#the writer/director... i want to ask him so many questions about what the fuck this is

[crumb]

KYLE GALLNER as SAM COUGARS INC 2011 | dir. K. Asher Levin

[presidenthades]

Day 2 of HOTD adventures at New York Comic Con

As I mentioned in my Day 1 post, I did end up attending the HOTD panel today! It was live-streamed, so I won’t bother with a full recap because a lot of people have probably watched the recording. I’ll just list a few things I thought were highlights.

First of all, I just want to brag about my very excellent seat. I had a great view of the stage.

My personal highlights:

Before the panel began, an event host went around the room to get some sound bites from the audience. The most notable was a pair of women who cosplayed Rhaenys and Meleys. That’s right, someone cosplayed MELEYS. I wish I’d gotten photos, but believe me when I say the cosplays were amazing.

When Matt talked about how he’s attended many fan events, it made me think about how during his brief interactions for photos and autographs, he still made every fan feel seen and appreciated. I read online that Matt, who was scheduled to do Saturday autographs only until 7pm, stayed after 10pm to make sure everyone in line got their autographs. He probably is aware that his lines are generally really long, and he did his best to make the experience worth it even though he had limited time.

It was a CROWDED room, I think 4000 people? If Fabien seemed a little startled/awestruck at first, that’s why. He also seemed surprised (at the panel and during other fan interactions later) that people were genuinely happy to see him. I suspect this is due to some people letting their feelings about Criston seep into their real-life interactions with Fabien.

Cock jokes. 😂😂😂

The host asked Tom and Fabien if they became more comfortable going from Season 1 to Season 2. Not sure if the livestream caught it, but Tom let out an awkward giggle after that question. 👀

When the host asked Fabien how he would rate his job as Hand and then the question was tossed to the audience, the reception was indeed lackluster. Lots of people held up hands with just one or two fingers raised. Fabien seemed really sheepish about it, though Tom defended Criston’s character. It reminded me of a conversation I overheard while queuing before the panel. There was a group of friends in the queue, and one of them said she’d never seen HOTD and knew nothing about it. Her friends told her that if the panel asked any questions about Cole, “don’t cheer because we hate him.”

Matt and Fabien discussing Daemon and Criston’s homoerotic trysts/tension. 🔥

Tom’s spiel about how he can’t turn his back on Aegon as a character or else everyone else will turn their backs was interesting. Also about how digging into the reasons Aegon behaves the way he does is “an explanation not an excuse.” I think that’s a nuance which unfortunately some people disregard, and that leads to toxic interactions in the fandom.

Matt’s description of Viserys’s death instilling in Daemon “an odd level of psychosis and grief” was VERY interesting.

I can’t believe Matt forgot Milly’s name. 😂 And when Fabien recounted that he told her to join them at NYCC, Milly said “no fucking way.” 😂😂😂

I happened to get a photo when Tom announced he spilled water on his trousers and, in his own words, it looked like he pissed himself.

The way the actors talked AROUND their feelings about the script/writers was intriguing. 👀 I wonder if Matt will actually make requests of the writers…

When the host asked what other character the actors would like to play, Fabien had trouble thinking of an answer, so the host said, “You love your character so much!” Fabien IMMEDIATELY said, “Don’t put that out into the aether.” It seems like he doesn’t allow himself to publicly declare that he likes anything about his own character, because he knows how much vitriol that would generate. 🥺

Tom has never watched Lord of the Rings??? CANCEL HIM. (JK please don’t.)

When the host asked the actors what was the worst note a director had ever given them, Fabien said it would have to wait a few years after HOTD. So I am pretty sure his “worst note” was something during HOTD. 👀

Matt thinks chipmunks and mice are the same thing. 😭

When the panel ended, Matt and Tom left pretty quickly because their handlers were ushering them to their next event. Fabien lingered onstage to take a picture of the giant audience. People SWARMED to the stage, and Fabien was nice enough to sign one or two things that people were shoving up at him before he also had to leave.

I ended up having time to go to Fabien’s autograph session later that day. On the way, I saw that Matt’s line was ridiculously long again. Tom’s line was also huge, I think because he left early the day before, so people were all trying to get his autograph today.

When I arrived, Fabien was going on a break, so several of us early birds waited for him to come back. Fabien and Tom’s booths were next to each other, and we were able to see what Tom was doing. Tom seemed tired again but was still nice and friendly to all the fans. I’m 99% sure his girlfriend was sitting nearby. He definitely perked up when he paused to chat with her.

When Fabien came back from his break, fans in the lines for both actors started cheering for him. Tom also started cheering and clapping and going “whooooo!” It’s good to see that the HOTD cast really do like and have fun with each other. ❤️

Once it was my turn to get an autograph and selfie, I told Fabien that I enjoyed his performance at Rook’s Rest, and I named a few specific Cole moments (pre-battle speech, stumbling around afterwards looking traumatized). He seemed to really appreciate hearing that; I feel like he might get a lot of “I hate Criston but…” kind of comments.

My HOTD adventures today were more Fabien-centered, and I enjoyed it! From my brief interaction, I would say Fabien is friendly, sweet, and genuinely interested in fan interactions—although maybe a little nervous/scared about what people will say to his face.

TBH I’m tempted to write a Criston POV for my fic series. I got Fabien to autograph a print that his team provided, but it would’ve been nice to be able to have him autograph something more personal. I love it anyway!

Now I’m going to show off my GOT/HOTD merch!

Postcards:

Stained glass window cling print that looks gorgeous when it’s backlit:

Not GOT/HOTD-related, but I found out last minute that Naomi Novik, AKA Astolat, AKA one of the founders of AO3, was attending NYCC on Sunday to sign books. So I hightailed to that event. She signed my copy of her new book (including my AO3 username) and my Fanbinding pouch. 🥰 I told her how much I adore her writing and appreciate her contribution to fandom. She was lovely!!

That little squiggle she draws in the middle is a dragon doodle! For those who don’t know, Naomi’s first published book series was Temeraire, which is about the Napoleonic Wars but with dragons.

Later that day, I was shopping at a booth selling gorgeous headbands. Then I turned around, and there was Naomi again, shopping at the same booth!! She was off-duty doing her own thing, so I tried very hard to pretend I didn’t know who she was, even though I was fangirling inside. She really is a nerdy fan like the rest of us, enjoying her con experience. ❤️❤️❤️

Here’s one of the headbands I got:

All in all, a very successful and fun con! But now I desperately need to catch up on sleep and get back to my normal routine, so maybe I can resume writing. 🥲😴

[iapetusneume]

Director's Cut: Dualitas Hastarum

Oh dear.

So, when I write something, I will (on average) have 0 - 2 people look at it before I post. For 40k stuff, pretty much everything I write Lieara sees before I post it. Sometimes I grab a beta, sometimes I don't.

This time, I had 4 people look at the Google Doc at various points. This doesn't include the questions I asked in the Discord Server. One could argue that with other people's help, that number goes up to 7 or 8. I don't remember the last time I've needed so much assistance.

Dualitas Hastarum

Sanguinius had cautioned Guilliman and the Lion that his change would be soon. Shapeshifting was peculiar like that. He'd once described the sense of the change as if an old human could feel the drop of barometric pressure in their joints. “Its not painful,” he had clarified, “but there is the sense that it is time. I can feel it. The change is needed, and will happen.” “Do you know what form you'll take?” the Lion had asked. Sanguinius chuckled, and shook his head. “Not specifically. Sometimes I have no clue. Sometimes, I have an idea.” When he had told them the change would happen soon, his smile was full of secrets. Sanguinius had an idea, and he kept it close to his chest. (Alternatively, Sanguinius can change his hair color and eye color. What if he could change more than that?)

I don't think it's something many would expect, either, that this fic was very difficult to write. I wanted it to be sweet, sexy, and simple. I didn't want a lot of "extra" plot. I wanted the reader to feel the love and trust between the three of them.

And yet.

This is the first piece of smut that I've posted anywhere that involves a vagina. I have an unfinished scene for a longer work, and I've RPed it plenty. When i realized this was where a lot of my anxiety was coming from, it made sense, but was also hopelessly frustrating.

Then my anxiety shifted to the actual logistics. As in, word choices. I have a lot more experience writing about cocks than I do vaginas, and I found myself getting hung up on words. So much of writing smut is "what feels right," which is so hard to do when the words escape me. I frequently found myself having a name for a body part but just not liking it at all in the prose. When I write, I try not to let word choices slow me down. I will put an approximation in &ALLCAPS, and then highlight it in yellow so I can't miss it. And well, this fic was littered with them before I started doing my editing.

There's also a phenomena with a lot of fic writers who have vaginas often struggling with writing about them. Something about it being too personal. I certainly felt that here, and then me struggling with the language that I feel like I really should know was rough.

I made a distinct decision to not change Sanguinius' pronouns in this story. I see him as being nonbinary/genderfluid, but more like... he doesn't really care about what pronouns are used? Or, alternatively, the pronoun he prefers to use is something specific to Aenokhian that doesn't translate into Low Gothic. I also see him using male pronouns in Low Gothic because of partial anxiety when dealing with Big E since he said he had sons. And Sanguinius has battles to fight and he doesn't care enough about this one to put up a fight. He has other things he's worried about.

But that's angsty. And even a more positive spin on gender presentation would start to make this fic feel heavy, and that's not what I wanted. And while I'd love to explore Sanguinius' gender expression and identity, that's not what I wanted for this story.

I kept running into these hurdles, in terms of angst. This is set during Imperium Secundus, which is already prone to angst, since it's during the Heresy. I wanted to make a reference about Sanguinius learning how to shapeshift from Magnus, but no, can't do that. That would bring up a traitor brother and at best it would be bittersweet. Same problem with Horus, whom Sanguinius has definitely fucked in this form. I'd even considered making an offhand remark that Sanguinius had fucked Jaghatai like this, but at this point in time the three of them do not know that Jaghatai is still alive.

I am a fan of angst, but that's not the goal of this story.

I was also running into a lot of moments where I was using gendered language. At first I was beating myself up over it, but then I just had to accept that it would be something I fixed in a later draft. This is not a Rule 63 fic. This is not a fic where Sanguinius is binary trans. I struggled with the tags on this for this reason as well, because I know how much it bothers a lot of people to see fic/art tagged as "female" because the person in questions has boobs and a vagina. Luckily Ao3 has a ton of variety of tags, and I think I was able to get around that hurdle.

I know my writing won't be for everyone, but I want to be respectful of this in my work. I also want to do it in a way that doesn't feel like an After School Special.

I also didn't want to get too deep into Guilliman or Lion's sexual identities in this. I HC that Lion is demisexual, and Guilliman is either bisexual or pansexual. They both don't have experience with tits and pussy because Lion just never felt very strongly about anyone who had them, and Guilliman was concerned about hurting his partner.

Due to a lot of reasons, I feel like I break out in hives whenever someone is terribly naive about sex in fic. It's often done for laughs, and I don't find anything funny about it. This is something else that's a bit personal and I won't get into here, but I was determined for Lion and Guilliman to not come off like that. What to do, then? I thought using the surprise and wonder angle was a good way around that. They're excited, and no they don't know what to do, but they're going to figure it out.

When they're looking at Sanguinius in this form, they are attracted to him for different reasons. Lion just sees Sanguinius, the person whom he loves so much, and his form is different. So what? And Guilliman sees Sanguinius in a different body, but this is another body that he finds attractive. Guilliman has yet to find a form of his he didn't like.

They love each other, they respect each other, they have fun. Sanguinius feels comfortable enough around Guilliman and Lion to show that he likes a wide variety of bodies, and Guilliman and Lion love Sanguinius no matter what body he decides to wear. It's sweet, it's cute, it makes me go "awwwwwww."

And I realize that I never got around to my idea about Lion reading romance novels in this, but I feel like that deserves a different post.

[mischief-and-tea-by-the-sea]

CHARACTER ASK GAME!!!

Emma: 2, 4, 14, 24

Loki: 5, 15, 16, 25

Tony: 7, 11, 19, 22

Goodness! So many asks! YAY!

Emma Frost:

2. Favorite canon thing about this character?

She's highly intelligent and incredibly snarky. She knows who she is, she knows what she wants, and at least by now (I hope), she's not going to let another person treat her like a consolation prize/second choice.

4. If you could put this character in any other media, be it a book, a movie, anything, what would you put them in?

Well, she's been in a movie by a fantastic actress to play her, but the writers were shit and decided that they were just going to treat her like eye candy fluff instead of the beautiful badass that she is. I'd like to see her in a movie again, but I'm not sure how much I trust the MCU (Disney) with her portrayal - and she wouldn't get to interact with some of my favorite characters for her to interact with because the MCU killed those characters off or sent them back in time to 'dance' with the handsy, red-flag giving person who brought Hydra into S.H.I.E.L.D. Emma would probably be better utilized in a book where the powers of her snark and sass and mind aren't hinging on some screenplay writer's/director's shitty sexist agenda.

14. Assign a fashion aesthetic to this character.

Expensive Parisian Runway in the Streets, Comfy Borrowing Her Boyfriend's T-shirts in the Sheets.

24. What other character from another fandom of yours that reminds you of them?

Lagertha from Vikings. Maybe a little bit Bedelia du Maurier from Hannibal but without Bedelia's petty jealousy in Season 3. Maybe a blending of Montespan, Palatine, and Henriette from Versailles.

Loki:

5. What's the first song that comes to mind when you think about them?

Nature Boy by Nat King Cole

15. What's your favorite ship for this character? (Doesn't matter if it's canon or not.)

Tony Stark. Runners up: Bucky Barnes, Steve Rogers, Emma Frost, Justin Hammer. Following those four: Bruce Banner, Clint Barton, Natasha Romanoff, Fandral.

16. What's your least favorite ship for this character?

Thor and the Grandmaster.

25. What was your first impression of this character? How about now?

Okay my first-first impression of Loki as a Marvel character was that he looked fucking stupid and how could they disrespect my beloved deity that way. (My ex showed me the 80s comics he had, and I had this view of Loki from the first shot - nevermind that I don't mind the look now with Richard E. Grant because it served a fun purpose, a Glorious Purpose, as it were. But I mean, my ex also showed me Logan in those same/year comics, and I thought he looked stupid af, too.) Now I think they do better to portray a good look for Loki as well as his not-evil morally gray sass, but also I love him in the series as well because it shows a versatility to the character as is meant to be in a trickster and not just some one-mood (brooding/dark) that so much of his fans in fandom seem to cling to.

Tony Stark:

7. What's something the fandom does when it comes to this character that you like?

When fandom pays attention to his PTSD and lets other characters actually notice his PTSD and try to help him rather than mock or try to humiliate/denigrate him for it. When fandom highlights Tony's big loving heart and his love languages with other characters.

11. Would you date this character?

Without hesitation.

19. How about a relationship they have in canon that you don't like?

Pepper Potts. I love them as friends, I do not love them as a romantic relationship because she's too dismissive of his PTSD and all the good he's trying to do. I'm also not partial to his relationships with Janet Van Dyne and Patsy (Trish) Walker (comics).

22. If you're a fic reader, what's something you like in fics when it comes to this character? Something you don't like?

Like: Kind of a repeat of the #7 question above, but also I love when writers perfectly capture Tony's sass and sarcasm. I love the extent that writers (including myself) will go to in order to come up with Tony's nicknames for other characters.

Don't Like: When writers imagine Tony as utterly selfish and spoiled and deliberately cruel. When they make his failures that he learns from and gets back up and does better the next time as some sort of unforgivable crime.

Thanks for all the asks! Don't be afraid, y'all! Give me more asks and other characters and fandoms if you like! These are a blast!

Character Ask Game.

[sixstringphonic]

Sean Gunn Calls Disney CEO Bob Iger A ‘Sh***y Person’ If He Thinks Strikes Are ‘A Shame’

The "Gilmore Girls" alum also said he barely gets any residuals from the WB series, even though it's a hit on Netflix.  (7/17/23, HuffPost)

Sean Gunn blasted Disney CEO Bob Iger over the executive’s recent comments about the writers and actors who are fighting for more equitable wages and working conditions.

The actor — who plays Kraglin in Disney’s “Guardians of the Galaxy” movies and has provided motion capture for Bradley Cooper’s CGI character Rocket — questioned Iger’s sense of morality after the CEO said it was “a shame” that the Writer’s Guild of America East and West and the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists are now both on strike. (HuffPost’s unionized staff are also members of the WGAE.)

“I think when Bob Iger talks about, ‘What a shame it is,’ he needs to remember that in 1980, CEOs like him made 30 times what their lowest worker was making,” Gunn, the brother of “Guardians” director and now-DC Film co-CEO James Gunn, said from the picket line in a short video that was shared by The Associated Press Friday.

“Now Bob Iger makes 400 times what his lowest worker is,” Gunn went on, “and I think that’s a fucking shame, Bob.”

“Maybe you should take a look in the mirror and ask yourself ‘Why is that?’” Gunn said. “And not only ‘why is that’ ― is it OK? Is it morally OK? Is it ethically OK that you make that much more than your lowest worker?”

“And if so, why? Why is that OK? If your response is that that’s just the way business is done now, that’s just the way corporations work now — well, that sucks,” Gunn continued. “And that makes you a shitty person, if that’s your answer. So, you should come up with a better answer than that.”

Last week, Iger took a break from the Sun Valley Conference in Idaho, an annual gathering of millionaire and billionaire CEOs, to complain to CNBC about the simultaneous Hollywood strikes. Iger was dismissive of the protests, which have called attention to the immense wealth gap between executives and workers. He called the protests “disturbing” and said picketers’ demands are “not realistic.”

Iger, whose compensation package amounts to as much as $27 million a year, argued to CNBC’s David Faber that the strikes “will have a very, very damaging effect on the whole business.” (Members of both guilds have repeatedly said that studio executives could quickly end the strikes by agreeing to a fair deal.)

“It will affect the economy of different regions, even, because of the sheer size of the business,” Iger said. “It’s a shame, it is really a shame.”

Gunn, who is also known for playing the kooky Stars Hollow resident Kirk Gleason on “Gilmore Girls,” emphasized the income disparity between CEOs and workers while talking to The Hollywood Reporter from the picket line Friday.

He told the entertainment magazine that he “particularly wanted to come out and protest Netflix,” citing what he called a lack of residuals he’s received from the company’s profits for streaming the incredibly popular WB series. Gunn appeared in 137 episodes of “Gilmore Girls” between 2000 and 2007, according to IMDb. He also appeared in the show’s 2016 Netflix revival, “Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life.”

“I was on a television show called ‘Gilmore Girls’ for a long time that has brought in massive profits for Netflix,” Gunn told THR. “It has been one of their most popular shows for a very long time, over a decade. It gets streamed over and over and over again, and I see almost none of the revenue that comes into that.”

THR notes that although “Gilmore Girls” is available on Netflix, residuals from the show come from Warner Bros. Discovery, the studio that produced and licenses the series to the streamer. The outlet also notes that Gunn and his co-stars get paid the same in residuals “regardless of how many people watch the series wherever the studio places it.”

Despite this, Gunn stressed that Hollywood’s current business model doesn’t work anymore for the people who actually make the product, and that many working actors and writers are financially struggling.

“You really need to rethink how you do business and share the wealth with people,” Gunn told THR. “Otherwise, this is all going to come crashing down.”

[ladyknightellen]

Always the Bridesmaid, Never the Bride

Have you ever watched a movie or a TV show and noticed a disabled character in the background? This character never has any lines, or maybe they get to say a word or two, but sometimes they don't even have a name and they're not even credited as a role. Usually they're just passing by, or sitting in the background talking to the other background characters, and sometimes they're even dancing and have a little featured moment (This happens in the Barbie movie) but it's very rare if ever that they get more than that.

I could probably think of about ten examples right off the top of my head, and chances are you thought of at least one. The one I've been thinking of recently because I've been deep in the hyper fixation for a hot minute now, is Disney's Descendants. There's a character that uses a wheelchair that appears in all three of the movies in the original trilogy, mainly in the large group numbers. The character does not canonically have a name, and the actor is not credited.

Now, before you start with the 'well don't you like seeing disabled characters in the background?' and the 'would you rather they didn't have any at all?' or whatever the fuck, let me go ahead and answer you right now. Of course I do, and of course not! I would rather that disabled characters be a part of the story. I would rather that there would be more than just the one. I want to see disabled characters in the background AND front and center. I want them in leading roles that have little or nothing to do with their disabilities, because currently, that's the majority of what we get in the rare instances where the disabled character is a leading role.

I love seeing that character in the crowd and knowing that disability exists in a world like Auradon because all too often people insist that disability simply cannot coexist in a world with magic. I love seeing her and knowing that someone was intentional about making disability a part of that world. All of that is wonderful, but I also can't see that character without noticing something else...the stairs.

In every scene where this character in a wheelchair is visible, she is surrounded, and in many cases trapped, by a wildly inaccessible environment. There's no way I can look at that character and not see it, and it's so incredibly jarring no matter how many times I watch the movies.

I can't remember the youtuber's name, but it was a commentary on disability in Star Trek and in reference to the background character in Star Trek: Discovery that uses a wheelchair, they said "I can't help seeing all the places on the ship that are off limits to him" most notably the Captain's Chair.

You cannot make a piece of media and be praised for disability inclusion when you have depicted an environment that says 'you are not welcome here'. Every time I watch Descendants, I can't help but notice the thrones up on a dais with several steps and no ramp. I can't watch it without noticing that Auradon Prep has multiple floors, but there's no mention or even the slightest glimpse of an elevator. I can't watch it without imagining what that character's life as a student there looks like. Can she even get to her classes? Is her dorm accessible? Is she the only disabled student there? And on and on the list of questions goes.

I want the answers to these questions, but I doubt I'll ever get them, and if I could ask the writers, producers, directors, etc. of every movie or show that I've seen like this, I really don't think I would like the answers.

P.S. This should surprise exactly no one, but I started a new wip and it's basically a petty af rewrite of Descendants in which Ben is disabled. It's basically not going to change much at all, and that's the whole fucking point.

[glorioustidalwavedefendor]

Also, there are so many charcters out there that get a pass becasue they are attractive ... but Loki ... who is even hated by fucking disney ... aka the fuckin company who owns him and who made a metric fuckton of money with him...

Is propably the worst possible example ...

In universe, unlike others *tony cough cough* he does not get a pass at all ... is actually punished for things other characters get away with ...

And the majority of the audiende AND the fandom is fine with that ... enjoys it even *ragnarok caugh**therapy session caugh*

Finds it justefied because ultimately Loki is "marked"

„While we may each have a different sense of what is or isn‘t marked, the one thing that holds true is that once a person is marked in our eyes, we will unconsciously be driven to pay them extra attention and scrutenize them disproportionaly. We will likely perceive them as conspicuous, fascinating, unnatural, abnormal, questionable, suspect, or some combination of these qualities … This explains why we treat certain people

(those we mark)

as though they are „public spectacles“, and why we may feel as though they have „invited“ us to interact with them or remark upon them. Becasue marked individuals seem „striking“ to us, we may also want to know how they came to be. Or why they do the things that they do. And this may lead us to question them

(in both the „ask questions“ and „view as suspect“ sense of the word),

and to atribute underlying causes and ulterior motives to them„

– Julia Serano; „Sexed Up: How Society Sexualizes Us and how we can fight back“

And if you are marked as other (poc/queer/ND etc ... )

It is "O.K." to punish you more severelly ... becasue by beeing marked you are more suspicious ...

Although a marked person is no more likely to comit a crime.

Historically they have been punished much more harshly then the unmarked

On the occassion wenn a marked individual comits a crime, the blame is not only placed on the individual but on al of the marked as a whole

everyone who wears the same mark is expected to answer for and apologize for the actions of someone else they have no actual connction to.

The crime is considered evidence of all their dereliction and deviance

On the occassion wenn an UNmarked individual comits a crime, the crime is not only seen as UNconnected to their identity aka their unmarkedness but often as happening despite it.

That‘s why wenn a white streight man rapes a women he is ususally treated as someone who has simply made an error in judgement … one that should not effect the rest of his life …

This is the privilege of the UNmarked

SO, just by the way Disney, directors, writers and the fandom at large treats Loki, it is confirmed that he indeed is for all intends and purposes a maked person someone who is other ... someone who is marked as e.g. poc ...

even if a white passing one

He is even visually coded as "other"

This a good look at how Loki is jewish coded:

Aside from having dark hair while most Asgardians are blond/golden-haired—a standard trope for emphasizing the “Oriental” origins of European Jews, though many (like myself) are blond or (like my mother and grandmother) red-haired—the Loki of the classic comics also tends to have a hooked nose. (Which is pretty common among cartoon villains, especially sly and conniving ones…)

So don't tell me he gets a pass becasue he is white and pretty ...

-> I mean sure I bet there are some people out there who do that ... but it is not the majority ...

Most people (and especially those who fall under the category of "marked") actually like Loki (despit the things he did) becsue he has a compelling backstory and character ... and usually an understandable reason why he does what he does even if that is not the same as justification ...

btw does anyone still have TW tweet about how Loki is just a sad white boy that needs to pull his head out of hIs arse?

I can't find it anymore ... this is the closest:

“Taika Waititi is swift to launch into a description of Loki, the unbeloved son of Asgard, as, “someone who tries so hard to embody this idea of the tortured artist, this tortured, gothy orphan.” He’s discussing the character’s emotional arc in the film, one that sees him put away his childish fixations and step up to save his city from obliteration; to put into perspective his petty family squabbles and realize a home is still a home, however you may feel about its inhabitants.”

SOURCE

Also also on teh matter of white actor:

Yes, Thor and Loki are played by White CisHet Male actors. That does not make both characters White CisHet Males.

[teamironmanforever]

HIGHLIGHT TRANSLATION OF THE SPANISH DUB ACTOR GUILLERMO ROJAS

Guillermo Rojas - Spanish Dubbing actor for Dean since season 12 until 15x18 (he contracted Covid and was unable to record 15x19 or 15x20 - he has yet to record those) 

INTERVIEWER: “Memo (nickname for Guillermo), I am not sure if you knew, but you broke the internet” 

MEMO: “Yes, a lot of people sought me out when this happened. I am so sorry I wasn’t able to answer at length all of your questions, but I was right in the middle of dealing with Covid. I couldn’t speak without feeling like I was drowning. Right now I am going to (voice) therapy. While it is not too dreary, there are 2 continued effects, so I couldn’t answer everyone who contacted me through various ways - through FB, instagram and an old youtube channel that I haven’t used in years - with respect to the situation that occurred between Dean and his friend (Cas). 

MEMO: “We try to follow (our lines) in what we see of the acting. Remember that dubbing is something where we must make a parallel alignment in our own language. Under the guidelines given to us by the client, we try to expand on all possibilities and all the alignments and - as actors - they permit us to give 100% of ourselves. So there isn’t a limit per se, so long as you don’t go off track (from what was requested from the client)” 

INTERVIEWER: “What were the guidelines for the line that broke the internet” 

MEMO: “It’s curious because neither the director nor us the actors knew much about the tendency that existed. Because we didn’t have much previous information that suggested that something like this would happen. To be honest when we recorded it, we were asking wait what’s happening? I mean we did it, but no one knew this was coming neither in the production studio nor amongst the actors.” 

INTERVIEWER “I need to ask for a clarification here. I mean we are talking about the love declaration Cas made to Dean after 12 years of intense eye-contact. But the big question is Dean’s answer. Because EVERYONE heard in your voice that clear “And I you, Cas”

MEMO “And I you, yes.” 

INTERVIEWER “Where does that “And I you” come from? Was it you? What happened there?” 

“The adaptation came entirely from my director (Adrian Fogarty). He adapted it and gave us our acting guidelines, and I performed accordingly - I gave what he asked of me. We all loved it. We never saw it coming so overtly.... If you remember across all seasons, we rarely see Dean get involved with any women. It just didn’t happen, unlike his brother. He just never got involved. It wasn’t his thing, especially because we have his brother to compare him to. We saw (Sam) in a relationship in the past 2 seasons with Eileen which was a very intense relationship, and very painful in the end. Dean never had to suffer through that. They tied Dean’s pain to the loss of his mother since he lost her more than once.” 

FB question: “So It wasn’t a rogue translator, it was a rogue director”

MEMO: “Look, Fogarty has some really intense abilities and one of them is to adapt the dialogue. When you see him translate a script, when he has the time to do it - even when he is not the one directing - and he leaves it in Spanish. The dialogue said, if I remember correctly, “me too” or something like that and then we switched it to “and I you” due to effects of lip movement, rhythm, etc... We don’t all have the ability that Fogarty has, that speed which he has, to think and translate immediately. We are a team and we work together, and pool our collective abilities, and of course Fogarty does his part. You need a Fogarty in every company.” 

(The interviewer mentioned that her cat hates Sam Winchester and loves dubbed Dean’s voice). 

INTERVIEWER “Do you know what Dean said in the original script before Fogarty got his hands on it?”

“Yes, of course. It made allusions to that. (Fogarty) made the right translation. It said and so do I or me too or something like that. It said it in the (original) script.” 

INTERVIEWER: “When you heard the english version while you recorded yours, did you hear Dean say I love you too?” 

MEMO: “No. If I would have, I would have taken the earphone out and gone what the fuck? *laughs*” 

INTERVIEWER: “What was your favorite episode to film?” 

MEMO: “With my short-term memory, I would say this last one (15x18), because it says so much. In one scene, it says it all. It was impressive, and so beautiful. I never saw it coming.” 

Interviewer “Well you have broken tumblr again.” 

MEMO: “Okay *Laughs*. Well, that’s good. Thank you very much.” 

MEMO: “I think it’s clear to everyone that the fact that he (fogarty?) broke the internet, with this information was a surprise for everyone. Absolutely everyone. Because we all say that if someone wants to be a “real man” we have to be like Dean. In fact it’s something very beautiful for me because it has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with feelings. It was a play by the writers that was marvelous. You didn’t see it coming, but damn do you like it.” 

MEMO: “Nothing was left out of the translation... No I was not called to re-record the “and I you”. I have not been asked to remake the dubbing. My director perfectly understood the texture of the text.” 

INTERVIEWER “Do you know if Supernatural has a quality review for the dubbing through Warner Bros?” 

MEMO: “I would be lying to you if I said yes, but I have been working for WB (LatAM) for many years as both an actor and director. And there is some specific material where they do have “filters”, but with something like supernatural I doubt it. I would assume the one left in charge of all decisions was our director (Fogarty).” 

INTERVIEWER “Have you been interpreting Dean as in love with Castiel this entire time or was it a surprise for you?” 

MEMO: “No, never, it was a surprise. In fact, to be entirely honest, to my closest friends - of the same gender - I do use the phrase “te amo”. I don’t have any issues with that. So I actually thought it went that way - but then I found out it was romantic.” 

INTERVIEWER: “Guillermo, what is your opinion, of destiel now that you know the nature of their relationship.” 

“Well it was a revelation for everyone - including me. I love how they handled it because we didn’t see it coming. And I think, of our understanding of the character’s traits and psychology, we know that if someone knows how to repress their feelings, it’s Dean Winchester. *laughs*” 

INTERVIEWER: “What would you say to Cas if he came back from the empty?” 

MEMO: “He came back?! (he hasn’t seen 15x19 or x20)

INTERVIEWER: “No I am saying what would he say IF he did” 

MEMO: “Oh, okay. I was under the assumption that I said I loved him so long as he wasn’t planning on coming back! *laughs* Well if he returns I guess I would say “Hello, Cas”.  

INTERVIEWER: *Tells MEMO about the not for nothing cas but the last person who looked at me like that I got laid” 

MEMO: OKAAAAY *laughs* That was too much. *laughs* 

INTERVIEWER: Would you be this fandom’s Godfather? 

MEMO: But of course *smiles* This was a big thing, from what I see. 

INTERVIEWER: “What message would you give to the fans who are descovering the spanish dub?” 

“first, thanks a lot of being part of the mexican dubbing. We do this job with all the heart and all the passion that we have. And I think I speak for all involved in this industry. We are glad to note that there are so many people from other countries that are watching these new projects in another language. So I have no words but thanks a lot.” 

INTERVIWER: “What would be your ideal ending for Dean Winchester” 

MEMO “I think, for all of them, they have sacrificed their lives and that of their loved ones for the safety and well being of everyone else. I think if anyone deserves to be well, happy, and calm, at least it’s those three (Sam, Cas, and Dean).” 

INTERVIEWER: “What about jack?” 

MEMO “Jack did attach himself to them, but I think he could find happiness in another nest.” *laughs* 

[two-red-lungs]

This might be a divisive (if that's a word) question, but I gotta know. Do you hc that the Lost Boys, like David, Marko, Paul, and Dwanye actually like womyn? Like sure they flirt with their meals to get them to let their guard down, but like outside of that.

I'm just think about how buckwild everyone went over Michael, and like their interactions with Star was more or less her being brushed off and treated like an accessory at best or a nuisance at worse. It's so stupid omfg but I feel like bad for wanting to sexualize them because of it? If that makes sense? Anyways I just wanted to see another dead head's musings over these cruelly gorgeous vampire. Like I guess this is an ask over how probably you'd see them as wanting to at the very least smash and dash, or even like fall in love with a womyn? Sorry for the word vomit and please don't answer if any of these questions squik u out!

This is actually a very nuanced and interesting set of questions! I have many opinions, as usual. Let's get into it shall we???

Lost Boys Opinions/Hot Takes

Lost Boys: Attraction to Women

Okay, to blanket-statement start off, yes. I personally believe that all the boys are, on some level, attracted to women, because honestly I have yet to encounter a vampire in any media that didn't have bisexual energy.

But I think it really varies for each of them. Like, David? Almost completely uninterested in women. Like a men-women 80-20 percentage. He prefers men. Marko would be on the other side of the spectrum: I'd put him at a men-women 30-70 percent. Kind of a sex gremblin. Paul's smack in the middle at 50-50. Dwayne is a mystery wrapped in an enigma and who knows what goes on in that gorgeous head.

They're just not very... romantic creatures. Romance is probably the furthest thing from their minds actually. I imagine the Lost Boys live in their own little reality, disconnected from the world and from humanity, and that reality is all about eating and drinking and fucking and fighting. No slowing down, no nights off. No time.

ESPECIALLY for falling in love.

The Boys & Star:

I absolutely think the way they treat Star/how her character is handled is a direct result of the director's world lense. The dude was gay. Do I blame him for making none of the boys interested in her, because of that? Absolutely the fuck NOT. However, she was completely sidelined and essentially used as straight prop/beard and she deserved better.

I think if the movie was made in 2022, we would have seen a Hannibal/Will romantic dynamic with Michael and David, with Star and Laddie playing roles as story-movers only, no romance attached. Star and Michael may have even had a better platonic friendship, allied by the fact that they both wanted to be human.

She also low-key seemed miserable and didn't like any of the boys, either, and I think she'd come alive and have way more personality around fellow women.

David & Michael:

Again, unfortunately, 80s movie. This was a very gay-coded relationship. You can tell the directors/story writers wanted them to angry kiss.

But. BUT. I don't think Michael is David's first 'fascinating boy'. I think the boys collect things: trinkets and sexual endeavors and posters and stuff. David collects (or tries to collect) people, especially people he finds sexually attractive. But by nature of his vampirism (he's fucking insane and murderous) basically nobody survives his 'tests'.

If it wasn't for the Emerson heritage of vampire hunting, I think Michael would have died, a year or two would pass, and David would find another pretty, fascinating, young boy toy.

Are the Lost Boys Sexy???

BITCH YEAH THEY ARE!!!! They are beautiful beautiful twenty-somethings with glorious hair, skintight pants, and the ability to fly. That's hot!!!! Own it!!!! It's fine!!!!

My rule of thumb is, 'would a horny man feel bad about this'? No. So I'm not going to feel bad about it either. Women are allowed to find things sexy.

For your last bit of question, I think the boys bed all sorts of folks of all genders. It usually ends in murder, however, so. There's that. But Paul has totally been to a hippie orgy, and David has absolutely been to a gay leather club. I am so so so certain.

This is sad, but I think if any of the boys fell in actual love, it would be quickly taken away from them. Because the boys survive through being insanely codependent on one another, and them drifting away to 'love' someone might be seen as a threat to be eliminated.

Like if Paul suddenly got deeply infatuated with a beautiful woman and started sending her love letters, or going on walks with her at night, if David heard about it, within the month something terrible and accidental would befall her. Because to him, Paul is his. Part of his family. And David likes to collect.

[thephantomcasebook]

Hello, good morning. I wanted to ask you a few questions and congratulate you.I love the way you inform us and make us fit the actions that sometimes we wonder how it fits with it, as in the case of Alicent and Criston cole.The questions are.Is Alicent as religious in the books as they show him to be in the series?Do you think they will leave Daeron and Jahaera alive in the series after the Dance of Dragons is over? I know Aegon III is known to marry the Velaryon girl and they have a religious son but they could change that to fit and match an Alicent in the series, it would be possible that Jahaera being his granddaughter has inherited that trait and if she marries Aegon and gives him those children she may have inherited that trait to Baelor.Do you think the directors of the series will go with the book, because so far they have released two versions of Fire and Blood and there are a lot of changes. Do you think they will follow the structure but some things will change in their own way, like in Game of Thrones?What do you think will happen with Aemond and Helaena in the second season?I would like Helaena to also be involved in the war and not just be mourning, although I understand her loss.It would be nice to see her with Dreamfyre and show us that strong bond they have.

1.) Her religiousness is mentioned in passing but it's not as major a part of her character. Alicent doesn't really have a character in the book. She's fairly one dimensional, and the focus is more on Rhaenyra. The only things you know (or used to know) was that her rivalry with Rhaenyra began over Criston when they were girls. Alicent was really close with Daeron and loved him most of all her children. She had a very close and loving relationship with all her grandchildren. And that she disappears from history and no one knows what happened to her.

Everything you love about Alicent comes from the show - she doesn't have much of a character in the book. Everything about her is buried in subtext or reader speculation.

2.) I'd think it would be a welcome change for Jahaera to be left alive. I was really annoyed both the first time I went through the source material and then recently when they ended up killing her. It makes you wonder what the whole fucking point of anything was. It also sort of makes "The Dance" pointless. Even in real history "The War of the Roses" ended because the two factions united their Houses as one.

As for Daeron, I can't speak to that, because, I'd have to see how they introduce him into the show - and they got a man's job ahead of them. His character is the one that has been changed the most in the transition from one version to the other. He went from an Alpha and legendary Dragon Knight who was reluctant to wield ultimate power when it was offered to him. And his "death" was a huge tragedy and way-point in history for the Targaryens in the long run, because he was someone who would've made an excellent king and brought the realm back together. Now he's been stripped down to a sort of after thought in the new text.

Which makes sense when you know that Spotchnik and some of the writers didn't want him to be in the show, period. So, they cut his part down in the Tie-in rewrite to make him seem unimportant. I honestly don't think they were expecting to have to introduce Daeron at all. And I bet their frustration will be taken out on the character and their interpretation of him ... so I have very little faith in his adaption.

By the way, no, I don't think Daeron died in canon. There is way too many inconsistencies and assumptions used to justify a death that no one ever saw happen and that most people didn't think happened. I think that after he and Tessarion killed Vermithor to save everyone - including King's Landing - that he put Tessarion out of her misery, went to King's Landing to protect Alicent and then disappeared - probably at her behest.

I subscribe to the theory that Daeron married Lady Dayne of Starfall, which was not part of the Seven Kingdoms at the time. And that Alicent later followed him there. And that House Dayne get their purple eyes, silver hair, and pention for their daughters' names starting with an "A" from Daeron and Alicent.

3.) I know for a fact that the writers and directors are going from the original version of the story, because, they lifted a lot of stuff from it in Season 1 that is now taken out in the Tie-In edition. Also, Emily Carrey, who plays young Alicent, came out and blatantly quoted from the original version that Alicent was in love with Criston and that was what drove the ultimate wedge between her and Rhaenyra. That's not her headcanon or personal motivation for the character, that was straight from the original source material.

Plus, Martin wrote it and he's Co-Executive Producer.

4.) Well, even in the book ... Helaena was a non-combatant and was nowhere near battlefields - So I just don't see that changing. Especally now that they've put her on the spectrum.

As for Aemond and Helaena ... I don't know. A lot of time you can read tie-in material stuff as sort of portents for where they're thinking of going in shows and movies. And, because, the new "Rise of the Dragon" illustrated book blatantly goes out of its way to distance Aemond and Helaena even more - as well as Alicent and Criston. I think Season 2 is gonna break up the Green's family dynamic and make them colder to one another.

Here's my dire warning to my Alicole and Helamond brethren and sisters ...

George RR Martin not only can't write romance, but actively detests love stories in his universe in general. He doesn't believe in true love and goes out of his way to subvert it. So, if you're waiting around for this grand tormented romantic moment between Aemond/Helaena or Alicent/Criston ... it's probably not gonna happen, not on GRRM watch.

I don't think Helaena and Aemond will interact at all in Season 2. And rather than show genuine feelings, Alicent will probably try or will manipulate Criston - and show that she doesn't feel anything for him at all. That she is this jaded and empty repressed woman who will be more of a villain now.

I hope not. But just like I have low expectations for Daeron's adaption, I don't have any faith that they'll do a good job of building on the momentum of Season 1. Being a writer myself, I know the temperament of professional writers in a room - especially ones that get over praised. All the praise and accolades of Season 1 will get in their head and they'll get arrogant and up their own ass and fuck up by thinking themselves bullet proof. Immediately, right after the season finale of HOTD, the head writer is out there fighting with fans already, saying that they don't know shit.

I don't have high hopes for season 2.

The difference between HOTD and GOT is that "Fire & Blood" is not a good or coherent book - it's inferior source material in every way. The "A Song of Ice and FIre" series is dense with backstory and world building, and you have incredibly fleshed out characters that you can adapt. HOTD is behind the eight-ball because the characterizations and their development are at the whim of writers that have to make up 75% of the adaption.

For context, HOTD is only adapting roughly 30-35 pages of a 200+ page book that is filled with subtext and conflicting accounts of events.

It would be a lot to ask of a talented writer ... and they just upped Sarah Hess for another season.

[esther-dot]

That’s a hopeful way to view things! To see it as Kit possibly having got some insight from Martin, but Kit has said a lot of odd things over the years and even at the con said things that seemed a little contradictory, so I’m less inclined to think that’s the reason, and more inclined to think it’s HBO related. That’s how GoT ended, he wants to make a sequel, he’s gonna defend GoT and Jon. Right after s8 he was characterizing Jon’s ending very differently than he is now, but he never launched into criticism of how they treated Jon and I believe defended D&D, so I think it’s probably just him being a professional?

Also, it being Martin’s ending is contested in the fandom. Most of the fandom doesn’t accept that Jon will kill Dany, and many in our corner don’t think Jon will go to the Wall. So some would take Kit’s words to be exclusively about GoT which D&D chose to scrub of meaning, beauty, hope…so, for people who don’t think even the plot points/endgames are the same, I guess Martin’s involvement is better than him disavowing it, but not redeeming? Like, he’s forced by contracts to be involved, but how could he fix what D&D fucked up?

Like you, I accept this ending as more or less Martin’s, because (like Kit, possibly?) I think it makes a sick kind of sense that Jon ends the Targ threat to Westeros by killing Dany and removing himself from political power by self-exile or going to the Wall. The problem is, story/plot are meant to be entwined, so when D&D unraveled the two, didn’t allow Jon’s emotional story to unfold naturally (or at all), they fucked over potential follow-ups. As in, whatever processing Jon was meant to do, he was meant to do during the main series the highlights of which GoT lawnmowered (dealing with parentage reveal, deciding to kill Dany, willingly removing himself from the political realm for the greater good…), because the context of the other characters is vital to making that all make sense.

I’m not sure how you can successfully work through those issues when Jon is at the Wall or beyond it where his identity doesn’t matter. The FF don’t care about bastards or kings, they don’t care about Targ v Stark, it has no significance, Aemon was at the Wall, what did that matter? He was nobody there. So, how do you bring it up naturally and find a good way for him to come to terms with it? Why would the FF give a fuck he killed a mad queen? They weren’t forced to kneel to her, Jon didn’t drag them to KL, he didn’t save them from her… GoT pulled Jon’s story and the plot apart, and I don’t see how you seamlessly braid it back together when the context that makes it all matter, that makes it all make sense, is no longer there.

To me, considering how Kit thinks Jon should have been king and the one disappointment he’s mentioned from s8 a few times now is Jon not killing the Night King, I think it’s possible that he wants Jon to have heroic adventures in the North and knowing that Martin had thought of some post canon ideas for Arya, I’ve wondered if he’d done the same for Jon and has ideas for Jon going rangering in the North. They could have lots of fun dreaming up things for Jon to do there. Kit’s team could take the FF stuff and characters D&D left on the table (like Val) or they could come up with their own story entirely and have Martin give tips to keep it tethered. Martin has spoken very highly of the HOTD people, so I think he gives writers/producers a lot more leeway than we do!

Personally, I have serious concerns about this entire enterprise being wrongheaded because everyone keeps asking the wrong question. I understand being caught up in the Dany craze when GoT was airing/shortly thereafter, but the lack of awareness about what she was by everyone (not just cast, but writers/directors/producers, interviewers, many fans!) still shocks me. It’s insulting to act like  “but is it right to kill Hitler?” is an acceptable question. It’s been years, and they are still asking the GoT equivalent! I can’t hold Kit responsible when he’s just answering questions, but  I worry that he’s been guided by that and thinks the pertinent Jon question is “how can Jon get over the trauma of killing his lover” or “how does Jon feel like he can be a good person when he’s done something Ned might not approve of” instead of “how can Jon live with himself after serving the person who burned children alive?”

The fact that nobody beyond our circle seems to care is so shocking to me, I still can’t believe they don’t think that matters? Why aren’t they, you know, asking questions that are about squaring Jon pre 7 with the Jon we get in s8? I suppose to me, that is whitewashing Dany, that they (fans, interviewers, Kit etc) are working from the assumption of how beloved she was and therefore it’s a tragedy that she died. Of course, Kit’s comments could indicate he at least knew Dany was bad and abusive to Jon…so maybe there’s hope. But what are the odds that they won’t include Jon talking about loving Dany or have him reference her as his queen? It was bad enough when he told her she was his queen after the massacre of KL, it was gross enough when he couldn’t say it was right to stop her in the dungeon after having LOTS of time to think about every child who died an excruciating death at her hands, the idea of him feeling guilty for preventing more mass murder rather than shame for serving the person who would do such a thing is so morally abhorrent to me, years later, I’m still horrified.

I don’t think Martin’s themes really came through in GoT although he said it was a faithful adaptation even after s7. He spoke very highly of the HOTD people and one of them said that civilian casualties don’t matter. You’d think Martin would ask people “what do you think I’m saying with this character? What is this story about in your mind?” as a way to keep whatever deviations take place with his characters still within some framework, but there are a lot of things that make it seem like those kind of convos aren’t happening or they aren’t registering? Kit’s comment about Ned judging Jon for killing Dany is an example to me of these actors/writers being influenced by what the audience feels rather than who the characters are / their world / what Martin may think. I guess my fear is that Martin isn’t actually guiding things as much as being used as a resource so at this point, the hand that’s feeding all of them is HBO? And Dany was their star, so I have concerns, but I think a number of Kit’s comments were interesting and he’s clearly very thoughtful about Jon, so here’s hoping!

I'm almost certain of at least one thing. They won't villainize or take Sansa's crown away from her. If anything, HotD has demonstrated one thing. Hbo/the writers are too afraid of being called misogynists, and despite everything they did with Sansa's storyline in got, they did present her coronation as a triumphant moment. So while I do believe they may play with certain tropes I dislike (Sansa being annoying blah blah blah), I doubt they would ever take her power away from her for the sake of a man, even if that man is Jon Snow. No doubt they would still mess up with a lot of other things tho lol

“I doubt they would ever take her power away from her for the sake of a man, even if that man is Jon Snow”

I agree that they wouldn’t take her crown away, but in s8 they tried to act like Sansa breaking her promise to keep Jon’s parentage a secret was unforgivable while a little mass murder by Dany was bad but... understandable? As in, they never allowed Sansa to explain her actions, they never tried to get the audience to sympathize, but they spent all season trying to paint the woman who came to Westeros specifically to wage war as a victim. Missandei’s death was inserted for the sole purpose of getting people to side with Dany, but they couldn’t grant Sansa a decent length convo to explain any of her reasonable, correct, fears and choices.

They sacrificed Jon on the Dany altar as well, so it’s easy to think this is only a Dany centric issue, not misogynistic thing, but there was no indication that Jon had made a mistake, we didn’t get a good, solid critique of Jon’s choices, and that’s why, for someone like me, the sequel fills me with fear. The sequel wouldn’t be Dany-centric, it would be Jon-centric, and unless set entirely beyond the Wall, Jon would very likely end up in some sort of conflict with Sansa. On the one hand, I love! Their arguments are great tv! On the other, it’s only good if Sansa’s concerns and her side of the issue is given the same weight as Jon’s, and I sincerely doubt they would be.

Keep reading

[ferusaurelius]

I've been reading your ofmd meta. It's amazing! How did you learn to figure all that stuff out?

Thank you for the ask!

There are two distinct questions here:

What makes OFMD a compelling ground for media and critical (meta) analysis?

What’s the critical basis I’m using in writing meta analysis and how did I learn to use it the way I do?

Why Write Meta Analysis of “Our Flag Means Death”?

The first question is easy: THERE IS SO MUCH TO UNPACK HERE. It’s all right out in the open, too, and it’s a real credit to David Jenkins that he created a supportive environment for the cast, the creative directors, the writers, and his entire CREW to bring all of their creative selves. 

OFMD is so full of love for its characters and story that it always takes my breath away whenever I think about it. So much creative energy and love was wrapped into this show in so many ways that I’ll never shut up about it ever.

The second question has a longer answer.

Analytical Training, Experience, and Practice (Not Necessarily In That Order)

While I am formally trained and have a BA in English, I would still credit my experience as a writer-practitioner as equally or more important in my analytical background as the formal training.

I am first and foremost a writer, and I “read” texts like a writer who wants to figure out what makes a narrative function. Learning how something is working is fundamental to being able to replicate it in your own artwork.

The simplest term for what I use as a framework for all my meta is a technique historically called close reading, but I’d openly admit that I am more flexible and informal with it than you’d find taught in a typical college class! 

Think of a “reading” in literature or film/media analysis as a bit like what a study or practice sketch does for visual artists.

When I was writing my meta post on The Tragedy of Israel Hands, I very explicitly decided to tackle OFMD and what was happening with Izzy by breaking down the show into episode-by-episode readings from Izzy’s point of view. 

I also chose to add some extra spice based on direct scene transcriptions, mentions of Izzy by-name even when he wasn’t on-screen, and what was happening for him as a character (what was his story?) vs. the obvious romance that was happening for Edward and Stede in the foreground.

David Jenkins had helpfully stated in an interview that OFMD was broken up into acts, so I just followed his lead on doing the same in my analysis. ;) He’d also suggested doing a rewatch with a focus on Con O’Neill and I was intrigued by the possibility of what I might find.

Turned out? Con managed to fit an actual three-act tragedy into the same visual and narrative space (albeit in the background) as Rhys and Taika acting the main romance in the foreground! This is fucking incredible in my opinion. Con’s narrative counterpoint with Izzy adds so much depth and richness to the romance and the comedy. I could chew glass over it (and I did! hence the post).

I firmly believe that ANYONE can do a good and detailed textual reading (with or without formal training), so here’s my quick(?) breakdown of how that works for me in the hope that it will inspire you and others to try your hand!

The best way to get good at analysis is to practice. Analyze, analyze, analyze! Write, write, write! Create in whatever way makes sense to your brain and energizes you to explore how you think about what you love. You don’t even have to publish/share the results. It can just be for you if you want.

As usual, only do what works for you. 

If there’s a thought or a step that you want to skip? Skip it. Do what you want. Create and write meta! Enrich the OFMD fandom with your own readings. :D

Ferus-Style Close Reading Guide

Goal: Break things down to build a detailed, text-supported understanding of a creative product (story, episode, play, film, painting, etc.). You can do this whenever you’re interested in something and feel like spending more time with it as a method of learning more and deeply appreciating a work of art.

Pick a moment in the text (show, fanfic, story, etc.) that interests you.

Interest is crucial! Think about why you’re interested. Sit with the text a bit.

Take extensive notes on what’s happening. You can also use another method you prefer like outlining, grabbing screencaps, or some combination to record and organize your first impressions and thoughts.

This serves as a record of where you started.

Don’t necessarily try to interpret right away, but DO decide for yourself what you think is happening in a moment or a particular scene. This can be as short as a single line of text or a few seconds of interaction in a TV episode or film. Trust yourself! The best art, by and large, does what it does in plain sight and will repeat or reinforce the significant themes and symbols.

Hold off on interpretation to allow yourself time to develop a good understanding of what has actually taken place in the text. Plenty of professional critics are weak at this step and jump straight into reshaping events to fit their thesis and interpretation rather than reading “out of” a text. It’s not necessarily bad (and there are techniques that use this sort of interpretation), but it’s really not where I’m coming from.

Break down your favorite scenes into as many moments (or points of focus) as are likely to be relevant to your analysis. If you’re working with a specific character, focus on their actions or their scenes (or other ‘by name’ references when they’re not on-screen). If the focus is a motif (a visual element), try to figure out what its appearance or framing is accomplishing when it is present. How do other characters react to it or introduce it? How do these interactions “read” to you? Again, what is happening?

This is the focusing step that typically tells me where the rest of my analysis is going. At this point I usually have an idea of what I’m seeing when it’s either reinforced by one or more sequential scenes (reinforced) or dropped and sidelined in an interesting way.

Take a step back and think about how the moment you’re analyzing is ‘working.’ What does it do? What purpose does this story beat or moment serve? Why is it happening in this moment, at this specific time, and what important features of character, setting, or story are happening? What are the consequences that follow?

I can’t stress consequences enough! Actions having consequences is a fundamental element of a well-structured narrative. The narrative consequences for a character or a plotline are one of the things that is MOST controlled by authorial choice. Do these consequences fit in with the theme you’ve noticed? Why or why not? Whatever is happening here is usually some of the most interesting elements of the narrative (if they’re present). 

Write down your initial guesses about the answers the questions above. Or answer a few of your own questions in a first pass. Theorize!

Now that you’ve considered the individual moments, scenes, or elements and taken a stab at the larger emergent themes it’s time to mash them together into a coherent picture (what are YOU seeing?). How are you seeing this text?

Keep repeating the process above for other surrounding scenes (the context) or moments relevant to your analysis.

YMMV with repetition. A longer analysis takes more repetition. A shorter or more contained analysis may only go through this process once. Again -- no one person will see the same scene the same way as another! Everyone has a valuable perspective to contribute.

Theorize once again after stringing the analytical moments together and connecting them -- what new ideas occur to you once you’ve chewed over the “small” interesting bits separately? Does a pattern begin to emerge? Why or why not?

You can learn as much from figuring out your first impressions were wrong (and looking again to see what’s ACTUALLY happening) as you will from being “right” the first time. Enjoy the experience!

You can learn almost as much from absence as from presence. While that may sound cryptic at first, glaring absences when characters or significant elements are NOT present are just as important in their own way, and may help you discover other themes in the same text. Strategic absences are MUCH more difficult to identify without careful attention. They’ll be obvious when you begin to look for them (which is the fun bit).

“Establishing” shots (introductions, first/last shots, first/last words) are always important.

Repeated and reinforced themes are generally stronger indications that a particular symbol or motif is significant. Looking for repetition or apparently deliberate call-backs to previous episodes, comments, scenes, or character relationships are often where the most fruitful opportunities for analysis are located.

Write up your general conclusions based on what you’ve learned from your smaller (close) bite-size readings and why you believe they’re significant along with how they’re functioning. If you observe a theme or pattern, focus your writing on how that pattern is built up and the evidence you found to support that conclusion.

And you’re done! Or whatever process you prefer is finished. For now. ;)

-

The most important element in my analytical process is close attention to the different on-screen choices (in framing, acting, and dialogue) that I’m seeing in a particular episode. 

I take extensive notes on what’s happening, sometimes by recording transcripts of the dialogue and often through watching and re-watching a scene of particular interest.

To continue with my example meta, The Tragedy of Israel Hands was based on rewatching OFMD with a focus on what was happening to Izzy in both the foreground and the background, with these questions in mind: 

What would this story arc appear to be from Izzy’s perspective?

What extent was that interpretation supported by: each character’s arc, the framing of various shots, and the choices and tone throughout the context of Con O’Neill’s overall performance of this character?

Was there a narrative thread linking together Izzy Hands’s story as a contrast to Edward and Stede’s foreground romance?

And now you have the meta on the meta. METACEPTION. -is shot-

You probably didn’t want an answer this long, dear asker, but regrettably I Am Just Like This.

[becausegoodheroesdeservekidneys]

Doctor Who, but Chronologically 22

Turns out, that last one was a two-parter, because now it’s 1893 for the Crimson Horror and we are in Victorian Yorkshire with Matt Smith and Clara and the lizard woman and Catrin Stewart and Strax. We still don’t know wtf is up with Clara, and the Victorian trio spend a lot of time asking, but the Doctor just hand-waves it as ‘complicated’. Honestly, this whole show is complicated, look how many hanging plot threads there still are.

So, this time, Diana Rigg is a Bible-bashing lunatic who wants to bring about an apocalypse using the bodily fluids of a gross red leech thing from the triassic. She is using a diluted version to ‘preserve’ a bunch of people to repopulate the Earth. Her daughter Ada is blind and is played by Rachael Stirling, her from Tipping the Velvet which is also about period lesbians, but also Rachael Stirling is literally Diana Rigg’s daughter in real life, so that must have been a really fun job for both of them. 

Anyway, for a very simple story, the writer and director chose a very good and interesting way to tell it by jumping around in the timeline a bit - the Scottish lizard and her wife and the Welsh potato are the stars of the episode initially, trying to find and save the Doctor. Jenny (Catrin Stewart pretending to be English) gets to beat up a bunch of men in a catsuit at one point, for which I am always a slut. Then the Doctor and Clara take over for the second half. In the end they save the day by Strax shooting Diana Rigg over a bannister, and then Ada beats the leech to death with her stick. Overall a really fantastic campy episode, loved it.

Shout out to one of the more charismatic supporting casts we’ve seen, too - there’s a guy who is trying to investigate and gets the Victorian Trio involved, and his role in this story is play his part with quiet dignity and solemnity and then to undermine it by fainting when confronted with aliens. So he does this on seeing Vastra, Strax, and the dematerialising TARDIS. In actuality I think Victorian freakshows would have inured the man to this sort of thing but fuck it, I laughed like a goose, the actor nailed it. ALSO, THAT MORTICIAN. My god. Did he need to play the role Like That? No. Was it reflected in the script? Also no. But my god, WHAT a character. What a performance! Adored him. I almost want more Victorian Yorkshire episodes just for him.

A side note - having watched so many period episodes in a row now, it’s becoming very obvious that they’re reusing the same few sets and then just claiming they’re different places. Honestly, it’s almost like the show was never remotely intended to be viewed this way.

Anyway, not too much plot here, though at the end of the episode we learn that this version of Clara is a nanny and her charges have inexplicably worked out that she’s a time traveller and have assembled photos. Also one photo is Clara from the last episode, so she’s now confused as to when she was in Victorian London. But... that’s about it. No further questions, no further answers.

Let’s check the list!

“She” (an unknown person) is returning (perhaps River returned as Missy. Maybe Me? Maybe Clara???!)

There is something on Donna’s back

An entire planet, Pyrovilia, just… disappeared, somehow. (Maybe because the TARDIS is exploding??? Saturnine was also lost, and that WAS because of the TARDIS exploding. The lion man’s planet was also lost but he was a bit of a knob about it if I’m honest.)

Amy is maybe dead (she’s not)

The Doctor has been cubed (he’s out, but how?)

River is possibly blown up  (unless she’s Missy)

The TARDIS has blown up  (It’s fine now. Except it’s sort of melting now because it’s corrupted, but it’s fine again)

The universe appears to have ended  (the universe is back again)

The Doctor has employed(?) Nardole (And Nardole was “reassembled???”)

There’s a vault in the TARDIS and it contains Missy but we don’t know why (sometimes she knocks for the bants)

What has happened to all these companions and where are the new ones coming from?

There’s an immortal Viking girl now. Her name is Me and she’s now looking after the people the Doctor abandons

Who/what is the Half-Faced Man that the Doctor talked about?

Why, when the Doctor saw the ship’s computer set to the Promised Land, did he say “Oh not again”?

What’s With The Silence?

Why was Rory entirely unconcerned by the entire world suddenly going silent when that is Not Normal and should have been, at the very least, extremely disconcerting?

What did the Doctor do to Queen Lizzie One?

Who is Captain Jack Harkness? (Is he the one who gave the companions a warning about the lone cyberman?)

Why is Amy seeing a one-eyed woman in a vanishing window?

What’s with the Doctor’s future involving getting shot by an astronaut?

Is Amy pregnant and why is it inconclusive?

Who is Sarah-Jane Smith?

How is the Doctor Bill’s teacher and why/where does he have an office?

What is going on with the Cyber War and the Cyberium???

Who did the Doctor lose to Cyber Conversion?

What happened with the Other Cyber War?

What happened with the Third War that deleted the void?

Why does Rose seem particularly important?

What’s with the statues you mustn’t blink at?

What order do these Doctors go in? (Eccleston, Tennant, uncertain.)

Which companion just... forgot the Doctor, and how?

What is the Flux and what did it do?

Who is the mysterious Victorian man who met Yaz?

Yaz and Vinder are about to die as Mori/Mwri/Muuri

There is a Lupari shield around Earth.

What’s a Time War?

What’s the Rift?

What’s Bad Wolf?

What happened with Amy’s pregnancy?

In which war did the Doctor become a war criminal, and how?

Who is the Master?

Why has Amy forgotten Rory?

Is Rory plastic or not?

Why is the Doctor sulking on a cloud?

How exactly does the Doctor have a cloud?

What exactly happened with Strax to, uh, tame him?

Which friend killed Strax?

Which friend brought Strax back?

Where did this lesbian lizard and human couple come from?

What happened with Clara as Souffle Girl and the Daleks?

How does Clara actually join?

Why so many Claras?

[castiel-left-his-mark-on-me]

Hi, Ary, very inactive ex-mutual(i think???) here. Good to see you thriving! ♥ It's been a while since I've dipped my head into cockles stuff. Could I perchance maybe ask uuuuum tf is going on??? lol I see Mish apparently confirmed he used to stay over at Jensen's in Van, and heard newbs were apparently freaking out about it and getting a bit messy, which I get that, business as usual. But I'm also seeing shit about spin-offs? And Jared getting in a twitter fight with Jensen, causing/resulting in stans to going feral and sending hate?? I know you're not as big a fan of Jar, but that's part of why I figured I'd ask you, you usually have a really level head about this kinda stuff. If you don't wanna answer publically, or at all, that's totally chill!

Hey, Rhi! We're still mutuals! Of course we're still mutuals! When I saw the notification of your ask, I was like "Hey! I haven't seen you in a while!" and my husband was like "???" and I said "Tumblr" and he said "Oh."

It was a wild time haha.

In any case, welcome back to the dumpster fire! We are obviously still a mess. So to catch you up, I guess I will start by summarizing both before and after the finale (not sure where you left off so this might be redundant for you) ... basically, it became obvious as the end of the show neared that Jensen was not on board with the plan for the finale; although Jared never stopped singing its praises.

We got confirmation of this during a zoom interview where Jensen said that he actually went into the writers room as well as called Kripke to basically voice how he didn't agree with the direction the final season was going, but he was shot down on all fronts. In another interview, he was asked "What would you tell your younger self going into this career?" And Jensen responded with: "I would tell myself to just keep your head down and do the work" meaning, "Don't try to change things because you can't." I also think that this whole situation is what he wrote "Let Me Be" about for his first Radio Company album, but that is just my own speculation. All of his reluctance, even though he always followed it up with "But I eventually saw the value in the script" or "I came around in the end" (which never sounded sincere, and I don't think he was really trying to sound sincere) made us all very nervous about what was to come for 15x20; and of course, when the last two episodes aired, we saw just how badly they fucked it up.

After the awful finale, the entire fandom became aware of the CW's heavy handed role in the thing, basically squeezing all the life out of SPN to shape it into a ramp from which Walker could launch itself. They not only erased all the love and joy and representation that Cas's love confession gave us, they also tore apart the things that made sense about the bond between Sam and Dean, making it really just about Sam-- and therefore Jared, which of course, Jared seemed to be fine with ... even though no one else was. Misha barely said anything during the finale, and a few of the other actors talked about the show ending in various posts, but Jared tweeted up a storm ... and Jensen? Jensen just sat in sexy-silent resentment of the whole thing. He didn't tweet, he didn't post, he didn't say a word once he no longer had to, and I think that's because he was already going full-steam-ahead on his plans for redemption.

Which brings us to Chaos Machine-- Jensen and Danneel's new production company that is being run by a queer creative director and has a mantra of inclusivity and representation woven throughout it's fabric; and apparently, the first story that Jensen wanted to tell through this new platform is the origin story of Sam and Dean's parents; so last week (?) he announced the upcoming production of "The Winchesters" -- the untold love story of John and Mary. Obviously, John is not the most likable character from the show, so the idea was met with a lot of resentment when it was first announced, but Jensen has gone on to say that he is excited to take on the task of telling the "true" story behind these characters-- the one that makes sense with the pre-established canon and doesn't reject it. So, given that, the idea is being mulled over with a bit more optimism from the fandom.

Who isn't being optimistic though?

Jared Padalecki.

When Jensen made this announcement on Twitter, many of his friends and coworkers congratulated him, but not Jared. Jared responded with a passive aggressive: "I'm happy for you, man, but I wish I didn't hear about it through Twitter." This of course, sent all the die-hard Jared fans into a tizzy and they immediately began asking him if he was serious (hoping it was just a joke-- we all hoped it was because there would be fallout no matter what one's opinion on Jared is). Instead of leaving it there though or just deleting that tweet, Jared went on to tweet some more, saying that he was being serious that he didn't know about the plans for the prequel, and that he was "gutted" that Sam apparenlty wouldn't be included (mind you, this a prequel to SPN... meaning BEFORE Sam and Dean were even born, so how could Sam be included? But Dean is apparently narrating this story so maybe Jared thought Sam should be helping to narrate it? I don't know). But Jared being Jared couldn't just leave that there, he then went on to tweet at Robbie Thompson who was announced as a writer for "The Winchesters" so then Jared went off on him too, calling him "Brutus" and a "coward" acting like Robbie betrayed him (speculation is-- Robbie refused to write for Walker, so Jared is pissed that he essentially chose Jensen over him). He did fairly quickly, remove that tweet attacking Robbie, but of course the damage was done at that point. And it truly only took his first tweet calling out Jensen for some people to be like "Jared-- that sucks if you didn't know but why are you saying any of this publicly?"

As you might know, Jared has had issues in the past with posting hurtful things on social media, and has even used it as a tool for attack before-- calling out customer service agents and public workers that he felt have wronged him, which is bad enough ... but for him to then do the same thing to his best friend of well over a decade? Many people who had once liked him or at least gave him the benefit of the doubt (I used to ...) stopped after this latest twitter tantrum.

However, some people have suspected for some time that J2 had a falling out either shortly before the finale or just after. Their public/social media interactions have seemed awkward, stilted or even non-existent in moments that they normally wouldn't be. In the past year, when Walker premiered, Jensen didn't say much about his friend's new venture other than a "Congrats. buddy" here and there. Later, we learned that Jensen refused to work on the show ... Jared said he make him do it, drag Jensen to the set "kicking and screaming" which made many fans quirk up an eyebrow because, why would Jensen put up a fight unless the two weren't as close as they used to be? And then Jensen moved his family to Colorado (either permanently or for an extended period at least) which is notable considering how he moved to Texas seemingly to be closer to Jared, even buying a house that was near his. All this was just speculation though; but it wasn't until Jared's tweet complaining about not knowing about the prequel that the theories behind them falling out, became less theory and more fact.

The day after his twitter tantrum, Jared tweeted again-- not retracting his statements or apologizing, but instead saying that he and Jensen "talked" and were "all good". Jensen then tweeted too, parroting this statement to some degree, which only made the whole thing even more sour in the mouths of the fans. The fact that Jared didn't apologize for his outburst and throwing his friend under the bus, and also the fact that Jensen-- Mr. Sexy Silence, Mr. Never Tweets, Mr. Tech-Ignorant-and-Proud, actually had to POST SOMETHING saying that he and Jared made up, it just screamed OPTICS. It was obviously the work of agents and PR firms and lots of people going "Look, if you two keep beefing, that will mean the death of both of your projects. Even more people will stop watching Walker, and this SPN prequel will never get picked up due to the scandal." So, the two "made nice" publicly to quell the chaos, but in my opinion, it's all too little too late. Jared started a storm that he can't contain now with a little tweet, and it seems like he knows that too because before he talked about him and Jensen making up, he asked that people "not send threats". He could have just as easily said that he shouldn't have made this a public issue and that he's sorry, but instead, he continued to play the victim and stoke the flames by alerting us all to the damage he's done.

Now, like I said before-- I used to give him the benefit of the doubt. I don't think he's an awful human or that he deserves to be attacked or anything, but he is an adult man with very poor judgment and an obvious selfish-streak a mile wide. He should know better, and he should have more respect for his so-called "friends" and "brothers" than to make them targets to public ridicule. I have a hard time believing that Jensen still sees Jared the way he used to, and I wouldn't blame him a bit for wanting to pull away-- especially when he's moving on to so many new and exciting things. Jared certainly deserves happiness just as much as anyone else, but he went on twitter and basically asked for a scandal, and he got one.

The question is now-- was there a motive behind it? Was just looking for a reason to bring his and Jensen's falling out to light-- while making himself looking like the victim in the process? Or did he genuinely not know about the prequel and just decided to go about "not knowing" in the most toxic and hurtful way he could manage?

In any case, that is the drama ... that is the J2 insanity in a rather lengthy nutshell ... that is the tea ... and I hope it all makes sense.

But the good news out of all of this is, Cockles is thriving-- they are happy and in love and Jensen calls Misha "Babe" and Misha misses waking up to see Jensen in the morning, and they are just as cute and wonderful as can be.

So, I will end that there. I am so glad to see you back, and I hope I answered all your questions in a way that made sense ... I tried anyway!

💖💖💖

[iamanartichoke]

I wasn't sure if I was going to post this, but I may as well.

I keep starting to reply to things and then stopping bc the words just aren't there, and I suppose I figured out the core of what bothers me so much (and is making me have such a rollercoaster of a fan experience) about the show.

(cut for length)

It's not well-written. My opinion is my opinion, so I'm saying this subjectively, take it or leave it, but ... I feel that it's not well-written. The overall story is fine, and the plot is fine, but I don't know if it's because of the limited number of episodes not being enough to house the story, or because of the relative inexperience of the writer/showrunner+director, or both, or something else, but -

In an earlier reaction post to episode 4, I mentioned really wanting to sink my teeth into all of the subtext I picked up on. That was what made me initially enjoy the episode so much - there were a lot of little moments that I initially felt revealed so much about the characters and about Loki, and I wanted to analyze them. But at some point, as I gathered more information, my perspective changed and now I no longer want to analyze the subtext bc ... subtext = good. Subtext w/out payoff = not as good.

I'll go into more detail in a moment, but I think the tl;dr of it is that I feel like the narrative requires the audience to work way too hard to put together all of the moving pieces here and, like, I kinda just don't want to do that work? Not so much of it, and not in vain. A lot of the enjoyment of Loki's characterization is coming from fans who are rationalizing why he's behaving as he is, but the narrative never actually confirms those rationalizations. It's asking us to figure it out and maybe our conclusions will be correct but maybe they won't, though. At some point, subtext isn't enough without explicit follow-through.

I thought my issue was with the lack of character development - that is, not having enough narrative space to really earn the big things that are happening now, like Loki/Sylvie or Mobius turning against the TVA. And that's still true, to an extent; I still feel like the pacing is all very off and it seems like most of these things kinda came out of nowhere (but are not unbelievable - just undeveloped).

But, yknow, it is what it is, it's a limited series, and I can excuse some things. Ultimately, my issue isn't a problem with what the narrative isn't doing, it's a problem with what the narrative already failed to do and probably cannot recover from at this point.

The narrative has left out significant details that should at least help us do some of the work here. If a person turned on Loki and started episode 1 and had no background knowledge of the character besides that he tried to take over New York - how would that person interpret Loki? Would that person say, oh, well, he's been through X, Y, and Z, and plus A happened, not to mention B, C, and D, so really, it makes sense that he seems off-the-rails, or that he'd want to get ridiculously drunk at the worst time ever.

Maybe we'd like to believe they would, but how would they be getting to that conclusion? The narrative hasn't led them in that direction so, no, they would not say well we have to consider this, this, and that. It would be impossible to really understand Loki as a character from just what we've gotten in the series. The general audience would probably interpret Loki as being out of his element and so it becomes, I wonder how this character is going to get the upper hand here. And, while that's not wrong, it's just so limited.

The narrative at face value does not address Loki's identity crisis from Thor 2011. It does not address his hurt and devastation at being lied to, nor does it address how complicated his self-image is (bc it sucked to begin with and that was before he found out he was part of a race of "monsters," as he'd been taught his entire life). It does not reference Loki being so broken at the end of Thor 2011 that he deliberately let himself fall into the void of space (aka tried to kill himself). It does not reference that he was tortured by Thanos or even that he went through a seriously dark time in between Thor and Avengers, and it absolutely does not reference or address any influence or control of the mind stone.

These are all things that we, the fan audience, know because we've already invested our time into this character's story. But tons of people, the general audience, wouldn't know these things. Or if they did, bc they saw Thor and Avengers, they wouldn't be thinking about them as deeply as we would, nor contextualizing them with how Loki is behaving now, or why it would make sense that he needed to get drunk, or why it's understandable that he needs to keep going-going-going in order to not have a spare second to think or feel.

They'd probably look at Loki, again, as a character who was a villain and is now getting his comeuppance in a place where he has no power or control, and no literal powers, and even when he manages to escape and catch up to the variant, he proceeds to fuck up their plan for seemingly no real reason except that he wanted to get drunk bc he's hedonistic. Which Sylvie even berates him for! I mean. This is not exactly a complex character breakdown, nor a very flattering one, but that's what the narrative has given us.

(If the narrative has addressed Loki's mind control, his torture, his mental breakdown, his suicide attempt, and his general shitty self-esteem as a result of his upbringing, please point it out to me. If the narrative has explicitly acknowledged and referenced these things anywhere and I am missing it, please show me where. Please explain to me how the casual viewer would know any of these things that they need to know in order to actually understand what's happening in this story.)

So I mean, okay, we have a narrative that doesn't paint a full, accurate picture of Loki. Fine, sure. But because the general audience starts out on the wrong footing, they're not going to get out of the overall story what the writers probably intended them to. For example, in episode 3, a lot of us theorized that Loki had some kind of plan - that he broke the timepad on purpose, for some reason, bc otherwise it wasn't believable that he'd be such a failure. But episode 4 revealed that no, there was no bigger plan, Loki just plain old messed up. Which is fine if, again, one is only considering the surface-level portrayal here, but it's not true to Loki's actual characterization.

I mean. Loki is not perfect and Loki actually fails a lot, this is true. He fails for a lot of reasons, but incompetence has never been one of them. Usually it's that either things grew beyond his control, or there ended up being too many moving parts, or he had to change his plan at the last minute due to some roadblock or another being thrown his way, or even that he got in his own way - whatever the case may be for his plans' failures, he was always at least shown to know what he was doing.

That wasn't the case here. The "plan" to fix the Timepad failed as a direct result of Loki's actions, which were careless and made him seem incompetent, like he couldn't even handle this mission. "You had one job," etc. And there were pretty big consequences for this; they were not able to get off-world in time and would have been killed had the TVA not shown up at the last second.

And maybe none of these things matter bc the writers never intended any of this to be a reflection on Loki's character, positive or negative. The situation exists solely because the writers needed to put Loki and Sylvie together in some kind of hopeless scenario so that they could get closer, and thus the narrative could set up their romance. I get that - but, there were other ways to do it that didn't require Loki to look foolish.

Furthermore, the whole reason they needed to set up the romance is to show Loki eventually learning to love himself (like, figuratively but also literally). The audience is supposed to gather that Loki and Sylvie fell for one another, possibly due to the high emotional aspect of, yknow, being about to die (in addition to the variant-bond). The intent is clear: Loki and Sylvie almost die but get rescued at the last minute, having now created an emotional bond --> Loki and Sylvie team up and the narrative further establishes that Loki, at least, has caught feelings --> Loki might confess them but is pruned before he gets the chance --> he somehow survives, he and Sylvie are reunited and don't want to lose one another again, and the combined power of their love is enough to break the sacred timeline and spawn the multiverse, and the reason that the power of their love is so, well, powerful is because it's about self-love and self-acceptance as much as it is about having the capacity to love someone else. The end.

I get all that. The writers more or less said all that. And, I mean, it's certainly not the way I would have chosen to go about it, but it's a fair enough arc to explore. I don't really have an issue with the intent - but my question, however, is this: if the narrative has so far not addressed Loki's background issues (as outlined above), and has furthermore kinda gone out of its way to portray Loki as hedonistic and narcissistic, among other things (like kinda incompetent), and the context the audience starts with is that Loki's this villain who deserves what he gets -

- my question is 1, why should the audience care whether or not Loki gets to a point of loving and accepting himself (thus to make the theme of self-love, via the romance, hold weight) if they don't know that he hates himself to begin with and 2, why should the audience root for Loki to reach that point when so far the perception of him is that he's "kind of an asshole"? if he's a hedonistic narcissist, he probably already has a pretty inflated sense of himself, right? A misplaced inflated sense of himself, at that, because, again, the narrative has made him out to be not that capable of much of anything. (And it didn't start out that way! It seemed to start out with Loki being capable and intelligent but it's like episode 3, in trying to set up the romance, just jumbled it all up somewhere. I think this is why I'm harping on the Loki/Sylvie aspect so much - it's frustrating bc it kinda messes up the whole story and can't even accomplish what it's supposed to anyway.)

Anyway, that's beside the point. What I'm ultimately getting at is, at what point is the audience supposed to get invested in Loki's personal growth journey?

They can't, not really. Without understanding and having the context of everything Loki has been through up until now, and why he hates himself, and why it's so important that he learn to love himself, then the "payoff" becomes kinda pointless bc the significance of it is lost in translation. So suddenly we're left with this romance that comes off as either "Loki loves Sylvie bc of Reasons" (best-case scenario) or "Loki loves Sylvie bc he's vain, narcissistic, and kinda twisted" (worst-case scenario). Neither of these conclusions are what the writers intended or were going for, I'm positive, but there we are, regardless.

In order for the writers' intent in these storylines to land, they need to address the context of what makes these particular stakes high for Loki. So far, they haven't done that. They're asking the audience to pick up on all of these things, and they're showing things that subtextually make sense and are relatively in-character - but only if you realize there's subtext in the first place.

But you can't expect the audience to do all of the work for you. If you don't want the audience to think that Loki is a narcissistic asshole and instead you are trying to convey that, worst-case scenario, he thinks he's a narcissist but is an unreliable narrator, then you have to address that. If you need the audience to understand why you're going the selfcest route and why it's important to explore Loki's capacity to love himself and others, you have to address where that exploration is starting from and why it matters. Etc etc etc.

The narrative isn't doing any of that. And it isn't like it'd be that hard to do it. They don't need to reinvent the wheel here; a lot of the pieces are already there. A few lines of dialogue for context, a brief scene here or there addressing the issues, a little more care and consistency in how Loki handles things - these are all little things that could go a long fucking way in making the narrative stronger.

I'm rambling. My basic point is that my rollercoaster of emotions with this show is because

- as a part of the fan audience, not the general one, I can contextualize and analyze the subtext and come to the conclusions the show wants me to, and thus find the story and the characters more or less enjoyable,

- but I am also going to be using the subtext to come to conclusions that aren't there but probably should be (I think it would be a better story, for example, for Loki to confuse platonic love with romantic love bc it would pave the way to explore just how fucked up Loki's understanding of love - whether of other people or of himself, and the different forms it can take - actually is)

- and when they're ultimately not there, then I think, okay why am I bothering doing all this work just to ultimately feel very unfulfilled? They don't even have to write it the way I would, I'm not saying that, but they do have to do something to make the story feel rewarding.

If we don't get some confirmation of what Loki's been through, and where his headspace is, and why it matters for him to love himself, then the story remains pretty shallow and, for me, it's not fulfilling enough. It's not engaging enough. There isn't actually anything to sink my teeth into, so it becomes kind of boring. Maybe it's rewarding to other people, and that's great for them, but like - I need more than whatever this is.

So I'm just like - well, I had a lot of worries about this show, but my being bored wasn't one of them and now there's only two episodes left and am I really not going to get anything out of this, in the long run? No new canons, no new depths or layers, no new information on Loki's experiences? This is it?

I don't dislike it. I didn't start out disliking it, and I probably wont end up disliking it. I mean, there are a lot of good moments, and good things, and fan service-y things that I appreciate. As far as inspiration for fic goes, it's a goldmine, both plot-wise as well as aesthetic-wise. All of that is great. I don't dislike this show.

But I am disappointed in it, and I feel like I'll be watching the next two episodes lacking the sense of anticipation that would make it exciting. I'll still enjoy them, probably, if for nothing else just the sheer Loki content, but whatever it was I felt watching episodes 1 and 2 is gone and I'm sad about that, too. Because I really wanted to feel fulfilled by this series; I wanted it to fill up the void that Loki's death in IW created three years ago. And I just ... don't feel it. Maybe, maybe that'll change over the course of episodes 5 and 6. I don't know.

Everything that I end up enjoying long-term, I think, will come about as a result of my own interpretations and analysis and while theoretically there's nothing wrong with that, if I had known all I'd get out of this series was more headcanons or support for my current headcanons then, well - that's fine, I suppose, but I'll definitely a little bit robbed.

[anonil88]

Malcolm and Marie live blog

I don't usually do liveblogs for movies but yea.

Spoilers ahead!!

I love that its modern timed but very 70s stylized.

A tune indeed.

When you are high and drunk on success and

How the white critic reacts is why I feel like gatekeeping my scripts. At the same time some things I do make are about race or involve.

Marie sitting on the patio smoking is a mood whenever men are talking.

So he's pretentious and unaware.

Whoever chose the music for this, I feel like we would be Spotify mutuals.

Can this nigga stop pacing.

Also can he stop talking;

Marie is so tired and unimpressed.

Also little booties matter and are to be bitten.

Oooo the tension and the jazz.

Title Card over mac and cheese.

Shitty boxes mac and cheese but still mac and cheese.

Tbh i always wonder if spouses/significant others get upset when their spouses don't acknowledge them during speeches.

John sounds so much like his dad but I really hope his acting style differs from his dad a lot.

Guilty confession?

He did not profit off of his partners backstory and then not even acknowledge her.....I.....

If that ever happened to me catch me cussing my partner out during the beginning credits, the end credits, in the car, and at home.

GASLIGHTER!

The way I'm excited for Zendaya to give me some, oooo can she work with Regina King. Please on my knees I pray.

Um no that's not your job to coddle your lead.

He's a dick and the type of dick who makes himself look like a good person around other people.

If Sam Levinson is trying to make his viewers more of misandrist, it's working.

I feel like Marie has her flaws probably a lot of them and we will surely see as this continues, but Malcolm needs to learn how to apologize sincerely.

70s vibes! 70s vibes!

Them kissing and talking about criticism and dreams makes me miss a partner. A partner that I've had and haven't had.

Women really are behind every great man.

Yea sir you fucked a happy moment.

Oh visual allegories for looking in from the outside and cat and mouse chasing and looking from the outside in.

She's saying she doesn't feel noticed by you.

Gas lighter :0 he called her an emotional support dog, bruh.

I would LOVE to co-write or take a writing class held by Sam Levinson. The fights i write are very much in this same realm of reflection and anger and monologue.

Sam.....sam.....are all the sides inside of you doing okay sir?

The ugly side of dating and being in a relationship with someone who struggles with their own demons.

Honestly I could close my eyes and listen to this script being read without seeing these characters visually. Just close my eyes and get a sense of these characters like it was a radio story.

Oh. Oh this is a new wheelhouse of Zendaya acting; a different voice is like breaking through here and her expressions aren't the same we are used to. You can literally hear another character in there....hmm.

Mans is outside really fighting with his invisible demons lmfao.

Selfish ass, how after everything she said you came out of it thinking about your own craft and self instead of how you hurt her.

So she's conditional.

Me: did sam (a white man) say nigga this many times in his script or are the actors adding their own inflections. Not just the lingo used but the topic of race and directing etc. being written by a white writer about black characters is always gonna be a critique when you're writer is a white person.

Alexa play Broken Girls by Saba

He is so hurtful.

A clown nigga a clown look in the fucking mirror you bozo head ass looking like you need some Mehron clown white and a size 16 in clown shoes.

John is doing a really swell performance and reading of these lines.

He is reading her for her insecurities by bringing up his experiences with other women and that.....is yikes.

Arguments can get messy like this in real life but it takes a lot of maturity and control to either not let it get to this point or have a healthy conversation afterwards.

This film is really shot on some very crisp lenses.

They sitting there like 🚬🧍‍♀️🧍‍♂️.

Leftover Mac and Cheese and unfinished cigarettes.

The nyt etc. pay walls are so annoying, but there is a work around look at the articles on incognito or add a period at the end of the url.

He sounds like his daddy so much here, weird, this is the only part I'm eh on the dialogue it feels real but a bit out of pace in how they are bouncing off one another.

Nail scissors? So the end is not the only part he based off of Marie. 🙄

ITS A GOOD REVIEW YOU DINGUS but also its a full review they are going to critique things. She isn't wrong though he did profit off of a woman's story that was not his own to profit from.

Yes Malcolm because unfortunately all marginalized people look through a lens of life that is inherently political because of the world they live in.

He is so mad and upset and had a lot on his chest. But I think he Malcolm and Sam are talking about something thats an issue and a non issue. Being critiqued for you art is hard but also Malcolm is not super self aware. He's like a stand in figure of for example rich depop sellers who wanna be oppressed so badly they yell at others instead of examining their own personal behaviors and ethics.

Oh Marie, when you know the spark is gone and you pick fights because.

He ain't even ask her to read?

One critic I have for most of hollywood actors is they learn their cry and that is it. A change from this is Margot Robbie, I adore her fluctuations of crying being similar but the crying is carried differently for each character. If I had to say any actor that does a cry scene amazing its this woman right here (Amy Adams)

You stole her story from her and gave it away, she has a right to be upset and angry and a rubber band ball of emotions.

Citizen Kane, not the cinematography, but the story is it even that good? (Unpopular opinion but meh, maybe in my rewatch it will be better.)

But that is what people want authenticity and whatever authenticity means to them. What is real for one is false for another.

To be honest look at the criticism of Euphoria, well earned, but a lot of people were like this isn't real even though he literally wrote about his own life. People said it was inauthentic like....wtf.

Ahh the smoking is just a habit, he quit and she didn't.

CAST ZENDAYA IN A HORROR MOVIE PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF EVERYTHING. Get Lupita and Zendaya and some more black actors preferably less known ones in a horror movie. One with a interesting script and story, directed by Regina King. Please and thankyou.

I love Marie yep that was amazing.

Behind every great man is a greater woman, one that deserves her credit for how she has stood behind. I wonder the stories of those women, what they have sacrificed or not sacrificed. Their thoughts and feelings when the world is surrounding their partner and views them as a plus one. (I'd write a short script about this but I think do I have the time, can I, or am I equipped ?)

He is a shitty person for bringing up his exes, like she even said I don't wanna know any of that.

Imagine being on anti depressents and rarely having a sex drive and then when you do your partner starts talking about their exes and tearing you apart for all your faults.

I love when you see peaks of Zendaya's cadence in roles.

Tension, what if's and he didn't even bring her up in his speech.

Marie to herself and the audience:

He is not afraid that he will loose her but as my character says in my unreleased story, "i can't wait til you give me a fucking reason to leave your ass." Malcolm expects everything in order for not even doing the bare minimum and she is only asking him for something as simple as consideration. She just wants him to be considerate. He wants to get married and considers their relationship like rolling down a hill at full speed and he cannot apologize, he cannot be considerate, and he cannot admit his wrongs. He can only offer her I love yous that he probably does mean but he does not back up outside of what he's done for her in the past. The past which was more of her experience than his and he sees his part in it as a burden. He doesn't use his own vantage point of the past to further his career he uses her. He does all of these things without a real apology or thankyou because he is not afraid to loose her.

The restrictions of quarantine and the panorama have made Sam's writing very no frills. I wonder how other films from other directors and writers that are filmed in small contained crews like this will be structured. But this was a very good movie gonna add to my letter box 3.3-3.5

Oh shit this is my song,

Ratings/overall thoughts:

Script is like a C+, B- : I could go into my heavier big brain thoughts on the script but I don't feel like it. You catch hints of it above it centers conversation on race and privilege, mainly the writers and questions i have that won't be answered but Sam did make me grow disdain for Malcolm over a short time. Which is sometimes hard to do because im one sympathetic person but the sympathy i have for Malcolm is at 0. Maybe a 2 at some scenes but then it quickly goes back to 0. Some parts of the dialogue miss the mark or hit the are off balanced. While some of it like Malcolm's bathroom speech albeit mean is really strong or their conversation when he comes back from peeing really shines for me.

Performances: B+ to A- because they carried the script further than it could of gone with less talented actors. The monologues do well to showcase their current skill levels which are already high af and leave room for anticipation in where these actors go next.

Zendaya holding a knife: A+ with a gold star. That switch on and off and on is delectable.

John being a shitty boyfriend but following Marie like a lost puppy: B+ with a good job written at the bottom of the paper, Malcolm being nervous a frantic dialed up with more realistic nervousness would have sold me completely on Malcolm's anxious waiting.

Cinematography: A and a participation award.

The mac and cheese: A+ for the easy mac. Wish it was like Annie's or Velveeta.

Cigarettes: Participation award and their picture hung up for student of the month. Why the grill lighter? Everytime Malcolm opened up his mouth Marie was like sparks fly.

The music: A++ with a prize. Whoever picked the music probably makes good Spotify playlists.