#then i was a tv show/movie editor

[sinisxtea]

seeing so many idol edits make me want to be an editor again but also it was a lot and i don’t know if i can really edit idols bc it’s not the same as film/tv shows/anime (the stuff i used to edit) 😭😭😭😭😭

[roomwithanopenfire]

the way there are so many snowbaz edit ideas just floating in my brain but i'll never be able to make them because there's no movie or tv show

[celestie0]

when ppl get too caught up in the accuracy of situations in fanfiction or if things are super realistic or as they should/would be in real life etc etc im like. my tumblr user in christ. it's fanfiction.

[eighthman-bound]

This goes out to the ten other people here who love this show

@dyonisia96 the one to thank for this

[chailovesu]

Random things u can add to your script if you are manifesting being famous

i think ima separate this into careers

model:

being on the cover of magazines

always knowing when a camera is on you + never have awkward pictures get popular

being considered one of the best new gen models and one of the best of all time

being signed to desired company

being the muse of a very famous designer

very photogenic/videogenic

have an iconic walk that everyone loves

you could be wearing something absolutely hideous but make it look good

singer/rapper:

every single song u make blows up on every platform

kind of rapper/singer that once u feature on a song its ur song now

if u cover a song the cover gets more famous bc it sounds better

popular dance trend being made to your songs

immunity to getting sued for copying a song

perfect stage presence

be able to dance and sing/rap at the same time

constantly be nominated for awards and win

any song u make constantly goes platinum and charts for months

having a song featured in a popular tv show/movie

be good at taking selcas and they always go viral on pinterest

easily hit high notes

unreleased music never gets leaked

being talented on a beyonce level

be invited to perform at places like the superbowl and coachella

be able to write ur own songs with unique lyrics

game streamer:

clips of u playing always go viral

have a connection with your subscribers + be everyones comfort streamer but not in a forced way

be really good at the games u play effortlessly and look good while playing

having merch that always get sold out

being seen as the main streamer for desired games

be entertaining to watch + funny things always happen on stream

subscribers always donate alot of money and give you gifts

collab with other famous streamers + everyone enjoys playing with you

have access to unreleased games early

have partnerships with really big brands

be gifted free games often by companies for promotions

people know u by face AND voice

if u wanna be a faceless streamer at first your face reveal blows up (in a good way not the dream way) and ur subscribers double bc of it

actor/actress:

being fancasted for your favorite cartoon character so much that u act in the live action version of it

always get paid a lot for your roles

have chemistry with your co-workers

be good at all type of acting (voice acting too)

easily attract roles

never get hate for the roles u act

always get awards for your acting

easily be able to do things like cry on command + be able to make your audience feel the emotion through the screen

be a very versatile actor like your range is crazy

applies to all:

seeing edits of yourself by talented editors often

pristine reputation + never being canceled

being that one celebrity that everyone defends like their life depends on it

Immunity to weird ppl finding out abt u

being likable in general any hate you receive just feels so forced

being alot of celebrities ideal type

being everyones celebrity crush

never having your xxxx exposed (or revise never taking any)

eye contact with u makes interviewers nervous like that one jhene aiko clip

people from your past only have good things to say + other celebrities love meeting you and only have good impressions of you

this one applies to acting and singing and modeling but being a highly sought-after person in that field

a fortnite skin? or being featured in your favorite game

still being safe going in public alone + fans respect your privacy

and if ur manifesting being a nepo baby

everyone supports you

in your childhood u were featured in alot of movies/shows (or just in the spotlight often) so people feel like they watched you grow up and adore u

being more famous than your parents + people feel like even if ur parents weren't famous u still would've gotten famous

having famous childhood friends

if i think of more ideas or careers ill make a pt2 but thats probably unlikely idk yet

[tyrantisterror]

There was a writer at io9 who I lowkey viewed as my nemesis despite never interacting with him in any way because whenever I encountered an article with an absolutely dogshit shallow take on pop culture 9 tiems out of 10 it was written by him, and generally in mindless praise of Star Wars. I bring this up because before I quit reading the site he posted an article called "I don't get why geeks don't like sports" or something like that, and the thesis of the article was that geeks who love sci-fi and fantasy fiction should LOVE sports because they're basically the same thing - that everything one loves about sci-fi and fantasy fiction can be found in sports. To which I say:

No the fuck it can't

You, a man who is paid to write about geek shit for geeks to read about because your editors inexplicably believe you know why geeks like what they like, clearly lied on your resume

The argument went that sports have everything sci-fi and fantasy fans like, which it specified were, like, stakes, and drama, and people to root for and against, which is basically all it takes to make a sci-fi story, right? Like Jesus Christ it was so stupid, like, Jeff Bezos described how easy it is to make a great TV show stupid.

BUT! It did give me an idea. See, one of the big appeals to me about sci-fi and fantasy stories is the fantastical shit that shows up in them, like monsters, for example. Another big appeal is to see a how our current world can be reflected in the fantastical one - whether we see a better world, or one that's worse in a very dramatic way.

So, here is my suggestion for making sports just like fantasy and sci fi fiction: we add a new position to every single sport called The Minotaur. The Minotaur wears heavy body armor as well as a big, intimidating horned helm, and brandishes an axe with deadly efficiency. The Minotaur is a free agent, allowed to wander in and out of the stadium/ice rink/golf course/what have you as he pleases, but he must attempt to kill one player per game. The players are not allowed to take weapons into the game to defend themselves - only through sheer athleticism can they either evade or disarm the Minotaur, and in doing so save themselves.

If they did this, then finally they'd have everything I love in my sci-fi and fantasy movies in sports.

[drdemonprince]

The first time I saw myself as a “man” was in a bathhouse. It happened in the showers of Eros in 2004. Eros had the best shower heads in all of San Francisco. The pressure on these babies could take the knots off your back. On those frigid summer nights, I’d book it to the Castro. I had just moved to the Bay Area from Phoenix, where Gay spaces were rare and tucked away. Eros had a proud awning that let everyone know what you were walking into. It was also across the Safeway in Tales of the City. I felt so cosmopolitan. A sweet, cocky bear worked the counter. They had a smirk that made me blush. They were the proud editor of Cubby, an FTM porn zine piled at the entrance next to the fag rags. Eros was cozy. It had a carpeted locker room, a small but crucial steam room, an upstairs playroom with leather beds and TVs that showed porn shot in the very same bathhouse. It was spotless, but the disinfectant couldn’t hide the faint mildew of the carpet. Even if the place was empty, it was worth the price to shower until my fingers pruned, until that June fog melted away. I was scrawny and that cold ocean air got in my bones.

It was a tiny moment, alone in the showers after the bars closed. Late at night Eros could feel supernatural, with a Kubrick silence. These spaces still carried so much stigma from AIDS. Often I was the youngest or only person there. As I walked out toward the lockers, under my wet eyelashes, I saw a man charging towards me, arms stretched, posed for an ambush. His body was lithe and alert, stoic and simian. It took an entire second to realize it was the full-length mirror behind the plume of steam. I’d never seen myself hold my body like this, not in photos or in home movies. In the outside world, I hunched over and shrunk in front of other boys. I was so self-conscious I couldn’t grow muscles or chest hair. But when I was in here, I carried myself differently. I felt relaxed, patient, grown. That night, I finally understood the confidence of the bear at the front. This was confidence of safety. 

I receive a lot of questions about bathhouses and this guide by Leo Herrera is great!

[fictionstudent]

Novels are not movies.

Visual media has taken on the world by storm. It’s the next big thing in the evolution of humanity, maybe. It’s quite certainly changed the way we entertain ourselves. And with the recent spread of short-form content, visual media has also become cheap, disposable, and easily accessible to the masses—perfect recipe to make a product famous.

Alright, I’ve been a little too dramatic, lol. But for real, I’m one of those who’s severely addicted to Instagram Reels. Whenever I’m done scrolling, I feel like I’ve completely wasted my time—I could have read a novel, watched a movie, or caught up with my favorite mangas. But instead of all those ways to relax—and believe me (pwlease) that I only open Insta to relax, when I’m free—I just waste my time.

I love my novels and manga, mind ya, so when I catch myself wasting precious time that I could have instead used to consume them, I cuss myself. And then I go scroll some more Insta, because I’m an absolute idiot.

Anyway, back to the topic. Visual media has absolutely taken over our lives. I won’t go into the debate of whether this is a good thing or not, but we all can agree that it’s an undeniable fact. Video is everywhere.

Because—and lemme repeat myself—it’s cheap, disposable, and easily accessible today.

And because of such exposure to video storytelling, beginning authors forget that novels are not a visual medium. Yep, here goes my rant.

***

#01 - The Problem

The problem is simple—these kids have too much access to their smartphones. And these smartphones are filled with videos, like a dustbin with its lid hanging on because of all that garbage overfilling it. (Damn, I sound like a boomer.)

And therefore, when these new authors begin writing, they can’t help but imagine a sort of movie or a TV show as their story. And that’s where the problem is—novels are not supposed to be movies.

Movies are a visual media. That means they’re composed of pictures. Images. But guess what novels are composed of?

Text. Words.

It seems pretty basic. I mean, everybody knows this distinction. But what they don't know, however, are the implications of this distinction.

Personally, I began writing with film-novels too. And those novels are bad. Genuinely. I cringe at the fact that I could even mail editors and believe they’d accept them. Good thing they never did.

What’s a film-novel, though? Well, the idea is pretty clear—it’s a novel, but imagined in the form of a film. So, it’s like a film, but in text.

It’s like you’ve written the film as a novel, instead of writing it as a screenplay or something, maybe.

But you’d ask me—why? Why is it even a mistake? Everybody has a different writing style. And to that, I’d tell you one thing—the audience. The audience is different. The media is different. You can’t expect a cinephile to read your book. And since it’s not like a professional novel, a (Googles the correct term) bibliophile certainly won't.

So, who’s gonna read your story?

No one—because it’s neither a film, nor a novel. It’s a film-novel, an illogical mix of the two.

Everyone drinks water, and everyone likes ice-cream. But you can't… No, I’m not even completing that sentence. Ew.

Anyway, you get the idea, lol.

***

#02 - Identify

So, what does a film-novel even look like?

And for that, ladies and gentlemen, I present to you,

The lean figure was standing on the other side of the railing three floors up on the ground of the school building where children below were shouting and kicking football upon each other, wearing white football jerseys. The figures, as they ran all over the ground, seemed very small as I looked at them. The goalkeeper of the right side, who was just beneath my white shoe, kicked the ball so hard that it flew in air and went directly to the other foot of mine. The other players shouted “Whoaaa!” as they saw the ball flying. But suddenly, two of them looked upwards and saw me. One of them pointed towards me and then shouted, “Hey, who’s he?!” All the other players started walking towards that boy who was in the middle of the field with their heads tilted up above on me. Another one shouted, “Hey! What’cha doin’, eh?!” My narrow eyes, which had dark spots beneath them, looked at the boys from behind my spectacles. I then moved my head a little up and saw my shiny gakuran jacket fluttered by my shiny yellow colored buttons as the wind started blowing from my left side. I was able to feel the wind dancing upon my soft skin as I closed my eyes and turned my head upwards. I took a deep breath, and then exhaled it out with my mouth. I then again took a breath. This time, when I exhaled it out with my mouth, I was able to feel the saliva of my mouth upon my lips. I tilted my head and turned towards my arm, which was trembling a little. Both of my hands were still holding the railing of the school’s rooftop. I then turned left and then looked on my other arm. “Hey! Get down!” One of the persons from beneath shouted. I turned my narrowed eyes towards the ground, the teachers, a large gang of footballers and students, and some even workers had gathered in a circle. I turned my head towards the front. I looked at a couple of brown colored and blue-green colored houses in front of me, which stood high and mighty. Beneath them was the clear blue sky.

A wall of text!

Warning: you don’t really need to read all of it. But you probably did, lol.

Anyway, it’s the opening scene from one of my first novels. And, as much as I hate to say this—it’s pretty sh*t. It has a lot of problems—no paragraph divisions, for example, as well as a lot of grammatical mistakes too. But the biggest problem with the text is that it’s just images.

Reading this text, I dare you to highlight one single sentence that might tell you anything about the narrator.

The narrator is narrating the motions, not the emotions.

(Damn, that was a dope line to say, man.)

The narrator is only telling you about the images and actions and dialogues and thoughts. Even though it’s in first-person POV, you feel distant from the narrator. And, even in third-person POV, authors are supposed to make sure the distance between the narrator and the reader remains at a minimum.

That’s how you get a film-novel—that’s filled with scene-descriptions, actions, and dialogues. There’s no narrations in it. The readers don’t know the thoughts of these characters.

***

#03 - Is it really a problem, though?

Well, you might ask me—is it really such a big problem?

Heck yeah.

The reason is pretty simple, actually—no one wants to read a film-novel. These novels are filled with only descriptions and actions—that’s too much of mental effort. these novels make their readers keep on imagining stuff, and no reader wants to do that.

Because it’s easier to look at pictures than to imagine them based on text. And that’s why your film-novels won’t work.

See, you need to understand this—novels are different than film. Sure, novels are a form of storytelling too, and they do include visual effort, such as descriptions, action, and all that. But, all that is not the main selling point of a novel.

The main selling point of a novel is the emotions. Emotions captured in words, in situations—caught in context like a butterfly in a child’s hand. Films can display emotions, but novels put those emotions into words.

Narration is what forms the greatest part of a novel. Narration is where a novel actually shines. Narration is what the readers come to read.

And, as you could guess, films don’t narrate. Consider this,

And rain made him feel like crying. He gulped down, trying to keep the lump of his throat in check. He couldn’t cry in the middle of so many other kids. They’ll ask questions, and what will he say to them, huh?

He was sorry.

For what?

For everything he did. And for everything he didn’t.

The day had just begun. It’d be long before it ends, y’know. He just couldn't wait for it to end. There was no lifting up his mood. Not until tomorrow.

How do you display this in a film? The answer—you can't. However hard you try, you can't.

Such narrations are where the art of novels shine. Such narrations are what differentiates a novel from a visual media.

***

#04 - Is it really a problem, though? (pt.ii)

All this talk constantly reminds me of Cormac McCarthy’s The Road. It’s a literary achievement and really experimental in a lot of stuff that it does. For example, the novel has no dashes or apostrophes—and it’s not like these punctuation marks were not needed, they’re just not used. So, you’d find a lot of grammatical mistakes throughout the text.

And also, one thing that McCarthy ignored—and that’s relevant to the discussion we’re having—is that there’s literally zero narration. Zero.

McCarthy adopts a style that’s similar to a third-person POV, and is kinda like how I used to write when I was little—just with paragraphs and better scene-descriptions and action-descriptions. A lot better, as you can observe if you read his work.

Anyway, he didn’t have any narrative elements in his text. So the readers don’t really know what these characters are thinking or planning to do. They just know that these characters are somehow surviving.

I don’t wanna give away most of the plot of the novel, but the basic premise of the novel is that there’s a father-son duo who’s been caught in this apocalypse-type situation, and are traveling down the road to the south part of the country to escape the harsh winters that the north experiences. The novel doesn’t reveal a lot—the readers don’t know the names of these characters, the thoughts of the characters are hidden most of the time, and you don’t know what actually happened that most of humanity is dead and society is completely gone.

Now, McCarthy did it for a reason. A scarcity of punctuation marks reflects a form of scarcity in the scenery around them. Because most of it is, well, gone. Humanity is gone, and stuff is decaying. You don’t find fresh food anymore. Scavenge all you want—one day, all the canned food will expire, and there will be nothing to eat. Except fruits and veggies, that need to be grown somewhere. And nobody likes the latter, honestly.

And the scene-descriptions are so tough to read. They’re an actual pain. I have had a really hard time deciphering most of it, because the vocab is too high, and probably the sentences do not flow into each other easily. I can’t say anything about the sentences if I don’t understand them, y’know.

But, man, maybe that’s how it’s supposed to be. Maybe that’s why McCarthy wrote the descriptions in this way—to symbolize the mental stress that the characters go through as they experience this world, this form of reality that they were not meant to be in.

And maybe the novel is so lacking in narrations because the characters’ minds have gone numb. They’re forgetting language. With almost zero human interaction most of the time, they are forgetting how to think and interact in words. You lose the skills you don’t really use anymore, y’know. And these guys are so obviously depressed, so they don’t think about the world. They are used to the sad reality they live in. No point in complaining how bad the food is if that’s all you’re gonna eat all your life.

So, a scarcity of narrations tell you a lot about the story and its characters. It reflects something, it symbolizes something. The Road is a masterfully crafted piece of prose, please don’t get inspired to write in this style just because. This style won’t work on most of the stories.

Yeah, just because he wrote like this means you can too. Let me tell you, dear reader, that all of what we call rules are meant to be broken. Nothing is absolute. But here’s the catch—you can’t break the rules just because you don’t know how to apply them.

Authors need to learn these rules, because that’s what constitutes most of the written prose. That’s what forms the basics of the craft. So, learn them, understand them, and know how to use them. And then make a conscious decision not to use them.

See, these rules are like tools or weapons in your arsenal. And you need to keep your arsenal ready for everything. And then, you can decide which weapon to use, when to use it, and how to use it. Because you don’t know what sort of idea hits your head next and you’d suddenly need some of them.

***

#04 - Solution

So, how to make sure your novel actually comes off as a novel and not a film-novel? Unfortunately, the answer to that question… is that I don't know.

I know this sounds so absurd, but it is what it is. As someone who’s so recently started studying prose, I know this problem exists, but I still don’t know how to fix it. You could say I know my novels are film-novels, and I’m trying to fix it. But I, personally, am having a lot of trouble with it.

However, one way I can recommend is to write from your character’s POV, not your POV. You probably imagined your story as a film, but that’s now how you’re supposed to write it. Get into your characters’ head, see what they’re seeing, and write that.

But it’s tough. For me, at least. I always find myself going back to my old ways, and I think I need to re-write almost all of my scene-descriptions and actions because of it.

Lol, how ironic.

***

Conclusion

Yeah, and that’s it. I hope you liked this blog. Sorry I hadn’t posted in along while, I was going through a writers’ block. Stuff is happening these days, y’know.

Anyway, I’ll see you again in a couple of days, with something new. Bye-byee!

[mrs-stans]

Sebastian Stan’s Variety ‘Actors on Actors’ Halted Because No Other Talent Wants to Talk About Trump

No talent that could be paired with him for the video series wants to address Trump or Stan's film "The Apprentice" at all, Stan said. Variety has now confirmed this to IndieWire.

BY CHRISTIAN BLAUVELT

Sebastian Stan said in a post-screening Q&A of his film “The Apprentice” Tuesday night that his participation in Variety‘s “Actors on Actors” video and TV series is halted because no other actor wants to talk about Trump. Stan plays the president-elect in the Ali Abbasi film that covers Trump’s early years and rise to initial prominence as a Manhattan real-estate mogul.

Variety co-editor-in-chief Ramin Setoodeh confirms that this is indeed the case to IndieWire. “What Sebastian said is accurate,” Setoodeh said in a statement. “We invited him to participate in ‘Actors on Actors,’ the biggest franchise of awards season, but other actors didn’t want to pair with him because they didn’t want to talk about Donald Trump.”

In his remarks, captured on video and posted on Twitter, Stan said that he thinks this refusal to engage at all with Trump as a subject is unfortunate, and even bad for the country.

“The amount of love that I’ve received from some of the biggest — both of us I think [referring to Abbasi] — in terms of actors, directors, producers, writers who’ve seen the movie and rave about it… But then, for instance, I had an offer to do Variety’s ‘Actor on Actor’ [sic] this Friday, and I couldn’t find another actor to do it with me because they were too afraid to go and talk about this movie, so I couldn’t do it. And it doesn’t matter, that’s OK, that’s not to point a finger at anybody. That’s not pointing at anyone specific, we couldn’t get past the publicists or the people representing them because they were too afraid to talk about this movie.

“That’s when I think we lose the situation because if it really becomes that fear or discomfort to talk about this then we’re really going to have a problem. There was an op-ed in the New York Times recently that I thought was really interesting, which said that ‘we have to stop pretending that Trump is not one of us.’ And that’s a really difficult thing to deal with at the moment, and I understand the emotions are very high, but I think that’s the only way you’re going to grasp this film. All it’s saying is you cannot keep casting this person aside, especially after they get the popular vote. Should we not give this a closer look and try to understand what it is about this person that’s even driving that. I don’t know if the love is gonna translate into action, but it’s certainly there from what we’re hearing.”

Needless to say, “The Apprentice” does not present a flattering portrayal of Trump. It shows him involved in various grotesque moments — and goes so far as to show him raping his first wife Ivana. Stan has been publicly critical of Trump himself but has stressed the need to engage with why we got here. The refusal to engage with the subject at all since Trump won the presidency aligns with other recent trends, such as the massive ratings collapse that MSNBC has suffered post-election.

[armoricaroyalty]

Film Grammar for Simmers

What is film grammar?

"Film grammar" refers the unstated "rules" of editing used in movies and TV. Different types of shots have different associations and are used by editors to convey different types of information to the audience. Many of these principles were first described in the early 20th century by Soviet directors, but they're used consistently across genre, medium, and even language: Bollywood musicals, English period dramas, Korean horror movies, and American action blockbusters all use many of the same techniques.

Because these rules are so universal, virtually everyone has some internalized understanding of them. Even if they can’t name the different types of shots or explain how editors use images to construct meaning, the average person can tell when the “rules” are being broken. If you’ve ever thought a movie or episode of TV was confusing without being able to say why, there’s a good chance that there was something off with the editing.

Learning and applying the basics of film grammar can give your story a slicker and more-polished feel, without having to download shaders or spend hours in photoshop. It also has the bonus of enhancing readability by allowing your audience to use their knowledge of film and TV to understand what's happening in your story. You can use it to call attention to significant plot details and avoid introducing confusion through unclear visual language.

Best of all, it doesn't cost a dime.

The basics: types of shots

Shots are the basic building block of film. In Sims storytelling, a single shot is analogous to a single screenshot. In film, different types of shots are distinguished by the position of the camera relative to the subject. There are three big categories of shots, with some variation: long shots (LS), medium shots (MS), and close-ups (CU). This diagram, created by Daniel Chandler and hosted on visual-memory.co.uk illustrates the difference:

Source: The 'Grammar' of Television and Film, Daniel Chandler, visual-memory.co.uk. Link.

In film, scenes typically progress through the different types of shots in sequence: long shot, medium shot, close-up. When a new scene begins and the characters arrive in a new location, we typically begin with a wide establishing shot of the building’s exterior to show the audience where the scene will be taking place. Next comes a long shot of an interior space, which tells the where the characters are positioned relative to one another. The next shot is a medium shot of the characters conversing, and then finally, a close-up as the conversation reaches its emotional or informational climax. Insert shots are used judiciously throughout to establish themes or offer visual exposition.

Here's another visual guide to the different types of shots, illustrated with stills from Disney animated films.

This guide is almost 2,000 words long! To save your dash, I've put the meat of it under the cut.

Long shot and extreme long shots

A long shot (sometimes also called a wide shot) is one where the entire subject (usually a building, person, or group of people) is visible within the frame. The camera is positioned far away from the subject, prioritizing the details of the background over the details of the subject.

One of the most common uses of long shots and extreme long shots are establishing shots. An establishing shot is the first shot in a scene, and it sets the tone for the scene and is intended to give the viewer the information they’ll need to follow the scene: where a scene is taking place, who is in the scene, and where they are positioned in relation to one another. Without an establishing shot, a scene can feel ungrounded or “floaty.” Readers will have a harder time understanding what’s happening in the scene because on some level, they’ll be trying to puzzle out the answers to the who and where questions, distracting them from the most important questions: what is happening and why?

(I actually like to start my scenes with two establishing shots: an environmental shot focusing on the scenery, and then a second shot that establishes the characters and their position within the space.)

Long shots and extreme long shots have other uses, as well. Because the subject is small relative to their surroundings, they have an impersonal effect which can be used for comedy or tragedy.

In Fargo (1996) uses an extreme long shot to visually illustrate the main character’s sense of defeat after failing to secure funding for a business deal.The shot begins with a car in an empty parking lot, and then we see the protagonist make his way up from the bottom of the frame. He is alone in the shot, he is small, and the camera is positioned above him, looking down from a god-like perspective. All of these factors work together to convey his emotional state: he’s small, he’s alone, and in this moment, we are literally looking down on him. This shot effectively conveys how powerless he feels without any dialogue or even showing his face.

The same impersonal effect can also be used for comic purposes. If a character says something stupid or fails to impress other characters, cutting directly from a close-up to a long shot has a visual effect akin to chirping crickets. In this instance, a long shot serves as a visual “wait, what?” and invites the audience to laugh at the character rather than with them.

Medium Shots

Medium shots are “neutral” in filmmaking. Long shots and close-ups convey special meaning in their choice to focus on either the subject or the background, but a medium shot is balanced, giving equal focus to the character and their surroundings. In a medium shot, the character takes up 50% of the frame. They’re typically depicted from the waist-up and the audience can see both their face and hands, allowing the audience to see the character's facial expression and read their body-language, both important for interpreting meaning.

In most movies and TV shows, medium shots are the bread and butter of dialogue-heavy scenes, with close-ups, long shots, and inserts used for punctuation and emphasis. If you’re closely following the conventions of filmmaking, most of your dialogue scenes will be medium shots following the convention of shot-reverse shot:

To keep long conversations from feeling too visually monotonous, consider staging the scene as a walk-and-talk. Having two characters move through a space can add a lot of dynamism and visual interest to a scene that might otherwise feel boring or stiff.

Close Ups

Close-ups are close shots of a character’s face. The camera is positioned relatively near to the subject, showing just their head and shoulders. In a close-up, we don’t see any details of the background or the expressions of other characters.

In film, close-ups are used for emphasis. If a character is experiencing a strong emotion or delivering an important line of dialogue, a close-up underscores the importance of the moment by inviting the audience to focus only on the character and their emotion.

Close-ups don’t necessarily need to focus on the speaker. If the important thing about a line of dialogue is another character’s reaction to it, a close-up of the reaction is more effective than a close-up of the delivery.

One of the most iconic shots in Parasite (2019) is of the protagonist driving his employer around while she sits in the backseat, speaking on the phone. Even though she’s the one speaking, the details of her conversation matter less than the protagonist’s reaction to it. While she chatters obliviously in the background, we focus on the protagonist’s disgruntled, resentful response to her thoughtless words and behavior.

In my opinion, Simblr really overuses close-ups in dialogue. A lot of conversation scenes are framed entirely in close-ups, which has the same effect of highlighting an entire page in a textbook. The reader can’t actually tell what information is important, because the visuals are screaming that everything is important. Overusing close-ups also cuts the viewer off from the character’s body language and prevents them from learning anything about the character via their surroundings.

For example, a scene set in someone’s bedroom is a great opportunity for some subtle characterization—is it tidy or messy? what kind of decor have they chosen? do they have a gaming computer, a guitar, an overflowing bookshelf?—but if the author chooses to use only close-ups, we lose out on a chance to get to know the character via indirect means.

Inserts

An insert shot is when a shot of something other than a character’s face is inserted into a scene. Often, inserts are close-ups of a character’s hands or an object in the background. Insert shots can also be used to show us what a character is looking at or focusing on.

In rom-com The Prince & Me (2004) (see? I don’t just watch crime dramas…) the male lead is in an important meeting. We see him pick up a pen, look down at the papers in front of him, and apparently begin taking notes, but then we cut to an insert shot of his information packet. He’s doodling pictures of sports cars and is entirely disengaged from the conversation. Every other shot in the scene is an establishing shot or a medium shot or a close-up of someone speaking, but this insert gives us insight into the lead’s state of mind: he doesn’t want to be there and he isn’t paying attention.

Insert shots are, in my opinion, also used ineffectively on Simblr. A good insert gives us extra insight into what a character is thinking or focusing on, but a poorly-used insert feels…unfocused. A good insert might focus on pill bottles on a character’s desk to suggest a chemical dependency, on a family picture to suggest duty and loyalty, on a clock to suggest a time constraint, on a pile of dirty laundry or unanswered letters to suggest a character is struggling to keep up with their responsibilities. An ineffective insert shot might focus on the flowers in the background because they’re pretty, on a character’s hands because it seems artsy, on the place settings on a dining table because you spent forever placing each one individually and you’ll be damned if they don’t make it into the scene. These things might be lovely and they might break up a monotonous conversation and they might represent a lot of time and effort, but if they don’t contribute any meaning to a scene, consider cutting or repurposing them.

I want to emphasize: insert shots aren’t bad, but they should be carefully chosen to ensure they’re enhancing the meaning of the scene. Haphazard insert shots are distracting and can interfere with your reader’s ability to understand what is happening and why.

Putting it all together

One of the most basic principles of film theory is the Kuleshov effect, the idea that meaning in film comes from the interaction of two shots in sequence, and not from any single shot by itself. In the prototypical example, cutting from a close-up of a person’s neutral expression to a bowl of soup, children playing, or soldiers in a field suggests hunger, worry, or fear, respectively.

The Kuleshov effect is the essence of visual storytelling in a medium like Simblr. You can elevate your storytelling by thinking not only about each individual shot, but about the way they’ll interact and flow into one another.

Mastering the basics of film grammar is a great (free!) way to take your storytelling to the next level. To learn more, you can find tons of guides and explainers about film grammar for free online, and your local library doubtless has books that explain the same principles and offers additional analysis.

Happy simming!

[tasty-littl-snack]

I love you Ghost Files, I love you Watcher I love you Ryan Bergara for coming up with a show and gathering the best people you can to make this a reality I love you Mark Celestino for being the best camera man and catching the moments and cinematography to combine the creepy vibe of an indie movie with the humor of the ghoul brothers, I love you theme song crediting all the people responsible for making this show. Love you creepy intro music and the outro playing a bit in the end to signal the end of the episode, I love you everyone who make this show as good as it is even if you keep the very good illusion that it takes only Ryan and Shane and maybe a cameraman to make this show (it doesn't! I see you Sam Young and Lizzie Lockhard for taking the best bits of the ep and making it watchable, I also see you editors and people watching the footage from the static cams to pick the best moments). Love every single person who added their effort into making this show from nothing, and keeping it fresh for third year in a row! Love changing up things for enrichment while keeping the gist of it. I love you Watcher TV for allowing me to support the production of this show and being able to watch it on bigger screen than a laptop without ads. I also like that this gives us more opportunities for bonus content than ever before. You can really see that this show is made with everything they got and every detail is there for a reason. Love to see it truly honestly this post is written after watching the first episode of season three but I think it's true for every ep and every season that comes after it.

It might be a "big unbankable bitch" but you can really see why it takes a year for them to make it, and this episode made me feel like I was watching this show for the first time again. And that's not an easy feature of a show made for years and into it's third season. Truly I love this show a lot.

[physalian]

What No One Tells You About Writing #5

Part 4

Part 3

Part 2

Shorter list this time, but longer points. I expect this one to be more divisive, but it is what it is, and this is what ‘no one tells you’ about writing, after all. This one’s all about feedback and how to take it, and give it.

1. Not everyone will like your book, no matter how good it is

I’ve said this before, granted, but sometimes you can have very arbitrary reasons for not liking an otherwise great story. For example: I refuse to watch Hamilton. Why? Because everyone I knew and their dog was trying to cram it down my throat when it came out and I still don’t really like musicals, and didn’t appreciate the bombardment of insisting I’ll like it simply because everyone else does. I’m sure it’s great! I’m just not watching it until I want to watch it.

It can be other reasons, too. I won’t read fanfic that’s written in first person, doesn’t matter how good it is. Someone might not watch a TV show because the primary cast is white or not-white. Someone might not watch a movie because an actor they despise is in it, even if the role is fantastic. Someone might not watch or read a story that’s too heavy on the romance, or not enough, or too explicit. I went looking for beta readers and came across one who wouldn’t touch a book where the romance came secondary in a sci-fi or fantasy novel. Kept on scrolling.

Someone can just think your side character is unfunny and doesn’t hear the same music as everyone else. Someone can just not like your writing style with either too much or not enough fluff, or too much personality in the main narrator. Or they have triggers that prevent them from enjoying it the way you intend.

How someone expresses that refusal is not your job to manage. You cannot force someone to like your work and pushing too hard will just make it worse. Some people just won’t like it, end of story.

2. Criticism takes a very long time to take well

Some people are just naturally better at taking constructive criticism, some have a thick skin, some just have a natural confidence that beats back whatever jabs the average reader or professional editor can give. If you’re like me, you might’ve physically struggled at first to actually read the feedback and insisted that your beta readers color-coded the positive from the negative.

It can be a very steep climb up the mountain until you reach a point where you know you’re good enough, and fully appreciate that it is actually “constructive” and anything that isn’t, isn’t worth your time.

The biggest hurdle I had to climb was this: A criticism of my work is not a criticism of me as a person.

Yes, my characters are built with pieces of my personality and worldview and dreams and ideals, but the people giving you feedback should be people who either already know you as a person and are just trying to help, or are people you pay to be unbiased and only focus on what’s on the page.

Some decisions, like a concerning moral of your story, is inadvertently a criticism of your own beliefs—like when I left feedback that anxiety can’t just be loved away and believing so is a flawed philosophy. I did that with intent to help, not because I thought the writer incompetent or that they wrote it in bad faith.

I’m sure it wasn’t a fun experience reading what I had to say, either. It’s not fun when I get told a character I love and lost sleep over getting right isn’t getting the same reception with my betas. But they’re all doing it (or at least they all should be doing it) from a place of just wanting to help, not to insult your writing ability. Even if your writing objectively sucks, you’re still doing a lot more just by putting words on paper than so many people who can’t bring themselves to even try.

As with all mediums subjects to critique, one need not be an author to still give valuable feedback. I’m not a screenwriter, but from an audience’s standpoint, I can tell you what I think works. Non-authors giving you pointers on the writing process? You can probably ignore that. Non-authors giving you pointers on how your character lands? Then, yeah, they might have an opinion worth considering.

3. Parsing out the “constructive” from the criticism isn’t easy

This goes for people giving it as well. Saying things like “this book sucks” is an obviously useless one. Saying “I didn’t like this story because it was confusing and uncompelling” is better. “I think this story was confusing and uncompelling because of X, and I have some suggestions here that I think can make it better.”

Now we’re talking.

Everyone’s writing style is different. Some writers like a lot of fluff and poetic prose to immerse you in the details and the setting, well beyond what you need to understand the scene or the plot. Their goal is to make this world come alive and help you picture the scene exactly the way they see it in their minds.

There’s writers who are very light on the sensory fluff and poetry, trying to give you the impression of what the scene should look and feel like and letting you fill in the missing pieces with your own vision.

Or there’s stories that take a long time to get anywhere, spending many pages on the small otherwise insignificant slice-of-life details as opposed to laser-precision on the plot, and those who trim off all the fat for a fast-paced rollercoaster.

None of these are inherently bad or wrong, but audiences do have their preferences.

The keyword in “constructive criticism” is “construct”. As in, your advice is useless if you can’t explain why you think an element needs work. “It’s just bad” isn’t helpful to anyone.

When trying to decide if feedback has merit, try to look at whatever the critic gives you and explain what they said to yourself in your own words. If you think changing the piece in question will enhance your story or better convey what you’re trying to say, it’s probably solid advice.

Sometimes you just have to throw the whole character out, or the whole scene, whole plot line and side quest. Figuring out what you can salvage just takes time, and practice.

4. Just when you think you’re done, there’s more

There’s a quote out there that may or may not belong to Da Vinci that goes “art is never finished, only abandoned.” Even when you think your book is as good as it can be, you can still sleep on it and second-guess yourself and wonder if something about it could have been done better or differently.

There is such a thing as too much editing.

But it also takes a long time to get there. Only 10-15% of writing is actually penning the story. The rest is editing, agonizing over editing, re-editing, and staring at the same few lines of dialogue that just aren't working to the point that you dream about your characters.

It can get demoralizing fast when you think you’ve fixed a scene, get the stamp of approval from one reader, only for the next one to come back with valid feedback neither of you considered before. So you fix it again. And then there’s another problem you didn’t consider. And then you’re juggling all these scene bits and moments you thought were perfect, only for it to keep collapsing.

It will get there. You will have a manuscript you’re proud of, even if it’s not the one you thought you were going to write. My newest book isn’t what I set out to write, but if I stuck to that original idea, I never would have let it become the work that it is.

5. “[Writing advice] is more like guidelines than actual rules.”

Personally, I think there’s very few universal, blanket pieces of writing advice that fit every book, no exceptions, no conditions, no questions asked. Aside from: Don’t sacrifice a clear story for what you think is cool, but horribly confusing.

For example, I’m American, but I like watching foreign films from time to time. The pacing and story structure of European films can break so many American rules it’s astonishing. Pacing? What pacing? It’s ~fancy~. It wants to hang on a shot of a random wall for fifteen seconds with no music and no point because it’s ~artsy~. Or there is no actual plot, or arc, it’s just following these characters around for 90 minutes while they do a thing. The entire movie is basically filler. Or the ending is deeply unsatisfying because the hoity-toity filmmaker believes in suffering for art or… something.

That doesn’t fly with mainstream American audiences. We live, breathe, and die on the Hero’s Journey and expect a three-act-structure with few novel exceptions.

That does not mean your totally unique or subversive plot structure is wrong. So much writing advice I’ve found is solid advice, sure, but it doesn’t often help me with the story I’m writing. I don’t write romance like the typical romance you’d expect (especially when it comes to monster allegories). There’s some character archetypes I just can’t write and refuse to include–like the sad, abusive, angsty, 8-pack abs love interest, or the comedic relief.

Beyond making sure your audience can actually understand what you’re trying to say, both because you want your message to be received, and you don’t want your readers to quit reading, there is an audience for everything, and exceptions to nearly every rule, even when it comes to writing foundations like grammar and syntax.

You don’t even have to put dialogue in quotes. (Be advised, though, that the more ~unique~ your story is, the more likely you are to only find success in a niche audience).

Lots of writing advice is useful. Lots of it is contradictory. Lots of it is outdated because audience expectations are changing constantly. There is a balance between what you *should* do as said by other writers, and what you think is right for your story, regardless of what anyone else says.

Just don’t make it confusing.

—

I just dropped my cover art and summary for my debut novel. Go check it out and let me know what you think!

[themoonsbride]

After Dark | Albert Aretz x Reader

summary; Albert and Reader watch a movie together after he spends a long day filming for his channel .

warnings; none

notes; sorry I've been so inactive, I've been busy and haven't had motivation, hopefully I can start posting more often now . ♡ (sorry this is short)

(edit 7/19/23); lmao ty all for the likes even though it's short hehe, lmk in my inbox if I should write another albert scenario <3

°.•♡•.°

I've been scrolling through my phone for awhile now, mindlessly liking tweets and Instagram posts, waiting for albert to finish filming. He told me he'd finish around 7 pm, but it was now 8, and he seemed so occupied he wasn't even able to come out of his office to eat dinner.

I didn't want to disturb him so I just let him in his office and waited, and waited,, and waited. I think he's filming with Kaden because it's sounded like he's been talking to someone else.

"KADEN NO" I suddenly heard albert scream from his office, I almost dropped my phone onto my chin from the sudden alarm. Suppose I was right, I've met Kaden a few times before in the past, and he's really nice. I like his red hair, it's so bright red it reminds me of a tomato. I've also met some of Albert's other friends too, like Denis and Dani (Polarclub) and Temprist. They're all very nice people outside of their work, me and Dani are actually pretty close friends, and Denis is nice to talk to aswell, and his girlfriend is the sweetest.

"KADEN I TOLD YOU TO JUMP" Albert yelled, I sigh and find myself quietly giggling a little. Turning off my phone screen I decide to turn on the flat-screen TV that was kept sat on the black TV table across the king sized bed Albert and I shared. watching one of my favorite shows on a low enough volume for it to not disturb Albert's filming but loud enough for me to hear.

After what felt like the time span of 3 days, Albert finally entered the bedroom, looking worn out. "Hey" I speak softly, smiling at him. "Hey, did you make dinner earlier?" He asked, he probably felt like he was starving since he didn't eat, maybe I should've told him that I'd made food after all. "Yeah, but I didn't wanna be a bother so I just left it in the fridge for you." I reply, a hint of guilt clouds over his eyes as he sits next to me on our bed. "You never bother me, I wouldn't have care if you came in, my editor would've just clipped it out." His voice was slow and quiet. "I know, but I still would've felt bad." I responded as I slowly sat up, facing him properly.

"If you want I can go heat it up for you?" I say, in a question like manner, he smiles warmly at me and places a soft, long kiss to my lips, and I can feel it make my cheeks glow pink. I pull away and begin to stand and exit our bedroom.

When I enter through the doorway, warm porcine plate in hand with Albert's dinner, he's already lay in bed, the comforter pulled up to his biceps with a movie prepped on the TV screen, the lights dimmed lowly. I give him a small smile as I hand him his plate carefully. "I was hoping we could watch a movie together." He whispered down to me, pressing play. "I'd love to watch a movie with you." I mumble, kissing his cheek and snuggling myself into his side, attempting to be cautious of his food at the same time.

[transitranger327]

Shout outs to all the excellent editors/cinematographers/color graders on Doctor Who this season. They know exactly how to make Gatwa’s dark skin rich and vibrant. Too many times I see movies/tv shows make dark skin look flat/drab/lifeless because their color grading is set up for just white people. But Doctor Who this year? Gorgeous

[tsumuus]

the bachelorette | introductions part one °❀⋆.ೃ࿔*:･

toru oikawa

❀˖° 23 years old

❀˖° fitness and promotional model

❀˖° his favorite hobbies: music, photography, and fashion

❀˖° his pet peeves: lack of effort, disorganization, and incompetence

❀˖° his high standards, focus on his career, and fear of vulnerability have kept him from finding 'the one'. his ideal partner would need to balance his high standards with a genuine connection, understanding, and the ability to share in both his triumphs and challenges.

kei tsukishima

❀˖° 21 years old

❀˖° third year college student, aspiring architect

❀˖° his favorite hobbies: reading, video games, and music

❀˖° his pet peeves: annoying or overly energetic people, incompetentce, overall disruptive people

❀˖° his gaurded nature, low interest in romance, and perceived apathy have kept him from finding 'the one'. his ideal partner would need to be patient, understanding, and capable of appreciating his quieter, more introspective side.

keiji akaashi

❀˖° 22 years old

❀˖° editor for a major publishing company

❀˖° his favorite hobbies: reading, writing, and listening to music

❀˖° his pet peeves: disorganization, lack of effort, interruptions

❀˖° his high standards. reserved nature, and focus of his responsibilities have kept him from finding 'the one'. his ideal partner would need to be patient and empathetic, able to connect with his introspective nature and appreciate the balance between his personal space and shared moments.

atsumu miya

❀˖° 22 years old

❀˖° sales and marketing coordinator

❀˖° his favorite hobbies: baking, watching reality tv, and collecting baseball cards

❀˖° his pet peeves: anything overly complicated, people who aren't risk takers, messy spaces

❀˖° his busy schedule, high standards and expectations, and struggle to open up have kept from from finding 'the one'. his ideal partner would be someone who can appreciate his dynamic personality, handle his moments of vulnerability, and enjoy the excitement and challenges of life with him.

kotaro bokuto

❀˖° 23 years old

❀˖° personal trainer

❀˖° his favorite hobbies: adam sandler movies, video games, and beach volleyball

❀˖° his pet peeves: people who can't handle spice, unnecessary negativity, people with a lack of enthusiasm

❀˖° his high energy levels, inconsistent schedule, and difficulty with deep communication have kept him from finding 'the one'. his ideal partner would need to match his vibrant personality, appreciate his quirks, and provide a balanced mix of excitement and support to complement his energetic and passionate nature.

lev haiba

❀˖° 20 years old

❀˖° 3rd year university student, aspiring model

❀˖° his favorite hobbies: photography, binge-watching shows, swimming

❀˖° his pet peeves: perfectionists, being too predictable, lack of passion

❀˖° his intense focus on his career, difficulty with expressing his emotions, and being perceived as immature have kept him from finding 'the one'. his ideal partner would need to embrace his vibrant and energetic personality, share his passion for creativity, and provide a balance of understanding and excitement to match his dynamic lifestyle.

series masterlist

main masterlist

a/n tried to make it similar to their canon selves but also not too similar, i just didn't want half of em to be professional vb players yk😭

[dayscapism]

My Thoughts on the Percy Jackson TV Show (was not a fan):

Months have passed but, I guess I like to throw wood to embers to make fires again. Honestly, I would have abandoned it after episode 3 if it weren't one of my favourite book series ever and I wanted so bad to be hopeful and pleasantly surprised.

I don't think it's a terrible adaptation, but I think it's boring, badly edited, with character inconsistencies, has first-draft-level writing and just missed potential. I'm happy it's been working for so many others, but I've also seen a lot of people being so reluctant to negatively criticise anything about it. Which is weird, it makes me feel like we're watching two different shows and I'm the problem (am I the drama? perhaps. I don't care.)

It's not been an easy time to watch for me; it's a sustained, painful, physical effort to pay attention to this show, especially during dialogue scenes. Like how do you make a show about a bunch of ADHD kids and make it so NOT ADHD-friendly to watch?? (The writers and editors should watch EEAAO, that's how an ADHD brain approaches visual media). The pacing, the terrible exposition, it's the static and uninteresting camera work, the lack of a campy hyping music/soundtrack, the lack of stylization, the lazy editing, the actors stopping to chat in a static shot every other minute, no running during urgent situations, etc. Nothing is engaging! It's such a boring show! There's always exactly 1 thing happening on screen and nothing else around it, no hidden meanings, no mystery, nothing that could be layered storytelling, which is such an important thing in a TV show where you only have 8 episodes to tell your story! Spekaing of, ADHD and dyslexia don't seem to be shown or discussed again after it's mentioned that Percy has has it in episodes 1-2. I was hoping for bolder representation with that. (Why didn't they include the little dialogue where neither Percy of Annabeth can't figure out the sign at the emporium because of dyslexia, and Grover has to tell them! These little moments count so much for representation of this kind.)

The dialogue paired with the pacing/humour is not landing. It truly feels unpolished, like a first draft. Like technically it serves its purpose, but it's an ineffective, unengaging manner to write a tv script. They should have done more flashbacks too, to give context and exposition. But instead, everything is given to us like you would in a book. (And this is coming from someone who read the books years ago so I NEED this exposition because I don't remember a lot of details, but the exposition isn't even helpful and the writing doesn't keep me engaged enough for me to even pay attention to the exposition!) The actors are doing the best with the material they have, they're all really precious, but this writing and directing is hurting their acting so bad. The dialogue and scenes are so awkward, which hurts the chemistry between the characters too (I expand on my issues with the characters later).

A lot of the tone and pacing issues could just be a book-to-tv adaptation thing because we're no longer in Percy's head with his funny sarcastic remarks and long paragraphs that can give us context. But then why didn't they include narration? Why didn't they keep it up after the intro in episode 1?? Why did they even include that bit if they weren't going to keep it up?? We have 4th-wall narration in lots of things these days (from the top of my head, Fleabag and Deadpool), usually done for comedic and style effect. This would help so much with the pacing and tone! the lost potential is so frustrating. Many movies/shows don't need narration; this one could have benefitted so much from it.

The show is not funny whatsoever when the books are hilarious. At no point did I laugh out loud here. Such a crime. I hate to be one of THOSE but the movies at least got the unserious and funny beats right. Like why is the music in this show just an epic forgettable MCU-like soundtrack but with a serious tone? Why didn't they include modern or campy songs? They should have taken clues from the Umbrella Academy's first seasons. And they could have included Greek music in it too! How could would that have been? It's not a bad soundtrack by any means, but if nothing else is used in a very strange manner in some scenes because it sometimes cuts the action or doesn't match the energy or vibe of the scenes. The visuals and settings are pretty good, I admit, but these are underserviced by the entire production's lack of style and music and tone are a big part of that.

Some people have said the action scenes are bad, but I feel the problem is there's no sense of urgency, of danger (no layered storytelling here either). The fights with the monsters are okay, great even, the problem is this lack of excitement. The problem is the setups to the action: the lack of tension and then rushed resolutions. For example, they dragged the scenes with Medusa and Equidna talking that it lost all suspense. Equidna literally says instead of just jumping to it, showing what she would do to them kids. (Ok the chimera is cool tho, looks really cool. I want it as a pet 😊 And the editing when Percy falls from the arch is pretty cool too, rare exception.)

But most feels so underwhelming. These kids should also be running everywhere, not calmy walking (bad directing!) This makes the monsters not feel as menacing, because they always have time for a calm exposition break long conversations in the middle of what are supposed to be life-or-death encounters with ancient Greek monsters. And mind you, these pauses for conversation aren't even layered, they're often shot with a static camera, with dull dialogue no 12 yo would speak. They could be having these conversations while running, while hiding, while doing something else! Mix dialogue and action! Layered storytelling, it's about themes and characters but also about how you present the scenes themselves.

An adjacent problem is also the actualization of the myths for a modern audience is a bit surface-level (like with Medusa). They could have done so much more here.

Now, issues with characterization:

Characters can really make or break a story. Here we have a lot of character inconsistencies, or rather, a lack of definition of the characters. It's not about the show being exactly accurate to the book here, it's the show wasting perfectly good character and plot moments from the show, while not being true to tone and to the core of the characters. Change in adaptations can be good, to consolidate or make things clearer and work for the new medium, but they character work here was very ineffective and inefficient.

Percy is supposed to be cunning, smart but not knowledgeable about the Greek world. The show has this being reversed many times. Grover is perceptive and has more life experience but he is reduced to nothing. Like I'm wondering why is he even here? Also, Annabeth and Percy get sincere with each other really quickly after like 1 day of knowing each other, no layered storytelling or emotional reactions to them baring their deepest fears and darkest backstories either. (Poor kids are doing their best with mediocre adaptation, though Walker is carrying the show at this point, tbh.)

And Annabeth... Oh. Annabeth is a hard character to portray and write, tbh, it's easy to make her unlikable and straightforward, can very easily come off as annoying, pedantic perhaps, though I am all for unlikeable female heroines. But this is such a baffling iteration of her character. She comes off as a stalker in the first episodes, then she's bossy yet she doesn't seem to actually plan or have good strategies (all is deferred to Percy really), then she sort of uses "the power of friendship" to resolve things but never her growing wisdom in too. Yes, she could be weird and caring and smart but they didn't nailed any of those traits. But my biggest gripe is that they didn't make Annabeth nerdy enough! Annabeth recalls a lot of facts during the show to look smart I suppose, but she rarely gets to problem solve or truly nerd out neurodivergent kid style, which I think is a huge missed opportunity.

An example, which might be very niche but it shows mu issue with her characterization and I have to talk about it cause I'm a physics nerd (literally, it's my major), the part in the ST Louis Arch in episode 4 where she tells Percy and Grover stuff about the construction is so... basic. Like she just read it out of a tourist pamphlet or something. She just says how tall and wide the arch is and that it's symmetrical. That's it. Right...

Why didn't she mention what type of arch it is?? (A catenary arch, more specifically one that follows a weighted catenary curve. It isn't just held by "symmetry" it's tension! It's cool math!) Maybe she even mentions that it's a hyperbolic function and Percy and Grover can be like omg what are you even talking about, and she keeps going on and on about calculus and architecture, like a neurodivergent kid would about their interests. I mean, sure she's like 12, but she's supposed to be like a gifted kid, daughter of Athena, right? She probably knows some of the science and engineering behind the arch. Missed opportunity. Or maybe it's just that I see so much of myself in Annabeth and it hits too close when they can't make her justice. Idk. Like having a true nerdy, brilliant, neurodivergent, bossy but caring, black Annabeth would have been amazing. I guess the world wasn't ready for that.

This was episode 4 and the episodes are getting better...

Annabeth and Luke's relationship also suffers a lot from telling and no showing. Why don't we have flashbacks?? Such a missed opportunity for a show. As a rule, showing isn't superior to telling, but these two techniques need to be balanced in the writing, they can be combined too to serve the story during a specific scene or passage. In this case, telling was the wrong way.

For Luke, if they want his arc to have the emotional hit it has in the book, they really needed to build his character more and give him more screen time! Which could have been done with flashbacks. Because with Annabeth's stoic acting, too, we don't really get the emotional reactions appropriate to the events she recounts. So how are we going to feel with the betrayal since the relationship hasn't been built strongly so far? Nothing. We'll feel nothing.

Annabeth's actress is doing her best with what she's given she portrays her like she's in a Disney Channel kids sitcom from the 90s, deadpan but snarky, which is not a flavour of acting that helps this adaptation. This might be a larger directing issue, though, because Percy barely reacts when he sees his mother "die" in front of him.

Anyway, Flashbacks and narration could have saved this series alone, tbh. We don't even know how Thalia looks like! How are we gonna know it's her at the end of the book with the fleece reveal??

Ok, disclaimer, I didn't finish the show. I got distracted and bored and couldn't be bothered. I think I stopped after the Underworld episode (episode 7 I think.) I couldn't be bothered to watch the finale even with Toby Stephens in it. That's how enthusiastic I am about this.

Also a bit of a nitpick but why isn't it explained why are Percy and Sally are stuck with Gabe in the first place? About his scent? Why is the abuse so... sanitized too? Like yeah, we could have a more psychological and verbal form of abuse situation, of course, but we also didn't get that? Gabe was just unpleasant and a bit of a jerk, pathetic, but that was basically all. Also, no explanation for the blue food?? When it's such insight into Percy's relationship with his mom?? So much EXPOSITION in this series yet they missed many of the important parts!

Disney watered down Sally too. They really did. Her makeup is nice though.

So... yeah, they could be doing so much more with all the characters.

Concluding thoughts:

I don't hate the show (the visuals are great and Walker Scobell's acting is amazing, such a young talent!), but every time I finish watching an episode, I'm just bored and underwhelmed and wished I had done something else with my time.

I know it's frustrating that in previous decades usually had 20+ episodes, plus season 1 and 2 being shot side by side so we didn't even have to wait and fear of cancellation after so little; shows really don't have to be perfect from season 1, they need room to grow, but they have to have SOMETHING to pull the viewer in from the beginning, to make them stay. Anything! This show is giving me nothing to work with. I do hope the show gets better in season 2, and I understand that the 8-episode-season model is a constraint for writers, but I still think it could have done much better with the resources it did have.

For example, Black Sails had an infamous first season, but then it grew to be what imo is the best show ever put to TV. And yes, it took a while for it to find its perfect footing, but it was like a delicious cake that maybe has some bad frosting but the foundation is there, it just needs polishing and a few changes. But this PJO show doesn't live up to its potential and it's just so frustrating because I wanted to love this show so much but I'm finding it difficult to think of anything that I truly loved about it other than Walker Scobell's acting and course Toby Stephens (but I already love him from his previous work so it hardly counts).

Honestly, I'm a little bit tired of discourse going around saying that critiquing a show from season 1 is not acceptable because the show hasn't finished growing and we want a second season, we don't want the criticism to affect a season 2. But this is irrelevant and that's not how media criticism works. People can get very on board with good shoes from 1 season alone. That's no excuse. There are genuinely good book adaptations out there that make changes for the better and get a good foothold from the get-go! Look at Lockwood & Co, OPLA or Anne with an E. It can totally be done. The criticisms we have are precisely because we love the books, because we wanted this adaptation to succeed, because we wanted to love it, but it disappointed us. And we are allowed to voice that, as long as is done in good faith.

I'm happy this show got renewed because of the fans who enjoyed it, love the Percy Jackson series, it is truly dear to my heart, but would I be sad if the show was cancelled? Honestly, no. I couldn't care less what happens to this show at this point. Why should I? I was given no reason to care, aside from my already existing love for the books. I'm not intrigued about how they're going to adapt book 2, I didn't connect with the characters, I wasn't having fun. Nothing. And sure, I want young kids to be introduced to Percy Jackson, great if it's through this show, I want younger generations to love this series too, but I don't know any gen alpha who would enjoy such a show. (Hell, I really wanted my audience-age-appropriate niece to love it, but she couldn't care less about it and jeez, I wonder why...) Kids deserve better shows than this.

Will I watch season 2? Idk. Maybe? I can put it in the background while doing something else perhaps. I do hope they improve stuff but I don't have my hopes up. Will I watch episode 8? No. Life's too short. I already read the books so why bother (hehe)