#It's giving this film is boring and therefore bad

[penroseparticle]

irreplaceable rant? to the left to the left

My irreplaceable rant is essentially:

When Beyonce wrote Irreplaceable it was like a giant stepping on an ant. Even in 06 she was shaping up to be a Juggernaut. B'Day launched at number 1 I believe? She was blowing up. Well established, producing bop after bop after banger after banger. And We bought Irreplaceable because we, fully, were on board. Beyonce COULD have another you in a minute. The mythos of Beyonce was taking shape. She was Beyonce, you were some guy. To the left.

When she wrote Lemonade it was like. Oh there are stakes now because whether you think Jay Z is great or not or a garbage dude or whatever, he's at least closer to her level than just "some guy".

Like. Of course she could have another you in a minute if you were some dude. But could she have another Jay Z in a minute? No, categorically she could not, and to say otherwise is to tell yourself fun lies because you hate cheaters or men or whatever. I am a firm believer that Beyonce is one of a kind and cannot be replicated in our lifetime as a cultural phenomenon, artist, creator, singer, you name it she is. incredible. But I'm also not going to pretend Jay Z wasn't in some ways just as singularly, powerfully monolithic with popculture just because most of this website understands rap less.

She writes the Sistine Chapel about him because like it or not, she wants to. She looks at him and sees things you could only dream of creating and I for one am just happy to be here, and could care less what you think about Beyonce's specialist boy who is the catalyst of some of the best music I've heard in the past decade, and also someone who MADE some of the best music I've heard in the past 20 years as well.

Beyonce's first solo recording was 03 Bonnie and Clyde, btw. As in, she was a feature on a Jay Z song before even releasing Dangerously in Love. Which. Also prominently has a Jay Z feature. In the lead single. That arguably launched Beyonce's career. Why would she ever write songs about the man who helped her launch her career that she has been married to for 16 years. A damn mystery.

And for the record, if she wanted to make the most beautiful art in the world about literal garbage, so the fuck what. We hate Duchamps The Fountain on this website now? Irving Penn spent years taking extremely detailed, well composed photos... of actual trash. Like Mud Glove. His photos were hanging in the Smithsonian a few years ago. Turns out beautiful art that says something, even something about trash? Still beautiful.

[artist-issues]

I’m bored and I really enjoy your opinions on Disney, so I thought you might have something interesting to say to get my brain ticking. I came across a post on Frozen and I was like, “Ah, a perfect starting place for dropping you an ask.” I’ve never really been that bothered by Frozen and I don’t know what it is that I’m just not fond about. Maybe it’s that I dislike the characters? Maybe it’s that they didn’t really have any established rules for the way magic worked in that universe and thus had anything they wanted happening? Maybe it’s the twist villain? I don’t know, it’s probably just the characters that they tried to make so cool and girlboss!

Elsa is made out to be this awesome protagonist that is never in the wrong and that grates me. She has flaws, but the film doesn’t act like they’re flaws. She runs away out of fear and shame for not being able to control her powers, but then two seconds later she’s singing “Let It Go” and making giant ice castles and bringing snowmen to life?! And “Let It Go” is super annoying for the fact that Elsa starts off worried and upset (fair enough, she’s just ran away from her home, her kingdom, her sister whom she hasn’t seen in years, she lost control of her powers) but then immediately turns round and is like, “Actually, it’s not my fault and I’m fine as I am and I don’t need any of those responsibilities!” Which would be fine, but she also finishes the film with the same attitude!

Anna, too! Naive and optimistic and perhaps a little too trusting, she never realises that even if Han hadn’t turned out evil, Elsa had every right to be worried over their marriage. She never realises that it’s partly her fault for revealing Elsa’s powers (and she definitely doesn’t apologise). There’s a lot she doesn’t realise, and the only lesson she takes away from it all is that Christoff loves her instead of Han.

Oh my days, I’ve just realised how ridiculously long this has gotten, super sorry! Have a lovely day!

Let’s do this! For fun!

1. They don't need to establish exhaustive rules for how magic works in their world.

Red Riding Hood doesn't explain how the Big Bad Wolf can talk-it just explains that he can. Cinderella doesn't explain how Fairy Godmothers work, or why the spell should only last until midnight—it just explains that she casts one, and it does only last until midnight. Beauty & the Beast does not explain how, after The Beast has died, the "breaking of the curse" could bring him back to life. After Belle confesses her love, he should just go from dead beast to dead human, for all the explanation they give.

Beauty & the Beast also famously refuses to explain (explicitly) why all of the household were cursed, along with the castle and the Prince. But what it does explain is, "there's a curse, it was put in place because of a defect in the Prince's character, and there's a time limit on it's ability to be removed, which can only happen if the defect in his character is overcome."

The whole point of having magic in the story is just as a tool...to create a plot. You don't have to explain everything; you just have to explain what will affect the characters. So, Frozen says, very plainly in the beginning: "you can either be born with magical powers or cursed with them in this world, and trolls are the experts on how magical powers work. The way Elsa's specific magical powers work is, they're beautiful, but powerful, and they're tied to her emotions. Therefore, if her negative emotions control her, her negative emotions control those powers. Also, if you're struck with magical powers in the head, the effects can be removed with memory alteration. If you're struck with magical powers in the heart, the effects can only be removed by an act of True Love.

Also, here's an explanation of what counts as 'True Love." They actually do way more explaining than the average fairy tale. And they set you up really nicely to receive that explanation by having the opening scene be a song that describes Ice Magic as “beautiful/powerful/dangerous/cold/ice has a magic can't be controlled.” Etc.

If you were wondering what limits there are on Elsa's powers, and whether or not she can just make anything out of ice, and how it's possible for her to bring inanimate snow to life

—well, you're focusing on the wrong things for this kind of story.

It's not that important for a fairy tale like this one. In a superhero story, limitations on powers would be important. Because the point of a superhero story is, "how am I going to take selfless responsibility for what I'm able to do?" And if you don't know the boundaries on "what I'm able to do," then you can't communicate that point clearly. That's why we need to know that Superman can see through just about everything, but not lead. That's why you need to know that Elastigirl can't stretch in the cold. You can't know how to take responsibility for your abilities if you don't know what they are and are not.

But Elsa? The point of Elsa having powers is not as a metaphor for her unique skills. That's what it would be in a superhero movie.

Like, in superhero movies, Spidey's ability to stick to walls is supposed to be a reference to like, your ability to...l don't know, draw really well. How is Spidey going to use his ability to stick to walls for the good of others = how are you going to use your ability to draw for the good of others, because it's something special and unique to you, you have something to offer, are you going to use it selflessly, etc.

But for Elsa, that's not what it's about. Her powers are just a metaphor for how what's going on inside of her effects everyone around her, relationally. And it's still relatable. But not in a "skills" way. Just like all of us non-superpowered people: "if you let fear control you, you'll hurt everyone around you. But if you let love cast out fear, you'll love and be loved."

That's what's so good about this movie. When you look at it like that, you realize the powers aren’t the point.

Elsa isolates because she thinks that'll keep her from hurting everyone (fear controls her) but actually, by isolating, she's still hurting everyone-nobody in the kingdom gets to see their beloved ruler, and her sister is hurt, relationally, and feels unloved and shut-out, enough to trust the first scoundrel she meets-etc. See how the powers just make the story interesting, but they're not the point of the story? If Elsa's powers were replaced by "frantic outbursts of human temper" the story could be told in a lot of the same ways. But that's a post for another time.

So I don't think you disliked it because of the powers not being "established." "Whatever they wanted to have happen" did not happen, in the story. They laid out the rules that were relevant—“if fear controls you, it'll lead to great danger/but an act of true love can thaw a frozen heart."—and then they followed those rules in an interesting and consistent way.

2. The "twist" villain worked perfectly for the story.

A good villain is supposed to be the opposite of whatever your story's message is. Frozen's is, "Self-Sacrificial Love Casts Out Fear." Elsa is afraid she'll hurt everyone around her, and afraid that makes her unloveable-so she's a control freak over her circumstances. Anna is also afraid she's unloveable-simply because she's shut out and unknown-so she's always trying to control who she keeps in her life. Hans is both "unknown" and "controlling." He's "unknown" in two ways—1, nobody sees him in the shadows of his brothers in his own kingdom, and 2, nobody in Arendelle "knows" his true nature, especially not Anna. But the difference is, where our heroes don't like being unknown, Hans does, and uses it to his advantage, because he's also "controlling." But unlike our heroes, who learn that "control" is not the way to love, Hans is willing to do anything to stay in control. Which is, always, rooted in fear, too. Hans is just afraid he'll never get a throne. So. You see that he foils the two main characters perfectly.

But the main point of Hans is that he's not self-sacrificial, he's self-serving, which is the opposite of what the story claims "True Love" is.

Why's the "twist" part important? Because he uses the main characters' fears as a weapon to serve himself, and he couldn't have done that, for these two particular characters, by being anything but a liar. Anna is afraid she won't ever be loved, so he pretends to love her to get something for himself. Elsa is afraid she'll hurt everyone, so Hans pretends to be protecting everyone from her. And honestly, that's another core of the movie-love that is self-sacrificial, true love, can't be separated from truth. Anna can't really "truly love" Elsa in a way that HELPS Elsa feel loved if she doesn't know Elsa's flaws. Elsa can't "truly love" Anna if she's refusing to know Anna by always shutting her out. And Hans comes along and doesn't let himself be "truly known." Perfect.

So, the movie says "Self-Sacrificial Love Casts Out Fear" and Hans, the villain, says, "Self-Service Uses Fear As a Weapon."

So I don't think you disliked the "twist" villain. Because it wasn't just an empty "shock-jock, look how edgy we are, to make the Prince the bad guy" move. It was the right move, for this story and these characters.

3. I think your definition of "so cool" and "girlboss" might be different from what l understand those terms to mean, because none of the characters fit those descriptions.

Anna (as we understand her throughout the story) is introduced like this:

And she's constantly dropping stuff and getting into awkward social situations-and she basically makes zero correct decisions, for the entire adventure. Tries to fight wolves like a girlboss-and instead accidentally knocks her guide out of the sleigh and has to be thrown to safety while she ruins his livelihood. Tries to climb a cliff with zero experience-looks ridiculous and falls. Tries to talk her sister into lifting a curse and insists that she knows best because her sister would never hurt her-gets crippled, because her sister absolutely does hurt her, and totally fails. Tries to marry a handsome prince-really bad judgement of character, totally duped, basically would've died without help from the weakest and most mentally-confused character in the movie, Olaf. The only "girlboss" moment you could argue she had was punching Hans in the face at the end of the movie, and I would argue that that one moment, in the face of all her failures and humiliation throughout the movie, and in the face of him as a vile villain? That moment is okay.

Also, the whole way they pace that moment is still in-character for Anna. It's still like she's not doing the "dignified" thing. She delivers her little one liner, "the only frozen heart around here is you," and then turns around to walk away with her nose in the air, like she's

"above it all." Which frames the moment where she turns around and punches him like a joke. It frames that moment like it's a satisfying, but still "not decorous, not dignified," thing to do. It would've been "cool" and poorly received if Anna, the character who's always jumping into doing the emotional, awkward thing, had suddenly become the bigger person and risen above her hurt in that moment.

So instead, she punches him. And whatever. He deserved it, blah blah blah. The point is, even that moment isn’t supposed to be strictly “cool” or “girlboss.” It’s just supposed to be “in-character funny.”

See, usually a "girlboss" character knows exactly what the best thing to do is in a situation, and does it well. Or, she gets knocked down, but consistently gets back up and hits harder. Anna does not do any of those things. She keeps trying when she fails, yeah-but it's not because of an inner strength, it's because of an inner weakness. She keeps pushing because she's desperate, and insecure, not because she's awesome and never-say-die. Eventually, after Elsa strikes her and Hans betrays her, Anna does give up. She tells the snowman "we won't (come back.)" after Elsa strikes her. She tells Olaf she doesn't know what love is. It's not until she learns that lesson that anything she tries to do works—and she gives herself up to do it. And that's finally a moment of strength from her, not weakness. As for "cool"-gimme a break.

There's nothing "cool" about Anna. Anna's not good at anything except, at the very end, self-sacrificially standing in front of a sword and getting one punch in on a villain who's already disarmed, defeated and probably slightly concussed anyway. She's not supposed to be "cool" or "girlboss." She's supposed to be "Desperate to Love and Be Loved." And that's what she is, perfectly. "Desperate" is not a characteristic that fits the definition "girlboss" or "cool."

But maybe you just meant "Elsa is so cool and a girlboss." Okay, well, again, depends on what you mean by that. If you mean "having superpowers are cool" okay, well, are they? Is that what the movie is telling you? Because powers basically ruin all of Elsa's childhood and life until the last 3 minutes of the movie. You could be like "come on, she can make snow and ice monsters, glitter gowns, and an entire palace just by dancing. They totally tried to make her 'cool." That's like saying Simba's ability to eat bugs and belch and fight with Nala is "cool." She does all those things at her "Character in the WRONG" moment, in the story, just like Simba living in the Hakuna Matata jungle. Therefore the movie is not trying to tell you that Elsa is cool, it's trying to tell you that Elsa is wrong, but you can understand why she's wrong. You can understand why she feels triumphant for a moment-and then the movie shows you that triumph is misplaced.

I mean, she's taken out by her own falling chandelier. Every time she's confronted with a problem, she runs away. When she gets into "battles of wits," she says the wrong thing, or the shy, shut-down thing, not a girlboss one-liner that shuts the other person up. Elsa's not cool either. She doesn't have the answers, she doesn't save the day-she gets saved.

Both of these characters are desperate, open wounds-—they're needy and they're in the wrong, each in their own way, for the majority of the movie. They're weak, and they have to learn to find strength in love, for most of their story. There's nothing "girlboss" or "cool" about them.

I think maybe what some people make the mistake of is noticing the Frozen mania, and the fact that the two main characters are girls and one of them has superpowers and they other doesn't get with a Prince, and then they get the impression, from that, that the characters are "cool girlbosses." But like...that's like saying Dory from the first Finding Hemo movie is a girlboss. She's so totally not. She's a wreck. A funny, appealing, sometimes-relatable-human wreck. And a good character, but the hype doesn't change who she is, as a character. And who she is, like Anna and Elsa, is just a good character.

4. Elsa does not finish Let it Go with an "I'm Fine As I Am" attitude, and she doesn't finish the movie that way, either.

She finishes "Let it Go" with an "I'm fine up here, isolated from everyone," attitude. And then the movie very quickly proves her wrong by having Anna show up and reveal to her that no, actually, she is not fine up there, because the person she cares about most can still find her and be hurt by her, and the whole kingdom is still reeling from the problems she ran away from.

At the end of the movie the only thing I can guess you got the impression that she's "fine as she is" from was the fact that she's using her powers again.

But like. Elsa's whole problem was never her powers. She wasn't supposed to learn to stop using them. She was supposed to learn to stop living in fear. Instead, she was supposed to lean on love-love that sacrifices for her, flaws and dangerousness and all-and stop trying to control her image and what everyone knows about her.

Because in trying to control what everyone knows about her, she was controlling whether or not they loved her or treated her like a monster. And even running away and singing Let It Go was still an effort to control everything-by not being around people who could treat her like a monster or be hurt by her. Instead, accepting that she might hurt people because she can't always control everything, and trusting that they'll still love and forgive her, was her character arc.

She lives by faith in sacrificial love by the end, not by fear. That's the arc. She does that perfectly.

It was never, "I'm fine as I am." Because the point was never "there's* something wrong with me." It was, "I don't need to fear a lack of control, because true love covers what I can't control." That's all.

4. Anna does communicate to the audience that she's sorry and willing to understand the reasons behind Elsa's secrets.

The lesson Anna takes away from all of this is not "which guy loves me." It's "what is love?" And you know she's learned that because she demonstrates it. If Anna had died-frozen forever-or been cut down by Hans' sword, you realize that Elsa would never have been able to repay that gesture, right? But Anna still made that choice.

Even though it meant Elsa would never repay her. And the point is — excuse me, I know this is long enough, but I feel like you're missing out on something wonderful here—

Anna could have left Elsa to be killed and ridden off into the sunset with Kristoff.

They make it very clear that that is her goal when she stumbles onto the ice, free from the room Hans trapped her in. Elsa is no longer her motivation. She isn't looking for Elsa. She's not trying to get that love she's looked for, from Elsa, in that moment. She's trying to get it from Kristoff, not just for her emotional need-but for the "breaking of the curse" that's killing her in the moment. That whole scene where she realizes he loves her-truly loves her, because he fits the description Olaf gives-is in there to communicate to the audience that he could save her. He could give her what she needs.

And the reason that's important is that it proves that this is character development: when she chooses not to go to Kristoff, and to go to Elsa instead.

Because it's her, choosing to turn away from the person who could give her something (even if it is "love") and to turn toward the person who can't give her something (Elsa.) Who has repeatedly failed to give her something, for their entire lives.

Anna at the beginning of the movie would've run to Kristoff. That was the whole point of Hans, when it comes to Anna-he represents someone who can fulfill a need in Anna. But when Anna turns away from Kristoff and runs to save Elsa instead, Anna is demonstrating what she's learned —that love isn't about her own needs. It's putting someone else's needs before yours. She stands between Hans and Elsa, with the full expectation that she's not going to get anything out of it, not even a guarantee of E/sa's love in return. And her own needs will NOT get met if she puts Elsa's first.

And that's what she does. Whereas, at the beginning of the film, Anna would not have done that. Because that's not what she thinks love is. She hasn’t realized that yet.

She thinks love means closeness. And that does come with love. But that's not love. Love is, like Olaf says, putting someone else's needs before yours. But the whole movie, Anna is not working to put Elsa's needs before her own. She's working to change Elsa's mind, now that she knows the truth, so that she and Elsa can be "close again." She's climbing that mountain and arguing with Elsa, because she thinks that all that stood in their way before was this secret that's been uncovered. And sure, Anna has always been willing to “be there for” Elsa, but you have to see that Anna wanted that to come with Elsa being there for her, in return.

Which would be nice. But it's not true love. True love is being there for someone even when they refuse to be there for you. Because that's putting their needs before yours.

Thanks for the super long ask! That was fun! I hope you enjoyed reading as much as l enjoyed writing-I think sometimes we judge Frozen by the mania that followed, not the good quality that actually caused the mania, and deserved the mania, though. Anyway 😂

Guards! Take them away! Back to the theater with you! Watch the movie again!

[azulock]

for ur alphabet event pleaase aiku he’s so sexy good lord… could u do d, k, o, and w for the extra letter… ur writing is so so delicious my fav aiku writer 😭🙏

Aaaaaaaa thanks babe, for real, I looooove hearing that people enjoy my stuff, don't be shy and come again from time to time just to chill! Feel invited to jump in my askbox just to say whatever and vibe about our fav trash man!

Now I've done both D before so I'll put it under the cut!

✉ K = Kink

✎ Oh man, for starters, he is a somnophilia and free use guy, biiiiig time. He just likes to engage in some casual fucking, ya know, while you are in the middle of some boring task like doing the dishes, or while watching a movie or something. Also has a bit of an exhibitionism thing, tho he knows he is a public figure and can't go about engaging in anything too risky. He does at least engage in some filming tho, loves making videos of you two fucking, it's his personal porn movie, and you are his own personal porn star.

✉ O = Oral

✎ Giving, receiving, 69, he doesn't have a preference, whatever comes his way he is into it. But he is into it sloppy, into it nasty and wet. If he is getting head he wants to see your face covered in saliva and cum by the end of it, wants you slobbered and dripping from your chin to your chest. If he is giving he will make sure he ends up the same way, face covered in a mix of your choices and his saliva. For him oral sex has to be full sloppy to be good.

✉ W = Wild card

✎ Not afraid of ridicule therefore not scared of being dressed in something stupid - and sexy - like a playboy bunny one piece or a maid dress. He knows he'd look great in that shit, he is a cocky bastard but he is right. Matter of fact he'd let you dress him in a maid dress and order him around easily, only to wait for the moment when you get too comfortable with the situation and shove you against the wall by surprise, just to fuck you so hard your brain will turn off. Dress him in whatever, boss him how you want, he still is coming out on top of this game.

✉ D = Dirty secret

✎ This is a man who once he is in a relationship has few dirty secrets, for him in a relationship the inside thoughts are outside thoughts, whether you want it or not. But the one thing he still hides isn't aaaall that bad, just a bit risky. He has the fantasy of taking you to one of those fancy team events where they have expensive drinks and everyone is wearing fancy clothes, but under those expensive clothes, you got an ass full of his cum and a plug keeping it in place. He thinks the idea of you going about in public with his cum filling up your plugged ass really hot, esp on a setting like that. Tho, he knows it's too risky so he keeps it to himself, but he might work out the courage to tell you that one day.

[ev4ikcasswife]

BRIEF COMPARATIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF CHANSAW IN THE MOVIE AND MUSICAL

By me & @evans-gallery

Special thanks goes to @theodichka for helping edit this article <3. This essay was originally in Russian, but we decided to translate it.

DISCLAIMER

By "chansaw" here we do not mean a ship, but only a duet/relationship between two characters. Evan and I are well aware that Chandler and Veronica's relationship in canon has no romantic overtones, and that such wording is merely used for convenience.

GREETINGS. WHY DOES THIS ANALYSIS EXIST?

As you know, Heathers the musical and the film are two different works. The difference between these media also affected the relationship between chansaw. Therefore, Evan and I decided to make a comparative description of the duet of Chandler and Veronica in the original and adaptation.

VERONICA'S RELATIONSHIP TO CHANDLER. BEGINNING OF THE FILM AND MUSICAL.

Unlike the musical, the film does not give us clear information about the chansaw's first meeting (namely, the circumstances under which they met, how long they have known each other, etc.). However, when we meet Veronica, we clearly see that she is simply tired of Heathers' company. When J.D. asked, “You are a Heather?” (here, not a name is assumed, but “one of the Heathers,” since “Heather” is preceded by the article “a”), the girl replies: “No. I'm a Veronica." With this phrase, Veronica emphasizes that she does not want to associate herself with the Heathers company and Heather Chandler in general.

Sawyer doesn't consider Heathers to be his real friends (and the scene at 7/11 confirms this, as Veronica literally compares Heathers to her co-workers, not her friends), presumably her motives for spending time with them are the same as in the musical (surviving high school ).

Chandler:"Come on, Veronica. You used to have sense of humor"

Interesting fact: At first, Veronica more willingly agreed to do all kinds of wild things that Chandler offered her. This is evidenced by Chandler's phrase: “You used to have a sense of humor.” Does this line suggest that Veronica enjoyed bullying people? More likely no than yes. She was probably just trying to consolidate her position in the company, so she was more accommodating first time.

Veronica: "Heathers and I have been friends for three weeks now!"

Unlike the film, in the musical Veronica has not yet gone through her “accommodating” phase. We also know how long chansaw has been knowing each other (approximately three weeks), and for her this place is much more important than her version from the original.

She is ready to tolerate bad attitude towards herself, towards her parents and towards her best friend (albeit only partially in the latter case). Veronica does not approve of Chan's actions, but does not enter into any particular confrontation with her (except for the moment at the party, but here the state of alcoholic intoxication played a role). This is not to say that Sawyer at the beginning of the film was able to tell Heather whatever she was thinking, but it is clear that she is much bolder than her version from the musical.

JD. PARTY IN REMINGTON.

As already mentioned, Veronica in the film is tired of Heathers' company. She regrets leaving Betty, her friend, for this company and her tense relationship with Chandler.

(I won't translate everything here, but in short, Veronica expresses regret at this point for leaving Betty for Heathers)

Jason became a breath of fresh air for Veronica (of course, only at first). The girl saw in him a good alternative to the company that was already boring her, so after a quarrel with Chan at a party, she realized that JD was a way to burn all the bridges between Sawyer and her past popular life. This is also confirmed by the fact that, apparently, Veronica initially wanted, albeit reluctantly, to apologize to Heather, but after a conversation with Jason she decided to finally break off relations with Chan, mixing all sorts of nonsense into her mug, because of which the girl in red I would throw up.

Veronica before talking to Jason: "Tomorrow I will have to kiss her trained ass, but today let me just dream of a world where is no Heather. A world where I am free."

Here, after a conversation with Jason, Veronica says that she wants to make Chandler throw up before cutting off all ties with her.

On Veronica’s part in the musical, a similar passage remained without much change, except that the girl was actually preparing a hangover cure for Chandler, because, as already mentioned, Sawyer had recently joined Heathers’ company, and this place was still important to her, unlike her movie version.

CHANDLER'S DEATH.

In the musical, because Heather Chandler's ghost is something of Veronica's conscience, Sawyer feels guilty for killing his "friend." In the moments when Ronnie was forced to show cruelty, one can see similarities with Chan (especially the poses).

Both versions of Veronica are trying to find an excuse for themselves, but unlike the musical, in the film the girl copes with Heather’s death quite quickly, even if she is very scared at first (cus killing a person was most likely not her everyday's routine, haha). Most likely, this is due to the fact that, again, Sawyer is simply tired of Chan’s company.

However, the scene with the locker still changes the girl's attitude towards Chandler's death. Noticing that Heather had been keeping photographs of her and Veronica together all this time, the latter realizes that for Chan their peculiar “friendship” had some weight. Veronica finally understands that everything she and JD did was not right.

To sum it up, Veronica's treatment of Chandler in the musical and the film is not too different. However, at the beginning of the latter, her relationship with Heather was already on the verge of breaking due to the fact that Sawyer regretted that she had exchanged her past friends for Chan's company and was tired of spending time with her. The episode with the locker does change Veronica's perception: she realizes that their relationship was still important to Heather to some extent, so we can assume that Sawyer changed her attitude towards Heather for the better.

CHANDLER'S ATTITUDE TO VERONICA.

We're probably going to say a very provocative thing now, but Chandler in the film shows some kind of respect for Veronica. Let's look at the beginning: the lunchtime poll. Heather Duke and Veronica question Chan about it, despite the fact that the latter discussed the topic with both of them, but only Duke receives a sharp reaction from Chandler.

This may mean that Heather does take into account Sawyer's opinion, although not always. The fact that Chandler hangs around with Veronica during the lunch poll, even though Veronica doesn't provide any practical benefit (Heather asks the questions and she writes down the answers), may hint that Chan enjoys Veronica's company to some extent. Yes, she still uses the latter's skills for her own purposes, but at the beginning of the film there is no sense of outright disrespect on Heather's part, unlike the musical.

In the musical, Chandler brought her negative qualities to the maximum. She is rude to Veronica's parents, humiliates the girl in blue's childhood friend, shakes her at a party and forces her to humiliate herself on her knees to ask for forgiveness. And in general, the whole problem of chensav in the musical is the fault of Chandler’s image. Heather in the film did none of the above (just in case, Veronica's childhood friend in the original was Betty, not Martha), which makes her more mature.

WHY WAS HEATHER SO ANGRY AT VERONICA AT THE PARTY?

At this point we are only identifying the cause-and-effect relationship of Heather’s actions. Chandler in both episodes acts, to put it mildly, badly, and such behavior cannot be justified.

In the film, partying at Remington is, in Heather's opinion, an acquisition of status. Most likely, she was going to enter this university and wanted the same for Veronica. With her requests to leave and her subsequent behavior, Sawyer, in Heather's opinion, put their reputations at risk. Veronica's very bold responses to Chan's claims completely infuriated the latter, which is why she broke off the relationship between them.

In the musical, everything is much simpler - Heather appeared at the Inca in the evening in a society in which she already had a reputation, and Veronica’s open resistance could damage it. This is what caused Chan to react so strongly.

A FEW WORDS ABOUT THE LOCKER SCENE. Chandler felt a connection with Veronica, as evidenced by the locker scene and partly the moment where McNamara, after Chan's death, says that Heather would give her watch to Veronica, since she was unhappy with her taste in accessories. In general, one could say that the moment with the clock is far-fetched, but imagine the same Duke in Veronica’s place. Chandler would hardly give her things to Heather, even if she was dissatisfied with her taste.

This stupid app won't let me insert photos. If anything, the line about the watch was in the scene where the girls were discussing Chandler's death in the locker room. If you need to show one or another scene described above, don't be afraid to ask.

In the musical, this connection manifests itself in the form of Heather as a phantom as Veronica's conscience, but such interactions cannot compare to the scenes above.

IN CONCLUSION

The Chansaw in the film is clearly more interesting and deeper than the Chansaw in the musical (especially on Chan's part). They have moments that show the connection between them. Their relationship in the film is very far from ideal, given the nature of both girls, but it still feels much stronger and capable of development (under any ideal circumstances). The main problem with the Chansaw in the musical is the way the two are presented. If Veronica's character was not distorted so much, Chan underwent big changes.

In the film, Chandler shows insecurity at the Remington party, which adds depth to her character. In the musical, she is unshakable and seems to have no complexes at all. The relationship between Heather and Veronica in the musical is simply not interesting to watch, since they do not have the same hints of any kind of friendship as they did in the film, so their relationship is clearly better developed in the original.

That's all. Thanks for reading this essay, don't be afraid to ask questions & say your opinion. Sorry for the dumb grammatical mistakes, me and Evan are from Russia, so we are just learning English ✌️✌️

[fefairys]

"Karezi is one of those baseline type of ships that exist in any given franchise. The kind with blinking arrows pointing to it and a neon sign saying "THE TEXT INTENDS FOR YOU TO SHIP THESE TWO." It has endgame written all over it. Which, despite some endearing qualities and some decent conversations in service to the idea, is what makes it a bit boring. To whatever extent Homestuck is capable of serving up a conventional, recognizable morsel of "fairytale intent" on a platter, this might be it. A statement expressing what it considers to be its equivalent to the boy-meets-girl, written-in-the-stars, journey-to-the-white-picket-fence sort of pairing. Which is not an inherently bad thing. There's a always place for arcs like these, and a certain comfort people take from grabbing on to the white-picket-fence outcomes and rooting for them. A lot of people were pretty stoked about Karezi. Stuff like this conversation obviously is going to start shoveling coal into that engine pretty hard. But these features are what give it a predictable quality, and thus make it much less likely to be fully realized in the long run. Instead, later it's given more value as a foil relationship, a thing that threatens to happen often, because it's "supposed" to, but functions as a basis for turbulent departures. A backdrop of stable, comprehensible relationship potential against which some more unpredictable and challenging outcomes for them both start to play out.

Karezi as the male/female lead, meant-to-be sort of ship, is, well, it's obvious. It's obvious to me at least, because I'm dangling it out there, obviously. Therefore I feel it must be obvious to you. And as such, I feel you must know I see it as obvious, and intend it as obvious, in this big feedback loop of self-evidentiary storycraft and trope jockeying. Any time this is true, I think awareness of the circumstance tends to leak into the consciousness of the characters involved. Characters in HS tend to be pretty self-aware (like Striders and Lalondes), but even the ones that aren't as much like these two) still tend to carry a form of subconscious selfawareness. (Feel free to chew on this oxymoron for a moment before continuing.) In other words, on some level, Karkat and Terezi both just sort of know they are the male and female leads in a lengthy heroic tale, and thus their sense of this propels them toward attraction, as if satisfying unspoken narrative obligation. This must especially seem true for Karkat, who lives and breathes the tropes of his romance films." -Andrew Hussie

[napoleondidthat]

[On Joaquin Phoenix’s performance] “Joaquin studies the psyche, and the psyche of Napoleon is so strange The film feels like that. It’s kind of peculiar, and there’s an intensity in that. Napoleon wasn’t stoic and wonderful like Russell Crowe was in Gladiator. He was a dictator, a war criminal, really. It couldn’t be rousing, because that man killed hundreds and hundreds of thousands of men, in my opinion needlessly. And for what? To get an empire, for what? In the end, it all disintegrated anyway. That psyche run wild is dangerous as hell, and very strange. And this is a portrait of that.”

—Vanessa Kirby

[Phoenix’s visit to Napoleon’s tomb, and to the military hotspots] ” I went to all the museums and, yes, it’s very interesting but, yeah, you’re looking at swords and blah, blah, blah, who gives a fuck. I mean, honestly, I want to make it a great thing to talk about for your piece, but yeah, you walk around and you look at the things and you go, ‘Oh yeah, that is a very small jacket.'”

—Joaquin Phoenix

[On Napoleon and Josephine’s divorce scene where Phoenix slaps Kirby in agreement] “My biggest compliment for any take or scene, is, ‘Christ almighty, where did that come from?’ That wasn’t planned. He just fuckin’ slapped her. She didn’t know it was coming either. The whole room went [sharp intake of breath]. And you know, what could’ve been a boring scene suddenly had magic.”

—Ridley Scott

Trivia: Scott has a super cut that goes into Josephine’s life before Napoleon. So you fans of Josephine, don’t give up hope!

This is such a mess. You have English actors being typical English and hate Napoleon but for some reason want to do a movie about him anyway even though he is a Hitler and Stalin and according to Kirby a war criminal. Fantastic. Nothing like approaching a subject neutrally.

Joaquin isn’t impressed with museums much I see.

Okay Scott, wants us to know that the film isn’t a love letter to Napoleon and he’s a bad dude, they aren’t showing just good things Napoleon did. So instead they will show things Napoleon NEVER did like SLAPPING JOSEPHINE AT THE DIVORCE CEREMONY. It’s not as if Napoleon didn’t do shitty things to Josephine that, if you want to show their dynamic you could go to. Yes, Napoleon did shoot at her swans at Malmaison. Yes, Napoleon did force her into carriage rides when she was suffering migraines. But making stuff up out of whole cloth is infuriating.

So on top of the already inaccurate information out there: Napoleon was racist and shot the nose off the syphinx and shot at the pyramids proves it, Napoleon was short and therefore he had to conquer the world, we can now also get Napoleon was a wife beater. And surprise, the misinformation still comes out of England.

[fyeah-anya-corazon]

Getting tangled in a web. A Madame Web, you could say - An Anya Corazón centric Madame Web review (SPOILERS AHEAD)

So, I originally did not planned to pay to watch MW (I did considered watching it later on for free if just to do a funny review), but my best friend wanted to watch it to roast it, so as meanwhile it was her I was like "I'm in".

(Completely unrelated, but adding to the MW watching experience, the top of the projection was off-screen as you can see, and it was like that for 20 minutes, so that was a great sign)

This is going to be focused entirely on Anya, so to give some quick thoughts about the movie itself that you've probably heard from other reviews: yeah, it's bad. We were making fun of it at the beginning but by the last hour we were bored and wanted it to end. The damn stolen taxi got laughs from us, so there's that.

Now, Anya.

Isabela Merced does a fine job with the material she's given. To the credit of the movie, she and Julia are the most likeable of the main protagonists, with Anya being the most sympathetic of the bunch. In what was the cringest secene in the film, were the girls dance to Toxic by Britney Spears on a restaurant's table (my friend was dying, since we're filmmaking students and she was lamenting that this was directed by a woman and she just keep saying that absolutely no girl would act like that and do that) she at least was the only who resisted the most from joining.

This version, as you could guess by her costume, is mostly based on the Marvel's Spider-Man 2017™ cartoon Anya.

She's an academic genius who spits out sciency words and sentences. Even her bolas here seem to have some tech-integrated in them, makingh them more like drones than her traditional ones, at least that's what they look like for like the three seconds they appear on-screen. They still failed to give her a pony tail.

Our first look of her is alongside the other Spider-Women in a future vision were they violently attack and murder in cold blood Ezekiel. They attack him at his apartment and throw him out of the building as they stare at him as he falls.

This is in contrast to her general depiction of her being in a constant struggle to give up to her vengeful tendencies.

TO THE FILM'S CREDIT, it also heavily implies that they were never going to kill him, but that "vision" represented how the Spider-Women trio would lead to his downfall. So if he never chased them he would still be alive in the future.

Now, among other changes...

In a previous post, I reacted strongly about the movie changing her nationality to Peruvian. I got responses saying that the reviewer was wrong and she wasn't peruvian in the film. Having seen the film, yes, i can confirm that she's not peruvian.... they still changed her nationality, though.

In the comics Anya is mexican from her mother's side and puertorrican from her father's. In the movie it's stated that her mom died when she was a child, while his dad was deported. This means that they did changed her nationality, since puertorricans are considered US citizens and therefore can't be deported. It's never stated where exactly she comes from. she's just generic latina.

Althought a illegal immigrant approach could potentially work, the movie does nothing with that beyond having it being a excuse for Anya to be adopted by Cassandra by the end of the movie. Let alone, the fact that the story of the latina character being an ilegal immigrant feels cliche by this point. Even more egregious, to contrast with the comic, her dad is a puertorrican highly respected reporter who was even hired by the Fantastic Four, turning him into a illegal immigrant pretty much added nothing to the story beyond having a orphan Anya.

Overall, in their attempt to make their own version of Anya, as well as shoehorn her into a movie that was not about her, we ended up losing one the most interesting and charming characters and origin stories that can hold a movie by her own.

At the end of it, this movie didn't improve Anya's perception to the general public, but it didn't hurt it either.

It tells you a lot that her cameo in Across the Spider-Verse got more people talking about her than this movie did.

[eeclare]

Bob’s Burgers bedrooms

I downloaded Toca Life World and made the Belcher’s bedrooms with my own little twists to them. I reimagined some of it and I hope you guys like it!

Starting off with Tina:

Some classic horse paraphernalia (I imagine the brown horse is Chariot from the equestranauts)

I put walkie talkies in all the Belcher kids’ bedrooms because I like to imagine that they communicate with each other past their bedtime

Tina would 100% have those glow in the dark stars on her walls all throughout high school. Change my mind

I think she would have bought into that vines on the walls trend that was all over Tik tok for a while. She thinks they look classy

I also added a lil cameo of the cat treats that Tina and Gene eat in that one episode lol I headcannon that they still snack on them from time to time

There’s also a box of chocolates and a little teddy bear holding a heart, I just think that she either received them from someone (Zeke, J-Ju, whoever you want) or she’s saving them to give to someone else

Shoutout to the composition notebook on her desk for her erotic friendfiction

And because this is a headcannon for teenaged Tina’s bedroom, I gave her a mirror and some fancy looking moisturizer. I don’t think she wears much makeup (if any at all) but I do think she takes skincare VERY seriously

Gene:

Gene’s room is MESSY

Like I love him but he’s a total slob

I think that he would have some of those LED lights, but only because Louise wanted them first but her room was too small for the whole roll

Like in Tina’s room, I gave him the cat food to snack on

I also think that Gene is a sweaty boy and therefore has a fan on 24/7

Burger and ketchup plushies!

So. Many. Snacks.

I gave him a kiddie radio and a regular boombox as well as a synthesizer (I couldn’t find any keyboards that’s my bad)

He also has a walkie talkie so he can “walkie and talkie with his favourite sisters”

I also added a music score!

The posters are kinda miscellaneous, they didn’t have any music based ones but I think that “bulko” character would be one that Gene is rlly into

Ofc I added a baseball in there as well. I think that even though he never excelled at the sport and isn’t a sport person in general, he still just likes to have the ball around. Maybe as a stim toy maybe not who knows

Louise:

Louise was my favourite room to put together! I just find that she and I have/had similar rooms growing up and I just relate to her on that level

I gave her the loft bed with the desk underneath because obviously. She has one. But I chose this one specifically because I think that it’s very her.

I think she added the caution tape because it’s “the next best thing besides barbed wire”

And ofc the stickers to add some ✨personality✨

Louise got really into the LED craze of 2020 and hence, got some for Christmas or something like that

But her room *cough* closet *cough* is too teeny tiny for the full roll so she had to share the rest of it with Gene

I added horror movie posters next to her bed because there are SO many instances in the show where she just talks about horror films and I think she gets REALLY into them when she gets older

She still uses crayons. Sue her

Ofc I also gave her a walkie talkie. She’s literally the reason the Belcher kids have them in the first place

The one poster in a frame reminds me of that one onion poster she has in her room in the show. I still don’t understand the significance of the poster but I think it deserves to be added

The green frog on her bed is supposed to represent Kuchi Kopi

And all the other weird looking toys are her collectables!

And I have to address the lady bug in the room. I think that she got that as a lil baby and just grew so emotionally attached to it that she can’t bear to get rid of it. She rides it around the apartment when she’s bored

I also tried to imitate her spiral carpet and even though there is no spiral I think the colour is spot on

Bob and Linda:

Linda 100% made all of the design choices in their bedroom

Ik that canonically they don’t have a window but shhhhhh

I think that they would have two carpets because Linda always complains that her feet get cold when she’s getting ready in the mornings

And she let Bob pick the colour of it (the red one)

Linda found that tapestry at a flea market and “Isn’t it just DARLING Bobby”

BUT it smelled like cigarettes for sooooo long she almost got rid of it

Almost.

Linda is a candle gurly. If she goes to the store and sees a candle she HAS to have it, especially if it smells good

She also got rlly into the holistic medicine industry for a while, hence the salt lamp

She thinks it looks fancy and rustic at the same time

Bob picked out the framed picture and he’s so proud of himself

“Did you know that IM the one that picked that? And now it’s hanging in our room”

They have white sheets because Linda likes to feel like she’s in a hotel

Bob actually is an avid reader. Well, mostly.

He reads but he doesn’t really READ, you know?

But he always tries to read a little before bed so he keeps his current books on his nightstand (at least since the events of the episode where he and Linda sleep apart)

Those are my headcannons for the Blecher bedrooms! I’m thinking of doing an MLP version too but we’ll see. I’ve also been thinking of doing a Mr. Frond and Gayle bedroom because in my mind they stay together forever lol who knows

[extasiswings]

I'm not Tim's biggest fan but it seems like you're basing your opinion off the 911s only.

911 and LS are the only shows where he's been a showrunner. They are, therefore, the only examples of him having both a decent amount of creative control AND the opportunity to write on the same level. So if I'm judging his abilities as a showrunner, that's what there is to work from.

But sure, if you really want to go there, I can say more.

First of all, most of his credits are not as a writer but as an editor (which, I'll give you a hint, is not the same as making up your own plots and developing them into real stories). For example, despite being credited for 20 episodes of the X-Files, he only actually wrote...two.

But yes, getting into his writing history in more detail:

He wrote for Angel and Firefly and Dollhouse, all of which were Joss Whedon shows, and Whedon has extremely tight creative control on the feel of his shows - the Firefly episodes had a very distinctive flavor and lingo and so you can be sure that Whedon was strict with the writers on characterization, etc. (Also, just speaking as a fan of BtVS, I never got into Angel on nearly the same level because, much like with LS, it was a spinoff where I felt the writing was bad, the plotlines were reductive, and the mediocre acting couldn't save it from boring me to tears).

He was an EP and writer for AHS, another Ryan Murphy show, when Ryan Murphy and his cohorts are well-known for ridiculous over-the-top melodrama, and none of them would know consistent characterization if it did a striptease in front of them. (Did you watch Glee? Because I watched Glee. Fucking yikes).

As for his other shows, many were cancelled before they moved to filming or there's also Drive which was cancelled four episodes in. For the seven other shows he's credited on, he was a guest writer for all of them and never wrote more than four episodes per season.

Tldr; in more than 30 years of his career, this man has been credited as an actual writer on somewhere in the ballpark of ~80 episodes of television (again, as noted in the op, many of which were not written solo) [if you want a point of comparison, Taylor Wong, for example, as another 911 writer, in just the 2021-2022 period was at minimum a staff writer on 13 episodes with full “written by” credit on 4, and she’s still getting started in her career]. About 1/5-1/4 of that is across 911 properties (18 episodes). And a not insignificant amount was in Whedon shows where he wouldn't have had creative control. So yes, I'm judging him on his work in the 911 universe, because it's the first time in that 30+ year career where he was given the power to do whatever he wanted. And, well, see my original post.

[lawttes]

I hope this doesn't come across as mean spirited in any way, just wanted to add to a discussion and need to get these thoughts off my chest after seeing your Saltburn post.

After reading/listening to a bunch of interviews/q&as with Barry Keoghan and Emeral Fenell i'm pretty sure that at least the intention was that he's not 100% honest with himself/us in that monologue and it shouldn't be taken at face value.

For one Barry has said something like that Olivers motivation changes throghout the film and that he (Oliver) is often confused and not completly aware of what he really wants.

Emerald has said multiple times that the first idea about the film she had was someone saying "i didn't love him" and then licking that persons bathtub and that therefore that that person's obviously not being entirely truthful and that line is part of how he starts the monologue so i'm pretty sure we aren't supossed to take the whole thing at face value.

I can't remember which of the multiple live q&as you can find on youtube it is but i also remember her responding in a after the film q&a to someone seemingly having that same read of the film i've seen so many people have of Oliver being a mastermind that had this whole plan laid out from the start and she said something like that it was in part actually more like responsive to the situation from moment to moment

Like it starts with him seeing Felix and being like "i wanna get closer to that guy" and since he has seemingly always just been good at knowing what people want and giving it to them (another thing emerald has been reapeating in a lot of q&as) he knows that setting up the bike and drinks at the bar situation and a sob story of a family backgroud will get Felix's attention but then like he always does Felix get's bored and starts pulling away so Olivers like "aw fuck what do i do? oh i know just up the story by saying my dad died" and that does make Felix invite him to Saltburn but that wasn't like the concious end goal of that action he just wanted to get Felix's attention back in that moment and i don't believe Felix dying in any way was a concious goal at any other time but pretty much right before he did it. His obsession with him comprising of part loving him, hating him and wanting to be him just escalated to that point.

Now, you could say that with so many (hard to say but maybe even the majority of) people "misunderstanding" the film/that part as him accuratly, sincerly and 100% honestly revealing that he masterminded and planned the whole thing from pretty much the beginning that they (Emerald & Co.) just did a bad job of getting that across which would be fair.

As someone that didn't read the film/monologue that way and then was validated by all the q&as i've seen i can't lie that it hasn't been at least a little frustating that so many people "misread" that part (or take it "too" honestly) but i would say that it's more the fault of the film actually not making that intention clear enough. Also "death of the author" and all that, i guess.

But i would recommend checking out all the after film q&as with Emeral Fenell you can find on youtube anyway if you're interested.

P.S 100% agree what you said about Felix tho

hey, not mean-spirited at all! i’m always open to discussion, media analysis is rarely about being right or wrong :)

it could surely be read in that way - i have not seen the q&a’s, i’ll check them out! i think i personally focused on the class commentary because of how much of a trend it is in cinema at the moment. discussions of social status and class have always been apart of media (i was talking about maupassant in my previous post, which goes all the way back to the 19th century), but it has become more prevalent in mainstream cinema nowadays. everyone is trying their hand at it, and i would argue that parasite winning the oscar for best picture reinforced the idea that class commentary in movies was socially acceptable enough to still win awards.

my main issue with saltburn is that the same story has been done multiple times before, and apart from cinematography, i fail to see what saltburn brings to the table. @tigerfancy mentioned the talented mr ripley earlier in my notes, which i’d forgotten about, but it is very similar and strikes that balance between obsessive, unreliable narrator and mastermind social climber quite clearly. someone i know irl also mentioned summer of 85 (été 85) and how in her eyes, saltburn is essentially a ripoff of that. it’s all inspiration; but seeing all these other stories that deal with this nuance more adequately unfortunately makes saltburn look clumsy in comparison.

maybe oliver is indeed not being 100% truthful, and he didn’t actually mastermind anything beyond his first meeting with oliver up to the point where he is invited to saltburn. personally, though, it does not make the monologue any less gimmicky to me. maybe the intention was not clear enough. maybe saltburn was trying to pull from too many of its inspirations and lost itself along the way. but i totally respect your interpretation of the film! and it would indeed be much better if the monologue at the end is oliver trying to convince himself rather than him revealing earnestly that he masterminded the whole thing.

[melis-writes]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=392x-baFg4s

Hi! I wanted to bring up this video about why Michael changed since it was recommended to me by YouTube and I watched it out of curiosity (even though I already know the answer), and I was disappointed by the credit it gives Apollonia’s death. I don’t care for how the YouTuber claims that the Sicily sequence shows us how much Michael “loves” Apollonia- all it shows is him playing the role that he must in that society in order to marry her (and therefore be allowed to relieve himself in a socially acceptable way due to desperation, as we know 🤢). None of it seemed like a natural display of chemistry or frankly even behavior (I’m aware of what he says in Part III about loving her, but the thing about storytelling is that you’re supposed to show, not tell). The two of them kinda just seemed to be going through the motions throughout the whole thing tbh. We know what he wants (which should’ve been made clearer in the film), and we can figure out what she wants based on how she only smiles at Michael once she touches the golden necklace he gives her. I’m aware we get that one scene of them bonding (which only proves what she also wanted was freedom) but besides that, it honestly proves nothing- if anything, I bet if they met under normal circumstances, Michael would’ve been like a big brother figure to Apollonia and taught her some American things, and at most they would’ve been friends (since I’d even argue that romantically, she is not his type, and honestly how do we know Apollonia even likes men at all and wasn’t giving into comphet? Lmao). To call what they had “love” and then credit her death for his change is stupid and cringe imo.

Anyway, moving on to the YouTuber’s next point, I’d say Michael seems different when he returns to Kay due to all the trauma that keeps occurring in his life and how he keeps bottling it up inside, not because he’s mourning a teen he only knew for a few weeks. Trauma has been proven to wear on people over time who feel like they’re losing their support system and aren’t expressing their emotions in a healthy way. He also is closed off to Kay because he’s ashamed of what he’s done- it reminds me of that scene from The Lion King in which Simba is hesitant to tell Nala what he’s been through out of fear that she’ll turn away from him. Again, all this could’ve been explained better through dialogue and framing.

Finally, I disagree with the YouTuber’s speculation that Michael would’ve stayed in Sicily with Apollonia for a few years if Sonny didn’t die. We know Michael was bored out of his mind there so I don’t think he’d stay there just for her. Besides, I don’t think that their relationship would even last that long lmao. I don’t get why people give this random teen he wanted to sleep with so much credit for his development 💀💀💀. At first I sort of believed in the ship due how the shippers are so good at gaslighting, but then I finally started using my brain lol. Again, I also blame the movie itself for how it inaccurately adapted this whole arc from the book.

Speaking of the book, I’ve only read excerpts of it, but I recall Michael saying to Vito that he sought revenge not only for Sonny and Apollonia, but also because it’s the right thing to do. I think it just boils back to Michael taking things personally and having that sense of justice that never seemed to fully leave him. For all we know, he was angry due to being betrayed (like you’ve pointed out in one of your posts) and felt bad that an innocent life that he knew was taken due his own carelessness. Anyway, I know that this is long but I wanted to share my thoughts on this video since I enjoy discussing this franchise! Hope you have a great day!

“I don’t get why people give this random teen he wanted to sleep with so much credit for his development.”

THIS. This right here. 👆🏻 At this point, it’s almost annoying as to how obsessed people are with the whole Michael and Apollonia thing. It literally mentions in the book that Michael couldn’t even go near Apollonia if he wanted to, that marriage was the custom to do anything with a woman and Michael even wondered why people continued to believe/do these things when he compared it to the culture in the USA. It was extreme for Michael but as you said, he was bored. It literally mentions he. Was. Bored.

Michael was wandering the countryside every day with his bodyguards trying to see the country and entertain himself, but he was utterly bored. Everyday he waited for word from his father to come back lmao he didn’t want to be in Sicily. In all that time, he was also thinking about what he did and he thought of Kay everyday, assuming she also must have put two and two together and ended up hating him, but that didn’t stop Michael from continuing to wonder about her. In the book it also mentions Michael felt bad for leaving Kay behind with a word. He wondered what she was doing a lot.

There’s a lot of scenes in the book where Michael and Kay have sex. A lot. 😂 So it made sense to see in the book that Michael was not just bored, but horny. He only wanted to “possess” Apollonia, keep her to himself and Michael didn’t care for her personality or her shyness. He was solely fixated on her looks and wanted to please her and her family (mind you, Apollonia’s father was so happy his daughter’s beauty got them a rich, powerful groom) and so all Michael mentions is Apollonia’s physical aspect. During breakfast, Michael gets jealous enough to want to hurt Apollonia’s brother because he made her laugh. That’s not love, that’s an intense lust and toxic desire. 🥴

And when Michael married Apollonia, all he continued to talk about was her looks, despite Apollonia being nervous about the wedding night and wanting her mother to stay the night too. And then it goes on to mention that for a week or two straight, Michael kept Apollonia with him in the house and the word “sex slave” was mentioned in the sense that Michael basically did nothing but have sex with her all the time.

There is literally no love between these two and everyone knows it. There’s ships, and then there’s this weird, obsessive gaslighting, major misogynistic Kay slander thing going on where everyone wants Michael and this 17 year old to be soulmates so bad that apparently Apollonia turned him into such a cruel, cold man. Okay, please… 😂😂😂 I’m glad to hear I’m not the only one that finds this actually fucking ridiculous. It’s delusional.

The book mentions Michael loved two things: His father and Kay. That’s it. Watching the Sicily sequence on film is so annoying because you can see Francis deliberately tried to make it a love story gone wrong (coupled with gaslighting shippers now on the internet) even though that wasn’t Mario Puzo’s intention.

Michael’s entire relationship with Apollonia is predatory and because of him, she died. He ruined Apollonia’s life and Apollonia and her family are shitty in their own sense because they wanted Michael for his power and money. That’s literally all there is to it.

A lot of people also forget Michael didn’t go see Kay until a year after he returned to the US. He was working in the family business with Vito and it’s very obvious at that point that Michael will succeed his father as Don.

Michael and Apollonia were never in love with each other. I for once would like to hear someone point out how Apollonia loves Michael. (Spoiler alert: she doesn’t.) Everyone looooooves talking about how Michael loves Apollonia, but never if Apollonia loves Michael. How does that work? Lmao. And if Kay constantly has to be mentioned and slandered, then I think it’s already obvious… 🥴

Thank you for sharing this analysis with me!! 😂❤️ I loved it! You’re absolutely right and I agree with you. Of course, everyone can interpret Michael’s changes differently but I mean… Once I read the book and saw that no, Apollonia had no effect on Michael’s change, I’m like… 👁️👄👁️ it was Sonny’s death that changed Michael and I will die on this hill.

[heretherebedork]

I think a lot of the prejudice against short-form BL series comes from the fact that they’re series, and people subconsciously think that they should therefore be long. I was super confused about 10-15 minute KBL episodes at first, and then I noticed a lot of them were cut into movies and when I watched the movie versions I enjoyed them even more! There’s tons of romance movies in the world that start out with the leads as strangers and having to build an entire relationship in usually under 2 hours of screentime and we normally don’t watch those and go “hm no this should have been longer” (sometimes we do but I’ll get to that) because they’re well written and well paced and the story fits the runtime.

I think that most of the good KBLs that have been short worked well at the length they are because the story was written and paced to fit that length, same as how the eighth sense was clearly written to be longer (as you said). I think the issue is pretty much never that a runtime is too short, like you also said there are incredible short films that are in the 10-30 minute range, it’s the writing and picking a story that works for that runtime. All the Liquors wasn’t bad because it was short, it was bad because they did nothing with the time they had. I do think there are some manhwas that probably need a longer run time to work to their full potential (Heesu in Class 2 is one and I’m hoping it’ll have a longer runtime), but a lot of it just comes down to using the time well. Whenever I try to decide if I think a show would improve with a longer runtime I think did they use the time they had already well? If not, then a longer runtime would probably make it worse. If it was used well but I still feel like the story was too big for the runtime, then I think well maybe it could use a longer form show.

Exactly. Yes, KBLs are short and, yes, they can be harder to watch serialized versus in movie form (though I pretty much always enjoy them serialized but that's just how I enjoy things) and that's all true and fine! But that does not mean that giving them more time would improve them!

And you've got it. These shows are written to the length they get and sometimes it doesn't work but it often does. All the Liquors just... wasted everything and wasted their ideas (no alcohol being long, long over before we got his backstory was horrible pacing because it took away all meaning to his grandmother being a heavy drinker because he'd already gotten over it by the time we found out!) and wasted what they tried to do and being longer would have probably just made it worse.

I rarely think about longer runtimes, honestly. I'm much more likely to be thinking 'this should have been shorter!' than 'this needed to be longer' when it comes to a lot of BLs. Yes, some shows could have used more time but there are far more shows that really should have been shorter and needed to be tightened.

I'd rather get a tight but short show that doesn't waste a moment than a meandering, slow show that everyone gets bored of before they finish /quietly eyes Tin Tem Jai and Ai Long Nhai/. I enjoy meandering shows as well but tighter is typically more fun.

So yeah! Basically... most shows are written to their runtime and I have no issue with shorter or longer shows and they tend to explore different things in different lengths.

[fancoloredglasses]

Lois & Clark: the New Adventures of Superman (a super-powered rom-com)

(Thanks to Omar David)

[All images are owned by DC Comics and Warner Bros Discovery. Please don’t sue me]

I would like to start by saying it must be extremely difficult to write for any media where Superman is involves, whether comics, TV, movies, books, radio, etc. I mean, the guy is stupid-strong, stupid-invulnerable, stupid-fast, and has a metric shit-ton of powers that put him leagues ahead of anyone he might square off against.

Therefore, you have a few options:

Create adversaries on his power level (like DC did with Doomsday in The Death of Superman), but then you have an opponent that’s on Superman’s level that the rest of the lineup will have to deal with.

Give him an opponent who works behind the scenes who undermines his image and confidence (and might be able to tweak his nose a few times as well), which is why Lex Luthor exists. However, without giving Superman  someone to punch, the readers will get bored after a while.

Give him some very specific weaknesses (such as a certain green rock), but you can’t have Kryptonite constantly showing up to Save The Day for the bad guys.

Make it more about the human side than the super side. However, much like my second option, people are eventually want to see the hero just punch things.

Make it campy (see Superman III and IV), and you can watch those films to see how horribly wrong that can go.

...which bring us to Lois & Clark. The show (thankfully) didn’t make a powerful adversary (or at least they gave themselves a way to remove the threat from the series the few times they did), but ticked the other four boxes (though to be fair, there’s no way they could NOT use Kryptonite in some way)

This was the first time we saw a post-Crisis on Infinite Earths version of Superman (as originally depicted by legendary writer/artist John Byrne in 1986) on screen, and there were a ton of changes...

His core powers were somewhat diminished from the Silver Age

A lot of his more absurd powers (such as destroying planets with a sneeze, rebuilding the Great Wall of Chine with his vision, and his “amnesia kiss”) were gone

He knew nothing about Krypton save that he was originally born there (the Silver Age Superman was constantly referencing Krypton)

He was the sole survivor (no Supergirl, General Zod, or Krypto the Super Dog)

His costume wasn’t made of Kryptonian fabric (meaning it was also invulnerable, but just normal fabric (which, thanks to an “aura” around Superman, meant it stayed intact through most of his battles, though Byrne loved to draw the cape getting torn in every fight!)

In the comics, the S-symbol was made after the Daily Planet coined the phrase “Superman” following his first public appearance, as opposed to being a Kryptonian relic.

And, most importantly, Martha and Jonathan Kent were alive and well in Smallville (in the Golden and Silver Ages, Pa Kent died when Clark was a teenager)

Most of these elements remained for Lois & Clark, though the writers reverted the S-Symbol to being from Kal-El’s rocket.

But enough of the exposition, on to the meat of the series!

The show follows Clark Kent (played by Dean Cain, who would return into Kryptonian orbit a number of years later as Supergirl’s adopted father), intrepid reporter for the Daily Planet (in a time where newspapers were a hell of a lot more relevant than they are now) and his alter ego...

...Superman. I should note that when we first see Clark (before he even has the iconic costume of his alter ego designed for him by his mother) he’s already wearing glasses. Exactly why is he doing that if he has no alter identity to conceal?

And what is Clark Kent/Superman without Lois Lane (played by Teri Hatcher)? Cain and Hatcher had awesome chemistry as friends/rivals as well as able to play the “will they/won’t they” tension very well (at least until they actually did)

The pair’s first meeting with Clark “in costume” was...kind of explosive.

(Thanks to DJDoena)

But the Daily Planet is more than just Lane and Kent (as much as they seem to hog the front page), so rounding out the Planet’s staff (at least the ones in the opening credits) are...

...Daily Planet Editor in Chief Perry White, who is Metropolis’s biggest Elvis fan...

...and Perry’s gopher (and later staff photographer) Jimmy Olson. However, the producers thought the actor looked a bit too much like Cain...

...so he was replaced in season 2.

Also a casualty in season 2 was Society Pages columnist Cat Grant. The producers felt the character was a bit too “risque” for their target audience (often rumored to be sleeping with fellow staff members) and she didn’t return after season 1.

As I mentioned earlier in this review, Martha and Jonathan Kent are alive and well (and apparently Smallville is close enough to Metropolis that they occasionally make trips there) Jonathan is a down-to-earth kinda guy while Martha is constantly trying to expand her horizons (usually with a new hobby every week...

(Thanks to Guardian Images)

...including sewing)

But what is Superman without a great villain...

...and he got a hell of one with Lex Luthor (played by John Shea). One other HUGE change in the Superman mythos was to Luthor. After Crisis he drastically changed from a “FOOLS! I WILL DESTROY YOU ALL MUHAHAHAHAHA!”-type mad scientist to a brilliant (and thoroughly corrupt) industrialist who would bend the legal system to keep his hands clean despite some blatantly obvious criminal activities (and managed to thumb his nose at Superman every time), and he was written to perfection in season 1. However, due to scheduling conflicts, he was written out with panache...

(thanks to ScreenBlaster13)

However, this being super-heroes, he came back from the dead for a couple of guest appearances.

The tone of the show was kept light, bordering on silly at times (such as casting Sonny Bono as mayor (and having him constantly dropping Sonny & Cher lyrics in his speeches) or having an episode where prohibition-era gangsters are cloned and allowed to run rampant in Metropolis) While Superman was a big part of the series, the fact that he was almost an afterthought in the show’s title should show where the real focus of the show was.

For two seasons, the show centered on the rivalry and budding relationship between Lois and Clark, then in season 3 the romance really kicked into gear, culminating in their marriage. Unfortunately, by then the series was starting to unravel, completely coming apart by the time the series was cancelled at the end of season 4.

As always, if you would like to say a particular episode reviewed, please let me know!

[dans-den]

Black Adam Review

Hey! Long time no see everyone! It's Dan here and today I'll be reviewing the movie, Black Adam

Sorry If I haven't been on for a minute, got a new job so working two jobs ATM so hopefully after I leave one, I'll have more time for reviews again. With that being said, lets get into Black Adam.

This is a movie that's been in limbo for a decade in a half and factors such as covid and poor management did not help. But after 15 years since its announcement, it finally came to the big screen. That's thanks partly to the star of the movie, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson. He pushed for this movie to happen for years and all that pushing paid off so I gotta give him credit where credits due.

The cast here did a good job for the most part, though I do have some critiques about the acting and a couple of the characters themselves. The acting is done almost in a rapid fire pace meaning they talk fast at times and barely gives people a chance to process any information without missing the next part like they're speed reading the scripts and other times it feels like overacting where some scenes are over the top and don't feel right. Johnson is perfect for Black Adam (far more than his Krypto role), Pierce Brosnan as Doctor Fate was my favorite and he is honestly a close second, Aldis Hodge as Hawkman was pretty good too even though I felt at times he was a bit over the top himself but that honestly fits with Hawkman's character so I give it a pass. my real complaints in the characters are with Quintessa Swindell as Cyclone and Noah Centineo as Atom Smasher who honestly served little to no purpose in the movie. They were either the comedic relief characters or the generic teens/young adults in love with each other. They honestly felt more like side characters, they made Isis and her son Amon feel more crucial to the plot than they did. There's also cameos to look out for during and after the movie just sayin.

I will say that the plot is structured like any other superhero movie, however, its a structure that adheres to the Anti-hero story. This movie is the opposite of the movie SHAZAM! (which isn't a bad thing, I liked SHAZAM!), that movie was more light hearted and wholesome at times being a fun superhero movie. I know of Black Adams origins from the old comics and how he was basically a warrior chosen to be the wizards champion but he became corrupt with power and the wizard banished him for 5,000 years only for Captain Marvel to confront him and ultimately beat him. Though I like the origin they went with in the movie which is more align with the recent revisions of the character. I'm not spoiling anything but you can look up his revised origins on your own time to get an idea. They also brought in the good vs evil tropes and threw that up in the air. It was well executed bringing up that there are different goods, evils and neutrals even. Everyone's methods are different, but in the end they all have the same goals.

As I mentioned earlier, the characters speak at a fast pace and even though this is a 2 hour movie, the pacing can be fast and again barely lets me soak in what's happening. Other than that, I had no issue with the plot and thought it was great and different from all the other comic book movies as of late. There are a couple things I wish they incorporated from the comics into the film such as the fact that Teth-Adam (Black Adams real name) is 5,000 years old, therefore if he said Shazam, he would revert to normal and age rapidly in the process. The movie was done well enough but I still wouldn't consider it perfect. They have slow-Mo effects to show how fast Black Adam is and most of the time its badass, but then other times it can be funny looking which isn't too bad but you know it is what it is.

Overall, this is a refreshing comic book movie where its not a generic superhero movie or some god entity movie that's just boring like the Eternals. I'm glad Johnson fought long and hard for this movie and I feel it was worth the wait. A shame they likely wont connect the Captain Marvel and Black Adam movies together in a super fight anytime soon (maybe later who knows) but for what it is, its enjoyable and a fun action packed time.

Rating the movie, I'm giving it:

7/10

Its a fun anti-hero action movie, but I definitely see which areas it falls short in. Either way, I still recommend giving it a watch. That's about it, I'll hopefully have more time soon to make more reviews, I actually have a game review in the works and will get that done by hopefully next month.

See ya!

[pricegouge]

Heyo! Anon back again for the Aliens discussion! I love your take on everything and I do think I jumped the gun a bit with the sexual tension turn of phrase I used before because when I really tried to think of anything recent that I've seen that could help explain the heterosexual norm between male/female leads in film/shows I really couldn't think of anything but much older examples! Like stuff I watched growing up as a kid whether TV/films, romcoms, actually the first example I could really think of was actually within the alien/predators movies franchise! Also pls tell me I'm not crazy to think that Alexa/Wolf(predator) in the first AvP film didnt have high sexual tension? I love a human/predator fics but might just be me on that one considering I misread signs/body language all the time. I'm also not the best when it comes to referrals for any media in more recent times I hardly watch anything anymore but gameplay of stuff that looks interesting. If you're looking for game recommendations I might have a few if you're into all the existential philosophy ordeal. Have you played or heard of SOMA? It's a bit dated now but imo worth a watch or more recent was a game called Signalis that I've been obsessed over! Highly recommend!

Also could I be 👽 anon, I didnt see that it was taken in your top post? It also seemed fitting considering our topics of discussion.

Thank you so much for your responses! I loved your feedback and getting to talk to someone else who loves these films! 💖💖💖

Also sorry if this might be a double feature in your inbox I'm trying to write this all out on mobile and the app gets finicky!

Hi friend!

No spoilers but putting this under a cut so it doesn't get too long on dash

You're fine on knee jerk reaction thinking there's hetero relationships everywhere you look in film because technically you're right. The leads are framed in such a way that there should be tension, and it's often implied that when the camera stops rolling, they will be getting together. But between directors mishandling the actors, screenplays not prioritizing relationships (not a bad thing, I admit, but gives us less time to build and therefore believe a budding relationship which blows. I think the 00's were particularly egregious in just shoving a heterosexual couple in a room together and expecting us to understand when they started making out even though it was completely unearned which I think is much worse than actually spending "too much" time building the attraction), and the general decline in R-rated movies (thanks, capitalism!), we've just been left with completely sexless films, even when it is written in.

I think Alexa/wolf had about as much sexual tension as they could be expected to have when one of the actors was wearing a rubber suit lol. Also because while I think the director definitely wanted them to be a couple, I think he knew the world wasn't quite ready for all that so it was kinda undersold. I do ship them hard though tbh lmao sanaa lathan needs to get that alien dick!

I don't actually play a lot of video games 😔 I just never have time for them. If ever I have more than ten minutes a day to spend on hobbies (aka if/when I get bored of writing), dragon age is probably my next up. But SOMA looks very up my alley! I'll send out a distress signal to you if I'm ever looking for similar recs lmao. Likewise, I watch way too many movies so if you ever need recs I gotchoo. And thanks for sending in the asks! I adoreeee talking about horror (obv) so stop in anytime 💛

[ulkaralakbarova]

JR is a fatherless boy growing up in the glow of a bar where the bartender, his Uncle Charlie, is the sharpest and most colorful of an assortment of quirky and demonstrative father figures. As the boy’s determined mother struggles to provide her son with opportunities denied to her — and leave the dilapidated home of her outrageous if begrudgingly supportive father — JR begins to gamely, if not always gracefully, pursue his romantic and professional dreams, with one foot persistently placed in Uncle Charlie’s bar. Credits: TheMovieDb. Film Cast: Charlie Maguire: Ben Affleck JR Maguire: Tye Sheridan Young JR Maguire: Daniel Ranieri Dorothy Maguire: Lily Rabe Grandpa Maguire: Christopher Lloyd The Voice, JR’s father: Max Martini Wesley: Rhenzy Feliz Sidney: Briana Middleton Chief: Max Casella Grandma Maguire: Sondra James Bobo: Michael Braun Joey D: Matthew Delamater Jimmy: Ivan Leung Aunt Ruth: Danielle Ranieri Kathy: Kate Avallone Sidney’s Dad: Mark Boyett Sidney’s Mom: Quincy Tyler Bernstine Professor Van Dyke: Ezra Knight School Psychologist: David Carl Pat: Shannon Collis Kathy’s Daughter: Keira Jo Lassor Mrs. Williams: Jennifer C. Johnson NYT Editor: Michael Steven Costello NYT Personnel Woman: Kate Middleton NYT Copyboy: Jackson Damon NYT Copygirl: Caroline Bergwall Officer James: Daniel Washington Chief’s Wife: Jenny Eagan Other Customer: Steve Gagliastro Aunt Ruth’s Kid #1: Annabella Valle Aunt Ruth’s Kid #2: Clara Kelly Aunt Ruth’s Kid #3: Meara Mahoney Gross Future JR Maguire (voice only): Ron Livingston Kid in Classroom (uncredited): Jack Baumrind Dickens Bar Regular (uncredited): Julia Bechler Yale Student (uncredited): Keith R Beck Dickens Bar Patron (uncredited): Alissa Bourne Film Crew: Producer: George Clooney Producer: Grant Heslov Producer: Ted Hope Original Music Composer: Dara Taylor Music Supervisor: Linda Cohen Screenplay: William Monahan Book: J.R. Moehringer Editor: Tanya Swerling Director of Photography: Martin Ruhe Production Design: Kalina Ivanov Art Direction: Bryan Felty Set Decoration: Melissa M. Levander Makeup Department Head: Trish Seeney Visual Effects Supervisor: Matt Kasmir Sound Re-Recording Mixer: Todd Beckett Supervising Sound Editor: Nancy Nugent Supervising Sound Editor: Julian Slater Sound Designer: Jon Title Costume Supervisor: Dana Pacheco Executive Producer: Barbara A. Hall Costume Design: Jenny Eagan Casting: Rachel Tenner Movie Reviews: r96sk: So very plain. To be honest: I found ‘The Tender Bar’ to be a bore. I felt like I had seen this film before, such is the predictable and monotonous nature of the story. It almost felt like a (poorer) rerun of 2020’s ‘Hillbilly Elegy‘. I will say, though, that Ben Affleck gives a very good performance in this, to the point that I actually would’ve liked to have seen a story revolving around him and his character – as opposed to who this 2021 flick is about. Aside from Affleck, I didn’t care for any of the other performances and therefore any of the other characters. It’s not even a bad film, it’s just so, so boring – for me, anyway. CinemaSerf: It’s not often I find myself writing this, but Ben Affleck is comfortably the best thing about this otherwise rather lacklustre adaptation of JR Moehringer’s autobiographical coming of age tale. It depicts the story of his childhood – through the eyes of the engaging young Daniel Ranieri – before he heads to Yale in the guise of Tye Sheridan. The first half hour, maybe, is quite entertaining. This young lad living with his mother (his selfish father is estranged from them, living the mobile life of a late night radio talk show host) in the home of his mildly eccentric grandfather (Christopher Lloyd) and their home is a lively, buzzing environment in which the youngster thrives. Chief amongst the residents is his charismatic, worldly-wise uncle “Charlie” (Affleck) who runs a local bar populated with a decent, working-class clientele who take to the young man and encourage his obvious academic talents. That half hour peters out, ...