#it's about the misdirection

[openphrase123]

[starts to write an essay about the nature of the player being able to choose what siffrin's wish is instead of giving him a specific "canon" secondary wish before realizing that the reason you're able to do that is so that the player remembers their wish more than siffrin's true wish]

[dimeadozencows]

I redrew rambs sprites is there a power strip emoji

🔌 does this count

The descriptions I gave each expression are what they're called in the files :]

Like and subscribe if you'd shed a tear for a bloke who does fuck all

[bean-spring]

"Nooo Burt might be evil-" GOOD???? Let's make the sweet, lonely, artist investigating the evil corporation fuck the evil religious cheater gay working for said evil corporation

[fisheito]

He's a magician

[bennetsbonnet]

In that post about Joe Wright avoiding bonnets in p&p 2005 for being “too clichéd” (wtf), you said “and the disdain he clearly has for said author which manifests in various ways”. Could you elaborate on that? (asking only out of interest, not disagreement)

Absolutely (the post anon refers to) it's always a pleasure! Though I will say before starting, I'm not bashing 2005 for the sake of it and no one is "wrong" for enjoying it. For me, it's not about fan wars/arguing about which adaptation is best... I just really care about Pride and Prejudice as a novel and I get frustrated when the beautiful, timeless story is distorted!

My main problem with the 2005 adaptation is how much it misrepresents the characters and changes the speech from the snappy, witty dialogue that Jane Austen wrote into something entirely different. Not only do I believe that it does not need updating for C21st audiences (though it might sound a little strange to the modern ear at first,you quickly get used to it) but that dialogue is what really stood out to me and charmed me when I first read it and I don't care for it being rewritten into either something that is either worse than what is found in the novel, or entirely changes the characterisation.

The one that particularly irks me is Darcy's 'bewitched me body and soul' dialogue as, to me, book!Darcy's confession to Elizabeth of when he fell in love with her:

'I cannot fix on the hour, or the spot, or the look, or the words, which laid the foundation. It is too long ago. I was in the middle before I knew that I had begun.'

is so beautiful and romantic. Why change that? Additionally, this man is not awkward, he can make romantic speeches, he doesn't need to trip over telling her he loves her. And I've previously discussed here why I think Darcy saying he is bewitched by Elizabeth is out of character.

There are many such cases in the film, but that is amongst the worst to me, perhaps only alongside Darcy's first proposal and how much Lady Catherine's visit and confrontation was watered down (and why did it take place in the middle of the night???).

I suppose he didn't write the script so perhaps I cannot blame him entirely for that... but it goes beyond dialogue, to how the actors were directed and the contempt shown for the period it was set in, which is bizarre when making a period drama.

I think it's quite apparent that JW desperately wanted to make Pride and Prejudice into a Brontësque romance with sweeping landscapes and dramatic weather. I suppose you can argue he did that successfully, but it came entirely at the expense of it being the story that Jane Austen wrote. There are lighthearted, humorous moments too but very few of them feature dialogue actually written by Austen ('what excellent boiled potatoes' springs to mind).

He misunderstood and consequently misrepresented Elizabeth and Darcy's dynamic to the point that they are hardly recognisable to the characters Jane Austen created. 2005!Darcy is so painfully shy and pathetic, that when contrasted with such an impertinent and sarcastic Elizabeth, it just seems like she's bullying a smol bean who struggles in social situations. You cannot emphasise Elizabeth's sassiness while making Darcy such a pathetic specimen, it just doesn't work. She isn't the witty, charming character from the novel anymore.

The period inaccuracy is absolutely baffling in ways beyond costumes, beyond the lack of bonnets and that one scene where one of the sisters is having her corset tied so tightly. For me, the worst offences are:

The bleachers at the Meryton assembly. Not only wildly historically inaccurate but makes Elizabeth look like a gossip and an eavesdropper, rather than an innocent party insulted by a rich snob.

The pig running through Longbourn and generally everything about Longbourn itself. The Bennets are not on the same level of wealth as Darcy and Bingley but they are not some poor farmers, with a scruffy house. Elizabeth is very much of the same class as Darcy.

Chatsworth is absolutely, definitively NOT Pemberley. It is explicitly mentioned in the text as featuring in their tour of the Peaks so consequently it CANNOT be Pemberley. It's far too grand an estate for an untitled gentleman. Darcy is rich but Chatsworth is another level.

I care about this because the landscaping is not at all correct as it's very artificial, whereas Pemberley is renowned for its natural beauty. It might not seem like much but it really is a huge part of why Elizabeth fell for him!

Another reason Chatsworth shouldn't have been used is because Elizabeth seeing a portrait of Darcy and looking into his eyes rather than a bust with holes is crucial, as I explained here.

This is all disappointing but I do feel like I could get over it if the characterisation was adequate. Unfortunately, I barely recognise any of them.

Mr Bennet is not a cute fatherly figure. Him not accompanying them to the Meryton assembly is a plot point to underscore his bone idleness. Yes, his relationship with Elizabeth is very sweet and he loves her a lot... but that does not a good father make!

The total character assassination of Mr Bingley... who is not a clueless himbo. As if Jane Bennet would ever fall for a man like that, or Jane Austen would ever write a character like that (except to be the object of ridiculue).

I do not know in what universe Charlotte Lucas, the pragmatic voice of reason would say 'we are all fools in love.' And the 'I'm 27 years old' monologue is just not something I can ever picture her saying... she wasn't a frightened, timid little creature whatsoever.

Wickham isn't bad enough. What he did to Georgiana is blink and you'll miss it, and when he returns with Lydia, Elizabeth glares at him a bit and that's it? The elopement is also resolved very quickly, there is no real tension with it.

The key story beats are butchered too. Especially the letter, not just in how short it is but in the way Darcy hands it to Elizabeth. I think I remember reading something about how JW couldn't imagine how Darcy would be in the room with her, so he just made it like a dream sequence... aka he put his own creative desires over what's in the novel, when Darcy seeking Elizabeth out to hand it to her is very important. Not least, because it shows the length he's prepared to go to in order to set the record straight as it was breaking social convention for a man to write a letter like that to a woman he wasn't related to or engaged to.

That quote, among others, just shows he had a desire to do things differently and it seems to be because he thinks he can do it 'better.' It's bizarre because why bother adapting a classic which is anchored to its time when you blatantly have disdain for it? It's like doing a war film without army uniforms and guns.

Everything I've read from him, he just seems like a smug film bro that believes that he got it 'right' and people had been Missing The Point the entire until he came along. No, you weren't onto anything new. There are certain things, like bonnets, that tend to be in period dramas. And Jane Austen is very literal with her meanings, for the most part. There isn't a new way to interpret her works.

For a film entitled Pride and Prejudice there isn't a great deal of pride or prejudice... it's really just a poor shy boi, who stands there and fidgets with his gloves while not saying anything, and his girlboss, who uses towels that have been getting wet on the line outside to dry herself after coming in from a rainstorm.

[thatsbelievable]

[sakuraluck]

when i said i wanted to understand whatever’s going on in ivan’s head, i didn’t mean like this 😭😭

[silverview]

guys getting hurt dot com slash sad little perverts

[herearedragons]

⚔️ catgirl-oath Follow

who up golding they pact

💀 thewalker Follow

who up bleaking they walk

🙆‍♀️ dragongirl-st-elcga Follow

who up shielding they sister ❤️❤️❤️

🧭 country-roads-take-me-home Follow

who up faring they way!!!

⚔️ catgirl-oath Follow

make your own post.

#godsdamn kind wayfarers i swear to berath

[contamination-zone]

honestly I never thought your freshmare was romantic. I thought they were like. a qpr. and fresh was his weird lil cat and they snuggle a bunch

mostly lh HAHA; Have a doodle of them cudding :-]

[dykerikki]

the fact that the birthing cabin isnt a new location even this season like thats somewhere devon thought was trustworthy enough to have her baby. she went wandering around the cabins alone, they did all that last season like just. this exploitation is happening in places that are normal, places you have been, places you have liked. ohhhh my god.

[son-of-avraham]

I'm sure you know this but it might be nice to hear after that bizarre ask: I am not trans myself but I know SO many trans Jews, including converts and non-converts, who love being trans and love being Jewish and do not find any contradiction between those things! And many have written beautiful things about what it means to be trans and Jewish and how those things actually fit together and can enrich their personal understanding of God! And I think that person MIGHT have been asking in good faith but if you want to ask something in good faith you probably shouldn't include the bit where you tell them they're a mistake or that their conversion isn't valid :/

It reminds me of a quote that I learned a few years ago actually has roots in jewish philosophy:

"As my friend Julian puts it, only half winkingly: 'God blessed me by making me transsexual for the same reason God made wheat but not bread and fruit but not wine, so that humanity might share in the act of creation.'"

My jewish trans friends have been instrumental in helping me accept, understand, and embrace my transness, and this quote especially was meaningful to me when I first saw it. This is my view, but I think there is something beautiful about g-d intentionally leaving parts of us which must be cultivated and created by us. G-d leaves room for us to speak, He lets us rise to the occasion, lets us see what a beautiful universe it is that we live in. And that includes the act of creation that being trans is.

[chocobosdungeon2]

this is hands down the worst thing ive ever made but their similarities (and differences) have been rattling around in my head

[vagueeyes]

INSIDE NO. 9 | Director Guillem Morales + horror (1/2)

From the BBC Sounds pod - S6E5 "How Do You Plead?"

Reece: Guillem, you've got a very strong sense of what's creepy, and I always, sort of, absolutely trust your judgement as far as, like, having–I think we're quite similar in what we think will be creepy visually (Steve laughs. Guillem: Well–) and we egg each other on. (laughs) Guillem: I think, basically–I think that we have that kind of secret deal about you sending me the scripts with some horrible scenes in them, and me trying, you know, just to come out with even more horrible things. (laughs) (Reece: To make them worse) To make it– (Guillem and Reece laugh)

Reece: Well, prime example was, cos we never thought of it but you did, in "Misdirection" where the guillotine–where Neville is trying to chop Willy's head off. And we just wrote that he pushes him in the guillotine, lets go of the string, and his head comes off. But you were like, "No, no, no, no, it's not–it's a prop so it wouldn't really work, so it would get stuck in his neck. And he has to run up and he has push the blade through to finish him off." And we were like, "Brilliant!"

Guillem: But that was–it made sense (Reece: It made sense, yeah), because it's INSIDE NO. 9, so you never know. So the message there to send to the audience was: He's dead. You killed him and you're using a prop, so it was just making sure that message was delivered properly. Reece: Yes, absolutely. It was very, very good. (Reece and Guillem laugh) Certainly delivered, yes. Guillem: And you enjoyed it. Reece: (laughs) I did! I loved it. Steve: Yeah! He likes killing me in different, inventive ways.

Guillem: You didn't enjoy so much, Steve, probably. Steve: (laughs) I did some of it. It's actually a very scary thing, putting your head in a guillotine. Even though you know you're completely safe and there's no–it's just mentally, it doesn't feel right. Reece: I remember being thinking, "How have we ended up in a situation where Steve has to put his head in the guillotine, and there is now the possibility that that blade (Steve and Guillem laugh) might come down on it–" Steve: "–Cuts his head off!" Reece: "Cuts his head off!" Yeah, it was quite frightening. Guillem: You…you write those things. Reece: I know! But we don't think about the execution.

[finnsblood]

if you genuinely cannot handle beomseok as a character, i don’t trust you

[katrani]

*Zavala turns down a fantasy hallucination thing of his dead family* Ikora: The Witness shows you what you think you want. Zavala: And what did the Traveler ever show me? THEN THE IMMEDIATE NEXT SCENE. IS FUCKING. LIGHT-IMBUED CAYDE? REUNITING WITH ZAVALA?????????????

my fucking heart that is the absolute good shit holy fuck i was mad at zavala for not helping in that bullshit-ass fight but THAT'S SO GOOD on a character level aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa