#people get so (justifiably) angry

[dollopheadsandclotpoles]

Aight let's hear the thoughts on the difference between wicked the film and play lol 🙈 I saw the tags and I'm intrigued

Ok so disclaimer, it has been a long time since I watched the play or any of the bootlegs so I might be forgetting some details, but I did used to watch the bootlegs all the time and saw the play when I was in the US, and Wicked was even my foray into writing fanfiction so it's always had a very special place in my heart.

I will say to start that I really loved the movie and thought it was incredibly fun. I love that they adapted it in a way that embraced the spectacle potential of the stage play, and while there are obviously going to be some things I prefer from the stage play (as a long time fan of it), I still think it was an incredibly well done adaptation.

The one biggest difference though, I felt, was in the portrayal of Elphaba. Initially I couldn't really put my finger on what felt off about it aside from the fact that they had her crying a lot more than I remember. But after discussing the movie with some friends who had never seen the play, one girl said that she felt Elphaba's turn-around into risking it all for the Animals felt too sudden. That was kinda when it struck me — she wasn't as angry as she was in the original.

In the play, Elphaba is incredibly angry by the injustice of being treated like she's an outsider just for the way she looks, and when she sees the Animals being treated the same way, she feels an immediate kinship with them. The Elphaba of the play is angry yet resigned (her 'I'm Not That Girl' is more of a resigned 'this was bound to happen' vs. the sad realisation moment the movie made it out to be). She's sarcastic, she's loud. She first greets Fiyero by shouting at him and whacking him on the head with a book. She is hurt and sad also (of course) but it is buried so deep that it is only Glinda that actually sees it, making the Ozdust dance moment the impactful moment that it is.

I then came across a discussion on Reddit where someone was saying a similar thing — that Elphaba wasn't as angry as she was in the play. But someone else responded with the fact that 'it would have been hard to watch a 3 hour movie of someone being so angry.' Another commenter bemoaned the fact that they mellowed both the main characters down because they didn't want 'two unlikeable female leads.' And that kinda got me thinking about how they likely 'softened' her to make her more 'likeable' and that kinda felt off to me... because that kinda goes against the point? The female rage is a point of the story that struck a chord with me. It is a story that allows it's lead to be angry, JUSTIFIES it. There are angry men who have led countless movies and shows and who are celebrated and fawned over and embraced, but having an angry young woman in a lead role is risky? I never found Elphaba unlikeable and clearly neither did most of the other people who saw the play (would it be the success it was if they did?) but now that it's reaching a wider audience were they afraid making her too 'angry' would make fewer people root for her? I do think classifying Elphaba as an 'angry' character is a disservice to the nuanced nature of the character, but I did feel like the movie highlighted the sad/hurt aspects of her character more than they did the side that is angry at injustice, but still strangely idealistic and resigned, still believing till the very end that there is an easy solution and the Wizard can just 'fix' everything that's wrong. And so while I do love the adaptation, I feel a bit cheated that they gave us a version of Elphaba with some of her more sharpened edges sanded off, so to speak. I also think the reason her 'turn around' felt too abrupt was because we don't get to see her anger. If you don't see how angry she feels at the world, you don't understand how close to the surface this outburst was, just waiting to bubble out of her. You don't get to see why it was so easy to paint her as a 'Wicked Witch' for a moment of passion when she's been treated like crap her whole life and had to hide behind his anger in order to survive. You don't truly understand why she was willing to risk it all for the Animals because you don't understand how this is her moment of finally deciding to let her rage free and USE it to make the stand she's been wanting to make her whole life.

I still feel it was a brilliant adaptation, I just felt like I missed that aspect of it a lot and it made her character feel a little less nuanced to me. But I could be forgetting certain details, or remembering wrong, or just be plain off — happy to listen to opposing viewpoints.

[smile-files]

as a jew, seeing what all of these israeli leaders have said is sickening. as a jew, anti-palestinian rhetoric is sickening. as a jew, zionism is sickening.

how dare my people -- a people who've been massacred, ethnically cleansed, dehumanized, forcibly removed, and discriminated on religious grounds for their entire existence -- do the same to another people? how dare we turn our backs on them, when they suffer like we have?

i understand that so much of us have been fed zionist propaganda our entire lives; the same happened to me. i understand the desire for a homeland where we don't have to fear antisemitism at every turn; i want that too. but it doesn't take much thought to understand that a homeland for us, which actively oppresses and kills another people, is antithetical to what we want.

if you, as a member of an oppressed group, believe that your freedom and safety can only exist when you oppress another group, you are acting no better than the people who oppressed you. such a belief is horrible, and cynical, and wrong.

as a jew, i want jewish people to be happy and safe and connected to our heritage; as a jew, i also want other peoples to be happy and safe and connected to their heritage.

don't call the palestinians "amalek". you are turning us into amalek.

doesn't the torah tell us to have empathy for those beaten down by the world? doesn't the torah tell us to make the world a better place? doesn't the torah tell us to free people of their shackles and help them escape oppression?

i have so many israeli aunts and uncles and cousins; i fear for their safety. of course, my parents do as well. i'm worried that this fear, in addition to anything they were led to believe earlier in life, is placing my parents even deeper in the zionist camp. but it doesn't have to be this way! my relatives' safety does not rely on the continued oppression of gaza!

it is easy to be uninformed, to be swayed by propaganda, to blindly hope that israel was founded in good faith -- but we can't lie to ourselves. a world steeped in senseless hatred (which we are now promoting!) could never be a home for us. none of us are free, liberated, equal, until all of us are.

as a jew, to other jews, i implore that we stand with our palestinian siblings. i want us all to be happy and safe. i want us all to live in harmony -- in the holy land and around the world. that is what we all deserve. <3

[crownedwille]

I've come to the conclusion that loving young royals doesn't mean I can't be critical about it, maybe especially bc I love the show so much I have such strong feelings about it, good and bad and I can love parts of canon and agree with it and appreciate it but I don't have to love it all. I have accepted that it's okay if I don't accept the ending and I don't have to force myself to support it. It's okay to not agree with all of canon and it's okay to not side with all of the creators' intentions/views. Loving a show doesn't mean you have to take everything the writers say on face value and that's the only version that is allowed to exist. Canon isn't everything and fandom is about curating your own experience that makes you happy and not miserable. You don't have to dismiss canon in every aspect and ignore it entirely, that's certainly not what I want but there is a fine line between being canon respectful, allowing some parts to exist and sometimes, yes, you just have to say "fuck canon" and move on for your own sanity and wellbeing

[sinfuego]

Tbh, nothing has made me sympathize more with Kipperlilly Copperkettle than her anger issues.

Cause anger is an emotion we feel when we're missing something. When we need something and can't get it. It's a balm to make us feel better when things don't go our way.

When things aren't fair.

[fromtheseventhhell]

Ignoring for a moment that this is complete fanfiction, can we talk about how incredibly disgusting it is to frame the Hound murdering Mycah as some flaw of Arya's just to make another character look better?

[itsuchu]

i cant believe ive seen no one rotate the 'peter was There' concept fully. enough coworkers to lovers we need to put these bitches in a situationship NOW !!

peter seems to constantly be at odds with himself in how he treats miguel, on one hand he tries very hard to be friendly and caring towards him, but on the other miguel keeps doing things that he believes are wrong. unfortunately, miguel keeps making very good points (for the greater good and all that) and we see him struggle to come up with refutes, like in the scene where miguel cages miles.

theres only a few scraps of it, but it really seems like they used to be Close. stuff like peter being (seemingly) the only person nearby when his world was evaporating, a task that he would want to call in spiders he trusted to help with. or peter knowing nueva york & miguel well enough to go downtown as soon as theyre out of spider society hq, and wait in the uptown infastructure for a chance to nab miles. or miguel asking someone to catch spot and peter immediately assumes its a task hes expected to take on--miguel has to explicitly shoot him down.

whatever peter is trying to build (or rebuild...) with miguel, miguel wants No part of

[pickled-flowers]

Also just because you get annoyed by something someone is doing doesn't mean they are evil you can leave us alone

[ipcearn]

I was also continuing my rewatch of Justified earlier and gosh darn, s2 is just peak, forever and ever my favorite

Mags Bennett (and her sons) are such great antagonists - though I will always maintain there is no true antagonist except for Harlan itself

Also Boyd in the beginning just trying to live an honest life and drinking his whiskey and mining coal, and everyone just keeps interrupting him and dragging him into their shit (Walton Goggins in glasses is doing something to me, I just can't pinpoint what)

And then him outsmarting Carol who just wants to use him - and his whole build up with Ava

And of course, introducing Loretta, who is also just, such an amazing character (and I am definitely picturing her building a weed empire after all is said and done, almost as revenge against the Bennetts, taking over that legacy and replacing it with hers "stay out of the weed business, that's Bennett territory, always has been")

[rotdot-com]

Begging people to realise tma's themes of agency and control extend to characters other than Jon

[good-to-drive]

Hi! I swear I don't mean to be annoying but genuinely curious what's the difference between Paul fans praising Paul in a post vs say, fans of any other beatle. Is it the overt defensiveness? Also, isn't reiterating Paul's sins every time kind of being like the 'John beet wif' meme everytime there's positive discussion re the band/John ?

Hi!

Don't worry, you're not annoying, but I was planning on deleting this (frankly I delete most of the asks I get from Paul girls) until I realized you're (perhaps unintentionally) coming very close to a legitimate point. Also, I get the feeling that you're genuinely interested in an answer, which is always nice.

That being said, I do want to point out that I never said I have a problem with people praising Paul. If you follow this blog, I praise him a lot. I very specifically said I have a problem with people being "delusional and defensive about celebrities," and the fact that you translated this to "praising Paul" honestly raises an interesting point, but also imho seems like a very harsh perspective on him. There are so many wonderful things to say about Paul that are not remotely unreasonable, because there are many wonderful things about him as a human being.

Also, "bringing up Paul's sins" was actually a comment from a reblog, and while I think they also make a good point it's separate from what I originally said. What I said is that it's frustrating that delusional and defensive behavior from stans brings out negativity towards the celebrity when the celebrity themselves did nothing wrong, and that this is really prevalent in discussion around Paul because in the mainstream Beatles narrative he's usually the hero to John's villain.

All that aside, where I think you're very nearly making a good point is where you compare this to discussing John's history of violence.

The tendency to black-and-white people is present in every conversation, it's just part of how we speak as a culture (or possibly as a species). I like to call it the AITA mentality – the tendency to approach situations from the perspective of “who's the bad guy?” rather than actually trying to draw insight and understand the motivations, emotions, schemas, and experiences involved. (Not that r/AITA invented this mentality, but they did crystallize it into an acronym.) In this fandom that's usually Paul as a kind of heroic victim and John as pitifully evil, which is itself arguably (partly) a delayed reaction to unfair criticism of Paul in the past. It does both men a terrible disservice, converting them into one-dimensional caricatures rather than real, fascinating people.

Reversing this mentality to “Paul was the real villain actually” would very much be unreasonable, which is ironically the exact point of my original post, but the larger point is that the way stan culture poisons any meaningful discussion of a major historical figure by calling it “bashing” to acknowledge actions/beliefs/experiences that conflict with a black-and-white narrative is genuinely sad and frustrating. It makes it hard for people who are legitimately interested in them to have a conversation, and is in my experience a much more prevalent issue than people pushing back by bringing up things that shatter the one-dimensional image.

In regards to John specifically, it would indeed be impossible to understand him without taking into account the predilection to violence that defined so much of his early life and helped develop his belief system, and that's a point that he himself made multiple times. I don't really care for the condescending "John beet wif" characterization of people who acknowledge this, or even people who are disturbed by it. I've said many times that there are valid reasons to condemn everyone in this story. When I say there's a lack of nuance, I don't mean we need to ignore the real harm that John, Paul, George, and Ringo all caused. That's not nuance. Nuance is acknowledging how and why they came to that point, that it was one facet of a larger and more complex character, and trying to develop insight into their social roles and perspectives without trying to snap them into preset hero or villain roles.

And your bringing up John's history of violence was (ironically) a very illustrative example, because he himself was so insistent on it being acknowledged. He did not want to be spoken about in black-and-white terms, not even if it meant being heroized, so it's unnecessary and counterproductive to demand that he should be. Positivity about the band can -- and indeed must -- coexist with knowledge of who they were as full, complete human beings. It's sometimes hard and disillusioning, I get that, but it's just so fucking essential.

[clonerightsagenda]

It still fascinates me that at the end of FMA Ling Yao just.... walks off with a philosopher's stone.

It's in-character for him, certainly. His willingness to be cutthroat, including cutting his own, is what makes him one of the more interesting characters to me. But the plot turns on the philospher's stone and dismantling its bloody hold on the country. The 'good' characters who use one typically agonize over it or provide justifications beforehand. Ed just finished having a crying breakdown about refusing to do so. And Ling's like 'k bye!' and everyone goes 'great! nice knowing you!'. It doesn't even trigger an infamous Edward Morality Monologue. And while the people within the other stones have been major plot points, we have no idea who's in this one.

Ling wants to rule an empire, and empires are built on people's lives. If FMA is a 'are we the baddies' story, some people look at the system they're in and go, ok, fine, I can work with that. It's true, it's interesting, but I'm not sure the narrative means for it to be taken that way?

Like, is this an uncomplicated happy ending being handed out because it's the finale? Is it choosing to use unethically obtained power in the hopes of making improvements within a wretched system? Is it a Bad End? I don't require stories to provide me with pre-packaged moral judgments and the lack of one here is why I like turning it over in my brain, but it's also weird to me because the story takes such a strong stance on this issue everywhere else! Ling Yao's personal brand of morality is so powerful it warps the entire narrative around it apparently.

[thecherrygod]

i need to stop having people from class around me that make me feel so angry i want to eat glass.

[moonchild-in-blue]

Can someone please either validate me or send me to the Corner of Shame? This is very silly but I'm wondering.

So. I was talking to my sister the other day about movies and such, and she told me of one she recently watched with this one actor. And I casually mentioned how much I hated him. Not in a "he's a bad actor" or "he's a bad person" way. Nothing to do with whether I find him attractive or not. Just in a "he looks the most punchable guy on earth and I have this irrational rage against him" way, to the point that I just can't watch movies with him without being annoyed.

My sister looked at me like I was crazy because, "what do you mean you hate the guy". And I told her yeah? That's normal? Don't you have at least one person you can't stand for no reason?

Sister was like 😬😬😬 No??? Which is wild to me, because I could easily name 50 (which I did - not 50 but we were getting close to 20 before i got too annoyed lmao).

Now she thinks I'm slightly insane (/j) (I made myself angry and may have referred to a few individuals as "stupid" and "obnoxious"), and I kinda don't believe I am the only person alive who feels this way. But also she's an incredibly empathetic extrovert, while I'm a very low empath socially anxious creechur so. There's that?? I guess ?? Idk.

Can anyone relate to this? Or am I the weird one?

Also wait. Little disclaimer: I am not generally a violent person AT ALL. Do i get annoyed and angry easily? Yeah. Do I feel like bitch slapping someone right across their stupid face? Yeah, sometimes, sure. Do I do something about it? Not really.

I can be real bitchy and extra sarcastic and petty SURE, but that's the most I'll do if I am legitimately angry. Mostly I just go to my room and cry 🥺 (crying when angry yes it me). So yeah. Before yall think I have unsolved anger issues.

[fromtheseventhhell]

can I join in on the Jamie slander? because the way fandom lives up jamie’s ass has always annoyed me so much. people literally have more empathy for him than they have for dany and Arya it’s ridiculous and transparently misogynistic. the way fandom always sees Jamie as the victim of evil cersei who just needs the love of a good woman (usually Brienne but I’ve even seen him shipped with sansa) like last time I checked cersei didn’t force him to push a CHILD out of a window he did that of his own free will. jamie is a horrible person and if grrm lets him live to the end of the series I will be genuinely pissed. the number of people who think Jamie is on a “redemption arc” is ridiculous. also they think he has a redemption arc but also believe he’s the valonqar so how does that work? Jamie is going to redeem himself, kill cersei through into partner violence, and then marry Brienne and live happily ever after??? 🤮🤢🤮

Jamie slander is always welcome over here 🙏🏾

I think this summarizes my issues with Jaime's character; it's not so much how he's written, I do think his character is interesting, but the way he's treated by fandom is insufferable. Male characters are always given more sympathy and grace than female characters and it's frustrating to see the difference in how he (and other male characters) is treated vs. Dany, Arya, Cat, Cersei, Brienne, Asha, Sansa, etc. Every bad thing he's ever done is twisted to become a result of Cersei "manipulating" him and she gets demonized, when she really deserves the sympathy that he gets. His "redemption arc" is a joke and I'm convinced the only reason people think he has one is because they've personally forgiven his actions 🥴

[kaseyskat]

my Thoughts on like, normals character and where he's going btw are highly based on his own flaws and like. idk ive kinda seen both sides (normal is a baby and must be protected versus normal needed this ego blow because he was getting too into his head) and I think it's maybe more nuanced than that? cause the thing is. normal is RIGHT to think that his side of things are the morally correct side. he's the one whose seen what the doodler wants and fears and where it came from, he had more perspective on the quest than any of the other teens and I'm not arguing otherwise because it'd be silly. it's HOW he's going about it that puts him firmly into the, "teen character is going to fuck up because they're a teenager" category: as much as he does genuinely try, he's not good at connecting to other people and he does put himself on this pedestal of "i know better and therefore im the best" that isn't exactly the MOST healthy mindset, as a self-proclaimed leader.

that being said, I absolutely understand where he's coming from in this episode in a very. he is hurting and lashing out kind of way? we know why scary is acting the way she is (her own past with her dad + willy trauma=she's still looking for the trauma that justifies her inner darkness) and we know why link is acting the way he is (he's hurt and scared and he never asked for this and he just wants to ensure that he's not the one actively hurting people, he never forgave himself for the casualties of ep2 and the last thing he wants is to add more) and one of normals flaws is his pride, the way he's so sure of what he's doing, he's the best for this and of COURSE it's the right way, he knows that!!!

but he can't empathize with scary right now. very specifically he cannot empathise with her because he can't trust her. and if he can't trust link he can't empathize with him either. normal does view himself as the reason the team is together, and I think that's why he was suddenly on board with kicking scary out when before he was so deadset on helping her: if he personally can't trust anyone, does he really have a team he can lead?

that being said, the shots taken on him recently have been sooo low in comparison. scary has done nothing but bully normal since they reunited. link has been sassy and snippy with normal even since ep26 and it's only gotten worse. normal and taylor don't really have much of a relationship outside the teen friendship circle in general. hermie is angry at normal- and I kinda agree with will that it should NOT solely be up to the players to remember anthony's fucking npc, as funny as it is. as much as I want normal to listen and understand and empathize with scary and link both, it IS a little frustrating when in comparison normals been fucking tanked at every opportunity by the other players- and link's line to normal after he found out about hero actually made me so upset on normal's behalf like dude.

I'm still on the boat that normal should get and deserves a mild villain arc. I desperately want him to team up with hermie and go to the goofs realm alone. I think it might be good for him- both to have a solo adventure with hermie and to have a solo adventure in general, so he can find out why he loves having friends so much. and I think him going through a villain arc would be so narratively compelling, because again, he's not WRONG about the path they should be taking: it isn't underestimating links personal trauma to admit that normal is actually right and he's just so bad at following through. it's just kinda a little tiring sometimes when normal actually does his best to keep the group together and it doesn't work (looking at episode 27 in particular) or when he tries to bury that oak family generational anger the way sparrow and henry do. let him be angry!!!

[ctl-yuejie]

hello im the same anon as before i just learned about the new attack which was indeed premeditated. i thought the post was talking about what happened with the soccer fans. im very sorry!

tbh i considered ignoring this and obviously do not know who you are anon + i am leaving out the first message i got, because i do not want to drag any other blogs into this:

do not come into my ask box and tell me that i shouldn't reblog xyz's posts because they are a zionist

if the current posting trend on tumblr wasn't so particularly dire i'd use the "woman putting box on shelf meme" with the word zionist on it, but as it stands

i obviously do not vet all blogs in a reblog chain when i agree with the content of a post; i do not mind people coming to my dms/ask box to tell me that someone i reblogged from has posted heinous shit and that i should check whether i want to reblog them

however, that means pointing out that they actually said something specific (e.g. having no compassion for the people in gaza) and not just sending a dm with "btw blog xyz is zionist"

10 times out of 10, the people who contact me like that have first heard of zionism a year ago and have never done any reading beyond the english wiki since then +

any time i have seen posts like that on my dash they weren't even directed at zionists but jewish bloggers talking about the antisemetic bs going down on this website and in general

as for amsterdam:

it boggles my mind (not really) that people cannot comprehend that making fun of dead children in gaza is vile stuff but also doesn't justify people going on a 'jew hunt' in the streets.

i am beyond making presumptions, but i cannot help but feel that the activism in support of palestine by people who message me like this extends to just that - messaging me or others - and then never engaging in actual activism.

it is calling out racism and antisemitism when you encounter it, especially among your peers, giving money to organisations that actually try and provide help to people in gaza, it means calling and writing to politicians to make your voice heard (i've decided to mainly post on tumblr about the antisemitic attacks going on in europe etc. because i feel like some people on here do not want to accept the fact that antisemitic hate crimes are globally on the rise. as for the support for palestine: i do that offline, because i do not believe there is anything helpful i can achieve on this platform).

so, i reblogged that post not just because of the "new" attack, but also because of the attack from the day before.