#its not explicitly said its a date but Buck clearly thinks it is and i want to scream

[between-two-fandoms]

Biggest takeaways from 9-1-1 s7e7:

Maddie Buckley-Han needs therapy. And a vacation (not on a cruise ship).

I've missed seeing Josh Russo's face. I know he hasn't gone anywhere but it feels like ages since we've seen him in longer scenes doing dispatch stuff.

Karen and Hen are the MOMENT. They deserve so much love.

THE KIDS The kids are back. I've missed the kids so much.

Mara needs a hug and a weighted blanket and I love her and Denny so much he's the best big brother. The writers are eating her story up.

As much as I don't like Marisol, Eddie is a bigger idiot than I thought. At least he didn't propose like I saw some people saying he did, I guess?

Domestic Buck and Christopher makes me so soft whenever I see them on screen together. More of that please.

[tevanbegins]

This is a long rant to shoot down mad BoB theories insisting that Tommy is a villain / secret spy in cahoots with Gerrard / plot device / temporary LI. The show's writers are mature adults who surely wouldn't go so out of the way to villainize a queer character? To the extent that he'd fool all the main characters into thinking he was a good guy and great for Buck for an entire season, and then start revealing his true colors in the next season? To make a beautiful storyline about queer joy blow up into flames with such a major negative plot twist? All so that Eddie can suddenly realise he is gay and he and Buck can get together? I seriously don't think a 60 year old showrunner would allow such childish nonsense to happen on his show.

I'm not saying queer characters can't play dark / negative roles — Eva's character is an example from this very show itself. But the writers always told us that she is a bad influence on Hen's life right from the start, never got us attached to her by depicting her as a great person in the beginning and then revealing later that she is bad. If Tommy was meant to be horrible for Buck, the narrative would clearly tell us that from the start the way they did with Eva and Hen. The writers cannot be so insensitive as to give the LGBTQ+ community such significant mlm representation with Buck and Tommy, first making us fall in love with their romance and then humiliating us (as well as Buck) by completely destroying Tommy's character — all to serve the end purpose of making a fanon ship go canon? That might happen in B*ddie fanfics written by teenagers, but it can't happen on a show being written for a sensible, mature audience by grown-ass career TV writers!!!

B*ddie would have happened a long time ago if the writers wanted to make it canon. They are not going to do it now, definitely not by making Tommy the scapegoat in that awful mess, just so the toxic portion of the fandom can be appeased over the rest of the audiences who appreciate the show for its thoughtful and sensitive storytelling.

Why is maligning Tommy even necessary to make B*ddie canon? Like Eddie and Buck have seen each other dating one woman after another through the seasons but only Tommy being the bad guy will suddenly lead to a feelings realisation arc? Why didn't it happen before, or why couldn't it happen without reintroducing Tommy if B*ddie canon was always the end plan? Probably because the writers aren't interested in going there at all, and Tommy is genuinely being written as a long-term LI for Buck?

Backing this argument is the fact that most of the conversations had by the other characters after Buck's coming out have not been explicitly about him now identifying as bisexual, but more about him being involved with Tommy. If Tommy was being written as a plot device or a short-term LI, I don't think the other characters (including Eddie, mind you) would be hyping him up during these conversations. The writers would have probably framed the conversations on the lines of, "Oh wow Buck you realised you're bisexual? Congratulations!" instead of "OMG you and Tommy? Tell us more / We love him for you and approve of you two together!" They wouldn't take the efforts they've been taking to make Tommy a pivotal subject of these conversations if he was just a plot device as the BoBs believe. And if he was supposed to be a villain, the other characters would have told Buck to find someone better if they thought Tommy's vibes were off. Not all of them can be foolish to not see through Tommy if he was truly as bad as BoBs say he is (especially not Bobby.) Yes, Buck's bisexuality is valid regardless of who he dates or even if he doesn't, but the fact the characters talk so positively about both him + Tommy during these convos clearly implies this is an important love story blended into the coming out arc.

If B*ddie canon was in the works, JLH and Kenny Choi wouldn't have said on their IG lives that it's not going to happen, Ryan Guzman wouldn't be referring to Eddie as heterosexual, etc. So, we cannot let the BoB comments get into our heads because they are not the ones writing the show. I think we can expect a lot better from Tim & Co. than them giving in to the delusional fantasies BoBs want to see being manifested. Wanted to say this piece because I am fed up of seeing the BoB conspiracy theories all over and don't want to give them the power to steal our joy. That's all for now!

___

[matan4il]

So I just finished rewatching the whole show while I'm home sick and something struck me. One thing 911 does do is carry the theme of a character even if you think they have finished the arc. Like for Bobby its sobriety and the loss of his family, Hen it was Eve. And I realized in S2 E4 it was a significant moment epsiode for Buck and Eddie. The moment Buck was like are you hiding behind your son, and Eddie was basically like your hiding behind an invisible girlfriend, (in regards to dating at that bar).

Because honestly when you think about it that's still their theme. Eddies every choice is hidden behind Chris. Date who he thinks is perfect for Chris's needs. Leave the 118 for Chris.

For Buck its still dating girls that require little attention that he clearly has no desire to lock down. An invisible girlfriend if you will.

Meanwhile unlike all the other couples their emotional beats, intimate interactions are all reserved for the other. They never vested more in Anna or Taylor more then they vested into each other.

I don't know does that make sense? Its kind of the only thing giving me hope.

Hi Nonnie, thank you so much for this ask!

I absolutely agree with you on everything you said! This show does revisit its own themes, and it did point out to us in 204 that (just to add to what you said) Eddie was using Chris as an excuse when he couldn't say what he really wanted to (just as he did in 305, when he couldn't say, "I miss you," he told Buck that Chris did), while Buck was hiding in a "comfortable" and "settled down" relationship which had already failed, he just hasn't admitted it yet, not even to himself.

And it does make sense. Especially the paragraph before last in your ask, it's basically a summary of several parts of my first round of Buddie meta, I even explicitly stated explicitly that it all demonstrates how they're each other's emotional anchor, while no other romantic r/s for either man was ever invested in as much as Buddie was. That was before season 3b aired. That after 5a aired we can still say the same is insanity. Or a plan? We'll see. ;)

Thank you again, I hope you're having a great day! xoxox

To anyone else who sent me an ask, I am going through all of them, thank you so much for your patience! If you wanna check whether I've replied to yours yet, you can have a look at my ask tag. xoxox

[raviposting]

Okay so I’ve seen a lot of conflicting responses to Buddie this episode, from it being clear to people that they’re getting together, to thinking the writers have unintentionally messed things up to thinking it’s purely queerbait.

And I get the different responses, I do - tbh I’m somehow in two camps, where I simultaneously believe it’s a slowburn but I also think it’s bait. And those are two very different opinions to have and it got me thinking about why we have these different responses as fans to the possibility of a queer ship (namely two men who would presumably be bi/pan) being canon. 

While people talk about how it’s just people wanting two characters to kiss or entitled fans - sure, that’s existent in every fandom, but I think there’s also a very real fear from queer fans who don’t want to get their hopes up and I d on’t love how the conversation has shifted to calling queer fans stupid for having hope, so I kind of wanted to break it down into 3 aspects that I’ve noticed: 

How writers portray bi characters and why that makes fans hesitant to have hope

What queerbait actually means as a concept

How much “slowburn” has changed in procedurals

1. How writers portray bi characters

Something I’ve thought about a lot are the bi characters I’ve seen on TV - Darryl (CEG), Sara Lance (Arrow), Lucifer (Lucifer), just to name a few. These are great characters imo and I think you’d have a fun time watching but a thing to note is that all these characters were established as bi within the first season of their respective shows and they all fairly quickly fell into a clear romantic ship as well (with the exception of Sara as she spanned multiple shows). It may have taken time for them to say the word bisexual, but it was still clear these characters were queer fairly quickly on. You could maybe argue that Lucifer was a slowburn, but then (while it does not take away from him being bi/pan so do not use this as an excuse to be shitty about him) it’s a m/f ship which is still not the point of my post, to find a m/m or f/f ship that has that same treatment.

Some writers have done it - like for Valencia in CEG, or Petra in JTV - when they saw that fans read them this way, but trying to find those characters were few and far between, and when I looked at popular queerbait ships (whether or not they actually are queerbait) it’s usually ships where the characters are largely viewed as bisexual. A lot of times this also comes with pushback from both straight and to be frank, other queer fans as well. Straight fans don’t always see the signs that queer fans do, so to them a queer character who hasn’t been explicitly clear from the start comes out of nowhere. And what I’ve seen from certain queer fans are concerns that people aren’t appreciating the canon queer characters in a show - and I think there is a conversation to be had about that, but I don’t think the response should also be about then demanding less representation for people either. 

If we go back to 911, people talk a lot about how it has canon queer characters, which it definitely does - Michael, Hen, Josh, Karen, and David are all canonically gay/lesbian and that’s awesome, and we absolutely should talk about fans (white fans in particular) ignoring these characters. It also does not change the fact that none of these characters are bisexual and that is the representation people are looking for. Both of these things are true - these characters are often under appreciated in canon AND people deserve bisexual representation. They don’t contradict each other and to act like one negates the other does a huge disservice.

And even if a character was made bisexual in the canon text we don’t get that slowburn. This may be true for things like Leverage, or LOK, but there’s also a real fact of censorship that affected these shows and the fact that general audiences may not understand the queer text tjat the writers intended. It doesn’t make the writing any less wonderful or the ships any less poignant or beautiful or important, and there’s ofc shows like She Ra that made this more obvious (or the.....mess that was Supernatural that made it. Half true?) but these are still real things that should be acknowledged on why people are so hesitant to call it slowburn - because it’s something most queer fans haven’t SEEN DONE, because m/f ships will get that care for slowburn when it’s done but it’s not done for m/m or f/f ships in that same capacity.

2. What queerbait is

This one’s fun because I don’t think many people understand what it is, but queerbait is very dependent on the intentions of the writers/creators/etc. - which tbh can be hard to gauge, because a genuine intention that ended up not happening or someone baiting fans or someone trying to support all ships and not be rude all have very different intentions but to a fan who only sees bits and pieces of this person on social media, it can be hard to gauge.

Honestly with how much the 4th wall gets broken because of social media now I’d personally say we’ve probably moved into a different definition of queerbait - unintentional vs intentional - because we’re at a point where a show knows what ships are popular and at what level of excitement fans are for it - but that being said, there’s still a clear spectrum of intent. And imo? I don’t think 911 has that intent of queerbait - whether it’s a slowburn or they have a different vision for buddie that I (probably) won’t agree with remains to be seen, but this show usually treats its storylines with care. Are they perfect at it? No, definitely not, I definitely think that they’ve dropped the ball a few times (especially with just how many characters they have lmao), but they also clearly do their storylines with earnest and with genuine care for these characters.

Is 911 getting them together? I want to say yes. I don’t think this was always the plan, just something that they decided along the way, but I also don’t think that changes anything about the ship. A lot of people point to Tim Minear being vague about the ship, or the actors and their interpretations, but 1. We have no idea what they’ve been told about Buddie moving forward and 2. No show runner is going to spoil their show that much. 911 may be keeping quiet because they have a different plan for buddie, sure, but also maybe because they’re still figuring out how exactly they want to do this and/or they want to make this slowburn and don’t want to give it away.

3. Slowburn in procedurals

I feel like this is something that procedurals have started shying away from, but slowburns used to be very common - Bones, Castle, their ships didn’t get together for literal years, but that’s just not something that many shows do nowadays, even for m/f ships. Even things like Deckerstar will have the characters get together after ~3 seasons and explore the relationship onwards, whereas a few years ago, y ou’d pr obably be watching a sh ow and it’d take them 7 seasons to get together. My assumption for this is that shows are afraid  of getting canceled, but there’s been a pretty big shift in getting a couple together after say, 6 seasons to now getting them together about halfway through the show. I don’t think either one is bad or good - in good writers’ hands, either can be amazing - but that shift has made it so that a lot of younger fans in particular, I think, don’t fully recognize slowburn when they see it.

911 as a show tends to run pretty fast - it kind of has to with its depth of characters they have - but when they do have slower running storylines they really do make use of that as well. Bobby’s addiction is something that’s always going to be present in his character, May’s suicide attempt was brought up again front and center after 3 seasons, even Chim’s dynamic with the Lees was brought up again and it was reinforced again that they’re his family. There are certain storylines that have to be continuous and aren’t a one and done type of thing, and that includes Buck and Eddie, especially if you want to establish them as queer to a general audience who doesn’t think about these things.

And honestly, despite my fears, I think they are laying groundwork there. We have Buck learning to be more confident in his relationships, we have Eddie ready to date and learning to follow his own heart, we have Buck and Eddie both establishing that Buck is family and will always be there for Christopher. These are pretty big steps to do for a ship and we’ll obviously have to see how the show goes forward but they’ve already insinuated Eddie and Ana are breaking up, I’m sure Taylor and Buck may last a season and be over, but we do have to see what this next season brings. Do I think they’d say this? No, definitely not.

tl;dr: 

911 is a show with good viewership, but there’s always a possibility they can’t continue with their season and then their promises would feel like a lie. Or they may still be hammering out the details as this season hasn’t been written. Or they may just simply not want to spoil their show,  or they don’t want people criticizing a story before it’s finished, all of these could be reasons. The showrunners, writers, actors, ultimately they owe nothing to us as a fandom to potentially spoil their series, or do something, change it or their schedule for it, and get accused of bait. 

But it also doesn’t change why fans are wary of this storyline either, and I wish people would have more nuance and compassion for fans who are worried about queerbait (whether they think it’s not queerbait and dislike people worrying about it or if they do and are calling people idiots for believing it). There’s a lot of reasons why fans are wary and don’t want to have hope, and it’s not necessarily about 911 specifically as it is a pattern of writing seen in other pieces that have fans worried. These things can all coexist and I wish we as fandom in general could acknowledge that, because pretending that they don’t and criticizing each other/people’s intentions or knowledge when they have certain expectations also doesn’t do much to help.

[ducktracy]

132. fish tales (1936)

release date: may 23rd, 1936

series: looney tunes

director: jack king

starring: joe dougherty (porky), billy bletcher (fish)

let the fun of the jack king porky cartoons begin. in truth, he didn’t direct that many at all. maybe 4 tops, but they’re so strange (and this one terrifying) that they left such a mark on me. i said i’d never rewatch them again, and here i am! they’re not AS BAD as i make them out to be, and they’re certainly ambitious, which i give king credit for. yet they’re certainly... offputting, and this one is the most disturbing in my opinion. so, with that warm, happy, promising introduction: porky heads out to the lake for some fishing, but once he falls asleep he has a surreal dream that the fish are catching HIM instead, and it’s up to porky to escape before turning into a pig roast.

any day is a happy day for porky. we open to our porcine pal strolling along, fishing rod in hand, whistling merrily. life is good. he passes by a tiny hole in the ground, where two little worms poke their heads out. they both follow porky to his boat, tied to a stake in the ground on land. porky climbs aboard and notices the worms, sticking his can out so they can climb in. typically worms don’t WANT to be used as bait... then again, this scene feels particularly disney-esque, as all jack king scenes do. one of the worms hops in and signals for the other to join, the other strutting around à la mae west (for reasons unknown) until the first worm yanks him inside. the animation of the worms, and in this cartoon in general, is very fluid and enjoyable.

porky cranks the motor on, and the boat sputters to life. unfortunately, there’s one caveat: the boat is still tied to the stake in the ground. evidently the motor’s got quite the oomph to it—some lovely animation as porky’s boat threatens to drag the entire land behind him. instead, the boat is swung around in a circle, the rope eventually wearing thin and snapping, sending porky catapulting across the lake. seeing as bob mckimson gets an animation credit, i wonder if this is his work: very solid, top notch, mesmerizing animation.

the engine roars on, the ship now completely out of control. a sharp veer towards the left sends porky headed straight for a battle ship. he moans in agony and covers his face, preparing for the impact. but, with a good dose of cartoon logic, the boat takes a sharp turn downward, plummeting into the lake, under the boat, and rocketing back towards the surface again. speed is very strong and tactile, and could very much be likened to tex avery’s knack for speed.

unfortunately, porky’s relief is only temporary. though he narrowly avoids crashing into the ship, his boat is once more hurtling towards the ship. this time, he doesn’t dodge it—he flies straight through, cutting up a dining table (the next porky cartoon, fittingly enough, is shanghaied shipmates, one scene in particular staged very similarly to this one) and zooming out through the other end of the boat. the ship sinks in the distance while porky continues his wild goose chase of a ride.

the animation and speed combine to make a very exhilarating experience. the drawings are three dimensional and almost make for a sense of motion sickness as he zooms across the screen. though this cartoon is a strange one, it’s certainly ambitious and takes many risks, and king deserves credit for that alone.

after whirling around like a torpedo, porky finally realizes that maybe, just maybe, he should reach for the brake. he feels around aimlessly with his foot and finally stomps on the pedal, and the boat spins around in a flurry of activity to a halt at last. dazed from the impact, porky slumps over the boat to recover from his vertigo. in the process, he accidentally swallows a fish and snaps awake, spitting it out. he feels his face and collects himself, making sure he’s truly in the clear.

and, just like that, porky reaches for his fishing rod and finally sets out what he intended to do in the first place: fish. already he nabs a big bite, and prepares to reel in for the long haul. instead, he reels in a mounted fish head (if the cartoon were made in 1999-2000, perhaps the fish head would’ve been a singing big mouth billy bass. just what everyone needs.) clearly displeased, porky frustratedly tosses his catch back in the water. next time, he reels in a REAL catch. to deposit his win, he stretches a bucket out like a long tube and places the fish inside, the bucket returning to its natural state. the gag would have been funnier if it were more apparent, but it’s handled a little too nonchalantly and thusly reads as more incoherent and arbitrary instead of funny.

already, porky grows tired of fishing, literally. fashioning some rope as a makeshift pillow, porky lies down and settled in for a nap. we pan down to the waters below, and spot a quite frankly terrifying fish who’s ready to do some fishing of his own. he opens a picnic basket and rifles through, attempting to find suitable bait: a donut will do. he stuffs the donut inside a rifle and shoots, the donut attached to a string. very similar to the rifle/fishing rod/grappling hook invention featured in gold diggers of ‘49.

in an almost identical manner to the terminally boring old glory 3 years later, porky’s “dream self” rises from his real self and takes the bait. i think this is a big downfall of the cartoon—spoiling the surprise halfway through. if you’re going to go the surreal route, stick with it and don’t spoil the audience that he’s already having a dream. wait until the end for him to wake up for real to imply that it was already a dream instead of explicitly stating “this is a dream, folks!” keep your audience on your toes by tricking them into thinking it’s real. but i digress. the fish reels in his catch, sending porky hurtling down into the water and scooping him up in a net, removing the donut from porky’s snout where it had been clamped down.

the fish carries porky by the feet and waddles along to his humble abode. he signals that he’s home (by making a really strange noise—the only way i can describe it is that it sounds like an abbreviated version of porky’s ostrich from porky’s pet), and two of his children excitedly run out to greet him. yet first, they swim inside merrily to their mother, exclaiming in incomprehensible chatter that their father is home with a big catch. the entire family crowds around porky, one of the fish children poking him and giggling. like a real fish, porky jitters around, and it’s enough to scare the children. they run inside the house and dive inside the laundry hamper, both of their heads covered by a bra (well, not LOTS, but bra humor would sometimes pop up in the 30s cartoons. porky’s party comes to mind when a sheepish porky tosses away a bra.)

here’s where things get delightfully (or not) strange. the fish takes his catch inside and “skins” him, cutting off porky’s sweater. he places the naked, writhing pig inside an aluminum pan, dressing him up so he makes the perfect pig roast. thanks to a hearty helping of pepper being doused on him, porky sneezes and propels himself across the counter, the fish responding “gesundheit!” and positioning him back in the pan. well, he’s polite at least! there’s no voice credit for the fish, but the deep voice leads me to believe that it’s billy bletcher. he garnishes his potential meal and slaps another pan on top to cover him, and places him in the oven.

thus sparks the infamous, disturbing, uncomfortable and quite frankly hilarious scene of porky roasting alive in the oven, coughing and sputtering (and stuttering) “LEMME OUTTA HERE!” porkys manages to buck the lid off of him, pushing the oven door open and making a break for it.

it seems that even nature is against porky as he traverses the unknown waters (i guess he was fishing in the sea instead of the lake?)—an eel threatens to tie him up and restrain him, chasing him around. porky manages to sock the eel in the face, with enough force that the eel ties itself up in a knot. of course, the eel unravels itself and chases porky with more determination than ever.

the chase leads to a sleeping fish (perhaps the same one from before, i had always been under that impression but now rewatching it i don’t think it is), porky and the eel swimming into its mouth. the fish blows the eel out of its mouth like a party streamer, now awake, both the eel and porky swimming back out of its mouth. the fish only looks on in bewilderment. elsewhere, a swordfish threatens to slice porky in two. thankfully, it gets its nose lodged in a spare wooden beam. porky uses this opportunity to grab a mallet and hammer the swordfish’s nose in, bending the point.

while attempting to make his escape, porky comes across a particularly angry octopus, who captures him in its tentacles. some nice, stretchy animation as the octopus spanks porky, porky slingshotted into the distance and flying back into frame thanks to the octopus’ iron grip. now, the octopus attempts to do what the eel couldn’t: strangle him. as porky fights for his life, we fade back into reality, where porky is, for reasons unknown, NAKED and coiled in his rope. he wakes up and collects himself, wrangling himself out of the rope. determined to never see a fish ever again, porky throws all of the fish he caught out of the boat (even though we ever see him catch just one fish.) iris out as a terrified, naked pig zooms into the horizon in his motorboat.

i’m actually glad i rewatched this one, because i’ve definitely re-evaluated my stance on it. i still don’t like it that much, it’s not very funny and more uncomfortable than anything, but at the same time it’s unconventional and has some great bursts of animation. jack king was certainly experimental, but his experiments rarely ever worked out in his favor. i’ve never classified his cartoons as funny, especially in comparison to tex avery, friz freleng, and later frank tashlin (who’ll be coming into the picture soon.) he DOES have at least some sort of eye for cinematography, playing around with camera angles and close ups, which i admire. this cartoon was strange and was meant to be strange, so i appreciate that he took a different route. it’s still overwhelmingly offputting, but it’s not as terrible as i had thought it was before. there’s some great animation, especially the beginning half of porky’s wild boat ride. the cartoon was meant to be disconcerting, and it more than succeeded. i don’t think i’ll be watching this again soon, i still don’t particularly LIKE it but i can appreciate it more. because of that, i’m ambiguous on the recommendation. it’s just so strange that it could constitute a watch, but if you’re looking for something funny and/or charming, this isn’t your best bet. but, with that,

link!

[davidmann95]

this is one of the nuttiest weeks in comics in awhile, what're you pulling and what are your thoughts?

Having missed Daredevil, Peter Cannon: Thunderbolt, and The Wild Storm for now, a situation hopefully to be rectified this weekend, and knowing there are profound spoilers ahead:

Superman: Leviathan Rising #1: SUPERMAN AND JIMMY OLSEN, OUR FAVORITE GOOD TIME PARTY BOYS. This was the embodiment of ‘inject it into my veins’ comics, even with that disconnected, pointless Supergirl section, which still at least assured me that I’m not missing out on anything in her book right now. Otherwise? Superman sucks at acting, because acting is lying! Lois giving Batman the business! 4-QQ&BE4J*O(@NX!

Heroes in Crisis #9: This…ended about as well as it possibly could, I suppose, and I do actually mean that as a compliment, but that only matters so much. I probably actually did like more individual issues of this than I disliked, but the basic concept behind the mystery once it unfolds is a needlessly destructive one for the character in question, King’s dialogue quirks ran away with him, the pacing was shot, Mann showed his ass in some rough ways, and so much of it reads like King completing a mandate. There were moments of grace - the final page of confessionals has the funniest panel of King’s career - that mean I’ll absolutely reread this at some point, but on the whole, it can at last be set in stone that this was Tom King’s first and hopefully last major failure.

Detective Comics Annual #2: Haven’t been getting Tomasi’s Detective, but the preview made it look like it was going to be his best effort in some time. It was, but not enough for me to be interested in the arc this is setting up for down the line.

Fantastic Four #10: I really thought I’d drop this after the first tepid arc, but while I’m ditching Iron Man, Slott’s been acquitting himself admirably here recently, and Paco Medina’s art is always a treat.

Thor #13: There’s little in this issue that isn’t rote and obvious, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t good as hell.

War of the Realms: War Scrolls #2: There’s a panel in the first part where Daredevil’s legs are hella weird, but the Strange story was nice and that Loki/Wiccan/Hulkling story that’s been taking the internet by storm was indeed pretty nice.

The Magnificent Ms. Marvel #3: This doesn’t have the spark that Ahmed’s work right now on Miles possesses - I’m not even positive I’ll finish this first arc - but it’s a decently charming page-turner and I could see it ending up grabbing me down the line.

The Immortal Hulk #18: It’s genuinely astonishing that this is still capable of freaking me the fuck out, but good goddamn.

Doomsday Clock #10: As I said on Twitter, this was the dopiest, most lowest-common-denominator fanboy-pandering shit in the world, and let me tell you: I’m that lowest common denominator, babeyyyy. Is it good now? Far from it. But it’s becoming almost exactly the comic I feel like it probably should have been all along, and not even just because it’s basically 30 pages of big daddy Geoff petting my head and whispering “shh, shh, it’s okay, your favorite character is still the most important and always will be no matter how bad we fuck up, we promise Morrison Action still kinda matters, shhhhhh”. It’s to its weird credit that the issue that was definitely 100% conceived as ‘the continuity dump’ ends up the only one that says much of substance about anything, even if it’s just that Superman’s important; the book should have been meta all along, and now it’s straight-up calling the main DCU the Metaverse in reference to how it’s always changing in reference to our own real world. And this definitely has the most moments of odd magic previous issues sporadically managed of classic, goofy and/or corny superhero moments taking on an almost totemic degree of weight and power in this bizarre context. Just have Manhattan in some way acknowledge how Superman fundamentally affected his own world too, and I’ll be able to rest easy that this lovely abomination lived up to his full potential in the context of being a dopey Geoff Johns comic.

(My unearned enthusiasm aside though: I don’t think it’s really come up in Doomsday Clock criticism that I’ve seen, but it should probably be talked about that it shares big daddy Watchmen’s I *think* well-meaning but regardless unpleasant relationship with queerness. And Watchmen’s issues, while present, are illuminated by time: my impression was that by 80s cape comics standards it was majorly progressive. Doomsday Clock…clearly doesn’t mean any harm, but actually comes up notably shorter than even its predecessor? While also making its queerness much more important to the plot than Watchmen ever did yet not really doing anything with that but using it as a delivery mechanism for Plot, the latter in this issue coming fundamentally bundled with what makes the former uncomfortable? However you slice it, this is a comic where gay and trans people exist, but only a long time ago as something that was shamed, however much the story frames that as a bad thing. And on a related note: is Carver Coleman supposed to be a George Reeves analogue of sorts? Co-star of the Superman-centric issue, bad relationship with his mother, died under mysterious circumstances in the 50s? Perhaps it’ll be clearer when that thread wraps up; maybe I’m the dope, but I still haven’t picked up on the thematic significance of his story or Nathaniel Dusk’s yet.)

Batman: Last Knight on Earth #1: So on top of everything else, it is buck wild that Snyder and Capullo’s take on the final Batman story isn’t a disconnected-from-continuity, archetypal, ‘timeless’ tale like All-Star Superman or The Dark Knight Returns, but explicitly a bad ending AU for Snyder’s own current Justice League run. What matters more than where it’s situated though is what it is: in the words of Mark Stack, this book is a chainsaw. It kicks off with what seems the prelude to the sort of traditional ending this isn’t, swerves into the dumb memey version that everyone on the internet has seen (including clearly the creators of this comic) which Batman defeats, and then it stands revealed in truth as the MOST Scott Snyder and Greg Capullo version of a last Batman adventure imaginable. It’s clones and purple super lightning and toytowns and mad alien light babies and Joker’s head in a jar telling dirty rhymes (easily Snyder’s best take on him to date) and a wayfaring quest to save a world that’s chosen to die, and this is the prelude. I couldn’t be more into it, especially as the ample production time and physical space gives this a much more assured pace than Snyder’s had anywhere else in recent memory, and I could honestly imagine this ending up as my favorite out of the pair’s Batman joints by the time it’s through, the ultimate distillation of their take on him and their joint aesthetic.

Also, unlikely as it is, I think there is a better than zero chance that Omega is Jarro. A mind-controlling disciple of Batman in a story spinning out of current Justice League? Would that really, really be too weird to fit, nevermind that making Starro the final villain of the DCU he in a very real way created?

[latestnews2018-blog]

'The Bachelorette' Still Thinks Love Is Beyond Politics

New Post has been published on https://latestnews2018.com/the-bachelorette-still-thinks-love-is-beyond-politics/

'The Bachelorette' Still Thinks Love Is Beyond Politics

Garrett Yrigoyen is sorry.

The “Bachelorette” winner and now-fiancé to Becca Kufrin didn’t mean to hurt anyone’s feelings when he liked a number of bigoted memes on Instagram before filming of the show began ― memes that targeted feminists, transgender people, undocumented immigrants and the Parkland school shooting survivors. He’s sorry and Becca knows he’s sorry and they want the rest of us ― the 6.7 million people who tuned into the season 14 finale of “The Bachelorette” on Monday night ― to accept that he’s sorry as well.

After HuffPost reported on Garrett’s questionable social media history in May, there was a round of criticism of the show’s social media screening policy, the substance of the Instagram posts and Garrett himself. Within days, he put out an apology saying, “I never realized the power behind a mindless double tap on Instagram and how it bears so much weight on people’s lives. I did not mean harm by any of it.”

And yet that apology, while welcome, did little to convince concerned viewers that Garrett had educated himself on anything other than dealing with public outrage. Perhaps, if he made it to the end, more would be said?

On Monday night, we got the answer to that question. Garrett won Becca’s heart and, subsequently, a chance to make amends with viewers during the “After the Final Rose” segment. Instead of adding much of anything to what he had already said, Garrett doubled down, again offering the bare minimum of an apology without acknowledging the larger context of his likes, grappling specifically with any of the views he expressed or being transparent about where he stands on those issues today.

“I didn’t realize the effect behind a double tap or a like on Instagram, so I put out an apology,” he reiterated. “I didn’t mean to offend anybody. I apologize for that still. … And I’m just trying to grow as a person, be a better person on a daily basis. … Because I feel like, when I was liking things, it was going against what she stands for, and it made it really hard on us as a couple.” But, he said, “we got through together and we’re growing, we’re progressing and we’re moving forward.”

Like a pro athlete who’s returned to top form after the rape investigation has been dropped, Garrett was framed as a comeback kid: His relationship with Becca is stronger than ever thanks to the “challenge” or “hurdle” of coping with the consequences of his bigotry.

Becca said as much, quite explicitly. “It definitely brought us stronger,” she told host Chris Harrison, referring to the Instagram “scandal.” “It’s a challenge that we had to overcome and it’s been a hurdle but we’ve pushed through and we’ve talked about it.”

We’ve seen this show throw its winning couple into the wood chipper of public opinion before (Juan Pablo Galavis and Nikki Ferrell, anyone?), so the gentle unity of the “After the Final Rose” messaging was unmistakable. Whether it was Harrison, Becca, Becca’s sister Emily or Garrett himself, everyone was ready to move on from this debacle, forgive the miscreant winner his transgressions and relax into the life-affirming joy of their bliss.

Paul Hebert via Getty Images

Becca and Garrett kiss during the final rose ceremony in the Maldives.

In its attempt to shift closer to the fantasy of a world where politics does not intrude on love ― or where, if it does, it is merely an impediment for two individuals to get over ― “The Bachelorette” backed viewers into a corner. Either we could choose to accept Garrett’s rehearsed, half-assed apology and just be happy for Becca, whom we had grown to adore, or we could be the overly sensitive shrews who couldn’t just “get over” political disagreements and had to pooh-pooh the happiness of two individuals who are madly in love.

Neither option felt good. Nor did it feel like a fair choice.

The show created a scenario in which we were left debating whether or not Garrett is “good.” It reframed a debate about the real-world impact of an extremist political ideology ― one that feeds into trans women being murdered and immigrant children being held in fenced cages ― into some minor personal differences. The specifics of his offenses were erased in favor of vague, sanitized generalities (“a double tap on Instagram,” he said, but a double tap on what posts he did not explain). He and Becca assured us that he is a good person. He didn’t try to throw any refugee children over a wall right before our eyes. Case closed!

By the show’s logic, Garrett loves his new fiancée and is nice so his disturbing social media history should be seen as just a weird outlier, a past blip that doesn’t indicate his true character. We should forgive him, at least if we truly believe in love. “The Bachelorette” has ― they even gave him and Becca a nice minivan.

One could feel a palpable exhale of relief as the show steered away from Garrett’s Instagram likes to discussion of the couple’s plans (moving to LA! getting corgis!). Now the show was back on terra firma. The “Bachelor” franchise has always studiously avoided politics ― and anything that could smack thereof.

The show’s ongoing narrative has political resonances, of course, from the whiteness of the casting to the heteronormative vision of love and marriage. The most political thing about the show, however, might be its refusal to acknowledge politics. Nothing could more clearly indicate political and social privilege than the ability of so many contestants and viewers to pretend that political realities can be neatly separated from love and dating, or that they can be excised from one’s life for a few months of filming. But it’s not that simple. Some political beliefs can suggest personal callousness toward vulnerable people, even as they more broadly fuel policy choices and a cultural climate that puts others at risk of marginalization and even violence.

By pretending that deep ideological and experiential chasms in America don’t exist, the show has long courted a rather homogenous, if still politically divided, viewership: mostly white, generally well-off and educated, mostly women, both Republicans and Democrats. Despite the show’s deeply traditional archetypes, left-wing women gravitated to it ― we even started a podcast, “Here to Make Friends,” dedicated to recapping the show with feminist flair.

“The Bachelor” was the pop culture equivalent of Thanksgiving at a white family’s table, pre-Trump. We knew some of our faves from the show were voting for anti-abortion candidates at the polls, but we could ignore it for the sake of enjoying our mashed potatoes and Neil Lane diamonds. Now, much like many a post-Trump Thanksgiving table, Bachelor Nation is riven by its previously submerged political divides.

The demographic that populates and watches the show ― college-educated white women ― has been politicized to a striking degree by Donald Trump’s presidency. While exit polls showed that 52 percent of white women voters picked Trump in the 2016 election, research shows that it is now college-educated white women over 30 who are leading many of the local organizing efforts against Trump in so-called “Trump country.” A recent Washington Post generic-ballot poll showed college-educated white women breaking hard for Democratic candidates ― by a 47-point margin.

Thanksgiving tables have become battlegrounds because of this awakening, and so have dating sites and marriages. Many liberal women have begun to ask whether their relationships with Trump-voting men can and should survive, or whether they should even consider dating men who support wildly different ideological agendas. Trump staffers have reported being unable to find a date in D.C. In America, politics aren’t just relevant to finding love these days; they’re practically central to it.

The “Bachelor” franchise’s key demographic ― of which we, the two authors of this post, are solidly a part ― has awoken politically after long enjoying the privilege of not having to be awake. That means the way these women, we women, consume pop culture and configure our romantic fantasies will inevitably change too. “The Bachelorette,” which sits squarely at the intersection of those two things, has not evolved as quickly as its viewers have.

To avoid alienating any segment of its audience, “The Bachelorette” demurred when faced with a substantive issue. It gave its viewers the bare minimum and then passed the buck. We’re left to decide what to do with a show that once felt escapist, perhaps even when it shouldn’t have, in a political moment that no one can or should be able to escape without a reckoning.

For more on the “Bachelorette” finale, listen to “Here to Make Friends”:  

Do people love “The Bachelor,” “The Bachelorette” and “Bachelor in Paradise,” or do they love to hate these shows? It’s unclear. But at “Here to Make Friends,” we both love and love to hate them — and we love to snarkily dissect each episode in vivid detail. Podcast edited by Nick Offenberg.

!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s)if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function()n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments);if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version=’2.0′;n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)(window,document,’script’,’https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js’); fbq(‘init’, ‘1621685564716533’); // Edition specific fbq(‘init’, ‘1043018625788392’); // Partner Studio fbq(‘track’, “PageView”); fbq(‘track’, ‘ViewContent’, “content_name”:”‘The Bachelorette’ Still Thinks Love Is Beyond Politics”,”content_category”:”us.hpmgent” ); fbq(‘trackCustom’, ‘EntryPage’, “section_name”:”Entertainment”,”tags”:[“@health_gad”,”@health_pain”,”@health_depression”,”@health_adhd”,”@health_models”,”@health_hiv”,”@health_erectile”,”@health_ibs”,”politics”,”the-bachelorette”,”bigotry”,”becca-kufrin”,”garrett-yrigoyen”],”team”:”us_enterprise_culture”,”ncid”:null,”environment”:”desktop”,”render_type”:”web” ); waitForGlobal(function() return HP.modules.Tracky; , function() /* TODO do we still want this? $(‘body’).on(‘click’, function(event) HP.modules.Tracky.reportClick(event, function(data) fbq(‘trackCustom’, “Click”, data); ); ); */ );