#mayor furst

[b-liss-fully-a-disaster]

If I had a nickel where the monsters of old exist but the villain is some angry rich white guy....

[therabbitthatpostthings]

I know that happens to Cassie Furst will be revealed later but I do love that when ever Mayor Furst does something I say “All this over a statue.”

It’s obviously deeper than that but it’s funny to think about

[mintaikk]

My twisted ass out here shipping Mayor Furst and Belial

[princess-of-the-corner]

Canon Chloé is the accidental hero-villain if you think about it.

Literally every one of her 'evil schemes' ends up improving life for people.

Lock Juleka in the bathroom? Furst time her being left out is taken seriously.

Connive to bully people with Zoé? Zoé proven instantly good

Two second later get akumatized, Zoé fast tracked to herodom

Go 'zerk in school? André quits being the mayor to follow his dreams and Ms. Bustier gets the nerve to run gor election.

Take over Paris? LB/CN earn their 'adult' powers.

The list goes on.

I mean yeah like. It's weird.

She also does legit good things like being a good Hero as Queen Bee and when she's mayor she cracks down on food carts running without proper permits. So like, maybe we just let her keep doing what she's doing.

[brujeria-histeria]

I'm a little confused about the timeline of the course of events from the first two seasons. They don't make much sense to me. The only indicators of time we get is Mayor Furst saying Nelson's mom died 7 years ago but Nelson was probably 10 not 7 like when they talked about that sleepover. 10 is also when Missy ditched Soleil and I assume she began hanging with Nelson's/Dance team girl's crowd after that. That doesn't really help with finding the timeline of the school year tho. Then Pat saying he'd been there a month, then Nelson saying in the first season that Stanley and Missy had been weird the past few weeks (so three weeks), his dad died like either that night or the next night. Season 2 happens immediately after the course of events of the first but I'm guessing it takes a min to prepare burial grounds in Lousiana because they have to be buried above ground in tombs due to the water level. And no major holidays or birthdays happen, which Mardi Gras is huge obviously down there.

They're supposedly in their senior year(from what I looked up online) and seem unconcerned with a lot of things high school seniors usually think about like Prom, Graduation, SATs, College and for Stanley & Nelson I'm guessing football scouts coming to see the games. I mean to be fair they're fighting a demon, but not even Missy mentions it. So maybe they aren't in their senior year? The only way I can justify it is if it all took place within the first 3 months of school and school started in August(like mine did) and Pat started in the new school year. Then they'd have wiggle room to start really caring until after winter break.

[britesparc]

Weekend Top Ten #388

Top Ten Things Tim Burton’s Batman Films Did Right

Thirty years ago, give or take, the first Tim Burton Batman movie was released in cinemas (according to Google, its UK release date was 11th August 1989). Everyone knows the story; it was a phenomenon, a marketing juggernaut, a hit probably beyond what anyone was reasonably expecting. I was too young to understand or appreciate what was going on, but for twenty years or more the image of Batman in the public consciousness was intertwined with Adam West and pop-art frivolity. Suddenly superheroes were “dark” and “grown-up”; suddenly we had multi-million-dollar-grossing properties, franchises, and studios rummaging through their back catalogues of acquired IPs to land the next four-quadrant hit. Throughout the rest of the nineties we got a slew of pulp comic adaptations – The Spirit, The Phantom, Dick Tracy – before the tangled web of Marvel licenses became slightly easier to unpick, and we segued into the millennium on the backs of Blade, X-Men, and Spider-Man. Flash-forward to a super-successful Batman reboot, then we hit the MCU with Iron Man, and we all know where that goes. And it all began with Batman!

Except, of course, that’s not quite the whole story. Studios were trying to adapt superheroes and comic books for a number of years, not least because Richard Donner’s Superman had been such a huge hit a decade before Batman. And the Batman films themselves began to deteriorate in quality pretty rapidly. Plus, when viewed from the distance of a couple of decades or more, the supposed dark, gritty, adult storytelling in Burton’s films quickly evaporates. They’re just as camp, silly, and nonsensical as the 1960s show, they’re just visually darker and with more dry ice. Characters strut around in PVC bodysuits; the plots make little to no sense; characterisation is secondary to archetype; and Batman himself is quite divorced from his comic incarnation, killing enemies often capriciously and being much less of a martial artist or detective than he appeared on the page (in fact, Adam West’s Batman does a lot more old-school deducing than any of the cinematic Batmen).

I think a lot of people of my generation, who grew up with Adam West, went through a period of disowning the series because it was light, bright, campy and, essentially, for children; then we grow up and appreciate it all the more for being those things, and also for being a pure and delightful distillation of one aspect of the comics (seriously, there’s nothing in the series that’s not plausibly from a 1950s Batman comic). And I think the same is true of Burton’s films. for all their importance in terms of “legitimising” superhero movies, they have come in for a lot of legitimate criticism, and in the aftermath of Christopher Nolan’s superlative trilogy they began to look very old-fashioned and a much poorer representation of the character. But then, again, we all grow up a little bit and can look back on them as a version of Batman that’s just as valid; they don’t have to be perfect, they don’t have to be definitive, but we can enjoy them for what they are: macabre delights, camp gothic comedies, delightfully stylised adventure stories. They might lack the visual pizazz of a Nolan fight scene or, well, anything in any MCU movie, but they’re very much of a type, even if that type was aped, imitated, and parodied for a full decade following Batman’s release. There’s much to love about Burton’s two bites of the Bat-cherry, and here – at last – I will list my ten favourite aspects of the films (that’s both films, Batman and Batman Returns).

Tim Burton’s Batman isn’t quite my Batman (but, for the record, neither is Christopher Nolan’s), but whatever other criticisms I may have of the films, here are ten things that Burton and his collaborators got absolutely right.

Great Design: seriously, from an aesthetic point of view, they’re gorgeous. The beautiful Anton Furst Gotham, all gothic towers and industrial pipework, is a thing of beauty, and in terms of live-action the design of all of Batman’s vehicles and gadgets has never been bettered. It gives Batman, and his world, a gorgeously distinctive style all its own.

Wonderful Toys: it’s not just the design of the Batmobile and Batwing that impresses (big, bulbous round bits, sweeping curves, spiky wings); its how they’re used. Burton really revels in the gadgets, making Batman a serious tech-head with all manner of grappling hooks, hidden bombs, and secret doo-dahs to give him an upper hand in a fight. It makes up for the wooden combat (a ninja Michael Keaton is not), suggesting this Batman is a smarter fighter than a physical one. Plus all those gadgets could get turned into literal wonderful toys. Ker-ching.

He is the Night: Adam West’s Batman ran around during the day, in light grey spandex with a bright blue cape. Michael Keaton’s Batman only ever came out at night, dressed entirely in thick black body armour, and usually managed to be enveloped in smoke. From his first appearance, beating up two muggers on a Gotham rooftop, he is a threatening, scary, sinister presence. It totally sold the idea of Batman as part-urban legend, part-monster. Burton is fascinated with freaks, and in making his Batman freaky, he made him iconic.

You Wanna Get Nuts?: added to this was Michael Keaton’s performance as Bruce Wayne. Controversial casting due to his comedy background and, frankly, lack of an intimidating physique, he nevertheless utterly convinced. Grimly robotic as Batman, he presented a charming but secretive Bruce Wayne, one who was kind and heartfelt in private, but also serious, determined, and very, very smart. But he also excellently portrayed a dark anger beneath the surface, a mania that Bruce clearly had under control, but which he used to fuel his campaign, and which he allowed out in the divisive but (in my opinion) utterly brilliant “Let’s get nuts!” scene. To this date, the definitive screen Bruce Wayne.

Dance with the Devil: The counterpoint to this was Jack Nicholson’s Joker. Cashing a phenomenal cheque for his troubles, he nevertheless delivered; his Joker is wild, over-the-top, cartoonish but also terrifying. In my late teens I was turned off by the performance, feeling it a pantomime and not reflective of the quiet menace and casual cruelty of, say, Mark Hamill’s Joker; but now I see the majesty of it. You need someone this big to be a believable threat to Batman. No wonder that, with Joker dead, they essentially had to have three villains to replace him in the sequel.

Family: Bruce’s relationship with Alfred is one of the cornerstones of the comic, but really only existed in that capacity since the mid-80s and Year One (which established Alfred as having raised Bruce following his parents’ deaths). So in many ways the very close familial relationship in Batman is a watershed, and certainly the first time many people would have seen that depicted. Michael Gough’s Alfred is benign, charming, very witty, and utterly capable as a co-conspirator. One of the few people to stick around through the Schumacher years, he maintained stability even when everything else was going (rubber) tits up.

Meow: I’ve mostly focussed on Batman here, but by jeebies Batman Returns has a lot going for it too. Max Shreck, the Penguin, “mistletoe is deadly if you eat it”… but pride of place goes to Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman. An utterly bonkers origin but a perfectly pitched character, she was a credible threat, a believable love interest, and an anti-hero worth rooting for, in a tour-de-force performance. Also came along at just the right time for me to experience puberty. If you’re interested. Plus – and this can’t be overstated – she put a live bird into her mouth. For real. I mean, Christ.

Believably Unreal: I used to criticise Batman for being unrealistic, just as campy in its own way as the ‘60s show. But that’s missing the point. It’s a stylised world, clearly not our own thanks to the Furst-stylings. And Burton uses that to his advantage. The gothic stylings help sell the idea of a retro-futuristic rocket-car barrelling through city streets; the mishmash of 80s technology and 40s aesthetics gives us carte blanche for a zoot-suited Joker and his tracksuited henchmen to tear up a museum to a Prince soundtrack. It’s a world where Max Shreck, looking like Christopher Walken was electrocuted in a flour factory, can believably run a campaign to get Penguin elected mayor, even after he nearly bites someone’s nose off. It’s crazy but it works.

Believably Corrupt: despite the craziness and unreality, the first Batman at least does have a strong dose of realism running through it. The gangsters may be straight out of the 40s but they’ve adopted the gritty grimness of the intervening decades, with slobby cop Eckhart representing corrupt law enforcement. Basically, despite the surrealism on display, the sense of Gotham as a criminal cesspool is very well realised, and extends to such a high level that the only realistic way to combat any of it is for a sad rich man to dress up as Dracula and drive a rocket-car at a clown.

The Score: I’ve saved this for last because, despite everything, Danny Elfman’s Batman theme is clearly the greatest and strongest legacy of the Burton era. Don’t come at me with your “dinner-dinner-dinner-dinner-Batman” nonsense. Elfman’s Batman score is sublime. Like John Williams’ Superman theme, it’s iconic, it’s distinctive, and as far as I’m concerned it’s what the character should sound like. I have absolutely no time for directors who think you should ever make a Batman film with different music. It’s as intrinsically linked with the character as the Star Wars theme is with, well, Star Wars. It’s perfect and beautiful and the love-love-love the fact that they stuck it in the Animated Series too.

Whelp, there we are. The ten best things about Burton’s two Batman movies. I barely spoke about the subsequent films because, well, they’re both crap. No, seriously, they’re bad films. Even Batman Forever. Don’t start.

[lesbiannmermaidd]

WV/Mayor!

First impression: I t)(ink I t)(oug)(t he was very mysterious and confusing w)(en I read )(omestuck fur t)(e furst time

Impression now: )(e’s reely cute and I love )(im!!

Favorite moment: w)(en )(e lead t)(at revolution 

Idea for a story: I reely just want a story aboat )(im and )(is life before canon or maybe a story aboat )(im and )(is carapace fronds!

Unpopular opinion: )(e;s a complex and impurrtant c)(aracter

Favorite relationship: )(im x AR

Favorite headcanon: u)()()()(

I don’t )(ave any

[rotch]

Honestamente High Spirits es un completo desastre.

Por un lado tenemos una especie de Midsummer's Night Dream fantasmagórica que se ve absolutamente espectacular. Fue uno de los contados trabajos del genio que era Anton Furst, y por lo tanto los sets son una rotunda delicia. Está llena de momentos extraños que me hacían dudar si en serio salió exactamente el mismo año que Beetlejuice, con la que comparte varias ideas. Tiene un reparto en su mayor parte algo genial. Y al menos un 🐶 sustazo.

Por el otro esto insiste en ser una comedia de encuentro de culturas, jamás decidiéndose por su tono. Neil Jordan, sospecho que dentro de sus muchos talentos no está el humor. Se siente como un cansado esfuerzo de alguien no gracioso intentando contar un chiste, seguido de incómodos silencios. Y soy la peor persona para las acentos, pero mi acento irlandés es mejor que el de Daryl Hannah.

Al final del día creo que tiene más cosas buenas que malas. Pero para reinterpretaciones de cuentos de hadas de Neil Jordan con diseño de arte de Anton Furst, su tiempo estará mejor invertido en The Company of Wolves.

Logged on Letterboxd

[allthatchernobyl]

Daniel Binelli, Horacio Malvicino, Adalberto Cevasco y Enrique Roizner- Gente de Nuevos Aires (1983)

Si el tango logro evolucionar y no estancarse para quedar en el recuerdo como una moda, fue, en gran medida, gracias a Astor Piazzolla que ante la mirada desafiante de los viejos puristas del viejo tango planto una semilla que el tiempo sabría regar y llevar a nuevos estadios. Pero tampoco hay que olvidar al grupo de músicos que rodeo a Piazzolla y que hicieron, en mayor o menor medida, un aporte a la cultura musical del tango. No hubiera sido sin esta primer etapa de experimentación y fusión, que habríamos llegado a disfrutar de bandas contemporáneas como Escalandrum, la Orquesta Tipica Fernandez Fierro o Gotan Project por citar solo algunos ejemplos. Porque este colectivo de músicos fue fundamental en una evolución tan grande como por la que paso el tango en apenas un par de lustros y no hay que, de ninguna manera, dejarlo fuera de consideración.. Uno de los discos que considero no solo fundamental sino indiscutible de este periodo que enuncio, es "Gente de Nuevos Aires", grabado en 1983 por un cuarteto de locos: Daniel Binelli, Horacio Malvicino, Adalberto Cevasco y Enrique Roizner. Binelli, íntimamente ligado con la corriente impulsada por Piazzolla y habiendo integrado la orquesta de Pugliese, la agrupación Tango7 con base en Suiza y desarrollando la función de director musical del grupo Tango Metrópolis y de su propio quinteto, lidera junto a Horacio Malvicino este proyecto casi desconocido que nos convoca. La verdad es que no entiendo como la historia del tango pudo darle la espalda a un disco con tanta personalidad y autenticidad, pero ese es otro tema. Decía entonces que el iluminado Daniel Binelli lidero este proyecto junto a otro grande de la música nacional, Horacio Malvicino; también ligado a la música de Astor Piazzolla y considerado el pionero del Be-Bop en Argentina, acompañados por  Adalberto Cevasco; músico vinculado directamente al Jazz habiendo trabajado en reiteradas oportunidades con el Gato Barbieri y el interminable Enrique Roizner; uno de los músicos de sesión mas importantes del país, que supo trabajar con Vinicius de Moraes, Toquinho, al Gato Barbieri, Astor Piazzolla y Frank Sinatra (en su visita a la Argentina), entre otros músicos, y que sigue, a sus 77 años, participando activamente de la banda The Nada de Kevin Johansen. Vista esta radiografía no podemos escapar al tema de que lo que vino a transformar al tango fue, indudablemente, el jazz. En un mundo que acusa los primeros síntomas de globalizacion, la proliferación de la música Jazz abordo con diferentes objetivos las culturas de muchos y diversos países; En nuestro caso su llegada fue fundamental, no solo por su importancia en la transformación del tango y la milonga sino teniendo una importancia sustancial en los álbumes de rock progresivo de los 70 y por supuesto un buen numero de compositores de Jazz importantes como el ya nombrado Gato Barbieri, Enrique Villegas, Ruben Lopez Furst, Dino Saluzzi o el mismisimo Sergio Mihanovich por citar a algunos. En este contexto, y con la digitalizacion que trajo consigo la década del 80, este cuarteto ya descrito viene a crear un álbum que tiene preponderancia de rítmicas tangueras pero que respeta estructuras jazzeras y que no deja de aprovechar la oportunidad de jugar con sonidos exoticos. El disco alcanza, de hecho, momentos de impresionante ritmo que acusan la directa influencia de la música rock per se, llegando a veces a algo muy similar a lo que entendemos como Rock Progresivo. Algunas de las texturas logradas a flor de virtuosismo son impresionantes; la calidad desborda una sonoridad pulcrisima y que desata tormenta tras tormenta a pura combinación del clásico sonido porteño, con la notable influencia de Piazzolla y todavía un riesgo extra a partir de unos efectos de sonido muy acertados y una incursión mas abrupta del jazz que nos llena de música los oídos. Espero disfruten de esta semi-olvidada joya nacional de un talante compositivo majestuoso y de una instrumentación a la altura que cuatro músicos sin igual han dejado para nuestro eterno disfrute.

Genero: Tango Fusion, Nuevo Tango, Jazz, Rock Progresivo)?

Año: 1983

Pais: Argentina

Duracion: 30:43

Compresion: 320kbps

Tamaño: 74,7mb

Tracklist:

1- Tango Once 2- Comparsa color leon 3- Bar Latino 4- Con gusto a Bs. As. 5- Danza porteña 6- Fugazetta 7- Llegando a Bs. As.

ESCUCHAR

DESCARGAR 

[sillymovietrailer]

Batman (1989)

I’m going to say this right up front; this is a bloody awful job they did with this trailer.  Who edited this?  Where’s the soundtrack for half of the scenes?  Erg!  It’s a miracle that this didn’t scare more audiences off, it’s a disjointed mess.

This was the movie that started the first main wave of Superhero blockbusters.  Of course there was Superman the Movie before this, but that didn’t really set off nearly as many imitators or similar productions as this (bar some of Italy and Spain’s efforts).  After this we got Darkman, The Shadow, Dick Tracy, The Phantom… I just realised, I’ve written myself into another marathon, haven’t I?  This is often held up as the last great eighties blockbuster, and it’s easy to see why, not least because it kind of took inspiration from a few other ones in a lot of ways.  A lot of the marketing was based purely around the Bat Symbol, just like the GhostBusters logo beforehand, Tim Burton lent the production an off-beat vibe more in line with VHS fodder than major studio fare, and the somewhat over the top style was pure eighties.  This also had huge repercussions on the character of Batman going forward, not least the more armoured look the costume had in live action, and more recently the comics.  I’d of course be remiss not to mention Batman: The Animated Series, and the subsequent DCAU that came about as a direct result of this film’s success.  This was a pop culture event… which makes what I’m about to say a bit of a shame; I don’t think this has aged very well.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s a lot to love!  The production design by Anton Furst is glorious, Michael Keaton is one of my favourite takes on Bruce Wayne (and he’s the one that thought to have his Batman voice be deeper… which Christian Bale of course took way too far!), and there are sequences like the Batmobile in the forest that are just lovely to watch.  However, story wise this one’s kind of a mess, which from reading about the behind the scenes info in Wikipedia isn’t surprising.  The script apparently went through a bundle of different uncredited rewrites due to 1988 writers’ strike, and you can tell due to the very awkward plot points.  Why do we spend so much time with the Mayor, Commissioner Gordon, and Harvey Dent when they ultimately don’t do anything?  What’s even the point of the character of Robert Knox?  Forget Batman, where does the Joker get his wonderful toys in about a day (down to all those monogrammed bomber jackets)?  Where does Vicki Vale’s personality go after about the halfway mark? Why do they go up the Cathedral tower at the end?  Actually, I know the answer to that; producer Jon Peters just dictated out of nowhere (when the film was already overbudget) that they had to have the final fight up there.  That’s the same Jon Peters who’d later infamously insist on Superman fighting a giant spider.  Also, some of the dialogue and references really don’t gell with the 1930s inspired look the rest of the film is going for.  This might be the most controversial one, but I’m going to come out and say it; I don’t think Jack Nicholson isn’t actually that good as the Joker.  It just varies wildly from Nicholson in make-up messing around (what are those noises he does after saying “Wait till they get a load of me!”?) to him doing a Cesar Romero impression, he never comes together that well.  Oh, and as for the “he’s the one behind the Wayne murder” thing; let’s ignore the far too on the nose “they’re two sides of the same coin” angle that pushes far too hard, and focus on another problem.  The clue that it’s him, the thing he always says before killing someone?  That’s the first time all movie he’s said it, that’s a complete cheat and you know it!

Now none of this is to say that it’s a bad or terrible movie, but I will say that from a modern eye, it’s a very uneven one, it hasn’t exactly gone vintage a few others from the period have.  I don’t want to rain on anyone’s nostalgia or anything by doing this, I’m not Cinema Sins for the Gods’ sake (Oh, my feelings on channels like that are for a whole other rant), this is just my opinion.  As I said, there’s a lot about it I still like; for some reason I have a lot of affection for the model work by Thunderbirds veteran Derek Meddings, and of course there’s the score by Danny Elfman, arranged by Shirley Walker (who does not get nearly the respect she should for this!  It was her that did the Animated Series soundtrack, not Elfman.).  Mind, there are also the Prince songs, insisted on by Jon Peters again, which Burton used as little as possible.  That I think sums up my feelings on the film, when I watch it I can’t help but notice the different directions the different people who worked on it were pulling in.  It’s flawed, but still fun.

I had some of the merchandise growing up, including Batman and Joker action figures, and the Batmobile that fired “back of fridge/sofa/other inaccessible location seeking missiles”.  My first exposure to this film though?  Playing the platform game from Ocean Software on the Amiga.  Ahh, now there’s a hit of nostalgia.