#the actual article that came out was nothing like this interview which is not how Jackie does things but this was too depressing to print

[cryingpariah]

Jackie: Thank you for taking the time out of your no doubt busy schedule to meet with me and let me, on behalf of World Economic Journal, congratulate you on your promotion to Fleet Admiral.

Akainu: Thank you. How long is this going to take? I’m rather busy.

Jackie: No time at all really! Just a few questions to properly introduce the world to the new face of the Marines! Before we get started do you mind if I set down a recording den den?

Akainu: Yes, it would. Why do you need to record me?

Jackie: Oh it’s just in case I miss anything in my note taking-

Akainu: Then don’t miss anything. Start the interview.

Jackie: …Are you planning on smoking throughout this interview Fleet Admiral?

Akainu: Is That A Problem?

Jackie: No, secondhand smoke has always been my preferred way to get lung cancer!

Akainu: ….

Jackie: Just a little joke Sir *ahem* Question #1 - What are your plans for the Marines given the current climate?

Akainu: To crush all pirates underfoot.

Jackie: *writing* crush..pirates..underfoot. Yes that makes sense, what else?

Akainu: What do you mean?

Jackie: What other things are you planning besides crushing pirates?

Akainu: *glaring* What else is there?

Jackie: You could prioritize the protection of citizens and islands since the Paramount war caused quite a spike in the pirate population! Or instruction the soldiers to provide basic self defence/medical care crash courses! Oh! How about focusing on providing humanitarian relief to isolated islands-

Akainu: You are..awfully chatty.

Jackie: Curse of the trade I’m afraid. Let’s continue. Question #2 - What do you believe is the biggest problem the Navy currently has?

Akainu: There’s isn’t one.

Jackie: This isn’t supposed to be a crack at you Fleet Admiral. It’s supposed to show how objective you can be. There is no such thing as a flawless organization.

Akainu: Hm. There is an issue that permeates the navy: Its members are too soft. They don’t have what it takes to uphold absolute justice.

Jackie: Alrighty then. Navy..corps..too..soft. Question #3 - Do you believe the wants of the many outweigh the needs of the few?

Akainu: Well who are the many and the few?

Jackie: …. *writing*

Akainu: What are you writing, I didn’t give my answer yet.

Jackie: *sharp inhale of breath* Yeah, you kinda already did. Last question - Do you have anything you'd want to say to the world as the new era approaches steadily?

Akainu: *still perturbed* I- Yes. The Great Pirate Era will come to an end under my watch. Pirates, revolutionaries, crooks and thieves alike will never again dare to challenge the heroes of this world. True Justice will prevail.

Jackie: *writing* I..really..hope..so.

[flamblouyant-blog]

The Lost 2011 Swedish Interview in QX Magazine

First I want to say if you know anything more about this article, please share it!!

I went through countless blogs on here with timelines, huge masterposts, rare pics etc .. and couldn't find anything about it. So here is everything I was able dig up

QX is a gay magazine in Sweden

Translation x - link to the original post they translated for us

(Please look at the link though because I didn't show everything below)

There is so much to unpack here ...

but

As far as I know, they are the only page to have ever posted that article. It was published Nov 6 2011, this Tumblr post was posted Nov 24 2011. And everyone thought they were lying. No one could find the source, so he posted this x

Now here's some reactions he got because for some reason, he was the only one to talk about the article it seemed?

Now let's go back to Harry saying this

UM?? Hello? I feel like I'm losing my mind

and then it was never really talked about again!! none of these responses have any notes and then there was really nothing at all after this.

How I even came across all this is because I was going through all my archives on here and stumbled upon it

July 28 2014 this account posted that they found the article x

So it took 3.5 years for it to ever be found/mentioned/talked about again? This post only has 700 notes so it quickly died back down and then once again, was never talked about again

edit: I made the mistake thinking that was posted July 2014, but that was when I reblogged it. It was originally posted in 2012 - which makes it even more interesting that it was still circulating for years but never really picked up

And here's some other pages from the magazine

Someone please talk with me about this because I feel like I'm going insane!!!

Link to the magazine online x and it's still available for sale so if anyone buys it please let me know!!

UPDATING as I get more info

@bulletprooflarry actually did have this in their timeline masterpost :') link here x

This interview was on October 2, 2011 (the magazine was published in November)

Thank you @broken-beaks for this comment

‘This is from October 2nd in 2011 when they were at Nobis Hotel in Stockholm, getting interviewed by Ronny Larsson before their signing at Café Opera for the fan project #Bring1DtoMe :)’

(please do not message him) but he did confirm that he did the magazine interview this same day and it was not video recorded

That means the interview was done the same day as

THANK YOU to @mloucember @Rosann_1986 on X (twitter) for helping with finding the interviewer :')

THANK YOU @hoovesandfloorpaws for finding the bulletprooflarry tl and also this blog @hazzalovesboo that talked about it in 2012 as well x

And thank you to her AGAIN bc she just posted the full English translation to the article that’s a much easier read x :) please check it out

[lemotmo]

I need to lie down and hyperventilate in private

Q. Help! That episode feels too good to be true. Did we actually just see all of that play out? The interviews scared me though because I don't know why any of them chose to talk like they did after everything we just watched. I just want some reassurance. I'm dying.

A. Okay I have a very big meeting today that I have to concentrate on which is wildly unfair because my brain is full of Buddie and I'm afraid I'm going to say it out loud accidentally at some point during the meeting. But because of that meeting I don't have the time today to answer everything in my box so I'm going to cover it all here. Here goes nothing.

I don't want to hear about the interviews. They're mostly irrelevant for now. Neither Oliver or Ryan said anything they wouldn't normally say when answering a question they can't fully honestly answer right now. And as for Tim, Tim likes to hear himself talk. And Tim also very much enjoys the game where he uses the episode post mortems to play with the audience. He likes to make people crazy. He likes to watch the spiral. That's it. This is fun for him. The GA is not reading these articles. He knows who he's speaking too. Giving you assurance means spoiling the story. He's not going to do that. Stop taking every word he says as literal. In the same breath he said he didn't want to lead people into thinking they're doing something they are not doing, he also said he was going to let the episodes speak for themselves. This episode spoke LOUDLY. This episode was basically shouting in our faces (shout-out to the prominently displayed artwork of the guy with the megaphone hanging on Eddie's wall). How loud was this episode? Let's take a look. Take the opening scene and the last scene for instance. The first scene shows Buck and Eddie on the same side of a wall, a glass wall, literally meaning you can see through it. When they start talking about Eddie moving away he physically moves himself to the other side of the wall, directly opposite of Buck. Visually showing a division of the pair, so their differing ways of dealing with their impending bigger separation. At the end of the scene though Buck opens the door to meet Eddie on his side of the wall. Signaling Buck's reluctant willingness to try and do this Eddie s way, but I'll come back to that. At the end of the episode we see the two of them again separated by another wall. However we cannot see through this wall. This wall indicates a separation of the two that will remove them from one another's line of sight, Buck in L.A. and Eddie in Texas. The wall has artwork from Buck's loft, including the pic of the guy with the megaphone, and Buck asks Eddie how he feels about tearing down the wall. The wall represents everything that stands in their way. Texas and everything Eddie has to do there before he can be ready. And this episode proved Buck is not there yet either. Buck needs to work on himself as well. They can't be together until they figure out how to remove their walls. They don't have to be healed, but they have to acknowledge the walls they've each created for themselves. If the episode only had those two scenes it would have been insane enough. But not only did we get those two scenes, we got everything that came in between.

Buck had genuine intentions when he offered to help Eddie show his house, but Buck doesn't want him to leave so he inadvertently, maybe slightly intentionally, sabotaged every single showing. This scene was heaven. This was straight out of a fanfic. They looked like husbands. They acted like husbands. BUCK WAS HOLDING A BASKETBALL WHILE ACTIVELY SABATOGING ONE OF THEM. Having Eddie say to one of them that the only things that matter are in Texas and having Buck overhear that was an amazing choice because it plays into Buck's biggest fear and the part of himself he desperately needs to confront and deal with. Using an actual dog to represent Buck's abandonment issues was genius. The dog was clearly Buck. When the family came to claim the dog Buck's conversation with the dog was for Eddie. He was talking to Eddie, but it was easier to hide behind the dog. Eddie not babying Buck is also huge. I don't know why people want him to make Buck a baby. But Eddie didn't owe him an apology in this episode. Buck was out of line repeatedly. And it's important in their dynamic that Eddie continues to call him out when he gets like that. Because he does listen to Eddie above anyone else. Buck broke my head in this episode but so did Eddie. They're both hurting and trying to deal with it in different ways.

The dialogue choices were jaw dropping. 'I'm sorry I outed you in front of cap and everyone'. That line being canon is bonkers. Because that wasn't nearly the easiest or cleanest way for Buck to say he was sorry. The obvious line would be I'm sorry I told everyone before you were ready. They actively made it more of an awkward line specifically to work a coming out reference into the dialogue. Eddie telling Buck if he's asking him to choose between him or his son he will lose every time was also next level insane because Buck has never, and would never ask Eddie to make that choice. But it's clearly what Eddie feels like he's having to do and right now ,for him, it's easier to make it sound like Buck is the one forcing him to choose. It's a coping mechanism. And not something Eddie is ready to unpack or examine yet. Then there's the fake name Buck gave himself: Freddie Fakeman. It's very on the nose but Freddie = Eddie and Fakeman = Eddie not being who he's supposed to be.

Buck gave up his loft. Just walked away. Because he loves Eddie in a way he doesn't fully understand or realize yet, but it's coming. Buck is close. And he wanted to ease the burden for his person. Eddie has never been loved like that. And right now he doesn't believe he's deserving of love like that. And probably doesn't understand why someone would love him like that. But his face at the end when he realized he doesn't have to ask for it. Buck will just always be there to help in any way he can. He just sometimes takes the more difficult route. That episode was stunning in every way. The Abby parallels are giving me life. Abby left and Buck moved in to wait for her to come home. Eddie is leaving and Buck is moving in fully believing that Eddie is not coming home. This is all intentional and done with purpose. There's no way to put the lid back on this box, anon. There is only one way out and that is getting Eddie out and them together. Things are going to happen between now and then obviously because neither one of them is ready yet but they've started both of them on the journey towards one another and it's not going to take long. This episode was LOUD.

Thank you Nonny!

I feel like I've been talking about this episode all day long now, adding new interesting tidbits to my observations and to my initial episode reaction.

All of the topics Ali touched upon here are so true. I agree with all of this. This is definitely the true point of no return for Buddie. The arc has been set in motion. No stopping them now! 😏

Heads up! For anyone who is giving me the shifty eyes for reposting Ali's updates instead of reblogging. Read this.

Remember, no hate in comments, reblogs or inboxes. Let's keep it civil and respectful. Thank you.

If you are interested in more of Ali’s posts, you can find all of her posts so far under the tag: anonymous blog I love.

[chemical-ghoul]

emily armstrong scientology thingo

That freak who wants Emily dead and thinks she’s married to Chester has me blocked so I can post whatever I want now thank the fucking lord 🙏

I've done tons of research on this topic and like… there is so much proof against Emily being in Scientology, people refuse to inform themselves outside of random articles or listen to people of the likes of Jamie Bennington, who is known for making up obvious vile lies about the band & who's own mother has a restraining order against him due to his crazy claims and stalkerish behaviour. Obviously we won't know anything until and unless Emily says something but I'm absolutely willing to bet she's either on her way out or has been out for a while.

If there’s anything wrong here please do feel free to correct me, I love learning about this topic.

For the things that still may qualify her being in the cult, other than her ~2013 & prior involvement from the gala (that brought awareness to this issue in the first place) the only CURRENT things I can think of are probably

1: her relationship with her mother--it doesn't necessarily mean she's in or out, but her mother is a higher up in the cult and therefore would probably want to provent her daughter leaving. Emily has discussed speaking to her mother as recently as September.

and 2: the other members of her band Dead Sara either are or have previously also been scientologists. again this doesn’t mean she hasn’t left, but it would explain why she wouldn’t speak out as it would make her into a suppressive person and have her immediately lose that connection if they are still inside of the cult.

As much as I wish she wouldn’t, I understand why she would still want to connect with her mother even if she isn’t in the cult anymore. And she can absolutely do that, but if she wants to speak out about it it’d mean leaving her mother and potentially her bandmates behind and becoming a suppressive person, which I doubt she would want to do. From what I can gather, she’s most likely left silently.

The only real proof of her ever being properly active in the cult at the time of me writing this, are from photos and other peoples retellings of her as a child (some of which explain just how uninterested she was IN actually being a scientologist), one completed task on her profile from 2007 & the latest being in 2013, when she went to a Scientology celebrity gala (probably the wrong name but i'm mind blanking) and there's been basically nothing since.

For the things against her being in the cult: For starters she has never promoted the cult. She's mentioned having a therapist in recent interviews and discusses mental health & anti religion SO much in her music. I don't think someone whose ideologies still line up with Scientology would have been as anti religion and pro mental health help as she is and has been. I believe a while after 2013, maybe roughly when 'Pleasure to Meet You' (Dead Sara’s 2nd full album) released?, is when her lyrics began getting more close to lyrics that a scientologist probably wouldn't write. Alongside this, since 2017, a few years after PTMY came out, fans have noticed changes in her attitude that make her seem a lot happier and less tired. I think this change is worth a mention, as the record that came out after 2017, Temporary Things Taking Up Space, is so lyrically against all of Scientology’s values it’s shocking a so called hardcore scientologist could even think to sing these songs.

Colin, Linkin Park’s drummer, has denied himself having any connections with the cult in a vague instagram comment, which isn't much but I do think if they want to stay quiet small instagram comments poking fun at people accusing them is a fine way to go about confirming anything. Mike spoke out about Scientology a year after he met her--which in most cases and discussions i've seen, would have a scientologist cut ties entirely with a person. She has associated with many people who have left the cult and spoken out about them, Mike being the most obvious example but Beck is a good one too. He left the cult many years ago and only spoke out about it years later due to fear of retaliation from the church. She’s also friends with Brian Bowen Smith who to my knowledge photographed Leah Remini for her book about Scientology.

Her being a lesbian also helps my case, but not by much because if anything it really depends on if she came out before she was in Dead Sara or not. They tend to allow famous people to be lgbtq without issue by the looks of things, but we aren't sure when she came out. Speaking of DS, they have performed at lots of events raising money and awareness for mental health including the charity Talinda Bennington (Chester's wife) set up after Chester passed away. Not really relevant but worth a mention, they’re also good friends with the band Badflower, who have songs that are very openly about mental health and abuse. I don’t see a scientologist being friends with someone like Josh Katz who can write and sing those words.

The people accusing her of being a hardcore scientologist (Cedric and his wife Chrissie? could be wrong about her name—also those shitty scientology youtubers who keep making videos on this subject that should really be dropped by now LMAO) are still yet to really show any proof she's still in other than claims which I don't think should be taken as 100% fact—none of this paragraph stuff should either but I think someone who’s been a LP fan for years and has always been very openly anti scientology may have a good outlook on the situation so this is my two cents.

[awsugar]

And I forgot about the DRUMS!!! I think this is an album they may have been working on for years. I think they are going for a magnum opus

yea so i read this went you sent it at 6am cause ive been out of work sick for a few days now and my sleep is allll messed up. and i tinhatted EXTREMELY close to the sun on this one. but i kind of think im cooking. so let me explain.

also ill just say i think because we know somethings coming but we dont know what BUT we know there are threads throughout somehow connecting things from years prior like. all tinhatting is plausible until proven otherwise. if we want to draw a connection between two things we CAN. and i think thats why im so on board with mcr5 now when i havent been since 2019. bc ive done this before. i was in the trenches for the danger days rollout/promo and the transmissions on the website and everything and THAT was one of the most exciting times of my life and THIS reminds me of that. im glad people never gave up on mcr5 but they never gave me ENOUGH before now to really run with. and now they have and its a free for all. THIS is what being an mcr fan is about. tbh. this is what this fandom has been missing for AGES. when they dont give us teasers and lore and crpytic messages we devolve into like theorizing and arguing with each other about who they are as people. but this is the basis of mcr community to me....getting together with your pals inside your phone and inside your laptop (who now have grown ito irl friends for so many of us) and dissecting every shred of info they give us. thank god for my chemical romance.

ANYWAY sorry that. went down a path i didnt intend when i started. so yes um so what you said about them going for a magnum opus. let me tell you a little story. when i was in my first year of being a my chem fan, i was 13, i became QUICKLY obsessed, first with the black parade and then after i spent i think 2 months straight listening to nothing but the black parade on repeat all day every day (literally) i ventured into their other stuff and got like really sucked in to everything else, reading articles and interviews and watching every video of them youtube had to offer and talking about them 24/7 on the forums instead of doing homework, i would sneak the family laptop into my room at night so i could keep reading about them and talking about them instead of having to go to sleep it was THE most exhilarating and exciting time of my life. anyway. i remember (16 years later) reading a specific review of the black parade that said something like "my chemical romance will never top this album and they know it" and i STILL REMEMBER sitting on the couch and crying over it. because i had never listened to music that had made such an impact on me as the black parade IN MY LIFE. nothing had ever made me feel that way and that strongly as listening to that album. you know how we all always say we wish we could listen to my chem for the first time again just to have that feeling again. that was me. i had never experienced an album of their when it came out and i felt like the author of the article was telling me that i would basically never acheive that high again. it was devastating. i promise this is relevant. bc regardless of your PERSONAL FAVORITE my chem album, it is generally agreed upon that the black parade is their magnum opus. it just is. both in scale and musically and its impact on pop culture and its the best known to a general audience.

so you say they're going for a magnum opus. when the black parade is DEAD. they killed it. (in the new lore they were sent to the MOAT which i assume is some kind of exile and stripping of their status as the national band)

and so i started thinking about "in the face of extermination say FUCK YOU" and i think this applies here two-fold actually. MAYBE 3-fold. on one hand, in-universe. extermination being the concrete age, the dictator holding the people down and exterminating their livelihood. but also the extermination of the black parade! and then - irl - we have the extermination of mcr's chances of doing something huge again like this. music publications resigning them as soon as the album came out to never achieving something as epic and grand as that again.

and the FUCK YOU being, the opposition of the dictator from the people, the black parade being reinstated but? maybe they have plans to overthrow the dictator? IRL mcr saying fuck you, we can actually use the concept that you said was the best we would ever do, completely turn it on its head, and make something even more grandiose and epic and MAGNUM OPUS.

and also hail just reminded me obv of the UNKILLABLES drumhead in sydney. which both relates to franks personal experience there but also like. with this concept of in the face of extermination say fuck you. along with his end of tour post being a cockroach, notoriously unkillable! notoriously a target for extermination!!!!

god theres so many layers to this but i needed to get it off my chest do you still like me

[meltthefrozenheart]

Revealing these questions at D23 is a good signal for Frozen 3 & 4

<Coming out of Frozen 2 we still had questions, a lot of questions actually. That's just page one. Now you see why it will take two films to answer them> - Jennifer Lee

Now, we all are speculating about the direction these two new movies will lead us, but I think the most interesting aspect is how much they anticipated these questions to the audience. I won't disect them because a lot of people already did that and it would be too long for me, but still, I think it's important to consider what all this might mean.

When it came down to Frozen 2, they didn't anticipate that much to the audience until it was the D23 Expo of 2019 and for the most part they were left mostly for the interviews that these questions (here a ScreenRant article for example):

Here they decided instead to go with a 3 years anticipation about what the two movies will mostly be about. This means they have already an idea of where they are headed, at least premises wise.

I think the most important aspect here is that the questions put on stage connect back to both Frozen and Frozen 2.

F2 already did that by answering a couple of important questions connected to the first movie:

Why Agnarr and Iduna chose such an extreme course with their daughters? The trauma of what happened 34 years before in the Enchanted Forest

Where were the parents headed to which led to their deaths? They were trying to sail through the Dark Sea to reach Ahtohallan and have answers about Elsa powers

Why Elsa was born with her icy powers? As a gift because Iduna saved Agnarr's life when they were little despite being on opposite sides

In that case those were all things connected to the sisters and their parents, basically focusing mainly on the prologue part of F1.

As we can see, the Frozen 3/4 questions extend beyond Anna & Elsa, allowing other important characters like Kristoff, Sven, Olaf, Marshmallow & the Snowgies and even Hans to appear in this list. Yeah, maybe some will most likely be for fun and quickly answered (the iconic Oaken expression for example), but it doesn't sound much logical to spent two movies just to maybe make fun of some characters, that sounds pretty stupid.

I think it's clear the intention here is basically the same when they were making Frozen 2: trying to give a sense of complition and clearness to the saga as a whole, not simply introducing a new situation with new characters.

Even questions related to the ruins in Ahtohallan, the idea of a previous Fifth Spirit, getting a better understanding of Elsa's evergrowing powers and see the challenges Anna will face as Queen are all elements that most likely will allow to expand the world of Frozen beyond the Arendelle and Northuldra borders.

After all, even the Frozen 3 concept art only give us an initial idea of what we will see but, just like the F1 concept always showed at D23 shows us almost nothing about the the plot (just Anna and Elsa skating), it's not all.

Who knows, maybe we will see the Duke of Weselton again? Or the Trolls are in fact hiding something, but maybe not what people has theorized for years?

[colferpics]

SNL: How Chris Colfer Ended Up on "What's Up With That?"

Article below the cut:

Sit down and take a big, mental Ooooo weeeee — it’s not like Diondre Cole will let you get a word in anyway. Chris Colfer learned this in spectacularly amusing fashion while appearing on the seventh edition of Saturday Night Live’s recurring “What Up With That?” sketch, which found the Gleeactor sandwiched between a real Paul Simon and fake Lindsey Buckingham. (The latter of whom, as always, cut his family vacation short to be there.) Teased as part of “a salute to music greats” on the show’s May 14, 2011, episode, Colfer had the honor of fulfilling the essential duties of the middle chair: silently tolerating the absurdity of how Diondre (Kenan Thompson) runs his made-for-BET program, as the host would rather disrupt his guests with elaborate song-and-dance routines than actually let them talk. While the first guest tends to get a sentence or two in — Simon briefly hypes up his new album — the second is often relegated to reaction shots while a Narnia wardrobe full of characters such as, say, “the bad boy of bluegrass” Captain Sexy Banjo and the real Buckingham materialize out of nowhere. If you’re overthinking it, just stop. “What Up With That?” was not intended for analysis.

Colfer, who had recently wrapped Glee’s phenomena of a second season, was at the right place at the right time for SNL to think of him for the cameo. Plans were canceled. Excitement ran high. It all went live in 36 hours. And he didn’t care that he had nothing to do besides cross his legs. “It’s such a special memory for me. Being a microscopic spot of SNL history is the ultimate bragging right,” he says now. “If anyone ever tries to one-up me at a party, I whip that one out, and I usually win the conversation.”

How exactly was this sketch presented to you? Were you aware that it had already become a recurring and well-oiled SNL staple of sorts? Yeah, I was. I’ve always been a huge fan of SNL, so I was familiar with the sketch and I thought it was hilarious. I was in New York City, and I had just done a live interview. I did so many interviews at the time for Glee that I can’t even remember who it was for. My publicist and I were walking down, like, 47th or 48th Street afterward, and she got a random call. It was Friday afternoon. One of SNL’s bookers had just seen me on live television and asked if I was still in the city. They said, “Can he do a cameo in tomorrow night’s episode?”And I responded, “Hell yes, absolutely.” No joke: They asked me to come in for a rehearsal immediately. So we had to clear the rest of my afternoon and went straight to Rockefeller Center. It was the easiest rehearsal I’ve ever done, because I didn’t have to do anything. I just had to sit there and be quiet. Then I went in the next day, and we did the dress rehearsal and then we did the live taping. It was magical.

Did you instinctively understand the humor? I mean, when I tell friends about my love of “What Up With That?”, what comes out of my mouth is jumbled nonsense about BET and a fake Lindsey Buckingham. It’s not the easiest thing to wrap a mind around. I did. I remember on Saturday, in between the rehearsal and the live taping, the writers came to my dressing room and said, “We want to give you a line. Let’s try this out.” And I responded, “Absolutely not. You cannot give me a line. It’s way funnier if I’m just there and I don’t say anything.” And they looked at me and said, “Well, you’re the first guest to ever say that, and thank God, because we agree.”

An excellent instinct. I can’t remember what the specific line was, but I was going to say something at the very end, and Kenan’s character was going to cut me off. But we all agreed it was funnier if I didn’t even try to talk.

So you sit down for the dress rehearsal, look to your left, and there’s Paul Simon in the chair. What was your opening line to him? It was a complete secret who was in those seats until I showed up at that rehearsal. They didn’t tell me any details until I actually arrived in the studio — I had to be escorted right on the stage to my seat. I didn’t even have a script. Well, I didn’t need one, of course, because I wasn’t saying anything. And then I turned to my left and it’s Paul Simon. And then I turned to my right, and it’s Lindsey Buckingham waiting in the wings of the set. How the heck did I get here? I couldn’t say anything. I froze. I remember thinking at that moment, Chris, do not ask any questions about Stevie Nicks or Carrie Fisher. I had to repeat that to myself over and over and over again in my head. Paul Simon probably thought I was a seat filler.

So you didn’t ask if he was a Gleek? Oh God, no. I never assume anyone knows who I am or knows where I’m from.

Was there a sense of nerves on your end before the live taping began? It’s funny, because this required the least amount of effort on my part, but I was still extremely nervous. I was nervous that I would trip on the way there. But more so than nerves, it’s just that that show is pure adrenaline. It’s chaos, but it’s organized chaos. Everyone knows exactly what they’re doing, but it’s absolutely what you would imagine: People running back and forth in the hallways, carrying props and costumes and set pieces. It was really, really neat. I still have my little Chris Colfer plaque for my dressing room.

Where do you keep it?I have an awards case, so it’s on display there. It was a gift.

For me, at least, the best part of the sketch is all of the wordless expressions taking in the absurdity of everything. Do you remember how the writers wanted you to react to certain beats? The direction that the three of us were given was: “You’re on the show with this lunatic who doesn’t let his guests talk. Look as annoyed and out of place as possible.” So that seems easy, in theory, but the hardest part was not laughing my ass off. There’s one particular moment, when Kristen Wiig does this little hoedown in the middle of the sketch while a banjo plays. Everyone in the audience was falling to pieces, and I was looking at the ceiling so I wouldn’t join them. I got to release some of the joy in that moment.

The lineage of “middle seat” people includes Mindy Kaling, Ernest Borgnine, Carrie Brownstein, Robin Williams, and Jack McBrayer. Do you see any connective tissue among you all? I feel like I would just be flattering myself trying to make a connection, so instead I’ll say we all just happened to be free at the right time and have a good sense of humor.

Who do you think would be uniquely qualified to portray a fake Chris Colfer? The only person I know who could do it is Marcia Gay Harden — with a good wig. Years ago, they were going to do an episode of Glee where something happened at McKinley High School. There was going to be this big, fake movie made about it. So we were all casting ourselves on who would play our characters in this fake movie. They had Glenn Close playing Sue Sylvester and Justin Timberlake as Matthew Morrison. So I said, “Well, Marcia Gay Harden has to play me.” It was a big joke. Unfortunately, the episode didn’t happen, but they were thinking about actually making it.

Did you go to the SNL after-party in celebration of the episode? Yes, I did, and I got to chat with Lorne Michaels for a little bit. It’s really hard to make small talk with someone with that kind of résumé. You don’t want to ask the wrong question, and you don’t want to seem like you’re too big of a fan. But I couldn’t help myself. I asked about the history of the show, his favorite sketches, and the sketches he regretted. He was very kind and open to answering everything. He did tell me I’d be back on, so I’ll hold him to it one day.

Have you ever cut a family vacation short to do a talk show? I’m sure I have. I’ve cut family vacations short for much, much less, too.

[cyren-myadd]

What do you think Jake and Spider's relationship will be like in A3?

This is such a simple question but I am about to go full tinfoil hat mode with the answer so strap in and get ready for the ride y'all. I put a summary at the very end if you don't feel like reading the whole thing.

okay okay okay so do you guys remember all those news articles that came out before Avatar 2 that described Spider as "Jake and Neytiri's adopted human son" ? And then Avatar 2 actually came out and it clearly wasn't true? I mean, Jake leaves Spider for dead with the RDA and Neytiri threatens to kill him, they're the furthest thing from adoptive parents!

After I saw the movie, I kept wondering how in the world the articles got it so wrong. So at some point I was rereading them and I discovered something...

All of the articles that describe Spider as the Sully's adopted son go back to one source: a quote from Jon Landau. Landau was the producer of the Avatar movies who recently passed away sadly. (May he rest in peace). As the producer, he was regarded as a trustworthy source to give information on Avatar 2. Here's an excerpt from one of the articles:

“Jake took him in but Neytiri always saw him as one of the people who destroyed her home and killed her father,” producer Jon Landau tells Empire of Spider, in The Batman issue. “So you have all these dynamics playing out.”

The late Jon Landau himself said, "Jake took him in." But despite what he said, we can clearly see in Avatar 2 that Spider is not "taken in" by Jake, since Jake had no qualms about leaving Spider behind with the RDA when every time the other children were in danger, he stopped at nothing to rescue them.

So my question is, why would Landau say Jake took Spider in when Jake clearly did not? It wouldn't make any sense for him to lie about this, and it's unlikely that he got such an important detail wrong since he worked so closely with James Cameron on producing the movie. Why did he say that?

No one really knows for sure, but here's what I think:

Landau was inadvertently spoiling Avatar 3 for us.

Avatar 2 and 3 were shot at the same time. When movies are being made, they don't shoot the scenes in chronological order, so one day they might do a scene from the middle of A2, and then one from the end of A3, and then one from the beginning of A2, and so on and so forth. This means that the actual timeline that everything happens in is completely jumbled up, and it's up to the editing team to reorder everything into a coherent plotline later.

I believe the reason Landau's statement doesn't match up with what actually happened in Avatar 2 is because he was mistakenly referring to what will happen in Avatar 3. With how complicated it is to film two movies at once, it's possible Landau got the timeline mixed up. So when he was interviewed and asked about Spider's relation to Jake and Neytiri, he said the first thing he remembered- it was just from the wrong movie.

So to finally answer your question about Jake and Spider's relationship in A3: Jake is going to take Spider in. I don't know if it will be a formal adoption like Kiri or more of a foster child situation, but either way, Jake will be responsible for Spider's wellbeing and care for him (and presumably not leave him for dead if the RDA catches him again 😭).

At the end of the Avatar 2, Jake embraced Spider and said "a son for a son" through narration, which I believe is the moment Jake decided to take in Spider and we will see how Jake moves forward as Spider's new guardian in Avatar 3.

There is also a scene in the leaked script that describes Neytiri hugging Jake and their children after a traumatic event, and though it's hard to read, it looks like it says that Spider was left out of the hug until Jake pulls him into it. There is also another leaked script scene where it appears that Neytiri suggests killing Spider and Jake is horrified. Another thing to note is that both of these scenes take place after Jake knows Quaritch is alive, so presumably Jake knows Spider saved Quaritch and is still treating him well despite it. I expect there will be some hurt and anger over it, but considering that Jake did much much worse to his loved ones in Avatar 1, it makes sense that he would eventually forgive Spider.

The leaked script scenes both sound like they go along with the idea that Jake has "taken in" Spider, and they also line up with the other half of Landau's quote, where he says Neytiri still sees Spider as one of the enemy and this creates interesting dynamics. Even though Jake has decided to take Spider in, it looks like Neytiri isn't on the same page, since she excluded him from the hug and suggested killing him. We all know how much Jake and Neytiri love each other, so it must be very difficult for Jake to take in Spider while knowing that Neytiri still sees him as a "demon." Jake is probably going to struggle a lot with balancing being a good husband to Neytiri and being a good guardian to Spider.

And Spider will also probably struggle with this new relationship to Jake too. Jack Champion, Spider's actor, answered some questions about his character in an interview:

Q: In the end, Jake truly embraced Spider as a son. He even said, “A son for a son.” Is that everything Spider has ever wanted?

A: A hundred percent. But I will say that at that moment, he doesn’t feel like he got everything he wanted. Because now, his kinda-sorta dad, Quaritch, also accepts him. So does he really want the Sully family, or does he want his actual father? So there’s some cool inner turmoil that I don’t even know the answer to yet, and it’s up for debate.

According to Jack Champion, Spider one hundred percent always wanted to be embraced by the Sully family, but after forming a relationship with Quaritch, a part of him also wants to be with his father and he struggles with inner turmoil over it. Since Spider was an orphan for 16 years, it's understandable that he won't adjust into the family just like that.

So to summarize: based on the evidence, Jake is going to take Spider in, probably less like an adopted father and more like a guardian/ward situation. Even though they both want this, it's going to be difficult and create a lot of conflict. Jake will be torn between his care for Spider and his love for Neytiri, who still sees Spider as a demon, and Spider is torn between wanting to be part of the Sully family and wanting to have a relationship with his father, Quaritch, in spite of the evil he's caused.

[sophieinwonderland]

I come genuinely seeking help when I need it, and you just make fun of me? :(

I tried searching every one of your source’s authors. Nothing relevant ever came up. Every single source you put, I looked for the author in hopes of finding more info and more sources, and was unable to find anything more than random posts that had nothing to do with anything system related.

I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. I wanted to believe that maybe you had made a mistake. That’s why I notified you. But seeing how you acted towards me… I’m not sure it was a mistake

🙄

You know as well as I do that absolutely nothing from that post was phrased as someone seeking help.

But... sure... why not play your game a bit? Seems like it could be entertaining if nothing else.

You now claim to have looked into all of my sources. Let's start with just one. If you were to go to my studies and research page and look at the first link, there are actually two links here.

The bottom link has info on the book as a whole to make it easy to track down. The top link takes you directly to a version of the study hosted on Somatosphere.

The Author's name is listed at the top.

Simply by copying and pasting this into Google, you could quickly find his page on the McGill University website.

Scrolling down to the bibliography, you can see this same work listed on this page, confirming that he did, in fact, write it.

This is super simple to find!

I also include another article on my studies and research page which interviews him, along with Michael Lifshitz and Tanya Luhrmann.

Additionally, if you wanted to find other comments from the author, you might try Googling his name with the word tulpa. If you did this and scrolled down just a bit, you would find this article he wrote for Psychology Today.

Back to the book link, if you were to click that link, it would show you the information on the book this study was published in, including the publisher.

If you wanted more information about the publisher to make sure they were legit, you could go to their page discussing their peer review process.

Still gonna claim you looked into all my sources and couldn't find anything?

And none of the things I listed above are actually new to me either!

Because unlike anti-endos, I've actually done my research.

So if anyone is going to concern troll by pretending to be a pro-endo claiming my sources are fake, you should know that all you're doing is giving me an opportunity to publicly show my work. 🤷‍♀️

[laurelwen]

Obscure Media: Macabre Myths and Psychological Puzzles: Gregory Read on Like Minds

by Rjurik Davidson, Metro Magazine #151, Jan 2006

Once again a little gem brought to us courtesy of @widowswinter who managed to pull this one up before I could figure out how to get a copy. Working some serious magic out here.

This article comes to us from volume 151 of Metro Magazine, another Australian film publication. This particular article isn't available on their archive, but you can find the issue listed on their website here. I also found this site listing the article, but wasn't able to access it personally.

I have a lot of thoughts about Greg's responses here, but I will save my editorializing for another post. While there are some bits here that are actually illuminating, it's mostly just Greg being peak "Gregory J Read" about his movie. Ultimately: the author is dead. Greg has his own ideas about the movie he made, and the rest of us have ours. His intentions mean little in face of how everyone else approaches and interprets the film.

Below the break is the full text of the interview.

You’ve said that if you’re going to make a film, make it about something fascinating. What is it that excites you about this film?

Rather than say ‘fascinating’, I think you should make something that you can sink your teeth  into, something that, I hate to say, you can ‘relate to’ – especially because it’s about sociopathy – but that is going to be engaging for an audience. There are so many projects out of America, where the film means nothing to the makers, it’s just homogenized, plastic rubbish. I find so many films really are just perfunctory. I wanted to explore a story which drew on psychology; rather than just shooting frame by frame, ask ‘What’s actually behind the frames?’ And that’s what appealed to me about this particular story.

It’s deeply interested in the macabre, in the occult, religious history, in half-forgotten histories. What attracts you to these elements, and what do you think attracts viewers?

I think it’s a fascination in psychology, a fascination in our own history and our identity – where we come from. All those elements are to do with obsession and control and Alex’s understanding of history and his lineage. For Nigel it was a matter of knowing where he came from also, so he could understand his own identity and give himself a place in the world. I think that sort of fascination appeals to all of us. We’re all curious about where we originally came from, what our lineage is, what is history, and how it informs our existence and us as individuals. How did we come to be where we are now? And the darker side of history too is quite fascinating – certainly for me – because it’s something which has existed forever and a day. Go back to the dawn of man: we’ve always had these myths, and this look at life, that are quite frightening. But they do inform us of where we are and where we come from.

It strikes me that these macabre stories involving say, the occult, or in this case the myth of Maraclea, touch a part of the modern psyche.

You know these fables – that one’s a twelfth century fable – it’s incredible how they do exist in our society, how people do draw on those sorts of ideas. Not necessarily Maraclea, but certainly other fables and ideas about history. I don’t see Maraclea as being [about] the occult. I see it more as a very strange look at how people believed that they could garner power from obscure and strange and mystical events. [Drawing] power from something as macabre as Maraclea is quite disturbing, and if you’re going to have someone who’s a sociopath who wants to draw on history, and is obsessive about history, what an amazing fable to draw on. Because you can utilize that and create something in the modern world that draws back off that original fable. And there are people around today that do still believe in these old world ideas and try to draw them into some kind of modern context. I think that’s quite disturbing – very disturbing.

Which is the case in the film. It’s what’s going on with the character of Nigel.

Well, he’s using it for a number of reasons. He’s using it to draw Alex into his world, as well – because he was aware of the fable, but without the help of Alex, he could never fulfill it. So it’s part of his obsession, but [also] part of his controlling another being. Sociopaths like to be in control of their environment. So when someone comes into close proximity they try to draw them into their world …

Which brings us to one of the other main ideas in the film, which is Gestalt psychology. The two boys are in some ways latent psychopaths or sociopaths, and they bring this out in each other. It’s a fascinating idea – in your research you discovered that most psychopaths are latent.

That really intrigued me. The American Psychiatric Society released some figures that said that four per cent of the population is sociopathic: one per cent female, three per cent male. I thought, ‘My God, that means they’re everywhere!’ If you take two latent sociopaths, who are going to go on to become merchant bankers or tops of industry (they’re saying most of the sociopaths are actually heads of industry. Because they’re remorseless, they’re without conscience). These are the individuals that you’ve got to watch out for because they don’t give a fuck: they’re going to take you for everything they possibly can, and they’d be happy to cut down companies and close them up. If you have that many people in society it means we’ve all come into contact with one in our time. That’s where the genesis of the story came from, because if these people exist, what would happen if you threw two of them into a room? And you end up with something like gestalt. Would it create something bigger between them, and then, what would that be?

The script has a real density to it – there are a lot of elements to keep under control: the history of the Knights Templar, the myth of Maraclea, Gestalt psychology, and how these relate to the situation of the two boys. Can you say anything about the process of writing it? What were some of the challenges?

I had to really delve into the characters first. So I read material on forensic psychology, on juvenile psychology, on sociopathy, psychopathy and APD (anti-social personality disorder), which is what it’s all under the umbrella of. And then I tried to understand: was it nature versus nurture? I studied forensic psychologists’ notes on case studies, but tried to get into the heads of these sociopaths so I could understand what their true motivations would be, what would happen if you threw them together.

Once I’d done that – it was quite deeply disturbing; your head goes numb with this material – I wrote a treatment and understood how these characters would bounce off each other. I wrote the script, and realized it had to have a strong narrative flow to be able to engage the audience. Otherwise, if it was just an intensive study of psychology, people would be yawning in ten minutes because it’s just not interesting. So I decided to weave two storylines and I thought I should make the story gestalt: to have a fore-story and back-story but weave them in such a way that they create something bigger than themselves. So my storyline is going to be a gestalt flow-through and I decided to tell some of the story out of context. Some things are told back to front, some things are forwards – a lot of people don’t necessarily notice that, but it’s a psychological puzzle. That was part of the process of writing it as a challenge, to see whether it would work.

I sent it out to a producer to look at it, and he just said, ‘Yeah, that really works well.’ He sent it in to the AWGIES [Australian Writers’ Guild Awards] and that’s when it got nominated for the Monty Miller [Award for an unproduced script]. I was so surprised when that happened. And I thought, ‘OK, it works!’ But it was a long process. Even though I wrote it over a six-week period, it took years to really hone it. The original draft was about one hundred and thirty pages and it was too dense and too complex, so I had to simplify elements, but at the same time not to lose the integrity of the story … that it is a psychological study. And that everything that’s told is real. I didn’t want it to be red herrings. I didn’t want to have the situation where Alex is telling a story and then you realize, ‘Oh, it’s all a lie.’ It’s not. The thing about psychology is it doesn’t have to be a lie. The mind is dark and dense, and why can’t a story do the same thing? Whether some people get the depth of it or some people don’t doesn’t really matter. Everyone’s welcome to take it the way they want; people come to me afterwards and say, ‘I got that through line’, or ‘I really got into the psychology.’ It was a challenge but it paid off.

You managed to get some really strong performances from the actors, especially Eddie Redmayne and Toni Collette. How did you go about working with them?

Pretty closely. I sent a lot of material to Toni explaining to her how forensic psychologists truly work. She’s an amazing actress. She’s a chameleon, but I wanted to give her information that was from real forensic psychologists. So I sent her reams of information: studies on psychology from forensic psychologists, papers from forensic psychologists, to inform her of the characters that truly exist out there, and then let her bring what she wanted to that character. At the same time I made sure that it was in tune with where I wanted to be, where I wanted her to sit in the story. It was wonderful. The first day of rehearsal I was thinking, ‘Ok, here we go, I don’t know how she has interpreted this.’ I hadn’t really spoken to her. She sat down in front of me and she started saying these wonderful passages of dialogue perfectly. I just sat there and went, ‘My goodness, that’s exactly where I want you to be, give or take a little bit here.’ It was a matter of honing her rather than [getting her to] create something new.

With the boys [Eddie Redmayne and Tom Sturridge], it was a whole new experience for them. Eddie had never worked in film before, so he really needed to be moulded a little bit more. He was like clay: he allowed me to get into his head and inform him of where that character would be, and I’d give him motivation and concepts that may not necessarily be on the page, but ideas that would put him into that frame, that headspace. He’d start to feel that and you could see it in his posture, his emotional state, which is testament to a wonderful actor. Then I’d say, ‘Action’, and he delivered his lines in that state and he did it every time, even when we cut between a shot we did three months before. We did shots in Australia because I needed the wideness of the location, but we couldn’t possibly shoot the close-ups on the same day, because we had a very strict shooting schedule. We ended up doing them in Leeds at the end of the shoot. It was the last part, we’re doing these close-ups and they were just spot on. I just put him back in the space, he knew the script, he’d worked out his beats. He was just wonderful.

This is your first feature film, before that you were a documentary director. How did you find the transition?

It felt fairly natural, maybe because I’d written the script … I’d had the characters in my head [and] it was more a matter of making sure that’s what I got – a truthful performance. I was so focused on that and the look of the film and the sense of the backgrounds, the sets, the cinematography. Everything for me was part of the mise en scène. I wanted to let the set and let the cinematography be part of the psychology of the film. So I was so conscious of all of that, I was so conscious of my performances being number one, and just being truthful to what was on the page. It wasn’t till I finished shooting: ‘Oh my goodness, I think I just did it!’

I did storyboard the whole film, from go to whoa, every shot. It’s not exactly how I shot it.  Sometimes you get the location and it’s not going to be exactly like that, but it was a good process, to take the screenplay, put it in a drawing form that informed the cinematographer and the production designer about what I wanted to do. I had visual references from other films and things: style, colour, texture. Working with people like Steven Jones Evans, who’s an amazing production designer, and Nigel Black as the DP and the music by Carlo Giacco – all of those elements – it was a wonderful process of collaboration. I think that’s where my head was at mostly. Coming from documentary to that felt strangely natural. And it’s normally not.

Can you tell us a bit about your next projects?

I’m working on a number of different projects, at different stages. I’ve just got back from L.A. where I’m represented by a great agent and I’m seeing lots of people … It’s great to be in a situation with these great producers who really enjoyed my film and are willing to consider me. I don’t like talking about future projects at all, unless they’re actually signed on the dotted line. A lot of people do talk about them, and I don’t agree with that. That’s why no one knew anything about Like Minds. It’s just personal. I think you’ve got to focus on what you’re doing and you move forward. I’m thrilled that the Americans enjoyed the film. I’m thrilled it’s sold all over the world. It just means it’s a universal story that people can relate to. What will I do next? I’ll see what opportunity fronts itself first that I can do something with.

[Like Minds Masterpost - Main]

[taylorrepdetective]

Normally I would not even glance at a Life & Style article, but given the new music mention, it made me pause at the Taylor Swift Thinks Travis Kelce Could ‘Flourish in the Studio’: They’re ‘Writing Lyrics Together’. Do you think this is planting a seed for a possible William Bowery II, or is it just “made up or from very unreliable sources?”

Life and Style is absolute garbage. They have never gotten an exclusive from a reputable source in their lives. Not once. Not even ever getting a reputable source who wanted to spread disinformation. 95% of it is 100% made up by them and the other 5% is based on fan speculation, which is sometimes correct, so if they get it correct, it’s because the fan speculation was correct. Not because they know more than you or I.

Do not pay it any mind. If by some chance Taylor decided to hilariously grace us with Billiam Wowery, it will be 100% coincidence or luck that L&S said this.

To put it into perspective, gossip rags that are 95% garbage but have actually gotten occasional good exclusives include the Daily Mail, Deux Moi, US weekly, TMZ (somewhat better than 95% but still a lot of garbage) and Page Six. If they say “exclusive” or quote a spokesperson for the celeb, then you can believe it came from an official source. However, if they say “sources close to the star” without the word “exclusive” it’s just as likely to be from garbage sources or made up as true. It’s possible that it’s made up garbage that is planted by their teams to throw people off or create speculation that eventually will be proven as untrue, but I honestly don’t think Taylor does much of that. It’s possible, but again just because garbage is coming for Taylor’s team does it make it any less worth throwing away.

For example US weekly yesterday had an exclusive source say “nothings’s changed. They are still together.” No other useful information from sources was included in that article. But that tidbit should tell you that travlor’s official people are saying this is what we should all be believing. And when she shows up on Monday, it will confirm it to everyone. However in similar articles you might see things like “previously, people close to the celebs had said they are ready to get engaged.” This is from a separate source that’s not exclusive and not official and from an earlier date and published in an earlier article, often from different publication (which they will cite.) For example, it might say “sources close to the singer previously said, as reported in the Daily Mail, that their loved ones expect an engagement soon.” This is a whole other thing, but because they put it in a same article as the one that is official saying they’re still together, people conflate the two “facts” and think to themselves “nothing has changed so their loved ones still think an engagement is soon.” Ignoring the fact that this first unsubstantiated garbage source said that 6 months ago and it stretches our imaginations of what “close” and “soon” mean.

Stay in school kids. This is why your high school English teachers made you analyze readings.

~~Edited to add another example how to read celeb gossip news: People just came out with an article about Travis’ diet and how he has to ignore sweets to stay in football shape. Now, People is the most “reliable*” and “reputable**” outlet when it comes to articles that have sourced information: their sources are the official sources. But this article does not cite an exclusive or sources close to the celeb or a spokesman for him. It is a fluff piece regurgitating public information that Travis said on his podcast this week, then going back and reiterating things he’s said in the past on his podcast. It is not an interview he did with People or anyone else, except to his brother on his edited podcast that he recently did a $100 million dollar deal on. They did a click-baity headline to get clicks, and wrote up a blurb about the silly things he said about staying in football shape. Just because it’s in People doesn’t mean it came from his camp exclusively to be published in People, or that this is part of some sort of selling of a narrative. It’s just a fluff piece that People published because they know any Travis content right now will get clicks.

*reliable means that they are spoon feeding us information directly from publicists which is not the same as the truth. Look at it as the official narrative that certainly has some semblance of truth or at least won’t be proven to be a lie later down the road.

**reputable means they are not just making stuff up on their own without getting some kind of reasonable confirmation.

[nikethestatue]

As you have already said, the Gwynriels/the antis are ultimate bullshitters. They stay trying to convince us that they have access to certain information that we know nothing about. If it’s not about SJM’S writing plans, it’s about them knowing an “inside person” who works for these articles that are being published. It’s funny how they are always discussing “new information” that we know nothing about, but the information that’s already out there, they turn a blind eye to it, like the 2021 interview that SJM did with Eva Chen. Suddenly, they disapprove of actual information, but not the ones that they create. 😭

Also, none of this 'new information' ever actually resolves in anything.

Here is n a example, which I will never ever delete this from my computer.

This is the infamous Reddit 'leak' which came out after CC. It was about the next CC book (which was going to be HOSAB) and the next ACOTAR book. THis is from 2022? I think.

So they all jumped on it like crazy, celebrating the GREAT LEAK, thinking it's true.

There were TikToks made. There were endless posts made. Confetti was bought, as well as sparkling juice to celebrate the release of ACOTAR 5.

Well, lookie loo--Aidas was NOT heavily featured (once, as a fake cat). He is not endgame with anything or anyone. Hunt didn't find anything out before Bryce and they chose to be mates, which is absolutely unlike ACOTAR or TOG mate bonds.

And that's just the first paragraph.

All they ever do is weave a basket of existing info, hopes and dreams, canon and complete made up crap.

That doesn't actually make anything true or real.

[saintmeghanmarkle]

Deep Dive into Harrys Most Popular Claim by u/Nervous-Spinach2046

Deep Dive into Harry’s “Most Popular” Claim I have just about enough of the “Harry was the most popular member of the royal family” trope. Sure, he had his glory days, after he left the military and the palace had to find something for him to do after the series of reputational disasters in his young adulthood – coke bust, the uniform row, naked Vegas partying, tumbling into the gutter after a night out – the first engagements he did as a working royal were successes riding on the “cheeky chappie” persona crafted by the palace PR machine that took advantage of the less formal presentation he displayed as the second son of the then heir.  So I took a deep dive into the polls conducted at the time to see how much was actual poll data and how much was PR puff, and here are my findings.Harry’s popularity peaked in some periods in 2014, 2017, and 2018. The YouGov polling data available is regrettably incomplete as it left out a large chunk between June 2013 and November 2017. In the YouGov poll data I could find, Harry was the most popular/more popular than Queen Elizabeth II only in ONE (1) poll, in November 2017. Harry got a net positive rating of 70% while the Queen got 67%. (Incidentally, William scored 69%.)https://ift.tt/sqnpfDt poll most cited in news articles was the one conducted by Newsweek/YouGov in September 2014, which was bizarrely centred on Catherine a year after she gave birth to George. In that poll, Harry was named by 20% of respondents (British, total: 2,099) as their favourite royal, with QEII coming second at 17%.https://ift.tt/LZDV5j6 a poll conducted by Ipsos in March 2018, Harry received the same favourability rating as QEII (23%) among over 20,000 respondents in 28 countries. The Queen was the most liked in ten countries, while Prince Harry is the most popular in eight. Interestingly, Catherine was named as the most liked in the US. Meanwhile, William was found to have the most positive reputation around the world (43%), ahead of the Queen.https://ift.tt/coQGfZp of the reports also misinformed, with others citing no sources at all. For example, the NBC News report that called Harry the most popular was based on this January 2018 Ipsos/MORI poll, where 62% named William as their favourite royal and 58% named Harry, but NBC wrote that Harry came out on top with 43% and William 30%, which was inaccurate. Some of the reports on the 2018 poll also overlooked the fact that the Queen and Harry had the same score, but only named Harry as the most popular.That also highlights another finding. During my research, I found data that demonstrated William consistently scored higher than Harry, and even the Queen, in favourability ratings for YEARS. But you don’t hear him or his PR banging on about him being the most popular. He seems much more modest in his approach.https://ift.tt/dHga5AU Perhaps it’s because Harry has nothing else but a couple of glimpses of glory.Of course, it’s all gone now. His favourability ratings in both the UK and the US are in the dumps. He scored 30% and ranked 14th (behind Eugenie, and the Duke and Duchess of Kent) in the most recent 2025 Q1 YouGov poll in the UK and a net positive rating of 35% with Americans in a YouGov poll done for The Times in April 2025. I’m pretty sure the numbers would be even more disastrous in the polls done after his BBC “Waaagh 2.0” interview.*Sources in the comments post link: https://ift.tt/dpNhLlW author: Nervous-Spinach2046 submitted: May 11, 2025 at 07:38AM via SaintMeghanMarkle on Reddit disclaimer: all views + opinions expressed by the author of this post, as well as any comments and reblogs, are solely the author's own; they do not necessarily reflect the views of the administrator of this Tumblr blog. For entertainment only.

[marimayscarlett]

Did I understand this correctly, you really collect all the interviews Richard has ever done? I mean props to you and it's cool that you put so much energy in it, but isn't that pretty... time-consuming and laborious, searching for everything? Do you do this for fun? Just asking out of curiosity, no judgment here ✌🏼

Hello 👋🏼

I see you found my post (which actually was just rambling again) from last week 😊 You're right, it can be time-consuming to collect all the interviews (I search for articles as well as video and audio interviews and boy, this man has a lot to say) but I do have several reasons why I do it. You asked, so I might as well explain it:

1. I think it's quite evident that I am rather enthusiastic about Richard, his music and him as a person. For over 8 years, to be exact. So learning about his views on things, his work process and everything in between brings me immense joy (since I love researching in general). And when I'm already listening to an interview or reading one, I might as well save it if I'd like to come back to it later.

Posting/reblogging superficial things about him (his looks etc) is fun and all, but at the end of the day, he as an individual being is so so interesting and listening to him talking etc. makes me the most happy regarding him.

2. I like collecting in general, especially books (mostly historical) and records, and it's kind of a "soothing" feeling for me to know exactly where I can find something when I'm looking for specific information.

3. When I get asks on here or writing posts with information about Richard, I'd like to support my statements and writings about him with sources, preferably from himself. I don't approve of spreading rumors, personal stuff Richard himself hasn't confirmed or half-truths where nobody knows where they came from in the first place.

I think this is a relic from my studies at university when I wrote a bunch of papers and essays. One thing my professors drilled into my head was the fact that no matter how good something is written, if the statements and information in it aren't backed up with sources, it's worth nothing and could also just have been made up.

So that's it. If you made it up to here and read all of my unnecessary long-winded answer, cute skort-Richard is sending you a thank you:

[whump-card]

Sunless Lives Part 36: I Need to Be Without You

THE END! THE END! THE END THE END THE END!

~2010 words

CW: blatant disregard for the realities of Italian immigration law, alcohol

First, Previous, Masterlist

~~~

They found a ground floor apartment with a patio. They basked in the Sicillian sun - Matthew in long sleeves and sunglasses. They aired out their scars. Matthew had an impressive one on his neck, now. They went to markets and saw live music. They made new friends. They kept in touch with old ones. When Simon was ready, Gina interviewed him, and Chett, and countless other ex-patients of Fort Summerwhite. When Gina and her cousin published the exposee, Summerwhite shut down in a slew of lawsuits. Gina continued in activist journalism, leaving the VIU behind for good.

When Matthew read the article, he couldn’t tell which anonymous source was Simon. Simon wouldn’t tell him, either. He tried not to let that bother him.

Simon willingly tried antidepressants and anti-anxiety medications, and eventually found them helpful. He learned to eat well, and enjoy it, with the help of Matthew’s cooking skills. Unable to run like he used to, he took slow walks, drawing ever-increasing circles around their apartment building. But he still had nights where he drank in excess. How can I not drink wine in Italy? He avoided talking to Matthew about anything that had happened to him, even in passing. There were no horror stories revealed under the covers. It wasn’t like Matthew was going to ask. They just didn’t talk to each other like that - not anymore. It left Matthew alone sometimes, too, when he woke up clutching his throat and didn’t know how to reach out to Simon about it. In the therapy they went to together, they both insisted they were fine. Happy. And they definitely were, most of the time.

But sometimes, Matthew worried.

~~~

“He-ey!” Matthew called out as he hung up his keys. “I sent you more listings on my lunch break, did you see them?”

He came around the corner to see Simon standing in the living room of their apartment, the September evening sunlight filtering through the potted plants crowded in the windows. Of the many hobbies that Matthew had encouraged Simon to try over the past year, gardening had been one of the few to stick. Matthew smiled - until he caught Simon’s grim expression.

“Can I talk to you about that, actually?” Simon asked softly.

“Uhh, sure.” Matthew could already tell this wasn’t going to be the conversation he was hoping for. He came around and sat on the sofa. Simon eased himself down next to him, leaning his cane against the couch arm. He sucked in a breath and held it for a moment before speaking.

“I’m not ready to buy a house with you,” he said, looking at Matthew with an expression of anxiety that bordered on fear. Matthew rushed to reassure him.

“That’s okay! That’s totally fine, we can wait.” He started to reach for Simon’s hands, but Simon’s next words made him pause.

“There’s more.”

“Okay,” said Matthew slowly, “What’s going on?”

Simon’s eyes flickered away as he struggled to maintain eye contact. His hands pressed flat against his thighs.

“You know I love you.”

“Yes,” Matthew said firmly.

“I don’t want to leave you.”

“Okay.” Matthew was a little unsure now.

“But I was thinking, now that we’re through all of the immigration stuff… I’d like to try living alone.” Simon’s gaze found Matthew’s face again, gauging his reaction. Matthew kept his expression schooled.

“You want to move out?”

Simon drew himself up like he was about to launch into a list of justifications, before he sagged a little and simply said, “Yes.”

No longer able to hide his shock and hurt, Matthew rubbed a hand over his face.

“What… Why?”

“It’s nothing you’ve done!” Simon said quickly, putting a hand on Matthew’s knee, “It’s just that I’ve never been able to live alone before, not really, and I finally feel like I could. I’m making enough money working at the print shop, my Italian’s good enough, I have friends to lean on, I just… I feel like I need to try it before we settle down.”

“What about us?” Matthew asked.

Simon squeezed his knee and smiled.

“It’ll be just like we’re dating again. We can do it right this time.”

But we go out plenty already, Matthew was about to say, but then he focused on the frightened, hopeful, determined look on Simon’s face and realized he wasn’t going to be able to talk his husband out of this no matter how hard he tried.

“Okay.”

~~~

Three weeks later, after a series of increasingly taciturn dates, Matthew’s phone rang in the middle of the night. He answered it blearily.

“Hullo?”

“Matthew?” Simon’s voice was thick with tears. Matthew jolted into wakefulness.

“Simon? What’s wrong?”

“Matthew, I…” Simon choked on the words, “I’m so sorry.”

“Where are you? I’ll come get you, you can come home.” Matthew was already jumping out of bed.

“No! No, please don't.”

“Have you been drinking?” Matthew asked, carefully controlling his tone to be neutral.

“I’m not, that’s the thing, I haven’t been, I haven been since - Matthew, I love you so much.” Simon’s voice broke down into sobs.

“Take a deep breath,” Matthew coached him, sinking back down onto the bed, “Tell me what’s going on.”

It took a few shuddering breaths for Simon to speak again.

“Matthew, since I moved out, I’m not - I’m not drinking, I’m not anxious, I’m sleeping better, I… Matthew, I’m so sorry, I love you so much but it was you.”

A pit opened in Matthew’s stomach.

“I didn’t think I was scared of you,” Simon continued, sniffling, “I really didn’t, I thought it was fine, but Matthew, I just… I’ve always been scared of someone. I’ve never lived like this before, alone, and able to choose who I see and when, and I didn’t - I didn’t know I could feel like this, I’m so, so, so sorry Matthew…!” Simon’s words dissolved into weeping once more.

Matthew blinked and felt tears run down his own face. He’d known this was coming. He’d known ever since their third date after Simon moved out, when Simon had flinched when Matthew reached out to hold his hand. No, he’d known even earlier, before Simon left. Maybe even before they’d moved to Italy. It should have been obvious - but Matthew didn’t want to face it. He still didn’t, but here it was, happening all too quickly, in the middle of the night, over the phone.

“What - what do you want to do?” Matthew asked, forcefully brushing away his tears.

“I don’t know!” Simon cried, “I don’t know, Angela thinks I should never see you again, Marcel thinks we should break up but still be friends, my therapist thinks we should just take a break, and - and - I don’t know, Matthew, I don’t know what to do. Please,” Simon sobbed, “Please tell me what to do!”

Matthew held his breath. He knew the power he wielded in this moment. “Matthew is always right” was a belief that they had worked hard to dispel, in therapy together and individually. Despite all their work Matthew knew that he could order Simon to come home right now and he would do it.

But that wouldn’t be right.

Do the right thing.

“You have to do what’s right for you,” Matthew croaked, and the words killed him, because he knew what the right thing for Simon was.

“I don’t want to leave you!” Simon bawled.

“I know.”

“What if we just took a break, and got back together in a few weeks?”

Matthew gritted his teeth and forced the right words out.

“Will anything be different in a few weeks?”

“It could be, it could be…” Simon whimpered.

“Then let’s say we’re taking a break, but not say how long,” Matthew compromised, wrestling his voice to stay even. “We can just talk on the phone, whenever we like, but that’ll be it, until you’re ready.”

“Okay!” Simon agreed quickly, “Okay, we’ll just talk, until I’m better.”

“Okay. Do you want to hang up and call me in the morning?”

“No, wait!” Simon sobbed, “Can you stay on the phone with me? Please, Matthew, just a little longer?”

Matthew knew this feeling. Something was ending, and he didn’t want it to, even if he knew it needed to. He knew it. He hated it.

Do the right thing.

“Just a little longer,” he agreed.

Just a little longer.

~~~

Matthew had a rule, that he wouldn’t call Simon first. Simon would call him, they’d talk, and a few days later he’d return the favor.

Their conversations started at surface level and became even smaller talk over time. Talking to each other was hard. Painful, maybe.

Simon called less often.

And less.

And less.

When it was more than obvious, they signed divorce papers. They never saw each other - a lawyer chaperoned the documents back and forth. 

There was nothing special about their final call. It wasn’t a call, really; Matthew just left a voicemail when Simon didn’t pick up.

“Hey, it’s Matthew. Hope you’re doing okay. Just wanted to call and say hi. That’s all.

“Bye.”

~~~

~~~

~~~

~~~

~~~

~~~

~~~

~~~

EIGHT YEARS LATER

“Matthew?”

Matthew nearly dropped the melon he was looking at when he heard the eternally-familiar voice. He turned.

Simon looked taller than he remembered, somehow. He still walked with a cane. He had glasses, now. He stood with a shopping basket hanging from the crook of his arm, a bag of greens and a bottle of wine inside. Matthew recognized the wine brand: non-alcoholic. Most surprising was that he was plump; his cheeks were filled out more than Matthew had ever seen, and he practically glowed with health.

“Hi,” Matthew said slowly.

Simon gave him a funny half-smile. He looked professional, wearing a blazer and slacks that flattered his rounder figure.

“I don’t usually come to this store, do you?” Simon asked, and while his voice was still hoarse it had the flow and ease of someone who talked a lot.

“Uh. Yeah.” Matthew was dumbstruck.

“How are your parents?”

“They’re good.” His answers came automatically.

“Gina tells me you’re not with the Antivampiri anymore?”

“Yeah, I -” This one he actually needed to form a full sentence for, but Simon was just standing there, looking handsome and tailored and elegant and Matthew was bumbling around in sweatpants and a t-shirt. The question also revealed that Simon… asked about him, which he didn’t know how to feel about. Matthew had never dared to ask Gina how Simon was doing. In return she’d never said anything.

“I had a couple rough encounters. I’m a personal trainer now.”

Simon’s eyes flicked almost imperceptibly to Matthew’s neck, where there were now two bite scars instead of one.

“I’m sorry to hear that,” he said, and it was full of compassion. “I’m glad you were able to find something else, though.”

“Yeah.” Matthew suddenly realized he should be asking questions too. “What about you, what are you doing for work?”

A small smile, full of suppressed excitement, crept onto Simon’s face.

“I’m an English teacher.”

“That’s amazing, you -” Matthew connected the dots. “You got a degree?”

Simon beamed, and Matthew’s heart skipped a beat.

“I did. English language and literature. Now I teach at a secondary school.”

Matthew found himself grinning back.

“That’s amazing, Simon.”

Something about saying his name made Simon pause. He was still smiling, but he looked at Matthew searchingly. Matthew stared right back, and they stayed like that for a long moment.

“You still have my number, right?” asked Simon abruptly, “We should get coffee sometime.”

“I - I’d like that,” Matthew stammered.

Simon lifted his basket-laden arm slightly to give a small wave.

“Call me.”

Matthew waved back weakly.

“‘Kay.”

Simon offered him one last hopeful little smile, then walked away.

Matthew watched him go for far too long, then rushed through the rest of his shopping, constantly glancing over his shoulder. The adrenaline high followed him all the way home and had him putting away the groceries at record speed. Then, there was nothing left to distract him.

He took out his phone and dialed.

~~~

First, Previous, Masterlist

Taglist: @flowersarefreetherapy, @pigeonwhumps, @sunshiline-writes, @seasaltandcopper, @pirefyrelight, @thecyrulik

[bisluthq]

I would argue that Joe was even less weird than Jack when it came to talking about Taylor. Jack only ever talked about Saoirse when they were doing promo for mqos, after that he did avoid questions about his private life. He would say he was in a relationship, that it had been a good year, that he was with someone he admired. But he would never mention Saoirse. The only difference is that he was more active on instagram so he would share some pictures of her, but it was always pictures of her back.

In 2021, he started posting more pictures where you could see her face and he shared a video of them reenacting a scene from Braveheart which had some articles written about it, so he was asked about getting more attention in an interview and he replied that he hadn’t noticed any difference.

It was in 2022, when he was promoting Benediction and The Outrun had been announced, that he started talking about her in interviews. Saoirse had nothing to promote so she didn’t really talk about him and The Outrun, but in one of her See How They Run interviews, she did say something about “my partner”. So once The Outrun had been announced, they got more comfortable talking about each other.

Then they got married, Jack got nominated for an Emmy and The Outrun was coming out. So they decided to start being a team, go to the Emmys together and start talking about each other freely.

Joe was never nearly as weird as they were, because it would make no sense to pretend he isn’t dating Taylor Swift, but he also had to be more careful than them. People who speak to Jack about Slow Horses don’t seem to care about Saoirse that much, so she doesn’t get brought up often. But there have been multiple articles written about a lot of the things Saoirse has said about Jack, and he’s far from Taylor Swift. Joe talking about Taylor in any capacity would derail the promo of his projects, so he didn’t want to do that. But that doesn’t mean he was embarrassed of her, he clearly wasn’t, and under the right circumstances, he might’ve ended up talking about her the way Jack and Saoirse do now 🤷🏻‍♀️

The thing is ANYONE vaguely mentioning Taylor kind of makes everything about that. A lot of people bring her up in terms of like "here's a cool story about the most famous person I've ever met" and the thing is once they do, they're almost always repeatedly asked about it. All her friends are ALWAYS asked about her, even when it's entirely irrelevant to whatever they're actually talking about lmao. You can also tell that it annoys some people but like they also have a lot of other shit to talk about so it's a mildly annoyingish sidebar and then it's back to whatever the main topic of conversation was. If Joe had indulged discussing Taylor more, that is ALL anyone would've ever asked him about. Like tbf it is far, far more interesting to the internet at large what Taylor Swift has for breakfast and what time she goes to take a poop (is she a morning or night girl) than whatever the fuck Joe wanted to be talking about. And if he'd indulged it more, then those are the kinds of questions (hyperbolic but also not really) he'd have been fielding and like... they'd wanted to be private lmao and also his projects would never have been promoted as what they were, it would've just been a discussion of Taylor lol. But obviously if it were relevant (and when it was relevant) then he wouldn't have been (and generally speaking wasn't) a complete freak about it.

I really don't know what people wanted him to do differently lol because like... it would've just been a little chaotic and inappropriate if he'd done it Travis's way? Also because Travis actually doesn't speak to PRESS that much about her, he talks on his podcast and friends' podcasts and stuff and that's a different platform and even so you can tell like sometimes he wants to talk about other stuff but he did this to himself and for the most part he enjoys the ride. But he's also a very, very different man to Joe ergo having a podcast in the first place lol because I can't really imagine Joe wanting to do that - and that doesn't make Joe better or worse, they're just very different people.