#it's a depressing element of old tv watching that it comes with content that we now appreciate to be unacceptable

[mariocki]

Patrick Troughton interrogates the Saint as an unnamed Buenos Aires police inspector (perhaps an ancestor of Ramón Salamander...?) in The Saint: The Romantic Matron (2.18, ITC, 1964)

[myhahnestopinion]

THE AARONS 2020 - Worst Film

Social distancing can be emotionally draining, so let’s practice. Here’s a list of things to stay far, far away from, and you’ll feel much better for it. Here are the Aarons for Worst Film:

#10. The Grudge

The Grudge didn’t have much good-will from the get-go: the franchise’s timeline-shifting gimmick has long been a distinctive element devoid of any tension. Even with the presence of Lin Shaye and John Cho among them, the multiple eras of eerie occurrences never shake the sense of existing only out of obligation. The scares are equally as perfunctory; The Grudge startles, but doesn’t leave a mark. Director Nicolas Pesce and producer Sam Raimi just can’t bring any life back to the series. Then again, it never housed much spirit to begin with; we shouldn’t hold it against them. 

#9. Scoob!

For the first time in its 50 year history, the franchise begged a different question: Scooby-Dooby-Doo, why are you doing this? Scoob! is one of the most depressing examples of modern-minded corporate synergy, dead set on resurrecting IP no matter how ghoulish the results. The film feigns detective work, but unmasks itself early as a superhero story, breaking up the gang to promote the likes of Blue Falcon and Captain Caveman, Hanna-Barbera characters that barely built up an audience back in the day, without ever solving the mystery of why audiences should care. Its most baffling crime? Shaggy traps himself in Hell to save the day (no, not kidding…). Zoinks, Scoob!, indeed.

#8. Fantasy Island

I’m afraid one can never leave Fantasy Island! For you must see your fantasy through to its natural conclusion, but the movie doesn’t offer one, hinging entirely on a rubbish plot twist. The horror reimagining of the ‘70s TV show is all-around cheap, inviting a new group of people to live out their dreams on the mysterious locale without much spectacle or imagination. A bizarre reintroduction of classic character Tattoo is the only thing that leaves an impression. The mismatched tones of the various adventures routinely washes away any tension from the film, stranding the wannabe franchise without any fans to see. 

#7. Brahms: The Boy II

There was fun to be had in Annabelle Comes Home and the Child’s Play remake in 2019, but Brahms: The Boy II has the haunted doll genre feeling entirely played out. It certainly didn’t help that the film seemed unsure what toys were even in its sandbox; the sequel retcons supernatural origins into the series, but the doll’s antics didn’t become any more animated. Katie Holmes is the latest lead led around aimlessly as The Boy conjures expressions in audiences as vacant as his own. It was hard to imagine someone making a horror film more dull than the original, which also made this list years ago, but, boy, does Brahms make it look too easy. 

#6. Dolittle

If we could talk to the animals, they’d tell us to walk away from the latest Dolittle adaptation. Robert Downey Jr. got his post-Iron Man career off on the wrong paw as the eponymous doctor, who sets sails with his creature companions to find a cure for the Queen’s illness. The voyage is on rocky water from the very beginning, mating footage together from three different directors, and trying to rear wonder out of its lackluster CGI creations. If the climax of your hopeful-epic is pulling a set of bagpipes out of a dragon’s ass, don’t be surprised when the result is similarly crappy. 

#5. Followed

Followed asks viewers to just go along with a lot of scuzziness, but you’re better off if you don’t subscribe. Truthfully, it’s unclear how much of the found-footage film, comprised of a vlogger staying in a haunted hotel, is actually meant as satire. Even if one excuses the bad acting as commentary on YouTubers’ artificiality, knowing that the premise shamelessly exploits a real world tragedy is hard to block out. Ultimately though, the content can’t get viewers to care much one way or the other. When chasing a smart, scary social-media series, you’re better off unfriending Followed, and following the Unfriended films instead.

#4. Holidate

Watching Holidate made bringing a random stranger home for every 2020 holiday seem wise in comparison. Like most of the rom-coms Netflix presents viewers with, Holidate wraps itself up in a marketable convenience to disguise its shoddy, shallow inside. Stars Emma Roberts and Luke Bracey bump uglies with all the vulgarness of that phrase and all the enthusiasm of a Barbie and Ken doll being bashed together. The two trudge through a series of increasingly irrelevant holidays for a date before a requisite rom-com end back at Christmas, just when you thought a year couldn’t feel like more of a chore to get through.

#3. A Nice Girl Like You

Lucy Hale can get some… Get some more entries on this Worst Of list, that is! The Fantasy Island star plays a woman determined to no longer be scared by her fantasies with the help of a sexual to-do list in this film. Hale puts the “Girl” in “Nice Girl,” being entirely too young for the movie’s material, based on a middle-aged memoir, to stimulate any meaning. The central list, meanwhile, arouses mostly confusion and incredulity at the choices included. Too lifeless to let loose, Nice Girl ends up being really bad, just not in the way it had hoped.

#2. Artemis Fowl

Even with limited releases to be had, Artemis Fowl captured that good old Disney magic for always managing at least one annual unmitigated disaster. Their adaptation of the best-selling children’s novel lacks both a criminal, with a watered-down Fowl for the Disney-demographic, and a mastermind, with no one involved seeming to have re-read the book since its original publication 20 years ago. The greatest of Artemis’ fouls is Josh Gad’s Mulch Diggums, a dwarf who unhinges his jaw like a snake to dig tunnels, farting out the dirt behind him. Then again, it’s an apt-metaphor for a company determined to swallow every IP possible just to crank out crap.

AND THE WORST FILM OF 2020 IS...

#1.  After We Collided

After two Afters, it’s clear that the one direction the franchise is following is down. Rest assured, the only steaminess from this R-rated sequel to 2018’s young-adult romance is the continued gaslighting in its central relationship. The ongoing exploits of Tessa Young and Hardin Scott remain far removed from any fantasy; even looking beyond the nauseating toxicity, the series has a dreadful failure of imagination (The author’s own self-insert only aspires to being an intern at a publishing company.) The secret to the film’s appeal, as far as I can tell, seems to come only by watching After We Collided after you collide your head with a concrete wall.

NEXT UP: THE 2020 AARON FOR BEST DIRECTOR!

[hag-lad]

Digging Deeper

Thank you to my radiant wonderful friend @alienfuckeronmain for sending me EXACTLY the type of self indulgent wind-down activity I wanted on this otherwise depressing weekend! If anyone else wants to answer FORTY-NINE QUESTIONS about themselves, I’m super nosy and will read it all! @fight-the-seether @ptolemyofchaos @butchwizard @metalbutch @nyndelion @comrade-ziltoid @leatherdear @kristalknobb Enjoy, friends!

1. Do you prefer writing with a black pen or blue pen? I prefer black, but I always feel like I write neater in blue??

2. Would you prefer to live in the country or city? The city, but only if it has breathable air, green infrastructure, and decent public transit. So like... definitely no city in America lmao

3. If you could learn a new skill what would it be? The ability to quickly become fluent in another language! I’ve been struggling with Spanish for literal YEARS and it’s honestly pathetic. My brain is so stuck on English.

4. Do you drink your tea/coffee with sugar? Look pal. If I wanna drink sugar, I’m gonna have a soda, not herb water or bean juice.

5. What was your favorite book as a child? I was OBSESSED with The Wish List, by Eoin Colfer (of Artemis Fowl fame). I remember being so fascinated by how dark it was?? It’s an afterlife adventure, where the main character has to escape purgatory by atoning for her crimes of robbery and fraud and whatever. I had a crush on her, so basically this book made me want to pursue a life of crime, even though it explicitly condemns crime and depicts Hell as a very real and horrible place. I was in like fourth grade and was super morbidly curious about Hell and the possibility of going there! Lol

6. Do you prefer baths or showers? Baths... but only when I’m not actually dirty going in. A bath is leisure, not hygiene.

7. If you could be a mythical creature, which one would you be? 100% fae! I would build my dwelling within a sidhe mound, steal shiny things in the middle of the night, make bastardly little contracts for no reason, and cause harmless mayhem and mischief because mortals really are fools (go off, robin goodfellow!) Also I love mushroom circles and dancing in the moonlight.

8. Paper or electronic books? Paper all the way! I read much more content electronically, but it’s usually in the short story or article format. Books are much better in print, I think.

9. What is your favorite item of clothing? Probably my rust-brown overalls.

10. Do you like your name or would you like to change it? I’ve always hated my name but no alternative has ever stuck, unfortunately. My name is Amy, and I don’t think it fits at all. If I knew I’d never have to correct anyone on it, I’d probably just change it to Amelia?

11. Who is a mentor to you? My little brother! He’s this genius musician, and he has taught me so much about song structure, polyrhythms, guitar technique, production tricks, all kinds of trivia that really deepen my appreciation for music and the LABOR that goes into it.

12. Would you like to be famous and if so, what for? No, never, not for anything. I cherish my anonimity so much, I don’t even put searchable tags on this blog cuz I get an adrenaline spike from anxiety if too many people interact with me. I also just think fame is a fucking hideous construct. I don’t think it’s even slightly cool or desirable.

13. Are you a restless sleeper? No, I’m a fucking log. I can easily sleep for 12 hours straight. Thanks, depression!

14. Do you consider yourself a romantic person? No, actually. I’m very much in love, and it brings me lots of joy to do nice things with and for my partner! But romance feels very difficult for me to connect with. I’m super domestic, like, I love the idea of marriage but not necessarily a wedding, or a moonstruck romance or whatever. Those dramatic gestures feel very awkward for me.

15. Which element best represents you? EARTH. Specifically, like... dirt, or soil.

16. Who do you want to be closer to? I want to be geographically closer to my family. We’re thick as thieves, but we all live like 50 miles apart from each other. I miss my brothers and my parents so much, I feel so incomplete and depressed without them to hang out with, especially since quarantine.

17. Do you miss someone at the moment? See above! Lol

18. Tell us about an early childhood memory. When my little brother was a baby, he had this grey car seat with a folding mechanism which held his legs in place. It made a very satisfying clicking sound when the mechanism moved, AND when it was fully unfolded, it looked a lot like a Klingon battle cruiser. (Or so my five year old brain thought.) So! My older brother and I would take this seat out of the car CONSTANTLY so that we could unfold it and “sing” the Klingon theme music from Star Trek: The Motion Picture while we scooched our car seat battle cruiser across the living room floor, pretending to shoot phasers into the TV or the dining table or whatever else got in our way.

19. What is the strangest thing you have eaten? Gifilte fish, maybe?

20. What are you most thankful for? My family, including my wonderful partner and all the cats in our lives!

21. Do you like spicy food? Yes! But my tolerance for extreme spice decreases every year, unfortunately. So I can’t handle as much heat as I used to, but I do enjoy a good kick.

22. Have you ever met someone famous? Lmaooo I made the regretful decision to PAY FOR a meet&greet with Fall Out Boy in like 2006, which was so fucking awkward and painful, I vowed to never approach that level of lame again.

23. Do you keep a diary or a journal? TONS! I’m an obsessive record keeper. Some years I journal more than others, and I’ve found that it is super difficult to keep up with it while working full time. But it’s absolutely one of my favorite hobbies.

24. Do you prefer to use a pen or pencil? Pen for writing. Pencil for drawing, and math.

25. What is your star sign? Virgo sun, Aquarius moon, Scorpio rising 🙃

26. Do you like your cereal soggy or crunchy? Crunchy! A shallow bath in that milk is key.

27. What would you want your legacy to be? My artwork. I go through these aesthetic phases every year that I become super obsessed with/ focused on, and I’ve always meant to catalogue them in annual art journals, but I’ve NEVER FINISHED ONE! They always get pushed aside by the need to work, and I hate that so much. If I could just take a year off work and backfill all of my missed concepts into completed books, I would be so happy. But I literally have NO WAY to pay for that, absolutely none. I fucking hate capitalism.

28. Do you like reading, what was the last book you read? I love to read, but finishing a whole book has been A STRUGGLE lately! Right now I’m chipping away at Tending Brigid’s Flame, which is a quaint lil devotional for the Celtic fire goddess. Very new agey, like cheesy Wiccan vibes. I love that shit!

29. How do you show someone you love them? Quality time!

30. Do you like ice in your drinks? Only if I have a straw. Ice touching my teeth kinda makes me wince.

31. What are you afraid of? Incompetance, doing a bad job, letting someone down, taking up too much space, being a nussiance, etc

32. What is your favourite scent? Incense! Especially cinnamon, dragon’s blood, and amber.

33. Do you address older people by their name or surname? I always call people, regardless of age, by the name they ask me to use. Sometimes it’s a surname or title, usually it’s a first name. I’ll ask their preference if I’m unsure. But I definitely don’t default toward a surname, that’s weird.

34. If money was not a factor, how would you live your life? COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY!!!!!! The need for money rules literally every single hour of my entire life, and I hate it so much. I’m naturally nocturnal, but my job requires me to get up super early and sit in a car for 11 hours a day. I wake up at 5am, come home front work at 5pm, spend an hour or two trying to unwind, then go to bed and do it all over again. I hate my life! Really! I never see the stars, I never exercise, I am completely exhausted and burnt out all the time, and I barely get any quality time with my partner. If money were no object, I would sleep til noon or 1, make art and hike all day, ride my bike and stargaze all night, stay up til 4am reading and playing with my cats, and sleep like a baby. My partner and I would cook dinner for each other and watch Star Trek and collaborate on art projects and I would be so happy.

35. Do you prefer swimming in pools or the ocean? Here’s my hierarchy: Private pool > ocean > public pool

36. What would you do if you found £50 on the ground? I’d look around to see if anyone obviously dropped it and try to give it back. If I couldn’t find anyone, I’d exchange it for dollars and deposit that shit into my account!

37. Have you ever seen a shooting star? Of course!! Hundreds!

38. What is the one thing you would want to teach your children? America is evil and needs to be destroyed.

39. If you had to have a tattoo, what would it be and where would you get it? Lmao this is so cute. If you HAD TO HAVE a tattoo! I really wanna finish my damn sleeves, they’re literally 9 years in the making and barely half finished. But I’d also love more art on my legs! I DESPERATELY want Ziltoid in a lacy valentine heart on my thigh.

40. What can you hear now? Our fish tank water bubbling and my fan on full blast.

41. Where do you feel the safest? Home alone, doors locked, windows covered, lights low. I absolutely LOVE to not be seen or perceived in any way.

42. What is the one thing you want to overcome/conquer? My fear of discomfort

43. If you could time travel to another era, which one would you choose? I feel like I’d want to be a teen in the 80’s and an adult in the 90’s. Does time travel work that way?

44. What is your most used emoji? 😭 or 😎

45. Describe yourself using one word. Defeated

46. What do you regret the most? Convincing myself that math was too hard or boring (or something?) when I was in middle school. I feel like I’m actually a pretty intelligent person who could’ve totally overcome that difficulty and gone on to understand all kinds of patterns and concepts which have eluded me to this day! It’s so frustrating to try and fight that formative self-concept, which now comes naturally but ultimately sabotages me. 💀

47. Last movie you saw? I made my partner watch Troop Beverly Hills, one of my childhood faves. It’s so fun! I love chick flicks so much.

48. Last tv show you watched? Deep Space Nine. Getting through the first season has been harder than expected. It’s actually my favorite Star Trek show?? (Orrrr maybe that’s TNG, ahh! It’s so hard to choose!) But season one is so baffling and awful! Why is there so much space capitalism??! And racism? And war? And drinking alcoholic beverages? #notmystartrek

49. Invent a word and its meaning. I used to call a single strand of curly hair a “curly quink” when I was a child. Therefore, a “quink” is a section of hair, usually a particularly cute or iconic one.

[elizas-writing]

Thirteen Reasons Why is Torture Porn; Using Graphic Violence to Make a Point

CW/TW: Mentions of suicide, rape/sexual violence, physical assault, and everything the Thirteen Reasons Why crew were told NOT to do by mental health experts

If you are in a crisis, don’t let a poorly written TV show tell you what to do; call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK (8255) or the Suicide Crisis Line at 1-800-784-2433. Surround yourself with people who will support you without judgement and are willing to take the extra step to understand. If you’re struggling to find regular mental health resources, check out here for more options. You still have a life ahead even if it takes some trial and error to figure out what the hell to do.

So Netflix released the second season of Thirteen Reasons Why, and, what a shock, people hate it for upping the graphic violence and rape. I have no plans to watch it myself after reading through all the triggers, but suffice it to say that so little was learned from the first season. Plus, I’d rather not subject myself to that much distress for a TV show I knew there was no point in continuing after the first season. Everyone’s accounts across Twitter and Tumblr of the new season seem to match up, so I’m going off of that for this piece.

If you haven’t seen my review of the first season (with and without spoilers), I found that it definitely went too far to make a point and had really confusing characterizations, but there were select scenes, when they were done right, were kinda worth the wait-- keyword being “kinda.” There was a germ of an idea begging for good writing, but got sucked into shock value for the sake of shock value. And the second season offers no promises to improve.

Of the multiple graphic scenes of this season, the one which sparked the most outrage was the final episode “Bye” as Tyler (a serial stalker) is brutalized and raped by his male classmates. As a result of being pushed too far, he brings practically a whole arsenal of guns to shoot up the school during a dance, but Clay peacefully disarms him before he can go through with it.

So apparently the creators saw the criticism of season one and thought, “So, you want to see more graphic violence, rape, and terribly confusing characterization?”

In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, creator and showrunner, Brian Yorkey, wanted to explore more of Tyler’s psyche and “how a troubled man might be driven to consider this very difficult choice” after the bullying and ostracization he experienced in the first season. While I’d never wish rape on anyone, even fictional people--and a bunch of characters who mistreated him are total hypocrites--, Tyler is still beyond redemption for never understanding how his behavior destroyed Hannah’s sense of safety. The show puts him through that much brutalization to force audiences to feel sympathetic towards him while never critically analyzing why his stalking and coping mechanisms were wrong and unhealthy, regardless of what else was going on in his life.

It also promotes the dangerous idea that social outcasts and/or victims of bullying are likely to eventually become school shooters, which completely ignores factors like toxic masculinity or racist associations-- as was the case for shootings like Parkland and Santa Fe from this year-- which contribute to a white male sense of entitlement. Even though the lapses in logic are all over the place in the show-- particularly Clay having an emotional breakdown with Tyler, even though he made things worse in the first place by sharing revenge porn--, people had every right to distance themselves from Tyler as much as possible.

He’s a creep in how he objectifies his female classmates, constantly collects sensitive photos for blackmail, and his main outlet for anger becomes shooting guns at bottles and live animals, because society as a whole tends to only show men how to be emotional through anger and nothing else. This doesn’t help that when he testified, he apparently wanted to befriend Hannah to take photos of her to which she rejected (rightfully so) and thus his stalking began. It’s already so back-and-forth among viewers if Hannah committed suicide out of revenge or actual mental health deterioration, and subtly putting blame on her for rejecting Tyler is up there as one of the worst things they did to her. Not to mention throughout the second season, Tyler is anonymously putting up polaroids around the school of incriminating evidence in the case, particularly with Jessica, who is already stressed as is coming to terms that she was raped by Bryce.

It’s upon these scenes that I realized Netflix’s Thirteen Reasons Why can’t decide who it’s supposed to be for. It’s not for teenagers with how unrealistic and unidentifiable the characters are, especially coming from an adaptation of an 11-year-old book with an outdated understanding of teen mental health, bullying and suicide. It’s most definitely not for mentally ill folks with a history of suicidal thoughts because it’s so graphic, violent, and triggering, and on top of which, is grossly inaccurate on how depression works. Are they making it for the same people who can stomach Game of Thrones easily?

Above all else, does graphic violence have any point in film or television?

As mentioned in their first Beyond the Reasons special, the writers argued about needing that authenticity for Hannah’s rape and suicide scenes “to be painful to watch,” but it’s really not worth it if it has nothing else to say besides “look at this excess violence; you need to feel bad.” If you need to spoon feed your audience an explicit rape or suicide scene to emphasize how horrible those things are, it’s bad writing. They made the same mistakes with Tyler’s brutalization, which like I said, only exists to make you feel sorry for him and almost forget he’s an irredeemable character.

Film and television are super creative visual mediums; there are ways to convey an emotion or theme without triggering content or alienating your supposed intended audience.

I mentioned this before in my first review, but Perks of Being a Wallflower did incredibly well in portraying child molestation and an attempted suicide without going too far. The scenes of the molestation are cleverly cut and mostly in shadow where all you can see is Charlie’s aunt rubbing his leg and hear her whispering “Don’t wake your sister.” And when he’s mentally breaking down and suicidal, the camera just pans to the knife slowly before immediately cutting to the police breaking in, and then Charlie wakes up in the psychiatric ward. It’s a gut-wrenching scene every time, but it’s also smart in remembering the intended audience and walking that line before it becomes too much. It’s a great depiction of an anxiety attack where everything overwhelms you at once, and sometimes there’s gaps in your memory in what happened while in that state of panic. It’s never addressed what happened between the police arriving and Charlie waking up in the psychiatric ward. But it doesn’t need to give those answers; what matters most is that Charlie is safe and finally going to get the help he needs.

A scene can be way more powerful in what it omits rather than what it explicitly shows. What you imagine might happen can be more exciting and/or terrifying than what any director could have put on the screen themselves.

Early horror and thriller films are among the most successful of this, especially if they’re directed by Alfred Hitchcock, the Master of Suspense. Sure, these films seem pretty cheesy when we in the 21st century are used to seeing much more violence and body horror, but they have their mark on cinematic history for a reason, and for an audience in the 1960s, this was horrifying. Take the famous shower scene from Psycho.

Instead of showing the knife penetrating flesh, it’s all edited in near-rapid cuts of “Mother” missing, Marion screaming and trying to defend herself, and shots of her feet with blood dripping into the water. It focuses more on the vulnerability of the situation, when there’s no chance for escape as you’re cornered against the wall and how quickly it all happens before you can react, complete with fast-paced editing and those high pitched violins. That kind of defenselessness freaked out actress Janet Leigh so much that she couldn’t take showers again without locking the doors and windows and leaving the shower door open. Hell, that still tends to be a common reaction for a lot of people who see this movie, and all without needing to show actual stab wounds.

And this trick in omitting some elements and highlighting others works well across genres for any scene motivated by any strong emotion. There’s probably about 50 different Disney films I can cite that do this well, but the one that sticks out the most is Tarzan.

Aside from Phil Collins singing, some animal noises, and a baby cooing, there is no spoken dialogue for the first 7 minutes, which is a really long time for an animated family film. Yeah, the song kinda hamfists in the themes of family and love from the get-go, but it’s otherwise a great introduction. You see these two families just starting out before they’re cut short by tragedy; one with the death of a baby gorilla and the other with the death of Tarzan’s parents, both at the jaws of Sabor. The former is only indicated by the sounds of the baby gorilla’s screams echoing in the jungle while we only see the aftermath of the latter through Kala’s perspective when she finds Tarzan.

Obviously with it being a Disney family film, they’re not going to actually show Sabor tearing up a baby gorilla or the human parents. As such, they have to rely on context clues for the audience to pick up and piece together everything else with their imaginations. When you think about it long enough, it’s a really dark beginning on how quickly unexpected tragedy can destroy everything you hold dear. And it’s all accomplished without going too far.

Does this mean we need to omit graphic violence entirely for a film? Not necessarily as it very much depends on what the film is and your target audience. But omission is a great practice in a story to explore what else you have to say besides “Look at this traumatizing shit. You should feel bad.” Of course, we’ll always have mindless films which just exist to be violent, and historical narratives and/or social commentaries in some cases need violence to portray the reality of a situation. But when you’re making something about mental illness with intent to help those like your characters, it helps to listen to what your audience and mental health experts actually want to see in such a narrative. And like I said before, the Thirteen Reasons Why creators completely ignored criticisms of season one and continued making the same mistakes just to milk their product beyond the source material. It has nothing else to say or do besides being needlessly gritty as opposed to creating likable characters or understandable motivations.

The only exception to this rule I can even think of is Deadpool 2.

I know it seems counter-intuitive to compare Deadpool 2 and Thirteen Reasons Why given the former’s more excessive violence, but bare with me here. I stand by that Deadpool 2 is way better at handling themes of suicide and violence in two hours than Thirteen Reasons Why ever did in 26 episodes.

The major differences? The intended audience’s expectations and well-written characterization.

Most everyone going in already knows what Wade Wilson is like. And this is definitely not the first time he attempted suicide in such grandiose and gratuitous fashion. The first film established itself as a wildly violent parody of superhero films, and the sequel continues that by poking fun at recent trends of these films going darker and grittier. In any other film, this would cross the line, but because it’s Deadpool, the excessively grotesque violence is to be expected. It succeeds in capturing the shock and dark humor (i.e Wade blowing himself up with his apartment, knowing fully well he can’t die) while still maintaining the weight of his emotional turmoil.

We actually get to know who Wade is and why he acts the way he does. There’s no drawn out mystery or fact-checking other sources or confronting side characters we don’t care about. We get his perspective alone, and that’s all we need to see his grief over Vanessa escalating to self-destructive behaviors and how he tries to find some family and meaning in life without her, even though her death is retconned in the end anyway. It’s all played for laughs, but you can’t help but feel sorry for Wade because he loved Vanessa so much, and they were a wonderfully sweet couple.

Another thing Deadpool 2 does significantly better than Thirteen Reasons Why is not forcing gray morality where it doesn’t belong, particularly when Wade tries to save Russell. It doesn’t matter if his actions lead to a horrible future; he’s just a traumatized kid who needs a proper family who will guide him. A lot of X-Men films try to play the heroes as the bigger people who are above murder and revenge. Yet Deadpool 2 doesn’t punish those like Russell with understandable hatred and motivations. It is very upfront that if you harm children, you deserve whatever hell comes your way-- which really hits home as Russell was put through metaphorical gay conversion therapy.

Meanwhile, I can’t even be bothered to care about anyone in Thirteen Reasons Why. The second season out of nowhere piles on excuse after excuse to justify the characters’ actions without them ever facing guilt or consequences. Anyone else with a remote chance at sympathy is just put through more emotional torture without rhyme or reason. I don’t care who has a drug problem, who’s gay, who dated who, the he-said-she-said, etc etc. If you’re trying to preach the ever-tired “it gets better” bullshit, when does it actually start to get better?

Sadly, Thirteen Reasons Why can’t find that point, and I don’t trust it will given how little the creators learned from the first season’s criticisms. They don’t care about creating a narrative to help mentally ill teens. They have nothing else to say or do than to make money and shoe-horned in so much graphic violence under the guise of being “authentic” to compensate for a tired Degrassi knockoff which would’ve disappeared if it wasn’t based on a well-known YA novel. Graphic violence in media is a tool to be used carefully, and of course it will vary project to project. But if it just exists to pad your “deep, meaningful” story instead of developing characters, motivations and relationships, then it’s cheap, lazy torture porn, and it’s bad writing.

If you enjoyed this analysis and what I do here, consider buying me a ko-fi to show your support!

[asexual-society]

Aspec & Arospec YouTube List Part 2!

Apparently there are a lot more ace youtubers that I missed on the last list…

The descriptions for each channel are pretty much just copied and pasted from their channel descriptions. Unless they didn’t have a description, in which case I just wrote ‘vlogger’.

Please note: All the content of the channels below may or may not reflect the views or opinions of this blog or it’s moderators. Nor is all of it safe for work or free of problematic elements. Please use your own discretion. 

Note 2: If your favorite youtuber is not on this list, feel free to add on! 

Enjoy!

Aaron Ansuini: A trans ace vlogger who talks about both asexuality, being trans, video games, art, and motivation; Twitter

Abbie Wells: Aspec singer, actress, and vlogger; Twitter, Tumblr, Instagram 

Aced It!: We are just a handful of Ace/Aro YouTubers who wanted to make a community to chat! Hang out let’s talk! ; instagram

Ace Ideas: We are a diverse group of asexuals here to share our knowledge, experiences, passions, hobbies, and stories surrounding our asexuality.; Facebook, tumblr, twitter 

Aceland Alexander Kent: Transgender-Male, Homoromantic, Aceflux-Asexual musician and vlogger. He used to run the queer information channel, Questions and Queeries ; Twitter, Instagram, Tumblr, BandCamp

Ahsante the Artist: Artist, Storyteller, Harvard 2015. A place for educated discussion, spirited lifestyle, cultural critique, creative reflection, and the silly goings on in the life and mind of Ahsante; website, Tumblr, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Portfolio website, Patreon

Androigynous: Hey guys! Andie here. Your resident cat girl. You’ll find gameplay, art, unboxings and feline vlogs! There’s something for everyone. ✨; instagram, facebook

Antastesia: A French asexual feminism/lifestyle/travel/vegan vlogger; Tumblr, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, professional website

Anthony Pero: Posting funny videos and skits with the purpose of making people laugh. I like to focus on anything from serious topics like depression to goofier subjects like my Facebook newsfeed. My channel also consists of parodies of people I know, things I see, or random events that I think need to be spoofed; Twitter, Facebook, Instagram

ArtByFlan: Sometimes I draw things. Sometimes I record myself drawing things. Sometimes I post videos of myself drawing things here!; tumblr, deviantart, facebook, twitter

Asexualise My Asexual Life:  Asexualise Your Asexual Life: Empower And Enhance Your Asexual Life. Giving Asexuals a voice in the world. It is my mission to give asexuals a voice in the world; to empower other asexuals to be comfortable and confident with their asexuality; and to give insight into my colourful asexual life, to enable others to better understand their own and to know they are not alone. I want to educate others about asexuality, so that in the future, all asexuals can live in society happily.; twitter, facebook 

Autistic Asexual fangirl Adventures: just a vlog page, random ramblings and adventures of a autistic asexual and geek who wants to try and make the word a better place.; twitter

BaptismOnFire: My name is Jack, I love horror and all things creepy. Here you’ll find videos about nightmares, monsters, creepypasta and generally spooky things! Remember to watch the skies, stay paranoid and trust no one…; Twitter, Tumblr, DeviantArt

Blue Phoenix Ace: American ace education vlogger. My goal is to educate people about Aromanticism and Asexuality, because maybe it will help someone learn the truth about themselves before they hit the age of 37!; music channel, Website, Soundcloud, Facebook

BreakfastAlexis: An asexual artist who creates animatics; tumblr, twitter, redbubble

Brian Langevin: Occasional videos discussing asexuality and life in general! This channel also hosts an archive of Everything’s A-Okay - a project Brian Langevin started alongside the project’s writer, Amy Liang, to bring greater visibility to asexuality; Twitter

Channel for Positivity l Understanding l Justice: Demisexual Korean-American motivational vlogger. Stay woke. See BOTH Sides. Social Justice. Bite-Sized Politics. Build more POSITIVITY :D Pragmatic Utopian. Diversity. Understand Humans & Relationships. Embrace Progress.; twitter, tumblr

Christi Kerr: This channel is a mix of whatever I like to do, which mainly includes vlogging but could include any number of things; Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook, SnapChat, Instagram

Christine Sydelko: The youtube channel of vine-star/popular internet comedian and her boyfriend; Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat

Clara Unleashed: Denmark based asexual/biromanic vlogger. They also run the aspec focused youtube channel, My Ace Experience ; Instagram, Twitter, Tumblr

Cultlleader: Asexual Vlogger; Instagram, twitter

curlybobofelia: UK based asexuality Awareness, LGBTQ, Mental Health Awareness, Disability Rights, Child Rights & Anti-bullying Advocate vlogger; Tumblr, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram

Dylan Tyler: I’m Dylan, and I suck at writing the intro things, so let’s just eat a lot of popcorn together and do an unhealthy amount of binge watching. Subscribing makes it easier to find me when you’re up for binging :) ; instagram, twitter

ElectraSnow: Demisexual artist, makeup artist, and special effects makeup expert: Twitter, Etsy, Tumblr, Facebook

Elisa Hansen/Maven of the Eventide: Voraciously vivacious Vampire Reviews. The Maven peers into the realms of the creatures of the night for a humorous analysis of vampires in media and pop culture; Twitter, Facebook

Embly: 18 years old, also the cutest small potato in the neighbourhood, wine mum, also very salty and nostalgic over a jam sandwich she lost over 2 years ago; Twitter, Instagram

Estelle Z: Music, vlogs, scrapbooks, and whatever else I happen to fancy; Tumblr, Twitter, Soundcloud, Facebook, Patreon, Gumroad

happy fish: Autistic, mentally ill, queer, nonbinary person vlogging about my life and trying to pretend I know how to function as an adult.; etsy, tumblr

Heroic Pages: Canadian, lover of books, films and imagination…and also a huge nerd!! Critter! Very much an unapologetic introvert (INTJ) ACE hermit cat lady den mother!; twitter, instagram, goodreads

JakeMale TV: I do Comedy sketch videos but also Vlogs! I share my life experiences with you so you can laugh at my mistakes. I have funny moments in my life, come and join me living my life. Click on ‘SUBSCRIBE’ to be told when I upload a new video! I advice it, MY LIFE IS WEIRD! I also do a University Advice series!; twitter, facebook, vimeo

Jeff Miller: Demiromantic/demisexual transmasculine musician, actor, and all around content creator; Patreon, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Tumblr

janeil darnell: An aroace vlogger; twitter

jennaclarek: Heteroromantic asexual. I just graduated college with a BS degree (get it) in Audio/Video Production. I’m also obsessed with Taylor Swift, strawberry cake, and musicals. I mostly make videos about books, but I also make videos about my life, my faith, and the other things I enjoy!; goodreads, twitter, tumblr, instagram, bandcamp

Jourdann: A channel that’s all about ships (the tv kind), college life, and artsy videos; Twitter, Tumblr, Instagram

kaihugstrees: Non-binary asexual. I make videos every week about my life, from travel vlogs and challenges to videos about mental health, disability, and queer topics; Twitter, Tumblr

Kelly McCraw: Akoiromantic Asexual vlogger

Marshall John Blount: Just an Ace guy trying to make it through life…This vlog will be about my everyday life and Asexual awareness…..I hope y'all will tag along on this interesting journey with me 💜💜

marsisnotcreative: Brazilian vlogger. Does covers of songs, videos chatting about stuff i enjoy, giving opinions, rants about some things that bother me, pseudo-artsy videos; twitter, tumblr, instagram

megathornberryy: Aspec book reviewer and vlogger; Goodreads, Twitter, Instagram

Milo Stewart: My name is Milo and my pronouns are they/them. Gender confused college kid named “YouTube’s most controversial trans vlogger” by The Daily Dot; Twitter, Instagram

Mikey Neumann (of Chainsawsuit Original): Ace president of Chainsaw Original and film critic ; Twitter, Website

moonchild: My channel covers a large variety of topics and genres, some of which include asexuality, body modifications, mental health, with the occasional story time or rant video thrown in; Tumblr

Overlysarcasticproductions: Sarcastic, yet informative, summaries of classic and not-so-classic literature and mythology, as well as major historical events! (Red has stated that she is asexual); threadless, cafepress, twitter

Peach The College Girl’s Vlog: Asexual Biromantic gaming channel ;twitter, twitch, snapchat

Phoebe Saturn : i make youtube videos as a hobby and hopefully have a positive impact on your day :] ; twitter

ppusherr: Gender, Sexuality, and Social Issues solved with Positivity and Education; Tumblr

punkygirlontherock: Asexual Canadian vlogger

Ricky Dillon: American YouTube personality and singer-songwriter; Book website, Twitter, Tumblr, Instagram, Spotify

Sally Le Page: Grey-ace UK vlogger. Aims to bring science further into popular culture by making science videos that make you laugh, make you feel and make you think; Website, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Flickr

sara elizabeth: Demisexual American make-up vlogger. i’m sara and i’m sorta obsessed with makeup and musicals; twitter, instagram

Sebastian Columbine: A horror and surrealist, filmmaker and artist in Los Angeles, California. This youtube channel surrounds Sebastian’s unique style, both in terms of fashion and beauty, as well as their lifestyle and artistic endeavors; Professional blog/website, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Patreon

skellydun: life is an experience. here are some of mine; Tumblr

SixFootNerd: British, six foot and a total nerd! Just someone talking about Movie/Tv News, Events, Reviews and Discussions; Twitter, Tumblr

Sophie Foster: Demisexual/biromantic fashion, makeup, and lifestyle vlogger from the UK; Tumblr, Twitter, Instagram

SoulOfEbony: I wanna scribble cartoons for a living and make people smile.; tumblr, twitter

Taye Nic: I’m just an 20 year old college student who is trying to live for the first time:) Lol, I just got into makeup! I also love making things, broadway, Disney, my boho chic style lol and NYC more than anything else! I also love to make friends so stop by; twitter, instagram, pinterest

The Asexual Goddess: Ace and in your face. I’m actually an introvert so i don’t know how that works

TheGothicAlice: Asexual Aromantic artist, Manic Panic dyehard, horror junkie, cynic, and part time model; facebook, Etsy, Tumblr

TheMysteriousMrEnter: Asexual/Aromantic animation reviewer; DeviantArt, Tumblr, Twitter, TvTropes, Facebook,

Vivi Addams: Feel free to hang around for a while, watch some Lego animations, hopefully subscribe… Enjoy!; Tumblr, Twitter

[loki-of-war]

On the future of TWD

(EDIT: Reposting due to a formatting error)

So I’ve seen a lot of people commenting and sharing their opinions lately on how Chandler’s departure will affect the show, if it will survive this hit or not, for how many seasons more will TWD run, etc, etc. And I decided, now that I’m thinking more rationally (I hope) and I’m able to form understandable sentences, to share my honest thoughts with you lovely people on this entire mess.

Which is as follows: I give the show a minimum lifespan of ten seasons (meaning, the show will end in two more seasons) and a maximum of twelve seasons in total. This is my verdict, feel free to disagree with me.

Now onto explaining why I think this is so:

I can sort of see why old fans who left and people who have never liked Carl or feel lukewarm about him are happy this death is going to happen. But on the other side I'm thinking this kind of mentality is the reason why the show gets away with terrible decisions and why they keep making them over and over, declining in quality. I don't think it's right to condone mediocrity; this is from someone like me who has stayed on the TWD's side so far hoping they'd find the right footing at some point this season  (then, obviously, because why wouldn’t they, my patience and tolerance was rewarded with this haha). And as I mentioned in a previous comment I made on YT, no matter what the public's feelings for Carl are, they won't change the importance of his role in the plot and his fundamental connection to Rick (this latter element has an effect on the whole cast, for better or for worse).

But anyway, Carl's death is going to change the entire mood of the series from now on so it definitely will never be as it once was and I think because of that the story will slowly bleed out. I mean, Carl has been the greatest determinator for every single one of Rick's decisions the entire show, and not only that but what he symbolised as a character, the hope for a better future, is gone now. What do children, sons, daughters, symbolise in every universal story? The next generation, what comes after, that not everything is going to be screwed up forever; especially after seeing how unmerciful TWD's world has proven to be for children and having Carl be the only exception to this 'kids cannot survive this world' rule has sort of become a moot point thanks to the...current circumstances.

Rick's and Lori's speeches to Carl in seasons 2 and 3 respectively justify this way of thinking: that after everyone from their generation (the adults) dies, Carl will have to take the reins and move on. I refuse to believe any writer with common sense would write such important pieces of dialogue just because they felt like it, just because they're emotional words without any other kind of meaning behind them. That is just lazy and awful writing in my opinion. Why write these poignant moments only to have the kid killed long before the end of the series? Why write/do anything if those things are going to be ignored later down the line, nevermind that every piece in a story must connect with the others? Why bother teaching him this morality lessons if they're all going to go to waste anyway; if he will never have a character arc/storyline that is plot relevant where his morals are challenged? (Good on you, whoever made the call, for missing out on possible great storylines for Carl that would have improved viewing and the quality of the show). That doesn't make a bit of sense, unless that what they were looking for was to give the events leading up to his sudden death some twist of irony, and that'd be perfect and all, except that Carl dying was so not part of the plan (the improvisation is so obvious it hurts me in the balls I don't have) and even the way his death was set up was graceless-the bite- and not something one would expect from the same people who made/directed/wrote/produced Season 4. In other words, killing him was basically flipping off the idea of a future in the face, whether they meant to do that or not, and this is bound to turn the overall mood the series to a much grim and darker tone to an already heavy themed and toned series. Many people won't find themselves too content with that heavier tonal change, I think, if the ratings for season 7 are to be trusted.

Ignoring that the conclusion to this was having him die though,  I do have to say the actual set up in the mid season finale itself was beautiful and emotional (Chandler's acting was on point, he was the star of this episode), but the chain of actions leading up to it was lackluster. With lackluster I mean that he is a very important character that has literally been wasted for far too long; if you look at his progression throughout the seasons you'll realize he has not done much from a plot perspective despite being a main character. Therefore, his death feels unsatisfactory and empty because one can't help but feel that he hasn't nearly done as much as he should have. What he did to save his people in the mid season finale was amazing but it wasn't enough to make up for a notorious lack of screen time over full eight seasons, moreover if the motivations that drove him to that point, to that mentality, to that philosophy, don't make sense because his personality has made a one eighty from how he was the previous season with no type of prior explanation as to why that happened.

It may not seem like it but I'm actually a huge fan of angst and favorite-character-slaughter. I love when books, music, movies, videogames, series make me suffer (great examples of this are my undying love for Hannibal the tv show and that my favorite videogames are the ones directed by this one man, life destroyer actually, called Yoko Taro). Perhaps that is another reason why I'm being so critical with the choice to kill Carl (asides from the horrible decision-making and poor writing), because I love being hit in the feels in the best way possible, without holding back any punches, just go straight for the kill and make me cry like a newborn. However, I don't like tragedy when it's done for shock value, or when it's done simple-mindedly. If a favorite character of mine is going down, it has to make sense and they must have had filled out their purpose in the story, reached a state of character development we're all satisfied with so that when they die one can accept it and be happy despite the possible trauma that could ensue after (well, one can't exactly pin point when that happens, when enough is enough, but to have had the character embark on a lot of adventures even without them accomplishing their purpose, is enough to embrace their death). I guess what I'm trying to say with all this is that, while on one hand I would have preferred him outliving everybody else, if they were still so adamant on having him die at some point of the story (as if killing Carl had actually been part of a long term plan and not some last minute decision) they should have developed him first and foremost, and then assign him a proper death in later seasons, most preferably before the last season ends given that him dying before Rick is several different levels of wrong; if he wasn't such a huge part of Rick's character then fine, do it, but putting and end to him is equal to neutralizing Rick for literally years, which is time that both a comic and a tv show cannot afford, so to do it near the end of everything would be a better fit.

And, I don't know, even having Judith fill the void won't be of much help either, because we haven’t and we won't see her grow the same way we did Carl, her relationship with Rick will be vastly different, and so on. Probably this is just me but I'm not really attached to her; Judith so far is to me only a concept and not actually a person (yet). The fact that they keep changing the little baby girls who portray her doesn't really help, that gets me out of the story everytime. She just can't replace Carl, she might take his future storylines but it won't be the same. Besides, by the time she grows up, she’ll already be deep into this world, this is her normal life and probably by that time things will have changed.

So basically, not only in killing Carl they destroyed the image of a future, they have killed a foundational part of the essence that made The Walking Dead be The Walking Dead we all knew and loved, and that will never return. Also, allow me to point out that for those who think that The Walking Dead is about people dying whenever and wherever, and the cruel injustice that is life, I am not going to say that your interpretation is wrong but it is an incomplete one. The audience doesn’t watch TWD only to see tons of MC’s get murdered on a daily basis. Otherwise, why bother with investing time on a plot and just have them all killed at once. The soul of TWD is not about senseless killing and murder and tragedy and sadness. Simplifying it all to ‘this show is about the possibility of anybody dying/gore/zombies/etc’ is a great disservice to the show and the fans. Obviously, I am not neither the writer of the show or Robert Kirkman to claim to know to a T what the central theme of The Walking Dead is, and for full disclosure I have not read the comics. Nonetheless, basing my personal opinion on the tv show alone, I would like to think one of the core themes the show has explored and returns to time and time again is the topic in regards to the essence of human nature, and how in spite of apparent doom and the horrible circumstances we are forced to face, humans will always find the way to move forwards and stay strong, ergo, the message is a positive one, not a negative one, depressing, nihilistic one. And what better character to portray this versatility of human nature, this capacity for change, other than Carl Grimes, a child of transition, a child who was pulled out of his normal childhood and thrown right into the chaos of the apocalypse? A boy who has witnessed inhumane things, horrible things, has killed his mother, his second father figure, has done awful things himself, has always been toeing the line between right and wrong, cruel and kind, because of all the experiences he has had to process in a very short period of time? He was obligated to grow in a decaying world, watching his father and the ones surroundind him make mistakes, learning from them, evolving, seeing close ones die, starving, surviving insane experiences... If someone like that manages to grow in such a hostile environment and still remains true to himself and still has not lost faith in the world and humanity, and keeps close all the meaningful, important things his family and friends told him in the course of his entire life and not only that, but also applies them... What does that mean for you, to you? What does it mean for us? What does it say about human nature that hasn’t been told before or not quite in this manner?

Well, that is the point. I guess we will never get to find out in the Tv Show the answer to those questions. Regrettably.

If, and just if, the show manages to recover from this point onwards, I still have no idea how I'd feel about having the show thrive on the tails of throwing under the bus such a key character with no legitimate reasons behind the choice (don't even get me started on what they've done to poor Chandler). I'll still watch the show but I would be incredibly uncomfortable if that is how it turns out to be.

Finally, I apologize for any grammar mistakes or awkward phrasing you may find, it’s way too late to be doing such a long post and English is not my main language. Please don’t be afraid or feel awkward about replying to this post, even if it’s to hate on it. I really don’t mind having a long conversation about this topic with you all since I’ve literally been dying since Sunday night to discuss it.

Thank you so much for reading!

[thedeadflag]

@dreamsheartstory​ said:  if you find any good sci fi, let me know… it’s so rare…

It really is. For a genre that has so much potential, it rarely makes the small screen without being corralled into a few very specific tropes (sci-fi cop procedural is so, so overdone, but I’m desperate haha)

Still, this is what I’ve watched over the past...3 years? 3 years, yeah. At least, the notable ones, not including the obvious big name Netflix marvel shows, Sense 8, orphan black, etc..

SOME MINOR SPOILERS BELOW

The Expanse:

Harder sci-fi. Essentially, it’s the future, where humanity expanded across the system, and Mars split off to do their own thing after a civil war. The people working on “the belt”... as in the asteroid belt and other such unsavory places and stations...are the clear have-nots and are generally abused at will by both Earth and Mars, and the show starts where tensions are at an all-time high, with the belt a hair’s trigger away from revolt, and the Earth/Mars tensions coming to a head

Great casting, the crew of the Roci is fantastic. Though Thomas Jane is...a Thomas Jane character. He’s such a perfect fit for Miller, because Miller checks all the boxes for his strengths, and hides his weaknesses well enough in the flaws of the character. So i can’t blame the show for that, but I hate looking at his face. Still, the casting is just top notch. And they have Shohreh Aghdashloo, who is always fantastic, and Frankie Adams pops onto the scene in S2 and does quite well. Essentially, casting = A+

Only real complaint is that i read the book, and there’s a pansexual lady character that is exceptional and amazing and I love her and her mouth of a sailor. The show cut that and made her more passive and scared in S2, which is bullshit, and led me to stop watching because I was furious at that decision, but in the end, it’s still absolutely 100% worth watching. If just for the Roci crew alone and the endless shenanigans they get into (and sometimes out of)

Binge-worthy. Pacing of the first two episodes is a bit inconsistent, but they’re covering an absurd amount of ground, so that’s expected.

Killjoys:

Lighthearted space-faring sci-fi, set in a totally built from the ground up universe. It slowly leaks out the lore as to not jeopardize the general tone of the show. However, it does turn serious for stretches.

Easily binge-worthy. Takes 3 episodes to get momentum, but after that, it’s pretty smooth sailing.

My only real quibble is with the origins of Dutch. We get a hint of her growing up essentially as property, abused into being a living weapon/assassin, before we get a good read of the world, and that...really comes off as a bit exploitative, given she’s a woc. 

The ship is an A+ lovable sassy ladybug

Dark Matter:

A bit “harder” sci-fi than Killjoys, but it has its lighthearted moments

Super super slow burn. I finished the first season and only then did I really start to dig my claws into the show. It’s slow. 

That said, interesting lore, and the overarching series of narratives are solid and worthwhile, they just take an egregiously long time to lift-off.

There’s apparently wlw content in season 3. I haven’t finished S2 yet, but I’m hoping it’s solid.

Westworld:

Western meets Wizard of Oz featuring Anthony Hopkins with an old west fetish. Set far off in the future. There are, like, androids and stuff

I didn’t get through it since western shows give me the creeps, but most of my friends who watched it says it was pretty great. I only watched the first episode, but the acting and cinematography and music were all very well done.

Ascension:

A sci fi mystery, set in a space-ship, if that space-ship was sort of like one of the Bunkers in the fallout games, full of people from the 50s.

The show is not without its warts, but it’s a miniseries (so it’s not long), and it’s surprisingly well done.  Doesn’t cover all the themes it brings up with the greatest nuance or skill, but I’d wager it’s probably worth a watch? 

The OA:

Another mystery! Sci-fi in the vein of alien abduction and strange abilities.

It’s kind of surrealistic? It makes you pay attention, and if you slip up, you’ll probably miss out on something. There’s a decent chunk of content mashed into those surprisingly few episodes.

Didn’t like that it robbed a character of a disability. I think it would have worked just as well with the character still being blind. They could have made it work. 

Trans guy rep in this show, which was a plus

American Gods:

I’m not sure if this counts? It kinda counts. I’m saying it counts. It mixes sci-fi and fantasy. 

I haven’t finished this yet, mostly just because it’s hard to find torrents that aren’t tracked by the network. My ISP is okay with me getting one or two notices a month, but past that, it’s tricky, and I can’t afford a good VPN, so I’m playing the waiting game for a bit.

Ricky Whittle and Ian McShane were fantastic in the episodes I did see. The show is, if nothing else, visceral and beautifully shot.

3%:

Sci-fi in the vein of Hunger Games, but a better premise, and better executed

I only managed to get it with the dubbed audio, so that was flat out atrocious and made me weep over the injustice

Still, despite the absolutely grating audio, I pushed through that and enjoyed much of the rest of the show. it’s solid. Not, like, the best show out there, but it does what it does well, it covers its themes well, and the visual elements of the acting seemed strong.

Find the sub-titled version with the original language (portugese iirc?) audio. I think that’s available on Netflix now, or at least Netflix USA, from what I understand.

12 Monkeys:

It’s a police procedural time jumping sci-fi with a dystopian, post-apoc future.

It’s okay. Nothing special. The two leads really do try to put the show on their back, btu the writing’s not real strong. Watchable, but lots of plot holes, plot armor, and writers shoehorning in sudden/coincidental events out of nowhere to increase tension. if you want something to watch for background noise, or maybe if you want a procedural show and have checked out the others already, maybe this will be for you.

Agents of Shield:

Superhero-based sci-fi

First season is slow and full of filler because they were waiting for that Captain America Winter Soldier movie to come out before tying their show in with the events. There are guides to watching the first season. I thought it was all decently fine, and good writing alla round, there’s just too many episodes that season to justify the few meaningful narrative events.

Season 2 has Dichen Lachman. The final half of that season character-assassinates her (and the other inhumans) to provide the show a late-hour villain to root against. I hated that. It’s the weakest season, thankfully, and I’m sure there are watch-guides to skipping through that because...

Shit gets real in season 3, and it’s worth watching even outside of S1-2, I’d even rec skipping those if there wans’t so much character-building in those 2 seasons. The writing is better, the acting is better from S3 onward. There’s still some fumbling of themes, but not to the degree of the previous seasons. Same with Season 4, where it arguably has it’s greatest few episodes. Ends with a brief Hydra-AU arc that IMO is skippable, but some adored it. I didn’t, but eh.

Colony:

Harder sci-fi. Aliens invaded and swiftly won. Now they’re ruling us from a distance, using human figureheads to do so. Really neat lore, and worldbuilding.

Unfortunately, it’s the most frustrating sci-fi show i’ve seen in years, because the male cop lead always has a gut feeling that always aligns with what the revolutionaries are planning, so he always intercepts them. And they get unbelievable plot armor to escape the writers’ ham-handed tension-building, ensuring the writers don’t pay any consequences for the shitty bullshit they keep pulling over and over.

If you can take that sort of crap, and care enough about worldbuilding/lore/etc., then go for it. There’s definite value, and things improve greatly in season 2. But my lord, season 1 is so frustrating.

Person of Interest:

You’ve probably watched this one

Hard sci-fi in the vein of "Hey, maybe writing a secret intelligent AI is just a really bad idea” *five minutes later* “Oh no what have we done”

It’s a really bad idea.

But we get fun police procedural moments out of it, because John is solid, and Carter & Root & Shaw & Bear are excellent. 

Bear is best.

The show has watch guides for getting through the first season, and parts of S2. 

Avoid the final 3 episodes of the series. Maybe the final season altogether. Otherwise fantastic and heartwrenching stuff.

The Last Ship:

Naval Adventure to Rebuild the World After a Rampant MegaVirus sci-fi

Surprisingly decent for a show that’s basically funded entirely by the American Navy.

Just keep in mind that there will be shitty patriotism bits of bullshit tossed in here and there, and there won’t be so much shock when those bits show up.

First two seasons play out like a mix of The Hunt for Red October and Jesus Camp. It’s bizarre, but sometimes it works? Rhona Mitra and Christina Elmore are probably the reasons for that. And Dichen Lachman is in S3 and she doesn’t die, so that’s a plus.

It definitely has its dips into shit-tier quality, and self-righteous bullshittery, especially in S3.

But it also handles a national political arc halfway decently for a sci-fi show in S3. 

Anywho, this is good for, like, background watching? Or low-intensity, low-effort watching. In that context, it’s a good enough show.

The Leftovers:

Three seasons of super depressing and heart-wrenching drama with sci-fi at its core (huge amounts of people vanish one day...the show is about the world finding out how to move on, what ti all means)

Excellent acting. Top notch. Like, some of the best on TV. Some stunning stuff.

The show only gets better. I didn’t like the first half of S1, it’s very slow and arduous, but it’s worth it. 

Not very sci-fi, at least not until S3, but still. It works with sci-fi elements and it’s a very thoughtful, smart show.

Wayward Pines:

It’s sci-fi in the vein of Under the Dome, but it manages to be even worse somehow don’t ask me how

Oh my god don’t watch this, the cast does not make up for it, they flounder in atrocious writing. i’m only mentioning this here because it’s just so bad, don’t waste your time like I did.

That’s...well, the stuff that’s not far below mediocre.

[nothingneverforever]

Yesterday (2019)

When I’d just seen the trailers and promo stuff for Yesterday, there was some great excitement in me. I loved The Beatles years ago, I mean, I really really loved them, I’ve got about 15 books on them, borrowed my mom’s credit card to shop online for DVDs of all their original movies when I was 14, etc etc, so Yesterday’s premise added up and seemed to look like something I’d enjoy: Danny Boyle, mysterious ultra-niche alternate reality in an otherwise utterly regular world, some kind of deadpan irony about the whole situation…

Then it came and went in cinemas and I never got down to seeing it. So I watched instead this film review by DazzReviews on Youtube, titled “Yesterday Missed A MASSIVE OPPORTUNITY (SPOILERS)”.  It’s a short and simple analysis of key weaknesses of the film, being that its actual contents greatly pale in comparison to its great potential. Even without watching the film, I understood Dazz’s gripe because even seeing snippets of the film bored me. It is such a unique, and almost cute idea afterall: a blackout causing selective loss of memory in every single individual in this world (save for 3, later to be discussed) where post-blackout, The Beatles and other cultural/social phenomenon do not and have never existed. Our protagonist, who pre-blackout was a struggling singer/songwriter, then decides to release Beatles songs from his memory as his own, thus gaining global popularity and attracting immense adoration. It’s not novel, perhaps reminiscent of time-travel narratives idk, but it’s still fun right?  

Yet even after watching this review video and understanding the film’s flaws and being able to imagine how disappointing the film would have been, watching it in full for myself was still an upsetting experience. Google tells me that Yesterday is of the ‘Drama/Fantasy’ genre, which gives me a good starting point for my critique: how utterly un-fantastical it is.

Our protagonist Jack Malik is LITERALLY the most vanilla, ungrateful, boring, not-alive, nothing-at-all, annoying, pathetically male (in terms of tantrum-throwing and ingratitude) character I have ever seen. None of this is hyperbolic, his character literally sucks so freakin much omfg, absolutely devoid of any redeeming or even remotely INTERESTING qualities at all. In fact save for maybe one scene (which I will talk about below), I don’t think there was another single second in the entire film where we saw him smiling. This is not to say that he’s portrayed as especially tortured or depressed in demeanor, merely to indicate his absolute dearth of warmth and personality.

Meanwhile, it becomes clear as the boring film progresses boringly that Yesterday is in fact nothing more than a love story. The cute Beatles twist is merely a device to show us how Jack and his “love interest” Ellie (inverted commas cos their love sucks omfg I cant imagine that ANYONE viewing it is convinced) were in fact meant to be, with Jack’s momentary superstardom existing to show him that all he ever wanted was his old life, the one with Ellie (even though they were never together because THEY ARENT EVEN MEANT TO BE IN THE FIRST PLACE OKAY….). But, just as Jack’s character itself is flawed and awfully written, our female protagonist Ellie is SOOOOOO early 2000s. Just think of the most typical stock supportive, sweet, pretty, unfailingly kind and patient female whose presence is taken for granted etc etc… So her stock sweetie pie female character coupled with the most unbelievably charmless and unlikable male character make for the most unshippable couple you could possibly imagine. We are supposed to be charmed by her obvious-to-everyone-except-him love for Jack, supposed to have our heartstrings tugged by the singular scene of teenage schoolgirl her standing by the wings of the stage with hearts in her eyes while teenage schoolboy him sings a most soulless rendition of Wonderwall but it literally does absolutely nothing. The means has not met the end! This is a grossly uninspiring love story and there is no fantasy whatsoever!!

Honestly how is this even a Danny Boyle product? But then again… Zhang Yimou, boasting the incredibly genius Raise the Red Lantern (1992) on his resume, also did The Great Wall (2016) so I guess even heroes have the right to bleed or even the best fall down sometimes or something. OMG WAIT  I just googled the film again and not only is it directed by Danny Boyle but also written by Richard Curtis LOL wtfffffffffff okay this is the worst film ever seriously

Early on just after the global blackout thing, before Jack becomes the huge superstar that he does after his music (“his” music) is released into the world, when he first decides to use the songs of The Beatles, he is cajoled by his parents into performing for them in their humble living room. (by the way his parents are played by Sanjeev Bhaskar and Meera Syal who I have LITERALLY seen in about 1000 British TV shows and movies by now… idk maybe Yesterday was intended as a semi-ensemble cast film? Since there are other “appearances” by other known faces… ok whatever.) I guess this scene of him, superstar-to-be, sitting down at his piano in the claustrophobic living room with his parents exaggerating their domestic inclinations and comforts (by holding their cups of tea and settling themselves into their sofa-chairs etc) is meant to be comedic, we’re meant to laugh at how his parents have no idea the genius that is about to be released unto the stratosphere embodied by their all-great son Jack Malik, and it’s a predictable scene: his parents get disturbed by the bell and other things in the first 10 seconds of his performance, so Jack has to begin Let It Be 4 times over and never gets past a few lines… and okay, it’s funny because they are treating Jack’s “performance” as such because he has never before produced anything worthy of actual attention and has never performed in any manner that has demanded any respect given that he was an absolutely mediocre singer, but the scene is ruined by how Jack was written to have to react. Instead of taking it in his stride and recognizing that his parents are taking it so lightly because they have no idea how big the song is going to be because they have had no reason to expect anything great of him before, Jack throws a big fucking tantrum and asks why they cannot and have not respected the greatest song to ever be written etc etc… and okay, maybe this was intentional because we are to infer that Jack’s reaction is a projection of his own insecurities about releasing entirely unoriginal songs as his own, perhaps he has doubts about whether they would do as well as they did when The Beatles themselves released them, perhaps he has doubts that he is the right person to do this at all, anxieties and fears about being able to get away with it all… Sure, but I don’t want to give the writers the benefit of this doubt. If I were to watch the scene with my eyes and ears and not my brain, all I’d see is a dumbass manchild with a temper and ego problem incapable of accepting responsibility for the decisions he’s made, plus being unnecessarily cruel and disrespectful to his simple parents who want only to support him, if superficially. Basically, he’s dumb and the worst protagonist you’d want for a romcom.

But let it not be said that I am an extremist with my views: there was one sub-plot that showed promise and that made me think perhaps there was more to this film than the nothingness it had conveyed hitherto. When Jack played in Moscow, as an opening act for Ed Sheeran, we saw the haunting face of a large man in the crowd, carrying a knowing look in his eyes. It gave us a great sense of unease, seeing his concerned face contrasted with the throng of pretty girls screaming their hearts out (you know, à la “Moscow girls make me sing and shout”). Then later we see an English lady (played by the iconic amazing Sarah Lancashire who I know and love so so much from Happy Valley), who like the Russian man, carries the same speculation in her sharp eyes, as she sees Jack manically making his way through Liverpool, visiting key landmarks like Eleanor Rigby’s grave, Strawberry Fields, Penny Lane etc because, as she says to him later, “you cant write songs about places you’ve never been to”. So anyway, this odd pairing make up the only 2 other known humans in the world who for unexplained reasons also remember the existence of The Beatles, and thus recognize that Jack’s positioning of the entire Beatles discography as his own original work to be fraudulent.

So we as audiences who hardly care for this dumbass Jack but have still held on to some hope that the film would bring us some element of surprise and karma for this annoying fraud (whose singing voice by the way is literally the most forgettable ever), we would have loved nothing more than for Jack to face the sound of music (as Mother Mary comes to him). But instead of, I dunno, chopping his head off or outing him to the world, the mysterious duo thank him for bringing their much beloved Beatles songs back into the world, the whole who has forgotten them. They thank him for doing justice to the memory of the greatest band of all time, and together the duo and Jack dance and cheer in a side room minutes before Jack goes out to perform for the biggest crowd he’s ever played to. It’s just…  lame and not even a satisfying easy way out. Oh remember above when i said there was literally only about one scene of Jack smiling, this was it. And he only smiled because obviously he was relieved at not having his secret revealed to the world by these two..... ughhh WE DONT WANT TO SEE YOU HAPPY!! WE HATE U!!

Okay haha I shall end this as I do all my other ‘reviews’… by saying that I’m lazy already and cant really be bothered to continue but shall conclude by proclaiming that this film sucked… not in a remotely camp or quiet or interesting manner either. It was just boring and bad and of great disrespect to the music of The Beatles.

 -------------------

Omg I have just attempted to read some actual reviews of this film and some actually think it’s ‘charming’ and ‘surprisingly moving’ and that the leads have ‘chemistry’………….. that’s literally the fakest thing I’ve ever heard lol bye bye!

[news-mashable-yahoopartner-blog]

We're all second-screening. Here's how you're doing it wrong.

Second-screening — watching TV while also looking at your phone, tablet or laptop — is probably the  most widely adopted destructive behavior of the decade. We keep hearing that it's bad for us; we keep doing it regardless. It's the smoking of the 2010s. 

Psychologists were sounding the alarm as early as 2012 that this kind of screen-based multitasking seemed to be correlated with depression and anxiety. Did we listen? Did we hell. Back then, according to Nielsen, a mere (!) 40 percent of American adults looked at their phones or tablets every day while parked in front of the tube. By 2017, according to eMarketer, that number had climbed to over 70 percent. 

The same study anticipated that second-screening would afflict 76 percent of us by 2019; looking around our living rooms now, that figure seems too conservative. 

SEE ALSO: Dear significant others: Please let us watch our shows alone

"It relaxes me," my wife says, slightly defensively, when I catch her playing a mobile game rather than paying attention to our show. And really, who am I to judge? Many's the time I've thumbed through Twitter in the dull moments of a so-so episode. No one could be faulted for trying to hide from the commercial break by plunging into their phones instead. 

Let he who has never second-screened cast the first stone. 

So if we all do it, perhaps it's time to acknowledge that — and instead of wagging hypocritical fingers at each other, try to limit our second-screening in sensible ways that can help head off the worst, most anxiety-inducing aspects. Here's a look at the ways we're doing it right and wrong. 

RIGHT: Stay on topic

Probably the most positive use case for second-screening is breaking news. Cable channels can give you one stream of information on a fast-developing story, the internet can provide another, and the two together make you less quick to jump to wrong conclusions. 

When you've got multiple sources agreeing on the details of any still-murky event, you're doing news right. 

With one eye on the news anchor and a thumb on Twitter, you're less likely to feel useless in the face of the latest unspeakable tragedy. You can donate, you can write to your representatives, you can motivate and console friends. A 2015 paper on "Second Screen Use and Its Effect on Online Political Participation" reached the conclusion that it actually makes us better, more engaged citizens. 

The record high youth voter turnout in the 2018 midterm election, the most recent test of our activist second-screen culture, certainly did not disprove this theory. 

But you don't have to be saving the world from your couch to feel good about second-screening. The psychological toll (not to mention the IQ-dropping effect!) of multi-tasking seems to derive from the effort of making our brain pay attention to two disparate topics at once. 

If you're looking up the answers to questions brought about by the show, or live-tweeting it, you're going to have a better time than if you're just randomly browsing Instagram or scrolling anxiously through your email.

The early 2010s saw a brief flurry of interest in official second-screen apps specifically designed for popular shows, such as ABC's Grey's Anatomy Sync. That app has since vanished from app stores — possibly because it was redundant, given Twitter's ability to host all kinds of conversations, but more likely because Big TV realized that most of us aren't second-screening that way. 

According to that eMarketer study, 131.5 million U.S. adults were looking at unrelated content on their phones and tablets while watching TV; just 46.2 million were browsing something related. 

Be smart. Be one of the 46.2 million. 

WRONG: Don't do it tired

There is, my wife the expert suggests, a limited pool of mental energy available for second-screening. The research on multitasking would seem to back this up, although we probably need more specific research on second-screening itself.

But anecdotally, I think we all know this to be true. Second-screen for too long, or do it too late in the evening, and you end up in a kind of mindless zombie second-screening situation. One where, if you were suddenly asked at any given moment what was happening on either of the screens, you might be hard pressed to answer. Where has your mind gone? 

Our current global epidemic of sleeplessness is at least partly caused by the blue glow of LED screens. There's also a second-order effect involved: our obstinate insistence at bathing in two screens at once, too close to bedtime. 

RIGHT: Stay alert for ads

An unsuspecting family about to be lured in by marketing.

Image: Getty Images/Hero Images

The zombified nature of the worst kind of second-screening may also be responsible for another  trend: we are ridiculously receptive to advertising when we're doing it. 

That's partly because we're in more of a position to follow up on a TV ad if we have a device in our hands already. A 2018 study found the average viewer is 75 percent more likely to search for the product if they're second-screening, and that you're even more likely to do so if you're over 40. 

But it also works the other way around — in terms of the screen and in terms of generations. A more recent study by Aki Technologies found that viewers were 59 percent more receptive to mobile ads if they're second-screening, moreso if they're millennials. 

In other words, the more screens we use, the more advertisers and marketers have us right where they want us. Far be it for a journalist to decry this state of affairs and bite the hand that feeds us, but we should at least be aware that it's happening — not just to us, but to our kids too. 

WRONG: Doing it alone

Pick a screen, dude.

Image: Getty Images/Maskot

Second-screening makes a kind of sense for couples and families. It surfs the fine line between together time and alone time without you having to move from the couch. Your significant other can watch their favorite show while you catch up on work, indulge a good old-fashioned Facebook session, or maybe even — whisper it low — read a book.

But if you're flying solo, there's less of an excuse — and more of a possibility that you're just using multiple screens as a substitute for sociability. Are you getting that bright zombified buzz from being bathed in completely disparate kinds of media at once? Maybe pick a lane and stay in it. 

Better yet, invite a bunch of introverted friends over, specifically for second-screening purposes. The lure of alone time together is stronger than you might think. 

RIGHT: Stay connected

Even if you and your partner/family are all on the couch together, there is a right and a wrong way to second-screen. 

Everyone's mileage differs on this, depending on your ideal level of physical affection. Personally, I'd argue that second-screening without some form of snuggling is no kind of second-screening at all. Holding hands while staring at different devices, occasional squeeze included, is a good way to remind each other that you're present, no matter how deep your internet rabbit hole has gone. 

The other element of second-screen connection to consider is this: are you creating a safe, warm, happy space for conversation? Can anyone look up from their device at any given moment and say what's on their mind? Or are you hushing them, or dramatically rolling your eyes when you have to hit the pause button to hear them out? 

I'm occasionally guilty of the latter. But it's important to remember, especially in our digital age, there is literally nothing we can't put down or pause for a chat. Humans come first. 

No matter how many screens you have around you, remember: they come second.  

WATCH: Report says popular apps are silently recording your screen

[joshhutchsource]

Josh Hutcherson shows his new face–

He tells us, exclusively, his plans to venture into the field of film directing, in addition to acting.

This article was translated for Josh Hutcherson Source by @vega-sheliak​. Please credit if you repost.

I always wanted to be a director … It gives me the tools and space to create and it is something that is often more attractive than any paycheck, at least for me.“ - JOSH HUTCHERSON

Having starred in four ‘Hunger Games’ blockbusters; now, without Jennifer Lawrence or Liam Hemsworth, Josh Hutcherson finds a new way to stand out in the cinema. And to demonstrate the experience he has accumulated in more than ten years working, this young 24 year-old, is determined to cross the other side of the camera to follow the path of the greatest in film, as a director.

Have you gotten used to the title 'Josh Hutcherson, film director’?

I always wanted to be a director, and to mix with experienced people and to work with other young directors who I also admire.

Is it time to show the world that you really consider yourself a film veteran … at 24 years of age?

Since I was very, very young, they tried to keep me out of the movie studio, although I wanted to stay, which went against the schedule child actors had to follow. I wanted to learn all the elements of moviemaking. I was in the camera truck and nobody could find me, just because I was learning a little about the lenses or I was going to the scenery truck to learn how to build a studio, I was fascinated by the whole process. I was always a sponge, absorbing all the elements of a shoot. And now, I will be able to apply it.

Do not you feel too much pressure to sit in the director’s chair, being so young?

Yes, it’s a new challenge for me, to direct other people who I also have to act with, but it’s something I’ve always wanted to do. I’ve worked with many directors who also started as actors and those are also the directors that I like the most, because they always come with a story based on the character. And when I have to direct, I’m going to concentrate on the characters as well.

Read the full article under the cut. (This is a long one!)

Are you also going to work as an actor in the movie you are directing?

Yes. I’ll start with a short film, because they say it’s easy enough. You can act and direct at the same time. We’ll see what happens. But yes, I will act too. The title is 'Ape’, it’s a rather dark film, about a young man suffering from schizophrenia. It’s a very complicated story that ruins the family. It’s very dark, but it’s a genre that has always really attracted me.

Have you ever wanted to change the direction of any of your movies?

In any performance, one always wonders what would happen if we did something different, but we can’t say that because it’s disrespectful to the director. And now, I can say what I always thought, while still being respectful, of course.

With directing a short film, do not you also make much less than a real movie?

In this case, I have the opportunity to become the director so that I can add my voice to the project. It gives me the tools and space to create, and is something that is often more attractive than any paycheck, at least for me.        

Does it mean that, at this point in your career you are choosing creative control over a million-dollar paycheck?

Exactly, yes. The good thing about film is to be able to make blockbusters to then have the opportunity to move away a little, and concentrate on something much more artistic that really matters to you, as a form of expression.

The idea is quite original, in Hollywood. Together with Indigenous Media, Josh Hutcherson plans to create a series of short films, with new directors, as an original way of presenting ideas to film studios about future films, instead of working only with the script and a list of possible actors. It is similar to television, where TV producers usually create a pilot episode so that after a TV channel gives the OK, they can produce the full series. And just as the idea of ​​a movie, with a trailer, is being sold to us, Josh Hutcherson tries to sell to the big film studios the idea through the filming of the short version of the film.

Could you explain in your own words the idea of ​​this new project?

I think it’s a very good concept. The idea is to take the script from a full-length and make a short version. And just after making it, the full-length would be produced, because it often takes years to develop a script, because people commit and then pull out. And after you realize it, ten years has passed since you got the script for a movie.

Is there an example of an important movie that has started with a short film first?

'Whiplash’ with Miles Teller (JK Simmons won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor). They made a short film first. Only when people understood the idea, did they go forward with the movie. It’s also much easier to attract actors, producers, and get funding. It’s like an incubator to create a movie. I think it’s a great idea.

Is it also a way to find your own films to star in?  

It’s hard to find roles that are interesting for my age range. I starve for them, that’s my Hunger Game. They keep offering me characters that are still in high school, or just fresh out of college, and I’m stuck in that bracket all the time.

Are you going to try to keep your adolescent fans or 20 year olds?

We definitely want to talk to that audience, which also exists in Turkey or Italy. It exists all over the world. We want to create human stories where people can identify beyond language and culture. That’s the good thing about film. Sometimes it works … but sometimes it doesn’t.

And from the point of view of a young director, what do you think about the debate about the lack of women like Jennifer Lawrence in the most important positions of the cinema?

I am very aware, and personally I want the film industry to represent a diverse group of people. And, at least one of the projects we have is by a woman. It’s good to have a woman’s voice, and it is necessary that the younger female screenwriters and directors have enough confidence to represent themselves in film and television. I say this, because it surprises me when I see that a female screenwriter or even on TV writer write a typical female stereotype, when there are so many interesting women in the world. The greatest achievements and also biggest mistakes…always have to do with a woman in your life.

Nothing can compare to the success of having played the role of Peeta Mellark in the 'Hunger Games’ series with Jennifer Lawrence.

Does it upset you when in Hollywood you hire a foreign actor for the role of an American character?

Well, there are enough Australians and British taking away my roles. But the accents are very difficult for any performance. That’s the truth. Having an accent doesn’t let you focus exclusively on acting. It is a challenge. And I think there are actors who do very well and others who don’t. I just think that the characters should be open to those who can interpret them the best way. If you are a British actor playing an American, or vice versa, whatever, what matters is that you feel authentic doing it.

Taking into account the idea of ​​creating a short film to present a full-length movie script, have you ever finished one of your films and it’s turned out completely different than the original script?

I remember when we shot ’The Kids Are All Right’, we were at Sundance and when I first saw it, I was surprised when the audience laughed, because I thought we had made a dramatic movie. I had no idea that it was literally a dramatic comedy about a very strange family. When I read the script, it seemed like a drama on all sides. We filmed it as such, but when it was shown, the audience thought it was funny. I didn’t know if that was good or bad at the time, but I guess it worked.

What is the most fun thing about directing your own movie?

When the first scripts arrive. That’s the most exciting part, because there are so many. The Black List is an organization that collects these incredible scripts that have never before been produced and have an amazing library with great content from totally unknown filmmakers. I was surprised to see how good they were. And being a director for the first time, I also immersed myself into everything, calling my friends, people I worked with before, asking for favors to help me bring my vision to life. That part is really fun, too.

Now the actor stars in a half-hour comedy of 13 episodes, produced by Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg. In the series, Josh Hutcherson is Josh Futturman, a depressed gamer who is strangely summoned to become a hero. 

And the hard part?

The most difficult part is transforming the script of a feature film into a short film, keeping the tone and heart of the story, without the audience feeling unsatisfied.

Can we imagine a world of filmmaking where instead of paying fifteen dollars to see a two-hour movie, we can have a shorter version that costs much less?

I have many friends who literally don’t watch cable. They use other services like Netflix or Hulu. And when you can get that kind of content, you don’t need to spend too much money to generate a giant event where everyone has to go to the movies and pay $15 for a ticket plus another $3 for popcorn. It’s like getting to a new audience in a way, it’s interesting. 

Does the emergence of new media like Snapchat or YouTube, turn the short films into a new system of cinema?

Short films, for me, were always a platform for true artistic expression and the best way to discover filmmakers. That’s the good thing. If I could get people to pay attention to young, fresh voices, that would be the biggest success of my life.

If this is a good way to reduce the risks, how come the film industry didn’t use this system before?

I don’t know, it’s interesting. I guess it’s because everything is still new, like Netflix or Amazon, so it’s something we’re also learning to use.

Are Netflix or Amazon the new film competition?

I know people in parts of the United States who love movies, but they don’t live near a movie theater. So they are forced to jump in the car and drive an hour and a half to watch a movie, when they can view Netflix at home. A few years ago, I had a movie that never had a huge release beyond 'On Demand’ (on cable TV) and some movie theaters. And in my mind, I thought it was a failure, but not because the subject wasn’t interesting, but because it didn’t really get exposure.

Josh’s popularity came in 2005, when he starred in 'Zathura: A Space Adventure’

What movie was the one that never got to theaters?

’Escobar: Paradise Lost’, the story of Pablo Escobar.

How big is the gap between the artistic side of cinema and the commercial profile, where today they make a film with the sole objective of raising millions?

Without being too philosophical or annoying, cinema began as pure art. They didn’t care about the money made…they filmed exclusively as a form of artistic expression. But when filmmaking became more popular, big companies realized they could make fortunes, like the Marvel world that is so lucrative, but in the end, it’s pure business. And now that there are new platforms, it feels like we can go back to the big reason why the films originally came out, trying to get a true artistic expression. That’s very cool.

So does media like Netflix and Amazon that charge less than the cost of a movie ticket to see an unlimited number of movies per month, help or hurt the film industry?

The reality is that there is no business model. And basically what we say, is that if we do something good, people will watch it. And now, that there are so many options, we will always be able to do that.

[source]

[recentanimenews]

A Celebration of Women of Color in Anime

  Anime has always meant a lot to me as a person of color. I didn't see much of myself in my surroundings growing up, and even though I'm mixed Filipinx and not Japanese, it felt valuable to me that anime was an Asian-created medium. There were far more limits in terms of exposure and what you could readily learn about underrepresented cultures in the years before the internet became more widely accessible. As a result, early TV and video exposure to anime helped me indirectly feel proud of my own heritage.

I generally relate to media depictions of women more than men, so it should come as no surprise that women of color in anime comprise some of my favorite fictional characters, period. Though woefully misrepresented in all kinds of media, here's a non-hierarchical list of anime WOC who are respectfully depicted, nuanced, and poignant role models for our own lives too. Read on for more!

Nadia — Nadia: The Secret of Blue Water

    A series known for its tumultuous production and Hideaki Anno's distinct directorial hand, Nadia: The Secret of Blue Water is an aquatic adventure anime from the early '90s. The main character, Nadia, is a young woman of color searching for the truth about her past — and the secret of her blue-jeweled pendant.

One of Nadia's crowning traits is her connection with animals and the care she displays for them. Nadia communicates easily with King, her lion cub sidekick, and openly detests meat and hunting. The show also makes it clear that Nadia is a *gasp* vegetarian. It was pretty rare in the '90s for any show to feature a positive portrayal of vegetarians, so it's pretty cool to see her depicted as a genuinely caring animal-lover and not some meat-hating caricature.

Nadia is an "imperfect" heroine in the sense that she actually comes across like a real person with real struggles. She is (justifiably) prone to distrust others, can act hot-headed, grapples with intense depression, and doesn't always give people like Jean and Nemo the benefit of the doubt. Nadia's tendencies and behavior make perfect sense given her awful and abusive childhood, and that makes her one of the most interesting anime protagonists out there.

Yoruichi Shihōin — Bleach

    In Bleach, Yoruichi's coolness factor is off the charts. She can outrun Byakuya (one of the most powerful captains), knows how to help you achieve Bankai in three days, and can also transform from a black cat into a human at will. If Soul Society had its own version of LinkedIn, Yoruichi's resume would be top tier — it's no small feat to be the former Onmitsukidō commander and former 2nd captain of the Gotei 13.

Finally, much like the rest of the cast of Bleach, Yoruichi possesses a simple yet keen sense of style. Can you think of anyone over a century old who can wear purple and beige striped arm wraps and orange apparel with such finesse? I thought not.

Carole — Carole and Tuesday

Shinichiro Watanabe's new show Carole and Tuesday is yet another music fan's dream. While Kids on the Slope focused on Jazz, Watanabe's new outing hones in on pop singer/songwriters. One central message in the show is simple, yet timeless: Pursue your creative expression by staying true to yourself, and keep your creative fire safe from societal pressures intent on manipulating and/or extinguishing your gift. And with a Black woman — Carole — as one of the lead protagonists, this important message feels even more moving and powerful.

A Black woman as a lead character is the exception rather than the rule in the world of media, which is a disturbing reflection of larger oppressive social structures. That's why it feels refreshing to see a respectful portrayal in the form of Carole. We first meet her as an impoverished teenager in a big city without parents or a support network. Despite the financial and social odds stacked against her, Carole still longs to express herself and create a loving community through the power of music. Her dedication to her own creative integrity is a joy to watch, and as a musician myself, I found legitimate personal solace in her drive to be as artistically genuine as possible.

One of my favorite things about Carole is the ego-free support, sense of awe, and goodwill she displays toward other musicians. There's barely a hint of jealousy or competition between Carole and her main musical partner, Tuesday. The two get along amazingly well despite a few roadblocks, and Carole consistently honors their shared creative spirit. She even voices repeated praise for a rival musician named Angela, despite Angela's antagonistic remarks against the series' duo. As another impressive feat, Carole also manages to revive the joy of seasoned — and occasionally downtrodden — musicians due to her infectious creative passion. How can you not love such an inspirational character?!

Anthy Himemiya — Revolutionary Girl Utena

Revolutionary Girl Utena, is, well, revolutionary for a number of reasons. The show tackles gender essentialism head-on and makes some hefty statements about the toxicity of conventional social norms. Utena is an incredible character who challenges the classic patriarchal notions associated with princedom. I'd argue though, that her partner Anthy Himemiya is the true star of the show.  Without going into spoilers, Anthy is key to one of the biggest themes in the show: That for its own selfish gain, society is willing to endlessly enact cruel rigidity and heartlessness against women. It'd be both reductive and missing the larger point though, to interpret Anthy as a defenseless, subservient victim controlled by the harshness of a misogynistic culture. On the contrary, Anthy is perhaps the strongest figure in the entire series. Anthy does (at least in some ways) behave according to the interest of others, but she ultimately asserts her own worth and personal agency in a way that truly embodies the show's beautiful core. There are plenty of fascinating, insightful articles that go into depth about Revolutionary Girl Utena's symbolism and topics, so be sure to check some out. Anthy is a phenomenal character who stands out as one of the most memorable depictions of self-love, showing it's never too late to define your own life according to your needs, desires, and dreams.

Casca — Berserk

                              Berserk is likely my favorite manga, and undoubtedly my favorite work of dark fantasy. I always pair that praise with a very cautionary recommendation due to the intense gore and many disturbing sexual depictions throughout the series. While it's up to each individual to decide their limits in terms of extreme content, Kentaro Miura (the creator) softens Berserk's more unseemly edges by featuring sympathetic protagonists who organically evolve, and who are driven by immense love and support for one another in spite of a horrifyingly bleak world. That said, I find the central character Casca to be one of the strongest and most nuanced women in all of fiction. It's rare enough for a dark-skinned woman to be depicted at all in most media, and rare still for her to be given proper depth and well-deserved narrative development. Fortunately, Berserk gives us both.

In the Band of the Hawk arc — the first lengthy saga in Berserk, covered by the three recent films and the '90s anime — Casca is introduced as a well-regarded figure within the ranks of her mercenary brigade. Although she's portrayed as a strong fighter and a capable leader, the series deploys many different elements that prevent a one-sided characterization of Casca. For example, her tragic backstory highlights not only her strength and will to survive but also lends added weight to why she's so watchful of her comrades. After Casca is sent away by her own family as a child, she gains a new one in the form of the Band of the Hawk, and — much like a protective older sister — leads many of her men to safety on more than one occasion. The life and attachments Casca forges from the hell of her childhood imbues her character with skillfulness, tenacity, and meaningful emotional capacity. 

The love between Casca and Guts is a genuinely moving, reciprocal bond. While it's true that Guts saves Casca from demons on many occasions (which carries more than a hint of the misogynistic damsel-in-distress cliche), it's also true that Guts is saved from his lonely life largely because of Casca's love and presence. Though there's plenty to critique about the notion that masculine dependency is evidence of a healthy relationship, overall I find that Guts and Casca exhibit selfless, mutual gestures of love that challenge standard relational dynamics.

It can't be stressed enough how pivotal Casca is to Berserk's central storyline. Her badass skills as a fighter, coupled with her nuanced backstory and emotional depth, makes her one of my favorite anime characters of all time. 

Each anime in this list offers a uniquely touching testament to women of color. While by no means an exhaustive list, I hope you enjoyed it!

Are there other women of color from your favorite anime who aren't listed here? Let us know in the comments!

                              Do you love writing? Do you love anime? If you have an idea for a features story, pitch it to Crunchyroll Features!

By: news+feed@crunchyroll.com

[newyorktheater]

You need not have read Darwin or watched any of the Planet of the Apes movies to suspect that chimpanzees come closest to humans in the animal kingdom. Scientists have discovered over the past twenty years that chimpanzees in the wild possess distinct cultures – almost all use tools, but they use them in different ways depending on whether in Tanzania or Congo or Uganda. Scientists have been studying domesticated chimps for their ability to communicate, teaching them sign language. That people recognize their resemblance to chimps has generally not worked in the chimps’ favor. They have been trained to act like children for our amusement in circuses, TV shows and other entertainments, such as a movie co-starring a future president of the United States. And, more perniciously, they have been targeted for invasive biomedical experiments. Until 2015, when the National Institutes of Health stopped the practice, some 1,3oo were caged in ten laboratories. One of those was named Wenka, according to Project R&R (a project of the New England Anti-Vivisection Society). Wenka was born in a lab in 1954, then sold the following year to a family in North Carolina, who raised her until she was three years old. But the family then found her too big to handle, so returned her to the lab, where she lived, subject to experiments, for another half century. Wenka’s story, I suspect, is one of those that Nick Lehane researched to put together “Chimpanzee,” at HERE Arts Center, an hour-long play that presents a chimp in captivity, recalling her youth with a human family. The chimp is a puppet, manipulated by three puppeteers. “Chimpanzee” shows the power of puppetry to elicit emotion for a story that would surely be less effective told in any other way. The show was originally paired at HERE Arts with “Ashes,” a more elaborate play by the Norwegian French theater company Polaire Plexus, also based on a true story, of a pyromaniac who torched his hometown, and the writer born in that town who struggled to tell the story. “Ashes” is on tour, and closed on March 17. That was when “Chimpanzee” was scheduled to close on the same day, but it has proven popular enough to be extended through May 7th. It’s worth catching.

Marika Kent’s lighting design and Kate Marvin’s sound design are central elements in the telling of the story, but it is the expressiveness of the puppet’s head and limbs that tug at us most exquisitely. When we first see the puppet, she is pacing back and forth under dim light, with the occasional sound of the clinking of cages. She uses her hand to put food into her mouth from a dog dish suddenly shoved into her cage, apathetically staring into space, as if she doesn’t really care whether she eats or not. The lights suddenly brighten, the sound turns into a dreamlike tinkling music, and the chimp walks upright, head looking around, full of curiosity, until it comes upon a wooden storage box, and is delighted by its contents – scarves that she playfully drapes over her head; tiny toy babies and chimps, which she examines every which way…and then hugs to her chest. But then lights grow dim again, the harsh clinking returns and there is a cacophony of distant screeches, the other animals in cages in the lab. She covers her ears, hugs herself in desolation. Back and forth it goes, from her past life of discovery and delight to her present life of isolation and despair. Two of the puppeteers, Emma Wiseman and Andy Manjuck, visibly manipulate the puppet, but also sometimes silently suggest the chimp’s human owners or keepers. Rowan Magee occasionally assists when the chimp’s actions are especially intricate, but largely provides the props, many of which – a bottle of wine, a vacuum cleaner hose, a fishing rod, a laundry basket, a picture book – are objects of fascination or provide comic relief. If the chimp’s circumstances are not always precisely clear, that just adds to our empathy for this creature who sulks and rages and dreams, seeks love, fights depression, achieves moments of transcendence.

Created and Directed by Nick Lehane Puppeteers: Rowan Magee, Andy Manjuck, and Emma Wiseman Lighting Designer: Marika Kent Associate Lighting Designer: Ayumu “Poe” Saegusa Sound Designer: Kate Marvin Associate Sound Designer: Avery Orvis Puppet and Scenic Designer: Nick Lehane Stage Manager: Mariah Plante Running time: One Hour Tickets: $25 – $45 Chimpanzee is running through May 5, 2019

Chimpanzee Review: Delight and Despair and Transcendence, In The Hands Of Humans You need not have read Darwin or watched any of the Planet of the Apes movies to suspect that chimpanzees come closest to humans in the animal kingdom.

[devinsena]

The Effect Of Pornography On Families

“There is no dignity when the human dimension is eliminated from the person. In short, the problem with pornography is not that it shows too much of the person, but that it shows far too little.” ― Pope John Paul II

Pornography 101

Pornography is a phenomenon not many people are talking about, despite the epidemic running wild within the lives of our young men and women. The truth is, the majority of young people watch porn, yet few of us talk about it. Porn exists in a parallel universe, a shadowy otherworld. When anything is forced into the shadows and underground, it becomes much easier for bad things to happen, and much harder for good things to happen. The statistics within the shadow of pornography are shocking. If we take time to let them soak in, it becomes more and more clear relationships are in desperate need of saving.

Pornography is easy, accessible, impersonal, and “safe” because there is no vulnerability, love,  or fear of getting hurt. However, pornography is responsible for diminishing real romantic relationships. It is no secret pornography is responsible for wrecking marriages and families, but the saddest part is if we decide not to give pornography power, it would have none. Pornography is in such vast supply because we demand it so much. A heart change is needed to tackle this epidemic. At the root of the pornography problem lies a tragic misunderstanding of who we were created to be and what relationships are supposed to be.

Pornography is defined as: “printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic feelings.” You may be sitting reading this thinking... “This problem doesn’t apply to me” or “this lady is wack, there’s nothing wrong with looking at porn… everyone does it!” or “Crap. Here we go, talking about one of my deepest struggles that nobody knows about.”

If you think that porn is not a problem, the facts say differently. Research shows that pornography consumption is linked to unstable relationships, increased risk of infidelity, and greater likelihood of divorce. While this applies to men and women, studies have found that men who are exposed to porn find their partner less sexually attractive and rate themselves as less in love with their partner. A recent study* tracked couples over a six year period from 2006 to 2012 to see what factors influenced the quality of their marriage and their satisfaction with their sex lives. The researchers found of all the factors considered, porn use was the second strongest indicator that marriage would suffer.

Pornography is much more common than we think it is. It is everywhere, and many times it pops up when you least expect it. Most TV shows have at least some type of pornographic content, and many have scenes that full-on classify as pornography. The average age during which a person encounters a pornographic image is age 11 — basically as a child — and recent reports are stating that age may be dropping to eight years old.Statistically and scientifically, pornography is very different than what you have been told. I get a clear picture of this when I go into high schools to teach sexual education in health classes (dream job, am I right?). It is in that space where I see what the majority of teenagers believe about their sexuality and their relationships. When it comes to pornography, here is a snapshot of what we are up against:

12% of websites on the internet are pornographic – that’s 24,644,172 sites.

1 in 3 porn viewers are women. It’s not just a male problem.

Porn sites receive more regular traffic than Netflix, Amazon, and Twitter combined each month.

Watching porn diminishes relationship commitment. Porn increased marital infidelity by 300%. A few studies reported in Psychology Today show that people who watched porn were more likely to engage in flirting (and more) outside their relationships and were more likely to cheat and hook-up.

50% of all adults do not think porn is wrong – and most teenagers are encouraging, neutral, or indifferent about opinions of pornography. They say it’s “not a big deal.”

Porn is a $97 billion-dollar industry worldwide - $12 billion-dollar industry in the US. That’s larger than all the combined revenues of all professional football, baseball, and basketball franchises AND more than CBS, NBC, and ABC combined.

A pastor in Cincinnati, Ohio polled all the 7th graders in his church and 100% of those 11-year-old’s admitted to having exposure to pornography.

50% of Christian men are addicted to pornography, despite knowing and believing that it is dehumanizing.

In summary: porn is running rampant in our society. If you want to get it, you could get it anytime, anywhere.  

The Impact of Pornography on Men

Habitual porn consumption causes significant loneliness and depression in men. A male with a porn habit starts to withdraw emotionally from the people around him, especially with a real-life romantic partner. Because porn does not explore ideas like the emotional give and take of love, men can also put up barriers with a partner because they feel unsure of how to connect. A sense of self-loathing, shame, and embarrassment develops. Because of the solitary online nature of porn, a male can hide it, and this pattern of self-concealment —  repeatedly doing something he is ashamed of but hiding it from friends and family —  fosters deep isolation in him. Christian men especially have a hard time talking about this problem with other Christian men, even if they are in an accountability partnership with them and trust their judgment. Pornography is extremely shameful to men who do not want anything to do with it, yet seem to be shackled to it.

Fight the New Drug is a movement dedicated to raising awareness of the pornography epidemic.

They focus on three categories of human and cultural development pornography effects:

Porn affects the brain - porn use is related to increased anxiety, depression, stress, and social problems.

Porn affects your relationships - porn use has been found to influence some users’ sexual preferences, leaving them wanting what they’ve seen on screen and significantly less satisfied with sex in real life.

Porn affects the world - among the effects of the use of pornography are an increased negative attitude toward women, decreased empathy for victims of sexual violence and an increase in  sexually imposing behavior.

Like most addictions, pornography is not an act that just affects the person who is addicted. That person’s relationships and the world around us are being shaped by pornography - and instead of talking about it and learning how we can fix it before the damage is done, we are ignoring the problem completely and refusing to even call it a problem.

The Department of Justice and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children both recognize that pornography is an element which adds to the serious problem of sex trafficking — an act that demeans human life to its core. Among the effects of the use of pornography are “an increased negative attitude toward women, decreased empathy for victims of sexual violence, and an increase in dominating sexually imposing behavior” (“Fight The New Drug”). If we look at reports of Planned Parenthood covering up sexual abuse and child trafficking, we see that the connection between demeaning human life and a poor outlook of sex/relationships/personhood is clearly linked.

Pornography addiction is a slippery slope; at first, it does not seem like a big deal to just pull up something on your phone with a group of friends because you are curious. Then, though, you probably will find yourself lying in bed at night when nobody knows what you are doing, and you convince yourself that one time will not hurt. Before you know it, it is an everyday thing. You plan your life around when you can disappear for 20 minutes and have a sexual release. It is a slippery slope into addiction, but that is exactly what pornography is.

The sad reality is that I have talked to so many men and women who are convinced that pornography will go away once they get married. Unfortunately, that is not how it works. Your pornography addiction will not just disappear just because you get married and you are having sex with your husband or wife. Think about it, no human will ever be able to love you perfectly. No matter how great they are or how in love with them you are, there will be times when they fail. When that happens, when you do not feel loved or treated well by your husband or wife, you will run to pornography out of habit.

Why? Because through research, scientists have proven that pornography affects the brain in the same way drugs do. Watching porn literally will neurologically rewire your brain. Pornography has a profound impact from the first time it is viewed, and eventually it causes a build up a tolerance to the graphic material being watched, developing into a craving for more and more graphic types of pornography. Users also become desensitized to real sex. After a while, all sex is interpreted as porn and for a man, all women as porn stars, not as people created by God in his image. The more someone uses this pathway, the more intense their longing for it will be. After a while, they will long for more frequent and higher levels of stimulation. Consistent and reliable evidence shows exposure to pornography is related to male sexual aggression against women.

The Impact of Pornography on Women

Women who view porn have similar pathways form in their brain; they will begin to accept that they are just objects to be used for sexual objectification and devalue themselves to fit the image of female porn stars.

Another important point is that not all porn is visual. For many women, reading books with explicit sexual descriptions can be destructive to our view of sexuality and the expectations of relationships. At one unfortunate end of the spectrum, you have some books glorifying sexual violence, brokenness, and victimhood instead of integrity and any kind of selfless, disciplined love. On the other end, women tend to turn to fictional love stories to fulfill our craving for romance because we are discouraged in our own love life and feel like “real love stories” do not exist.

There is a danger in this, though. Romance novels portray perfect guys. You know, the man that is sensitive, but also masculine. The guy who is just the right amount of protective over you, but also does not cling to you like dog fur. The guy that never checks out other girls and gets jealous when another guy flirts with you. Oh, and on top of that killer personality, he looks like a Greek god. A lot of these books have similar plots. It goes like this…girl meets hot guy, he’s rebellious, free-spirited, and falls madly in love with her, they get into a serious relationship, and suddenly he changes his ways; he becomes a sweet, sensitive guy who never glances at other women. Newsflash ladies: that is not how real-life works. The habits that a person has before you start dating them will carry into your dating relationship and then your marriage.

So, how does the innocent glance at an image or writing or video turn into a destructive addiction? Pornography addiction results from the attempt to receive intimacy without risking rejection. There is zero vulnerability, and to many, porn offers them the safest form of a relationship. Many of us deeply fear the rejection that could come with being known by another person. If someone sees all our flaws, we fear that we will not be loved. This is where pornography becomes so tempting. It offers us a way to satisfy our desire for intimacy without any of the risk.

In reality though, the shame which comes from porn fuels isolation and drives us further away from the true intimacy we are searching for. Porn teaches a lifestyle of selfishness – it gives nothing and takes everything. The best way to describe it is as a “counterfeit intimacy.” Our culture is under this deceptive impression that we can be fully known and fully loved by social media, and pornography alone is the culprit of diminishing real relationships.

More than ever, there is a deep need for sexual restoration, healing, and change in our world.

Pornography is a dehumanizing act within itself, and when you see the science behind it, the psychology that backs it, and the impact it has on real people, I do not know how we can keep saying “pornography isn’t really that big of a deal.”

Porn revenue exceeds that of the NFL, MLB, and NBA combined. It also exceeds the revenue of television networks CBS, NBC, and ABC combined. Child porn generates three billion dollars annually and the number one searched type of porn on the internet is “teen.” You say that that is no big deal? Seems like a big deal to me. So now the question — Why should you care?

If you are a parent, you should care because most likely, by the age of 11, your child will be exposed to pornography, or, sadly, may be objectified in the mind of another. If you are a spouse, you should care about what pornography could do to your partner and the impact it could have on your marriage. If you do not want to date a guy or girl that will view you as a sum of body parts instead of a person with a soul that yearns to be cared for with emotional intimacy, you should care. And if you watch porn, you should know and care what the consequences are, realizing that you are doing yourself and your relationships an immense disservice.      

Basically, if you want to build a less violent world and respect your fellow human beings, the answer is simple: start taking steps to stop watching pornography and investing in real intimacy,  instead of counterfeit intimacy. If you’re looking for some ideas on accountability and support, here are a few:    

The Fortify App from Fight the New Drug - According to their site, 88% of users report a decrease in porn usage long-term. It allows you to track areas of vulnerability, connect with others online who are on the same journey, and point you to resources specific to your situation. Plus, for every subscription, they donate money to helping teens break free from the chains of pornography - which is AWESOME! You can view a video of how the app works here: https://www.joinfortify.com/.    

Invest in a relationship with a mentor who you can confide in - We know that the majority of us struggle with porn, or are in relationship with someone who struggles with pornography, yet very few of us discuss it because it cuts us deeply.    

Covenant Eyes - With a monthly subscription, you are able to monitor your electronic devices and what they are streaming. Every week, the website sends a report of your activity to a previously selected trusted friend. This encourages ongoing conversations with trusted friends and invests in real relationships.  

The Novus Project or Harvest USA - For parents struggling to talk about pornography with their children, both of these platforms have resources that have been developed    

To be fully known and fully loved will NEVER happen through the screen of a computer - and if you are under the impression that it will, you are chasing the wind and slowly being destroyed by your pursuit.  Your relationships, love life, and sex life deserve better than any temporary pleasure that pornography whispers it can offer you.

*Source: [*] Olmstead, S. B., Negash, S., Pasley, K., & Fincham, F. D. (2013). Emerging Adults’ Expectations For Pornography Use In The Context Of Future Committed Romantic Relationships. Archives Of Sexual Behavior, 42, 625-635. Doi:10.1007/S10508-012-9986-7; Mitchell, K. J., Becker-Blease, K. A., & Finkelhor, D. (2005). Inventory Of Problematic Internet Experiences Encountered In Clinical Practice. Professional Psychology: Research And Practice, 36, 498-509. Doi:10.1037/0735-7028.36.5.498

source http://humandefense.com/the-effect-of-pornography-on-families/

[lucyariablog]

10 Ways to Make Videos Your Customers Can’t Resist

Maybe you know someone who has lost whole afternoons to YouTube. What is it about those videos that’s so hard to resist?

Matthew Pierce has some ideas. He’s a learning and video ambassador for TechSmith Corp., a company that makes visual-communication software. In his Content Marketing World talk, How to Make Your Videos as Engaging as Possible, Matthew covers ways to make irresistible videos. I touch on 10 of them here.

1. Tell a story (including conflict)

Give your videos a story structure. Matthew identifies story elements as setup, confrontation, and resolution. You may think of them as setting, conflict, and denouement. Rising action, climax, and falling action. Beginning, middle, and end.

However you think of your story structure, include conflict: tension, something at stake, something to overcome. Here’s an example Matthew gives.

HANDPICKED RELATED CONTENT:

16 Visual Storytelling Tips to Give Your Content Marketing a Boost

The Content Marketer’s Guide to Story Structure

2. Evoke emotion (appropriately)

While tugging at heartstrings can backfire, many of the most effective videos from brands include an emotional appeal. Think of the Super Bowl ads, Matthew reminded us. Are you picturing horses? Puppies? Babies?

This Budweiser commercial goes straight for the heart. The company clearly expected the audience to relate to the main character, a stranger in a sometimes unfriendly land, someone passionate about his vision for the future. Oh, and he loves beer. Meet Adolphus Busch.

Matthew offers a similar point made by Jodi Harris in this CMI article: “Video can convey an appropriate emotional tone in a way that text alone can’t manage.”

Matthew’s advice: Figure out which emotions make sense for your brand and for the purpose of your video, and plan accordingly. He mentioned his company, TechSmith, as an example:

Use emotional appeal that makes sense for your brand and purpose, says @piercemr. #video Click To Tweet

I work for a software company. I don’t want people crying in association with my product. What I want them to feel is excited, accomplished, like ‘Man, look what I created. I can take on the world.’

HANDPICKED RELATED CONTENT: What to Do After You Press Record: A Formula for Videos People Love

3. Use humor (advisedly)

“Humor is hard,” Matthew says. “It doesn’t always go well. You’ve got to know your audience.” If you’ve ever told a joke that no one laughed at, you know what he’s talking about.

One brand that got humor right, he says, is Kmart with this 2013 Ship My Pants commercial, which racked up some 13 million views on YouTube in one week.

Getting the humor right – making people laugh – doesn’t guarantee business success, though. It’s not clear whether this video achieved its mandate: to boost the use of Kmart’s shipping service.

If you’re going to use humor, Matthew says, “make sure that it leads to customer action.” No matter how entertaining your video may be, if it doesn’t inspire people to do something in line with your strategy, its value to the company is questionable.

If you’re going to use humor in your #video, make sure it leads to customer action, says @piercemr. Click To Tweet

HANDPICKED RELATED CONTENT: Comedy Pro Reveals How to Bring Funny to Content

4. Pay attention to audio (even though some viewers won’t)

Yes, lots of people watch videos with the sound off, but take care with what they’ll hear if they listen. Bad audio can kill the experience of watching a video. And, Matthew says, it’s easy to get bad audio.

He has three main recommendations:

Record in a quiet room.

Use a good microphone.

Use the right music – or none.

If you’re going to use music, unless you’re unusually talented at creating your own, buy it. And, because it so powerfully sets the tone, choose it with care. “Music has consequences,” Matthew says.

If you’re going to use music, choose with care and buy it, says @piercemr. #video Click To Tweet

To illustrate the dramatic impact of music, Matthew points to an episode of the web show Film Riot, an online filmmaking-education series. This episode, How to Manipulate People With Music, delivers a short scene – one man handing another a package – twice in a row. Only the music changes. The music alone transforms the scene from “death time” to “sexy time.”

5. Use color intentionally (as filmmakers do)

How you use color can detract from or enhance people’s experience of your videos. For example, Matthew points out, the filming of O Brother, Where Art Thou? happened in Mississippi in the summer when everything was green. Since the fictional events occur in the drought-stricken era of the Great Depression, the directors digitally altered the film to change the greens to browns, as shown here, to create the mood the story demanded.

For lots of examples of the use of color in movies, including more details on O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2:24 to 3:20), see this 13-minute video: 10 Best Uses of Color of All Time.

As you plan your videos, even if you don’t aspire to an Academy Award, choose colors with care.

6. Keep things moving (a lot)

You probably don’t need to be told to keep things moving in your marketing videos. But how much movement is enough?

While there’s no rule, TV shows and movies change angles or scenes every two to three seconds. Viewers have come to expect frequent changes between scenery, close-ups, background activity, and so on.

Modern screen-based expectations aside, humans are simply wired to pay attention to movement. As Matthew says,

Our lizard brain says, ‘Keep scanning, there’s going to be danger. Where’s the danger?’ We’re tuned in to things that move. It could be a lion or something else dangerous. Maybe it’s a source of the food that we need to survive. When you’re making a video, tap into that old brain to draw people in.

Matthew helped make this video about Chad Jordan, the creator of a popcorn shop in Lansing, Michigan. Notice how much the camera moves and how often the scene changes. As Matthew explains:

Even when Chad’s talking, we’re not staying too long on him. He’s the subject. He is the focus of this story, but we’re showing him only in bits and pieces. That’s more interesting than Chad sitting in our studio chatting at you. I loved listening to him, but you want to keep things moving and changing.

7. Include faces (friendly or not)

From the time we’re born, we’re drawn to faces. We see faces, Matthew notes, even in things that have no face, such as the moon. When faces come into video, people are attracted to them. Thus, he offers this advice:

Put some faces in there. We have this inclination. Oh, there’s a face. I need to look at it. Is it a friendly face? Is it not a friendly face? What is an insurance company going to show you to represent its brand? Papers? No. They’re showing faces.

When you hear the names Progressive and Allstate, two companies Matthew mentions, do you picture insurance policies? Or Flo and the Mayhem guy?

8. Use captions (created by humans)

Matthew recommends adding captions to all your videos – burning in text overlays that spell out what people are saying – because some of your audience may not listen or may not be able to listen.

Add captions to all your #videos because some of your audience may not listen, says @piercemr. Click To Tweet

Even those who do listen absorb spoken information more readily when it’s reinforced visually.

Resist the urge to plop in the captions generated automatically by YouTube, Facebook, or other applications. If you use automated tools as a starting point to provide text, have someone savvy with language rewrite it or at least correct it.

Here’s a screen shot from a CMI video showing an overlaid caption that highlights something being said by Cleveland Clinic’s Director of Content Marketing Amanda Todorovich: “If you don’t have time for content creation, maybe you shouldn’t do it at all.”

If you don't have time for #content creation, maybe you shouldn't do it at all, says @amandatodo. Click To Tweet

I’d call that a statement worth calling attention to.

HANDPICKED RELATED CONTENT: Content Creation Robots Are Here [Examples]

9. Include a call to action (that you plan for)

However great your video, it serves your organization poorly without a clear, relevant call to action – and not one that you tack on as an afterthought. As Matthew says:

Plan for the outcome. What do you want people to do when they finish watching? If you wait until the end and say, ‘Oh, now that we’ve made this video, we should have people fill out an email address,’ that doesn’t work.

Consider building in interactivity. There are simple ways and complex ways to do this. Simple ways include going to YouTube and creating hot spots. “You could put links right in your video or give people something to click to open an email or go to your social channels,” Matthew says. “It could be as simple as that.”

The main thing is to leave people wanting to do something – and knowing what that something is and how to do it. “Give it to them on a plate,” he says.

HANDPICKED RELATED CONTENT: 5 Interactive Calls to Action That Prospects Can’t Resist

10. Follow through (to keep people engaged)

After people see your video, then what? “You might want to retarget people, have pixels follow them around,” Matthew says. “Or you might want to show them another video, or take them to a landing page, or take them to your store.”

Think about the follow-through options you might build into the experience. What would your ideal viewer want to do next? How can you satisfy that desire?

That next thing doesn’t have to be part of the video; use your creativity to explore ways to help people discover that thing. Whatever it is, make it, too, irresistible.

After people see your #video, then what? Offer some options, says @piercemr. Click To Tweet

HANDPICKED RELATED CONTENT: 10 Tips (and a Ton of Tricks) to Maximize Your Video Content Investment

Conclusion

These 10 points touch on only a portion of the advice that Matthew shares in his two talks at Content Marketing World. There’s no end to the ways that marketers can make videos engaging.

What’s working for you? What gets your viewers hooked on your videos and keeps them coming back for more?

Here’s an excerpt from Matthew’s talk: 

Want to get all of Matthew Pierce’s tips. Watch his presentations through Content Marketing World’s video-on-demand access for 2017. And make plans today to attend Content Marketing World 2018. Register today.

Cover image by Joseph Kalinowski/Content Marketing Institute

The post 10 Ways to Make Videos Your Customers Can’t Resist appeared first on Content Marketing Institute.

from http://contentmarketinginstitute.com/2018/01/videos-customers-resist/