#ok callbacks this and that i get the controversies but this one is actually so perfect and poetic gahh 😭

[celebrimborium]

The man who can wield the power of this sword can summon to him an army more deadly than any that walks this earth... Become who you were born to be.

[orifu]

ok im just gonna write a bunch of my disorganised thoughts on the new doctor who episode the star beast. enjoy. or dont.

story wise it was very enjoyable. all the characters were written like actual people (cough cough chris chibnall) and i really enjoyed watching it. the twist of the meep being evil was (at least in who circles) pretty well known so having the rose metacrisis twist too was really effective (even though i totally guessed it would happen (shower oracle)).

and before i get into what i didnt like im just going to say im not like siding with the you know twitter users youtube "reviewers" called like The Neckbeard Skeptic or something when it comes to this stuff. i thought the inclusion of rose as a trans character was a really good way to start the new era as a kind of warning to those kinds of people that they really wont enjoy it.

but with the representation came a couple lines which just struck me as.. off. the first was definitely rose basically calling the doctor out for assuming the meep is he/him. and like yeah thats a valid criticism to make. but if i were writing this episode i would absolutely not get the trans person to say that. it comes across as playing into the "did you just assume [the meep's] pronouns??" transphobic stereotype but i think knowing how many people would get mad at this i am fine with the line overall.

the next line was the line "binary binary / nonbinary" bit. i think its a cool callback and another neat way of pissing off the right people but honestly back in s4 that binary binary bit was a really devastating moment as you see the doctor's face and the music kicks in. playing off that moment as like a kind of gag just seems kinda messed up to me.

and the last one was the "male presenting time lord" thing. just seems like a twitterised version of feminism and the messages behind it. feminism is meant to be a deconstruction of gender as a social construct and its effects in society which manifest as eg the patriarchy. feminism is not when you go "you look like a man therefore youre bad". thats not feminism. in s4 this was explained as time lords "lacking that little bit of human" which i think just kinda makes more sense tbh.

i imagine this is kind of what it wouldve been like seeing series 1 back in 2005 and maybe back then jack harkness looked over the top or the whole thing felt in-your-face. maybe 18 years from now ill look back at this and think "wow. i thought that was a lot?" and i really hope so. but for now i just hope this was over the top to get rid of all the bigots before doctor who (2023-) REALLY begins.

anyway enough of the criticisms that make me sound like a 2017 anti sjw. i think donna and rose just being able to "get rid" of the metacrisis by just "letting it go" is honestly kind of stupid. i was expecting a lot more of a destiny plotline across the 3 specials that probably ended in donna about to die forever but only then the metacrisis is stopped or something (and i think the slower metacrisis could have explained this). but nope there it goes done and dusted in the first special. its not the direction i wouldve taken but its fine i suppose. im not the award winning writer here.

next its literally never explained where the doctors sonic comes from. he just kinda. has it. and thats fine i guess stuff happens sometimes but like. why is this sonic completely overpowered? a big criticism of the chibnall era was that the doctor was constantly just scanning stuff and going "hm yep blah blah" and instead of going back to the sonic being an occasional tool, its now able to create screens and forcefields and. what. but fine. whatever.

but now. big question. why does the tardis interior change? it didnt go up in flames or anything like in s5/s11 nor was the doctor feeling a change like in s7/s8. it just changes. but i guess the tardis was feeling like it or whatever. now the real controversial take. i dont really like the new interior. its just completely white. i know the original tardis interiors looked like that but it looks so plain. it looks like they only had that much built when they filmed it and hadnt finished. the lights make me like it more but it just seems kinda gimmicky tbh. im sure itll grow on me over time (or be changed in the ncuti era? pls).

anyway. i still really enjoyed the episode and i cannot wait for wild blue yonder (this has been the mystery episode for like over a year now) and the 2 more specials and 2 more series to come. doctor who is Going Places and id much rather those places be cheesy pronoun stuff than have bigots around the dw community.

if you read all that, you just wasted your time. also i love you

[sothischickshe]

GGWEEK2020 OTP HEADCANONS

Ok, I was tagged by @foxmagpie  to answers questions 1, 12, 22, 30, 36 and one or more of your choice from this list which unsurprisingly contains other numbers also.

I’m gonna do this about Brio for the lulz, but obvi they’re gross and no one would possibly ship it.

1) who can outdrink the other?

Is this a joke? Beth’s, like, a professional drinker. If you think she can’t drink that skinny motherfucker under the table, chair, and like any furniture (had she some), I don’t know what’s going on with you.

12) who hogs the bathroom?

Yes.

22) which one makes a big deal about birthdays?

WHOSE?! 

i mean they’re both parents and they’re both lame and they’re both very into scheduling as far as I can tell, so i’d imagine they’re very into making a fuss about other people’s birthdays, but they’re also very cagey and very weird and ofc live in a world where time moves differently so i’d imagine they do not like making a fuss of their own. i kind of think they’d understand why the other is like that cos duh samesies, but whether they’d be respectful of that fact....oy

30) Which one gets more excited over the first snow of winter?

lol well neither of them, they’re trapped in a singular vague season for all time. but were they transported elsewhere, i feel like it’s gotta be rio on the grounds that:

one child + icey sitch feels manageable (beth’s probs like oh god, what fresh hell this time, and that’s just over annie, never mind her thousand children)

excuse to buy and peacock new winterwear

doesnt have to hear, like, 300000 times: ha ha YOU’RE THE SAME COLOUR AS THE SNOW LOLLLLLLLLLL

less likely to have snow thrown at him - mick seems pretty chill. i feel like a lot of ppl would use the socially acceptable opportunity to attack beth

36) What are things they both find funny?

HA. well they both think beth is hilarious, bc she is!!! ALSO TAUNTING PEOPLE WHEN THEY THINK THEY HAVE THE UPPER HAND. children, i think they both think children are funny. annie. ruby. mick. GOSSIPING. i think theyre both gossipy bitches. GETTING AWAY WITH THINGS. SHIT PUNS. CALLBACKS. SURPRISING PEOPLE/LIGHT STALKING. BAD THINGS HAPPENING TO PEOPLE THEY DON’T LIKE. DOING A BIT FOR SO LONG THAT EVERYONE ELSE IS LITERALLY GROANING INTO THEIR HANDS. WINNING.

16) who gives the other cringe-worthy pet names?

!!!!!! MF BETH!!!!

ok im gonna take up the poss controversial point of view that a general term of endearment is not a pet name, and neither is someone’s, yknow, name.

so i feel like there’d first be a point where beth’s impishly sweethearting etc rio, which would eventually morph into some absolutely appalling and unintentionally inappropriate pet name/s with like a convoluted appropriate and actually kinda sweet origin story like cockadoodle or something, while everyone else is like... beth....no. shh. you can’t. SHHHHHHHHHHHH. and rio’s like WHAT IT’S A GREAT STORY ABOUT PUPPYSITTING LET ME TELL MY BORING ANECDOTE FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME and everyone is like NO SHUT UP OLD MAN

I am tagging @bourbon-ontherocks for number 7, @missmaxime for number 21, @sdktrs12 for 32, @septiembur for for 38 and 49, and mf everyone for 43!!!

[papistark]

Okay. I’ve allowed a night to let everything sink in. I’m ready to talk about Endgame now.

*cinemasins voice* spoilers!! (duh..)

so the wounds are still fresh. v v v v v v v v v fresh. but my thoughts during the entire movie were just OMG IM TRYING TO REMEMBER EVERY SINGLE THING THAT IS HAPPENING SO I CAN REMEMBER IT AS LONG AS POSSIBLE BEFORE i inevitably go see this movie again

This is what the movie reduce me to like 99% of the time btw

now, I’m gonna try and break this up to be as organized as possible into 4 main sections which will be general thoughts, the highs, the lows, and closing thoughts. that may sound organized but I promise it won’t be and as always I’ll have to use bullet holes to even stay relatively "organized"

I'm sure I'm leaving stuff out that I either loved or would wanna discuss but tbh the ENTIRE FILM i was just like GOD I WANNA REMEMBER THIS FOREVER!! Every scene that happened i was like god there's still 3 hours of stuff that's going to happen but I want to remember it all!!!

Overall

this movie was good. and i’m mad it was so good and i found it so enjoyable for how dirty they did me. The pacing was pretty well done for a first viewing, but I'm sure after a couple rewatches I'll get caught up on the occasional misstep in the pacing and general direction the story took, but I really liked it!!

I thought the Thor stuff was kinda distasteful and honestly a joke that ran too long. Like ha ha okay we get it but also? He went through so much fucking trauma can we just lay off him? Damn? I don't wanna linger too much on it bc honestly the more I think about it the more I get upset the russos did him dirty

all the callbacks??? made me so emotional????? eleven years and almost two dozen films guys holy fucking shit it felt like such a good homage to bring stuff back

Yo literally when they went up to busted ass thanos i leaned over to my bf and whispered "are they just gonna kill thanos in the first ten minutes is that allowed" and uh YEP! WOW

Also the opening scene being Clint's family getting dusted... gasps in my theater y'all they went in hard on us

TIME HEIST!!!!!! FUCK marvel knows how to take you on a fun journey!! The concept was so fun!!

I also appreciate them mixing up the plot a bunch to keep us guessing!! Like fuck, when Thanos was finding out through Nebula... future nebula talking to past gamora i was SO SOFT... sisters...

Hulk was... weird. It felt a weird kind of fanservicey for a little bit, and honestly a little out of place? But. Eh. Wasn't the worst part. Certain parts of it were fun! I think I got used to it haha

Everyone looked. So good. After the time jump. Damn. Thank you make up department for everyone's new looks. I live for silver fox tony always.

I loved seeing Loki again i know it was so little content BUT I DONT CARE I'LL ALWAYS LOVE MY FUCKING PRINCE

We didn't get as much Nebula and Tony content as I was hoping but god it was so cute and tender in the beginning. Imagine all that bonding. Nebula finding tony on the floor, knowing he's on the brink of death, and propping him up in the seat :'(((( tony helping fix nebula :(((( the father daughter relationship we deserved and didn't get to see come to fruition.

AMERICA'S ASS. THANK YOU SCOTT LANG.

All the New York flash back was so fucking fun. The elevator scene. Brilliant. I really thought they were gonna recreate but it was such a fun tease. Also cap making fun of his past self for saying "i could do this all day" I SCREAM why do the Russo's get steve so well

Carol taking a direct punch in the face from Thanos without even flinching? We stan a goddess

ALSO SHORT HAIRED CAROL YESSSS I LIVED!!!!! YES!!!! (But also that movie could've used like way more Carol thats just mY OPINION)

Also AGAIN, I DON'T CARE THAT IT WAS FAN SERVICE, STEVE WEILDING MJOLNIR WAS E V E R Y T H I N G. They have TEASED US since that one middle avengers movie we don't talk about that he was worthy and!!! Our!! Son!! Is!! Fucking!!! Worthy. And the scene of thor making him swap w/ him "you get the little one" i screamed bitch

also I was living for how much Steve swore in this film lol literally fuck joss Whedon's characterization we don't know her!

Valkyrie on a Pegasus thank you THANK YOU i was living

That entire final action scene..... holy fucking shit y'all. It was just crazy enough without being too crazy. I loved the callback to the original long continuous shot

THE HEAVENS OPENED UP AND SANG WITH THAT A-FORCE SCENE. YES. ALL THE MARVEL LADIES LINING UP. THEY ARE HERE AND THEY ARE THE STRONGEST OF US ALL. A-FORCE. FUCKING A-FORCE. Thank you Russo's for my LIFE

Carol's little "hi peter parker :)" god i love them. I love peter. My fucking spider son. I missed him so much. I missed Tom Holland's sweet peach little face AH I CRIED WHEN HE SHOWED BACK UP

Also last kind of ~general~ thought i know i don't get time travel at all and it is an instant way to confuse me in any franchise but wouldn't steve doing what he did fuck literally everything up idk we'll get to steve in a bit

Highs

morgan

H.

fucking

stark

I CAN’T BELIEVE I GOT FED WITH SUCH GOOD TONY CONTENT THIS FILM ONLY FOR THEM TO STOMP ON MY HEART LMAOOO

DAD TONY BEING AS LOVING AND DOTING AND SWEET AND TENDER W/ HIS DAUGHTER AS WE ALL HAVE HEADCANONED HIM TO BE FOR YEARS!!!

TONY GETTING HIS JUSTIFICATION IN BEING MAD not just mad but PISSED at Cap for how everything fell out. catharsis. felt good scoob.

speaking of good tony content of course i need to just take a moment to YELL ABOUT STONY thank you russos for the fan service thank you for having tony ogle and comment on steve rogers’ ass it almost makes up for all the pain and suffering

btw do y’all think the H. for Morgan’s middle name stands for Harley because I LIKE TO THINK SO

also am i lowkey annoyed that like half of viewers won’t recognize an adult ty simpkin at tony’s funeral at the end even tho i know i shouldn't be because ot everyone is a die hard BUT half the articles im looking up for reviews and shit of that scene literally all the results are “SO WHO IS THAT KID AT THE END OF ENDGAME” YOU FUCKING FOOLS IT’S TONY’S FIRST BORN SON HARLEY KEENER FROM IRON MAN 3. FUCKS. im getting off topic anyway i was just happy they brought him back because I am an iron man 3 enthusiast and his relationship with tony was SO important and this confirms that at the very least tony kept in contact with him over all these years!!! and he wasn’t just some insignificant blip

Not to be stony on main but steve being the first person to hold Tony again once he was back on earth :)))) wrow.

Also the first thing tony telling him being "I lost the kid" WOW BREAK MY HEART MORE HUH!! WHY NOT!!

The first thing Peter doing when he saw Tony again :'') just rambling about everything that happened and tony just so happy to see him alive and hugging him so tight I'M NOT FINE!! NOTHING WILL EVER BE FINE AGAIN!!!

I appreciated the closure with Howard like?? A lot?? I'm the last person to be a Howard stark apologist, but I think his character and his relationship w/ Tony and how Tony viewed him as a father and as a man was so well crafted throughout the series??? Idk I liked that scene it was good to my baby.

And now a pOSSIBLY CONTROVERSIAL~~ opinion but..... I loved Steve's ending. I really did. I thought he got a beautiful and fitting ending and I was so happy. It meant so much especially to hear his reasonging being that in a way, he did it for Tony. He was inspired by what Tony told him. He saw Tony get his happy ending and for so many films now Steve has been searching for that and he missed an entire life. Tony helped him realize that. It just made me!! So emo!! Like Bucky's face when he knew Steve wasn't gonna be coming back. Steve's last convo w/ Sam. It was just amazing. I can't believe I'm seeing hot takes from people calling Steve selfish or blaming the fact that the Russos have a boner for Steggy or whatever. Who cares!!! Steve got his happy ending and it was well deserved and a wonderful arc!! Lay off him bc you ship him w/ Bucky or tony more damn!!!! (Idk about the timeline y'all dont come for me i really have no idea i think the Russos just said fuck it for that one even when talking about not fucking up the timeline)

Lows

Natasha deserved better. She did. I understand why they took her character arc the way that they did, and honestly, this is the first time I've felt we've seen Natasha have even a modicum of actual character traits since like, Iron man 2 and Avengers 1. She found purpose in keeping the family together and trying to help the people left living, while never stopping or losing contact with anyone else in their endeavors to fix what Thanos broke. As tired as I am of seeing a female character die for ~man pain~ this felt like so much more than that. In the end Nat wanted to sacrifice herself for the greater good, and that's what she did. I'm still fucking upset though, even though they've butchered her character across almost all the films she's been in

Thor being turned into an entire fucking joke. That's it. I got nothin left for the writers at this point.

So..... let's talk about Tony's death, shall we

"You can rest now" broke me. It truly did. I've never loved any fictional character across any medium as much as I have loved Tony Stark. But Pepper's line at the beginning "you'll sleep, but will you rest?" Is so fucking telling. I think I immediately knew for sure in that moment. Because she's right. And that's the worst part.

Peter :)))) finally :)))) calling :))))) tony :)))) by :)) his :)))) first :)) name :))) as he was dying :)))) asking him not to go the same way he told tony he didn't want to go when he was getting dusted GOD. AND WE THOUGHT THAT SCENE IN INFINITY WAR WAS ROUGH. HAD N O T H I N G ON THIS.

No offense but where was Rhodey when Tony was dying lmao ok

That funeral scene.... seeing everyone there drawn together..... god. It was beautiful. It really was.

Of course I'm not happy. I'm extremely fucking upset. I knew tony wielding the gauntlet would be coming, but I thought they would find a way for him to make it out alive. As soon as they were showing that even the hulk couldn't handle it with the gamma radiation, I knew the nail was going to be in the coffin.

All that aside... what I can say, is that if they HAD to kill him off, I think it was a proper send off. We saw so many arcs of Tony's come to a close, and I knew it was just a matter of time. Also that being said, I really don't believe in death being necessary to end a character's arc. Yeah yeah blah blah we get the sad and tragic but TRUE message that at the end of the day death is inevitable and that tony had to sacrifice himself for the greater good. He and Strange both knew it, and as soon as Strange held up that finger I knew that was it for him.

It wouldn't be so hard if they hadn't given us everything they did with tony after the 5 year jump. He healed. He was HAPPY. But pepper was right, and as long as Tony was alive... he would never truly /rest/. And that's the only way I'm able to make peace with this death. Tony has always been a character who was just going going going, never going to stop even if it killed him, all to protect the ones he loved, and protect the whole world and make it a better place. He had a beautiful story that was told so well over these past eleven years, with admitted shortcomings here and there. He had the most cohesive trilogy films, the best character development and arcs, and an incredible portrayal. I'm grateful for it, but that doesn't make it any easier that they decided to go and show us that Tony was able to FINALLY settle down with Pepper and see him find the best version of himself as a husband to her and a father to his little baby girl. A baby girl that now has to grow up without her dad, and pepper has to go on without her husband, the love of her life. It's fucking tragic and honestly, we didn't need that imho lmao

The hardest parts is that like.... idk. I feel like the only reason they killed him is for shock factor, but somehow without the shock? A lot of us felt or were worried that this was coming. I think the russos and co. We're just totally set on the idea that like... tony HAD to die and that was the only way for this arc to come to a close not just WITHIN the universe, but meta, outside of the MCU as well. They did the same thing with Hugh jackman as Logan and that shit HURTED me y'all. Eleven years we had RDJ give us this amazing character and he is the SOLE reason the MCU is where it is today. So you know what, the Russo's and everyone can circle jerk about how much ~poetic justice~ there is in this ending for Tony, but at the end of the day... it just ain't it fam.

Realistically I know after wielding the infinity stones there is no way Tony, a human, could've survived, even with his armor on. I knew that. And as biased as I am towards seeing Tony living, if he had wielded the stones and NOT died? It would've felt cheap. So again, if they had to end his life, I appreciate the way they did it and thought it was the best send off they could've given him. I also would've appreciated some kind of alternate option where oh i dont know carol or someone strong enough could've handled the snap and tony could live the rest of his days with his wife and daughter and found family but..... ig that's just me huh.

:(((( Happy asking Morgan what she wanted and her saying "cheeseburgers" SHE'S JUST LIKE HER DADDY I AM SO!!! UPSET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And last thought is that I fucking cried AGAIN because the biggest applause moment was during the credits when RDJ's name appeared. My theater gave a standing damn ovation. Also the very last sound after it faded to black... Tony hammering away, building the very first Iron Man suit.... that shit hurted.

If any of y'all read this and wanna yell about stuff w/ me I WELCOME YOU INTO MY DMS LMAO PLS MESSAGE ME I NEED MORE PEOPLE TO CRY WITH!!!

[idombledore]

Ghostwrite or Ghost wrong? Is Ghostwriting Ethical?

Sometimes, when I'm chatting with a new friend somewhere, he'll tell me what he does to earn a crust, usually the sensible stuff, banking, broking, baking or building. And then I tell him I'm a Ghostwriter and it usually needs a bit more of an explanation. Once he understands the general idea, the first question is always the same: "What, so you write it and they say they wrote it?"

Even when I tell him I get paid to do just that, he looks at me like I've just kicked his cat, face all scrunched up, confusion and intrigue. How can I do that? More importantly, how can the supposed Author do that? How can they say they wrote a book or an article when they didn't? Isn't that like sticking jobs on your resume you never had?

In fact for years now, certainly since I started doing this, there's been a fair bit of controversy all over the web about the topic of ghostwritten blog posts. Most of the articles on the subject are mild-mannered discussions about it, but why do so many people get so angry? 

And they've been angry at me as well. One told me it's like human trafficking. I've been brought from some horror show of a place to Europe only to be exploited, my dignity locked up in a draw. One said the supposed Author is plagiarising me. Another said I was the plagiariser!

Whether or not one understands the definition of plagiarism. Whether or not it's face to face over a small beer somewhere after a day in the fields or on the internet discussion groups, the same buzzwords keep cropping up: Ethics, transparency, integrity, disclosure.

After a while, believing feverish logic was firmly on my side in the main, I need to generate a response that could educate and appease at the same time, perhaps even extract a eureka exhale, a look to the skies toward clarity. Understanding. Acceptance. 

I'd mention that what they're having a problem with here is something that's been all around them all their lives and well before they were born. It's a fundamental part of business, delegation.

We know the President doesn't write his own speeches right? Sure, he wants to get his message across but he doesn’t write it. It's ghostwritten. Of course, it's ghostwritten. We understand the word ‘speechwriter’ and we get that but call it ghostwriting and it's a different kettle of fish.

And do they really expect a bit CEO to personally chip in with 500 words for the newsletter? 

When a footballer decides to tell the world all about his life and career, he hires someone to write his autobiography. They are his memories and feelings and his family stories but a professional writer has pulled it all together for him into something that is... you guessed it... marketable. 

Because ignore all you want, forget all you need, the bottom line is marketability. That footballer isn't writing a book for posterity, so his grandkids can say "grandad did that". Like pretty much everything else, it's about expanding his brand and making money.

I'd remind the doubters that every aspect of a successful business crosses over into things they really shouldn't know anything about. It's perfectly logical for a former pop star to develop clothing or perfume brands. You can see that. Is she expected to make her own shoes?  

Paul Newman was an actor, a great actor, but what does he know about spaghetti sauce? Sure, he probably didn’t mind a decent spag bol on occasion but was he a chef before he became an actor?�� At least we knew Harrison Ford was a carpenter before we saw him on our screens. Fine, so Harrison Ford is perfectly entitled to go out back and build a shed and then sell that shed if he wants.

Come on people, say it after me: Brand Loyalty. 

Paul Newman spaghetti sauces rely on brand loyalty. They're also some pretty tasty sauces but brand is everything. Of course, if a marketing bod tells you to expand into other things and shows you the money, why not?

We know all this. We've always known this, maybe just never given it this much thought. It's always been happening and we've always been comfortable with it. 

Incidentally, George Lucas didn’t hire Harrison Ford to play Han Solo after excessive rounds of auditioning and callbacks, haggling and pleading. No. George Lucas met Harrison Ford while Ford was installing a wooden door at Francis Ford Coppola’s house.

So, the logic of it, the fact its been happening under different names for as long as humans have been writing things, the logic is there for all to see.

But this is an ethical issue.

There was a thread of discussion about social media that understood all of the above but felt on social media platforms, surely it’s all about connection on a personal level. The idea that someone is connecting and sharing with someone isn't actually the person you thought it was would make you angry.

OK, first of all, you might end up seeing the occasional or not so occasional advertisement, sponsorship or other blurb to sell you stuff. Facebook pages, sponsored tweets, it’s endless. It's marketing. Conveying messages to a customer using the basis of good solid copywriting.

For over a century, when marketing managers decided to launch a new advertising campaign, who do they call? 

A Copywriter [kop-ee-rahy-ter]. Noun. A writer of copy, especially for advertisements or publicity releases. (Origin: 1910–15). Courtesy of Dictionary.com

Copywriters have never signed their names to the bottom of their ads. They get paid money to do it. 

Because in life, if we have a budget, we hire people who know the industry and do it better than we can.

But advertising on social media isn’t what they’re saying. They’re saying that on a personal level, false representation makes us feel dirty. Duped on a deeply personal level. The ethics issue is still valid. 

Let's dig into that a bit. The ghostwritten content that we see isn't Tammy next door telling you about her day. Tammy hasn't engaged George to get it all across to the rest of us because Tammy’s got stuff to do. That's where the personal relationship is paramount. When you and Tammy go down to the river and throw stones, Tammy can recount her day exactly as she wrote it. 

No. The ghostwritten material we read on social media is selling us stuff, plain and simple. It’s no more or no less valid than seeing a billboard with the CEO of a pharmaceutical firm saying “I’m your friend.” 

At a point that little Tammy does start getting George to organise her social media content and tell her friends it’s her, then that’s a matter for friendship not the channel of its conveying. 

So what I think people are actually saying when they rile against the concept of ghostwriting is they’re riling against the concept of capitalism. 

Deep down, or even closer to the surface, they know full well this has all been going on forever. And we all know we're slaves to it. That’s the irksome part. We buy into it even if we know Paul Newman didn’t actually make that sauce. And that's what makes us angry too.

Ghostwriting just seems a soft target to vent frustration. 

As far as we who prostitute ourselves and ghostwrite, that’s the point, we get paid so don’t worry about us. Why do they hire me? Because I write well, and they don’t. Or I have the time to write and they don’t. Or I like to write and they don’t.

If you have a problem with the ethics of ghostwriting, you have a problem with the ethics of life. 

In that regard, it’s easy to stand with you full strong. 

And perhaps therein lies the rub. 

Feel free to comment.

[chrismaverickdotcom]

Holes in the Sky... and the plot (a very late Ghostbusters review)

When Ghostbusters(2016) came out, I actually wanted to go see it and review it, but I happened to be busy that week and it bombed so hard that it was basically gone the next week, so I never got around to it. However yesterday I made a comment comparing the reviews of it to my fears about the reviews on the new  Wonder Woman movie (more on this in a bit) and a few people told me they really liked it and it was really good. My friend Brian, in particular, said “you should totally watch it and write a review like immediately!” Turns out it’s on Starz right now, and I was spending last night working on my comic strip anyway. I don’t usually do movie reviews of non-new releases. Or at least I haven’t yet. But it was Brian’s birthday yesterday… so you know what… Happy Birthday, Brian… here’s your review.

So uh…. SPOILERS… I guess… not really…  (I’ll get to this too).

One of my biggest problems with Ghostbusters when it came out was the lack of fair reviews. No one seemed to care about the movie. They cared about feminism. Both good and bad. What I mean is most of the chatter I saw about it came in two types: 1) “This is stupid. This is the worst movie ever. Why can’t chicks stick to their own movies. Why can’t they just stick to their own crap chick flicks and stay away from dude stuff! This is the worst movie ever!” or 2) “This is an important movie for women! We need more roles for strong women actors! If you hate this you hate women! Best movie ever!” What I didn’t see much of was the one thing I really wanted to see… “was this a good MOVIE?��

So I watched it. And the answer is… it’s not. It’s also not a bad movie. It doesn’t really deserve praise or derision. It falls pretty much exactly in the realm of what is quickly becoming one of my favorite ratings, particularly for tentpole franchise films “well, yes that was a movie.” Which is to say that it in all ways technically fulfilled the qualifications of motion picture cinema and while doing so did not actively annoy me for the 116 minutes that it was on screen. I was mildly entertained because I’m distracted by shiny colors and sparkly moving objects like a 6 month old. But I can’t say much more about it than that.

But it isn’t BAD. I have to stress that. It’s fine.

I was talking to a few people about it before I watched it and they said they liked it better than the original Ghostbusters, an they thought it would age better. I didn’t and I don’t. But not by much. To be fair though, I don’t love the original Ghostbusters. I’d give it maybe 2.75 out of 5 stars. It’s ok… and for it’s time it’s really innovative. And really Bill Murray in his prime drives that movie. It’s not his best performance, but he really makes it what it is. He turned a mediocre action comedy (this ain’t Caddyshack, folks) into something that could become a cult classic. That makes it fun. But as a movie. It’s really just a bit over mediocre. I might have maybe given it three stars if I were actually reviewing it in 1984, but it hasn’t aged well. Most of prestige of that film is wrapped up in it’s legend… not in what actually happens on screen. And that’s fine. Lot of movies that are far worse are very fun. Rocky Horror Picture Show is a shitty shitty shitty movie… that’s kind of the point.

No one in the new version has quite the charm of 1984 Bill Murray… and that includes 2017 Bill Murray. They’re not awful or anything like that. But the four principle leads are kind of typecast. Kate McKinnon probably does the best, but that’s because she hadn’t had an opportunity to really shine in a movie before this. And much like I said about her role in Office Christmas Party, she’s basically just one of her SNL characters. At least she goes for it though.��Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy don’t. They’re scaled down versions of characters that I’ve seen them play before… and better. And Leslie Jones is playing Paul Feig‘s idea of Leslie Jones. It’s basically the same character she plays on SNL but toned down by a white man to be less scary (seriously, I felt like her basic screen direction was “can you black it up!!! but you know, don’t black it up too much? Maybe a mid to late era Eddie Murphy and really tone down the Richard Pryor. Thanks!”). None of them are bad. They’re…. fine…

An interesting problem with the movie is that I’m not sure “why” it exists. Ok. I know why it got made. But I don’t know why it exists. Probably the thing I found most interesting about it is the metatextual self-referentialness of it. There’s several points where it basically comments directly on the cultural context in which it exists. That is to say, that in a lot of ways, it is a movie about female Ghostbusters that tries to make the argument that female Ghostbusters should be allowed to exist despite what the critics of the idea are saying. In other words, it comments directly on the controversy surrounding it existing in the first place…  a controversy that only exists because the movie was being made. These are the points in which I was most invested in the movie. There aren’t enough of them. There are other points when the movie attempts to make a feminist statement about the culture in general… they were “fine” but a little too on the nose. Again, I can’t really complain about any of them.. It’s just that I’ve literally seen every single member of the cast (as well as Feig as a writer) do a much better job of making that statement in far better movies.

Really though, the reason it got made was because the world needs franchises. This is a simple truth that I touched on in my Logan review. Franchises make non-franchise movies possible. But in that respect, this movie was a failure. It holds the problem of many recent Hollywood reboots. They’re pointless. It’s only there to make money off of something that people already love. I’m a huge fan of the 1941 film The Maltese Falcon with Humphrey Bogart. What most people don’t know is that that isn’t the original film. It’s a remake. I don’t have a problem with remakes. It was remade because the original 1931 version, with Ricardo Cortez, kinda sucks. So it was remade as though the original had never existed.

See, I was never the guy who was against this movie because women can’t be Ghostbusters. I was against this movie because I didn’t understand why we needed a new Ghostbusters movie AT ALL. The original Ghostbusters is not that good. It was never that popular. The CARTOON was.. and it has built a loyal fanbase over the years that sort of associate it with the movie. But the movie was just kind of ok. It was notable for being a two franchise film that did alright in an era where franchises weren’t as much of a thing as they are now. When this movie was first pitched, my friend Link once said to me “its great because kids should have their own version of this thing that I loved when I was a kid.” Except that’s silly. Kids have their own things now. Kids in the 21st century don’t need to love Ghostbusters. If they do, great. But they don’t need it. They have Hunger Games and Frozen. Trying to force feed them Ghostbusters makes as much sense as trying to force us kids from the 80s to love Bedknobs and Broomsticks or Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. So as producers Hollywood needed to ask itself “why are we making this movie?” Because as far as I can tell, the entire pitch for it was “wouldn’t it be cool if we did Ghostbusters but all the characters were women?” And the answer was no… not really…

This film, however, heavily relies on nostalgia in order to try to make it work. Feig made the decision to make a reboot rather than a sequel. But unlike Maltese Falcon, he wanted to have it both ways. There are constant callbacks to the original film. Murray is a distraction from the film. He does provide one small plot point, but it would have been better served by an unrelated actor. He has way too much screentime for the very small amount of relevance he has to the movie. He serves no other purpose other than to say “Look kids, it’s Bill Murray. You know… from the other Ghostbusters? That movie? From the 80s? Bill Murray kids!!! Because this is Ghostbusters!” Dan Akroyd, Annie Potts, Ernie Hudson and Sigourney Weaver make similar forced cameos that add little to the film other than to remind people of the other movie. Of course the problem is most of the fans of the other movie didn’t want the reboot. Because “… and all the characters are women is not a movie pitch.” It is not a storyline. It’s a single plot detail and that’s not enough to make a truly compelling movie.

And that’s the thing. If this had more been a movie about feminism and women in a “men’s” job I might have been more interested in it. Why not remake Backdraft? Because geeks don’t care enough about Backdraft as a franchise property. Why not make an original movie about four women scientists trying to save the city from… I dunno… mole people or something? Because then you wouldn’t be able to trade on the Ghostbusters name. And that’s sort of the problem. There’s no real story here. It’s not really a culturally relevant story about feminism. It’s not really any story at all. At the end of the day this had to be Ghostbusters first, a franchise second, sprinkle a social message on third, and if we have any room left for plot I guess you can do that… oh we don’t? Well, don’t worry about it… just have them fight a giant hole in the sky. Kids love that, right?

Seriously… here’s picture of a climatic giant hole in the sky. Is it from Ghostbusters? You don’t know, right? No one does!

When I look at a movie that’s a rebooted franchise, I feel like I have to ask myself “would I care about this movie if this were the first one I saw?” This came up during Rogue One (though not technically a reboot). In that case, I did; other than the last 15 minutes which everyone but me loved, I was invested enough in that story. In this case with Ghostbusters, the answer is not really. I cared about them enough to get through the entire movie, but they won’t stick with me afterwards… at least not for anything in the movie. I have to ask myself, if this film had been a completely unrelated product called “Molepeople Killers” with the exact same plot, would I recommend it to people? And … not really. I’d probably say something like “you know, if you’re flipping through channels and it happens to be on, it’s worth a watch… but if you really want to see McCarthy and Wiig shine in a movie about strong female characters you should really go buy Bridesmaids!”

The movie didn’t HAVE to be about feminism, but I wanted it to be. I think Feig even wanted it to be. And it kind of is, but it’s kind of lost in all the franchise nonsense substituting for compelling story and plot. A lot of things are kind of lost in this movie. It didn’t HAVE to feminism, but it SHOULD have been something. See, one of the things that makes a story into a classic is how well it examines it’s cultural moment, even if it does it through allegory. As a scholar I can look at the classic films of an era and see what was going on. The 1940s were all about anxiety over the war. The 50s were about anxiety over the bomb. The 60s were about civil rights. The 70s were about sexual rights. The 80s were about anxiety over the fall out from the previous three decades… you get the idea. Forty years from now, when scholars like me look back at the biggest films of the 2010s, they’re going to say “Holy shit, people in the 21st century were seriously afraid of holes in the sky. It seems like that was a serious issue!!!” And this was not the best movie about fighting a hole in the sky. It wasn’t even the best movie about fighting a hole in the sky in 2016. It wasn’t the worst hole in the sky movie either… it was fine.

★★½☆☆ (2.5 out of 5 stars).

Erin Childs, Joe Darowski, Ethan Schartman, Helena Nichols, Mike Walker liked this post

(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1&appId=1449198322001470"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, "script", "facebook-jssdk"));

Holes in the Sky… and the plot (a very late Ghostbusters review) was originally published on ChrisMaverick dotcom

[81scorp]

My Little thoughts on Slice of Life

(Originally posted as an editorial on Deviantart July 30, 2015. It has not been changed from how I originally wrote it.)

In 2010 Hasbro hired animator, writer and director Lauren Faust to breathe some new life into the My Little Pony franchise which, unlike fine wine had not aged well with time. Faust, a fan of the original show put together a team and based her version on the first generation of My Little Pony but put more emphasis on humor and gave the characters more in-depth personalities. The show was successful. So successful that it became popular outside of it`s target demographic and gained a following of young and middleaged men and women who call themselves "Bronies" and "Pegasisters". Aware of their unconventinal fans, the creators of the show sometimes put in a few nods to the older audience now and then. A while ago the show turned 100 episodes. That isn`t bad, it`s a good milestone for a show. At the hundredth episode the creators usually do something extra to celebrate that the show has lasted that long. Like: have a famous guest star, have two people who have been in love witch eachother for a long time finally get married or some other big thing. The 100th episode of My Little Pony Friendship is Magic gave us a fight between the main characters and a giant "Bugbear" (a cross between a bear and a bee) and a wedding between two donkey characters, helped by several ponies that usually just stay in the background. And of these two stories the episode focused on the latter. If what the creators did earlier was nods then the things they put in this episode counts as headbanging. Wether you like or dislike this episode I feel it`s worth talking about. So here are some of my little thoughts on the 100th episode: "Slice of Life". SPOILERS are magic

Derpy

I became aware of MLP FiM relatively late so I first found out about this crosseyed mare on fan art before I saw her in the show. I thought the idea of a silly, clumsy and ditzy pony sounded fun.When I saw Derpy in "The last roundup" I felt that it wasn`t bad... but it could have been better. Even if "I just don`t know what went wrong" is a cute catchphrase I felt like they may have relied a bit too much on the whole clueless and oblivious angle. Her voice almost sounded like she was supposed to be actually mentally challenged, combine that with her being oblivious to the disaster she creates and it makes her (to me at least) feel almost Jar Jar Binksian. I do like the later part of that scene though. Like when Rainbow Dash says to Derpy: "In the name of Celestia, just sit there and do nothing!" And Derpy does so and bad things still happen. That wasn`t her fault, just crappy wood. When people called Derpy a "controversial character" and wanted to get rid of her I remember the Simpsons episode where homer voiced the new character Poochie. There wasn`t anything wrong with Poochie per se (they could have toned down his EXTREME-ness a bit). In my constructive criticism of Phantom Menace I mentioned that unlike many others I didn`t feel that Jar Jar should be removed completely, but instead have the goofiness turned down a bit. Make him more competent but still kinda fun. "But hasn`t Derpy been portrayed like she was in `The Last Roundup` in fan comics?" Yes, but her being completely oblivious works better in non-official, non-canon standalone gags. Besides, not all ideas from the fandom are great ideas. Now, about Derpy in "Slice of Life". I liked it. This is a much better and more nuanced version of her personality. Smart enough to be aware of her surroundings but still keeping her silliness, clumsiness and childish side. In "The Last Roundup" Derpy sounded the way she did because Tabitha St Germain, her voice actress, thought that Derpy was a little boy. She voices Derpy again in this episode and her voice matches her personality perfectly. She`s like most Ponies, just a little ditzy. If Derpy was a bit "I am Sam" in "The Last Roundup" then "Slice of Life" makes her more of a "Forrest Gump". And yes, I know that her name in the credits was "Muffins". I`m not calling her Derpy because of some stubborn, fact-denying, fanboy refusal. But because I`m so used to calling her by that name. But I understand why the creators officially don`t call her by that name. I`m just glad they gave the character a second chance. Doctor Whooves

I like this character, but I have to admit it`s because how he`s portrayed in the fandom. I also have to admit it was fun that they made him as close to the Doctor as they could without infringing on copyright. Turns out he was inspired to become a scientist because of a childhood trauma. Not something I was expecting but I don`t mind a little backstory. Secret agent Sweetie drops

At first this felt odd because, to me, the world of Equestria feels like a simple world that doesn`t have all that secrecy and spy stuff like in Captain America: Winter Soldier. Personally I wouldn`t have made her a secret agent but instead just an ordinary pony who had lived in a different town a few years ago, a town that had been destroyed by the Bugbear. And since that day she had been searching for the Bugbear to get revenge. But I guess I can understand why they made her a secret agent. It allowed them to call her Bonbon, the name that the fans call her, while still calling her Sweetie drops, her official name. But now that I think about it, secret agents and spy stuff doesn`t seem that farfetched. In "MMMystery on the Friendship Express" Pinkie thought that Donut Joe was a secret agent. Technically it was just her imagination, but it shows that the concept of spies and secret organisations is not as alien to the world of MLP FiM as I first thought. Let`s not forget other stuff that feels closer to our world than a kind, friendly, fantasy-esque world with talking, singing ponies. Like video games (Hearts and Hooves Day) and cities with names like Fillydelphia and Manehattan. Manehattan feels different from the rest of the world of MLP FiM and closer to our own with it`s name, modern architecture, ponies in suits wearing earpieces and New Yorkish inhabitans. So technically, it`s not the existence of secret agents in Equestria that I find odd, but rather these two things:1: Bonbon being a secret agent. 2:This line: "Every last shred of evidence of the organization's existence was destroyed. Celestia demanded complete deniability." Princess Celestia, the wise, benevolent ruler of Equestria having a Nick Fury-ish side that hides big secrets from her subjects? You`d expect something like this from something like DCAU or Avengers: Earth`s Mightest Heroes, but in a show about magic, talking ponies? It feels like someting from a fan-parody. Hard to swallow, but at least it`s funny. From what I`ve heard, Bonbon being a secret agent was based on a fan theory, that I wasn`t aware of before watching this episode, that tries to explain why her voice sounds different in some episodes.When it comes to ponies with inconsistent voices in the show, my own theories are less dramatic. I just assume that they caught a cold the other day and... they`re just a little hoarse.

*Ba-dum-tish!* Vinyl and Octavia

These two ponies are a perfect example of the Odd Couple trope. One is calm, sophisticated and into classical music and the other one is more into modern, technological, rythm-based music. In many ways polar opposites but still willing to meet eachother halfway. Am I Okay with Vinyl being mute? Yes. It kinda makes her a Harpo Marx character, and characters who speaks little to not at all can be a lot of fun. Like: Harpo Marx, Wall-E, Mr Bean and Silent Bob. Would I have been OK if Vinyl talked and wasn`t voiced by Nowhacking? Yes I would. Even if it is fun that the fandom sometimes influences the show it`s not like they control it with an iron hand.

Gummy being deep

This part... this part... While it may change our view of this gator as an empty headed reptile it technically does not go against continuity. In this episode he sat with a vacant stare like he always does, the difference is that this time we got to hear his thoughts while he was doing it. But still... this part... this part... I don`t know what is real anymore. The changeling and Steven Magnet

From what I understand Steven Magnet`s name was based on something from the fandom. Before I watched this I wasn`t aware of that and just saw it as a callback to the first episode. I felt the changeling was also a callback, sort of a way for the writer to say "You remember these episodes? I just wanted to show you that I remember them too." I liked the part when Steven cut of a piece of his moustache to give to Cranky. Besides being a callback it also showed that he had grown as a person, putting his friends happiness over his own looks. But what was the deal with the changeling? Hello? A member of a race that tried to take over your world a while ago is just sitting there in broad daylight! Sure, he`s not harming anyone, just minding his own business. But still! Celestia and Luna From what I understand this is how they have been portrayed in fanfics and fancomics. But you don`t have to have seen any of those to enjoy it. Celestia and Luna have, up to this episode, always been portrayed as royal and nigh flawless (with a few exceptions) and we`ve never seen them interact with eachother in a more natural, sisterly way. So the humor in this scene works.

I think this is a divisive episode. Some people will hate it for the same reasons that others love it. Wether you love it or hate it I think that both sides can agree that it`s full of pandering. I can see how fun it is when the show takes ideas from the fandom (and I`m not just talking about MLP here, though MLP is where we see most of it), it makes the fans feel like they`re being listened to. Personally it`s not THAT important to me that a show or comic borrows heavily from the fans, only that they sometimes listen to constructive criticism. From what I`ve learned there`s at least two versions of a beloved show or comic. There`s the official canon by the creators and the fan-canon. I can use Ranma 1/2 by Rumiko Takahashi as an example. In the manga there`s a character named Ryoga Hibiki who has no sense of direction, he always gets lost on his travels. Before I read the manga I read a lot of fanfics where the writers exaggerated his "lostness" to the point of teleportation. (If he was in Japan in one minute he could end up Mexico the next, with no idea of how he got there.) Should Rumiko Takahashi have put this in her manga to lessen the difference between fan-canon and the official manga? No. The manga is fine as it is, and sometimes the fanfics tended to flanderize the characters, like I said: not all ideas from the fandom are great ideas. Not that taking ideas from the fandom is inherently wrong, or inherently right. When it comes to MLP FiM the close relationship between the creators and the fans has worked relatively well so far. A thought I have about the episode is that the ponies have a bit skewed priorities. A giant monster attacks their town and the most important thing is a wedding? I can understand Cranky and Matilda`s logic, a sort of "do something important that you`ve procrastinated long enough now that the town is being destroyed" kind of thing. But the other ponies? Oh well I guess it`s kind of a double meaning of the title: monster attacks has happened so often that they`re used to it. For them, it`s tuesday. Probably also explains why they didn`t panic over the changeling. Another thing that justifies the ponies priorities: there was very little to no destruction of buildings (sure, this is a kid`s show, but still). I guess the mane six (in some scenes at least) managed to direct the fight away from populated areas. Take notes, Goyer and Snyder, you might actually learn someting. This episode was built on a lot of ideas from the fandom. If you`re a fan who don`t keep up with the latest MLP fan-theories, memes and jokes, can you still enjoy it? I`d like to think so. It`s almost like that episode of The Simpsons when all the minor characters got a chance to be in the spotlight (except Professor Frink). Even if you don`t know about the characters and how they are usually portrayed in the fandom you can still enjoy the comedy of this episode. What did I think? Was this a great episode? I dunno. The pandering kinda works as a double edged sword. I still kinda like how it is aware of what it`s doing with that shark-jumping scene. In my opinion the greatest episode is still "Twilights Kingdom". Not just because of the Dragonball Z action but also because of the high stakes, Discord`s character development, Celestia, Luna and Cadence making themselves vulnerable by giving their magic to Twilight who later grows into her role as a princess. Plus: We got a scene where all the three princesses together sang a song to Twilight about how one day she`d get her chance to shine. Was Slice of Life good? Objectively? It feels more funny than good, at least it has humor for the casual viewers who aren`t familiar with the world. Since it is hard for me to be completely objective I can`t really say if this episode is objectively good or not. The only thing I can say with complete certainty and honesty is if I liked it or not. So, did I like "Slice of life"? Yes. Vinyl and Octavia`s musical collaboration was pretty sweet, and sorry for sounding like a Derpy fanboy, but some of my favourite parts were the ones with Dr Whooves and Derpy. I liked that they gave a second chance to a pony that got of to a rocky start. I`d be lying if I said that I didn`t squee on the inside when she hugged Dr Whooves. Keep calm and trot on.

[democratsunited-blog]

Trump redefined what’s possible in presidential politics; enter Michael Avenatti | Politics

https://uniteddemocrats.net/?p=8159

Trump redefined what’s possible in presidential politics; enter Michael Avenatti | Politics

GREENFIELD, N.H. — The hamburgers and hot dogs were all consumed by the time Michael Avenatti arrived and delivered what the Donald Trump-loathing crowd was hungering to hear.

“When you are the party of Davids, you cannot afford to show up without a sling shot,” he told several hundred picnickers on a pleasantly breezy Sunday in rural southwestern New Hampshire.

“I believe we cannot be the party of turning the other cheek,” Avenatti went on, pointedly differing with those — including, most prominently, former first lady Michelle Obama — who counsel grace in the face of enmity. “I say when they go low, we hit harder.”

Avenatti, who soared to fame as legal counsel for porn star Stormy Daniels and, not incidentally, a ubiquitous tormentor of President Trump, brought his possible White House campaign to this early primary state in a tableau that seemed to perfectly capture these surreal political times.

He was greeted with curiosity, enthusiasm and no small degree of skepticism.

“I think I want him for my attorney,” said Denise Clark, 64, a semi-retired teacher from nearby Milford, who took in the politicking and picnic beneath a safari hat and dark sunglasses. “I’m not sure I want him as president of the United States.”

The exertions of the 47-year-old Newport Beach, Calif., lawyer could just be another publicity stunt, or a way to buff his ego. “I have not decided whether I’m going to do it,” Avenatti said of a full-fledged run for president.

“My life would be a lot better if I did not,” he added in an interview before leaving Los Angeles for New England, by way of a Saturday night fundraiser for Democrats in Tampa, Fla.

Whatever he chooses, Avenatti’s recent visit this month to Iowa and Sunday to New Hampshire — the states that begin the presidential balloting — has already thrust him to the fore of a Democratic debate over how best to seize back the White House.

“We’re not going to beat Trump by out-Trumping him,” said Jennifer Burton, a Democratic consultant working in dozens of campaigns and legislative contests across the country.

“Voters want sanity,” she said, rejecting Avenatti’s fire-with-fire prescription, “and balance and reason and dignity.”

Bob Mulholland, a longtime California Democratic Party strategist, firmly disagreed.

“Democrats are normally too intellectual and too nice,” he said. “A guy like Avenatti says, ‘Give me the gloves, I’ll get in the ring and let’s start boxing’ and that’s good. He’ll attract some people who normally wouldn’t pay attention.”

Whatever happens going forward, Avenatti has Trump wholly to thank for his presidential prospects.

His nationwide celebrity stems from his representation of Daniels, an adult film star tangled in ongoing litigation with the president over an alleged July 2006 one-night stand. Beyond that, the only reason Avenatti is taken even somewhat seriously as a White House prospect is the presence of his nemesis in the Oval Office.

“At this point in the campaign Trump was a joke, too, and he managed not only to win the nomination but become president,” said Mark Mellman, a decadeslong veteran of Democratic campaigns, who won’t reflexively dismiss Avenatti as he once would have. “Our definition of impossible needs to change.”

Avenatti has taken the first step toward fleshing out his political profile by outlining his stance on several issues, hewing largely to Democratic orthodoxy in support of “sensible” gun control, legalized abortion, a pathway to citizenship for “Dreamers” and, tilting leftward, favoring government-run health care or, as advocates prefer, “Medicare for all.”

He has also demonstrated, repeatedly, a Trumpian capacity to grab attention. When the administration began separating immigrant children from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border, Avenatti immediately jumped into the legal fray.

It was a new area of endeavor for a plaintiffs’ attorney accustomed to suing corporations, but one with political dividends. One client was a 9-year-old boy whom Avenatti accompanied to Guatemala last week to rejoin his mother — a scene his pro bono counsel made certain to chronicle on Twitter.

In a crowded field of prospects, Avenatti’s main distinction remains the fact he is so unlike the others possibly running, in both background and temperament.

“If the Democratic Party thinks they can nominate an experienced politician that is very similar to the other 16 or 17 individuals that (Trump) beat the last time, and get a different result, they’re fooling themselves,” he said in his interview with the Los Angeles Times. “That’s the definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.”

For now, it’s about first impressions, and many of Avenatti’s reviews from Iowa were quite favorable.

Scott Brennan was among a small group of Democratic activists who dined with Avenatti during his visit earlier this month. He said people “underestimate him if all they do is think of him as Stormy Daniels’ lawyer. He’s more thoughtful than that.”

“Objectively, I would say people want the anti-Trump this time around, someone who could actually bring people together,” said Brennan, a former state party chairman who is staying neutral so far. “But in this fractured world, I don’t know if that’s a winning strategy. The old rules are all gone.”

Still, Avenatti faces formidable obstacles beyond his unusual provenance and lack of a ready political infrastructure. (Back home, he is one of half a dozen California Democrats, including Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, Sen. Kamala Harris and billionaire Tom Steyer, possibly vying for the mantle of favorite son, or daughter.)

The bigger-name Democratic prospects — among them former Vice President Joe Biden, Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Harris — have yet to set foot in Iowa or New Hampshire.

That makes the going easy, as it always is for candidates in this early, unchallenged phase of the campaign.

David Axelrod, who knows something about ushering an underdog to the White House, likened running for president to a pole-vault competition.

“You can smartly clear the lower bar but each time you clear it, the bar gets raised,” said Axelrod, a senior strategist to former President Barack Obama. “They may see you as an interesting character. They may appreciate your performance on TV. But as they start thinking of you more seriously, they want to know what you know, how you answer questions.”

Avenatti’s legal practice, which has yielded a slew of enemies and piles of unpaid bills, would doubtless face considerable scrutiny.

He personally guaranteed nearly half of a $10 million judgment owed to a former lawyer at Eagan Avenatti, his Newport Beach firm, which emerged from bankruptcy protection in March. Since then, according to the IRS, the firm has defaulted on more than $880,000 in back taxes, penalties and interest owed to the U.S. government. Avenatti and the IRS are negotiating a deal for payment.

Avenatti is unfazed. “Show me somebody that hasn’t had any controversy in their past,” he said, “and I’ll show you somebody who shouldn’t be the president of the United States, OK?”

Trump, for his part, was unimpeded in his march to the White House by half a dozen bankruptcies.

He did, however, enjoy considerable advantages that Avenatti lacks. As a celebrity real estate developer and former reality TV star, he was vastly more famous. His immense personal wealth financed his early exploratory efforts and, for many star-struck fans, enhanced Trump’s appeal.

(EDITORS: BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM)

And despite his popular image as a political outsider, Trump had considerable inside experience, having long navigated the government corridors of both New York and Washington.

Not least, Trump had a message, “Make America Great Again,” and a brace of pugnacious promises — building a border wall, revamping U.S. trade policy, draining the Washington “swamp” — that meshed with his pile-driving personality.

(END OPTIONAL TRIM)

On Sunday in New Hampshire, Avenatti’s reception was encouraging, his 25 minutes of forceful remarks punctuated by boisterous cheers and frequent applause. Even so, he has some ways to go to prove his political viability.

“I agree with nearly everything he said,” said Becky Hudson, 53, a party volunteer from nearby Lyndeborough, as the ever-quotable not-quite-candidate waded into the inevitable thicket of news cameras. “I think he needs a little experience, though. I’m stuck on that.”

———

(Barabak reported from San Francisco and Finnegan from New Hampshire.)

———

©2018 Los Angeles Times

Visit the Los Angeles Times at www.latimes.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

—————

PHOTO (for help with images, contact 312-222-4194): AVENATTI

/*<![CDATA[*/ window.fbAsyncInit = function() FB.init( appId: '409102659172396', xfbml: true, version: 'v2.12' ); /** comment callback */ FB.Event.subscribe('comment.create', function(response) // Track comment event __tnt.trackEvent( 'network': 'Facebook', 'socialAction': 'comment', 'url': 'https://www.postbulletin.com/news/politics/trump-redefined-what-s-possible-in-presidential-politics-enter-michael/article_82f8a703-52ab-5e56-b0c8-a6183cbb1a37.html' ); ); ; (function(d, s, id) var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); (document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk')); /*]]>*/(function(d, s, id) var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = 'https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v3.0'; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); (document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk')); Read full story here