#NEVER BECOME A SCREENWRITER

[revengeromance]

the only thing worse than college applications is being in college and also not being in college

[thirstyvampyr]

when i see someone with an established career i really gotta stop going "this could have been me" because no, bitch. you're not an expert in any field, all you do is day dream about shit you'll never have while not appreciating what you do have

[lit-in-thy-heart]

lit i hear they are ruining my fav Austen heroine 😭😭😭

don't worry mumble they're ruining mine too 😭😭😭😭😭😭

[racefortheironthrone]

Nobody is making anyone go into scriptwriting. No one is born in a Netflix company town where their dad takes them into the script mines at age 12. Fuck writers who want to get paid more than once for the same job. They should only get residuals AFTER all the people who do REAL WORK, like construction, grips, costume, makeup & animators etc. Most of them are much better at their jobs than writers especially for streaming services, and they are what screenwriters can lean on & novelists can't.

People need to realize that the unions for white collar people like WGA or SIEU or NEA (public sector unions are why cops who kill the people they were supposed to serve & protect remain employed get pensions) is not the AFL-CIO or any other historical union fighting for the lives of the people who built the country's industry and made it run, any more than the NRA are the Minutemen of 1775 New England.

First, go fuck yourself, you fucking scab. No, seriously - you don't come to my blog and spout off about what workers deserve unions and decent pay and what ones don't, like it's your fucking decision. The intellectual labor that writers perform is just as real as any other work done on a film set - "all who labor by hand or brain" is the inherent logic of industrial unionism for a reason.

Second, writers aren't asking to get paid more than once: residuals are deferred pay, you absolute moron. In Hollywood, whether it's writers or actors or voice talent or whatever, you get a small fraction up front - it's usually an ok check, depending on the union's day rates and so forth, but you can't make a living off stitching these together - and then most of your pay comes from monthly royalty checks that provide you with the income you need to live off when you're between jobs.

The problem is that, historically in Hollywood, residuals have been structured with a very long "tail" - the payments start out relatively low and then get more generous over time as the show has more seasons and (presumably) goes into syndication. This doesn't work with streaming's new business model, where increasingly shows are getting 2-3 seasons max and streaming services have become increasingly quick to not just cancel shows but yank them off their servers in order to avoid paying residuals.

So what WGA writers are fighting for is a system that ensures writers (but also actors and other creative workers, because the unions pattern bargain) get a fair share of the show's revenue, even if the show is only given 2-3 seasons.

Third, the U.S labor movement would not exist today if it wasn't for white collar workers and public sector workers. About half of the U.S labor movement - 7 million workers - is public sector, and those workers are overwhelmingly women of color, mostly working as either teachers or postal workers. Likewise, about half the U.S labor movement is made up of white collar workers, and we're graduate students and adjuncts and lab researchers, teachers and social workers, administrators and IT departments.

I'm both public sector and white collar, and I'm a member of an NEA union. I'm an adjunct professor who earns $6,000 a course and it's my job to get working adults with jobs and families who've never gone to college or who've been out of higher ed for a decade to graduate with a bachelor's or a master's. If you don't think that's real work, you're free to research and write all the lectures and powerpoints, deliver those in an entertaining and educational fashion, answer a flood of questions from students who need help navigating academia, and then grade all the midterms and finals and research papers.

[hairmetal666]

au where Steve is a famous Disney kid and Eddie is a teenaged singer-songwriter. They get pushed together at events because they're close in age, but they just quietly dislike each other.

Steve's got a new show starting, a spinoff of the one that made him a household name. They hire a newcomer, Robin Buckley, to play his best friend and the two quickly become BFF in real life.

The show runs for two seasons but when it comes time to renegotiate contracts, neither star is interested. They're older now, ready to live life on their terms and not the company's, or in Steve's case, his parents.

As soon as the finale airs, Robin and Steve celebrate by going to a gay club. A few weeks later, an interview is released where Steve comes out as bi and talks about how his parents mistreated him; how they worked with the network to pressure him to be a perfect "all-American" kid even off screen.

Meanwhile, Eddie's an impossible level of famous. He's had number-one hits, won a Grammy, headlined an arena tour, achieved every dream he had for himself as a kid growing up in a trailer park in Indiana. He's not shocked by the news that Steve is leaving Hollywood, but he's flabbergasted that the guy isn't straight. When Eddie reads the interview, he gets this weird pang in his chest, almost like regret. But he never even liked Steve.

Steve isn't in the news again and Eddie doesn't think of him for a long time.

Steve goes to college. He loves it. Not because he's great in his classes, or anything, but because he's free to be himself for the first time. He makes friends and goes to parties and relaxes. He and Robin share an apartment.

After a few semesters, Steve decides to take a couple of theater classes, and is quickly cast in campus productions. In the vague anonymity of college theater he rediscovers his love of acting. No one has expectations of him, no one forces him to perform. He graduates and slowly starts appearing in small roles in Indie films, gathering critical acclaim. He feels good. Happy. Hopeful.

Eddie is blissfully unaware of Steve's career resurgence, experiencing his own musical highpoints, until the day where he's scrolling Twitter, sees a Variety headline that's getting a bunch of attention, "Steve Harrington in talks to star in Max Mayfield's first film." Eddie's livid.

"Maxine, what the fuck?" He growls when she answers his call.

They grew up together in the same Indiana trailer park. When she moved to Hollywood to start a career as a screenwriter, Eddie was by her side. And when her first script wound up on the Black List, his involvement on the soundtrack and original songs sealed her production deal.

She gives a long suffering sigh. "Munson," she grumbles. "I know you have a weird history with this guy, but I swear he's the right choice."

"He's a stuck up rich boy who's never been in trouble in his life."

"He's changed."

"Doubtful," Eddie sneers.

"Look. I'll set-up a meeting. Come hang out and you'll see what I mean." Before she hangs up she adds, "Call me Maxine again and I'll end you."

They invite Harrington to Eddie's recording studio. His hopes are not high for this meeting, so he's already a little thrown when Steve Harrington walks in, all grown up. He's in a crimson sweater, tight jeans, hair grown long so that it flops around his face in tousled waves that actually look genuine, windswept and golden. Eddie's eyes instinctively trace the scatter of moles on Harrington's face and neck, a pang of something hitting deep in his gut. Fuck, this dude is beautiful.

"Harrington," he greets, sticks out his hand. Eddie barely hears the answering, "Munson," because instead of a handshake, Harrington pulls Eddie in for a hug. Muscles bunch under the sleeves of the sweater, against Eddie's chest, and he's assaulted by the scent of cedar and sunshine and Steve. Eddie's not prepared for any of this.

They make small talk, Harrington sharing about going to college, falling in love with theater, Robin Buckley who he calls his soulmate. Eddie's head rings with how wrong he was about this guy; the pretty kid he grew up alongside who seemed to have the world in his hands. Max was right, he's perfect. Except.

"Let's get down to it, Harrington," Eddie says. Can't bring himself to call him Steve yet, feels that will somehow change everything and he's not ready. "I'll admit that Mayfield had the right idea about you, but can you sing? Play guitar? You have to perform my music, dude. That's not a small ask."

Harrington smirks, asks for a guitar. He gets it settled across his lap before he speaks. "I started taking piano lessons when I was 4. Voice and guitar at 7."

Eddie belatedly recalls that Harrington's parents were the worst kind of stage-parents, pushing their cute kid to perform even as he sobbed about wanting to play soccer with his friends instead of going to auditions. He has a moment of shame that he forgets as the other man begins to play. It's one of Eddie's biggest hits, a ballad about a teenaged broken heart from a kid whose name he can't even remember.

Harrington's hair flops in a swoop over his forehead, his fingers move across the strings with ease, skill. His voice is a rasp, close mimic to Eddie's own, but not quite deep enough. Goosebumps spread across Eddie's arms, his neck, and warmth pools low in his gut.

Steve finishes the song, looks up, cheeks glowing pink, honey eyes bright. Eddie's fucking gone for this guy. He wants so badly he might choke on it.

"Good?" Steve asks.

Eddie's embarrassed suddenly. Unsure. He tugs at his hair. "Yeah," he laughs. "Good."

He reaches out to take the guitar, the one Steve's already handing to him, and their hands brush. Eddie flushes. Their eyes meet and Steve smiles. Eddie's thoughts are consumed with the desire to kiss his plush pink mouth.

"You wanna get dinner? Just you and me?" Steve asks.

"Yeah, Steve," he laughs. "I'd love to."

🎬🎸🎬🎸

Fifteen Months Later

"Former Teen Heartthrobs Make Love Connection?"

Fans of musician Eddie Munson and former child star, Steve Harrington, were in for the surprise of their lives last night as the men arrived together for the premier of Harrington's new movie, Small Town Sins, written by up-and-coming screenwriter Max Mayfield, featuring original music by Munson. While Harrington's performance and the movie itself are garnering quite a bit of positive buzz, it's being overshadowed by gossip about Harrington and Munson's budding romance. They walked the red carpet together, pausing for photos as a duo, holding hands and flirting. When asked for confirmation of their relationship, Munson answered, 'we're bros,' before winking and pulling Harrington close.

There's a TikTok video embedded below the article, showing the men being interviewed on the red carpet. Their arms are loosely around each others' waists, and when their eyes meet they catch and hang for a beat.

"So, longtime fans of both of yours are going feral online right now because of the rumors that you two used to hate each other. Is there any truth to that?" An off-camera voice asks.

The men laugh. "We've always been great friends," Eddie answers.

"Eddie thought I was stuck up," Steve giggles.

"I did not." Eddie slaps at Steve, who gives him an affectionate smile.

"Liar," Steve answers.

Eddie leans into the camera like he's telling a secret. "Harrington here was afraid of me."

"Fuck off, I was not." They wrestle around for a couple of seconds.

Steve shrugs Eddie off, straightening his suit jacket. "Okay, maybe I was a little intimidated back then, but then this morning you found a pretty rock and cried about it."

Eddie shrieks, swatting at Steve until someone in a black suit and name tag shoos them down the red carpet.

Eddie walks off first, so he misses Steve withdrawing a hand from his pocket and saying, "Still have the rock, though." He flashes the red, grey, blue striped stone at the camera.

His gaze drifts away, landing somewhere in the distance, hazel eyes soft and heart-wrenchingly fond.

[spacerockfloater]

Being a female viewer and hating Criston Cole is deranged.

I have to get this off my chest. The blind hatred that Criston is receiving from women is insane and I’m going to explain why.

For context, I am talking about Show Criston, not Book Criston. Comparing two standalone versions of a story is silly.

I cannot wrap my head around the fact that so many women, who are the primary victims of utilitarian relationships, would ever come together and shit on Criston for enduring such a situation.

I’m sorry, but how many of you have been used by men? How many of you have been reduced to one night stands, situationships and placeholder wives? How many of you have been deemed “not good enough” to be an exclusive partner? I log into tiktok and I see NOTHING but stories of broken women who are just used for sex, money, care and whatnot by men, and then they are tossed away like worthless trash while said men continue their pursuit of the ideal woman. Being used by men just for sex and being denied the status of girlfriend, let alone wife, is probably one of the worst plagues women are experiencing in the western world because the MOMENT we were emancipated, men understood that they don’t owe us shit anymore and instead of treating us with respect, they decided to grab whatever they can and give nothing back. Do not tell me that there are women out there that are fine with this arrangement because the multiple “GWM while I tell you about the guy that was with me for 12 years and then married someone else” tell a different story, one of multiple women’s dignities being trampled by hungry men. My heart breaks for every woman (EVERY woman, cis, trans, EVERY woman) who has been called by a man she loves just for sex, for every woman whose man never wanted to be seen in public with her, for every woman who had to hear that her man is not ready for a relationship only to witness him getting engaged to another woman 2 weeks after. I hope you overcome this and become stronger and I am glad that we are finally supporting one another.

How can we then, the women who are helping other female victims rise up and speak out against this kind of abuse, push Criston down and tell him to suck it up and accept being Rhaenyra’s plaything? Have we no mercy? Are we so hungry for revenge against men that we’d want them to endure the same humiliation that we did, as if one fictional man’s suffering would bring us justice? Are we so jealous that Criston didn’t sit down and just take it like the rest of us, but instead spoke up and removed himself from that situation? Or are we so gullible that we accept what the screenwriters shove down our throats and unknowingly support the patriarchic view that if you’re being used by someone you should just accept it?

I can hear some of you arguing that “Oh, this is different because Rhaenyra is royalty!” as if being used and tossed by a powerful person somehow makes the situation any better? Would it be okay if a rich person wanted to constantly use you for sex while he keeps looking for a better woman to be by his side, just because he values his wealth and status more? Rhaenyra straight up sneered at the idea of a simple life with him. She straight up told him that HE is not worth as much as her crown. OUCH. Even though I can’t even begin to imagine the pain of being told you are not enough by your loved one, it was Rhaenyra’s right to choose what her priorities are, but WHY would he have to accept being her sidepiece? “These were different times”: does this make it any less devastating for the victim? And he was a victim because Rhaenyra still used Criston and misled him by constantly complaining about how she HATES her duties for YEARS and then luring him to break his oath. Do you think he would have still slept with her if he was aware that moments ago, Rhaenyra was begging on her knees to be fucked by Daemon and only turned to Criston because her first option was no longer available? Like, the man was contemplating having sex with her and resisted her for a good fucking while, so imagine how quickly he would have turned around and walked out that door if he had that information beforehand. You know why? Because he loved her. He loved her to the point that he broke his oath for her, the oath of a station he FOUGHT FOR IN A WAR. He shed blood and sweat and risked his life for the mere opportunity to gain that position. This was ALL he had, he came from NOTHING and he was still willing to toss it all away for Rhaenyra not once, but twice. It wasn’t just sex he wanted because we never see him have sex again after that. He became vulnerable and gave up everything that he was to be with Rhaenyra. He was willing to abandon his whole identity for her sake. Is this not what the ideal partner is? Ready to abandon everything for your shake? Everything he fought for, tooth and nail? Was he unreasonable in thinking that Rhaenyra was willing to do the same for him? Was he crazy to think that because he was ready to put everything he FOUGHT for aside for her shake, Rhaenyra would also put aside a duty she was handed and actively seem to hate for him too? Fuck no! After hearing her constant talk about how she hates her father, her duties, her refusal to wed other men, how she is trapped as a princess, how people have no idea how much it SUCKS being her, why would he not assume that she’d be willing to give it all up for him, as he’d do for her We never see Rhaenyra even TRY to be a ruler, just complain about it. Of course it would be a fucking shock to him hearing her say “Lol dude, I actually do kinda want this”.

Criston was actually the only person in the series that wanted Rhaenyra for her, not her money or crown. I’m not saying she had to follow him, it was her right to refuse him, but his willingness to lead a simple life with just her has got to mean something. And don’t give me that “he only wanted to redeem his honour by marrying her” crap, because first of all Criston nutted up and admitted everything to Alicent and was ready to face death without EVER blaming Rhaenyra for anything, and second of all, oh no, how dare a human being have ethical values and desire to live with dignity in society’s broad light rather than move in the shadows as the princess’s secret boytoy! Bad, bad Criston for feeling you have to atone for your sins. Maybe we as people have become so corrupt that we envy those who wish to walk a virtuous path in life. Or maybe y’all have become so fond of the unhinged unapologetic character trope because it feels “original” (even if it’s ridiculously overused nowadays) that you’ve actually forgotten what characters with good morals are. Like, picking your fave war criminal and rolling with them because you enjoy good drama, especially in a show that’s meant to provide entertainment, is one thing, but passionately stating that Criston had to submit to that humiliation is something else entirely.

Finally, let’s ditch the Criston being a misogynist bullshit because he had NO issue obeying Rhaenyra before their affair or Alicent. And he is ALWAYS true to himself and his values, because even after everything he endured, he did not use Alicent’s anger as an excuse to take revenge on Rhaenyra and harm her children. Criston never betrayed her, Rhaenyra used him and he walked away and he went towards the only person who seemed to spare him some sympathy and understand him and not condemn him for his crimes even if he hated himself, which is typical victim mentality. And don’t get me started on the Joffrey incident because y’all tore Cole to SHREDS for it. Joffrey had it fucking coming. You don’t go up to people’s faces, especially ones you don’t know, threaten them by telling them you know their secret, a secret that SHAMES them and burdens them to the point they’re ready to commit suicide, and all but directly call them a whore. What the fuck did he think was going to happen? They’d shake hands? Piss off. Let this be a lesson to anyone that doesn’t know how to keep their mouths shut and their noses out of other people’s business. Also, mocking his suicide attempt makes my stomach turn. Just take a moment to consider all the young women who just like him, reluctantly surrendered their virginities to men only to find out they were nothing but sex dolls in their eyes, all these girls whose trust led to their secret being spread and them getting ridiculed and slut shamed for it: how many girls have taken their own lives because they found living with such a burden unbearable?

For the love of everything you hold sacred, please wake up sisters. The narrative that you can be used by someone powerful and you have to accept it because that’s the way things are is a man’s construct. Do not let them fool you.

[tc-doherty]

TC's Practical Writing Tips

Like I said before, I'm not gonna sit here and pretend that I can teach anyone how to write – that's a level of hubris even I'm not capable of –but in honor of my rapidly approaching ~quarter century of writing original fiction anniversary~, I did figure I would share the tips that I live by when it comes to the act of writing.

So without further ado:

Write it now, fix it later

2. It is always permissible – and usually enjoyable – to write the stupidest possible version

3. "Inspiration" is great for poets, but poison for people who write prose

3.1: if you want to write often, you need to write often, and then you will find that you don't need to be "inspired" because you will have made a habit of it and it will come naturally 3.2: even one sentence a day is still one sentence a day. And even one sentence a week is still one sentence a week. It does not matter how slowly you go as long as you do not stop 3.3: believing in the concept that you need to be inspired to write will trap you into believing in the concept of writer's block 3.4: if you are having difficulty getting out words that satisfy you, lower your standards and keep writing (see point one)

4. A few months down the line you will not remember which words came easily and which words did not

5. It is always permissible to set a project aside for now, or forever, if you need a break

6. Read widely and often, both in your favorite genres and outside of them

6.1: pay special attention to both things that you love and things that you hate - study them, engage with them, learn what makes yourself tick and your writing can only get stronger

7. Never write for the lowest common denominator, via wise words I once heard: "if you open the window and make love to the world, your story will get pneumonia", have an audience in mind and the people who like what you write will find it

8. Never write for the bad faith critic, those people will always exist and you will need to deal with them at some point if you put your writing in the world, but they don't matter and you cannot live in fear of them

9. It's fine and normal to want engagement and praise, however you must find a way to make the act of writing joyful in and of itself – make the praise the cherry on top, not the entire sunday

9.1: writing is hard work, and it's a lot of work, if you lose the ability to enjoy the journey and are proceeding only for external rewards from others, you will gradually write less and less if the ratio of work to rewards is unsatisfying

10. For anything other than final copy editing, always write a new draft into a new document, or else the words you have already written will trap you from being able to make large, sweeping changes

10.1: any change you make will invariably snowball, and you must give space for that snowball to roll

11. If someone tells you that something doesn't work for them, believe them, because people know what they like. But if people try to tell you what to do to fix it, take that with an entire serving of salt because you are the author, not them

12. It is always morally correct to look at a critique that you received, even if you asked for opinions via beta reading, and decide that it's bullshit and doesn't apply to you

13. "write what you know" means "write what you're interested in"

14. "Show don't tell" applies to screenwriting, not novels. This is the thing that drives me the most insane every time I see it. Novels are words on a page, not images on a screen. They require a lot of telling. Not all telling, but a lot of telling. Become comfortable with that.

15. It is always, ALWAYS acceptable to use "said", do not listen to the lies of others

16. Have fun, do it out of love and you will never go astray

17. Become comfortable with who you are. Your work is always going to be yours and it is always going to sound like you wrote it, and this is a good thing! No one else is ever going to write exactly like you, and you should be proud of that

17.1: the concept of "originality" is vastly overrated, every culture has some version of Cinderella and we still love it. Your writing is yours because you wrote it, and it will always be unique because of that

[djobiny]

One thing that always deeply destroys me every time I think about it, is the interview with scream's original screenwriter Kevin Williamson where he talks about Billy and Stu's relationship and he says that he thinks Stu loved Billy but he doesn't know if Billy loved stu back.

Stu loved Billy so much he agreed to homicide, he loved him so much he killed their friends just because Billy told him to, he loved him so much he trusted Billy to stab him and he loved him enough to accept death if it meant he made Billy happy.

When Sidney takes Billy out stu is right there to finish off what Billy started and kill Sidney even though he's bleeding out and dying and Billy is already dead for all he knows.

Stu kills the least amount of people out of two of them, he might have never become a murderer but he did because Billy asked him to.

It's really like Randy says, they're a killer and his lap dog.

They're a morbid tragedy.

Billy wanted revenge but all Stu wanted was Billy.

[david-talks-sw]

I got a good feeling about "The Acolyte"

Not even kidding. Like, I've spoken before about why I'm wary of it.

George Lucas' Star Wars is something that intentionally has black and white morality, rather than shades of gray. Those movies are meant for kids and projecting a "gray" morality onto them then proclaiming it was George's vision all along is doing so in bad faith.

The narrative of the Prequels doesn't frame the Prequel Jedi in as negative a light as Leslye Headland, Dave Filoni, etc etc do.

See here for more details, but bottom line: yeah, a show that has a darksider as the underdog is bound to demonize the Jedi (who are the actual underdogs in the Prequels), and obviously that rubs me the wrong way.

BUT.

The trailer looks fucking cool. It really really does.

And more importantly? I've done some research... and Leslye Headland is ticking a lot of good boxes, in my book.

1. The Acolyte won't be a 10-hour movie.

I've criticized Disney Plus shows before, explaining that a big source for most of their issues is that these series are being structured as "long movies" rather than, y'know, actual shows.

But in this interview with Collider, Headland addresses that: it'll be a series. Not a long movie that you need to watch across four weeks.

Thank God. You have no idea how much that comforts me. Finally a showrunner who's, y'know, actually running a show.

And this goes hand in hand with what she told IGN, here, about how she's going about building suspense.

Yes! Exactly! That's how it's supposed to be!

Like, compare this to Baylan Skoll's storyline in Ahsoka.

In no possible way was that emotionally-fulfilling. For 8 episodes we had no idea what he was after, and the season ended where we still don't know. What does he want? What is he after? Your guess is as good as mine, it's something Mortis-related.

So yeah. Maybe getting the Emmy-nominated trained screenwriter on board to run this was a good idea.

2. Maybe the Jedi will not be as demonized as I originally thought.

Don't get me wrong. 80% of what she says about the Jedi makes me cringe. It's the typical fan's interpretation and y'all know I disagree with that interpretation.

It's painful to see her refer to the Jedi as an institution (not how the Prequels' narrative frames them) and to see her frame "Balance" in the "oh there's so many of them and just two Sith, that means the Force is out of balance" meaning... but at least she acknowledges the Jedi are a benevolent institution.

They're not an "elitist force hiding in their ivory tower" as others have described the Jedi.

Moreover, there'll be a variety of Jedi POVs, many personalities.

Yord Fandar, is described as a strictly by-the-book Jedi Knight and guardian from the Jedi Temple, is an overachiever and a rule follower.

The question now becomes: will the narrative frame him as "your typical Jedi" or is it just this one guy? I'm hoping it's the latter.

I also like how her reasoning goes re: Jedi drawing their lightsabers.

Which explains the hand-to-hand combat seen in the trailer.

This teenager is coming at Carrie-Ann Moss with a dagger, of course the Jedi won't draw her saber.

3. She's a fan of Star Wars... but a screenwriter first.

You can tell in the interviews she's a fan. She's using words like "BBY" and "EU" casually. In the above-linked interviews she's bringing up the Nightsisters, Timothy Zahn, The Clone Wars, she mentions she has a tattoo of Ralph McQuarrie's concept art of Leia, the High Republic books, etc.

She's done her homework. She's a fan.

But the vibe I'm getting from these interviews is that she's weaving in these various lore-elements in a more organic way, rather than in the "fan-servicey" way Dave Filoni has been doing in his shows.

The references and Easter Eggs will be there, but the narrative won't bend over itself just so you can get it. Crafting a good story comes first, and Andor is a beautiful illustration of why this is true.

Which is why I was never bothered about one of the writers never having watched Star Wars before getting the job. You need those fresh eyes when you're tackling something of this scale.

That makes sense to me. Maybe it's because of my own screenwriting experience, but yeah. That out-of-the box perspective is precious.

And like, obviously, that writer watched the films eventually, but for some reason everyone who bitched about Headland omitted that detail and opted for a more bad faith interpretation.

Hm. Wonder why.

Maybe it's the same reason that months ago this clipped audio circulated socials without context, in which she debates whether Star Wars only came from George Lucas and only Lucas is the key.

The FULL context of that interview reveals that she's actually:

debating the "autheur director" myth and positing that it was achieved by a collective of excellent filmmakers and craftspeople that George was skilled and smart enough to recruit...

the studios now think it's a simple as hiring one guy and throwing money at him, because they have no idea what the fuck they're talking about. See Napoleon (2023) for example.

Yes, she also does a jab to the Prequels, which speaks to the generation of fans she's a part of... but overall she's giving Lucas props whilst also stating an ideological difference, that's it!

George is a proponent of the "autheur" theory, Leslye isn't.

However, guess what, in like half the talks George gave post-selling Star Wars? He's giving shoutouts to everyone who helped make the first film, even remembering their names.

So I'm not even sure he'd vehemently disagree with Leslye, in fact they'd prolly have a conversation about it and immediately bitch about how stupid studio executives are :D

But that's not as incendiary, is it? Again, the more I do the research, the more it feels like the reason most of these influencers are hating on her is purely sexist.

I mean, on IGN she's even acknowledging that she does plan on taking stock of fan reactions for Season 2.

It's not a guarantee that she'll incorporate the feedback, but at least that's more consideration than, say, JJ Abrams or Rian Johnson gave the fandom.

She's even bringing the moral ambiguity that the Gray Jedi-loving edge-lords love so much.

"No, she's a woke feminist! Anything she does is evil! Eww, girls!"

🙄

Needless to say... I'm gonna give it a shot.

I think it's gonna be a good show, I think it's gonna be a solid story.

I'm crossing my fingers that they won't as biased against the Jedi as it seems they'll be. Even if they are... if it's still an enjoyable experience, I'll gloss over it.

As @gffa states in this post:

Worst case? It's not a story from George. I can dismiss it from my headcanon without a moment's hesitation :D

[the-cat-and-the-birdie]

Will never understand the use or appeal of character ai

like genuine question... can you not just imagine that?

like within your mind's eye?

In terms of aphantasia I can understand, but aphantasia effects external material too, like not being able to visualize fanfiction or ai writing either. As they completely lack a minds eye with any kind of literature.

So like, that aside - can you genuinely not imagine it yourself?

Is it that difficult? To just sit there and imagine it?

Why must you resort to a machine in order to do that?

They can say comforting words-

Okay, but can you imagine them saying comforting words without the assistance of an AI? Yes? So - What's the problem?

Why take advantage of systems you know infringe on and endanger many people and careers, when you can literally just sit there and do nothing and get the same experience

By imagining it.

Imagining things and daydreaming deliberately is not a bad thing or inferior to works feed to you. In fact, they can have even more of an impact as they are personalized to you.

If your imagination or creativity is not strong enough and you are aware of that - even more reason to actively try to strengthen it.

Imagination of nonexistent scenarios contribute directly to the ability of forethought and critical thinking. The more you go out of your way to imagine things, the more you'll see possibilities and solutions in real life you wouldn't have before.

The more you are able to visualize things without assistance, you become more able to practice compassion and empathy.

Because you don't need to be shown/live something directly to understand or put yourself in said situation.

Ones imagination is a very vital thing, not just to ones creativity - but to their wellbeing, critical thinking, and memory.

You are better off just imagining it, truly.

Instead of restoring to the convenient option of using technologies that you know can harm people IN THE NOW.

Like - yes, you wanna hear Hobie say 'I love you'. - Close your eyes and imagine it bro.

Free and you can do it anywhere. As far as we know we're the only mammals on Earth capable of this gift.

You don't need to use AI character voices that are actively putting voice actors out of their jobs.

You DON'T NEED character ai chat bots that write fanfic for you when writers are STILL STRIKING because large studios want to use the SAME technology you're using for the SAME purpose.

The more you interact with these bots and technology, the smarter and more advanced they become. They learn with every interaction. The more you use them, the more dangerous they become.

I work in the film industry. We're still lights out, and it's getting worse.

JUST IMAGINE IT.

This post may sound preachy, but just try it once. Turn off everything and go somewhere and find the perfect song and sit there and do nothing but imagine the character. Complete focus on your fantasy.

IT'S FUN

For the sake of screenwriters and fanfic writers and voice actors and fan artists and everything else

JUST IMAGINE IT.

[dduane]

Ok so

1. I’ve only ever read one book you wrote (So You Want To Be a Wizard) but it was very good and I love it. Big fan.

2. Both out of curiosity and on behalf of my sister, as a writer of Barbie Fairytopia, did you invent Bibble. Because my sister has Bibble as her Home Screen and my whole family had a conversation about Bibble yesterday.

Thank you. Ur books are cool.

Thank you! Glad you liked SYW... . 😊

Now, about Bibble (and a nod here to @the-best-of-the-geeks, who also inquired about this):

The answer is... maybe. At this end of time, it's hard to tell.

I took a few moments off from today's* graphic arts work to go digging in my archived project files. What I can see from a quick glance at them is that Bibble (or the character who'd eventually be Bibble: there were a lot of name changes throughout the writing process) doesn't appear in any of the drafts of the worldbuilding bible I wrote, or in other associated background material. If it had, that would've been—not absolute, but at least fairly strong circumstantial evidence—that I was the character's creator.

The problem is that when you're working on a big-IP project like this, there are so many people involved in the creative process that it can become really difficult to accurately trace any one character's or story element's "lineage". It's possible Bibble originated in a note to me from one of the creative team, which would have been one of hundreds of archived emails. Or it might have been something suggested to me in a phone conversation... of which there were many. Without sifting through all those emails (and please forgive me, that's not something I've got time for at the moment) it's tough to say.

What I am sure of is that Bibble definitely turned up on my watch. I have a premise file dated 30 December 2003 which does not contain the character, and then a second-draft premise dated 10 January 2004... in which, with a slightly different name, Bibble first appears. Bibble (as Bobble) is also in my first draft screenplay, which was turned in in early February 2004.

So that much, at least, we can be sure of. Bibble's personality and speech style is clearly spelled out in the script (as is the suggestion that Bibble be voiced by Frank Welker. It's a shame that didn't happen: I'm a huge fan of his).

But this still doesn't constitute proof that I invented the character. Bibble could very well have been suggested to me by someone else—and suggestions and notes are so free-flowing in a project like this that it's possible we'll just never know. (sigh) Such is life.

What I do want to emphasize here was how extremely pleasant this whole project was, from beginning to end. There are screenwriting projects that will make you shudder decades after the fact just on hearing their name. But there are others that unfailingly make you smile when someone mentions them... and this, for me, was one of those.

The giveaway of how much fun I was having lies in some stuff that happens in the script and would, to those unfamiliar with tropes in animation writing, look like nothing in particular. But a recurring joke among animation writers back then (and maybe still) was designating a character's speech as a walla. In this case, it means not just a description of some kind of crowd noise—the usual definition—but of that particular character making speechlike noises. It's the kind of thing you don't bother doing if you're not feeling playful. (Or at least I don't.)

...Anyway: hope this has helped, at least a little. :)

*This post was written at the very beginning of May 2023, around the time the WGA strike was starting. During the strike period I haven’t been comfortable with doing long posts about my screen work… but the strike’s over now. 😄 Thanks to @violet-yimlat and @the-best-of-the-geeks for being so patient.

[whoeveniswren]

my friend: hey, so how come Hannibal likes Clarice so much?

my other friend: i don't know probably because-

me:

*AHEM* You see, Hannibal respects Clarice because she is different from all of the money-hungry, insatiable male police officers who are after glory- Who get a rise out of saying they spoke to the great Hannibal Lecter while not being actually brave enough to converse with him authentically. They think of him as less than human, and only care about advancement. Because of this, Hannibal has come to know the FBI as a corrupt field full of corrupt officers, therefore he feels no need to give them any respect since they can't even look him in the eye. But then Clarice comes along. Instantly, she gives him respect, calling him "Doctor Lecter," being "courteous and receptive to courtesy". Hannibal is surprised she does not back down, especially since she is a woman in a very masculine career, something he already admires her for. He expects that, after he insults her, she will not come back, just like all the other cops. But she does come back, in the pouring rain, and suddenly his opinion of her soars. Nobody has ever exuded such passion for saving these victims like Clarice before. He offers her his towel, likely one of his only possessions, because he sees her goodness, her intelligence, her drive. He revels in her remarkable frankness and honesty, two things he values very highly. In the very last scene, in Memphis, is when he is truly moved by her person. In the Memphis scene, is when he truly becomes not only interested in her, but admires her deeply. Her emotional retelling of her childhood trauma about saving the lambs is what allows him to understand the goodness of her- She is truly a selfless, caring person in a world so cold and unforgiving. He changes him, and makes him believe in the goodness of humanity. THAT is what he respects about her the most, above her intelligence and respect: That she has a good heart. These lambs are the girls in a metaphorical sense, which is why he asks if saving Catherine will "make the lambs stop screaming." In the last scene, when he says goodbye to her, you can see tears welling up in his eyes. He cries because he sees her goodness, and knows therefore that she will never make it in the corrupt world of the FBI because of her refusal to stoop to unethical means in order to achieve power. This is proven true in the sequels, when Clarice’s career is tarnished because she rejects a sexual advancement made to her by her boss- Paul Krendler. Krendler makes sure after this she always gets the worst assignments and never advances because she refuses to sleep with him. He also believes Starling “robbed him” of the glory of catching Buffalo bill and is jealous that a woman, and a rookie at that, beat him to the punch. In that moment in Memphis, it’s as if Hannibal is able to see into the future, and predict her self-destruction at the hands of the FBI. He cries because he believes this is the last time he will ever see her again. He cries because he knows she is too good for the FBI, and for the patriarchal, corrupt system, yet he knows she will always blame herself for her imminent failure. (Clarice wanted to save Catherine Martin, but the FBI wanted to catch Buffalo Bill.) Her purity is a tragedy in a world so vile. For me, these two quotes from the screenwriter and director put all the underlying messages and dynamic rapport of TSOTL into an fascinating perspective:

“These are two extraordinarily gifted thinkers engaged in a tremendously important conversation. At last, a mind came into his field that was worthy of verbal and mental intercourse. I don’t know that sex has any place in any of this. I mean, yes he’s a man and yes she’s a woman; he’s very handsome and she’s very beautiful, but so what? These are minds at work here. There’s an eroticism in the thought process that transcends any kind of physical eroticism that might be between the two.” - Jonathan Demme (Director)

“The scenes between Lecter and Clarice are basically seduction scenes. They play, oddly enough, as if they were lovers. They only touch one time in the entire movie, in their last scene when he says goodbye to her- when as he hands her back her notes, he touches her finger. And it's almost a shock to the audience, when they touch. But these scenes, you would approach almost as if you were writing a sort of courtship between two lovers." - Ted Tally, Screenwriter.”

[prettysweetprettysweet]

man when X and his screenwriters secured Cherry Magic they really were like 'we are going to deliver in absolutely every way a delivery can be made,' huh? and Tay and New were clearly 100% on board with it, the 'petekao could never' comparisons are killing me bc Tay and New have definitely become tangibly more comfortable with portraying physical intimacy. they've always been able to nail emotional intimacy and especially chemistry in their rapport but I think this is the first time it feels less like two friends who are super in tune with each other and more like two romantic partners who are in tune with each other.

[thagomizersshow]

Content warning: blood, gore, sexual content, sexual assault, parasites and body horror

This is a heavily modified version of an essay I originally wrote for a literary theory class and then turned into a script for a video essay that I never finished. 

Enjoy :)

One of the things that really bothers me about the critical conversation around Alien (1979) is the long-running idea that the alien and its various forms are so enduringly horrifying because they break the sexual/gender binary.

The worst example I can find is this excerpt, from Alien Woman: The Making of Lt. Ripley, by Ximena Gallardo and C. & C. Jason Smith:

The Alien species disregards the sexual difference that is so essential to our definition of what it is to be human. The male body is repositioned to correspond to the female body: the male mouth becomes the vagina, the chest the womb. The dichotomy male/female is broken down, as all humanity is female (a womb) in the face of the alien.

I get that this was published in 2004, but Gender Trouble had already been around for over a decade, so that’s not much of an excuse for weird ass gender essentialism in academia.

Art by AlexanDraxleean ↑

The idea that the xenomorph and its various stages are scary because the gender binary is being broken down is comically disregarded by the simple fact that trans people (like myself) ALSO find the damn thing scary. We are living embodiments of a shattered binary, but we aren’t shitting ourselves over our own existence (usually). I contend that the alien is scary not because of a violation of gender or sexual norms, but because it utilizes a much more widespread and visceral kind of horror: that of the parasite.

Most other animalistic horror monsters rely on the fear of the predator: monster wanna eat you → you run away → get caught → get eated. This is an oversimplification, obviously, and if you want a really good exploration of how the fear of predators effects us, read Val Plumwood’s Eye of the Crocodile. For real, my fav ecophilosophy book.

No, instead of the more straightforward horror presented by the predator, the alien uses the inescapable, cloying, and violating horror of parasites and parasitoids. Where the predator hunts, kills and eats, the parasite clings, defiles and tortures. When the predator catches you, you’re dead. When the parasite catches you, you don’t know what is going to happen. Is it going to bury inside you? Is it going to feed on your body? Is it going to lay eggs in you? You literally don’t know, and that’s what makes them so scary. Hell, they could get inside you without you even knowing. It isn’t just the fear of death, it’s the paranoia of violation AND the fear of the unknown. This makes Alien akin to a Lovecraftian horror in many ways, but instead of the fear of race-mixing or disabled people, it is the fear that whatever you do, wherever you go, there are beings that can enter your body and use it against your will.

Hell, the whole premise of the movie, at least according to the screenwriter, came from the thought “what if ichneumon wasps laid eggs in us instead of in worms?” That basic idea is glossed over constantly in analysis of Alien in favour of more Freudian explanations that rely heavily on antiquated notions of gender essentialism. When early screening audiences were throwing up in their seats in 1979, were they thinking about how “this monster really transgresses gender norms :/” or were they thinking “fuck what if that thing was growing inside me?!?!”

The only time I agree with these old school interpretations is when they view Alien through the lens of sexual assault. The fear of sexual assault and the fear of parasites are fucked up sisters in a way. They are both fears of bodily violation that induce a strong paranoia, and their symbologies easily feed off one another. Sexual imagery (e.g. a penis shaped head with a mouth on the end) combined with parasitic imagery (e.g. a creature grabbing a hold of you and doing unknown things to your body) are both niggling at the part of your brain that is repulsed by internal invasion.

However, I’ve seen arguments that Alien specifically targets fears for cis men being sexually assaulted, and I think that’s a very limited approach to the movie. The idea of a creature latching onto you, ignoring your autonomy, and using you as an incubator is pretty universally scary if you ask me, and I think for most people, that idea connects to a primal and often unaddressed fear of parasites far more than sexual violation. Just look at videos of botfly maggot removals and tell me you don’t get the same yucky feeling as when you watch Alien.

Even for people like me who find these creatures fascinating, I still get that skin crawly feeling when I look at images of them for too long. And it isn’t just a short-lived disgust reaction happening, it’s also that feeling of paranoia that it could be happening to you right this minute. This is all a part of what is called the behavioural immune system, which is the brain’s first line of defense against infection and why most people are grossed out by signs of disease on the body (pus, rashes, body odours, etc.).

We really don’t like thinking about parasites, and it shows across our culture. Deadly predators of all kinds have been worshiped all over the world, but is there anyone in history who paid fealty to the tick? Who invoked the name of the roundworm for strength? Are there cartoons about anthropomorphic scabies and their kingdom of flesh? (If any of these exist and I just don’t know it, please tell me.)

I’m not saying that this is an innate feeling in all of us (the human experience is about as diverse as it gets, and I’m sure some people just don’t have this reaction and never have) but I do think it’s widespread enough and so infrequently felt that when this parasite repulsion is triggered it makes for a horror that is far harder to shake than any socialized fear of gender violation. Far more than any Freudian psychosexual imagery, the horror of the parasite is what I believe has made the xenomorph such an enduring cinematic monster.

I wanna leave this post off with one of my favourite quotes about parasites from Annie Dilliard’s book, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek:

It is the thorn in the flesh of the world, another sign, if any be needed, that the world is actual and fringed, pierced here and there, and through and through, with the toothed conditions of time and the mysterious, coiled spring of death.

[danceofthephilos]

Who founded S, and when?

In episode 4 of SK8's dub, Reki refers to Joe and Cherry as "founders" of S, and this has led to a pretty widespread conception in the English-speaking fandom that the two of them were... well, S's founders alongside Adam, that it started when the three of them were in school, that they're still involved in it on a managerial level, or even claims that they founded it first and Adam stole it after the fact.

But what is actually being said here?

It's the word "初期メンバー" that was translated as "founders" in the dub, and while it can mean "founding members", in a sense, there is no implication in the word 初期 of actively being involved in creating something, simply that they were the earliest members (it means "in the initial stage.")

Even more telling is Reki's use of みんな - he's talking about a larger group than two people here. He's not setting Joe and Cherry apart as "founders", he's counting everyone who skated at S at the beginning as "初期メンバー" and namedropping the two characters from that era whose names we know and who are going to be significant to the story. (This reference to "everyone" establishing that there's a larger group going unnamed is also cut from the dub; instead Reki says "Cherry, Joe... man, I bet they'd love to go off about that guy.")

Conversely, looking at how Adam is described...

...it's pretty straightforward.

He's also described in his profile on the official website (and consistently in other official sources that use these character profiles) as 創設者, which does mean founder, explicitly referring to "the person who first established something."

Cherry and Joe, meanwhile, are both referred to as Sの実力者のうちの1人, or "one of the big names at S." They're certainly both respected, influential people within the community - recognition they've earned, not something they're set apart for in any "official" capacity. They've never been described in an official source as 創設者, or in any other way that would indicate they were involved in S's creation rather than simply being two powerful people in the community as it exists now.

There are a few other details that tie into establishing this - mainly disproving the notion that Adam stole something already existing. In episode 5, as they're fleeing from the police, Tadashi says this...

...indicating that Crazy Rock was part of a regular police patrol route before Adam was able to use his money/influence to have it removed, something that Cherry and Joe (particularly years ago, when Cherry wouldn't have had the money he's earning now) would not have had the power to do.

And in episode 12, when discussing the change in course, Joe says this:

Literally saying "it became banned", this is wording on Joe's part that would make no sense for a decision he was involved in. He's describing this as something that happened totally separate from him. Early enough that the funeral course was still being used, Joe (and presumably also Cherry) were not making calls about the management of S like this.

There's also a relevant quote from SK8's screenwriter, Ichiro Okouchi:

When considering Adam as a character, I thought he would need someone beside him. If Kikuchi wasn't there, Adam would become a character who would do nothing but talk to himself, and it would be difficult for Adam to manage S alone.

(spoon.2Di, volume 72)

Part of Tadashi's entire conceptualization as a character was because without him, Adam would be running S alone. Early enough in the development in the series that Tadashi hadn't properly been created yet, S was imagined as something solely belonging to Adam.

Adam is S's founder; Joe and Cherry were simply in the initial group of members, along with other people who haven't yet been named.

Additionally, from only a few pieces of dialog it's possible to narrow down when Adam started S - and it wasn't during the DK era. When Joe interrupts Reki in episode 4, he says this:

Earlier in the same episode, Cherry says this:

And the two of them have this exchange at the beginning of episode 9:

Adam, Joe and Cherry are all 26 years old (25 going on 26, in Cherry's case; he hasn't actually had his birthday by the end of season 1, but this is normal for how ages are listed for anime characters.) Seven years ago would have been the end of their last year of high school (Adam, as the oldest of the three of them, would have turned 19 just over a month after graduating high school.)

When Adam skated with Joe and Cherry was seven years ago, before he left for America, and he hasn't accepted any of their challenges since he returned to Japan. In Joe's words, this time skating together was "way before S started."

So, all together:

For some time in high school, Adam, Joe and Cherry all skated together as a group (sometimes with some other friends/gang members.) Seven years before SK8 season 1 takes place, Adam was sent away to America by his father, ending his friendship with Joe and Cherry. Some time after that (presumably upon his father's death,) he returned to Japan and founded S with Tadashi to assist him in managing it, using his influence to remove the abandoned mine from regular police patrols to protect it, and Joe and Cherry were among a larger initial group of skaters who competed at the time. Since then, he's never agreed to a beef with Joe or Cherry despite them challenging him many times, so neither of them have skated with him since S started.

TL;DR - Adam is the person who started S and he and Tadashi were always conceptualized as the only people running it, and the idea that Adam, Joe and Cherry founded it as a trio comes from a mistranslation in the dub.

[very-straight-blog]

Perhaps it's time for Aegon's fans to wake up and realize that the whitewashing and victimization of Alicent also harm Aegon's character. On TG, people always talk about how Rhaenyra's whitewashing hurts Aegon, but why don't we talk about how Alicent's victimization does too? Many don't mention this because the change in Alicent's story to make her "sympathetic" was the reason many people started to like her. Several of the arguments people use to defend and victimize her couldn't be used if she were like in the book.

The writers should never have made Alicent the main focus of the Greens. All the time they spent changing her character's story could have been invested in Aegon's character. Aegon could have appeared as a baby and then as a child from the first episodes if they had respected the ages and the story. But the writers decided to make Alicent younger and develop her character by giving her a new story. They could have focused on Aegon's childhood from the beginning, showing more of him, along with Alicent starting her plan to put him on the throne. They could have shown him dealing with his mother's pressure, his feelings about not being his father's heir, his dynamics with Viserys and Criston, his siblings, and other characters. Showing more of his childhood/pre-adolescence would have been possible if they had respected the book's timeline. Even Helaena, Aemond, and Daeron could have appeared from the first episodes as babies and children, and they could have shown us a little more about them. The first season had few episodes and many time jumps, but if they had respected the book's timeline, we could have had more of the Green children.

The writers even focus on Alicent at moments that should be Aegon's. They gave her his line about "What kind of brother would steal his sister's birthright?" The rape scene then focuses on Alicent and how she feels sympathy for the girl and abhors her son for his actions. They don't show us Aegon's state of mind or how he deals with his bad actions; this focuses on Alicent, a victim sympathizing with another victim. Aegon became secondary in his own story because now Alicent is the main character of the Greens. Tom should have been on the cover of EW with Emma D'Arcy, not Olivia, because this is Rhaenyra vs. Aegon, but now everything is Rhaenyra vs. Alicent.

"Perhaps it's time for Aegon's fans to wake up and realize that the whitewashing and victimization of Alicent also harm Aegon's character." I don't really understand what kind of Aegon's fans you're talking about, because personally I never liked the way the writers changed the accents in the series compared to the books. I've repeatedly mentioned the problems related to the narrative that we have received due to the fact that Aegon was sidelined, because he's literally Rhaenyra's main rival and the second main character of this story. So I really don't understand why you wrote this thought to me.

"Many don't mention this because the change in Alicent's story to make her "sympathetic" was the reason many people started to like her." I've also repeatedly mentioned that I've always liked Alicent from the books more - a strong and ambitious woman, while Alicent on the screen is a weak victim of her surroundings and I find her pathetic.

As for the rest - well, yes, it's true, I agree with that. The screenwriters wrote an almost completely new story and as a result, Aegon turned out to be a minor character, even being literally a king. I really love Aegon from the books and I think that with proper adaptation, we could get a character that the audience would find much more fascinating than Rhaenyra. I'm very interested in how the screenwriters will develop the plot further, because after the death of "the black queen", Aegon becomes the main character - how are they going to present this to the audience? Although, I wouldn't be surprised if they rewrite the ending completely.