#I can't post fanart without apologizing. For whatever. Sorry.

[tripleratskill]

hewwo. finally. A month later I finally made this drawing lmao. It was my milestone after which I could post all this art but I dreaded the moment I have to draw, not sure why. But when I did start it I realized that I actually don't have a clear idea for it?? Good job me.

I noticed that this drawing depicts the same moment as artustarus's fanart OOPS. Honestly the whole Medic-Medic interaction is so funny to me. Sillies I hate them/j. I need to make more.

More stuff under the cut.

My favorite image I can't explain why.

This is me fucking around in roblox. The hand turned out too good, didn't want to remake it even tho the angle is not what I wanted. I might remake it at some point properly.

He doesn't really look like himself either.

DOODLES. Sad Hungry my beloved here.

The very first doodle page of Hungry. And first TF2 related drawings in general, I had 0 idea how to draw him lol.

I am forever amazed by your art, Bexbuzz. I can say you are my favourite artist as of now. Thank you for creating.

To any unsuspecting visitors of this post, right now, drop everything and go check out the fic this guy is from and also Bexbuzz's channel for their animations.

[rallamajoop]

Alex Winters on Marco, David, and David/Marco

So, there's this post by @silvermaplealder that I've had in my likes for ages, featuring some very nice fanart of Marko from The Lost Boys ‒ but also the quote "Can't forget how Alex Winter said David and Marko were BDSM partners" ‒ apparently based on an interview they no longer had a link to.

So I had to go look for the source for this, and I think I've found it ‒ it's an interview Alex Winters did with Spectrum Culture in 2017.

Here's the money quote in full, because damn, it's a hell of a statement:

To us, David [Sutherland’s character] was kind of like a pimp. What I had in my head about Marko’s relationship with David was he was basically my pimp and sometimes you’re having a sexual relationship with that person and sometimes you’re not. But, there is a very bonded master-slave kind of aspect to it and then there’s a lover aspect to it. Those undercurrents are all there. They weren’t something I was going to try and drive in front of the audience, but they were fun to play with.

So the way Alex Winters actually puts it isn't exactly 'BDSM partners' so much as 'he was basically my pimp', or 'master-slave'. Which does track well with how much David orders Marko around ('Marko, food,' get the bottle, let's go for a ride, etc). But even if the sexual element sounds pretty casual ("sometimes you’re having a sexual relationship with that person and sometimes you’re not") he's very open that he was playing the role with the assumption that Marko and David probably fucked.

Doesn't sound like it was something he and Keifer Sutherland (David) talked about explicitly, but he does hammer home that none of the adults on set were unaware of what a very homoerotic film they were making. I'd already seen some interviews where Alex Winters talks about how those aspects of the film resonated with him, coming from a family of dancers and a background in theatre, and how he'd based Marko on all the queer folks he'd met doing Broadway since his childhood, but this sure is a whole level more information beyond!

But I never can resist the urge to overanalyse my favourite canons, so yet more thoughts below.

Whatever David and Marko might have going, it doesn't seem to pose any obstacle to (eg) whatever David's up to with Star, or might have in mind for Michael. And Marko sure does not seem to mind being David's butt boy (in any sense of the word) ‒ like, he does not come across as obsequious or spineless, he's not hanging on David's every word, but he seems to be 100% into whatever's going on there. It's hard to read him as bothered by the idea he might be about to lose his position to Michael either: anyone David wants is in.

But even more interesting to me is framing David as a pimp, mostly for what that implies the way he treats Star. Because sure, she doesn't get to go run off with Michael on his bike without David rolling up to remind her of her place, but (with apologies to any David/Star shippers) I can't read him as genuinely attracted to or invested in her, or not beyond how useful she is as bait. Her job is to bring home wide-eyed young men, but if she gets any funny ideas about getting attached (maybe convincing one of them to "take her away from all this"?) ‒ well, David's here to remind her who she belongs to.

Tl;dr: where Star's concerned, David reads way more 'pimp' than 'boyfriend' to me. Maybe there was potential for something else, back before it became apparent she wasn't going to make her first kill without a fight ‒ but then, Marko's not in a wildly different place himself. In fact, the biggest difference between Star and Marko might be that he likes his place in the pecking order, and is never happier than when he's covered in blood.

For context, this all comes out of the interviewer asking outright if there was something going on between Marko and David (Is there this strange, almost homosexual relationship between your character and Kiefer Sutherland’s character? […] He always asks your character to do things for him.) The tear that runs down David's face when he's chasing Sam and the Frogs after Marco's death is brought up too, though I'm pretty sure I've read elsewhere that was a lucky accident with more to do with those vampire contact lenses being horrifically uncomfortable (leaving it in the finished film was no accident though). Either way, any reaction David might have had to Marko's death ends at the cave: during the big finale, it's Paul, not David, who goes after the Frog brothers, hollering "You killed Marko!" (David's only got eyes for Michael at that point.)

To what degree David's ever been a pimp/fuckbuddy/master to Paul and/or Dwayne may be up to your own imagination, since there's just not much to go on there. But the more I think about what we see of David and Marko, the more I'm struggling to think of any time David even directly addresses either of the other two. Even in the 'Michael wants to know what's going on' exchange, it's "what's going on, Marko?" that he starts with. Heck, he even seems to be holding up Marko as a major fringe-benefit of joining them ("That's what I love about this place, you ask, you get. You'll like it here, Michael.") Which is probably not worth reading too much into (the gist and the vibes are so much more important than anything specific David's actually saying), but still, jeez, what is the message there? Join the Lost Boys, plenty of Marko to go around? Or, just letting you know how I like it?

In the same article, Winters also talks about his ideas about Marko's background:

As an actor and a director, I subscribe to the theory that you create as much backstory as the character needs in terms of what is going to be on-screen. Otherwise, you’re playing details and subtleties that make no sense to the audience and that just becomes navel gazing. With a character like Marko, who only says a couple of lines in the entire movie and doesn’t really have much need for context, it wasn’t something I was going to spend an enormous amount of time on. He was just a homeless kid who had run away. Typical sort of ‘80s story, right? Someone from a crazy, conservative part of the country who ends up running away to a warmer climate where you can survive on the street. Very similar to how kids get picked up out at the bus station in Times Square.

And yeah, Marko as a young, queer runnaway who hitch-hiked across the country, maybe discovered a real thing for being ordered around while making some cash as a rent boy ‒ that definitely works. You can so easily picture him meeting the Lost Boys, realising they were everything his conservative folks would have hated, and jumping at the chance to join them. It's almost too obvious.

All this over a character who gets like two lines in the whole film, who will be remembered by most simply as 'the cute one' (as distinguished from The Loud One (Paul) and The Quiet One (Dwayne)) and whose biggest scene is arguably the one where he gets staked while unconscious. I do like the point Winters makes that there's no point in creating more backstory for a character than you'll ever get the chance to reflect in what makes it to screen. But this is a film where even 'the cute one' gets to throw himself gleefully into the massacre scene and come out basically glowing, and the amount of subtext they managed to pack into this guy is something wonderful.

I've seen a few different takes on Marco in fic, but I don't think I've ever seen anything that delves into his subbier side, or his apparent master/slave thing with David (or David's whole 'pimp' persona, come to think of it). And I get why that might be: if you're here to ship David with Michael or Star, it's easier to ignore those kind of complications. But when all the evidence and the actor's own intentions are laid out for you like this, damn, there is a lot there I'd love to see people play with.

[svsssartreblogs]

sorry, but i have to agree with the prev anon who mentioned that tagging art of a character who has prosthetics as body horror is ableist. i already knew about the au from the op and when i saw that tag on your post my feelings were hurt. even though the character lost their limbs in a violent way i don't think that necessitates tagging their body afterwards as body horror when the body horror itself is not being depicted. i really respect what you do to help share fanart but your overly aggressive response to that person feels off the cuff this time. you don't have to publish this btw, you can do whatever you want on your blog as our opinions don't control you et cetera but i wish you'd take a step back and re-examine your initial defensive response and maybe consider changing your mind some day

Prosthetics aren't body horror and aren't why I used the tag. I tagged body horror because Shen Jiu's arms were violently ripped off and that was explicitly mentioned in the text of that post. If someone posted art of someone with prosthetics with a sword through their chest, I'd tag that body horror too, cause I always tag artwork with "weapons actively inserted in someone's body" as body horror, just as I've always tagged "canon Shen Jiu dismemberment" as body horror, in a standard I've used for three years running this blog so that people can avoid content referencing dismemberment, a pretty major trigger.

I can, and do, apologize that my decision hurt feelings.

But I will not remove a tag for body horror from a post that shows a character emaciated from starvation and explicitly says their limbs were torn off. That's. That's body horror.

You want to know what I did that was ableist? I wrote that whole other post, and after I hit "post" I read it again and I'd said something like "when Shen Jiu got his body back but scars show where the damage was..." and I was like wow. Fuck, me. That's some bullshit way to phrase that, losing his limbs doesn't mean he lost his body. So I immediately edited the post. Because ew. I hate that I wrote that, that I thought that, before I checked myself. I can be ableist, as can anyone, and I can admit that I've said and done ableist things, and correct myself when I'm wrong, and I do and will continue to do my best.

But I can't do anything about people interpreting my behavior, actions, and explanations in bad faith. There was body horror in that picture with the depiction of starvation and in the post text where Shen Jiu having his limbs ripped off was mentioned. There's not in this gorgeous art of the same au, and so I didn't use the tag. Nor did I tag this other lovely art of prosthetics on Shen Jiu by a different artist as body horror, because it didn't directly reference the act that led to the loss of limbs. Because, as I said, prosthetics aren't body horror and aren't why I used the tag.

I really can't help what assumptions others make about me, and I especially can't help you persisting in that assumption in the face of my explanation. The moment you and the other anon came at me with "you did this because..." instead of "why did you do this...?" I was put in an impossible situation. I can't dispell your views of me without sounding defensive, even tho you've both ascribed motives/explanations to my behavior that are demonstratively false.

Yeah. Idk really know what else I can say. Alluding to having someone's limbs ripped off is body horror.

[ultramarine-spirit]

Hello👋

First of all😅 I want to say sorry because I was one of the people who keeps on reposting your stuff (on Pinterest), I didn't delete my posts but I'm keeping it on private now, sorry I really can't delete it (I love lucathy) but it's on private now so no one except me who can see it😣 also, now when I'm saving your posts (any of you) I'm only keeping it in my gallery now.

So the reason I'm telling you this is because I saw some post that reposting fanarts or whatever is wrong(I also saw your posts) Again I'm really sorry

Oh and I'm now in peace that I stopped doing those things so yeah😅

Well, I would really appreciate it if you didn't repost my stuff at all. If you want to "save" my posts you could just reblog them or like them on tumblr, so I'm not sure what need you may have to repost them. If I'm honest, it kind of makes me want to stop posting altogether when people are like that, and I know I'm not the only wmmap tumblr user that feels the same.

But yes, reposting fanart is wrong. Please refrain from doing that, it's the most basic form of respect one can have for artists, they deserve to be properly credited and we all should respect their rights as creators (don't repost, edit, traslate, or use their works in any way without permission). It's a good thing that you stopped doing it, but I would advice to delete any fanart reposts you might have.

I accept your apologies, but I advice you to respect the fandom's artists and content creators.

[freebooter4ever]

Boots! Regarding your recent post about how you draw Snaf's hair actually longer and not styled got me thinking that you clearly have a different professional opinion on stuff like this that would go right by me without ever even noticing it; *How* do Rami's characters differ from each other? Like I can /see/ he looks different in Snafu vs. Elliott, etc. but I can't tell how? Like what is it? To me pretty much all of his characters look quite different to each other (apart from wardrobe obv) HOW

LOL using ‘professional’ to describe me seems like a bit of a stretch but i do agree that rami makes his characters so physically distinct that it is really cool how he just disappears into the role. It is sometimes hard to tell what parts of Snafu are Snafu and what parts are Rami - sometimes when i was watching like The Little Things or Bohemian Rhapsody or Mr Robot, i got moments of OH ok that gesture isn’t snafu, its just him lol. but at the same time its also still snafu? and part of my general knowledge of his characterization?  PREEMPTIVE APOLOGIES TO ALL THE GIF MAKERS I STOLE FROM im so sorry, i saved these and i didnt record where from :( if you want me to take any of these down, let me know! When i say i dont style snafu’s hair i mean quite literally i draw his hair like this dude has never seen product or shampoo in his life. like theres rami where you can see individual curls:

and then there’s snafu who hasnt had access to a brush in two years:

and then snafu trying to fit society’s standards with barely even a wave:

and i tend to exaggerate even the ‘no brush in two years’ look just cause i really like drawing curly hair :D and i am very passionate that curly hair should get more love in media - movies, fashion, fanart, whatever. it’s so dumb that ‘trends’ can determine how a person feels about their hair, and that being born in a certain decade or era can instill either confidence or embarrassment...and force so many people to spend so much time money and effort to ‘fit in’.

ANYWAY sorry back on track, Elliot has such a different movement and physicality than snafu, i dont know where to start. i feel like i dont understand elliot’s gestures and presence as much as i do snafu’s..but that’s probably partially because i have watched his scenes in the pacific way toooooo many times to be able to better write him. snafu is much more confident - but a defensive kind of confidence that still has that undercurrent of anger elliot does. but snafu seems to be more comfortable in his body, more comfortable in taking up space. an example:

both of them are being arrogant dicks in this scene - snafu like ‘you new boots are gonna pick the dirt out of MY boots and enjoy it’ and elliot like ‘why would you even ask if im on social media im above that who do you think you are newb’. they even have a similar kind of chin up stance. but elliot is still awkward, fidgety. he owns his own little world but any space outside of it he doesnt want to deal with so he closes himself off lol. snafu kinda demands attention and walks in like he owns the ENTIRE place. and then looms over eugene’s shadow like he’s claimed this one new boot in particular...but my shippy heart digresses...

i hope this helps assuage your curiosity partially at least!