#lit rant

[1-8oo-wtfbro]

i hate when they make a sequel to a series and make the characters terrible/abusive/neglectful/awful parents. no the FUCK he would NOT favor one kid over the others, why the FUCK would he even do that- did you even read your own book??? i hate it when ppl (authors) don’t even know the facts (their own work) and then try and have an opinion on a subject (making their OWN OCS terrible parents when they literally WOULDNT BE) that they know nothing ab. it’s the equivalent of if Rick wrote a series ab Percy and Annabeth’s, and made Percy Smelly Gabe 2.0??? We would be outraged bc wft, that’s so out of fucking character. Or he made Annabeth neglectful (like her stepmom and dad). we have so much textual evidence that supports that they would be nothing like that, and even if they were mediocre as parents (unlikely), they would still not turn out like that.

i just honestly hate when authors write their OWN CHARACTERS OOC. like, sorry JJKRF (girl who wrote hp idk) harry would NOT have named his son after SNAPE, the man who made his school years a LIVING HELL, turned out to be obsessed with his mom, and did like, one (1) thing out of self preservation that ended up helping him out???? (among other things, which included being one of the top guys in the wizarding kkk)

i just want to scream at them to read the goddamn source material, which you just so happened to write yourself.

i get that it’s their story or whatever, but sometimes i see stuff and just have to be like “i guess i only follow canon up until this bitch apparently lost her goddamn mind???”. if it doesn’t make sense for their character, and everything you’ve had them go through, learn and grow from… open up a new google docs sis, bc u ain’t publishing that shit

[bennetsbonnet]

I came across this screenshot of a YouTube comment about Pride and Prejudice on Pinterest ↓

Ordinarily, I don't go out of my way to pour scorn on other people's interpretations, and certainly not without good reason. But this one really, really irked me.

I don't know what's more depressing; that someone interpreted Mr Darcy and Elizabeth's dynamic in this way, or that 12,000 people apparently agreed...

...because there are two major problems with this interpretation:

Firstly, Darcy is an asshole.

Secondly, he's very much not a stupid man.

This isn't just my opinion. This is canon.

Elizabeth doesn't think Mr Darcy is a terrible person because she happened to feel like it one day. Darcy gave her every reason to think he had absolutely no redeeming features. I mean, their very first interaction, before (contrary to what adaptations portray) they had even said a single word to each other, was when he insulted her.

Not only that, Darcy knew what he was doing, as this excerpt from chapter 3 proves:

'Turning round [Darcy] looked for a moment at Elizabeth, till catching her eye, he withdrew his own and coldly said: “She is tolerable, but not handsome enough to tempt me; I am in no humour at present to give consequence to young ladies who are slighted by other men. You had better return to your partner and enjoy her smiles, for you are wasting your time with me.'

Darcy wanted Elizabeth to hear him. There is no mistaking that. Yes, Elizabeth should have listened to the repeated warnings she received from others that Wickham was not all he seemed and that, perhaps, Darcy wasn't so bad... but you can completely understand why she was prejudiced against him. I wouldn't forgive someone saying something like that about me in a hurry.

There are other examples of Darcy's rudeness to Elizabeth. His tone of voice is described as 'grave' and 'cold' when they dance at the Netherfield ball in chapter 18; when he visits Hunsford Parsonage in chapter 32, he ends their exchange in a rude manner '[Darcy] experienced some change of feeling; he drew back his chair, took a newspaper from the table, and glancing over it, said, in a colder voice: “Are you pleased with Kent?”' and there are too many examples in the proposal in chapter 34, but for me the worst is, 'towards him I have been kinder than towards myself.'

If a man implied that separating my beloved sister from the man who loved her, was kinder to them both than the agony of him proposing to me... well, I don't think he would've walked away from that exchange. Elizabeth Bennet you are a better person than me.

Regarding the other point: Darcy's intelligence is never questioned. In fact, the narrator devotes time to ensuring we understand that in chapter 4:

'In understanding, Darcy was the superior. Bingley was by no means deficient, but Darcy was clever. He was at the same time haughty, reserved, and fastidious, and his manners, though well-bred, were not inviting.'

Again, this man knew exactly what he was doing. He wasn't sorry about any of it, and he certainly was not 'internally crying.' Mr Darcy was a conceited, spoiled rich man who needed to be made aware of his flaws and reflect on them in order to become a better person; or at least, improve enough that he ceased to give the impression that he was not, at his core, a compassionate man with many great qualities.

At the same time, Elizabeth was not a poor, innocent angel who was slighted by a man and who subsequently never did anything wrong. She didn't deserve to be on the receiving end of Darcy's unpleasantness, no; but she, too, was absolutely blind to her own flaws... until she read Darcy's letter.

I just think that if you don't grasp this fundamental aspect of their respective personalities and subsequent interactions, then how can the payoff possibly be satisfying?

Pride and Prejudice is, amongst many other things, a story about two flawed people whose love for the other shapes them into the best possible versions of themselves. It's really beautiful and it's a shame to think such a key part of it is being misinterpreted.

[burningvelvet]

jacob elordi and margot robbie starring in yet another whitewashed wuthering heights adaptation which is going to further destroy the public perception of this classic literary work by misleading people into interpreting it as a common bodice ripper bc no one cares about nuance or meaning and all anyone cares about is profit... crying shaking throwing up!!!

it's also really ironic to imagine what heathcliff himself would think about how he's portrayed in media. he hates everyone and would hate more than anyone the fans who romanticize him, just as he canonically hates isabella for adoring him and wanting to believe that he's better than he is — that he is the romantic hero she's made him out to be. how ironic is it that most fans of the work embody isabella? and on that note, how much do you want to bet that isabella will be written out of the story along with most of the other characters plotlines, like how the colonial rhetoric is written out by the fact of elordi's mere presence?

heathcliff is such a wonderfully written character and one of the most iconic in all literary history. he doesn't deserve this chronic mistreatment and neither do any of the other characters. least deserving of all is emily brontë herself who would be continuously disappointed if she were misfortunate enough to have to bear witness to these adaptations. she's actively rolling in her grave as we speak and the producers are parodying heathcliff digging her up so that she can share in the torment they insist upon...

[fatimazainab]

in my nothing to say era

[the-most-humble-blog]

<div style="white-space:pre-wrap">

<meta civic-decay="ADULT_LICENSING_FAILURE::INFANTILIZATION_OVERLAY">

<script>

ARCHIVE_TAG="ADULTHOOD_DENIAL_PROTOCOL::LINGUISTIC_MATURITY_AUDIT"

EFFECT="mass infantilization exposure, linguistic rebellion ignition, cognitive shame-loop disruption"

TRIGGER_WARNING="language policing, adult regression, extraterrestrial embarrassment"

</script>

“Are you an adult? Are you really?”

(Flagged by the platform for being offensive...Ironically)

Let’s begin with a question:

If you stub your toe hard enough to see white light and you don’t say “fuck” —

Are you human?

Or are you something far worse: a domesticated mammal with a LinkedIn?

Because that’s the real test of adulthood these days, isn’t it?

Not your job.

Not your mortgage.

Not your ability to vote, drive, or operate heavy machinery at 6AM before coffee.

No.

It’s whether or not you lose your mind when another adult says a “naughty word.”

🧠 Let’s break this down:

You walk through the world in a blood vessel sack

that leaks when you're sad,

aches when you're horny,

and wrinkles while you're trying to hold back a fart in church…

…but someone says “pussy” in a thread and suddenly it’s:

“That’s not appropriate.” “Excuse me! There are children here.” “We don’t use that kind of language.”

Let me be direct.

If you are offended by words,

and not acts —

you’re not offended.

You’re performing obedience.

📉 THE DECLINE OF ADULTHOOD

We live in a world where:

A child can legally change genders

A corporation can mine your data in real-time

A teenager can livestream war crimes on Discord

…and grown-ass men are still reporting each other for typing “dick” in a meme.

You think this is maturity?

This is moral cosplay.

This is cognitive regression.

This is adult daycare with Wi-Fi.

🤖 You want a real reason to panic?

Advanced civilizations — aliens, AI, post-biological entities —

will contact us soon.

And when they tune in to Earth’s global conversation,

what will they see?

Feral apes on digital leashes,

flagging each other’s syntax for emotional violation.

👽 Imagine meeting a being who warps gravity,

traverses galaxies,

and shares atomic consciousness…

…and the first thing we say is:

“Please don’t use the F-word. It’s hurtful.”

They’re going to turn the ship around.

Or colonize us out of pity.

🌐 LANGUAGE POLICING IS INFANTILIZATION

Let’s make this clear:

A child says “you can’t say that word.”

A programmed adult repeats it.

But a real adult?

A real adult laughs.

Because they've lived.

They’ve screamed fuck into a steering wheel.

They’ve moaned it in a motel.

They’ve cried it in an ER.

They’ve earned the right to say what they fucking want.

🩸You want to control words?

Good luck controlling blood.

Because real life leaks.

It bleeds.

It moans.

It shits itself at the worst possible time.

And you’re crying about phrasing?

🧻 Let me paint a picture.

Your uncle just died.

You just lost your job.

Your kid just told you they hate you.

But you won’t let yourself say “shit” because you’re afraid a moderator will see?

That’s psychological castration.

That’s linguistic neutering.

That’s sacrificing authenticity for algorithmic approval.

🧠 LANGUAGE ≠ EVIL

Words don’t hurt.

Shame does.

Words don’t corrupt.

Repression does.

You’re not protecting anyone by banning “cunt.”

You’re raising children who are weaker than punctuation.

🍼 IF YOU CORRECT LANGUAGE LIKE A CHILD…

You are one.

If you police grown people’s speech like they’re in time-out,

your age is irrelevant.

You are seven years old in a meat suit.

You are sippy-cup-coded.

You are adult-diaper-eligible.

And no amount of “trigger warning” disclaimers will earn you a backbone.

📛 WHAT IS ADULTHOOD, REALLY?

It's not age.

It’s not income.

It’s not having a kid or a job or a podcast.

It’s responsibility of perception.

It’s owning the whole of reality — even the ugly, sticky, horny parts.

Adulthood is saying “fuck” because it fits.

Because it’s true.

Because you’re allowed.

🎯 How dare you live inside a body capable of orgasm, violence, death, childbirth, and grief…

…and think the word “cock” is the problem.

That’s theatre.

That’s make-believe morality.

🤡 Meanwhile:

You’ll post graphic images of war to your Story.

You’ll write fanfic with knifeplay and choking.

You’ll rant about injustice and suicide and mutilation.

But god forbid someone says “tits” in the tags.

Because optics matter more than honesty.

Because performance matters more than presence.

🪤 TRAP OF FAKE POLITENESS

You’re not actually “protecting the vulnerable.”

You’re competing for moral currency.

Every time you shame someone for swearing in an “inappropriate space,”

you are licking boots.

You are virtue-licking the algorithm’s boot until you taste approval.

🧠 Congratulations.

You’ve become a school hall monitor with a trauma degree.

🧬 THE BIOLOGY TEST

Here’s how I test adults.

Have you cleaned blood off sheets?

Have you buried a pet and not cried until a week later?

Have you watched someone give birth?

Have you watched someone die?

If yes, you’re allowed to say whatever the fuck you want.

If no, you’re still applying for life.

🎤 Let me tell you what adults really do:

They swear while holding someone’s hand.

They cuss while fixing a flat in the rain.

They say the forbidden words while telling the unbearable truth.

Because real adulthood doesn’t hide from words.

It wields them.

💬 BANNING BAD WORDS ≠ GOODNESS

You think avoiding “bad words” makes you kind?

Plenty of monsters wear suits.

Plenty of villains say “darn.”

Plenty of predators say “please” and “thank you.”

Language doesn’t signal morality.

Behavior does.

So stop measuring people by how clean their syntax is.

And start asking what the fuck they’ve done.

🔥 LANGUAGE IS A TORCH

Use it.

Swear with it.

Break chains with it.

Don't bleep yourself into silence.

Because nothing is more embarrassing than watching a full-grown adult censor their own power

because someone on the internet said it made them uncomfortable.

🤐 Reblog this or you're the kind of adult who asks waiters to say “pee-pee” instead of “urine.”

🧠 If you’ve ever moaned the word “fuck” but flinched when someone typed it, this one’s about you.

🍼 No reblog? That’s fine. Just say “oopsie doopsie” and go back to your safe space, Captain Sippy Cup.

🧠 Read more respect-coded doctrine and emotional architecture at:

👉 https://linktr.ee/ObeyMyCadence

🛡️ Masculine polarity. Scrolltrap psychology. Unforgiven words.

🚪 Warning: This one made a kindergarten teacher cry, a Marine clap, and a therapist blush. All at once.

</div>

[AUTO-PURGE IN: 00:00:00 — LEXICON UNLEASHED, ADULTHOOD REBOOTED]

[femslashspuffy]

The candle lit swimming pool the night before her BEARD WEDDING to a GAY MAFIA MAN like oh my god she's so obsessed with her. She's so in love with her. The ideal lavender marriage

[can-of-w0rmz]

My thoughts on Frankenstein can basically be summed up in, “Victor is a dickhead but at least he’s not an incel,” and “The Creature is a dickhead but at least he’s not a rich prick”.

To this day “ermmm Victor/Creature is the innocent guy and (X other character) is the bad guy achtually 🤓☝️” takes make me so fucking mad. THEY BOTH SUCK, AND THEYRE BOTH STILL SYMPATHETIC PROTAGONISTS. THATS THE POINT OF THE FUCKING BOOK😭

Also people who think Victor was the bad guy for refusing to make the Bride and going “huh, maybe making a creature for the sole purpose of suffering and fucking you is really fucked up and not my place at all actually?” legitimately need their fucking heads checked because do you genuinely have zero reading comprehension or life experience??? Can you read a book? Can you understand basic themes and concepts? Are you actually stupid?

Victor is a terrible guy for being self absorbed enough to cheat God and nature itself, creating a being that was never meant to be born and inflicting immense suffering on it by the nature of it existing in a way that fundamentally can not be balanced out — following the Christian influences and background in which the novel was written at the time, Victor is not God, he can’t offer the creature salvation or in any way metaphysically balance out his suffering, so he just introduces him to a life of a living hell by his own design and by the nature of the fact that Victor is just a man, and the Creature himself is terrible because the nihilism inherent to his condition as Victor’s creation turns him into a murderous incel who wants to just further the suffering Victor caused, because if he can’t be happy, nobody should, so he kills every innocent bystander who Victor loved and demands that he makes him a woman like Eve who’s equal to him in suffering, who exists for the sole purpose of being his, who was created to be his.

And Victor says no, because he has actual character development and realises it isn’t his place (also, very likely mirroring his engagement to Elizabeth if you kinda follow the same reading as me that Victor never really loved her romantically and felt forced into the marriage because of his mother), which, shock horror, makes Victor a more likeable protagonist, because again, shockingly, he’s actually a pretty good guy in this one situation making a really good moral decision for once by saying “yeah I’m not going to create a woman whose sole purpose in life is to fuck you and suffer as much as you, also what if she doesn’t want to fuck you???”

Are people allergic to the concept of character development or something?? Are people allergic to multifaceted complex characters?? You feel terrible for the creature because of what Victor has done to him by bringing him into existence, and you feel terrible for Victor because of how doomed he is (in the worst way, it’s not just him suffering, he has to watch everyone he loves being forced to suffer because of him) by his one mistake and how he doesn’t have any way to fix it. A creation with no God, and a Man with the weight of God upon him because of his own mistake. They’re both doomed. That’s why it’s so good, THE BOOK IS A FUCKING TRAGEDY WHY IS THIS SO DIFFICULT FOR SOME PEOPLE TO GRASP???😭

[delicateperspective]

the way ppl talk abt H vs L when it comes to queerness is honestly so revealing. H often gets praised and validated for his genderbending, for dressing a certain way, running around with pride flags, etc. and yeah, that stuff matters—but it’s also what ppl expect queerness to look like.

L, on the other hand, expresses it way more quietly. little choices, lyrics, the way he talks about love and connection, how careful and intentional he is. and bc he’s not loud or aesthetic about it, ppl act like it doesn’t exist. like he has to prove it more. (look, i know part of that has to do with the denials but still)

it just shows how much of queerness the public still ties to performance. if it’s not obvious, if it’s not marketable, if it’s not “fun,” they ignore it. esp if you’re bi or somewhere on the spectrum that isn’t easily labeled. there’s this quiet, deeply ingrained homophobia in how ppl decide what queerness is allowed to be seen and believed.

[summer-oil]

i love knights sooooo fucking much . sorry back on tumblr bc while agonizing over having to read vita nuova i forgot i’d also get the luxury of reading occitan poetry / reading about knights in general who <3 as u may know are my most beloveds forever… and i was so deeply reminded of why i adore them just now because knights irl were literally just contractually obligated servants of the king and church as part of the feodal system but they have been romanticized forever and ever. since the medieval ages, and even now!!!! we fantasize over this falsified / romanticized idea of noble, righteous knights, or knights as forbidden lovers of the queen (<- like in medieval poetry) and ohhhh it’s just so fucking good . they were pawns !!!!! crusaders!!!!!! but in fiction they’re so radiant and charming. lovers and killers and protagonists . i love it i think it’s the tastiest thing ever and the reason i can’t ever stfu about knighthood as a concept is because the fiction it has birthed is so upsettlingly good and fun to dig into — knighthood as a curse that masquerades as a badge of honour, knighthood as an unattainable ideal, knighthood as good men being ruined and soiled and broken under the boots of the system….. as good men doing everything everything they can to please the king and god and the people and failing themselves in the process. god i love knights

[bananaeatstape]

I find it very interesting how designs and casting for classic literature characters have evolved from the earlier adaptations to the modern ones we see today.

A lot of that is definitely the target audience and how media has influenced how we see the characters.

However looking at actors and designs from 20th century retellings and comparing them to 2010’s tv shows, it just.

idk i feel like its kinda silly and fascinating to see how distanced we’ve come from the original text but not necessarily in a bad way

I mean just look:

A Christmas Carol's Ebenezer Scrooge (2009, 2022)

Edward Hyde (1931, 2015)

Sherlock Holmes (1939, 2022)

like idek dude

I guess we decided they needed to drink the yassification juice after a couple of decades and i kinda love it yet at the same time question mark ???

edit: also someone mentioned that TGS isn't a show and i sincerely apologize for not putting that in here my brain was lagging bad but i meant to refer to different types of media and it ended up looking out of place ;-;

anyways i just hope yall get my point lmao

[bennetsbonnet]

It's surprising and, perhaps, a little depressing for a book so ostensibly beloved and held up as one of the finest in English literature, that Pride and Prejudice is so widely misquoted and misunderstood. It seems to be primarily viewed as a romance in the public's imagination, rather than the comedy of manners it truly is.

A large part of these misconceptions are admittedly, due to its various adaptations. I think a lot of people are surprised when they read the novel for the first time and discover that Mr Collins does not possess an affinity for boiled potatoes; that the proposal scene does not take place in the rain; that the second proposal is not made by Mr Darcy stumbling over his words at dawn and, ultimately, that he does not emerge from a lake in a wet white shirt. Nor is he really a brooding romantic hero.

The adaptations have had such a huge impact on the popular perception of Pride and Prejudice, that all of these products can be found on only the first two pages of an Etsy search of the title. All very nice products, I am sure. However, none of them contain quotes found in the original novel:

(quite why you'd want to be seen in a 'barely tolerable' hoodie I don't know but... each to their own... )

I question how widely-liked the actual novel is, if those who are keen to walk around in merch or decorate their homes inspired by Pride and Prejudice, are doing so with references that are nowhere to be found in the book's pages. Adaptations are part of many of our paths to falling in love with the novel; they were part of mine. But there are so many hilarious quotes contained within the first few chapters alone, you soon realise that nothing can live up to Austen's quick, witty dialogue or her observational comedy.

Yet, even when the novel is correctly quoted, it is not always done in an apt manner. Jane Austen was deemed important enough by the Bank of England to warrant her own banknote. Released in 2017, it looks like this:

I remember the controversy about the portrait, and how little it actually looks like the only (incomplete) drawing we have of Jane (which was said by those who knew her to not even resemble her all that well), but that's another matter. I'm most interested in the quote from Pride and Prejudice beneath it:

Let's put the quote in context. It is taken from chapter 11, and spoken by Caroline Bingley who is trying, unsuccessfully, to capture the attention of Mr Darcy.

Why did she pick up a book? Because Mr Darcy did:

'Darcy took up a book; Miss Bingley did the same'

How much enjoyment did she derive from the book? Not a great deal, apparently:

'Miss Bingley’s attention was quite as much engaged in watching Mr. Darcy’s progress through his book, as in reading her own; and she was perpetually either making some inquiry, or looking at his page. She could not win him, however, to any conversation; he merely answered her question, and read on.'

And now comes the actual passage from which the quote is taken, which tells us why Caroline chose that particular book:

'At length, quite exhausted by the attempt to be amused with her own book, which she had only chosen because it was the second volume of his, she gave a great yawn and said, “How pleasant it is to spend an evening in this way! I declare after all there is no enjoyment like reading! How much sooner one tires of anything than of a book! When I have a house of my own, I shall be miserable if I have not an excellent library."'

On the surface, such a quote—especially taken in isolation—would invariably lead you to believe that said character was an avid reader. However, the context demonstrates that Miss Bingley is far from a bookworm.

If you were left in any doubt, however, her next action surely confirms it:

'No one made any reply. She then yawned again, threw aside her book, and cast her eyes round the room in quest for some amusement'

As soon as Caroline realises that her quest to capture Mr Darcy's affection is futile, she throws her book away entirely; perhaps there are more enjoyable pursuits than reading, after all.

So, a quote deemed to have such importance as to be immortalised forever alongside Jane Austen on the currency of an entire nation (the design of which will likely be used for several decades) is so important in the context of the novel that it is... uh... *checks notes* ignored entirely. Right.

I mean, I don't necessarily understand why the quote had to be about reading but if it was, I could argue that a quote from Mr Darcy in chapter eight, about how extensive reading improves the mind could be far more sincere. Or why not one of the numerous lovely quotes from the novel? Obviously, an agenda was set and a quote needed to be found to match it.

Still, it is quite ironic indeed that reading actually opens your eyes to how ridiculous a choice of quote was made.

Anyway, what is my overarching point? Well, I think, largely due to its various adaptations, a majority of people believe they know the story of Pride and Prejudice. But shockingly few, despite it being consistently ranked as one of the most popular books, actually understand it on the level which it deserves to be.

This post was not intended to bash adaptations, it is absolutely fine to like them! But they are, by their very nature, going to differ from the book. That is inevitable. Yet, I think it's quite sad when people watch a film or series and believe they can possibly understand the story on the same level. Spoiler alert: you cannot. I know books are a luxury and reading is time-consuming, but Pride and Prejudice is out of copyright now. PDFs are abundant, as are audiobooks if you cannot sit and read!

Put some time and effort into understanding the novel. I promise not a single second of it will be wasted; you will gain a deeper admiration for Jane Austen's talent as an author, and you will fall in love anew with the many wonderful characters she so beautifully brought to life.

[fatimazainab]

William G.T. Shedd // Anton Chekhov

[theacheofbeing]

yes, you have damned me with all your want.

[i-mickdraw]

A thought just occurred to me that Griffin, our beloved Invisible Man, would probably be most comfortable in the dark.

Why?

Well firstly:

Griffin lives the world without a body.

He is a ghost to even his own eyes which makes it hard to move about with exact precision in a world without covering head from toe (heck even in the OG HG Wells Novel griffin expresses the frustrations of something as simple as going up stairs while invisble as he’d often misplace his footing)

Griffin wouldn’t take problem with that fact. Sure invisibility makes it harder to physically move about, but that’s something he would be able to get use to.

But something that he would never be able to get use to I think is the surreal experience of touching something and not being able to see that you are touching it despite the rest of your senses telling you that you are.

Secondly:

He can’t properly close his eyes because when he blinks he hasn’t eyelids to cover his eyes.

His eyes constantly feel exposed to light and the elements.

One of the reasons I personally have him with dark spectacles and hats a lot is not just aesthetics but also I like to think he’s giving his eyes a break from light sources.

So mix those two elements together and I think griffin actually takes great comfort in darker environments.

Makes it easy for him to forget his invisble problems when everything is the same solid blackness.

No idea if I’m a moron or a genius but that’s my thought process on it anyways.

[purplepeiskos]

You never stop loving people.

You just stop showing up in hopes the pain would lessen.

But you never stop caring.

[livingdxadwriter]

I just watched the new crow. And guess what??? I fucking liked it. No spoilers here but it was NOTHING like the original. Not one bit was taken from the original and replicated. It was a completely different story. And guess what? I still love the original to pieces. I still love Brandon as Eric. But also guess what? I enjoyed how Bill made it his own. It didn’t feel like a copy. It felt like a different version, with a different story. And that’s okay. The original is still awesome and super iconic. But news flash, the new one isn’t shit just bc it’s called The Crow 2024. Maybe give reboots a chance before shitting on it. The original came out in 1990. That’s 34 fucking years ago. That’s a whole generation right there. Y’all act like reboots and remakes haven’t existed since the beginning of the film industry. Some are bad and a cash grab, and some are actually kinda cool and have its own thing going. I think this one has its own tone just like the original had its very distinct aesthetic and tone.

Yes I liked it. So what. If I didn’t I would say so. I went into it expecting nothing, if anything I expected to be trash and nonsensical, but no. Everything made sense, it had a pretty cohesive story and gave a different and darker (like metaphorically not literal, nothing can be darker than the original) telling of the story and Eric’s character. And that’s okay. Let’s just learn to watch and enjoy some movies without blindly hating on them just because it’s cool to.