#it makes me think of those movie remakes though

[loronoazoro]

Mixed feelings about the Two Piece tbh. On the one hand I love love love the opportunity to fix some of the atrocious pacing, and I want it to be condensed to something that seems more watchable in length (so I can convince my friends to watch it lol)

On the other hand, I love the og voice actors and hate change haha. I also honestly love the style of the early episodes. Like yeah they're not too advanced by today's standards, but they have such a charming look that some of the later (pre wano) episodes lack imo

[nikibogwater]

Actually while I'm thinking about it, I just wanna say that the more live-action remakes Disney shlups out like shoveled manure, the more amazed I am that Cinderella (2015) exists. It breaks literally every standard of Disney's LA remakes.

It's not a shot-for-shot remake of the original 1950 animated film, though it does include small references and homages to it, but only when such things can be incorporated organically into the story.

The creators understood and respected the cross-cultural significance of the Cinderella story. They didn't want to "fix" it, or add some wacky twist to it, they just wanted to make the best possible version of the Quintessential Cinderella that they could.

Everything that could be done practically was done practically. The carriage was a real, the horses pulling it were real, and all of the other animals (with the exception of the mice and lizards, since their performance was a lot more involved than the others') were real living animals, the lizard footman and goose carriage driver were wearing prosthetics instead of just having their animal features added in post, the Fairy Godmother's dress had little LED lights sewn into it so that it would actually glow for real, the ballroom set was built by hand and included real chandeliers with more than 2000 total candles that were all actually lit for the scene, and I could go on but you get the point.

There's a ton of attention paid to little details that make the world feel real and lived in. Ella's shoes are always a little scuffed and dirty. Her farm dress is faded and wrinkled. When she breaks down and runs away to the woods, she rides her horse bareback (which, once again, was a thing Lily James actually did, no stunt-double or editing in post), because not only is that something a country girl like her would know how to do, but it also makes sense that with as upset as she is, she wouldn't want to waste time with saddling the horse. When she's dancing with the prince, it's visually obvious that he is leading her and giving her cues because of course Ella wouldn't know the latest ballroom dances, and would need him to guide her through it.

Hey speaking of dancing, y'know what else this movie does that no other LA remake has been allowed to do (at least not to this extent)? ROMANCE. Land sakes alive, this is one of the most unabashedly and yet still tastefully romantic movies I've ever seen. Ella and Kit are just oozing romantic chemistry from the moment they lock eyes for the first time. It all comes down to the fact that these two characters both have the same core values of courage and kindness, which makes their admiration for each other feel grounded and believable. Richard Madden also really sells Kit's feelings for Ella with the way his eyes go all big and soft whenever he looks at her. And don't even get me started on Lily's performance as Ella. Her quiet awe that someone as powerful as the prince loves her. The timidity and fear that she's not really worthy of that. The selfless determination to protect him from her family's cruelty, even if it means she'll never see him again, I'm just-- *banging my fist against the table and screaming into a pillow*

Absolutely god-tier costume design. No notes, I think Sandy Powell's work speaks for itself. Btw, in case you were somehow still wondering, yes, Ella's ballgown is fully practical--those layers upon layers of dreamy silk skirts are real. CG was only used to brighten up the blue color to make her stand out from the crowd more.

Wicked stepmother was allowed to actually be wicked. The movie never tries to make you sympathize with Lady Tremaine, or shift the blame off to someone else. And her villainy is given an extra layer of depth with the reveal that she is a dark reflection of Ella. They've both lost people they loved, but where Ella refused to let her grief get in the way of kindness, Lady Tremaine became utterly consumed by it. She views the death of her first husband as a sort of twisted justification for pursuing all her worst impulses. She despises Ella for her ability to flourish even while enduring terrible suffering, for being everything Lady Tremaine was either unable or flat-out refused to be.

Also Cate Blanchet absolutely SLAYS in this role. Hands-down my favorite portrayal of the wicked stepmother character.

Anyways, TLDR: Cinderella (2015) is the only Disney live-action remake that can justify its own existence and that's because it actively defies everything the LA remakes are today.

[sammys-magical-au]

Night Furies & aging - a theory on the changes in Toothless’ design and behaviours

[I definitely didn’t accidentally delete this post the first time I tried making it and scream silently for five minutes]

Ok so strap in y’all, cuz this’ll probably be a long one, but I have some ideas as to why Toothless looks and acts so differently between the first and third films, since it’s something I’ve noticed a lot of people in the fandom talking about (especially recently with the announcement of the unnecessary live-action remake), and while a lot of the criticisms are totally valid (and this post is not meant to argue against those criticisms), I do have an alternate theory/headcanon about the changes we see in Toothless’ design and personality that I like a lot better than just thinking it’s the design team purposely fucking up a really good character to make him more appealing to children (even though that’s definitely what it is, again, I’m not saying that interpretation is wrong, this one is just more fun bc I get to ramble about biology and such 👌)

Y’all with me so far? Good. Let’s dive in, shall we?

Basically, my theory revolves around the fact that Toothless is a lot younger in the first movie than we may have thought. This is even kinda backed up in the second movie, because Valka points out that Hiccup and Toothless are the same age - so, that being considered, it’s likely that humans and dragons age similarly and have similar lifespans, and therefore in the first movie, considering how young Hiccup was, it’s not far out of the realm of possibility that Toothless was a juvenile dragon at this point in the timeline. He was practically a baby.

If that’s true, then that could be a very good explanation for the changes in both his physical appearance and his behaviours. His looks changed simply because he was still growing and developing at the time of the first movie, and his physical appearance changed along with Hiccup’s, meaning they quite literally grew up together between the first and third films. His habits and behaviours on the other hand would have changed due to social influences, and growing up surrounded by humans rather than his own kind.

I’ll expand more on both of these throughout the post, but I’m gonna start with comparisons of his design changes, specifically the ones I’ve seen pointed out the most often.

___

Physical design aspects:

1 - head shape

One of the biggest talking points when it comes to Toothless’ design changes, and also one of the most notable differences, is the shape of his face - specifically from the profile view.

The shape of his head differs a lot between the first and third movies, with his brow becoming much more prominent and the slope of his nose becoming steeper. When images of his profile from the first, second, and third movies are put side by side, however, it becomes a bit more clear how this progression could indicate aging and change in skull shape/structure

For a real-world example, here’s a comparison between a tiger cub and an adult tiger from the same angle:

As you can see, there are a lot of similarities here. An adult tiger’s brow also becomes more prominent, while the head becomes a bit bulkier and more square-shaped rather than thin and rectangular. The angles of the face are also much sharper.

When put side by side, the similarities are a bit more clear, and the changes in Toothless’ design start to look a lot more like the development of a big cat from cub to adult.

2 - scale pattern

Another change that gets brought up a lot is the fact that Toothless’ scale patterns disappear soon after the first movie.

In reality, if you look closely, the patterns are still there, but they’ve faded. You can see it better on his wings:

He definitely still has spots, but they’re much less visible.

This could possibly be a form of camouflage for young night furies - similarly to how a black jaguar’s spots become less visible as they grow

With the adult jaguar, the spots are still visible, but you have to look a little harder to see them - same with adult vs juvenile Toothless

Again, the similarities to big cats are pretty noticeable when compared side-by-side.

Additionally, although we sadly don’t get a really good look at the glowy effect the Hidden World has on Toothless’ scales in the movie, from what I can see, it definitely looks like the glow makes his scale patterns a lot more visible

3 - bulkiness

The third main difference I see pointed out is the fact that Toothless bulked up a lot between the first and third movies, and that one also has a simple possibile explanation - lots of young animals bulk up as they grow, because of muscle growth!

It’s very reasonable to assume that Toothless got bulkier bc he was young in the first movie, and over time (especially considering the amount of flying and fighting he did) he developed more muscle.

Compared to a lot of large mammals, the similarities in development are once again pretty evident. And I hear what you’re saying - Toothless is a dragon, a reptile, not a mammal, but the truth of the matter is, Toothless’ design *was* heavily based on large mammals, specifically cats, so comparing him to large cats and other mammals isn’t that much of a stretch, especially when you bring into consideration that an animal of this size might develop a little differently than real-life, modern reptiles.

Now, the night lights do sort of put a wrench in this theory, specifically the scale pattern part, and especially Dart and Ruffrunner, since they have more resemblance to Toothless but don’t share his scale pattern from the first movie - and I’m willing to admit that. That being said, it would be interesting to see a night light design with similar looks to Toothless in the first movie, specifically with the scale patterns. I’ll definitely chuck that in the to-draw folder for now, bc it’s fun to explore dragon biology through my own personal takes.

___

Behavioural changes:

Now onto the second part of this already-too-long post, the changes in Toothless’ behaviour throughout the films.

In the first movie, Toothless tends to act very catlike, whereas in the second and third movies, he acts more like a dog or even a person at times. I think this could be because, if he was a juvenile when he and Hiccup met, he learned more human behaviours than the behaviours of his own kind, almost being hand-raised in a sense, since he was so young.

The light fury’s (or “Ivory”, as I tend to call her just for funsies) behaviours also showcase this, since she grew up in the wild and surrounded by her own kind (as we see at least three other light furies besides her in the Hidden World), and behaves a lot like Toothless did in the first movie, before being trained. If Toothless hadn’t had any human interaction, it’s very likely that he’d act similarly to Ivory and the way he did in the first movie.

Additionally, the reason behind his awkward behaviour around Ivory is because he doesn’t know how to act or what body language to use around another fury, as he didn’t learn. Everything he’s learned about social interactions came more from humans - which can often be seen with wild animals raised by people, their behaviour is often different from that of animals that grew up in their natural environments. This isn’t to say that I think Toothless being raised by humans is wrong - it was his only way of survival, and the relationship he has with humans is much closer to that of an animal with a wildlife conservationist rather than that of an exotic “pet” influencer on tik tok. However, having to grow up without other night furies definitely affected his social development with other furies, since he didn’t have the chance to interact with another dragon like him until he was a full-grown adult.

(This also connects to my headcanon that night/light furies live in familial groups similar to lion prides, and young dragons often stay with this group until they’re ready to find a mate and start a pride of their own. Toothless likely got separated from his pride too early, either by getting lost somehow or, since he’s said to be the last of his kind, they were all killed - either way, he wasn’t ready to leave them yet, which might also explain his heightened aggression at the beginning of the first movie, since he’s not only a wild animal but he’s also terrified and too young to be on his own.)

If you made it this far, congratulations! You’re more patient than me!! And thanks for letting me ramble about this!!!

TL:DR - Toothless was a juvenile/very young dragon in the first movie, and the changes in his appearance and behaviour stem from both his natural aging process and the fact that he was separated from his kind at a very young age and grew up with humans.

[euniexenoblade]

Favorite Movies 2024

I do one of these every year, even though I see less and less of the current releases every year. But, I've been doing it on tumblr since 2012, so it's a tradition and everyone else does it so, why not?

There's a lot of movies I haven't gotten to see yet. Like, as far as I can tell Queer isn't available anywhere even though it's one of those movies I'm sure I'd love. Everyone seems to like The Brutalist, but I don't want to watch a bad cam recording. I don't usually see most non-American movies until the next year. Really excited to see that movie Viet and Nam.

That said, some honorable mentions:

Past Lives was a really beautiful film about a family immigrating to the USA from South Korea and how that affects their daughter and her friend's relationship, not to mention her identity. It's 5/5 for me but it's technically 2023 and it feels more fun to highlight the films I chose.

Perfect Days is a Japanese movie about a guy that works for a toilet cleaning company and it's really a beautiful movie. Like the previous mention the only problem is it's from 2023 and I think it'd be fun to highlight the films I chose.

Conclave is fun! Who would have thought picking the pope was exactly like high school cafeteria drama!

I'm sure no one cares for Speak No Evil, considering this one is an American remake. But, personally I had a lot of fun, James McAvoy is hot and honestly the family deserved it for diving a Tesla.

Drive Away Dolls is a really funny gay comedy. It's not good enough to make a "best of" list, but that doesn't mean it's not worth a watch. In that same respect, Bottoms was really funny. But again, not best of the year worthy, and it's from 2023.

Anyways! The list!

10 - Heretic

Heretic is one of those edgy pseudo intellectual movies that thinks it's so much smarter than it actually is. And I love it. Do not go into this expecting a horror movie, expect it to be some dude trolling some Mormon girls. Don't take it seriously and just enjoy the ride. It's funnier than it is scary. When the guy compares the Book of Mormon to Monopoly, or compares Jesus Christ to Jar Jar Binks? Hysterical.

9 - Alien: Romulus

I don't really have anything to add on to the letterboxd review. As a Alien lover, a Xenomorph fucker, and a die hard fan of the series, I really loved the atmosphere in this one. The world building was great. I'm happy we finally got a decent installment, finally.

8 - Challengers

Again, said most of what I need to up there. Challengers is not the movie you expect it to be. Funny as hell, interesting as hell, melodramatic as fuck.

7 - Will & Harper

Will & Harper is a breath of fresh air in today's transphobic climate. I didn't expect Will fucking Ferrel to be the trans ally of the year, but damn, he tried his hardest to keep Harper happy even in the darker moments. Will Ferrell's best movie (lol).

6 - Love Lies Bleeding

This fucking movie is insane. If you want to see a real lesbian crime thriller, this is it y'all. Music is excellent, acting is astounding, and they throw in some fucking curveballs to fuck with you. Underrated cinema.

5 - Monkey Man

Do you need another reason?

An amazing action flick in a similar vein to John Wick. Brutal, violent, but has so much heart. And we get amazing trans representation. This film looked beautiful, I'd argue only one other film had a visual aesthetic nearly as cool as this in 2024 (it'll come up later). Dev Patel wrote, directed, and starred in this, that's insane. He clearly had so much love for this project and it shows through.

4 - Look Back

I don't usually put anime movies on this list, but I don't know if I'll do an anime list this year so it has to be included.

From the creator of Chainsaw Man, we get a beautiful movie about friendship and loss. It's genuinely a beautiful piece of art.

3 - Femme

I'm not adding my letterboxd, it has spoilers in it and I don't want to ruin the ride. Technically a 2023 movie, but it's on John Waters favorite movie list of the year so it fucking counts.

A brutal look at internalized homophobia and the ways we hurt each other in our own communities. I can't recommend it enough, but trigger warnings for homophobia, assault, and abuse. It's really hard to get into the meat and potatoes of this movie without spoiling it. But, it's fucked up and well made.

I loved this movie. It looks so beautiful, the actors inhabit their characters so well it feels like it's all real, a gay horror movie if I've ever seen one.

2 - The People's Joker

Also technically not 2024, but this is the year everyone got to see it. But, The People's Joker is such a triumph of trans DIY bullshit. Making a movie about a trans woman Joker without the permission of DC sounds so stupid, but it comes together as one of the most interesting pieces of art to come out in the 2020s.

My first experience with this movie was unforgettable. I had no idea it existed, but my girlfriend who worked at a movie theater was like "this movie exists let's go see it!" And I was like, ok that's chill. I was hitting the weed vape so hard before going into this and killed me.

Live action, CGI, animation, this movie is a bizarre amalgamation of styles, built as this weird, indie love letter to Batman. Inside this shell of mixed artforms you find a very basic story about a trans woman finding herself and fighting for the respect of the people around her. And beyond that you can find comedy revolving around Batman lore or comedy revolving around inter community bullshit.

Outstanding movie. Would happily watch it 800 more times.

1 - I Saw The TV Glow

It couldn't be anything else.

Similar to previous, my movie theater girlfriend got a huge group of people together to go see this. I had seen trailers but I figured it was going to be a normal horror movie in the style of Candle Cove type shenanigans. I was very, very, very, very high when I saw this. Of the 15 or so people (all trans) that saw this, the majority were crying, a few were shell shocked and just left, and I'm there laughing about Phoebe Bridgers in the middle.

I don't think there's anything I can say about this movie that isn't already super well known. A transgender horror story with the message "it's never too late." As frightening, as sad as it is, it's also just the beginning of the story that'll have a happy end.

It's beautiful. Looks beautiful. Great soundtrack that fits the vibe. One of the best movies ever made, honestly.

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

The Current event makes me smile since it kind of confirms a headcanon I had that the Great Seven have animated movies based on them. Makes me wonder about the plot of the movies

Disney should get on the Twisted Wonderland AU Animated Remakes. What is Ursula was a good witch, what if Scar was right to take the throne and did he take it from Mufasa? (Or whoever is the stand in for him)

The Evil/Beautiful Queen...actually GOOD?

Yeah, it makes sense! Since the Great Seven are historical figures and the stuff of legends, surely there would be popular media made in their image. It’s like how the Disney fairy tales borrow from stories in the public domain or how there are historical retellings and reinventions (Hamilton, anyone?).

I believe TWST has mentioned films based on their own stories and history before too, but purely in the animated sense rather than live action. In book 3, Ace and one of the Atlantica Museum guards talk about an animated movie based on the tale of the mermaid princess and her prince; this movie is said to have come out ~30 years ago, which corresponds with Disney’s animated The Little Mermaid. Ace compliments the movie’s soundtrack too way to stroke your own ego, Disney/j.

Later on in Tapis Rouge, the characters discuss other films based on the Great Seven, including one Queen of Hearts movie. A Sea Witch movie is also mentioned; in it, she “goes gigantic” and also sings as she brews potions. The Octatrio quite enjoy this particular film.

(Side note: Another anon once suggested to me that people probably also write fanfics of Neige and Vil since they’re celebrities… Think like “My mom sold me to One Direction?!” Wattpad kinds of fics, but replace One Direction with Vil or something. You can read those post here!)

It’s… interesting this event specifically has Vil promoting a live action adaption of an in-universe animated film about the Beautiful Queen—an animated film which was the first full-color animated movie AND it originally released close to 90 years ago. They also reference the funding issues that Disney suffered while producing Snow White + inviting bank employees in to preview the movie to acquire more investments, stating that the studio that made the animated Beautiful Queen experienced the same. The in-game live action is even slated to come out “NEXT YEAR”. They’re not being subtle here with TWST’s references to their own version of the irl Disney Snow White (the live action is coming out in 2025, the OG is also almost 90 years old, etc.). I wonder if the EN server will actually get Tapis Rouge around the time of the irl release of Disney’s live action Snow White as part of a promotional campaign? 😂

UPDATE: There are even more not-so-subtle references to Disney animations in part 4 of the event, including discussion of cel animation, rotoscoping, adding blush to the characters, and how Disney brought in real animals/observed the “real thing” to help with animating similar scenes or subjects. They also cheekily say that most animation nowadays is CG 💀

I know some books under Disney publishing try to show alternate tellings or show the villains in a more sympathetic light, but I don’t know that they would ever commit to fully animating a film like that. It definitely would not happen in the style of traditional animation, Disney no longer seems well-equipped to handle that task 😔 I feel like it would also be pretty niche or might not get overwhelming positive reception with recent audience calls for “true bad guys” instead of twist or sympathetic villains (though I’m not sure what percentage of people watching Disney actually have this opinion).

I do wonder how those “AU” films would work though…? It wouldn’t be as simple as suddenly turning the G7 into “good guys”. The scenario and other characters would also have to drastically change. TWST doesn’t necessarily make the original “good guys” “bad” in a world where the villains are historical figures; we still hear plenty of positive or neutral stories about the achievements of the mermaid princess and other Disney heroes.

There are also times when the same story diverges into multiple separate stories that seemingly have no connection to one another. For example, there is a story where a princess marries a street rat (clearly referencing Aladdin) and they live happily ever after in spite of the difference in their social statuses. However, there simultaneously exists a story in which the Sorcerer of the Sands saves a princess from being deceived by a fake prince (also referencing Aladdin). The same goes for the mermaid princess (Ariel)—there is both a story referring to a “mermaid princess” who married a human prince and also a different story (clearly still pulled from the same film) about a mermaid who made a deal with the Sea Witch to find true love but broke her contract in the end.

Very cool idea, just not sure where it would lead or it it’s feasible or worth it monetarily for Disney.

[im-getting-help]

The way people reacted to Saltburn reminded me of a tiktok trend or "challenge" in which you had to watch the opening scene of Nocturnal Animals (2016).

(I'm not going to spoil the movie, go watch it is beautiful.)

It reminded me because the movie is so interesting and enthralling but it was played for jokes. No one was watching the movie, they felt "disgusted and uncomfortable" even though they didn't even tried to watch it.

The commentary of Saltburn was so similar, it really upset me. It was like people were saying "yeah, we watched it this time, it's still too gross".

Nocturnal Animals explores the tense relationship between the protagonists in a very gruesome and violent way. Those choices are not made for shock value, they tell a story. The same way Saltburn showed desire and obsession and in my opinion the perfect representation of unchecked limerence with the bathtub and cemetery scenes.

I have no doubt that in a few years they will be a new tiktok (or new platform) challenge that dares you to record your reaction of the cemetary scene with no context. And it makes me so sad.

It makes me sad not only because of the unappreciation of such amazing movies, but because I feel we are teaching teenagers to not have media literacy. I honestly feel like we're allowing people to just watch movies like they're cocomelon. And I think is dangerous for cinema.

Martin Scorcese shared in a few interviews how he feel that the popular movies are not really cinema, that they fail to convey real emotion and they don't take risks. I think he's right, he makes a direct reference to the MCU but to me he's describing at least 70% of the movies that comes out in a year.

Everything is simple, easy to understand, overly explained. A cast full of well known actors and a beautiful score, or a passable one, and you have a movie. You don't need a new story to tell, not really, you can just reuse an old one. Make a retelling, a remake, a live-action adaptation, a secuel or a prequel with lots of CGI. You got a movie, congrats.

To me the new movies are always disappointing, they're a way to kill time but never a moment to appreciate art.

And this is why the criticism of Saltburn frustrates and saddens me so much. Cause is not a perfect movie (well, to me it is), but is so SO much more than what we're served on a daily basis. It's rich and complex and beautiful to watch. The score is fun and playful and at times heartbreaking and breathtaking. The actors are just incredibly talented and well directed. The clothing and makeup is just a wonder to watch, going from the cringe of 2006 teenage fashion to the opulent gowns and suits. So much of this movie is a pleasure to observe, to discover.

It breaks my heart to think that the future of cinema is... white noise, filler, the equivalent to eating a sandwich instead of cooking a meal cause you're too tired to do more. So much so that when you're presented with a home cooked meal you're unable to enjoy the taste, too accustomed to simplicity.

[thefluffyrailway-official]

Coral's mental update:

Hello everyone, sorry for being insistent with the same but things are just getting worse. It may look like i just want attention. But the truth is that i'm scared. And a bit dissapointed on myself.

I'll explain you from the beggining:

Well you see... At first, this blog was something like an attempt for a sequel from the original series, or maybe a version where everyone was animals. Then, with the inspiration on @steam-beasts (<3) I added a infection-like stuff that made the engines animals. But in the recent days i couldn't do much stuff.

Okay, most of you know that.

Nothing comes to my mind, and when it does i have no time to do it or i fail doing it!

I always try animations but i can't make them because i have no fucking idea how to animate.

And i want this to become something, a story that might become a passion project in the future. Maybe a little home-made series or movie, a little book, just to enjoy and that doesn't need to change the original lore.

But since i've got The Railway Series, that became a bunch of good ideas i will not be able to make.

-A couple like Toby and Henrietta having a child before the infection in a mechanical way (Fusing the parents' parts to build a new different machine) I had this idea just yesterday about Harriet.

Or the bunch of stories that are always giving empty traumas to the characters and don't fit with the original lore. (*ahem* Hannah *ahem* Gordon *ahem* GODDAMN THOMAS!!!!)

I see the other ttte blogs and fans and how they make stories that respect and follow the original lore in a beautiful way... And then i see me... My blog is just a silly bunch of stupid stuff without sense that i do without reason.

I wanted to follow a chronological order to post, so you all could feel it closer, like if it would be really happening! But as i don't have time to draw, many good ideas are in the trash because it's late for posting them. Like Oliver not wanting to go hibernate to stay with his newborn pup or Annie not having that conexion with her pup. Did you even know Annie struggled a lot to connect with Aiden?? Of course not! I never said that! I was more focused on the next pup that i did NOT FOCUSED ON MAKING HER RELATABLE OR AT LEAST NOT A SECONDARY CHARACTER IN HER OWN STORY!!! Annie and Clarabel's pups were supposed to be born on January and February! But i got impatient to introduce them and ruined many good ideas!!!

I rush things too much! and now my blog looks terrible to me though you say it's cute and good.

I'm so grateful to you all for those nice words and please, don't get mad at me. But I didn't want it to be only cute...i want it to be a story that may be catchy or at least that could look like a series!

But that won't be possible anymore.

I'm thinking of remaking all, maybe starting from beggining. Take a long brake and start from the first episodes, not in a chronological order depending to the real time, a chronological order depending on the real lore.

Sorry, i failed with the only thing i wanted to do. I failed to you and i failed to myself.

[artbyblastweave]

One of your posts had a rec list of zombie media, and one of them was Savageland. Watched it. Even knowing there were zombies involved it’s good. Even better, actually, because you the audience know that there’s something wrong but the characters don’t, or at least they don’t know what you know.

11/10. One of those movies that you have to go sit and think about for a while. I really liked the way it’s presented, the pseudo-documentary style. Also. So much going on. And it really hits because yeah, this feels terrifyingly plausible to happen. And even though it is a zombie story, it’s also got a lot more going on. Just. There’s so much to say about it. It’s a horror story. It’s political commentary. I don’t even know where to start.

Thanks for the rec! I feel like you’re the person for Good Zombie Media, and this is definitely one.

You're welcome! I've had this sense, and a longer post on the topic, that there's this loose trinity of themes from which zombie fiction can draw horror. There's the fear of societal inadequacy, the classic romero anxienty that our society simply isn't capable of rising to the challenge of something sufficiently disruptive, be that zombies or anything else. There's fear of sickness- the horror of being a zombie, of the indignity and helplessness of being reduced to something so base, so at odds with your current desires and morality, or alternatively something so inept- a creature that's basically less capable and competent than a human in every way despite going through the motions. And lastly there's the very straightforward fear of violence- what if there were a bunch of mindlessly-violent human-but-not-quite monsters running around killing the shit out of everything they see? What if all your neighbors all decided at once to try and kill you for no discernible reason? People don't normally do that! That'd be fucked up!

I think that these things can push and pull on each other, fighting for space. For a long time I thought that "fear of societal inadequacy" was fighting for space with "fear of violence," because the more effective a threat you make your zombies, the less meaningful it is when society can't react effectively to them. In the original Dawn of the Dead the fact that zombies are such an underwhelming threat if you've got your shit together is why the authority's dysfunctional response can provide meaningful criticism of our society. In the remake- they're hyperdurable beserkers with a short incubation period and they run at full speed! It doesn't say anything in particular if the army has trouble with that! So more of the horror ends up concentrated in the thing itself, the incongruous violence the zombies enact. Anyway, the long story short is that Savageland convinced me that actually, with proper framing, there's no contradiction whatsoever between a narrative about societal dysfunction in the face of crisis, and a narrative about scary-as-fuck implacable uncanny-valley killing machines.

Go watch this movie

[aerinmoriarty]

I was going to remake these graphics with my username over here, but I’m lazy so here it is….

I have always been interested in the accidental synchronicity between Wizard of Oz and Pink Floyd‘s Dark Side of the Moon. Because of this, I’m always on the lookout for other albums and films that seem like they match up. And since Taylor was obviously taking measures to associate Tortured Poets Department with Dead Poet’s Society, and because they were nearly the same length, I decided to partake in them both together. And initially there were some similarities, but nothing too crazy and then I reconsidered what The Manuscript was actually saying, especially the point where it talks about looking backwards being the only way to move forwards.

Before I go into more detail, please know that if you’ve never seen Dead Poets Society before, you need to watch it at least once before watching them together. The film features a handful of boys who all wear almost identical uniforms, and don’t look that different from one another. It’s confusing enough on its own, without adding TTPD context.

I made a playlist of the album in reverse track order starting with The Manuscript and ending with Fortnight, then began it alongside the film. I realized there were considerably more similarities this way, but the timing didn’t quite feel right. So I watched it a third time and I started the film first and started the album 13 seconds in because we know how much she loves 13.

And yall…

First off, during the part of The Manuscript where Taylor sings “in synchronicity with the score,” all of the boys sit in synchronicity. This was the first sign to me that I had the time correct but the second thing that confirmed that was Robin.

Robin is going to play while Robin Williams character is being introduced. It’s emotional. And I don’t want to spoil a lot for people because I think this is one of those things people should expose themselves to, but not only does every single song on the album apply to things happening on screen often in numerous ways, but also the silences in between tracks hit during some of the most important lines of the film, and during some of the most poignant silences of the film.

And the film’s climax… with TTPD… it’s INCREDIBLE.

At this point, I just could not stop watching the two together and the more I watch them together the more similarities I noticed. So many similarities in fact that I really had to take a step back and really analyze everything and it was at that point that I realized that this is just not statistically likely to be an accident.

And especially when you factor the numerous ways that Taylor has alluded to this film herself as though she wanted us to make the connections… I have to assume that it’s on purpose

And the big question people have when I make that assertion is usually: why would Taylor do that? And there are a lot of reasons, but there are a couple of prominent ones.

— Taylor loves movies and wants to work in them more. Taylor is very likely (one of) the cinephile(s) mentioned in loml

— it’s a way to prove to film production companies that she can make a film score

— because TTPD (and in fact a lot of of her recent work) references a ton of film and TV and songs and books and poems and it does so in large part to add additional context to her songs. In particular context that is difficult for her to say explicitly, especially when you factor in how much her career is really a family business. It makes it difficult for her to criticize the way her parents raised her for example.

One of the biggest themes of Dead Poet’s Society that I think she wants us to carry into TTPD is just the weight of parental expectations and how hard that can be on a young person’s mental well-being.

Oh well I’m gonna stop yammering since I’m sure no one will read this.

[jasperandhenryslovechild]

bro i made a whole ass ramble and then it got posted on accident (FUCK TUMBLRS STUPID DRAFTS FEATURE BECAUSE IT ALWAYS POSTS NY FUCKING SHIT BRO WHAT) so now I'm remaking it but it's kinda the half assed version because im so tired and sleepy but

i have a theory. a film theory if you will! which is like probably kinda obvious because it intertwines with a lot of stuff you just know by looking at it or like by using your brain and connecting to past stuff but it's making me notice things that I just need to talk about so like..... anyways j digress

this also only makes sense if you've seen the ~40 second clip glee dango (missy martin) posted on her insta so if you haven't seen that go go go go and also won't make sense if you haven't watched the danger force episode (s1 ep8) return of the kid so if you haven't also go go go watch that because it's one of my favorite df episodes, not my all time favorite but definitely up there ANYWAY FILM THEORY THAT I WILL LOOK SO FUCKING STUPID FOR IF I'M WRONG BUT

i think the guy who pushed henry through that window is absolutely, 100% blackout

i come to this conclusion out of 3 different factors from the clip that are easily observable and serve to prove my point and these three factors are

SETTING

APPEARANCE

VOICE

in depth explanation under the cut

SETTING.

oh boy do i have quite a bit to say about where this clip takes place.

now what do these images show, what do these things say to you

at a first glance this says:

dark

creepy

run-down

dear god i would kill myself before living here

further than that, let's like break down what the fuck is in this place

starting from bottom to top, there's papers and chairs and like is that a lamp?? there's things thrown all over the place and it looks like either someone just crashed out severely in here or there was a fight that took place here not too long ago— judging by henrys relatively calm demeanor as he just walks up to this poster so casually and starts holding a small interaction with the person behind him, it doesn't look like he was the one who came in here and made this mess. probably not a fight!

the fact that henry falls from easily ten stories when he's pushed out, and the fact that in the window between the two distant henry posters there is a building with a light on (missy's house? mainly say that because of the light coming from it, but why would she live this close to blackout though so probs not) shows us that this is an area that people live in. this villian has a lair that is essentially hiding in plain sight. that makes the idea of this room being an abandoned or taken over office building makes more sense because it makes it harder for neglectful nickelodeon-class cops to find.

also, the fact that it's not very light-permitting in this place + it's night (or just an incredibly polluted area maybe both) gives way for the blackout theory because in return of the kid henry says that blackout strikes when all the lights are off!! so yippee!!!

the only thing i really have a bone to pick with about this frame is that fucking poster. because if my inferences are correct, that's probably a poster for a service he offers in dystopia or something along those lines. but those posters.

that says BIZWATCH.

BIZWATCH

on the first image in this section, the big poster he lolz at has, on the bottom, "we handle your bizness".

dear GOD there's a reason charlottes not in the movie and it's because if she was, bizwatch would have never been a name option on the table and there would be no movie JESSUUUSSSS SOMEBODY CALL UP MY GIRL, THE THINGS MEN DO WHEN YOU LEAVE THEM BEHIND OUGUGHHHH

im moving on with my life because my opinions on the name bizwatch could be its own post ngl

APPEARANCE

this one and the next are gonna be tinier sections but like, when blackout shows up like right before, he's this big puff of smoke or like shadow that can fly kinda?? and the first thing that my mind goes to are dementors & death eaters from harry potter like

eating people's souls is very similar to sucking their happiness in my mind and like the correlation although nothing to do with whatever blackout may or may not be able to do in canon just like strikes a cord with me like oh!! blackout!! flying as a puff of smoke and sucking people's souls!! i wonder what that reminds me of!!

also, additionally, the exact moment he kicks henry out that window he sorta like turns back into his normal form aka not just a black cloud and that's all we ever see of him. that little snapshot in that like 2 frames is all we get of whoever this villain might be, and MAY I ALLOW YOU TO JUST LIKE MAKE THE CONNECTIONS FOR YOURSELF BECAUSE

LIKE THAT LOOKS SIMILAR. YOU CAN'T TELL ME IT DOESN'T LOOK KINDA SIMILAR TO EACH OTHER AND I KNOW THE RELEASED CLIP VERSION IS LIKE SUPER DARK BUT LIKE ALSO THAT'S THE POINT OF BLACKOUTS COSTUME, IT'S DESIGNED LIKE THAT TO HELP HIM DISGUISE HIMSELF BETTER UNDER THE COVER OF DARKNESS AND UGH UGH UGHHHFHHDH!! ¢[¢[[¢

guys i love blackout 🤭🤭

im tweaking

VOICE

this one is. quite self explanatory but

i wish i could like add the other video of his voice in the new clip but they have a one video per post limit thing UGHHH😭😭 but like. SAME SHIT BRO SAME SHIT SAME SHIT AUUHGDHDHD

WHY I'M TWEAKING SO HARD ABOUT THIS

BECAUSE IT'S BLACKOUT! #! $! $?

blackout was the first and only villain we got to see EVER that showed us how bad dystopia actually was. henry had to flee from across the world to escape this guy, cut off all contacts from dystopia so that they wouldn't find him, and bribed the danger force to come and help him only when he literally had no other choice. blackout is one of the many things dystopia!henry is working so hard to keep under wraps because blackout is one of the worst of the worst things there is to behold in dystopia— at least, as we know of

expanding on his character not only will show us more about his and henrys relationship, but will also show us more about the world as a whole here! expanding on blackout is going to help build up dystopia as a world and environment— why is blackout, a bounty hunter, hunting for our protag in the first place? what did henry do (or rather, what did henry not do)? is this usual behavior for dystopia? is there no legal forces beyond bizwatch trying to stop this guy?? IS BLACKOUT WORKING ALONE?????

jesus christ this raises so many questions and can help expand on everything so much and if blackout is the main villain in the movie i will literally be so satisfied omg i love this bitch (watch him get two seconds of screen time/j)

if you made it this far thank you for coming to my ted talk🙏🙏

[animentality]

I get that the original "speak no evil" film is about deferential politeness and how the desire to not offend people can really bite you in the ass when those people are awful.

But I have a hard time liking it, because the parents in that movie make no attempt to stop their daughter from getting her tongue cut out. They also make no attempt to save themselves at the end.

Even though, come on, you're fucking European.

You don't have guns! I'm not sure what you're afraid of. If you're going to be stoned to death, you might as well try and wrestle a pair of scissors out of some bitch's hand, like.

You're dead either way. Might as well get stabbed over stoned.

It severely breaks the realism for me, bringing the story almost into Grimms fairy tale territory, which works for some people, but not for me.

But anyway, the American remake is kinda funny, because it's not so much horror as an action thriller.

And it's hilarious because I think an American watched the original film, was annoyed at their lack of fight, and decided let's re do that, shall we?

And honestly... it kind of works.

You can't apply Danish social commentary to Americans, or at least, not this kind of commentary.

I don't think Americans tend to be deferential when it comes to strangers. The only unrealistic thing is the idea that Americans wouldn't immediately kill someone who slept naked with their child.

The director even said something about the remake, I don't have the exact words, but it was basically, yeah no, I get why the American director changed the film, because it wouldn't resonate with Americans as much.

They're both good films, just in their own special ways.

I was really surprised they even remade a movie like that, and so soon after the original released, but, the director had a vision, man.

I like that they changed the story a lot. why even bother with a remake if you don't change it a bit, you know?

James McAvoy is also such a freak in that movie ... it's great.

A shame he was also a pedophile, which was not in the original movie. but it was actually kinda appropriate.

Made the story darker, in a way that made sense.

[downtroddendeity]

@turnkeyassurance saw your tags and figured I'd take the opportunity to pause my descent into madness to give my more sober opinions on the Ni no Kuni franchise, lol. (Warning: I am a humongous JRPG nerd)

The NNK games are really odd ducks, quality-wise. You can call either one a good game or a bad game and call either one better than the other, and any combination of those opinions can be something I think is entirely justified. Both of them have things they do remarkably well and also serious, profound, deal-breaking flaws, and the really weird thing is that there's almost no overlap between those two lists for the two games. What clicks and doesn't about both of them is going to be deeply individual.

What Ni no Kuni: Wrath of the White Witch does, with resounding success, is Vibes. It sets out at every single step with the goal of being a playable Ghibli movie, and it sticks to that principle. It's all about beautiful, cel-shaded whimsy. It's a game for people who want to feel like they're wandering through the meadows in the movie version of Howl's Moving Castle. There are lots of puns, and you can befriend all the random encounter monsters and feed them ice cream.

But that's also its Achilles' heel: because it's dedicated entirely to imitation, it has trouble bringing things to the table that are really its own. It has the visual and narrative aesthetics of Hayao Miyazaki's films, but it doesn't have the raw emotion at the heart of them. And as a game, its mechanics combine the clunkiest features of menu-based combat and action RPGs, and while everything about the Pokemon-esque mechanics seems designed to encourage players to collect and experiment with them, the balancing turns attempting to do that into a miserable grindy nightmare.

The other problem is that it... isn't actually the first Ni no Kuni game. Wrath of the White Witch is, in fact, a remake of the Nintendo DS game Ni no Kuni: Dominion of the Dark Djinn, which was never released outside Japan. The reason for this is pretty easy to explain, because DDD had another gimmick besides its aesthetics: it came with a real-life physical copy of the wizard spellbook, and the player had to look things up in it and draw sigils on the DS touchscreen to cast spells. So, we've got a high-effort remake that had to completely cut the central mechanic... and which also expanded the plot so that the original main villain was no longer the primary antagonist. This results in a game with what is very clearly a final dungeon and very clearly a final boss and very clearly a resolution to the story, which suddenly has a completely different plot dropped on it like a fucking anvil that it expects you to be just as invested in even though it hasn't had anything like the same level of buildup.

And ironically, this is almost the exact opposite of the biggest problem with Ni no Kuni 2: Revenant Kingdom, a.k.a. the one with my new blorbo, the President of the United Union of Eagleland. 2 is an effort to try to cement an identity for the series that can be its own, rather than requiring them to depend indefinitely on borrowed Miyazaki nostalgia. It just has the teeny-tiny, itsy-bitsy problem that at some point in development it had a budget shortfall so bad that you can finish the game without ever realizing that there is a continent-sized crashed interdimensional spaceship on the world map.

This game has had a machete taken to it. Don't get me wrong, I genuinely respect the work they did to make what they could with what they had, but you can see the signs of massive scope cuts to literally every aspect of the game. The back half of the game has almost exclusively recycled enemy and environment assets; voice acting has been trimmed down to canned voice clips; the catboy protagonist's ears and tail are barely animated; one minigame was so inadequately playtested that a level 16 mission is massively harder than level 50 ones; and while whatever restructuring they had to do to the main plot still left the final version with a more solid and coherent central arc than WWW in my opinion, it also left a lot of truly gaping plot holes, like oh, I don't know, why the President of the United States got turned into a 19-year-old.

Literally, they just. Entirely forgot to explain that. Half the DLC is just the writers scrambling to fix stuff like that and add a bunch of character development that should have been in the base game.

However, despite all this, I personally enjoyed NNK2 more than NNK1 unironically, not just for Rolandposting reasons. Compared to the first one, it plays much more smoothly as a straight action RPG, and while it can't provide the same knock-your-socks-off aesthetic cohesion, to me it seemed a lot more heartfelt- that is, like a game that was made because people had a story they wanted to tell.

But, well, we wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the non-unironic reasons, because the story they really, genuinely wanted to tell was about a magical catboy growing up and learning to become a leader, and somehow, miraculously, they really thought that was the story I was here for too when they opened the game with the President of the United States being isekaied by Nuke-kun.

Sorry, guys, I have a crippling addiction to dramatic irony and my day job is tech work in local politics, you could not have more laser-targeted this at making me specifically laugh my ass off if you tried.

[artist-issues]

I’ve enjoyed a lot of your thoughts on Disney movies and I was wondering what you thought of the movie Enchanted(assuming you have seen the movie xD)? I rewatched it recently and I really enjoyed it(I personally like that even though Giselle does evolve throughout the movie, her wish of finding true love stays the same) so I was curious to know your thoughts :)

I

LOVE

Enchanted.

Morgan is the kid that represents Disney’s audience. Robert is the well-meaning parent of that kid, who is missing the point of the Disney movies. Giselle is the Disney movie.

I love it. It’s so good. It ranks right up there with Mary Poppins, in my mind, as Disney getting itself right.

Disney has been accused of two things, prominently. On one side, you have people being like “oh Disney doesn’t have any courage to do new things, they’re just bowing to whatever the culture says, they’re remaking everything, etc.” That’s nowadays.

But in the early 2000s, when Enchanted was released, it was much more punk rock and edgy and popular to criticize Disney for not being “feminist” enough, for having characters who are stupid or silly—“what, they fall in love in just one day? What, they sing about their feelings? Look at all the dippy magic in their movies! Ha! Corny! Cheesy! Kiddie! Gag me!”

But then Disney whips out Enchanted.

Enchanted is Disney saying “Yeah our princesses have undying faith in love, and to them, magic is normal, and that’s a good thing, and our world needs more of it.”

furthermore

like this video so perfectly captures:

Giselle is this character who is (at first glance) the typical Disney Princess: that is, she’s all about faith. Having a dream of the special someone you’re destined to be with is one thing, but believing he’s out there in real life and you’ll find each other? You kind of have to believe in a higher power (fate, destiny, a horse, a wishing star, God) making that happen to get there. And then, what comes with faith, is this positive, joyful, innocent happiness that she carries everywhere.

When she meets somebody new? She trusts them to help her. When she calls to vermin? They answer her and befriend her. When she gets lost? She trusts her friends or her Prince will come find her. No need to be suspicious, to pretend to be something she’s not, or to despair; everything will work out, because life is full of wonderful things happening, and she knows that love exists and that love is often directed toward her—so why worry?

That’s so Disney. (The REAL Disney.) “Maybe something wonderful will happen.”

Enchanted celebrates that ideology by having her teach it to a guy who is from our world—and he’s basically the opposite of Giselle in every way.

He’s been hurt by someone he thought loved him (his ex wife.) He works with people who used to trust each other and spends all day helping them legally dismantle their once-loving relationships. He has his own girlfriend, but he is way too uptight and controlling to take the next step with her—because he’s afraid. Afraid, afraid, fear, fear, the opposite of faith.

Giselle has that belief in the good, the beautiful, the true, in the world. Robert has zero belief. He thinks that kind of faith is just going to get everyone hurt by the cold hard ‘real’ world. But she teaches him that the most real things in the world are the good, the beautiful, the true…

She really does love him truly, there really is magic, and those two facts really do have power. That he’s the one who hasn’t been seeing things 100% “how they are,” because he leaves love and faith out of the picture.

…and we have to talk about what he teaches her. Which is that there’s something worth getting angry about and protective of—before him, none of her beliefs were challenged. I really think by getting angry with him specifically because he refuses to take that leap of faith and believe in anything (which is exactly what his current girlfriend is angry with him about), she realizes that she can be angry with him, that she can disagree with him—and like him anyway. That it’s a choice, to love someone—which is what everyone thinks fairy tale princesses don’t have, and they couldn’t be more wrong.

Meeting a man and finding out enough about him on your first day to love him isn’t “boy meets girl, therefore they must end up together.” It’s her, knowing what is good, being insightful enough enough to see it in him even in a brief interaction, and then what ladies and gentlemen? Choosing to love him. So there’s Giselle, proving us all wrong about fairy tale princesses again.

I think it’s so good, because while he does help her to think more deeply and realize things about herself, he doesn’t change that joyful, faithful part of her. He just deepens it. It’s like a real life object lessons why “compare and contrast” is such an effective way to exercise your belief in something. Giselle believes in true love. Robert doesn’t. But she’s never met someone who doesn’t. By interacting with someone who’s trying his best, but is getting it wrong, she has a better appreciation for what she already knew was right.

I mean you could say “no she just realized that she has a right to be angry, women don’t have to be positive all the time” but that’s totally out of context. What’s she angry about? She’s angry that he keeps refusing to have faith, when she knows it would be good for him. It’s anger, for something worth being angry about.

And the songs are so good.

“That’s How You Know” is such a good song to refute critics of Disney Princesses and explain faith. Faith is believing what you know to be true and acting on it regardless of how you feel in the moment. In ‘That’s How You Know,’ Giselle is proving that princesses do actually need that truth component to have faith. It’s not blind faith.

It’s Ariel saying “I know humans are good because Truth 1: they make beautiful things, Truth 2: I saw one risk his life to save an animal, so I’m going to choose to love him.”

It’s Belle saying, “I know the Beast looks vicious, but Truth 1: he’s kind, he gave me a library and my freedom, Truth 2: he’s saved my life, and even though I’ve seen him break furniture and fight wolves, I’ve also seen him try to eat with a spoon and dance with me gently, so I’m choosing to love him.”

It’s Jasmine saying “I know this Prince Ali lied to me once already, but Truth 1: he saved my life and shared that he knows how I feel, and Truth 2: he keeps showing me the new things I want to experience without letting me get hurt in the process, so I’m going to trust him.”

It’s Snow White saying “I know I’m homeless in the woods and my only caretaker is trying to murder me, but Truth 1: I’m engaged to a Prince who promised to give his heart to me, so I’m not going to act despairing and fearful.”

Before the song starts, Robert is assuring Giselle that his girlfriend Nancy knows he loves her. But he doesn’t tell her all the time. He doesn’t do anything to show her. Because that would be vulnerable, and he’s a self-protective guy. Self-protection is the opposite of selflessness, and selfless action is love. So Giselle is telling him, “you have to do something, love is an action, and that action shows Nancy a truth she can base her faith, faith in your love for her, on.”

Not to…over-analyze a really catchy song.

But they’re all like that. This is the whole movie. The whole movie is Giselle being the Disney movie, walking and talking, proving the people who don’t get Disney movies wrong.

It is that deep!

And guess what? Robert, the guy who doesn’t get Disney movies? He falls in love with Giselle, the walking talking Disney movie. So there.

We haven’t even talked about the villains or Pip or Edward or Nancy, but they’re all amazing, they’re all perfect for this movie, but I’ll save it for another post.

I love Enchanted.

[thenightling]

Willy Wonka misconceptions

As Charlie and the Chocolate Factory / Willy Wonka has become weirdly popular lately because of the successful prequel film and most recently that really botched / rip-off Wonka event in Glasgow Scotland, it felt like a good time for this post.

Here are a list of popular misconceptions about the book and films.

1. Much of the Internet thinks of Wonka as a "Serial killer of children." I pointed out that at the end of the 2006 film and novel you see the children alive, though altered. And in the 1971 film that version of Wonka says that they will all be fine, but a little wiser. Someone tried to argue with me that he was just trying to placate Charlie. Really!? Since when did that Wonka ever lie to make people feel better?

Based on his previous behavior we have no reason to believe Wonka would lie just to make Charlie feel better. It's just a dark, edgy, annoying headcanon to pretend Wonka killed those other kids when every version tells you they survived.

____________________________

2. Grandpa Joe was not "Faking it" or "being lazy." It seems ironic to me that so many rant and even get genuinely angry about the character Grandpa Joe. It is especially odd to me when the rage is in regard to the depiction in the 1971 film, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate factory.

The reason it is odd to me is because in the 1971 film Grandpa Joe very clearly was suffering through severe depression, possibly a long bipolar depression phase.

The depression is clear in his "I've got a golden Ticket" song.

"I never thought my life could be Anything but catastrophe"

"I never had a chance to shine Never a happy song to sing"

It seems weird to me that today people shame characters like Cinderella for not being assertive and empowered when she's a live-long abuse victim. And then you have the people against Disney's The Little Mermaid who say she gave up who and what she is for a man but ignore that she had a song number from before she ever saw Eric, where she expressed body dysphoria and made clear she wanted to be human even then.

And you have a large part of the Internet shaming Grampa Joe for being "lazy" and "faking being sick' while he's literally telling us that he he's been in a severe depression.

It's almost like watching a generation that supposedly respects mental illness and understands depression in ways previous generations didn't... suddenly having a justification to shame someone for having all the symptoms of clinical depression.

Hell, even the song "I've got a Golden Ticket" kind of indicates Grandpa Joe is entering a manic phase. If Grandpa Joe's illness is psychological why do we treat it as not-real? I get so annoyed at how many people mock the character or act like he's a con artist exploiting Charlie.

________________________

3. The Oompa Loompas were not slaves.

It's true that the earliest depictions of the Oompa Loompas were little African people (before the novel was revised) but in all versions he tells the kids that he pays them in coca-beans. That might sound like he pays them in fallen acorns he found in his garden but it's made clear that to Oompa Loompas, in their society, coca-beans are worth more than gold.

Try to imagine you got a job working for aliens who offer to pay you in large bars of gold if you just help him make some gold jewelry. But because gold isn't worth THAT much to these aliens they think you're a pathetic slave, even though Lofty (the Oompa Loompa from the new Wonka movie) probably now has a palace on Loompa Land that he uses as a summer house.

Interesting bit of trivia: Charlie was originally going to be black.

___________________________

4. Wonka (2023) is NOT a remake. A lot of people mistakenly think this is yet another remake. No. It's a musical prequel to the Gene Wilder Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory movie from 1971. ________________________

5. Lots of fans have "figured out" that the shoe shine boy Wonka sees early in Wonka is Charlie. One small problem with that. This is twenty-something Willy Wonka. Wonka was supposed to be pushing fifty or sixty when he went looking for an heir. The timeline wouldn't work. The director has confirmed that for this reason the shoe shine boy is NOT Charlie Bucket.

And there you go. A list of popular Wonka misconceptions debunked.

[sciderman]

i’ve been eating up the DP/W brain rot like slop, but your critiques are making me think too much about it and now i realize it’s. it’s not that good 😭 i feel like a toddler being spoon fed by marvel and disney. i’m still gonna like and reblog the homo fanart and such, but damn.

do you think there’s any way for marvel comics to be made into movies well?? i feel like everything is just run by the same people

i feel a little bit like those stories where like, everyone gets like a mind spell on them or like, a love potion or such, and i'm here (immune) to that love potion so it's up to me to shake everyone out of the spell. thank you @makehimwhimper... i love the url, by the way.

marvel comics have been made into movies well! i mean, they won't be anymore, if disney continues to swallow everything up, but - once upon a time, they could be done well! i do think logan is just - straight up a good movie. okay, it's not fun. but it's a good movie. and i think the first deadpool movie - though not perfect, and not any sort of milestone of cinema - has all kinds of charm and a respect for the source material.

i think the best we'll be getting in the way of marvel adaptations is probably whatever sony's doing with spider-verse - but i think a big thing about what makes those work for me is all the new things they did with it - fact is, i think audiences actually DO want to see something new. and i don't know if faithful 1:1 adaptations of comics is necessarily going to work. but just - there's a curse in marvel that i can just smell right now, it reeks - it's the smell of the people working at marvel just not respecting their audience at all. and i think it's a disney problem, really. where disney is in this stage where they'll avoid creating anything new or innovative and depend solely on you recognising IP (but ideally, only recognising it at face-value, so you're not critical when they inevitably get it wrong) - because recognition is just what is selling right now. and it works on 100 different levels - because even if you hate the new deadpool and wolverine movie, you're nostalgic for the better x-men movies. now streaming on disney+. disney has your wallet regardless of if their new movie is good or not. you didn't like the new star wars stuff? you're in luck. the original star wars. now streaming on disney+. they're remaking lilo and stitch. you think it's a stupid idea. the original is so perfect. come to think of it i should rewatch lilo and stitch on disney+. i'll buy some merchandise. so even if you're upset with disney, you're running back to disney's open arms. there's no escape.

it's kind of disney's business model now - that actually works in their favour - to give you a bad movie that reminds you of better movies. because they still own the better movies. they still own the merchandising rights. you don't like the new spider-man? here. the better, older spider-men are here to save the day. but we still own the merchandising rights. anything with that guy's face on it. that's money in our wallet.

disney's found an infinite money loophole. why would they expend effort making a good movie or take risks when a bad movie that references better movies generates so much more income?

[wonderfulworldofmichaelford]

Psycho Analysis: Jareth

(WARNING! This analysis contains THE BABE!)

(What babe?)

(The babe with the power!)

(What power?)

(The power of voodoo!)

(Who do?)

(You do!)

(Do what?)

(Remind me of the babe! Oh, also there’s SPOILERS!)

Many years ago I launched my official movie review series for obscure and cult movies, Michael After Midnight. As David Bowie’s death was fresh at the time, I decided to honor him by making the very first review that of one of his greatest cinematic performances. And now, to celebrate Psycho Analysis finally coming back from its nebulous hiatus, we’re gonna take a look at that performance.

Jareth the Goblin King, the ruler of the titular labyrinth and a tricky fairy who sets the plot in motion with the kidnapping of the little Toby after our main character Sarah wishes to be rid of him… He’s one of the most delightfully delicious 80s villains imaginable. But what exactly is there to him that makes him so appealing? Is it just the fact he’s played by a young, hot David Bowie? Or is there a little more to him than just that?

Motivation/Goals: Jareth’s motives operate on fae/dream logic most of the time. The way he acts, the way he goes about things, operates on a morality that is alien to you or I but likely seems fair and just to a being like him. Kidnapping a baby? Well, he was asked to do so! Sending poor Sarah on a gauntlet through the labyrinth? Well, it’s to test her mettle! Of course, over time he shifts gears a bit due to… falling in love with Sarah. Yeah. This grown-ass fairy is crushing on a teenage girl. It’s no wonder Robert Eggers is rumored to be remaking Labyrinth; considering his pedophilic stalker portrayal of Orlok that has somehow still managed to amass an army of horny fangirls, he’d be able to pull off a Jareth the likes of which we’ve never seen!

Performance: Sting. Prince. Mick Jagger. Michael Jackson. All these stars were considered for the role, and all of them could have brough something interesting to Jareth. We know from Dune that Sting looks good in ridiculous outfits, so he wouldn’t be opposed to baring his bulge; Mick Jagger was a solid actor, as can be surmised from the film Performance; Prince was some sort of fae being to begin with, meaning he wouldn’t have to try too hard to pull off the haughty egomania of Jareth; and MJ would have been able to bring the delightful joy of awkward implications in the future since the entire film is all about Jareth trying to get freaky with a kid and, well…

But with all that said, none of them could have delivered the kind of performance Bowie did. I think with him being such an utterly bizarre and unique performer for his time, he had the exact right persona to portray a fruity fairy king, and his sex god status certainly helped sell this as well. It’s genuinely hard to imagine any of those other guys being able to pull off the right amount of sensual allure and genuine menace Bowie is able to bring to nearly every scene. There’s a reason this is one of his definitive roles; it’s one of the best villain performances in all of 80s fantasy.

Final Fate: Sarah overcomes his labyrinth, and even though he’s David Bowie in the 80s and he’s sung a dozen villain songs, kidnapping a baby puts him beyond the pale for Sarah. After reciting her poem and finishing up with the reaffirmation that Jareth has no power over her, he seems to gracefully accept defeat and allow her to treutn home for a dance party ending with all of the friends she made along the way (and also the Fierys for some fucking reason). In the form of an owl, Jareth flies away from the window into the night. Yeah, I got no fucking clue.

I will say this: It’s actually rather admirable that, despite his god-like powers, his love for Sarah was genuine enough that after completely and fully rejecting him he was still enough of a man to let her go. I think a lot of guys could learn a thing or two from him.

Evilness: This is the most debatable facet of Jareth. Exactly how evil is he, anyway? He does kidnap a baby, sure, but it’s exactly what Sarah asked for. Whether you believe the movie is all just a dream or that it’s real and Jareth is a member of the Fair Folk, this logic is sound for beings of such illogical nature. But then you have the fact he’s openly falling in love with a prepubescent girl which is, uh… not a good look. There’s also his treatment of Hoggle, which is douchey even for a fairy. If you ask me, all of Jareth’s actions put him at a 5.5/10 in terms of evilness; he’s bordering on darker territory, but I’m willing to give a little bit of leeway since he’s playing by fae rules.

Best Scene: Do I really need to say it?

Best Quote: While of course the entirety of the song “Magic Dance” is fantastic, it’s the opening bit of the song that is one of the most quotable and iconic pieces of dialogue in the film. I’m sure you could guess the whole “You remind me of the babe” bit is my favorite quotation of his based on the gag at the start of this analysis.

Of course, there’s also his truly incredible quote where he channels his inner “balding principal turned underwear-themed superhero”: “Nothing, tra la la?”

Final Thoughts & Score: I fucking love Jareth. He’s easily one of my favorite villains of all time, and might even be one of the greatest characters Jim Henson ever created. No, I’m not kidding. The evil David Bowie fairy is on par with Kermit in my mind.

Of course, a lot of what makes me love him is Bowie’s charismatic portrayal. Just the way he enunciates things, the way he reads off the silly dialogue, his multiple songs, the way he plays with his balls (or at least the way he allowed the professional ball man to hold up his arm to play with the balls in such a way that it looked like Bowie did it). And it’s not just the charisma, sexual and otherwise, that makes this performance good; it’s the depth, his role as an anti-villainous trickster mentor who is maybe just trying to teach Sarah a lesson by putting her through the wringer in typical fairy fashion

Of course, there’s also his truly uncomfortable romantic desire for Sarah. It’s not really subtext, especially by the end, though it’s at least played subtly and doesn’t go into uncomfortable directions (Bowie apparently refused to kiss the 16 year old Connelly, which is pretty based). I think the thing here is that Bowie is just so fun and charismatic that it is incredibly easy to overlook Jareth being a creep… which is almost a commentary on how rock stars can get away with disturbing behavior due to their own charisma and talents. Obviously it’s not intentional, but it is an interesting way to look at things.

I think the thing with Jareth is that it’s really easy to just write him off as a villain popular due to being played by David Bowie and looking very sexy but—at least for me—I think a core part of his appeal is how much he leaves you to chew on. I mean, there are so many ways you can read him; he can be a stealth mentor teaching Srah a lesson, a genuine stalker with a crush who becomes sickly obsessed with a teenager, a rowdy jackass who just likes to torment Sarah for his amusement, some combination of all of the above… 10/10 is the only score I could give a character who is so fun, entertaining, and open to interpretation. He manages to have genuine style and charisma combined with utterly absurd, cheesy, and ridiculous fantasy camp... Jareth is truly a villain for the ages.

Alright, enough showing restraint. Look at his fucking bulge:

Those costume designers must’ve been the horniest motherfuckers of all time.