#take off is also a better movie

[strawberryteabunny]

blue bunny-themed coord 💙🐰

JSK: Innocent World Animals of the Forest

Bag: La Luice

Blouse: vintage

OTKs: BTSSB

Bow: Summer Fairy

[hellopuns]

Begging y’all to watch Spirited for Ryan Reynolds being a fucked up little rage-marketing Scrooge hyping up the “war on Christmas” (much to the chagrin of the Ghost of Christmas Present (Will Ferrell)) and to stay for the writing and good vibes and jams

It’s hard to make a good movie musical (and hard to make a good Christmas movie at that) and I think this one is a nice holiday treat

[icewindandboringhorror]

I've referenced before how I have a big google document to keep track of every media I've ever seen in my entire life (just for reference because I like to track everything possible lol… I am the Data Collector), but recently as I was updating it, I thought of actually evaluating them to find out random percentages (like for example, out of Total Shows Watched, what percentage did I finish vs. stop watching, what percentage did I like or dislike, etc.)...

Evaluating these things is made easier by the fact that I already place everything on each subsection of the list into 6 broad ranking categories, so I don't have to go back and guess to figure out how I feel about them or anything. The categories are: Ranking 5 - overall best* (despite some criticisms of course because I'm too much of an Analyzer to ever find anything Perfect lol) Ranking 4 - more positive than neutral, but not good enough to be 5 Ranking 3 - either the good + bad negate each other, OR it's just not memorable/interesting in any way enough to be ranked higher or lower (this is the Default category ALL things are placed in if no other rank applies) Ranking 2 - maybe a few redeemable elements but largely more negatives than positives Ranking 1 - So bad that it circles around to being fascinating to observe in some way (not necessarily Funny, or Good, but just interesting somehow) Ranking 0 - Bad in a genuinely frustrating or obnoxious manner

*("best" primarily defined here as most interesting, rather than most good in a technical sense, or some other measure. I tend to value more highly whether there's something novel or thoughtful about the worldbuilding, tone, writing, base premise, etc - than about whether it's actually executed perfectly.)

And here's the amount of shows that have so far been placed into each category -

TV shows ~ Rank 5 (highest) - 20 shows ~ Rank 4 (mid-high) - 28 shows ~ Rank 3 (neutral/default/meh) - 114 shows ~ Rank 2 (mid low) -33 shows ~ Rank 1 (low low but intriguingly so) - 14 shows ~ Rank 0 (iredeemably low) - 2 shows

This would make for a total of 211 TV shows overall. However, there are 57 shows within these list marked as "didn't finish" (typically meaning I quit on the very first or second episode - but log them still to keep a record that I at least had a brief view of them).

So my total of genuinely fully watched shows would be more 154. 211 Total, but a More Accurate Total of 154.

Counting them all and using the Total Number Of The List (211) -- that means roughly 9.5% of all total shows I have ever watched (or at least attempted to watch) have been Mostly Good, 13% have been Moderately Okay, 54% have been either entirely Forgettable or some mix of good + bad that lands them right in the Neutral Middle, 15.6% have been Mostly Bad, 6.6% have been Bad (but in an interesting way), and 0.9% have been Terribly Bad.

Additionally, I didn't even get past the first two episodes of about 27% of the total.

Sooo, discounting ones I didn't finish, my total TV shows ever watched in my life would be about 154 (maybe give or take a few, assuming I might have forgotten some from very long ago).

But instead of entire life, let's just say this is the total for 'About 20 Years' (so, not counting very early childhood when I likely wouldn't remember things I saw/have no detailed recollection of them (like for example, I'm sure at some point when I was like 4yrs old I must have seen an episode of Spongebob or something, but I have zero distinct memories of it, can't quote anything of it, and barely recall the premise - so I don't count it on the list, etc.)).

In that case, 154 divided by 20 would be roughly 7.7 shows a year.

Which is actually surprisingly low considering that I often have stuff on in the background for hours whilst I make sculptures and do costumes and stuff (maybe I should have also marked some distinction between 'things I fully paid attention to' and 'things I kind of half listened to whilst sculpting', but that would further split the categories too much probably lol), but I guess a lot of that is youtube videos or random documentaries, so .. eh.. maybe I get it being lower.

Now, doing the same thing for movies-

Movies ~ Rank 5 (highest) - 4 movies (3.4% of total) ~ Rank 4 (mid-high) - 12 movies (10.3% of total) ~ Rank 3 (neutral/default/meh) - 91 movies (78.4% of total) ~ Rank 2 (mid low) - 8 movies (6.8% of total) ~ Rank 1 (low but interesting) - 1 movie (0.8% of total) ~ Rank 0 (irredeemably low) - none in this category (0%)

That makes 116 for a Total (Actually Remembered) Movies Watched In Lifetime (Or At Least In 20 Years).

116 divided by 20 is roughly 5 or 6 movies a year (I feel this has probably been skewed though by adding everything since like elementary school onwards, as I remember a lot more movies from child/teen years.. Whereas, the past 3 years I feel like I've barely seen maybe even 5 movies?? lol). I also have "Didn't Finish" marked on 18 of them. Which means I quit halfway through about 15% of the total movies.

So, a for broader summary stuff..

I seem to be less forgiving to movies than tv shows, by far. Which makes sense to me, I guess, because I love elaboration and details, so "short form" things that only last an hour or two are often lost on me a bit. My biggest complaint with movies is indeed usually walking away just wishing there had been more exposition, more scenes where characters are doing nothing, more "mindless bantering" conversations, more Quiet Downtime and Lore Elaboration and so on lol, so... of course most 1-2hr films end up feeling a bit Not Enough To Draw My Interest/Nothingy to me.

If you count 5 and 4 as "like" and rankings 2 to 0 as "dislike", then for TV shows I at least somewhat liked 48 of them, and at least somewhat disliked 47 of them.. So it's almost exactly the same lol. I'm just about equally as likely to find something bad as I am to find something redeeming about it. But overall, the largest chance is that I just won't really care much for it at all and it will be tossed into the 'neutral' pile, forgotten forever. Movies have a bit better of a balance, "liking" 16 of them, and "disliking" only 9 of them. So I'm slightly more likely to enjoy a movie than to find it annoying - though still VASTLY more likely to just not find it anything in particular, possibly not even finishing it.

ANYWAY.. this is vague and literally pointless, but like I said, I just really find information fun. Like my document where I've rated every apple flavor I've ever tried (like 40 of them now?), or reviewed every oreo flavor (32?), or ranking data from my entire 10 years of Trying To Make Friends process (out of 100 people, roughly 8% chance of a moderate compatibility, 3% chance of high), or etc. etc.. I love to have random pointless things to analyze I suppose lol.

I doubt anyone tracks things in their life in this same exact way, but I'd be interested in hearing any at least somewhat similar data !!! (like, how many TV shows you watch a year on average, and what percentage of those you like vs. dislike (if you keep track of that sort of thing), etc.)). I guess it might be easier with movies, since I think some people use those websites where you curate a list of movies you've seen and you can rate them or something, so maybe the numbers are already available on those places. :0

[rotisseries]

rick riordan dickriders on here will be like "why are you complaining about the pjo tv show, go watch the movies and see what a bad adaptation really looks like" ok well listen to the musical watch it on youtube and see what a good adaptation looks like bitch. it can be done. as a fucking stage musical. what did that 15 million per episode do for disney that chris mccarell couldn't

[starleska]

this year i wanna focus more on gesture and dynamic poses!!! so have a little WIP of the Magic Man G himself, Gustafson from Jingle Jangle: A Christmas Journey, based on a Fred Astaire reference 🥰💖

[quietwingsinthesky]

sometimes interpreting media through a shipping lens enhances it, on occasion even beyond the author’s original intent, but sometimes, you do have to accept that your ship was not in the heads of anyone making the source material and trying to force it to fit into evidence of your ship will severely hinder your ability to discuss the actual text.

[cipheramnesia]

The Rob Zombie Halloween movies are not exactly good, but they have this little chestnut of an idea that's intriguing.

The original two Halloween movies hinge on the core premise that Michael Meyers is a kind of empty vessel which embodies evil. You have to buy into the idea a little, because if you don't, not only do the movies not work as well, but also the character of Dr. Loomis comes of as an unhinged, abusive monster of a doctor. Which feels like something Rob Zombie intentionally wanted his version to consider. Ultimately the movies are not successful, likely in some measure through studio interference, but this explains a good deal of decisions which put Zombie's Halloween at loggerheads with the original movies and the fandom.

The thing about Rob Zombie is that his fans are his worst critics, in that they don't want him to make anything except a carbon copy of House of 1000 Corpses or Devil's Rejects, and when he tries to do more interesting (and in the case of Lords of Salem, significantly better) movies, they piss all over themselves in outrage. When you combine his unusual take on Halloween with a stylistic departure as well, the movies has no chance.

The funny thing is, in retrospect, Zombie's changes are actually the better choice compared to the slavishly accurate recent Halloweens, or any of the sequels following Halloween 2. He gave Michael Meyers a voice, and a more complex history, and a human connection, and all these details which fans mostly hated, but which repositioned Michael from hollow monster to a person who was deeply failed by the world. And the thing of it is, there's nothing left to explore after Halloween 2, which means the only place to go if you want to be interesting about the character is a radically different direction.

That's what Rob Zombie did, his version wasn't supposed to be scary as a remorseless killing machine, but scary as someone who was formed into a terrible creature by the world deciding for him that he is a monster. You can see this most of all with how Malcolm McDowell portrays his version of Loomis as self centered, malicious, and incompetent by varying degrees. It's stating as loudly as possible to the audience hey, this person is terrible at helping people, he is awful and his characterization of Michael Meyers as "evil" is self serving and horrible. It's meant to make the audience step back and realize, no matter how terrible the things Michael does, he's a child and locking him up for his entire life is a fucked up thing to do.

Now, ultimately the films are a mess, and this little idea doesn't really hold together or develop. I believe it's intentional still, but winds up being incompatible with what, I assume through studio pressure, is a movie too close to the original Halloween to make room for a different approach. I couldn't necessarily recommend watching them, but as failures they're still interesting.

[that-disabled-radfem]

tw: rape

gyns I wanna be clear that I’m not out here to hate on Women Talking because it was a really really really great film and I love Sarah Polley and wish her nothing but the best. And even though I was confused by Toews’ choice to make so much of the book about August, I still love her writing and enjoyed the book. and I really think y’all would really like the movie and the book and you should definitely go see it if you have the chance

but we gotta talk what happens to Nettie/Melvin in the film adaptation!!

breif overview of the concept: Women Talking is loosely inspired by the events of the Manitoba Mennonite Colony in Bolivia - women were repeatedly drugged and raped in the night. they were told that they were making it up or that they’d been attacked by the devil as punishment but in reality it was the men of the colony. this happened between 2005 and 2009 but probably continued even after the men were caught and arrested

so in the book Nettie is attacked and she is impregnated and later loses her child. this is obviously traumatic. she changes her name to Melvin and begins dressing as a man. (obviously because she’s living in a traditional mennonite colony, she can never fully take on the role of a man - her job becomes caring for the children) it is very clear in the book that this (as well as her no longer speaking to adults) is a trauma response and Toews refers to this character as Nettie, Nettie/Melvin, and Melvin but settles on Melvin at the end though she ALWAYS calls Melvin ‘she’

the movie however, within like thirty seconds of introducing Nettie/Melvin the film explicitly says (via narration. like when I say explicit, I mean explicit!) that Melvin is not living as a man as a result of trauma. It was something along the lines of “Melvin was a man all along. He just couldn’t hide it any more after it happened.” So instead, being raped and losing a child act as catalyst events that make Melvin’s life as a woman untenable

and I just hate that they’ve taken the easy way out with this! it’s so much more interesting and truthful (!) to be like this character is living in an overtly hierarchical, misogynist society and on top of that she experiences a series of distinctly sex-based trauma in addition to living amongst this growing collective trauma that the women are experiencing and so she attempts to live as a man for her safety! like how can you not see that that is what’s happening

[steeltwigz]

Saw a post abt the Sonic movies that was like "plz filter negativity posts better" which is GOOD AND TRUE you should be doing that. Ok. But then they kept going to imply that the criticisms of the Sonic movies are all entirely Personal and Ignorable and not like. Usually abt the horrific copaganda, misogynistic writing, and Paramount's disgusting zionism.... Guys a lot of ppls problem w the Knuckles show wasn't JUST a bastardization of Knuckles' character or thinking Wade was annoying or whatever, but like was focused on the grotesque Zionist message from that one episode 😭😭😭 you can enjoy something and still recognize that it has intrinsic and huge glaring flaws and talk abt them. I think actually you Should be speaking up abt the misogyny, zionism and propaganda the SCU supports and discusses, ESPECIALLY if you like the movies! Its important to be able to recognize these things in media and admit that even media you personally enjoy can be deeply problematic, instead of hiding it away and pretending those HUGE FLAWS aren't issues actually....

[fullscoreshenanigans]

Joking aside in the previous post, I do actually like how a lot of those little instances highlight how the dissolution of the farm system wasn't the result of a single individual character's efforts.

Sometimes I'll see greater focus on the contributions of certain characters—usually Norman and Ray, for a variety of reasons—elevating them a bit as a testament to how much they appreciate them, maybe with a bit of hyperbole how the escape or another event hinged on them above others, when one of the main themes Shirai wanted to stress is how it's through collective effort and solidarity that systemic change is accomplished.

One of the better escape outcomes—all the orphans of plant 3 who could be shipped in a two-year time period fleeing Grace Field—is possible because of the combined strengths of the full score trio in concocting and executing a viable plan, and Emma putting her trust in her family after seeing how capable Don and Gilda were. (Going further, Isabella was convinced that if she took out the leaders of the plan, that would be the end of it.)

The Grace Field escapees are able to survive out in the wilderness much more comfortably due to the combined sacrifices of Mujika's clan and Minerva's followers.

The destruction of Goldy Pond is due to years of planning and sacrifice by the Goldy Pond Resistance.

Λ7214's destruction and the subsequent establishment of the paradise hideout is due to a collaboration between the cattle children, them benefiting from the network of intelligence constructed by Minerva's followers, and them taking advantage of what remained of a long-lost demon colony's architecture to provide them seclusion and safety away from demons that would eat them.

The fall of Legravalima's court is possible due to the alliance between Norman and Geelan's clan.

The raid on Grace Field headquarters is possible due to a united effort between the cattle children who weren't captured by Peter and the moms and sisters uniting against Peter.

I want to say this plays into the mythologization of the individual that's common in many narratives, also for a variety of reasons, including practical convenience and scope of focus. But all of this is also tempered by these being mostly informal discussions and serve as a testament to how much affection is held for these characters, and there is something to be said about how sometimes it just takes the right personality, the right metaphorical spark, to take advantage of the kindling provided to it through those collective efforts, as alluded to in "Touch off."

[roguemonsterfucker]

don't mind me i'm just watching some monsterfucker movies for 'research' purposes

[chloecherrysip]

Every time Mario is visibly concerned/worried about Luigi in the trailers/TV spots/sneak peeks/etc shown so far.

[eonveil]

i know the eng dub gets a bad rep for changing the original ost to inferior tracks and most of the time it's deserved, but lugia's song in the eng dub of the 2nd is SO much better than the japanese version imo it's insane

[moonchild-in-blue]

Sometimes all you need is a good ol' coffee shop au tbh.

[tyrantwombat]

There is a lot happening right now, but the authorial decision to relay this to the reader by putting Song Taewon, Han Yoojin, and Sung Hyunjae alone in a room together had to have been The most chaotic way to go about it.

Case and point: Song Taewon heard 'possibility of double suicide' and didn't think twice. Sung Hyunjae is lovingly feeding them personally baked goods while nearly actually vibrating with the desire to absolutely murder both of them. Han Yoojin - the man who walked into this building prepared to blow it up with a bomb as an expression of disgruntlement - is currently the acting voice of reason as he desperately tries to referee this shit with a gun.

Some highlights:

SHJ: I'm still trying to decide if I should kill you.

HYJ: *oh free juice!* Officer Song, sit down please, he said he's still thinking about it.

---

STW&SHJ: *very literary showdown scene, very dramatic**you who are better than I at stripping away the monster and swallowing it whole-* *pst use looting* *pst I got it*

HYJ, in background: *staring into camera like he's on the office are you seeing this shit*

--

HYJ: You know you could die, right?

STW: I'm fine with that.

HYJ: Of course you are.

---

HYJ: WILL YOU BOTH JUST SHUT UP NO ONE IS DYING THIS TIME

---

STW:

STW: why

STW:

STW: why is there a child?

---

HYJ: okay but hear me out...

HYJ: what if you could kill me?

[deviousdiesel]

.