction: Doc: A Novel, by Mary Doria Russell.

This book made me stop writing my Doc Holliday historical novel because I can't do a better job than this.

[angel-gidget]

Gidge's Intro to The Challengers of the Unknown

First off, who are the Challengers of the Unknown? They are a team of adventurers. Their comic originates in the late 1950's, and it ran until 1978, ending with issue #87.

Their adventures are supremely stereotypical of the time. They start off as very pulpy sci-fi fantasy in the 60's and skew more mystical/occult through the 70's. They functioned as Jack Kirby's rough draft for the Fantastic Four, but even so, have slightly different dynamics.

Origin: Four experts in their field concluded that their survival of a deadly plane crash was nothing short of miraculous. They noticed that the watch on one man's wrist had stopped, as if frozen in time. The men--Ace Morgan, Mark "Prof" Haley, Red Ryan, and Rocky Davis--concluded that they were living on borrowed time. They decided to use that time adventurously as the Challengers of the Unknown.

One of their earliest adventures caused them to seek the help of computer and robotics expert June Robbins. As June helped them save the day on more than one occasion, she became an honorary challenger. Many modern references to the roster include her by default.

The Team

Ace Morgan is portrayed as a pilot in the 60's and has his wheelhouse extended to astronaut as we veer into the 70's. Ace possesses an even keel that garners instinctive respect, and this is why he is the default leader.

Mark "Prof" Haley is their resident "egghead". Because nerds weren't cool yet, Prof gets occasionally teased about having more brains than brawn, but that's usually ended by him judo flipping whoever was talking smack.

Since 60's common knowledge didn't differentiate between a lot of sciences, Prof kinda knows them all. Since deep sea diving is his main schtick, he'd probably be introduced as a marine biologist today. The only thing that isn't his main wheelhouse is computers/robotics. There, he is very much outclassed by June.

Red Ryan is is a skillful acrobat and mountain climber. He is also an asshole. I mean this with affection or annoyance depending on the day. 90% of interpersonal drama with this team is from Red being sexist or generally shallow and opening his mouth about it. However, this is often used as a device, and the point is to show that Red is wrong. Then June or Rocky or whoever Red was poking at saves the day. He does occasionally use his snark to be actually funny, tho.

While many of Red's words tend to suck, his actions show a lot of loyalty to the team. Perhaps the most endearing thing about him is the love he has for his baby brother, which is major plot point of some arcs.

Rocky Davis is the team's gentle giant. He is an expert boxer and wrestler, and as such, is often teased for a lack of brains or looks. As sensitive as he may be about that, Rocky is no pushover, and will gladly attempt to punch whoever was giving him too much grief (usually Red).

In truth, all four of the men do poke fun at each other for being confined to their niche roles, but all of them actually do posses the ability to move beyond them.

They all pick up skills in science, fighting, and the arcane from working together. Pretty sure they were all born snarky, tho.

So who are my Top 3 Fave characters from their title?

#1. June Robins

June is a gal of many hairdos and many talents all through the 60's. A mistress of computer science, disguise, piloting, chemical experimentation, and alien diplomacy.

Sadly, as cool as she began, the 70's did not do her justice. She was gone from the team for like, half of that decade, and when she returned, they gave her some fandom bicycle drama and a lot of damsel in distress scenarios. But at least they gave her a uniform to show she was really on the team. I'll take that win.

#2. Tino Manary

Tino is introduced in a very fun way. When Red appears to die in the line of duty, a teen music celebrity begins to use all his fame and money to attempt an assassination of the remaining challengers. For revenge. Bc he blames them for Red's death. And why does he care?

Because surprise! He's Red's kid brother! Once he realizes the challs aren't to blame, he starts popping in on occasion to help them. Or just annoy them. Or both.

#3. Corinna Stark

When Prof got shot by an eldritch-summoning cult leader, he appeared to be at death's door. That's when the cultist's daughter, Corinna Stark, showed up. She stuck Prof in one of her dad's cryo-pods to save his life. She agreed that her dad was quite evil and needed to be stopped, provided the challs with new uniforms, and served the team as Prof's temporary replacement.

While she clearly knew more about the occult than the sciences, this proved pretty helpful for the things the challs were up against at the time.

Corrina was introduced in the 70's, during that time June was going mysteriously unmentioned. It's seriously a shame the ladies never met.

I suspect the writers were trying to see if Corinna could be a good replacement for June, but their expertise and origins were different enough that it would have been cool to see what they could bring to the team if they were on it simultaneously.

Am I done talking about this crazy comic? No, but I'm pausing for now.

[moviesludge]

tagged by @thechurchofsplatterdaysaints

Do you make your bed? Not usually, but oddly enough I did during covid. Something about doing it then made sense to me but I haven't really thought about it. And then I did it when my ex used to nag me about it. I do it sometimes.

Fave number? Don't really care now but I used to like 13 and 14.

What's your job? Unemployed. Would like to be employed but refuse to work a job I hate unless I have no other option. The stress of my last job sucked bad. I help my family though (parents and sister), and there's a lot to do. My dad does absolutely everything and he's 70, so you know. Shit will be changing sooner than later.

Go back to school? I'm not ruling it out.

Can you parallel park? I can. It's weird too, because the first time I ever did it was completely out of necessity and it was a dark night and it was a really small space too. I couldn't believe it when I did it the first time. And I don't consider myself that good of a driver.

Job you had that would surprise people? I guess the most surprising maybe is call center supervisor for eharmony. Or Blockbuster? I dunno.

Aliens real? I feel like the scope of the universe makes this a certainty and it amazes me how many people think it's a ridiculous idea. Talk about main character syndrome!

Can you drive stick? I never had the means to even learn

Guilty pleasure? Eating stuff I know I'm not supposed to (very sparingly!)

Tattoos? no but I think about it sometimes. I feel like I'd get sick of it no matter what it was.

Fave color? too many. earthtones and ryb are up there.

Fave type of music? probably all the stuff in the post-punk/new wave/no wave/power pop sphere. I'm picky about metal, but when I like something I like it a lot. Also been finding out there's a fair amount of rap stuff I dig. I really like soul and funk music and some oldies (50s & 60s, not modern oldies which are 80s).

Do you like puzzles? Word/mind shit, trivia, board games, etc. Yeah I love Jeopardy and I subscribe to NYT games. I do the crosswords, wordle, strands, spelling bee, and connections games every day. I also like nonagrams and I'll do a sudoku once in a while.

Phobias? just making it in the world, especially when my parents are gone. My parents getting sick and/or dying. Climate change causing a global food supply collapse in my lifetime. The U.S. falling fully into fascism. Basically things that are all certain to happen sooner or later

Favorite childhood sport? Basketball and baseball. Never liked playing soccer or football.

Talk to yourself? Yeah mostly when I'm irritated about something.

Movies you adore? Pee-Wee's Big Adventure, Evil Dead II, Speed Racer, Starship Troopers, Black Christmas, Bad Santa, My Cousin Vinny, Tremors, Gremlins 2, Better Off Dead, Big Trouble In Little China, Boxer's Omen, Terrorvision, etc

Coffee or Tea? both, but mostly coffee. I tried chai tea recently though and I like it a lot.

1st thing you wanted to be when grew up? The way my mind is, I didn't really think about things this way. All I remember desiring as a kid about being an adult was being on even ground with other adults and being given basic respect instead of being treated like a little kid. Like I wanted to sit on the couch and have my feet touch the floor. I wondered what my face would look like as an adult. The idea of a far off future job was irrelevant to me.

tagging @donnerpartyofone @steamedtangerine @jesusismyhostage

[adarkrainbow]

Do you think the way people talk and discuss Walt's "Classic Three" (Snow White, Cinderella and Aurora) is accurate or close to what happens in the movies? I mean, they are always referred as excessively passive, weak, only interested on their looks (vain? superficial?), useless, beauty being their only good quality... And I ask myself, when was the last time these people watched the movies? Snow White negotiated her stay in the house, Cinderella survived a life of pure abuse & orchestrated her own escape from the tower, and, while not very much is shown about Aurora, she was about to sacrifice her personal happiness for the kingdom's sake (something Philip didn't have in mind)that takes courage! They don't wield swords but they are much stronger that they appear, and while I get some of the critique, I hate the "strong only means kicking butt" idea, like, it's incomplete, and superficial, and it can be reductive & dangerous (for the girls, and for the boys too!)

I have talked about this before in many posts, and others have talked about this way better than me, so I'll try to break down my opinion in a quite short and concise way. And as usual, you probably won't be surprised to find me again, neutral on those topic.

On one side: people are unfairly criticizing and judging too harshly the "original trio" of Disney movies. This has been explained by many people on this website, so I won't expand on this too much, but indeed, there is a mixture of superficial viewing of these movies, of not-contextualizing them, of projecting modern-day values and expectations over nearly century old pieces, and of a general need to criticize and rant about everything (especially big corporations and the "classics" of culture - whenever something becomes a classic, a backlash awaits). Cinderella is a much more surprising and strong character than you'd expect. These movies do teach the idea that being strong doesn't mean simply kicking everybody and proving yourself to be a lone wolf (especially since there's a strong focus on friendship in those stories). The whole "the prince kissing Sleeping Beauty in her sleep is rape culture" is ridiculous ; especially since in the Disney version it was made to be a true love kiss, between people who were in love, and the whole context was the breaking of a curse ; AND the actual rapist-origins of the story are from a 16th century Italian fairytale nobody knew about until the Internet dug it up in the 2010s. Even today many people who invoke the rapist-story are unable to tell you who wrote it or where it comes from, because they just latch onto the idea "Oh yes there's a rape story." and that's it, no more research for them.

Heck, Sleeping Beauty is even surprising for its time AND for the Disney criteria by having elderly, non-attractive female leads who do more than the actual male hero and ultimately are the true focus of the tale - the fairy godmothers. Same things with Snow-White - to make the dwarfs the equal of the titular Snow-White, even more to focus more character development and screen time on them rather than the princess, and to give them unique characterisation and treat them as people rather than plot-props... This was BIG, this was not something usual, and this was a game-changer. Overall - I say the same thing for fantasy literature - a lot of the "new" or "modern" twists people expect from today's fictions are awaiting you in the past. Everybody complains about traditional fantasy not having POC main characters or not having strong female lead that is not sexualized - Earthsea had all those by the 60s and 70s, and it was just as influential on fantasy as Lord of the Rings or Elric.

However... Recognizing that a lot of the criticism is unfair and overblown, and that the backlash is ignorant and caricatural does NOT mean we should just blindly worship and naively accept those movies as untouchable, sacred relics that cannot be criticize. If there is a backlash, it means there is a reason for such criticism to arise in the first place, and we must identify why - to give back the problem in its proper proportions, and not in the exaggerated state we are offered today.

So... The other side - why is this Disney trio not fitting our modern world?

And the answer is very simple. They are heroines of 17th and 19th centuries tales, that were adapted for an early 20th century American mindset. They are bound to age or be unfit for the 21st century. Placing them back into context allows us to understand how great, good or groundbreaking they were in their time - but it does not mean they hold up to modern-day characters. Some elements of the Disney movies aged better than ever, some are still resonating today, and this is what gives them an "out-of-time" feeling. Yet... yet there is a reason why the "Disney princess" had to evolve and had to change herself to fit a new audience. Why did the characters of Rapunzel and Elsa of Disney had such huge success and were beloved by the masses? Because they were answering early 21st century needs, society and expectations, the same way the original trio did for their time.

A character like Aurora of Sleeping Beauty couldn't work today because she literaly is a paper-thin character that does nothing throughout the story and is truly more of a MacGuffin than anything. Oh yes she speaks, has a song, has feelings and emotions - and there is this very progressive idea of having Aurora be unhappy and traumatized by discovering her princess heritage, which aged very well! But the rest? She is a baby ; then she sings about being in love ; then she cries about not wanting to be a princess ; then she sleeps ; then she is married. The story is done and moved by the interesting characters about her, but not by her - Maleficent wants to destroy Aurora, Philip wants to save Aurora, the fairy godmothers wants to protect Aurora... I do not recall which feminist created this theory, but there is the test of the lamp. If you can replace a female character by a beautiful lamp, this is bad for you. And unfortunately Disney's Sleeping Beauty "succeeeds" at the test of the lamp, since Aurora's massively passive involvment in the story makes her a perfect fit. The king and queen create the most beautiful lamp you ever saw ; Maleficent angry curses the lamp to be destroyed ; the fairy godmothers are tasked with keeping the lamp safe ; later the prince discovers the lamp in the woods and wants to have it for his living room, so he plans to return later ; meanwhile the fairy godmothers return the lamp to their rightful owners the king and queen, while Maleficent captures the prince who returned in hope of taking the lamp ; etc etc... It does not change the story one bit.

Another, even more obvious example, of the "age" of those characters - Snow-White. Disney's Snow-White is the very embodiment of the "50s housewife" cliche, and thus was a perfect fit for this first-half-of-the-20th-century American society. In the Grimm story, the little girl enters the house, takes the food, goes to sleep, and upon meeting the dwarfs they make a bargain of chores in exchange of protection. In the Disney movie? She cleans the house all by herself, without asking anybody, just in hope it will please people. Which is a very "fairytale" move... But still is perceived badly as just the typical idea that "A good girl cleans up the house, that we ask her or not". The fact Snow-White also acts as a mother figure for the dwarfs despite being a teenage girl is... yeah it is questionable and there's a whole baggage of the girl existing as solely a future mother and a housekeeper-in-training. Let's not even talk of the infantilization of the dwarfs just because of their small size despite being clearly much older than her...

So yeah, I always take a neutral stance on things (except for a few stuff), and this is no exception. There is an unfair treatment of the original Disney princesses, definitively, and people are misreading the original movies... But when we take a critical look we also have to recognize that these characters were designed for a given society and a given time, and that now they made their time, we do not need them anymore and we can move on to other characters while fondly remembering them or taking inspiration from them. Erasing these characters would be stupid and absurd - but it is just as stupid and absurd to try to cling onto them constantly and to try to make them fit everywhere and anywhere (yes I am taking a jab at Disney and their perpetual recycling and their favoritism of remakes over new movies...).

.

[sammy--moh]

A random ramble about my identity, modern queer community and queer history bc I'm hyperfixated

(I don't want slur discourse under my post. I reclaim words that have been directly used to oppress me only and only towards myself, that's where the conversation ends)

(Cis/Hets don't touch this post

Terfs especially don't even look at this post

Anti kink fuckers don't look at this post, kink and LGBT are separate things but you cannot untangle kink history from queer/LGBT history

If your against the use of the word queer, don't clown on this post

Queer cis people are free to interact and add their opinions but don't clown on this post

Trans people and queer punks and activists please interact <3

Any corrections are welcomed as long as their constructive)

So you could probably find a few posts of me talking about some of my more modern and neo/xeno identity labels, its something I'm fairly proud of I'm a neo pronoun user and have been out as a nonbinary man for a long time

But I don't think I talk about my more, I guess classical and older queer labels and that feels disingenuous because I do still love queer history and have a lot of what would be considered ""outdated"" identieies

Yeah I'm a neo user and have some xeno gender labels, and I'm T4T which as far as I know is a label thats been around a long time but its still common and normally used today

But im also just a gender nonconformist(sometimes i use and reclaim the words transexual and transvestite just to piss off cis people who say i cant), i unapolgetically reclaim the word f4g, im in the leather community, I'm a fem man, im a cub, all things that have been around maybe since the 60s - 70s that I/still/ find connection to, comfort and community in

I mean hell I usually consider myself to currently be in a masc 4 fem relationship which you'd probably never guess by just looking at me

Which is another thing! Why is it always assumed that cubs and bears are the mascs?? I think I have more traditionally feminine clothing and presentation then most of my twink friends, I am a big, fat, extroverted, hairy cub and I am still the fem in one of my relationships and very feminine and fem presenting in general

Obviously masc 4 fem is not the only kind of mlm and wlm relationship that's stupid sndnd and expecting it is heteronormative, some people are masc 4 masc,fem 4 fem, heck not everyone /likes/ traditional masc fem labels and that's awesome!

Another thing I don't see a lot of people talk about is the fact that the bear and cub community is objectively a body positivity movement, that's what it started as that's what it always will be

Bear culture was a reaction to the beauty standards of gay culture at the time, when the ideal in gay relationships were young, thin, conventionally attractive gay and bi/multisexual men

Bear culture was specifically made to appreciate, lift up, and love large, hairy,sometimes older gay and bi/multsexual men and cub culture branched off from bears

I'm gonna be honest, I am recovering from a few body image issues and disorders that I wont go in depth on, and bear + cub culture has helped me to love myself and my body and find myself attractive more than any other body positivity space! Not to say other body positvity spaces arent important and needed, but that as a queer trans man this one has been the space I felt the most welcomed in

I wish there were a few expectations we could leave behind, like the idea that bears and cubs only date other bears and cubs, that terms like bear, twink, otter, leather gay, ect are gay exclusive and not just mlm and nwlnw terms, that fem and masc culture are gay and lesbian exclusive (dont come at me there are several moments in history we see these terms used by bi and generally queer men and that show masc and fem culture in bi and generally queer spaces)

I wish I could find more people like me in history, trans men who weren't masc, transmen and transmascs that were unapologetically feminine, I want to find transman queens in history, trans gay and mlm men, it's hard to find.. but I'm almost positive there has to be at least some people like me in queer history

But in general there's so much we can learn and keep from older queer culture that I feel has been lost a lot with younger generations

I love modern queer culture and neo/xeno labels and communities ans MOGAI and the breakdown of gender norms and sexual expectations

But im also unapolgetically a fem, leather loving, kinkster, trans fucking, fat cub, cross dressing faggot

All of these things are me

You cannot untangle or separate these identieies and labels from /me/

There are riots and loss in my history, and there is raw, unapolgetic queer beauty as well. there is pride in my veins, and fight in my lungs, and I wouldn't trade any of it for shit

[whoredmode]

what do you think of shogo akuji? so far to me he's giving spoiled unfit heir to the throne but i have a feeling he has more depth or will rise to the occasion in some way

on a basic character level, shogo’s fine. not my fave from the sr2 antagonists and truthfully i find his dad more interesting but shogo still plays a vital role and has a some really interesting connections/implications to him.

i really love analyzing the akuji family itself and its larger role in stilwater as a whole, especially as it pertains to my canon. and i think shogo is actually a lot of fun to look at in this regard bc his attitude and actions ultimately do kinda foreshadow a larger issue going on w the akuji family itself that’ll get expanded upon more in my sriv and (especially) post-sriv story.

purely looking at him tho i mean. he’s fine. i like the contrast between him and his father, i like the juxtaposition of his and johnny’s personalities, and i think he may have my favorite death scene of the entire series. sorry if that’s spoilers but i mean. you know it’s coming. and it’s one of the best moments of the game.

on a larger level tho i love the akuji family itself. if you’ll indulge me…mostly copied from an old post but still…

i could talk all fucking day about my lore w the price-sharp family and the akuji family. we know canonically that the “buyers” referred to in sr1 by the rollerz are confirmed to be the akuji family (and i mean “family” referring to the yakuza family itself). it seems as if the price-sharp family and the akuji family have known each other for a long time, it’s just that this whole buying/selling parts thing is comparatively new to their arrangement. but for there to be THAT much trust says to me that this a decades-long relationship

the sharp family is an old money stilwater family. it seems they’ve had roots in the city for a long time, given the amount of money and influence they have (outside the fact they can fund an entirely new gang; sharp is canonically in charge of a lobby for hughes’ election). so i believe part of that power came from being a crime family, specifically financial crime. and w that, several decades before the start of sr1 (i’d guess probably around the 60s/70s), they made connections w the akuji family. this ended up becoming an extremely close arrangement that continued strong into modern day.

originally i believe the price-sharps started w financial crimes. more specifically, money laundering; the money itself probably came from gambling. this falls in line w both the rollerz running the pool hall, the casinos the ronin run in sr2, and, if you’ve read my extensive post on stilwater’s history, you’ll know that i believe the city itself has a long history of activities like that. so who’s to say one of the richest, oldest families in stilwater didn’t get their start back in the day through the gambling scene? later on, this money laundering expanded, now w money coming in from other ventures like front companies that dealt with finance and construction—think the suburb (ronin turf) construction in sr2.

and we know this isn’t the akuji family’s first time in stilwater. they’ve been coming here for years: 1) there’s several instances of NPC dialogue where they talk about having met kazuo many years ago, and 2) mr. wong, another longtime resident of stilwater, says that shogo killed his dog years ago. the way this is said sounds as if this happened a long time ago, and wong has (understandably) been holding a very deep grudge against him. i think at some point when shogo was a little kid, he did this on purpose knowing that wong was an enemy of his dad’s. and i think that alone indicates a very important detail about shogo that, even if he’s definitely not my favorite, still makes him a decently compelling character. that underneath that brazenness and self-righteousness is just a guy who wants his dad to be proud of him. a guy who does what he does bc he wants to be loved by a father who will never care. a guy who will go to his grave crying out for a father who will always ignore him.

[kylesvariouslistsandstuff]

Looooong post incoming...

THE INCREDIBLES and INCREDIBLES 2 have been on my mind, lately.

Writer-director Brad Bird’s 2004 superhero movie, done up at Pixar in the days they weren’t owned by The Walt Disney Company, was like a formative film for me. Like STAR WARS was for many kids growing up in the ‘70s and ‘80s, THE INCREDIBLES was probably that for 12-year-old me, among a couple other movies. (That same year, I was also blown away by SPIDER-MAN 2 and… Umm… I, ROBOT?)

And I’m one of the few weirdos that really, really dug the contested sequel. Well, contested by people online. It did get good critical reception and got an Oscar nom, made a truck ton at the box office, but it’s one of those weird “big” movies that came out, made tons and tons of money, but I hear few talk about it to this day. I feel some other recent Pixar sequels fit that bill as well, like FINDING DORY and TOY STORY 4. These absolutely massive movies that people raced to see, because they love the originals and the characters in them so much, but then seemingly… Forgot about? I think it has a lot to do with just how much stuff comes out now, that it kinda all gets lost in the shuffle. They don’t stick the way TOY STORY 3 did back in 2010, before we got so inundated with lots and lots of stuff oozing out of every pore: TV, streaming, other movies, podcasts, more streaming, etc. etc. Plus, there's that special sauce with the originals that tends to make them hit different than the sequels, no matter how good the sequels may be...

But no matter, I loved INCREDIBLES 2 and still do, even if I think it falls a little bit short of the original. That was a hard act to follow, after all. I did go over some of the few things about the sequel that I thought could’ve been expanded a bit, a few months back… And I’m thinking about them again.

I think the main point of contention with INCREDIBLES 2 was the Screenslaver, and the whole twist being that he was a fictional character, a face that was created by a disgruntled telecommunications company exec who wanted to keep superheroes illegal.

I get it, in a way. Screenslaver looks cool, and that one action sequence with him in the strobe light cage with Elastigirl? I fuckin’ LOVE it. Such a dynamic, well-done action sequence. I guess it made people wish that both Bob and Helen, and the kids and Frozone and maybe those weirdo superheroes like Screech and Reflux, took this guy on. A slender, creepy mask-wearing mind control villain… It's what you expect in a superhero movie, the heroes fighting a rather weird bad guy!

And yet, in a way, I feel like Screenslaver being a mere face. A distraction. Makes INCREDIBLES 2 every bit as subversive as the original. Especially since INCREDIBLES 2 came out in 2018, which was literally a superhero/comic book movie-heavy year. Maybe the heaviest? You had AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR, DEADPOOL 2, ANT-MAN AND THE WASP, TEEN TITANS GO! TO THE MOVIES, VENOM, SPIDER-MAN: INTO THE SPIDER-VERSE (!), am I missing anything? That year was S-T-A-C-K-E-D.

By contrast, in 2004, THE INCREDIBLES debuted opposite of SPIDER-MAN 2 and HELLBOY… And also BLADE: TRINITY, THE PUNISHER, and CATWOMAN… Much different times. Especially when it was greenlit by Pixar in the year 2000… What was happening in superhero movies that year? X-MEN had come out, and that was after a fairly successful BLADE movie… And years after BATMAN & ROBIN was lambasted and put the Batman movie format to rest for a good while. (Now it’s inescapable. Every few years, a new actor portrays Batman in live-action.)

THE INCREDIBLES stood out in 2004, I feel, not just because of the freedom animation allowed for the superhero concept (which put it above many of the live-action spectacles being made at the time), but also because it rung closer to a ‘60s spy movie than a typical beat-em-up extravaganza. It’s clearly set in a midcentury modern world, a stylized retro futuristic early ‘60s that is informed by the presence of superpowered beings. Or “Supers”, as this franchise has always called them. While there isn’t a wealth of material explaining how world events played out, it’s all implied and hinted at in both films.

By the mid-1960s, American animation had kinda been pigeonholed as an outlet for cheap, reliable kids’ entertainment on Saturday mornings. The closest thing to an American “spy” movie in the animated medium back then was, of all things, a FLINTSTONES movie: 1966’s THE MAN CALLED FLINTSTONE. THE INCREDIBLES almost feels like a lost animated movie made for a slightly older audience circa 1965, but dusted off decades later and done in CGI. That’s a Brad Bird staple. Born in 1957, he loves midcentury modern retrofutures, and just that setting in general. THE IRON GIANT is set in the late 1950s, he had a cancelled take on Will Eisner’s THE SPIRIT that was set around the time it was introduced, his long-gestating RAY GUNN has been described as a 1930s sci-fi noir retrofuture, MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE is of course a ‘60s spy show and a series of feature films (Brad’s feels the most ‘60s out of the movies), TOMORROWLAND… Need I say more? Even RATATOUILLE, which doesn’t involve super heroics or gadgets or futuristic technology… It’s literally a movie about cooking! Even that movie has a retro vibe to it. It’s set in the then-present, but it’s timeless in its look and feel.

Anyways, THE INCREDIBLES plays as much James Bond as it does, say, Batman. You have the whole Nomanisan Island lair, close-quarters fights with armed men, Michael Giacchino’s score, it’s a just-right mix. The first INCREDIBLES has a rather conventional bad guy in Syndrome. An evil guy in an eye-catching suit, with all these various man-made powers, as opposed to other Supers’ natural-born powers. INCREDIBLES 2’s villain is merely an average woman, roughly in her 30s? 40s? She has no powers, she’s just a master manipulator, almost a filmmaker in that regard. I mean she’s an artist and a designer, that’s made perfectly clear the minute you see her, so it makes sense that she could pull off this elaborate show. Mysterio in SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME - which was released a year after INCREDIBLES 2 - needed drones and such to do that. That the Screenslaver is merely a brainwashed pizza delivery guy is part of her brilliance.

So, that’s what makes INCREDIBLES 2 stick out from the other superhero movies circa 2018. A year where the majority of the villains were clear-cut, like a big purple alien guy who wipes out half the universe… and here’s INCREDIBLES 2 with a very crafty woman who essentially puts on a big show. And that in the second half, it’s her and her use of mind control technology that are the big obstacle for the Supers. Not a creature or a conventional superhero bad guy. I think it works, honestly. Like, what’s a different kind of challenge? What if all the good guys got brainwashed, leaving a few… Namely the KIDS, to fend for themselves? That’s a very cool idea, honestly. But again, I get why detractors wanted the shadowy mind control guy instead. Part of me would love to see that version of INCREDIBLES 2, too, if it ever existed. According to interviews w/ the filmmakers, Screenslaver was a late addition to the plot. INCREDIBLES 2 was supposed to come out in summer 2019, but Disney had pushed it up a year, which apparently affected a lot of the decision-making. For some, it shows.

Maybe if INCREDIBLES 2 came out in 2008 instead of 2018, and had the same exact villain twist… In a world where other Disney Animation and Pixar movies with twist villains didn’t yet exist (i.e. Hans, Callaghan, Bellwether, Ernesto), it’d be received differently? I do not know. But that’s why it all works for me. I can tune out the succession of “twist villain” movies, and take INCREDIBLES 2 on its own merits.

In my previous piece on INCREDIBLES 2, I did kind of find fault with its rather rushed third act and how the film doesn’t really bite into the meatier political aspect it kind of teases. The whole idea of a society being dependent on superheroes, rather than getting up and helping pitch in to make the world a better place. (Not dissimilar to TOMORROWLAND’s message.) It’s really all just there to serve Evelyn’s character, which I’m totally fine with… It works in that context. But on the other hand, I feel like this could’ve gone further and explored the whole idea of superheroes being - to quote Jenny Nicholson in her review of JOKER - a “band-aid solution” to crime. And it being a PG-rated mass-market Disney release is no reason to keep me from speculating about this version of INCREDIBLES 2.

I get that Brad Bird probably just wanted to keep it simple and streamlined, and that the “who needs Supers anyways” idea is just a device for Evelyn, not there to make a larger statement. I do believe all art is political, even these movies, but how far the creators want to go with the politics is another story. Ultimately, Evelyn’s methods of getting her way are wrong, but she has points… What if a better society could be created that didn’t depend on superpowered beings having to clobber criminals or threats to save the day?

Clearly the world of THE INCREDIBLES needs superheroes, though, because you have things like mole men with massive drill-mobiles cutting through cities like they’re nothing. But I feel that in a world where we are hyperaware of the system’s flaws and how it’s mostly a failure by design and pretty much creates crime (I’m getting political here, heads up), INCREDIBLES 2 could’ve possibly said something about that. Instead of having superheroes, a stand in for the police when the police themselves or the military can’t handle the threat, what’s causing all the crime in New Urbem and Municiberg in the first place? What systemic inequalities are happening? How progressive is this world because of the presence of superheroes/cool tech? Why are there are robberies? What’s the poverty rate? Etc. etc.

And you may be thinking, this is just an animated family movie, it doesn’t have to be that deep… But I disagree. Plenty of family films, and good stories in general, don’t shy away from this kind of stuff. Art is not made in a vacuum. A lot of actual real-life kids LIVE these sorts of things, too.

But even PG-13 Marvel movies, probably because they’re released by Disney - and Disney tries to play moderate when it comes to political stuff (though they are still too far left for dinguses who yell “WOKE” at everything), don’t really go that far either.

CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR chips at whether there should be government regulation of superheroes or not, until it settles for being a story about two friends turning against each other over a family death… and then a few MCU movies later, none of that matters - the superheroes are ultimately needed to stop the big purple guy in space… THE FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER asks why, in a post-Blip world, a universe where half of all the living beings just ceased to be… Why are there still such inequalities on Earth, after Thanos’ snap and subsequent revival of everyone who was unalived? It’s all the catalyst for the Flagsmashers, and leader Karli herself. She was so nuanced as an antagonist, and you also had this ersatz Captain America guy who straight up murdered a person in cold blood. I was loving where it was all going, until a few episodes in, they just made Karli a straight-up murderer. All that nuance is flattened, and the final episode is just another big fight scene. Outside of Sam Wilson’s speech at the end, what really changed on MCU’s Earth? What did this Disney+ series have to say, really? Other than bringing up those very real problems we face in the U.S. and around the world?

I think INCREDIBLES 2 is just more interested in being about its characters first, which, again. Is fine. I don’t think less of the movie because of that. The first INCREDIBLES was about the family dynamic first and foremost, too, and not the spectacle. I don’t require Brad Bird to share all of his political views with me. I appreciate that the movie even posits the question to begin with, it’s ultimately why I’ve been thinking about it! Maybe Bird sees that world as simpler because it’s one where superheroes have been around since at least the turn of the 20th century, and things are different because of that.

This is probably why some people get a very Ayn Randian reading out of THE INCREDIBLES, when I think Bird’s conceit was merely “the villain is someone who uses technology to be a pretend-superhero”. It’s all there to inform Syndrome’s character, not necessarily to declare to the audience that people without powers CAN’T be superheroes. Syndrome kills several Supers so he can enact his plan and make everyone into Supers, because he’s big mad at Mr. Incredible, and that’s why he fails. He could’ve just grown up to make super technology to make other people super, not kill a bunch of them. Heck, if he had turned out better, he could’ve singlehandedly ended the outlawing of Supers… And not natural-born Supers… Imagine THAT movie…

The original movie, I feel, just doesn’t necessarily make a case for whether people born without superpowers can be Super. This dichotomy is just there to make the villain what he is, and hint at what he could’ve been instead of a villain. Sure, the Parr family and Frozone saving the day at the end upholds this apparent status quo, but I don’t think Bird was thinking about it like that. He had denied the Ayn Rand comparisons as far back as the release of the first movie.

The likelier reading of this film, and some of Bird’s other films such as RATATOUILLE and TOMORROWLAND, is informed by Bird’s career trajectory. He was mentored by Milt Kahl, of all people! One of the greatest animators, one of Walt’s Nine Old Men… He was mentored by him as a teenager! But most of Bird’s career, as noted by Mark Mayerson, was a long series of denied opportunities. His aforementioned SPIRIT movie didn’t take off in the ‘80s because who during that period - a time when SECRET OF NIMH came and went, and when features like TWICE UPON A TIME couldn’t get an audience - wanted to sink money into an animated action movie of that caliber? RAY GUNN didn’t go through in the 1990s at Turner Animation, and Warner Bros. dumped THE IRON GIANT in the late summer of 1999 with an ineffective marketing campaign that caused it to flop at the box office.

Because IRON GIANT did so badly, Bird took his toys and left Warner Bros. He headed to Pixar with his superhero movie concept, and he got in despite those who didn’t quite want him around. John Lasseter was not fond of an outsider coming in with this very different pitch for a movie. Up until that point, Pixar was literally what I like to call “Team TOY STORY”. John Lasseter, TOY STORY’s director, also directed A BUG’S LIFE and TOY STORY 2. Pete Docter and Andrew Stanton, where instrumental in TOY STORY 1 & 2, directed MONSTERS, INC. and FINDING NEMO respectively. Lee Unkrich, an editor on TOY STORY, co-directed on TOY STORY 2, MONSTERS, INC. and FINDING NEMO. Lasseter fired Jorgen Klubien off of his CARS, which was in the works at the time, and took it over. Tight-knit building. Bird was an outsider, and Lasseter wasn’t thrilled about that. But luckily, Steve Jobs staved him off and also kept Michael Eisner’s doubts about THE INCREDIBLES at bay. Bird got to make his rather outre superhero movie at Pixar in spite of Lasseter, Eisner, etc…. And it was a big hit and an Oscar winner. Lasseter was singing a different tune after that.

Future directors didn’t have Jobs’ protection, though, which meant that Lasseter could fire them more easily… And he did… Brenda Chapman, Bob Peterson, etc.

So then after THE INCREDIBLES, Brad Bird really wanted to get a live-action adaptation of the novel 1906 off the ground, but that didn’t go anywhere. He took over RATATOUILLE at Pixar, made a big hit out of that, and then tried to pursue other endeavors. His MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE movie (GHOST PROTOCOL in 2011) did very well, but then after that, he made TOMORROWLAND and it bombed… And then took on an INCREDIBLES sequel. He is just now starting to get his cooler ideas off the ground, as his RAY GUNN is finally in production at Lasseter’s Skydance Animation. Funny how that works, right? The guy is over 60 years old and is just getting started.

If anything, his movies are more about that. He’s a guy with really cool, game-changing ideas for animated movies in an industry that isn’t interested in that… So… The INCREDIBLES movies being about superheroes who want to help people but not being allowed to by the system, RATATOUILLE being about an animal that doesn’t belong in a kitchen wanting to cook for people, GHOST PROTOCOL being about spies still trying to do the right thing and save the world after their unit has been shut down by the system, TOMORROWLAND being about people not subverting the system by pitching in to make the world a better place and also being barred from the utopia - by, again, the system - where they can make that happen… Yeah, it’s very clear that Bird’s movies are just him venting about his own hangups via fantastical concepts, not trying to espouse some sort of Ayn Randian ideology. How the hell do you get “if you’re naturally talented, you should hoard those gifts from the rest of society” out of THAT?

I think that’s what it is, and that’s what informs the world of THE INCREDIBLES. It’s simply an Earth where superheroes exist, and the system makes them illegal instead of finding other ways to correct accidents that have happened whenever they are around. Just outright ban them from doing what they do, instead. I mean, governments in real life ban all kinds of people for various reasons, strip away their rights, dehumanize them, criminalize them, etc… Sometimes mere circumstances, such as poverty, are viewed as personal failure and inherently criminal. There’s a level of relatability with superheroes for some people because of that. The late Kevin Conroy, for example, used his role as Batman in the 1992 animated series an outlet for his struggles as a gay man. X-Men stories, and the early 2000s X-MEN movies, are either interpreted as that or ARE largely about that.

But even then, Bird’s world still posits some interesting questions that it doesn’t fully answer. It’s busier focusing on the characters. This is more an observation, as I’m not trying to dock the original or the second movie any points… I just wonder why, in the sequel, the world the movies are set in was so quick to legalize Supers after everything that has happened. All it took was saving a boat and that was it? Not the defeat of Syndrome’s final Omnidroid? Not the other good deeds before that? I feel like that portion in the final third of the movie was strangely very rushed.

The thing is, before I wrap this up (phew), we only have two canonical movies in this series, and a handful of comedic/gag-based shorts. The world of the INCREDIBLES is wide and ripe for exploring, I’d argue, but Brad Bird’s not getting any younger and he should pursue the projects he really wants to make. Again, RAY GUNN, his Western, his horror movie, his musical, etc. Pixar honored him by not having someone else throw together a second INCREDIBLES sometime in the late 2000s/early 2010s. Like, Disney could’ve forced Pixar to make one without him anyways, but no. They waited. And if there’s a third one to be made, or a prequel set during the “Golden Age”, they’ll likely wait for him to be available and willing to do it. Or if he gives it his blessing and leaves it to another director… Like Pixar did with TOY STORY 4 and INSIDE OUT 2, and almost did with FINDING DORY. I wonder if he was gonna do the same with INCREDIBLES 2, had TOMORROWLAND done great and he went straight for a sequel to that.

I’d like to see more of that universe, but it needn’t be forced out of the filmmakers at Pixar. Maybe the little we know of it is what kind of stokes our imaginations when it comes to this series? Look at something like STAR WARS now… There’s a ton of movies and shows and expanded universe stuff, which arguably dilutes the magic of its universe... THE INCREDIBLES isn’t that big wide despite the original movie almost being 20 years old. THE INCREDIBLES doesn’t need to be that huge, but I would like to see a little bit more of that world. Maybe another movie - be it INCREDIBLES 3 or a prequel called SUPERS or something - or a Disney+ series, but not the behemoth something like STAR WARS or the MCU have become.

I feel it’s worth playing around in a little bit more. I’m also biased, because I love the movies, particularly the first one.

[allthingsfook]

Hey there! I’ve been scrolling through your page and love it here lol I just saw you were doing ships and wondered if I could get one! But also stopping by to say hi 💖💖 (nsfw things are gladly welcomed for this ship as well lol)

I’m 24 years old, a double cancer, 5’4”, with short brown hair with bangs, I have some tattoos and piercings and love wearing lots of crystals on my necklaces and rings. I’m a thicker, curvier kinda gal.

I’ve been a modern and contemporary dancer my entire life and occasionally teach workshops and classes, I love what I do so much. I also play piano and ukulele in my spare time, but am too shy to play in front of a crowd. I love swimming in the river, hiking, camping, anything outdoors really. Also love crocheting when I’m not feeling like going out and doing anything. I love all 60s/70s music (The Doors is one of my faves)

I’m an extremely and deeply sensitive/emotional person. I cry a lot about everything lol. I also consider myself a deeply spiritual creature and practice yoga and breath work regularly. but I also love making people laugh and tend to be the comic relief in a lot of my friend groups.

That’s all I can think of. 💖💖

Hi!!!! So glad you stopped by my blog and you are curious about your ship!!! I hope you enjoy what follows…. 💕💕

I ship you with 🥁🥁🥁

Danny 🥁❤️

Of all the boys, I think Danny would be the most attracted to your aesthetic, personality, and hobbies! I think all the boys are enamored by beautiful curvy figures, but Danny…. That hits different for him. God would he worship you! Close your eyes and imagine his calloused hands caressing your thighs and skimming across your stomach. While you may or may not be self conscious about certain parts of yourself, Danny would touch you in such a way that rewires the way you view your body. What a special thing to do.

Danny would be immediately attracted by your tattoos. When he first sees them, it would reveal a kink he didn’t know he had. And every time you sleep with each other, he’d kiss your skin where the ink is imbedded. Where alt meets natural, you exist. Danny would swoon over your crystals and jewelry, and probably steal some of your crystal necklaces.

He would love that your a dancer, constantly begging you to show him your moves. Once you finish your latest routine, he’d stand, make his way to your, wrap his hands around your hips and graze his lips across your neck. Trailing his kisses up your neck, he’d whisper into your ear, “you are beyond sexy.” All his teasing movements climax to a heated round of sex on the living room floor. One thing that is special about Danny is when he is with you nothing else in the world matters. Dropping down to the floor, he has zero regard for the drapes being open and the lights on. He also has this odd yet perfect balance of showing you off but letting everyone know you are his!

I believe Danny would be the best at protecting and serving your delicate soul. Always supporting and caring for you. He’d be dedicated to boosting your confidence, validating your feelings, and talking your through hard times. Being with him for a few months would have you feeling like a strong, fierce, kickass woman!!!!

I can see you and Danny share a lot of hobbies. I could easily see the both of you taking a trip into the mountains, pitching a tent, hiking all afternoon, and taking a dip in the river to cool off. That’s what Danny would say anyway, but once you have stripped down to your bra and panties and dive in…. It’s game on. Try keeping his hands off you. He’d tread over to you and run his hands over your body under the water. You’d giggle and wrap your arms and legs around him. Before you know it, his tongue is in your mouth and your bra is floating away 😉☺️

Finally, don’t think about Danny watching you do yoga. Manipulating your body into relaxing, soothing, sensual positions. He’d respect your time and wait until your done to come tell you he loves how sexy you look stretching out in your yoga fit. Soon you’d find him putting you into his own interpretation of yoga moves. Only this day, he wants to spice it up. He says he got something for you…. He presents you a silk baggy. You untie it to reveal an Indian Jade chakrub. You honestly are a little surprised but completely turned on. He’d go on to lay you out on your yoga mat and pleasure you with the crystal. 😍😍😍

Omg…… that was hot as hell 😲 I so hope this finds you well and you enjoy!!!! And most of all!!!!!! I wanna hear what you think of this so badly I will also include a collage and song ship for you as well 🥰🥰 Thank you for stumbling along my blog, hope to hear more from you!!

[positivelybeastly]

hi! I'm the anon who sent the icebeast playlist ask. It was actually nice to get some actual context on what's been going on with Bobby and Hank to get them to this point- I'm reading chronologically right now and I'm still in the 60s, (though I have read some more scattered modern runs here and there) so my knowledge is limited. I love both characters quite a lot but i can definitely see why you're upset on Hank's behalf in those interactions :( . I'm not gonna defend Bobby here, because while even with my limited knowledge I can piece together some reasons for why Bobby responded the way he did and fucked that conversation up, there's no justification and he definitely needs to make it up to Hank. Thanks again for the context, I really and truly love seeing nuanced takes on character dynamics and sometimes that nuance gets messy when it comes to looking at what actually happened in the text as opposed to what one might have preferred to happen.

Oh, hey, hello there!

First off, I want to say - if anyone has a meme prompt that they want to send in, like this playlist meme, but they don't have an RP blog, you're still good to send things in on Anon! That's what Anon is for, precisely because you, my Anonymous friend, sent in the playlist ask, and now it's opened up a whole conversation and people are learning more about comic book characters who, let's face it, have SO MUCH history. SO MUCH.

Being able to just get the highlights or even an attempt at a throughline makes such a difference, honestly - it gives you a coherent story where you can go, okay, I want to see more of THAT, and that's when you can just go, hey, where can I read more of this storyline or this writing style or this character. Comics are so much more legible and easy to break into when you can pick a character or a dynamic or a storyline, and just go from there. It's still a massive problem, all these years on, and Marvel and DC don't make it easy with their confusing numbering systems and constant retcons.

With that said . . . hoo, you're starting off in the 60s? I am. Kinda sorry, friend, that is a rough time, I can only do so much Lee/Kirby X-Men before I just start breaking out into hives. When you get into the early 70s, and especially when Claremont takes over, though, man, you're in for a treat!

And it's also - I feel like it's really important for me to state my biases, because I am biased. I love Hank. I write him a lot. I've read . . . probably the lion's share of his comics. He's kind of a personal inspiration, in some ways, and he was really influential to me when I was a kid due to various body related issues.

So I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, and I maybe tend to side with him by default, but that's usually why I include the panels when I talk about these things, so that you can see them and have your own take on it, so you can see why I came to that interpretation. There's nothing I hate more than comic book fans who will tell you how a storyline or a character goes, and their back-up for it is, that's the way I remember it, and then you go and read it and it's completely fuckin' different. Fucking annoys the piss out of me.

And I want people to feel like they can argue with me! I love talking about messy character dynamics, and character who fuck up and make bad choices, because that's how life is and how people are, that's how I am and how you are. Especially since I know what and why Hank was feeling in a particular moment, why he needed Bobby so much and Bobby let him down, but I don't know where that sits in Bobby's story. Maybe I'm being harsher on him than I should be, and I welcome that discussion, that's a conversation worth having!

If I wasn't open to interpretation of these characters by other people, I would solely write fanfic - and, to be fair, I do - but I mostly roleplay, because I love the windows into the soul. I love the moments when characters click or don't, because it reveals essential truths, it hits you in the gut, it's fucking satisfying, man.

And honestly, there's so much about Hank's story that I wish had gone differently. So many character dynamics that have fallen by the wayside, that made them better - remember when Hank and Emma used to be best friends? Yeah! That used to be a thing! So getting to play that out here, with friends and talented roleplayers and talented roleplayer friends (lbr, these three things are the same thing) is just a joy.

Thank you for the asks, friend!