#Literally in love with every aspect of the production of this film

[hamable]

Oh my god sea beast oh my god sea beast oh my god The Sea Beast is Absolutely Remarkable Absolutely Stunning Absolutely a feat on every front THAT IS ONE GOOD MOVIE FOLKS HOLY SHOT PLEASE WATCH THE SEA BEAST IM BEGGING YOH PLEASSSEEEE

[flanaganfilm]

Good morning/ evening! My name’s Sam and I’m currently a film student hoping to get into freelance writing. I’ve got a couple questions if you don’t mind (hoping you haven’t already answered them and I just missed them).

When you first starting making your own films, did you have already have thick skin for any critics/ bad reviews? Or is that something you grew over time?

Also, for your production company, do you hire interns and PAs or do you prefer filmmakers with more experience?

Thank you!

To your first question, I do not have a thick skin in that area AT ALL and never have. I don't know many people who do.

I'm often approached by fans who will talk about what a project of mine means to them, or I find a review or think piece online where the author really connected with my work. I want to let that feedback in, because it's validating. But letting it in means letting ALL of it in, even the negative. I don't really get to pick and choose. Once I decided to let myself react emotionally to other people's feedback, those gates are open I've got to accept whatever comes through.

I take my work very seriously, and tend to pour my heart and soul into it. We make these things because we love them. It can literally take years of daily work to do. When people love it, it feels great. When people don't, it hurts. There's really no way around that.

Film criticism has, like a lot of things, devolved over time. I was a massive fan of Robert Ebert, who was thoughtful and sophisticated in his critiques (most of the time), and tried to approach each movie he watched on the film's own terms - from the perspective of "how successful was this at achieving what it set out to do?" I see a lot of criticisms today that don't do this, and instead are lamenting what a movie is or isn't, saying things like "I wish this was more..." or "This isn't good because I wanted it to be something else."

"I wanted a ________ and what I got instead was ______ so it sucks."

The other issue is that loud, sensationalized vitriol gets more clicks. Negative reviews, especially brutal and callous ones, get more attention than positive ones. I've gotten to know and befriend some professional critics over the years, who have all told me that the positive reviews don't generate the audience reaction quite like the negative ones. People enjoy watching things get beat up. We reward the wrong kind of discourse, and that isn't unique to film criticism - it's everywhere. That's just a symptom of our culture.

One of my great frustrations is how we assert our opinion as objective truth. There's nothing more dangerous than tweeting "I liked ______ movie!" The comments flood in about how you're wrong, how it sucks, blah blah blah. People think their own taste is somehow factual. If someone says "I had a fantastic steak dinner last night and I loved it," we don't say "you're wrong, steak sucks". We understand the concept of taste when it comes to other things we consume, but when it comes to entertainment each one of us thinks we're the ultimate authority.

For myself, my producer and my wife have long discouraged me from reading reviews. I still can't help it. It's not healthy though. I can scroll past a dozen positive ones, and they evaporate in my mind, but I read one scathing thing and it sticks with me for days. There is one particular review of MIDNIGHT MASS that is one of the most baffling and frustrating things I've ever read, as the author appears to have misunderstood just about every aspect of the series, and drawn the angriest, most misguided, most erroneous conclusions. I read it with my jaw on the ground... "but they're objectively wrong. That isn't what happens, and that isn't what the show is even about." But what can I do? Who am I to say their experience of the show is invalid? They feel how they feel, and that's fine. That's okay. It has to be.

So your skin doesn't get thicker, it is a bizarre emotional experience to put something personal out there into the world and see the gamut of reactions. But at a certain point you have to remind yourself that it's impossible to please everyone, and that these projects don't belong to the filmmaker - they belong to the audience, and each and every one of those experiences is unique and valid. Perhaps there are lessons to be learned, and perhaps the critique can help you grow as a filmmaker.

I have similar feelings when I see someone trashing someone else's work I happen to love - for example, I remain baffled by people who didn't like EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE, but that doesn't mean anything. It didn't work for them, that's all. Nothing works for everyone.

I have found over the years that I respect and appreciate analyses and criticisms that take this more personal point of view, and talk about their own interaction with the work as opposed to just dismissing it outright. When someone says "this movie didn't work for me," or "I didn't connect with it," or "It just wasn't my cup of tea," I have a much easier time taking it seriously. It's changed how I talk about my own reactions to movies or shows that I didn't respond to. And I found that it's made it much easier for me to enjoy things even if they aren't quite for me. Instead of being reactive and saying "it sucks" or "I hate this," I've gotten better at realizing it's not a binary experience - I can look at what DOES work for me, and I can appreciate it, even while other elements might not.

It makes for a much more nuanced discussion, and helps me grow. Sometimes, though, it's just the wrong thing to watch on the wrong day, and that's fine too. Maybe that makes it a little easier. If I step out of something and just really don't enjoy it, it helps remind me that it's not personal. Clearly, other people DO enjoy these things, sometimes I'm very much in the minority. And when that happens, I can say "oh, it's not so bad if someone hates a movie I made, or a show, or whatever. Life's too short."

But I long ago decided I'd never say anything negative about someone else's work in public. I know too much about what it takes to make a movie, and I'm not a critic. I'm a filmmaker. This town is too small, and there is zero upside in dragging another filmmaker's efforts. On the rare occasions when I do see another filmmaker indulge in that behavior, it is always a terrible look. And it can have real-world consequences - there are a few filmmakers who I've seen publicly slag off other people's work, and I quietly decided never to hire them. Like I said, it's a small town... and most of us read what people say about our work.

We should get back to that work, remember how lucky we all are to do this for a living, and leave that kind of thing to the critics.

[blackswaneuroparedux]

Anonymous ask: What do you think of the new Indiana Jones movie? And of Phoebe Waller-Bridge?

In a nutshell: From start to finish ‘Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny’ is watching Indiana Jones being a broken-down shell of a once great legacy character who has to be saved by the perfect younger and snarky but stereotypical ’Strong Independent Woman’ that passes for women characters in popcorn movies today.

I went in to this film with conflicted feelings. On the one hand I was genuinely excited to see this new Indiana Jones movie because it’s Indiana Jones. Period. Yet, on the other hand I feared how badly Lucasfilm, under Kathleen Kennedy’s insipid woke inspired CEO studio direction, was going to further tarnish not just a screen legend but the legacy of both George Lucas and Steven Spielberg. The cultural damage she has done to such a beloved franchise as the Star Wars universe in the name of progressive woke ideology is criminal. The troubled production history behind this film and its massive $300 million budget (by some estimates) meant Disney had a lot riding on it, especially with the future of Kathleen Kennedy on the line too as she was hands on with this film.

To me the Indiana Jones movies (well, the first three anyway, the less we say about ‘Kingdom of the Crystal Skull’ the better) were an important part of my childhood. I fell in love with the character instantly. Watching ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ (first on DVD in my boarding school dorm with other giggly girls and later on the big screen at a local arts cinema retrospective on Harrison Ford’s stellar career) just blew me away. 

As a girl I wanted to be an archaeologist and have high falutin’ adventures; I even volunteered in digs in Pakistan and India (the Indus civilisation) as well as museum work in China as a teen growing up in those countries and discovering the methodical and patient but back breaking reality of what archaeology really was. But that didn’t dampen my spirit. Just once I wanted to echo Dr. Jones, ‘This belongs in a museum!’ But I happily settled for studying Classics instead and enjoyed studying classical archaeology on the side.

I couldn’t quite make sense why Indiana Jones resonated with me more than any other action hero on the screen until much later in life. Looking like Harrison Ford certainly helps. But it’s more than that. I’ve written this elsewhere but it’s worth repeating here.

‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ is considered an inspiration for so many action films yet there’s a very odd aspect to the film that’s rather unique and rarely noticed by its critics and fans. It’s an element that, once spotted, is difficult to forget, and is perhaps inspiring for times like the one in which we currently live, when there are so many challenges to get through. Typically in action films, the hero faces an array of obstacles and setbacks, but largely solves one problem after another, completes one quest after another, defeats one villain after another, and enjoys one victory after another.

The structure of ‘Raiders’ is different. A quick reminder:

- In the opening sequence, Indiana Jones obtains the temple idol only to lose it to his rival René Belloq (Paul Freeman). - In the streets of Cairo, Indy fails to protect his love, Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen), from being captured (killed, he assumes). - In the desert, he finds the long-lost Ark of the Covenant, only to have it taken away by Belloq. - Indy then recovers the ark only to have it stolen a second time by Belloq, this time at sea. - On an island, Indy tries to bluff Belloq into thinking he’ll blow up the ark. His bluff fails. Indy is captured. - The climax of the film literally has its hero tied to a post the entire time. He’s completely ineffectual and helpless at a point in the movie where every other action hero is having their greatest moment of struggle and, typically, triumph.

If Indiana Jones had done absolutely nothing, if the famed archeologist had simply stayed home, the Nazis would have met the same fate - losing their lives to ark’s wrath because they opened it. It’s pretty rare in action films for the evil arch-villains to have the same outcome as if the hero had done nothing at all.

Indy does succeed in getting the ark back to America, of course, which is crucial. But then Indy loses the ark, once again, when government agents send it to a warehouse and refuse to let him study the object he chased the whole film. In other words: Indiana Jones spends ‘Raiders’ failing, getting beat up, and losing every artefact that he risks his life to acquire. And yet, Indiana Jones is considered a great hero.

The reason Indiana Jones is a hero isn’t because he wins. It’s because he never stops trying. I think this is the core of Indiana Jones’ character.

Critics will go on about something called agency as in being active or pro-active. But agency can be reactive and still be kinetic to propel the story along. It’s something that has progressively got lost as the series went on. With the latest Indiana Jones film I felt that Indiana Jones character had no agency and ends up being a relatively passive character. Sadly Indiana Jones ends up being a grouchy, broken, and beat up passenger in his own movie.

Released in 1981, ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ remains one of the most influential blockbusters of all time. Exciting action, exotic adventure, just the right amount of romance, good-natured humour, cutting-edge special effects: it was all there, perfectly balanced. Since then, attempts have been made to reproduce this winning recipe in different narrative contexts, sometimes successfully (’Temple of Doom’ and ‘the Last Crusade’), usually in vain (’Crystal Skull’).

What are the key ingredients of an Indiana Jones movie? There are only four core elements - leaving aside aspects of story such as the villain or the goal - that you need in place before anything else. They are: the wry, world-weary but sexy masculine performance of Harrison Ford; the story telling genius of George Lucas steeped in the lore of Saturday morning action hero television shows of the 1950s; the deft visual story telling and old school action direction of Steven Spielberg; and the sublime and sweeping music of the great John Williams. This what made the first three films really work.

In the latest Indiana Jones film, you only have one. Neither Lucas and Spielberg are there and arguably neither is Harrison Ford. John Williams’ music score remains imperious as ever. His music does a lot of heavy lifting in the film and let’s face it, his sublime music can polish any turd.

This isn’t to say the ‘Dial of Destiny’ is a turd. I won’t go that far, and to be honest some of the critical reaction has been over-hysterical. Instead I found it enjoyable but also immensely frustrating more than anything else. It had potential to be a great swan song film for Indy because it had an exciting collection of talent behind it.

In the absence of Spielberg, one couldn’t do worse than to pick James Mangold as next best to direct this film. Mangold is a great director. I am a fan of his body of work. After ‘Copland’, ‘Walk the Line’, ‘Logan’ and ‘Le Mans 66’ (or ‘Ford vs Ferrari’), James Mangold has been putting together a fine career shaped by his ability to deliver stories that rediscover a certain old-fashioned charm without abusing the historical figures - real or fictional - he tackles. And after Johnny Cash, Wolverine and Ken Miles, among others, I had high hopes he would keep the flame alive when it came to Indiana Jones. Mangold grew up as a fanboy of Spielberg’s work and you can clearly see that in his approach to directing film.

But in this film his direction lacks vitality. Mangold, while regularly really good, drags his feet a little here because he’s caught between putting his own stamp on the film and yet also lovingly pay homage to his hero, Spielberg. It’s as if he didn't dare give himself away completely, the director seems too modest to really take the saga by the scruff of the neck, and inevitably ends up suffering from the inevitable comparison with Steven Spielberg.

Mangold tries to recreate the nostalgic wonder of the originals, but doesn't quite succeed, while succumbing to an overkill of visual effects that make several passages seem artificial. The action set pieces range from pedestrian to barely satisfying. The prologue sequence was vaguely reminiscent of past films but it was still a little too reliant on CGI. The much talked about de-ageing of Harrison Ford on screen was impressive (and one suspects a lot of the film budget was sunk right there). But Indiana’s lifeless digitally de-aged avatar fighting on a computer-generated train, made the whole sequence feel like the Nazi Polar Express. Because it didn’t look real, there was no sense of danger and therefore no emotional investment from the audience. You know Tom Cruise would have done it for real and it would have looked properly cinematic and spectacular.

The tuk tuk chase through the narrow streets of Tangiers was again an exciting echo of past films, especially ‘Raiders’, but goes on a tad too long, but the exploration of the ship wreck (and a criminally underused cameo by Antonio Banderas) was disappointing and way too short. 

The main problem here is the lack of creativity in the conception of truly epic scenes, because these are not dependent on Ford's age. Indeed, the film could very well have offered exhilarating action sequences worthy of the archaeologist with the whip, without relying solely on the physicality of its leading man. You don't need a Tom Cruise to orchestrate great moments but you could do worse than to follow his example. 

Mangold uses various means of locomotion to move the character  - train, tuk tuk, motorbike, horse - and offers a few images that wouldn't necessarily be seen elsewhere (notably the shot of Jones riding a horse in the middle of the underground), but in the end shows himself to be rather uninspired, when the first three films in the saga conceived some of the most inventive sequences in the genre and left their mark on cinema history. There are no really long shots, no iconic compositions, no complex shots that last and enrich a sequence, which makes the film look too smooth and prevents it from giving heft to an adventure that absolutely needs it.

And so now to the divisive figure of Phoebe Waller-Bridge. 

It’s important here to separate the person from the character. I like Phoebe Waller-Bridge and I loved her in her ‘Fleabag’ series. She excels in a very British setting. I think she is funny, irreverent, and a whip smart talented writer and performer. I also think she has a particular frigid English beauty and poise about her. When I say poise I don’t mean the elegant poise of a Parisienne or a Milanese woman, but someone who is cute and comfortable in her own skin. You would think she would be more suited to ‘Downton Abbey’ setting than all out Hollywood action film. But I think she almost pulls it off here. 

In truth over the years Phoebe Waller-Bridge, known for her comedy, has been collecting franchises where she is able to inflict her saucy humour into a hyper-masculine space. I don’t think her talent was properly showcased here. 

Hollywood has this talent for plucking talented writers and actors who are exceptional in what they do and then hire them do something entirely different by either miscasting them or making them write in a different genre. I think Phoebe Waller-Bridge is exceptional and she might just rise if she is served by a better script.

In the end I think she does a decent stab at playing an intriguing character in Helena Shaw, Indy’s long lost and estranged god daughter and a sort of amoral rare artefacts hustler. Phoebe Waller-Bridge brings enthusiasm, charm and mischief to the role, making her a breath of fresh air. She seems to be the only member of the on-screen cast that looks to be enjoying themselves. 

To be fair her I thought Waller-Bridge was a more memorable and interesting female character than either Kate Capshaw (’Temple of Doom’, 1984) and Alison Doody (’Last Crusade’, 1989). She certainly is a marked improvement on the modern woke inspired insipid female action leads such as Brie Larson (’Captain Marvel’), or any women in the Marvel universe for that matter, or Katherine Waterson (’Alien Covenant’). Waller-Bridge could have been reminiscent of Kathleen Turner (’Romancing the Stone’) and more recently Eva Green, actresses who command attention on screen and are as captivating, if not more so, than the male protagonists they play opposite.

To be sure there have been strong female leads before the woke infested itself into Hollywood story telling but they never made it central to their identity. Sigourney Weaver in ‘Alien’ and Linda Hamilton in the ‘Terminator’ franchise somehow conveyed strength of character with grit and perseverance through their suffering, while also being vulnerable and confident to pull through and succeed. Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s character isn’t quite that. She doesn’t get into fist fights or overpowers big hulking men but she uses cheek and charm to wriggle out of tight spots. She’s gently bad ass rather the dull ‘strong independent woman’ cardboard caricatures that Marvel is determined to ram down every girl’s throat. If Waller-Bridge’s character was better written she might well have been able to revive memories of the great ladies of Hollywood's golden age who had the fantasy and the confidence that men quaked at their feet.

What lets her character down is the snark. She doesn’t pepper her snark but she drowns in it. All of it directed at poor Indy and mocking him for his creaking bones and his entire legacy. It’s a real eyesore and it is a real let down as it drags the story down and clogs up the wheels that power the kinetic energy that an adventure with Indiana Jones needs. ‘The grumpy old man and the young woman with the wicked repartee set off across the vast world’ schtick is all well and good, but it does grate and by the end it makes you angry that Indy has put up with this crap. I can understand why many are turned off by Waller-Bridge’s character. As a female friend of mine put it, we get the talented Phoebe Waller Bridge’s bitter and unlikable Helena acting like a bitter and unlikable man. But it could be worse, it could be as dumb as Shia LaBeouf‘s bad Fonzie impersonation in 'Crystal Skull’.

I would say there is a difference between snark and sass. Waller-Bridge’s character is all snark. If the original whispers are true the original script had her way more snarkier towards Indy until Ford threatened to leave the project unless there were re-writes,  then it shows how far removed the producers and writers were from treating Indy Jones with the proper respect a beloved legacy character deserves. It’s also lazy story telling.

Karen Black gave us real sass with Marion Ravenwood in ‘Raiders’. Her character was sassy, strong, but also vulnerable and romantic. She plays it pitch perfect. Of all the women in Indy’s life she was good foil for Indy.

Spielberg is so underrated for his mise-en-scène. We first meet Marion running a ramshackle but rowdy tavern in Tibet (she’s a survivor). She plays and wins a drinking game (she’s a tough one), she sees Indy again and punches him (she’s angry and hurt for her abandoning her and thus revealing her vulnerability). She has the medallion and becomes a partner (she’s all business). She evades and fights off the Nazis and their goons, she even uses a frying pan (she’s resourceful but not stupid). She tries on dresses (she’s re-discovers her femininity). Indy saves her but she picks him up at the end of the film by going for a drink (she’s healing and there’s a chance of a new start for both of them). This is a character arc worth investing in because it speaks to truth and to our reality.

The problem with Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s character is that she is constantly full on with the snark. Indy and Helena gripe and moan at each other the entire film. Indy hasn’t seen her in years, and she felt abandoned after her father passed, so there’s a lot of bitterness. It’s not unwarranted, but it also isn’t entertaining. It’s never entertaining if the snark makes the character too temperamental and unsympathetic for the audience to be emotionally invested in her.

I think overall the film is let down by the script. Again this is a shame. The writing talent was there. Jez and John-Henry Butterworth worked with James Mangold on ‘Ford v. Ferrari’ and co-wrote ‘Edge of Tomorrow‘ while David Koepp co-wrote the first ‘Mission: Impossible’ (but he also penned Indiana Jones and the ‘Kingdom of the Crystal Skull’, and the 2017 version of ‘The Mummy’ that simultaneously started and destroyed Universal’s plans for their Dark Universe). I love the work of Jez Butterworth who is one of England’s finest modern playwrights and he seemed to have transitioned fine over to Hollywood. But as anyone knows a Hollywood script has always too many cooks in the kitchen. There are so many fingerprints of other people - studio execs and directors and even stars - that a modern Hollywood script somehow resembles a sort of Ship of Theseus. It’s the writer’s name on the script but it doesn’t always mean they wrote or re-wrote every word.

Inevitably things fall between the cracks and you end up filming from the hip and hoping you can stitch together a coherent narrative in post-production editing. Clearly this film suffered from studio interference and many re-writes. And it shows because there is no narrative fluidity at work in the film.

Mads Mikkelsen’s Nazi scientist is a case in point. I love Mikkelsen especially in his arthouse films but I understand why he takes the bucks for the Hollywood films too. But in this film he is phoning in his performance. Mads Mikkelsen does what he can with limited screen time to make an impact but this character feels so recycled from other blockbusters. Here the CIA and US Government are evil and willing to let innocent Americans be murdered in order to let their pet Nazi rocket scientist pursue what they believe to be a hobby. But to be fair the villains in the Indy movies have never truly been memorable with perhaps Belloq, the French archaeologist and nemesis of Indy in ‘Raiders’, the only real exception. It’s just been generic bad guys - The Nazis! The Thugee death cult! The Nazis (again)! The Commies! Now we’re back to Nazis again which is not only safer ground for the Indy franchise but something we can all get behind.

However Mads Mikkelsen’s Dr. Voller, is the blandest and most generic Nazi villain in movie history. At the end of World War II, Voller was recruited by the US Government to aid them in rocket technology. Now that he’s completed his task and man has walked on the moon, he’s turning his genius to his ultimate purpose, the recovery of the ‘Dial of Destiny’ built by Archimedes. Should he find both pieces of the ancient treasure, he plans to return to 1930s Nazi Germany, usurp Hitler, and use his advanced knowledge of rocket propulsion to win the war. In a sense then he was channeling his inner Heidegger who felt Hitler had let down Nazism and worse betrayed Heidegger himself.

So there is a character juxtaposition between Voller and Indy in the sense both men feel more comfortable in the past than the present. But neither is given face time together to explore this intriguing premise that could have anchored the whole narrative of the film. It’s a missed opportunity and instead becomes a failure of character and story telling.

Then there are the one liners which seemed shoe horned in to make the studio execs or the writers feel smug about themselves. There are several woke one lines peppered throughout the film but are either tone deaf or just stupid.

“You trigger happy cracker”-  it’s uttered without any self-awareness by a black CIA agent who is chaperoning the Nazi villain. Just because white people think it’s dumb and aren’t bothered by it doesn’t make it any less a racial slur. If you want authenticity then why not use the ’N’ word then as it would historically appropriate in 1969? The hypocrisy is what’s offensive.

“You stole it. He stole it. I stole it. It’s called capitalism.” - capitalism 101 for economic illiterate social justice warriors.

“[I’m] daring, beautiful, and self-sufficient” - uttered by Helena Shaw as a snarky reminder that she’s a strong independent woman, just in case you forgot.

“It’s not what you believe but how hard you believe.” - Indiana Jones has literally stood before the awesome power of God when the Ark of the Covenant was opened up by the Nazis, and they paid the price for it by having their faces melted off. Indy has drunk from the authentic cup of Christ, given to him by a knight who’s lived for centuries, that gave him eternal life and heal his father from a fatal bullet wound. So he’s figuratively seen the face of God (sure, he closed his eyes) and His holy wrath, and has witnessed the divine healing power of Christ first hand. And yet his spews out this drivel. It’s empty of any meaning and is a silly nod to our current fad that it’s all about the truth of our feelings, not observable facts or truth.

For me though the absolute worse was what they did to Indiana Jones as a character. Once the pinnacle of masculinity, a brave and daring man’s man whose zest for life was only matched by his brilliance, Henry Jones Jr. is now a broken, sad, and lonely old man. Indiana Jones is mired in the past. Not in the archaeological past, but in his own personal past. He's asleep at the wheel, losing interest in his own life. He's lost his son, he's losing his wife. He's been trying to pass on his passion, his understanding to disinterested people. They're not so interested in looking at the past. He remains a man turned towards the past, and then he finds himself confronted by Helena, who embodies the future. This nostalgia, this historical anchoring, becomes the main thread of the story.The film tries to deconstructs Indiana Jones on the cusp of retirement from academia and confronts him with a world he no longer understands. That’s an interesting premise and could have made for a great film.

It’s clear that the filmmakers’ intention was for a lost and broken Indiana to recapture his spirit by the film’s end. However, its horrible pacing and meandering and underdeveloped plot, along with Harrison Ford’s miserably sad demeanour in nearly every scene, make for a deeply depressing movie with an empty and unearned resolution. 

By this I mean at the very end of the film. It’s meant to be daring and it is. There’s something giddy about appearing during the middle of siege of Syracuse by blood thirsty Romans and then coming face to face with Archimedes himself. The film seems to want to justify the legendary, exceptional aura and character of Indy himself by including him in History. Hitherto wounded deep down inside, and now also physically wounded, Indy the archaeologist tells Helena that he wants to stay here and be part of history. 

It's a lovely and even moving moment, and you wonder if the film isn't going to pull a ‘Dying Can Wait’ by having its hero die in order to strengthen its legend. But in a moment that is too brutal from a rhythmic point of view, Helena refuses, knocks out her godfather and takes him back to the waiting plane and back to 1969. The next thing Indy sees he’s woken up back in his shabby apartment in New York.

I felt cheated. I’m sure Indy did too.

After all it was his choice. But Helena robbed him of the freedom to make his own decisions. She’s the one to decide what’s best. In effect she robbed him of agency. Even if it was the wrong decision to stay back in time, it’s so important from a narrative and character arc perspective that Indy should have had his own epiphany and make the choice to come back by himself because there is something worth living for in the future present - and that was reconciling with Marion his estranged wife. But damn it, he had to come to that decision for himself, and not have someone else force it upon him. That’s why the ending feelings so unearned and why the story falls flat as a soufflé when you piss on it.

‘Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny’ feels like the type of sequel that aimed to capture the magic of its predecessors, had worthwhile intentions, and a talented cast, but it just never properly materialised. In a movie whose pedigree, both in front and behind the camera, is virtually unassailable, it’s inexcusable that this team of filmmakers couldn’t achieve greater heights. 

The film was a missed opportunity to give a proper send off to a cinematic legend. Harrison Ford proving that whatever gruff genre appeal he possessed in his heyday has aged better than Indy’s knees. He may be 80, but Ford carries the weight of the film, which, for all its gargantuan expense, feels a bit like those throwaway serials that first inspired Lucas - fun while it lasts, but wholly forgettable on exit.

I wouldn’t rate ‘Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny’ as the worst film in the franchise - that dubious honour still lies with ‘Kingdom of the Crystal Skull’.  Indeed the best I can say is that I would rate this film at the benchmark of “not quite as bad as Crystal Skull”.But it’s definitely time to retire and hang up the fedora and the bull whip.

For what’s worth I always thought the ending of ‘Last Crusade’ where Indy, his father Henry Jones Snr., and his two most faithful companions, Sallah and Marcus Brody, ride off into the sunset was the most fitting way to say goodbye to a beloved character.

Instead we have in ‘Dial of Destiny’ the very last scene which is meant to be this perfect ending: Indiana Jones in his scruffy pyjamas and his shabby apartment. Sure, the exchange between a reconciling Indy and Marion is sincere and touching. But that only works because it explicitly recalls ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’. That's what Nietzsche would call “an eternal return”.

I shall eternally return to watch the first three movies to delight in the adventures of the swashbuckling archaeologist with the fedora and a bull whip. The last two dire films will be thrown into the black abyss. Something even Nietzsche would have approved of.

Thanks for your question.

[eruscreaminginthedistance]

Ugh it's taken me like a week to post this because reformatting PF posts on my phone is a bitch so I'm gonna throw this out here so that i don't put it off any longer; my Dune Part 2 review.

Basically, I feel like I'm living through a Category 5 LOTR event in real time. I was worried going into the second film that I was overhyped and that I should temper my expectations; speculative fiction adaptations 9 times out of 10 are usually dead on arrival and Dune Part 1 already defied the odds for being as good as it was for an almost 1-to-1 recreation.

I feel like after this I could confidently trust Denis Villeneuve with my life. The man's not really making a product. He clearly LOVES sci fi. Respect for the source material oozes out of every scene of Dune, and his little tweaks and changes are done with care and with a sense of critically engaging with the story that shows real thought.

Praying to the gods that once Denis finishes the trilogy he brings out a boxset DVDs with at least three behind the scenes DVDs MINIMUM. I need to see every single aspect of production on this leviathan of a project and then ritualistically watch all three movies back to back as I would with LOTR.

Spoilers under the cut

In terms of what I liked:

I've only read the first two books in full - Children and God Emperor are next on my list to finish this year - so I can't speak as an uber knowledgeable Dune nerd who knows the books back to front, but I'm very confident when I say that Denis's changes to the source material didn't take away from the experience of the story at all.

- Chani's probably the biggest change of all in the sequel and oh my god does it revitalise her character. I was quite shocked scrolling through tags to see book readers complain about how much the movie changed her and her arc. What are they mad about? That they gave Chani something to do other than sucking Paul's dick? In the book, literally everyone is 100% behind Paul uncritically accepting every single thing he does and Chani is just one of a swarm of characters that do that. I say this with much love because I like her book counterpart but I struggle to understand the people who claim to be so invested in book Paul and Chani's dynamic as opposed to the film's when book Chani's whole character is "Wife", until Dune Messiah when she gets the "Nagging Wife" upgrade. Denis's version effectively makes her co-protagonist with Paul and it was so exciting to see that play out on screen. She became the moral litmus test and the last vestige of uncorrupted ideals in the movie; Paul's descent into fascism and betrayal of the Fremen would not have hit nearly as hard if everyone went along with it like in the book.. I really felt for Chani having to watch everyone she knows get swept up in this insane fervour. She's too dedicated to the concept of freedom to fall for the bullshit and that was such a relief ti witness. Film Chani is her own character, not just another limb of Paul's, so her story is going in a slightly different direction and I'm really excited to see that. Would not have been nearly as hyped if her whole arc was just going to be "be pregnant. die" again.

- Jessica being an absolute FREAK. She was probably my favourite character from the book and I was so pissed she wasn't in Dune Messiah. I needed to get inside her head and wiggle around in there while I was reading, and Denis fed me. In the book, I got the impression she was quite a passive participant in the prophecy, so getting to see her go full wicked witch in the film was a massive highlight. Speaking to Alia in the womb, her sinister use of The Voice (such a horrific departure from her only using it for self defence in Part 1), her FASHION. Denis needs to adapt her into Dune Messiah I refuse to watch a version of Messiah without Jessica in it.

- Stilgar came out of nowhere with the steel chair for me. The first book is filled back to back with noble fatherly leader figures so he got very lost in the shuffle and I didn't really pay attention to him that much beyond being one of Paul's many mentors. I read a tiny bit of Children before watching Part 2 and Stilgar seriously considering murdering Paul's children made me do a double take. Then seeing him in this movie blew me away. Guys I think I've slept on Stilgar all this time xD. Not gonna lie though, the film beefs up his character quite a lot from the books. I think it was a good decision to make him comedic relief, because it offsets that "religious fundamentalist" element that could put people off. It makes him much softer and more likeable. He's just a guy with big hopes and big dreams and a big heart who's a bit silly sometimes, and that makes him the ultimate prey for Paul and Jessica. It's absolutely sickening to see them exploit his sincere faith and beliefs and I'm getting upset now just thinking about all the horrific things he'll be lead to do. Denis did a fantastic job of making him a more sympathetic and softer character for people to compare with his post-timeskip Space Hitler's Right Hand Man role.

- Introducing Princess Irulan early hell yeah!! Huge improvement on the book imo; she was very much a dark horse character for this film and Florence Pugh nailed it. I loved her being the narrator much like in the book, and it was interesting to see her contribute to putting the pieces in place for the endgame, rather than just turn up at the end. More of her please, Denis!

- One of my complaints about the first film was that there wasn't enough Harkonnen action, specifically the Harkonnen-Atreides rivalry, which was talked about a bit but not really shown. Denis made all those Harkonnen scenes specifically for me. I adored the balls to the wall aesthetics and the incredibly villainous acting. This film isn't afraid of moustache twirls and villainous laughter and I LOVE that. It felt fresh. Villains who just love doing bad shit and aren't even trying to justify themselves they just LOVE being horrible creatures in their black stone murder palaces.

- What can I say about the look of the film. You've all seen it. If you haven't then go fix that. It's one of the most visually cohesive and stunning films I've seen in a long time. I don't know how a world can feel so real and yet unreal (/pos) at the same time.

- Hans Zimmer showed the fuck UP for this score. I've been listening to it nonstop all weekend. I kinda miss the Atreides bagpipes but the new horns drive me insane so it's a good tradeoff.

Things I'm on the fence about:

- I think it was a good call to remove the whole thing with Paul uh, inheriting Harah from Jamis. It gave more screentime to Chani and I think would have really put viewers off Paul when really you wanna keep people going in blind rooting for him until the third act. BUT I was surprised she wasn't in the film at all? I was convinced that the lady we see Chani talking with was supposed to be an adapted Harah, but I'm seeing everywhere online that that's not supposed to be her and Harah wasn't in the film? Why not? It just felt a bit weird that she's just some nameless Fremen.

- I'm not gonna lie I forgot Thufir existed on my first watch. I think me not missing him overall is a good sign. I didn't rewatch part 1 so I guess I assumed they'd killed him off in the Arrakeen attack, and didn't realise his part had been cut until I saw an article about it later. That was kind of disappointing. While I think the film is perfectly fine without him, I think the inclusion of his plot as kind-of prisoner kind-of strategist for the Harkonnens would have really solidified the Harkonnen-Atreides rivalry. Again because we almost never see an Atreides and Harkonnen onscreen together, so having him there to exemplify it in practice I think could have just polished things up for me personally. But also I want all films to be 5 hours long so what do I know.

- Jessica and Chani didn't interact nearly as much as I wanted them to tbh. I'm hoping that Dune Messiah beefs up their relationship.

- Timothee Chalamet

Things I didn't like:

- Not Paul btw, just Timothee

- Been saying this since the first movie but him and Zendaya were really only cast cos they're hot ticket items right now, not because they have the look and feel of the characters or the world; they just wanted to cast some hot supermodels in the roles

- Zendaya justifies her casting though by being the better actor though; I was sceptical but I came to buy her as Chani and she did a good job resonating with me

- Timothee's just a guy though, wasn't impressed

- Which is a huge problem because the emotional throughline of the movie is their romance and I just. Did not buy it. Timothee could not have paid me to believe that he was in love with Chani. They were like the definition of everybody's beautiful but nobody's horny. Just saying words with their blank hot faces. At least Zendaya put some effort in.

Anyway 10/10. This is going in my top 5 movies of all time and is one of the best book to screen adaptations I have ever seen.

[transmutationisms]

this is so stupid but like so do u know about total institutions as defined in Erving Goffman's Asylums? uh if yes. do you think that reality tv shows that basically separate the contestants into a house where they are constantly on film, being prodded by producers, in some cases don't even have access to phones, etc. like is that a total institution? are reality shows inherently manipulative? do you think people dying by suicide after appearing on shows like Love Island are related to this? is there any scholarship on reality tv?

sorry if u know none of this I thought to ask u bc my initial thought was "the bachelor house is a bit like a psych ward." which is an insane thing to think. but truly I think shows like Jersey Shore, Rock of Love, Married at First Sight, Ultimatum, etc. that ply contestants with alcohol while controlling every aspect of contestants life for weeks are like. like thats bad. and then people harshly judge them for their behavior! like a psychiatrist saying a patient is very ill bc they do badly in a high level of care.

i don't think it's stupid. i don't really read much on this but yes there is definitely scholarship on reality tv---these shows are media objects and cultural productions as much as any 'prestige' drama.

obviously a tv shoot differs from an institution proper in that it's a temporary arrangement. however, the level of control and surveillance participants are subject to is something you would rarely see outside the conditions of an institution, and there is certainly something heterotopic about many of these sets as a kind of 'local institution'.

i think some of the most interesting shows have made this part of their conscious onscreen presentation. plenty of people have written about 'big brother' as a conscious gamification of the experience of being subjected to neoliberal workplace surveillance, for example. then there's something like 'secret eaters', which iirc literally had a little security camera icon on its title card even? that one didn't restrict people's movement, but if anything it did imply that doing so would have been in their best interests---because it was the unrestricted, unsurveilled eating behaviours that were configured as the result of laziness / lack of knowledge / lack of willpower, and the cause of weight gain.

so, if 'big brother' demanded the affective performance of enjoyment from those in an institution-like setting, 'secret eaters' presented the panoptic surveillance state as a benevolent kind of medical overlord, and the wayward citizen as someone insufficiently disciplined and too free for their own good. you can see variations on this latter argument in, eg, 'supersize vs superskinny', or any of the programs about weight-loss 'camps', or, on the meaner and more american end, 'the biggest loser' and even many episodes of 'my 600lb life'.

this is obviously a little different from the question of whether the shoot itself is institutional, which is essentially a question about working conditions. i watched a lot of 'america's next top model' as a teen and i remember even then thinking it was a leetle fucked up how much control the producers seemed to have over the contestants. so like, again i would say pretty much all of these shows that isolate participants in some closed house or whatever are patterned off institutional models of control, restriction, and surveillance, even though obviously they're not permanent commitments and they also usually allow some contact with the outside (grocery shopping or photoshoots or what have you).

i do also think there's something to be said about reality as a genre that often finds success by capitalising as cheaply as possible on some common social anxiety or malaise. so, the neoliberal workplace of 'big brother' and the success of weight loss shows following declarations of an 'obesity epidemic' in the us and uk. but then there's also, say, a franchise like 'survivor', which flourished in the post-9/11 years and often operated in a particular ecological niche that married body demands (strength, thinness) to the obvious survivalist fears. there was kind of a double reassurance being sold there: if civilisation collapses, you, too can learn to sustain yourself just like these starving people on a tv shoot; but also, look at how these bodies are becoming more disciplined, such that they can successfully perform physical challenges that we market as having some resemblance to military training exercises...! i remember even 'antm' dabbled in that a bit: the phrase "model boot camp" got thrown around more than once, and in the first couple of seasons there was more of an emphasis on 'fitness' and even a couple of challenges that were basically just "wear camo and pretend to do an obstacle course" lmao.

i guess to return to your initial question... there are ways in which a reality shoot often mimics, temporarily, characteristics of an institution; and then there are also ways in which it presents institutionalisation, or aspects of it, onscreen. so, without flattening the distinction between being on a reality show and being institutionalised, there's a lot to unpack here about reality as a genre that frequently constructs itself around the functions of, and justifications for, the institution.

to oversimplify (and certainly there are exceptions and edge cases) i think you could say that where scripted tv tends to rely on the closed family home or the workplace as its sphere of narrative construction, reality is more likely to construct a kind of temporary fantasy setting where contestants can be subjected to the kind of surveillance and restrictions typically associated with an institution or at least a high-control group. and this is both because of producers' need to generate 'drama', and because the shows are often successful precisely by replicating and intensifying those elements of control and surveillance that are (perceived to be) on the rise even outside of the total institution.

[izloveshorses]

Tell me about the red dress campaign!

I got into Anastasia in 2021 :( there's barely any fandom left and even those who write fanfiction for it don't even talk about it anymore!

Tell me everything!!!

okay so. to talk about the year two marketing campaign, we need to talk about year one first.

the year one campaign focused more on the ~journey~ aspect of the show. anya wears her iconic maroon traveling coat, facing away from the audience and generally faceless, very mysterious. who is she? where is she going? what is she looking for? it inspired questions actually relevant to the themes of the show. and, as good marketing does, it gives us just enough info to capture our attention while also leaving us wanting more.

this coat is what she wears on the posters, playbill covers, everywhere on the marquee. it's the same structure that carried onto every other production's marketing strategy. and it makes sense! because she's traveling! of course she wears a traveling coat. for her Journey.

was it a perfect strategy? no. do i get chills every time i read "rumor, legend mystery" on the marquee over our beautiful broadhurst?? absolutely.

now. year two. derek leaves in april 2018, and in may they film a new ad with the current cast.

but the whole marketing strategy completely changes as well. it now consists of basically just the Red Dress™ and digitally airbrushed christy smirking at the camera and otherwise provides very little information about what the show is actually about.

this is an aside, but i feel like i should mention that when they shot and filmed this campaign, they styled christy's actual hair. she's not wearing a wig! slay!!!!! she went live that day and zadkins did a takeover on the anastasiabway account, i remember she looked absolutely stunning and was excited as she always is.

but still. the success of your marketing strategy (or the whole show for that matter 💀) should not rest on this woman's shoulders, as lovely as she is.

so here's my beef with the Red Dress campaign: it's such a shallow interpretation of the show. even though the red dress is iconic and linda cho deserves the praise for it, i don't think it represents who anya is or what she's looking for at all. the stage version of anastasia isn't a rags to riches story, nor a princess story, not really. it's about a girl looking for who she was. home love family etc etc etc. the red dress represents a life she ultimately chose to abandon in the end! so by limiting the imagery to just this dress she wears only in the last few minutes of the show, casual audience members may interpret this show as Just Another Princess Story competing with frozen that had just opened literally across the street, and choose to not see it. which is exactly what happened.

@asecretshekept has written a lot about this and understands marketing more than i do, so feel free to browse her blog too for more detailed posts.

not to mention like,,,, the silly financial decisions behind this?? they spent so much money to replace the marquee and stage door with the faces of people who left the show like six months later?? and then they replaced the stage door AGAIN when cody arrived january 2019. so silly. they could've stuck with the generally faceless campaign of year one to avoid this issue, but. i'm not in charge.

but yeah. going from this

to this?????

downgrade of the decade fr. booooo 1/5 stars (one star for christy) 👎

[mylifeincinema]

My Week(s) in Reviews: October 21, 2023

It's been a while... Here's what I've been watching.

The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar (Wes Anderson, 2023) The Swan (Wes Anderson, 2023) The Rat Catcher (Wes Anderson, 2023) Poison (Wes Anderson, 2023)

I dropped the ball and didn't get around to reading Roald Dahl's stories before watching these, but it was hard enough waiting for all four to release on Netflix, so I definitely wouldn't be able to wait to get my hands on the stories. From my understanding of the source material, though, these are all perfectly peculiar adaptations, staying true to Dahl's voice and heart. All four short films shine unique light on Wes Anderson's strengths as a filmmaker and storyteller, and it was a pleasure to witness. The Rat Catcher is very likely my favorite of the bunch, with a bizarre story and characters, including an award-worthy turn by the always fantastic Ralph Fiennes. Second best would easily be The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar, which highlights Anderson's knack for idiosyncratic storytelling, grabbing hold of the viewer and honoring the source material by keeping it intact. Poison was an experiment in suspense, and both Anderson and the cast delivered completely. I definitely wouldn't mind seeing him venture into more tense material in the future. And, despite the jaw-dropping performance from Rupert Friend, The Swan was probably my least favorite, over-utilizing its narrator storytelling to the point where I felt detached from the story. There's just so much to love throughout the four of these shorts, though. Unsurprisingly, the production design in all four is brilliant, and I especially loved how interactive Anderson & Co. got with it all, here. The stagehands and creative handling of props stoked the imagination. Robert D. Yeoman's (and even Roman Coppola's) cinematography was singularly stunning. And the cast was pure perfection. The aforementioned stand-outs are only the beginning; everyone here was working at the top of their game. I know they're shorts, but don't be surprised if you see Fiennes and Friend - as well as Dev Patel and Ben Kingsley - popping up in My Best of 2023 lists. I really wish I could've experienced these in a cinema, but when it comes to Wes Anderson, I'll take whatever I can get, whenever and however I can get it. The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar: 9/10 The Swan: 7.5/10 The Rat Catcher: 8.5/10 Poison: 8/10

Totally Killer (Nahnatchka Khan, 2023)

The overreactions to the way the teens in the '80s behaved got annoying real fast and shone a horribly unflattering light on just how disinterested people of her character's generation are with taking context into consideration when spouting their attention-hungry pontifications. Then again, that's probably the point? So, good job? The cast was okay. The kills were dull. The horror wasn't scary. The comedy wasn't all that funny. The writing in general is lazily paper-thin, and the stakes damn-near nonexistent. - 3/10

The Creator (Gareth Edwards, 2023)

I gets some extra points for being an 'original' sci-fi film in a landscape of sequels, reboots and additions to the MCU, but sadly those wind up being pretty much the only points it ends up with. Despite being 'original', every single aspect of this film feels like a tired rendition of a significantly better film. And worst of all, it's all just completely forgettable... I literally forgot Allison Janney until checking IMDb, just now. Sturgill Simpson was a standout, though. I look forward to seeing him again in Killers of the Flower Moon, this week. - 4/10

Fear Street: Part One - 1994 (Leigh Janiak, 2021) Fear Street: Part Two - 1978 (Leigh Janiak, 2021) Fear Street: Part Three - 1666 (Leigh Janiak, 2021)

They function a little too much as more a limited series than even a trilogy, so they lose some points for that. However, all three are quite good. The best is the first, of course, working the most as a standalone. It also has the best kills and characters, and a tone that most successfully mines the scares out of the material. The second has a good setting, but the extremes of the characters detract from the tone. And while the third works best in its back half, when it completes the storyline set up in the first film, the 1666 section is enjoyable enough in its depiction of just how absurd the 1600s puritan belief system was. 1994: 8.5/10 1978: 7/10 1666: 7.5/10

Enjoy!

-Timothy Patrick Boyer.

[ilove-movies]

"The Anatomy of A Fall"

Full spoilers and discussion of a fictional character's suicide

Being the first film I've watched of Justine Triet's, I went into this movie with no expectations. However, the title itself initially intrigued me. Having watched the movie, I love the title even more. Not only does it describe the literal anatomy of a fall that is experimentally conducted and analyzed in great detail in the courtroom, but it also describes the painful dissection of the events that led to a suicide. To me, the latter description really captures the heart of this movie

Our first introduction to Samuel is through sound - his on repeat blaring of the instrumental version of 50 cent’s 'PIMP' and the occasional whirring of a drill as he works in the attic. The first time we actually see him he lies dead in the snow, music still blaring. The next time we see him is through photographs: intimate photographs of him lying with his son as a baby, of him laughing and drinking, of him as a teenager, etc. Though we only see fragments of his life through these photographs, we inevitably begin to not only feel empathy for this ambiguous person whose passed, but also imagine what his life looked like, and consider what could have led to his mysterious death.

There are three options: either Milo accidently fell (which is ruled out quite early) he committed suicide, or he was pushed by Sandra.

When we hear from Samuel's therapist in the courtroom, Sandra claims that all the therapist knows of Samuel and their marriage are mere pieces. She claims that pieces of a person can never paint an accurate picture of who they really are. After the recording plays of their intense argument, she claims that the worst moments of a person not only fail to tell the truth, but they more insidiously tell a lie of who the person is. Though here, Sandra is referring to herself, it remains true that we only know Samuel from pictures, videos, and fragmented memories, we never really know him.

In part because we never see Samuel from outside these mediums of video and memory, we never truly understand his death nor his exact motivations. Yet, we can still come to glean the various aspects that led to his tragic suicide. A recurring topic is that of Milo feeling like a failure in his writing. The ‘failure’ does not stem from Milo's finished products, but from the fact that he is thwarted by his own perfectionism - he never even really begins writing (though his ideas end up being used in Sandra's novel). According to Sandra's analysis, he blames everything and everyone but himself for the fact that he has failed to write what he seeks to.

Most important to understanding Samuel's suicide is the memory delivered to the courtroom by Samuel's son, Milo, at the end of the film. Though Milo is only eleven, he processes information alarmingly fast. In two notable moments during the court proceedings, we flash to Milo's perspective: a brief and vivid scene of his mother struggling to and, finally succeeding in, pushing Samuel over the balcony, and another where Samuel slowly leans over the edge of the windowsill until he falls, hitting his head a corner below, complete with the '4 inch' blood splatter. This perspective is all the more noteworthy considering Milo suffered from an accident (an accident which Samuel blames himself for) that left him blind. Milo's hyper- imaginative (though realistic) depiction of the events is contrasted heavily with the objective language and professional detachment of the courtrooms descriptions. Milo is a boy who is intelligent beyond his years, that much is obvious.

And so, when Milo gives his testimony in the form of a memory of his father, everyone is listening. Milo recounts a memory in which Samuel prepares Milo for his eventual suicide by using the metaphor of Milo's seemingly healthy guide dog one day passing away because the job of looking after and anticipating Milo's every needs may one day prove to be too much. Milo claims that he now understands his father was talking about himself one day 'giving up'.

Though tragic, the movie ends with a bit of closure as Milo's dog comes to lie with Sandra in the office where Samuel used to sleep.

Overall, the acting in this movie, particularly by Sandra Huller and Milo Machado-Graner was incredible. Sandra's acting added so perfectly to the mystery of this movie as her character is somehow both vulnerable and deeply closed-off. Throughout the movie, her intelligence and background as writer known for blending fiction and truth makes the viewer wary of her capacity for deceit, particularly regarding the stories she tells about her and Samuels marriage. This distrust of her character is furthered by statements such as ‘I’m not innocent’. This confession made to Vincent seemingly signifies an awareness of the part she played in Samuel’s suicide. I don’t believe this statement should be taken literally. Rather, she seems to convey guilt over the resentment she held against Samuel after Milo’s accident, and the harshness with which she argued with him while he was in a vulnerable state. Milo's performance was equally incredible. When he is not speaking, his facial expressions, particularly his eyes, are so revealing of his sadness, confusion, and determination to uncover the truth behind his father's death.

[lollipopsub]

~ getting to know your BL mutuals ~ 

I was tagged by @leonpob so lessgo

I’ve been stressed about this for days cause I need to make the RIGHT choices?????!

rules: answer the questions and @ some people. include the tag 'g2ky BL mutuals 2022' on your post so we can find everyone's answer.

what have been the BLs that took you by surprise this year?

I think I was the most surprised by Eternal Yesterday. I went into it expecting something more along the lines of Senpai, This Can't Be Love or Kabe Koji, which is kind of slapstick, lighthearted and not too intellectually challenging, but boy was I proven wrong. The show manages to take a ridiculous premise and turn it into a well-written, well acted story that is probably going to break my heart (at the moment the final episode is yet to air...)

what have been the BLs that you felt a bit a lot disappointed with this year?

Sing In Love.

I was excited about a grittier plot and a new Japanese production, but it just made me uncomfortable and I did not want to finish it.

Cherry Magic The Movie also felt like a letdown. It just bored me, honestly.

what has been your favorite BL this year?

omg i looked up a list to see which ones were from this year, and it was like 5 Japanese, 5 Korean, 5 Taiwanese and then 60 billion Thai😂

I think my favorites are Old Fashion Cupcake and Eternal Yesterday.

Old Fashion Cupcake is everything I wanted in a good drama; good pacing, relationships between characters that make sense, believable character behavior and good acting and also really hot actors.

Eternal Yesterday has just absolutely overwhelmed me. I am a sucker for melancholic stories (to the surprise of literally no one), and the way Japanese dramas manage to wrap up some quite profound thoughts about the world and what it means to be a human is something I really adore.

In Episode 6 when Koichi asks if it's impossible for the people you love to be tied in the same place; for two people to be equally important to and loved by you. Or Episode one, where Mitsuru says it's not that Koichi broke down his wall, but he opened a door through it.

I really thought about adding More Than Words to the list, but I feel like it shouldn't really be grouped into the BL-genre. I still feel like the frames of the genre are limiting many aspects of film-making and storytelling, and that it's more an LGBT+ story than a BL drama.

favorite BL couples (not just of 2022)?

BounPrem and YinWar I think. Now that Prem has gone independent, I just want him to drag Boun with him to Yin and War to create a Supreme Company for Hot People™ and to actually make the YinWar Concert Trailers into a really hot show.

Especially War is an absolutely incredible actor, so I just really hope the two of them will get some interesting projects in the coming year!

what's your non-BL favorite this year?

Silent.

No doubt, no question. It's so good. Everyone and their grandmother should watch it pls.

.... Oh wow I am really biased, huh? 😬😬

I didn't intend for every show on here to be Japanese, I just think the Japanese shows I'm mentioning are a lot more well-rounded than the Korean and Thai and Taiwanese counterparts that I've seen this year. I am intrigued by how Korea seems to be branching out more and embracing the genre not as adaptations of fictional stories, but as stories about people. I just feel like the genre is so old in Japanese medias that they're a step ahead and I like how the Japanese shows are carried by the stories of the characters and their little lives rather than some large, daunting outer factor.

I want to tag a lot of people but I am an awkward turtle so I don't have a lot of people to tag. I hope it's ok to tag @storge and @chaeunwoo 🥺

[spinoff-antithesis]

[@distinguished-turtle-enjoyer ]

i actually have not stopped thinkin bout your bb!edit like,,,, its so good and scratches my brain right

how long have you been doin edits for? do have any tips for someone, who hypothetically, wants to start doin edits too? what programs do you use? how did you do the cool animated bits?

im so sorry for all the qustions 😭😭 i just think youre very talented and inspirational and i hope you have a good day ^_^

hi firstly oh my gosh you're literally so sweet i am gently shaking you i love you so much /p. secondly, i apologize for the long answer! (it's all under the cut. this got away from me. i'm so sorry apparently i have a lot to say.) (also you're so good about the questions i would constantly be asking one of my professors questions during class to the point where she said i didn't have to go "i have a question" every time i approached her)

i've been editing since 2016! around march/april, i think? loved it so much i went into film & video production in college as a major so i could do editing for a living. (i have done more motion graphics for my classmates than i have done edits outside of class assignments, BUT!)

the program i use is after effects - i started learning it when covid first hit the united states because i had nothing better to do with my time (other than music theory but i failed that bc my professor focused more on the history aspects than the actual theory soooo) and my ipad kept giving me the "no more storage" whenever i tried to use videostar lmao. (vs has, apparently, gotten a LOT of good updates, so if you're looking to start editing and have an ios system, i'd look into it! only downside is you have to pay for some of the cool stuff).

also the program i use for masking (i think i explain this later dwdw) is superimpose. i've been using it since 2014 and it's SO nice bc i can use my fingers to erase backgrounds & stuff instead of hoping i can get it to work correctly in ae or photoshop (photoshop my DETESTED i'll use it but i'll complain the entire time).

for people who want to start editing: tutorials on how your program works and how to do specific transitions are gonna be your best friend when you're first figuring things out! i forced a friend to literally walk me through how after effects worked when i was first figuring it out, and when i had swapped to videostar back in 2017/2018(?) i had watched a Lot of tutorials. that and played around a lot and figured things out on my own - which is also always a good way to start!! it's also totally valid to look at other people's edits for inspiration - most editors don't really care, as long as you don't flat-out remake their edit (some people don't like that!). i have a style insp folder on instagram where i save edits that i like so if i need transition ideas or i'm doing a different style, i can look there for inspiration. at the end of the day, as long as you're having fun with it that's all that matters!

also, starting simple is always okay!! my edits for a year were just me slapping gifs & video segments together on a timeline in cute cut pro bc imovie didn't load them lol & it'd crash every time i breathed. ++ it never hurts to ask people for feedback/constructive(!!!) criticism/etc! (also not to sound like everyone else but practice? good. it's so good. if i showed my 14/15y/o self some of the edits i can make now they would've passed out on the spot bc i was still trying to figure out transitions back then. programs can also sometimes make a difference in edits, but usually it's not super noticeable until you start getting to the Complicated Shit.)

a lot of popular programs i've seen are ones like video star (ios only), alight motion (android only), after effects (i recommend 🏴‍☠️ing it tbh, i only use it legally bc i had to use adobe programs for school), capcut, and i think some people still use sony vegas pro & maybe cute cut pro (i've heard it may have actually gotten better since i last used it in 2018)? i have no idea. programs also depend on whatever device you're using to edit on! since i've been using my laptop, i'm able to use after effects (it's computer-only), but when i used my phone/ipad to edit i used ccp & vs.

for the animation - it's a lot of cutting up the image and masking! more complex animations, like the one i had of leo walking down that red 'hallway' have several different layers that have been masked. (i removed the background & filled in the spot where leo originally was in two different apps - superimpose (taking leo out) & photoshop (filling in the bg)) in after effects, the way i've done this was mask out the specific thing i wanted to move (like an eye) and then put that mask on what i've called a "base" (not animated), and then stick a solid behind the base to match the color of the object. (some of my layers are not named appropriately; base 2 is the left arm & the four "SIX_[...]" layers are the mask/bandana tails)

an example of this would be for any of the eye blink animations i did! this (above) is the same shot, with and without the eye - since it's masked out and i have the background solid behind it, it doesn't look too unnatural/have a black outline/mass where his eye should be.

what it looks like without the solid layer behind it ^ (the red lines are from the null layers - ignore that)

this is what my timeline looks like if it's a more simplistic animation - the only five things being animated here are leo & raph's eyes. (there's only this many layers bc it's two characters in one shot & i was also animating their pupils - typically, an eye-blink animation is about 4-6 layers for me (solid, base, mask, & null to animate with, 6 if i'm animating both eyes & 4 if just one))

in after effects, there's this really cool tool called the puppet pin that one of my friends (lovingly) yelled at me for not knowing about - which. yeah fair she wasn't wrong it's SUPER useful in animating, provided you chop up your image first. if you don't it's a mess.

(separated by layer vs i should've really put the mask tails & leo's head on separate layers and didn't bc that was the 2nd to last animation i had to do and i was losing my mind bc i wanted to be done with the edit lmao)

the way people animate depends all on their style (there's two common ways to do blinking animation - having the anchor point at the bottom of the eye, or the middle of it) and the program they use. it's been a while, but i could probably tell you how to do some basic animations on videostar still even though i've been doing them in after effects for about 2-3years now. ALSO the best way to have an animation be noticeable is to over-exaggerate it/make them Big - which, yes, can mean 'breaking bones' and having the limbs be a little wonky at the start. (if you want it to be realistic though go Just to the point where it looks uncomfortable lmao)

uhm. again i am so sorry that this is so long i THINK this is everything? if not: my inbox/dms are always open if you ever want to ask more questions, wanna follow up on something, etc etc!! (also if you ever start editing please send me your edits!!! i'd love to see them <3)

[shewholovestoread]

My Journey To You - Thoughts and Impressions Part 1 of 2

I realise that I've been missing these past few months, i've been on a consumption binge but with little to no bandwidth to write about any show/film irrespective of how much I may have loved them. (depression is an ass) But I can, once again, feel thoughts tingling in my brain and I've decided to get back to writing, something that I deeply enjoy. Anyway, enough about me, let's get started.

To keep the post from getting obscenely long, I'm going to split it into two. This post will be about the technical aspects of the show. Part 2 will focus on the characters.

My Journey To You is a 2023 fantasy, Wuxia show (shows/films that are based in ancient China with martial arts warriors being capable of superhuman feats, like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon). It was highly anticipated owing to the amazing trailer (one of the best I've seen)

Plot: The series tells the story of Yun Wei Shan, a spy longing for freedom, who infiltrates the Gong residence to complete a mission. In the eerie and treacherous Gong residence, she encounters love and friendship, embarks on a journey of self-discovery, and finds the determination to move forward. Together with the rebellious nobleman Gong Zi Yu, they grow and mature through their shared experiences. (via mydramalist)

It stars: Yu Shu Xin (Yun Wei Shan), Zhang Ling He(Gong Zi Yu), Ryan Cheng (Gong Shang Jue) and Lu Yu Xiao (Shangguan Qian), Tian Jia Rui (Gong Yuan Zhi), Jolin Jin (Gong Zi Shang) and Sun Chen Jun (Jin Fan)

Written by: Edward Guo.

Series directed by: Edward Guo & Luo Luo

I'll talk about everything I liked before I get into the stuff that I didn't.

Right off the bat, this show has some of the most gorgeous characters you'll come across and this applies to both the men and the women. The costume and make-up departments do an amazing job making already attractive people look ridiculously attractive. They also help the actors really inhabit the world seamlessly. The costumes are especially incredibly detailed and intricate, you can see the care that went into crafting the look for each of these characters. Shout-out to Huang Wei (costume designer) and Shi Hui (Make-up)

One of the best aspects of the show is the cinematography by Wei Hong. This show is aesthetically beautiful, so many absolutely stunning shots. Chinese shows (and Korean shows) love slow-motion shots, and while at times, it can be a bit much, this show makes great use of them, especially during the fight scenes.

The cinematography is helped to a great extent by the excellent production design, courtesy Jiyao Zhang. Like the costumes, the production design too is detailed and intricate. The world feels fully realised and yet also lived in. Each of the different clan mansions, the Front Hill and Back Hill are so incredibly different and distinct that you can immediately tell where you are. An insane amount of hard work went into the show and it shows in every frame.

You can tell that they had a good budget to work with and every bit of it was spent on making the show look as stylized as possible, there is not an ounce of realism to be found here, cue slow-motion beautiful hair flying shots. (Every day I bemoan my inability to make gifs) But the screencaps below illustrate the beauty of the show, it's so gorgeous that you could literally use screencaps as wallpapers.

The fight scenes in the show are some of the best I've seen. They are intense and thrilling and always coherent, you can always tell who's fighting who. The fight scenes are also so aesthetically pleasing, like an exceptionally deadly dance.

Now, we come to the not-so-great stuff.

First off, the marketing. The show was marketed and advertised as an action fantasy show and while there is action and it is excellent, it's not an "action" show. The main focus of the show is on the characters and the internal power struggle of the Gong family. There are also whole scenes, sometimes making up the bulk of an entire episode which are just conversations. I've seen a lot of viewers disappointed and it makes sense. they thought they were coming for action and instead they got verbose conversations.

The pacing also comes to a near-halt in some of these scenes and instead we're treated to lengthy expositions which isn't necessarily a bad thing but it becomes tedious when it happens repetitively.

Now, let's come to the worst thing about the show, it's ending, specifically the last 5 minutes. This end is ridiculously mindbogglingly bad when you consider that there is almost no confirmation on a 2nd season. It's just such a bad idea to end on a cliffhanger like this. If they wanted to leave things open for a potential 2nd season, they could have ended with the Wufeng elders coming together at that character's home, possibly to hold them ransom or something, like literally anything else.

if you're planning on watching this show and I do recommend it, keep in mind that it does get slow and don't watch the last 5 mins of the show. Trust me, you'll like the show a whole lot more if you follow that approach.

Part 2 HERE

[fembutchboygirl]

hey! this is chance & here’s week 3’s prompt. share an excerpt that you’re very proud of from any of your wips.

OOOH YES I'm actually gonna share multiple because I like what I write <3 here you go:

This is an introduction that I'm very proud of:

Camille Smith didn't appreciate The Invisible Man. She could get past the whole bandage thing, really. She wasn't the type of person that had to relate to every aspect of a character to connect with them. And she aknowledged the artistic eye behind it. No, it was all the murder that had her leave the theater no more than 30 minutes into the film, sporting a frown on her face that couldn't decide whether it was grumpy, frustrated, or disappointed. She huffed as she walked out into the busy street before her. What terrible representation. The movie was a product of its time, she could understand that, but surely some level of empathy towards invisible people could be expected of the filmmakers. "Being invisible makes you a crazy murderer" was a crummy idea for a movie, full stop. Camille only wished she had known better before wasting eight pounds on her ticket. Even though she was standing in the middle of the sidewalk, the crowd swerved around her like stream water around a rock. Very few people so much as brushed against her; absolutely no one looked at her. This was because Camille Smith was invisible. No, get those bandages and murderous intentions out of your mind. She wasn't literally invisible. Not in the strict sense of the word.

This is another introduction I really like, though this one shines because of the transition:

He took the card. In a microscopic font (in order for it to all fit very tightly in the middle, leaving plenty of the extra room that business cards must always have so that the letters can run around and play whenever you're not looking), it read: 𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐑 𝐏𝐘𝐓𝐇𝐎𝐍𝐘𝐒𝐈𝐀 𝐂𝐄𝐋𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐍𝐄 𝐋𝐔𝐌𝐈𝐍𝐀𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐒 𝐕𝐎𝐗 𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐰𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐫𝐲, 𝐬𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐲, 𝐨𝐜𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐦, 𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐨𝐬𝐲𝐦𝐛𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲, 𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞-𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞-𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐬. 𝐂𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐡𝐲, 𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐦 𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐥, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐜 𝐩𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧-𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨 𝐚𝐯𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞. "And this…" Mr. Kand struggled to identify where the last name began. He failed. "This, um, this wizard. Are you certain she can handle this in a properly professional manner?" "Absolutely," Ms. Matte confirmed with a smile. "She's the most capable wizard I've ever worked with. Your problem will be taken care of in the most tactful, swift, and discreet of fashions. I guarantee it." -------------------------- Esther Pythonysia Celesthine Luminaitis Vox, who we will refer to as Esther from this moment forward, was at the time of this conversation lying face-down on the floor of an alley, with her hair mere millimeters away from a puddle of her own vomit. Her robes hadn't been as lucky. The deep regal purple of the sleeves had fused with a sickly muted orange, and the silk had gone stiff around the now dried stains.

• And this excerpt from a good omens fic I worked on for a while:

It is well known that angels love by nature. They hold a sort of blanket love over all living beings, from the tiniest and most remote unicellular bacteria to the oldest spruce tree in a mountaintop in Sweden. Some people — "people" being one particularly sophistic demon and a bunch more who copied him — have argued that this sort of impersonal love is disingenuous; since, if you love exactly everything exactly equally, wouldn't that be the same as not loving at all? Angels have said in return that it's not like that at all, and refused to give further statement. Despite this, most angels advise against getting personally attached to particular living beings, given their propensity towards dying. Then, of course, most angels don't have a problem with this to begin with. They all spend most of their time up in Heaven, only occasionally dropping by Earth for check-ins or special events such as the birth of Christ or the final showing of The Sound of Music. As Heaven's emissary on Earth and therefore the one most jeopardized by this problem, Aziraphale had to pay special attention to said bit of advice, and tried his best to follow it to the letter.  Unfortunately, his best didn't always work out.

Hope you enjoyed!!

[palettesofrenaissance]

Did you watch interview with the vampire? If you did, what did you think of it? I'm trying to decide if I should watch it.

I did watch it!! I watched most of it live as a treat to myself and let me tell you. girl. GIRL!!!! that show was made with LOVE shown in every single aspect of that show!!! whether you like vampires, accurate period dramas, or good storytelling and acting, this show is for you!!! this is a show that deserves all the hype it's getting because it's truly, literally phenomenal and addicting. you'll love and hate the characters, if you like period outfits you'll enjoy this, and if you enjoy the psychological/psychology analysis you'll enjoy that too!

I must also add that I don't think you necessarily have to watch the White film of Interview With a Vampire to understand the show, but the show does reference that this is a second interview with the vampire Louis (the first being the movie, but that's all you really need to know)

Another great part is that this show got Anne Rice's stamp of approval, which is always a huge sign of greatness when the product is praised by the author who created it in the first place

But I will say and insist that you watch this behind the scenes special that AMC aired right before the premiere. watch this to get a view of the impressive amount of time, dedication, creativity, devotion and love put into this show. There's no spoilers

[sambinnie]

1. Solstice again. Creeping from the still house into cool air, then a run to smooth waters where even the dogs and their walkers haven’t yet rambled. We swim in almost-silence for a while, like steady kayaks, with a chiffchaff serenading us and the last of the willow fluff dusting the surface of the water, fish occasionally glopping upwards to grab a passing insect.

Home to pick a posy for the table. I must not fall asleep as soon as I sit down. I fall asleep instantly.

2. This spring has been wonderful. Besides the puffs from the willows along the river, the chestnut trees drip sap onto the pavements so our shoes click with every pace, and the ducklings, goslings and cygnets gather around their beady-eyed parents. Dragonflies and damselflies drone over the river. Huge poppies have grown in the chaos of the garden, I assume where I threw the seeds from pavement poppies last summer, and bees roll around among the stamens like playing puppies. I drive past the supermarket and see several people tending to a horse in the neighbouring scrubland.  

3. Have you finished Succession yet? This final series has been my favourite yet, for possibly obvious reasons — my stress levels were lower than my enjoyment levels for the very first time, so I could fully savour exactly how brilliant every single aspect is. Cast, crew, production, script — everything is perfect, and yet how hard to communicate why a programme about the world’s worst people is not just watchable but probably the best TV this year. This Vanity Fair clip with the director of the scene on Connor’s wedding boat is excellent and describes so well how TV like this is a kind of alchemy.

4. A brief sojourn to a foreign city, where the cathedral left me chilled but a record store was so exactly like the ones from my teens that I welled up and had to be pulled away. How do smells cut through all barriers and transform us so completely to our previous selves? I wanted to stay for hours and flick through every single album, and end up buying four, two I’d love immediately and two I’d hate, but would stick with because albums are never cheap, and the two that were harder work would become my favourites and stick deep in my brain forever. I thought myself too cool to be a Feeder fan at the time, but watching this video now I want to weep at how normal we all looked then, how clunky and average and awkward, how anyone who grew up in the 90s would recognise those bedrooms, that wallpaper, those lampshades, and how humans are so dumb to grieve things we didn’t even want at the time. 

But sometimes, for brief moments, like when you are standing at the stove making lemon and courgette risotto and listening to Head Like a Hole at full volume, your teen self and the adult self you thought you might be meld perfectly and all is well with the world. 

5. We read this book in bookclub recently, and I was struck at how we all struggled to verbalise our feelings about it. Was it good? Bad? Confusing? Funny? Unsettling? It was all and none, the live example of imagining a colour you’d never seen before. I was reminded of these two videos the algorithms had fed me, on Outsider Music and how audiences misunderstood the film of American Psycho when it first came out. Weirdness is so challenging, so aching and unsettling and new to brains which generally thrive on conformity and predictability. In the latter video, the film’s director Mary Herron says, ‘I have to always remind myself, sometimes I don’t get it, you know, when I first see something… particularly if it’s unfamiliar, it can be quite… there’s something uncomfortable or disturbing or it seems boring or like it does’t work, and it’s also because you’re just not attuned to it yet and it’s just sometimes you take time.’ Like those albums as a teen, the best, weirdest, most brain-engaging stuff often takes much longer to chew, but it’s almost always worth it.

6. (We also watched Mustang, which I recommend to literally everyone, although it does nothing to disprove my theory that all good woman- and girl-based films are secretly also horror films. But it’s brilliant, so please watch it if you haven’t already.)

7. I intend to make this tonight for the Solstice feast’s dessert. Happy summer, pals.

[beatnikbedlam]

Best New Anime of 2022

(reposted from cohost)

so i had cancer this year! which apparently means i actually watched enough new anime last year to do a top ten list? so i guess this is my first anime top ten! pretty neat! i’m only gonna cover shows that premiered this year because it would be hard not to put stuff like Mob Psycho and JoJo on here and there was so much great new stuff that i wanna focus on. here goes!

10: Love Flops: this show… this fuckin’ show y’all. the first few episodes are…. A Lot. some of the horniest anime bullshit i’ve seen. it takes over half the season to really show its hand. and look, i really don’t want to spoil anything, because it has some truly great reveals, but goddamn is it an incredible fucking hand. a show that is both absolutely demented and very touching

9: Aharen-san wa Hakarenai: translates to Aharen is Incomprehensible. just a really cute, chill little romcom about a couple of goofballs and their even goofier friends. was a very nice thing to look forward to during a pretty hard summer!

8: Urusei Yatsura: i originally had Spy x Family here, but y’know what? fuck that. Lum’s Back Bay Beeee and she looks better than ever. David Productions outdid themselves here

7: Bocchi the Rock: the most i've related to a character in ages. great music, great animation, great pals

6: Chainsaw Man: not typically my vibe, but it's so good i can't help but appreciate it anyway. i have trouble with “misery parade” stuff but Chainsaw Man takes it so far that it becomes hilarious. i really love its exploration of intimacy and control, very nuanced and looks at a lot of different aspects of it. Power and Denji’s friendship is super refreshing, Makima is scary as hell, and Himeno is… unfortunately very hot. don’t @ me

5: Ya Boi Kongming: time travel is always my jam, and this is one of the best. it subverts the whole "the character is dumb bc they're from the past" thing by making the MC a master strategist from the Three Kingdoms period. there's initial confusion, but he picks up quick, and it's more about him using his stratagems to help a girl become a famous singer. it also has one of the best OPs of the year too

4: Birdie Wing: it's the Lesbian Mafia Golf anime, what do you want from me

3: Akiba Maid War: legit one of the most buckwild first episodes ever put to film. absolutely has to be seen to be believed. all i'll say is that the title is literal, and it’s majestic. #1 fuckup gang of 2022

2: My Dress-Up Darling: immaculately crafted romcom, incredible characters. more or less a perfect show, would have been my top spot if the next one hadn't come to eat its lunch a few months later. the scene on the train after the con is one of my favorite scenes in anime period

1: Call of the Night: feels like a show made specifically for me. it's a romcom, but it's moody and there's philosophical shit and vampire fights? sign me the fuck up. then there’s Anko Uguisu, who is a fucking Problem 🥵 and to top it all off, it's the most gorgeous show i’ve seen in a long time. something like Demon Slayer has really fluid action sequences with amazing effects, but it looks pretty standard otherwise. but the composition and color and detail of every shot is so carefully considered in Call of the Night, it’s really something special. truly, absolutely cannot wait for season 2. i picked up the manga and am around chapter 100 now, it’s going in some really fascinating directions

and that’s my list! i was going to make this an honorable mentions section but ended up just mentioning basically everything else new i watched lol. so here’s that:

Ranking of Kings is a show i really loved but it just didn’t quite make the cut. the ending felt a little rushed and it started getting a bit predictable, but still great if you need a good cry

Shikimori Isn’t Just a Cutie was sweet and fun but felt a little thin

Spy x Family is really well-made and totally adorable but i have to take it in small doses for some reason

Reincarnated as a Sword i had no real issues with and i’m looking forward to season 2, but it just wasn’t a top 10

Eminence in Shadow: love the farce, fuckin’ hate the MC. still not sure where i come down on it tbh

Yakuza’s Guide to Babysitting: liked it, didn’t watch enough of it

Do It Yourself! is really cute but it never quite hits the highs of something like Laid Back Camp. still worthwhile if you like that kind of thing tho

Lycoris Recoil: i really enjoyed it while i was watching it, but i keep forgetting it exists tbh

and as far as returning stuff goes Mob had such a great ending, i’ve really enjoyed the Stone Ocean adaptation, i just got into Welcome to Demon School Iruma-kun this year and i’m having a great time with it, reminds me so much of that 00’s Soul Eater/HxH/toonami-type shonen but much less fight focused. and of course, Uzaki-chan was fucking incredible, as expected

it’s kind of crazy how much good anime there was this year and how many i haven’t even gotten around to yet! this winter 2023 season is seeming… a bit dry so far but at least Queen Nagatoro has returned to grace us with her presence. gonna wrap it up, but if someone found this and read all the way to the end… hey, thanks! you’re great!

[piglet26]

How Wokedom Destroyed Mulan L.A. then no one learned anything

Disney going live action is not only a brilliant cash grab for the nostalgic 90s generation, but it was also meant to introduce Disney greatness to a new generation. The 90s were an epic decade for Disney! A decade of hits that produced Grammys, millions in merchandizing, broadways shows, new theme park attractions and shows, its own channel AND properly jumped on the early 00s DVD movement. In short, Disney made a shit ton of a money from this decade.

The live actions have been trash though. Notice how Disney had been abandoning them and focusing on Marvel films? Financially, they did well while underperforming what Disney wanted them to do. They failed where it really matters and that's with the audience that grew up loving the animated version. Not because we didn't want them to succeed. We did!

Mulan is a brilliant beloved Disney film for over two decades! She was my favorite Disney princess and the boys loved her! Mulan is an action fantasy coming of age story. Mulan has battles between the Chinese army and the invading Hun army. We wanted to see the glorious Chinese landscapes. Sing all our favorite songs and hang out with Eddie Murphy's beloved Mushu. See actors bring to life Mulan, Shang, Yao, Chi-Fu, Ling. And what the hell did we get?! Barely any of that. Disney removed every lovable aspect of this film. China, the audience Disney was really aiming for, didn't even like this film.

Where did it all go wrong? Two things. The group that is at the center of most failed reboots, sequels, gender/race swaps and live editions. The woke group. The second being pandering to China.

Mulan started production at the height of the MeToo era. You know that era that was meant to target Hollywood and the systems they had in place that protected the men and women that used sex as a form of currency, control and intimidation. People seem to have forgotten that though and are back to worshipping the same people quietly allowing the same system to continue behind the scenes.

As a response to all of this going on Disney decided to completely butcher the Mulan film. Why?! Why?! Because the woke group, aware of their growing influence, thought the film wasn't empowering enough for females. This showed how the woke group is nothing more than a limited thinking group of sheeple who have the right intentions but don't exactly know where the problem is much less how to fix it.

They literally removed EVERY SINGLE SONG because some of the songs were "sexist" how stupid are you? No really how stupid are you? That you think everything needs to be dumbed down because you clearly missed the point of the movie. We all saw the film and got the point of the movie without these people being involved with the film. Thank God! Yes, Mulan faces misogyny. Girls all over the world face misogyny and you know what? The western film had the girl defeat misogyny. She saved China while being a woman and having men followed her knowing she was a woman. This is also the Chinese story because Mulan was based on a real woman. That apparently wasn't important enough for them to see either.

They excluded two great characters Mushu and Shang. Shang because he was her commanding officer, and it would be regarded as a man taking advantage of his employee. WHAT?! The guy that only treated her as a respected fellow soldier then choose not to kill her when he found she was a woman, though that was the law. Then defended, protected and demanded others respected her a hero of China. Only then pursuing her as a woman once she left the army.

Mushu, a black voice actor, got cut because of cultural significance. Uh-huh. I really suspect it has something to do with the fact that China has a massive racism problem against blacks. A fact the western and eastern world are desperate to not expose. This is the problem with political correctness though. It's hypocritical in nature and things that are hypocritical never stand for long. For heaven's sake the Mulan filmed thanked China for allowing it to film near a concentration camp!

I could say more, believe me I could, because this film fails bitterly on every front but I do want to round out the point. The point being that despite the bitter failings of the recent decade no one has learned a damn thing. Disney refuses to return to the nonpolitical booming 90s. The woke audience don't seem to realize they are also the problem and the companies they love, like Disney, they are aiding in the demise of. The western world with all our problems still stand a leg and arm above the most basic human rights violations of the east but we ignore this out of greed.

Now ignore this version was ever done and go watch the brilliant version about a girl who became an empowered woman through hard work, intelligence, courage and self-belief.