#The movie is so so flawed but the casting wasn't the issue.

[autisticagathasblog]

Even though I don't care about the movie since that shit gave me a headache. But the way the fandom treated sofia wylie was actually disgusting.

[amymbona]

I think that people who hate on the Challengers main three really forget that no human is perfect, that people are flawed and you can't expect everyone to always make the best decision.

As much as it may offend someone, you can't always be the good guy. People tend to overreact or act irrationally when something crashes with their plans or just causes some issues. I myself am very aware of this and know I am a bitch in certain situations, that I have hurt some people before or done something that may not have been the best decision at the moment. But things happen, have happened and as much as you regret something, you can't really change your decision.

Tashi, who's probably the most hated out of the three (which is really fucking odd, considering that she's literally the main character of the movie), has gone through something really fucking hard. She lost her whole goddamn career, the thing that was her fuel, the main purpose of her life, and she never even made the decision to end it. It simply ended mid way, before she could become the world champion and call herself the best. She was so young and healthy and successful and then lost it all because of one goddamn injury.

It's obvious that at first she blamed Patrick because of their argument before that match. She must have been so fucking stressed not to see her boyfriend at the match, knowing that he's gonna be gone for the next few months. At that moment, she needed to blame someone and Patrick was the right one. Though I agree it was unfair that she was that rude to him in 2019 too, but then again when I think about it, the interaction probably reminded her of the injury once again. But then, when she slept with him, in my eyes it was because he reminded her of the peak of tennis. Because he was better than Art. And the better the tennis is, the more Tashi is tempted to grasp it.

Patrick, poor guy, is seen as this sex obsessed bad boy who only find pleasure in fucking women. And while his movie personality is concerned about those things, he is much more. I believe he really genuinely loved both Tashi and Art and then when they left him found himself totally lost. They were his compass, his safe space, each of them offering something different but something he very much needed. He was hurt by them too, first Tashi after Atlanta 2011 when she just went on living with Art, and then when he hoped she'd fuck him in his car in 2019, but she only did it to save her marriage with Art. (That's also why I believed she truly loved Art. I think she wanted to sleep with Patrick at that time, but she could have done it without asking Patrick to lose.) And then by Art, in the sauna, telling him he doesn't matter. It's obvious that Patrick was seeking revenge against Art, hrnce performing the ball gesture during the final match.

In my opinion, Patrick is the most "innocent" one, having not sinned as much. But he's not flawless either. Using his tinder dates to find a place to sleep, flirting with women to earn what he needs. As I'm writing this, honestly, I can't think of many more bad things that he's done. And that only shows the dishonesty, how we were almost showed that he is the bad guy, only because two successful people have decided that they hate him. What happened wasn't really his fault, but the mutual hate he received from Art and Tashi convinced us as well that he deserved it.

Art is honestly a bit of bitch, too victimized and babied, but then again on the other side, he's the prime example of someone who stands up for himself and then gets hated for it. He got too fed up with his own best friend for constantly casting a shadow over him. Went so fucking far to spread rumors over Patrick, how he's a womanizer and all that stuff, just to eventually play the good guy with Tashi, take care of her and then marry his way into her life. (He went a bit overboard with that, but good fucking job, plotting such a thing.) Poor Art, people say, how Tashi responds that she knows to the fact that he loves her. But once I read somewhere that she responded this way because she was aware that Art can't really verbally display his feelings, and she just wanted to make sure that she knows he loves her. And that's what I believe.

It's obvious that Art fell into depression, the combination of his injury and non fulfilling tennis career. This probably caused him to be almdor indifferent, perhaps rude and bitchy too Tashi, getting fed up with the career he has built for her. Oh, he definitely loved tennis, I'm sure of it, but not as much as Tashi did. And because he loved her, he allowed her to mold him into her good tennis boy. But he was a human with free will too, and didn't really need to ask for Tashi's approval, despite her being his coach. Doing all that back arch, sad expression thing, he was just trying to manipulate her to feel bad for him, probably a form of self defense or response caused by his depression. Again, not a flawless human.

All three of them lost something. Tashi lost tennis, her biggest passion. Patrick lost Art and Tashi, the people be loved. Art lost all the enjoyment of life, becoming miserable. Many things have caused them to behave the way they behaved and showed us that nobody can be fucking perfect, that sometimes people just are bitchy and you really can't find them being all sunshine and rainbows. But we also know that all three of them are tender, capable of love and giggles, we know that they can be nice and kind and loving and that's okay too. People are colourful and full of emotions, each one of them different and made not to be perfect.

[synergysilhouette]

Another 10 Disney hot takes/probably unpopular opinions

Not a fan of Meg and Hercules as a couple. I ADORE them having an innocent male lead and a jaded female love interest, but Meg's situation with Hades makes it feel very toxic. The movie is kinda confusing on whether or not she can refuse Hades; one minute he uses incentive to get her to do what she wants (which is bad enough; her freedom for Hercules' death), and then when she tells him the deal's off, he reminds her that she has no say in the matter. Following this, she rejects his deal and he forces her into being exposed so Hercules will make a deal. She does sacrifice herself for him in the end, but it still feels very iffy for me, particularly since the backbone of her resisting him isn't even "I can't let this guy get killed" but instead "I don't wanna fall in love after getting my heart broken and having sold my soul" (which is EXTREMELY valid, but so is the other point). Had Meg been a normal human and made a deal with Hades to save Hercules or help him earlier on during his training, it'd be so much better.

2. Disney needs needs to stop making sequels just because of financial success and actually work to craft a narrative that requires a sequel or two. It's risky (considering the first film could have negative critical or commercial success, as well as take time and resources away from other films at the studio), but would have a better payoff, imo. I enjoyed "Frozen 2" despite it's flaws, but the fact that it felt independent of the first film did make it feel like we could've used an entirely different cast and made the same story.

3. I need more musicals with a male lead--The last one we had was "Tarzan"--or "Hercules," depending on your criteria. The revival era has had female leads for all their musicals, with a male playing as a co-lead or a deuteragonist. I know the girls are MUCH more valuable at Disney due to the Disney princess line and musicals with a male lead may be harder to market (well, not really; "Aladdin" and "The Lion King" were the highest-grossing animated films at one point, and their remakes grossed over $1 billion).

4. "Moana" needed a bigger (main) roster--Something I love is a nice-sized amount of main characters in a movie. "Moana" only had Moana and Maui for most of the movie, and thus it wasn't as enjoyable for me in that respect. "Moana 2" is introducing new characters, so I hope they can hold my interest.

5. Involve the Anderson-Lopez team in more musicals outside of the "Frozen" franchise--they almost got to do this with "Gigantic," but it fell through. Their music has been great, so I really hope to see them in more musicals for Disney outside of Disney's "Frozen."

6. NEVER return to hybrid animation for a feature film--It's too disorienting for me personally, and while the animation for "Wish" wasn't bad, it definitely didn't have the storybook vibe it was going for except with backgrounds. It would look fine if it was a video game, though.

7. "Gigantic" should've been Disney's anniversary film instead of "Wish"-- I already did a post on this, so I'll just leave it at that.

8. Raya is one of the best Disney leads in a while--Granted, her movie could've been much better and I wish the color of her clothes reflected her culture instead of going for neutral colors, but Raya is the blueprint for a great protagonist. It's been mentioned before how she's a feminist icon without having to really show it in ways others have in films, by being a confident warrior with no discussion of marriage or gender inequality brought up in the film. She's also deliciously sassy and quick on her feet. I may have preferred her OG concept of being stoic, but her swagger makes her one of the more engaging Disney leads, particularly as the adorkable trait started to show up. Speaking of...

9. Ariel and Mulan are the best adorkable leads for a Disney protagonist--While I don't have much issue with Anna and Mirabel and don't really find Rapunzel or Moana that adorkable, Ariel and Mulan were the blueprints for a funny female lead, and they felt less forced than later leads.

10. Aladdin is one of the worst Disney princes--DON'T KILL ME! He used to be my favorite Disney prince, until I watched a "therapists react" video to Disney couples and they brought up the fact that Aladdin had lied to Jasmine several times over the course of the movie. Him being insecure is a great character trait (a common one with Disney leads since the 90s, really), but it's poor writing to make his romance with Jasmine be based on a lie. I'd rather he just kept tight-lipped about his identity when Jasmine caught him the first time rather than covering up with another lie.

[fkevin073]

so i finally watched TBOSAS, and as someone who didn't read the TBOSAS book, i'm going all movie based here to ask you about that cabin scene-- do you think snow would have killed lucy gray there? i mean, he did started shooting later, but that was because she put the doubt of "nooo, oF cOuRsE i WoN't TeLL" and i feel like that's when his trust ON HER was broken?

idk where i'm going with this, i guess i just wanted to hear your opinion on it. i honestly think if movie!lucy had just kept quiet in the cabin, movie!snow wouldn't have done anything? (anything to harm her, that is. i definitely think he would go back to go to district 2)

ahh welcome to the TBOSAS brain rot! it's a fun place to be lol

but u see, what you just described is exactly my biggest issue with the movie. like don't get me wrong, everyone in the cast killed it, and I love the movie overall, but the book 100% helped you realize just how selfish, deranged and paranoid Coriolanus really is. like he's not totally evil, but you see his flaws very, very prominently, and know that even if he does love Lucy gray, he doesn't love her well or right. the movie doesn't give you that insight, which makes sense considering we don't have that endless access to his thoughts like we do in the book, but in the movie they do this weird thing of almost making him better? or making him seem more like a tragic villain? like the book makes it 100% clear he did not truly care about Sejanus. When he cries post the hanging in the book, he cries because he thinks he's next, not because he feels genuine remorse for what did to sejanus. The movie makes it seem like he was genuinely convinced sejanus would be fine and his dad would buy him out of trouble; the book makes it clear that isn't truly a priority for him.

this speaks mainly to your question: do you think snow would have killed Lucy gray? in the book, the answer is 100% yes. I've already spoken about this with the amazing @indistinctmumblings, but in the book we already know how suspicious and paranoid snow is. he was already ready to ditch her the instant he saw the guns. book Coriolanus is ready to turn on people the moment he realizes he can't control them, even if he loves them. the movie changes coriolanus in that way, and while I think it's effective in its own way - makes his fall seem a bit more tragic because we like Coriolanus more, it infuriates me because in the woods scene it almost makes Lucy gray seem more like the aggressor?

Like by the time Coriolanus finds the snake in the book, he's already turned on her. the movie makes it seem like her 'betrayal', which seems a bit more unjustified considering how remorseful he was about sejanus (saying I'm sorry, crying over pictures, etc), and which could (somewhat??) reasonably be interpreted as a murder attempt on her part (in the book it's specified post his return to district 12 by a doctor that the snake wasn't venomous at all) is what makes Coriolanus snap. and it grates at me, esp after the first time I watched it.

because in the movie I was also genuinely convinced that until she said "besides me?" Coriolanus hadn't really thought of her as a threat? like it's only when she says it that it occurs to him, but even then he doesn't seem to mistrust her. it's only post snakebite that he's like okay, that's it, we're done, you're done. And I think it kind of undermines the danger Lucy Gray was in, in a way. Like I firmly believe in both the book and the movie she was waiting in the bushes to see how he would react as a final kind of test, and he very obviously fails it on both accounts, but in the movie it's a bit more reasonable why he was upset?? to some degree, anyway. he's still an asshole, and Lucy gray is stilll the one in the right here.

I think the main difference between book Coriolanus and movie Coriolanus to me is this: if he DID shoot Lucy gray, and he found her lying on the forest floor and bleeding, I believe book Coriolanus would have gone for the kill shot, even if it was in a fit of rage. I don't believe movie Coriolanus had it in him. I think he would have helped her, or let her go. but that's just me!

I definitely agree with you though! I think the more I rewatch it the more okay I become with it, but when I first watched the movie I was hit by the changes in the cabin like a truck. thanks sm for the ask, and have a happy new year!

[kaitcake1289]

i love your MQ art so much and i love seeing it in the tags! how have you been liking S3 so far?

first of all thank you so much anon! secondly you did not ask me to rant about this season but its the perfect opportunity to so forgive me lol

so far this season has unfortunately felt really off for me (save for the first 2 eps + most of the christmas ep + sarian) and now this may just be me being overly critical since these characters are so near and dear to me but here are what i think are some of the main flaws with this season:

the constant metaverse and nft promotion. this one is the most evident and the main reason why the first half of this season feels like a miss for me. it becomes a problem when every single character is shown openly endorsing anything crypto related, even characters that would realistically never in a million years like nfts (rachel mythic quest im looking at you) and the one character who is at all negative about nfts gets sent down to the basement never to be seen again. they even state in show how nfts have done explicitly good things! (giving carol a promotion) now i understand that this may have some part to do with ubisoft's involvement in the show and how pro-nft they are but if they weren't gonna do a fair honest critique about the subject of nfts/the metaverse i'd rather them not do it at all!

scrapping the foundation made in season 2. now listen i really didn't like them basically throwing away rachel's writer arc, brad's reserved janitor act and hera entirely AND HEAR ME OUT it could've worked a lot better if they stretched out this development over the course of the season but it all just feels soooo rushed. like take hera for example, the decision for poppy to give it all up could've had a much better effect if the game was shown more to be a primary focus of the season (an issue that's the next point) to up the emotional attachment the audience can foster for the game, theres so much they could’ve shown of poppy genuinely pouring her heart out into the flawless system shes constructing all to the build up that thats all the game can really be, a system, missing that it factor. with brad he essentially reverts back to the HOMIE with extra steps in less than 3 episodes, which is a bummer since seeing brad coming into the season humbled, confined to a role with significantly less power could've built on that fear, that grasp for control and even his raw power, HOMIE or not. with rachel as well scrapping her writer arc felt forced especially after the heartfelt speech she gave to see her giving up essentially because she wasn't excelling right away

too much happening and yet not enough somehow???? episode 3 and 4 especially feel really short to me like they feel like filler which i would be okay with but as the season stood we had also so many arcs being set up, janitor brad, david being in charge, grimpop, and a whole movie but it felt like all of it was the B plot for me at least

I'm not saying the season doesn't have things it does right; jos character this season has been the funniest shes ever been + some bits were really funny + the christmas episode and sarian helped me like the season a lot more (mostly bc those eps were detached from the main plot and were about the characters) and the cast stay stunning but yea. im curious to know others thoughts on the season and whether you agree though!

tldr more like midthic quest am i right /hj

[gamergirljournalist]

Review: Five Nights at Freddy's (2023) - I actually enjoyed it

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Warning: this review contains spoilers for the 2023 Five Nights at Freddy's film

For those who have been living under a rock, Five Nights at Freddy's is a 2014 indie horror video game that went through development hell after a film adaptation was announced. After years of waiting, plus it being passed down from Warner Bros to Blumhouse, the movie is now showing in theatres and Peacock.

As of writing, the 2023 film adaptation of Five Nights At Freddy's has an average critic score of 26 percent on Rotten Tomatoes. Regardless of what those film snobs say, I actually enjoyed this horror flick. Sure it has its flaws, but for a film adaptation, I think it did a pretty good job.

Warning, I will be spoiling the film and the games, so if you want to watch it blind, steer clear for now.

The film has a proper plot

This movie has a plot, like a real working plot. And no, it's not convoluted compared to the mess that's the franchise's lore. It's about a night security guard who's at risk of losing his sister. To prove that he could still have custody of her, he took on the job as the night guard for an abandoned Pizzaria from the 80's. Little did he know that this was no ordinary night shift gig.

What Blumhouse and Scott Cawthon have done to present this game in movie form was great. It took parts of the first two games, as well as sprinkling in aspects from later titles and the books, to create a cohesive story. The best way to watch this movie is to view it as its own thing. Because if you're going to watch this and find ways to connect the movie to the game's story, many things really don't make sense.

The cast

Five Nights at Freddy's has a tremendous cast. While most of the people featured were smaller actors who appeared in one minor role in TV shows or unknown films, Matthew Lillard and Josh Hutcherson did a tremendous job performing the franchise's iconic characters, William Afton and Mike Schmidt.

Mike has a personality, rather than just a boring character we play as in the first game. Meanwhile, we see William as this cunning character, who managed to fool so many people, to the point he had a different alias.

The children also did an amazing job, even if we rarely see them. They act all scary and not so innocent. Even Mike's sister, Abby (played by Piper Rubio) was shrouded in mystery. She's no ordinary kid, even if she does look like it. Why is she not like the other kids? What's with the drawings? So many questions that my first theory was that she was psychic.

Speaking of theories... MATPAT WAS IN IT!!!! That guy lied to everyone on the internet, only for it to be revealed that he had a minor cameo and said the line. And it's not just him. A few YouTubers were featured and Markiplier could have been in it if it wasn't for scheduling issues.

If there was one character I didn't like, it was Vanessa. Played by Elizabeth Lail, her job was to warn Mike about the dangers of the Pizzaria but wouldn't explain why due to "reasons" explained in the film's climax. The moment that happened, I was like "Okay, that checks out." Blumhouse's decision to implement a character that was introduced in Security Breach was an odd choice. I can somewhat see why it was made, however, its execution made it feel corny at most. 

My thoughts on the film

In all honesty, Five Nights At Freddy's isn't like other great video game adaptations, like HBO's The Last of Us or Illuminations' The Super Mario Bros. However, it's pretty clear that so much love and attention was given to this project. And to be fair, that's to be expected since it's a Blumhouse production.

While it is branded as a horror movie, it felt like I was watching M3GAN all over again. Lots of comedy and the push of the importance of family. Some paranormal stuff here and there, easter eggs from the original games, while also coming up with something original. And I think that's the problem with this film.

Unlike Super Mario Bros, which barely had any lore, Five Nights At Freddy's has a story that spans many of its titles, including children's activity books. If viewed as a standalone story, it's fine. But let's be real, those who will be watching this movie on opening weekend are Five Nights At Freddy's fans. The film did reference stuff from the original story, but many changes were made which had many, including me, reacting with "that wasn't in the games at all." I watched this picture with my boyfriend and he was like "Can you explain x" and I had to tell him "Sorry dude, that's an original thing. Didn't see it in the games."

Regardless, I did enjoy the final product and how it gave some tribute to the content creators that boosted the franchise's popularity. It's still a good film, just expect some head scratches and camp. I bet Matpat is working on something to connect the movie to the overall lore.

[feathers-in-the-night]

I dont know if I've already talked about this but i remember when i was writing Broken Wings, I wanted it to be as dramatic as possible, I wanted them to be so at odds and for their situation to seem absolutely impossible, because in my mind, that would make their reunion so much sweeter, right? that would make them reuniting so much stronger, right? That would prove their soulmate status so much more, because they were able to overcome every obstacle.

Right?

And then at one point, a reviewer told me that they'd stopped rooting for the two of them to get back together, because I'd done too good of a job showcasing their incompatibility. And more people started expressing the same opinion.

I had made the ship unshippable.

That review really stuck with me. And it keeps haunting me as I write this new story. I regularly check back with it, making sure I'm not making the same mistake twice.

And then I reread Feathers and realized I actually hadn't made a very compelling case in that story either.

It made me realize that the foundation of their relationship was extremely flawed - the undeniable imbalance of power, given that Dick was her mentor and her leader. Essentially her boss. The fact that she started out not respecting him or his opinion at all, and he tries to force obedience from her, instead of earning respect.

The fact that Dick kissed her without her consent?

IM NOT SAYING that this wasn't the point at the time. Like I was definitely trying to write a messy couple. They were teenagers. They were stressed and trying to save the world from an alien invasion. They were all each other had for a while - Dick was there to help Morgan time and time again, and she was the only one that knew his secrets, who he could confide in, and who he didn't have to lie to at the time. She always found some way to lighten the mood for him, and he always supported her through every obstacle she faced.

They helped the other find something human in the alien invasion.

Like, it makes sense they fell for each other, right? They needed that, at the time. It was a messy but genuine road to a messy but genuine relationship - it was something necessary to survive the insane circumstances they were in, and the amount of pressure they were under.

But what happens when the alien invasion is over, and there's relative peace? When they aren't fighting for the fate of the world anymore, but are dealing with more mundane tasks, like school and work and small-scale missions?

When the closeness of the other person is no longer the only thing keeping them sane?

It was always inevitable, that they would break up. The very foundation of their relationship was built on something that wasn't meant to last. It was lifesupport - and at some point, lifesupport needs to be turned off, whether because the person is dead, or because they are recovered.

That's why Dick says "Thank you for being exactly what i needed." when she gets on that plane. What he needed.

So then, what is this sequel about?

It's about exploring the two of them trying to find each other in a new way. This is about the two of them going off on their own to fight find themselves, and when they're ready, to reunite. (Not that they know it yet).

This is me proving that they are compatible. They can be. Just not in the form that we left them in, in Feathers. And not in their Broken Wings versions.

This is about the two of them realizing that this is it for them. This is fate. They're fate. But not because of some cosmic power willing it, but because they decide it for themselves. They decide to cast away all the issues from their previous relationship, and rebuilt it on a much stronger foundation. Something healthy, something long-lasting.

I was 18-19 when I wrote Feathers. I had never been in a relationship. I was relying on tropes and dramatic moments, on the stuff I had seen in movies.

I'm 27 now. I'm married. I have a kid. I understand the everyday trappings of being in a relationship. The stuff that makes it work. How it actually feels be to heartbroken. To be in love. To long for someone out of reach. To find your home with a person. And as I write this story, I use the experience I now have. I'm still using the beloved tropes, I'm still using drama - they still fight, they still do wrong by each other, but they're getting better.

My mission statement is to write a story that makes people think "These two are soulmates" and not "These two aren't good for each other".

Because I want to leave them at a point where I can feel confident in saying they stay together.

[moonlitfirefly]

It seems that everything that could possibly be said about the Barbie movie has been said. I recently saw it and decided to share five things I learned from it.

1. It's not all about me

There were some men who were not happy because they felt that the Barbie movie cast a bad light upon them. I personally did not feel this way, but everyone has a right to feel what they feel. But here's the thing, in my view, the movie was about Barbie and by extension, the struggles and hardships around what it really means to be a woman outside the confusing, contradictory and unrealistic expectations of society, particularly male culture. To investigate this idea further one could read, The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir. But I learned it's not all about me... as a man. It's okay for there to be a Barbie movie, it's okay for women to give voice to their journey and struggle to fully be themselves. Though I didn't feel the film was man-hating, it's wasn't the job of the Barbie movie to coddle men and not offend them. If men are this upset by it, go make a Ken movie to tell the story of the difficulties of being a man.

2. It's all about me

I couldn't watch the Barbie movie as a casual observer. It forced me to own the ways I have been complicit in perpetuating harmful patriarchy. Doing so consciously or unconsciously, the harmful consequences are the same. My religious conditioning programmed me with an untrue, flawed, inadequate, and harmful view of women. I have documented this before. For example, here are at least several ways religion corrupted my view of women:

Women brought sin and death into the world

Women are to blame for the fall of the human race

Women are inferior to men physically, mentally and spiritually

Women were intended to be subservient to men

Women are not capable of exercising authority and leadership

A godly woman is a silent, submissive, and domestic woman

Women are responsible for the sexual temptations and transgressions of men

Women are weak, emotional, and irrational

Women are expected by God to stay in demeaning, damaging, destructive, or abusive relationships

Women should deny and repress themselves in order to serve and satisfy others

Women who act assertively and defiantly, enforce personal boundaries, or express anger are ungodly

The Barbie movie pressed upon my heart a deep sorrow for any belief, mindset, attitude or action that perpetuated a damaging view of women, or placed unfair limitations and expectations about them. The world (men and women) have suffered greatly as a result of preventing women from actualizing their fullest potentialities and possibilities.

I discovered in the movie that I was completely ignorant about Barbie the doll. The Barbie doll represented all the possibilities of what it could mean to be a woman. As early as 1965 there was an astronaut and space scientist Barbie. Barbie has been a teacher, veterinarian, member of the armed forces, business executive, doctor, police officer, computer engineer, architect, paleontologist, judge, etc. The Barbie doll line has evolved over the years to be culturally diverse, body image diverse, has included women with disabilities, and been inclusive all around.

It was men who sexualized and objectified Barbie. Yes, the original Barbie was petite, shapely, and had long legs. This was partly so the doll could be played with easily - for example, the long legs so that Barbie could be walked around in play. The Barbie creator (Ruth Handler) was not intending for Barbie to be sexualized. Look people (men) Barbie was a fickin doll. Women have breasts and may be shapely in other ways. So. Get over it. There's nothing wrong with that. That doesn't mean a shapely woman (or doll) was created to be a sex object. Religion has historically required women to cover up their body so as not to tempt mean. Maybe men instead should address the root issues that cause them to objectify women.

3. And then there was Allan

There has been a lot of discussion about who Allan was meant to represent in the Barbie movie. The Allan doll was named after the son-in-law of Mattel co-founder Ruth Handler. The first Allan doll was released in 1964. He was marketed as Ken's friend. In the Barbie movie, who Allan represented to me is someone who doesn't fit in... someone who is always on the outside looking in, someone who no one takes the time to really get to know, someone who doesn't feel they belong, someone for whom the labels and categories don't make sense, someone that is hardly noticed, someone who wants to be accepted, celebrated, desired and loved for who they are, someone who is likely to befriend the marginalized, victimized and oppressed because they can relate. The Allan character in the Barbie movie deeply touched my heart, and I could relate to this character in many ways. It's that feeling that you weren't really made for this world and there is no place where you truly seem to fit. I always have my radar up for Allans. I consider it to be one of the greatest gifts in life to express to a Allan how special, worthy, and loved they are.

4. It's not easy being Ken

In my view, the Barbie film also depicted how difficult it is to be a Ken. Some of the key questions for men I got from the movie are:

What does being a man mean, once the traditional patriarchal scripts are torn apart?

What would it mean as men to heal our broken mindsets, attitudes, beliefs and relationship with women?

What would it mean to not be threatened by women or competing against women, but to see women as our allies and cultivate mutually empowering relationships?

Where or what is our true source of worth and identity as men?

What would it mean to grieve and heal from the confusion, hurt, dysfunction and loss of how we once did manhood and masculinity?

5. Take my hands. Close your eyes. Now feel.

I don't think I can ever forget the ending of the Barbie movie. There Barbie was - wanting to give up all the scripts, and the pressures to be perfect, all the denials, pretense, inauthenticities, filters, and fake smiles of her made-up Barbie world. She asked Ruth what she needed to do to say goodbye to Barbie world and be human in the real world. She was told to close her eyes and feel... to feel it all... to feel what it really meant to be human.

The deal with being human is that there is 10,000 joys and 10,000 sorrows. You don't know what will kill you first, the beauty of the world or the sorrow of it. The sorrows don't prevent the joys, and the joys don't spare you of the sorrows. Look, it's not easy for anyone to leave Barbie world and be real. But after seeing and feeling all of it, Barbie said, "Yes." What is that "yes"? It's the "yes" of truly being present for it all. Being all there.

Maybe what I learned most from the Barbie movie is the need to say "yes" to being human and lived human experience... all of it. Maybe that means learning how to say "yes" to the joys and sorrows of your own life, and saying "yes" to the process of healing and becoming more whole inside. Maybe it's also men and women saying "yes" to each other - "yes" I am sorry if I hurt you, "yes" I want to start over and learn what it means to truly accept, love and be there for each other.

I love my daughter more than anything else in this world. I am so proud of the woman she has become and is becoming each day. There are so many good, beautiful, extraordinary and brilliant parts of her. The deepest wish in my heart is for her genuine happiness. The Barbie movie invited me to carry that wish in my heart for every woman.

"Yes."

Jim Palmer

Source: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/k8MJacHSEecSvShr/?mibextid=WC7FNe

[chappell-roans]

I tried to keep this short but no... sorry. I also know that it sounds like I hate the movie but I really did have a fun time. I have smaller problems with the story but this is the main one and idk if it's just that I dont get it and I also met not remember certain things because I only got the chance to see it once so far

my biggest issue, which was also the one I was thinking about while watching the movie, is that I don't really understand what barbie's character arc is? I mean, if the theme is why do I exist, what was I made for, what's my place in this world and what does it mean to be a person.. then that's pretty strongly shown through ken and not barbie. by the time the ending scene came along with barbie seeing the slide show of women with sad music on top I was kinda wondering what was going on? like oh she wants to be human now when did this happen?

I understand what they might have wanted it to be/portray I just thought it was all over the place. is it about overcoming your insecurities, or accepting your flaws, or appreciating the complexities of what it means to be a person or that you can be more than one thing?? (high school musical did it better). It's as if they had a bunch of thoughts about different themes and character arcs and then wrote meaningful moments for them and mushed them all together.

It never feels like barbie felt this overwhelming pressure to be perfect, felt not good enough or insecure about being stereotypical barbie. If they had a scene in barbieland where she wanted to do something outside of her stereotypical barbie role and couldn't, or showed that she felt a lot of pressure being ken's girlfriend, or that once she began to experience human emotion she felt incomplete going back to barbieland (where it would have fit in with being an allegory for growing up/stagnation/fear of change).

At first I thought, well that's okay because she's supposed to be one dimensional /a projection and only gain personhood when America's feeling spill over, but even in the real world there wasn't a lot of implication that she felt inadequate or insecure. It also doesn't work because ken still had hints at internal conflict and unhappiness in barbieland and then that developed when he went to the real world and spilled over to the other kens. all the other barbies should also be theoretically capable of having internal conflict or complex emotions while still being in barbieland.

I know they made a joke about casting Margot when barbie said I'm not pretty anymore. if that's her arc, her feeling pressure to be perfect because she's stereotypical barbie and she can't be anything else I just don't see the through line. it had nothing to do with Margot. Most of the conflict she's in is external. I understand that they wanted it to be rooted in internal conflict about self worth and identity but didnt take the steps to show where that came from.

It's sad because by the end her most consistent conflict was that she just.. didn't love her boyfriend. even then she doesn't treat ken any differently than any of the other barbies treat their ken's so it's not a failing on her part (not wanting/being something she should want/be). not gonna lie I felt really stupid in those last 10 min because it felt as if there was a good chunk of the movie that was just missing.

I feel bad about criticising it because I think everything about it is great but the plot... even then the main problem of the screenplay is that it's comprised of a lot of individually great moments that don't fit into a consistent narrative. from a comedic perspective it hits it out of the park, I have no notes. It's just ironic to me that all the moments surrounding the main theme of the main character seem to have been the weakest overall and the ken comes across as far more human by the end of it.

it's not just barbie though, I also think America and her daughter ended up being underutilised and mostly just existed as mouthpieces for the feminist speech at the end that snaps barbie out of her funk.

we know that America's depression? or mid life crisis? was the catalyst for barbie being influenced (I have more thoughts on that but it's just nit picky stuff) but did we ever find out what it was exactly, was her arc about reconnecting with her daughter (implied by barbies psychic visions??) because they don't seem to have any real or concrete conflict. was her internal conflict yeah its really hard to be a woman and life kinda sucks?

if barbie meeting real women was supposed to be a part of her journey into understanding the complexity of what is means to be human, I don't think they were that useful because they only really exist as a plot device for barbie to gain human feelings and then to expose the patriarchy which I also thought was a bit ham fisted and ironically the weakest part of the story even though I don't disagree with the sentiment.

Given that America's crisis was the catalyst for the events of the movie, her and barbie should have been going on a parallel journey or should have been foils. it would have ended with America's crisis resolving and barbie becoming perfect again but choosing to become human because even though it's messy, she would always exist within the limitations of being an idea. That's obviously what they wanted it to be and you can see hints of that I just don't think it was executed well.

I don't wanna be one of those people that holds women this movie to unnaturally high standards. I see very little legitimate criticism and some of it has been brushed off with the "holding women to extra high standards" but I don't think asking for a coherent character arc for your lead is too much to ask for.

sorry for the ramble lol but I was holding this in for a week

No, thank you for sharing! I actually think you hit the nail on the head with a lot of this and I agree with a lot of it. It did feel somewhat incomplete and I have seen quite a few people talking about how Ken felt like he had more of a character arc than Barbie and I hate that I kinda feel like that's true. I do hope it'll get better on a rewatch (reader: I really enjoyed this movie like I said last night I think I gave it a 4/5 despite that being kinda high given its intense flaws too, the thing is that it is uneven! Very high -- especially in comedy and some of the emotional moments -- and very low -- some of the other emotional moments and plotting and yes hamfistedness).

I think your point about a lot of Barbie's conflict being external rather than internal is accurate and probably not the intention of Greta but just what sort of happened. I think that she wanted to be human because she no longer fit into Barbieland once she started feeling emotions, she couldn't go back and couldn't pretend that the world was perfect when the human world was hurting, but full of beautiful emotions and real women and stuff. At least that was my interpretation. Very The Little Mermaid and all that.

I definitely agree that the Barbies should've been explored more... or the movie could've been a bit shorter. Tbh. Some scenes dragged on and others flew by. I think it was at its best when it was being camp and then the emotional moments and sort of glitches in reality would've been harder hitting maybe? IDK. I'm still sorting out my feelings.

For America, I think she and her daughter started getting along again and her daughter Saw The Light of Barbie and so that helped America heal her inner child. Or whatever. Idk yeah I think your point about having a lot of ideas but not quite plotting them together in a smooth or totally sensical way is accurate.

It's like very good but so close to being a better movie.

[covertblizzard]

just wait till i read all of blue devil and come up with coherent comparisons of sorts between jock verner and warner brothers because i refuse to believe there is no connection when jock verner’s campany is called verner brothers studio, he has a brother (called harvey verner), and jack warner exist.

[moononmyfloor]

Final Thoughts on Marvelous Women

Part 1 here

I give it 10/10! If I could I would give it 20/10! It wasn't the most perfect drama to ever exist by any means, it had multiple issues but! It made me VERY VERY happy! Constantly and consistently from beginning to the end, on multiple fronts.

Amazing casting and acting. All the characters are very human and down to earth. None of them were perfect and all of their flaws and plus sides were shown equally in every ep. Sometimes they are progressive, sometimes not, but the show never judges them too harsh and instead sheds a sympathetic and understanding light on them which added SO much gravitas and strength to their characters.

It showed that period dramas can have women that are more than the "weak, pitiful, purpose is to marry well and make babies" stereotype and the "21st Century feminist who doesn't give a damn" stereotype.

Marvelous Women ladies were none of those, and both of those and also more at the same time. Even the most minor character got their own storyline and it was integrated well to main plot, so it wasn't forced or distracting.

From the premise I mainly just expected a typical pretentious Yu Zheng drama about Suzhou weaving and a dash of GL, but it ended up being quite the thoughtful discussion about period typical sexism, patriarchy, misogyny, polygamy, sex work, what does it mean to be "virtuous" and where does the woman's choice lie among all that, and much more to various but quite satisfying degrees.

Let me talk a bit about that last point in detail.

Warning- Briefly touches on violence against women, sex work, the role of choice and my personal thoughts.

Baoqin was a daughter from a noble family whose father was convicted, and the entire family was put in jail. Her mom tries to strangle her, before she gets sold to a brothel and suffer further and possibly worse pain and humiliation. She talks mom out of it and convinces her that she will live no matter what, and wants to live. Mom cries for her daughter but in the end, she chooses suicide and our Baoqin walks to the brothel on her own two feet, head held high.

This is an incredibly sensitive topic that I don't really rem having seen in any other drama before, not in such a dignified and pointed manner, no matter it was a minor scene. In my recent memory I've only seen it in a book, Peony In Love (funnily enough was set in near same time period). The FL's mom suffers through all sorts of horrible things (yes, you know what I mean) during Manchu invasion along with many other women. Some women suicide. FL's mom grits her teeth and lives through it. I respect both kind of women, for their decisions in this world that was so cruel to them. They also used to be women of their time, with period-typical ideals but through their experiences they grow to question the norms around them. I find that incredibly powerful.

If given brothel-death choice I think I would choose death too, even though I'm usually all about suicide-prevention. Everyone has a limit of pain that they can take. They are not to be blamed if they give up upon seeing only darkness ahead with no ray of light. It's hard, but it must feel like a dead end with no other out. Both decisions must take incredible strength. This also reminds me of the ending of Bollywood movie Padmavat based on an Indian legend. Invaders attack the palace and all the palace ladies decide to collectively jump to fire. And the movie decided to follow through with the exact same ending, and many viewers were upset about this, saying that it's anti feminist etc etc. I wasn't that upset tho. Sure, it's a very sad and upsetting ending, but I understand the ladies' choice? Like would you want to sit in your rooms waiting for invaders....that thought is more horrifying to me. It's not like they would've done it if they were reassured help was coming. Of course I would've liked better if they included a scene about choice at the ending tho. Like, those who wanted to not-die were allowed to do that instead of following the leader to fire.

And Marvelous Women did it! It addressed the importance of CHOICE in this context, not just once but on three occasions through four women with four perspectives towards life! ALL the four different perspectives were valid. I was reduced to tears. So yeah, I haven't seen this done so well in a regular Chinese/Korean historical drama before, and standing ovation for Marvelous Women!

I think it just shows how rare this kind of storytelling and how much I've been craving for it, when I think back about my initial impression of this drama, how unsure I was about what to make of it. I couldn't even pinpoint that this was exactly what I wanted at the beginning! Because I haven't seen such a work in so long, I was unused to it.

And now, I think this drama spoiled me for period dramas. I have the sneaking feeling I'll be subconsciously judging and dropping 2x more dramas than I used to in future. 🤭

Thank you Dang jia zhu mu, for the amazing ride! What an underrated, unexpected gem!

.

My other posts

[eerna]

Can I add to these critiques of SaB if you don't mind? I'm annoyed that when the show first aired, I was so excited that I overlooked so many flaws with the Crows. The cast looked perfect and they were interacting on screen! What more could I have wanted?! Once I started to calm down though, I started noticing something just didn't feel right. I was keeping book characters and show characters seperate in my head without realizing, like they were from completely different stories. They got Helnik more or less correct, and that's because their story in the show so far is almost completely canon. Jesper was fine too, I want to see more of his need of approval from Kaz but that's fine. But Kanej... they're just not right. Not just as a ship, but as characters too. Kaz is a sarcastic asshole who keeps scheming and is almost always on top. Inej is supposed to be wise and like you said, she is supposed to use proverbs and stuff. I know books and shows are different mediums that should be handled differently, but I realize now that I think I would have much preferred if there wasn't any implication of a romance between them as of yet. Even just portraying them as close friends and partners in crime might have been enough.

I am still keeping the show characters and book characters seperate in my head though. For me they are not the same characters from the same story at all.

Sure, it seems like we're having a SaB salt party tonight! I always keep characters separate when it comes to their book/show/movie/comic/whatever versions, so I can totally relate to this. Last year I made a longish comparison of each of the Crows' adaptation VS book traits, and that list just keeps growing the more time passes, since I too keep seeing more and more flaws. There was NO reason for them to change Kanej as extremely as they have. Helnik was given an abridged version of thier backstory, which is annoying, but at least we can rewatch their scenes out of context and feel good about it. Jesper also made me sad, where is his crush on Kaz, why is he the group clown, what is happening. All of my issues with their portrayal were SO EASY TO AVOID and idk why they decided against it ://

[gavillain]

Out of genuine curiosity, why do you like Ratcliffe so much? I’m not judging or anything, opinions are opinions, but I don’t really understand why people like this villain.

See the thing about Ratcliffe is that I used to not like him at all. He was on the lesser end of Disney Villains for me growing up. So I totally get not seeing why people like him because it wasn't obvious to me either for a long time. But that ended up changing for me when I started revisiting him for YouTube videos and such. And Pocahontas is really not a very good movie at all, but he's at least a breath of fun in it that makes the movie watchable to me despite all the issues both in the script and the blatant historical revisionism.

Pocahontas II: Journey to a New World is really what made me like Ratcliffe. Because honestly that movie is pretty underrated and honestly is more solid than its predecessor. Ratcliffe was entertaining in the first movie, but he was misused and his connection to the plot was really flimsy and didn't give him much room to DO much. In Pocahontas II, he's just so in his element, able to scheme and do what he does best without the limitations of being a high society man in the wilderness, and it's glorious. And I feel like it really helped me to understand his character much more than the few lines of dialogue referencing his position at court back in England that were in the first movie.

Ratcliffe is often thought of as the de facto "greedy" Disney villain given his obsession with gold and his giant musical number that's literally called "Mine, Mine, Mine." And the thing is that he is a greedy bastard, but it's not quite as simple as it is at first glance. He's not just some gold obsessed guy who wants money because he just does like Prince John or Clayton. Ratcliffe is a politician climbing the ranks of the British aristocracy to secure power for himself. The others at court call him a lowborn social climber behind his back, and his position of power is in jeopardy. For Ratcliffe, he doesn't necessarily want the gold to be rich, he wants it because securing mountains of gold for England will allow him to ensure his place as one of the king's most trusted courtiers. He's in it for power and ambition rather than the material wealth, and that's an important distinction.

He's a man who has fought and connived to get the status that his birth denied him. He's in many respects a self-made man who has been pushed down by an oppressive social caste system that has always been stacked against him. In some respects, we can root for Ratcliffe because we know how hard he's worked to get the power he's after. Also, the fact that he wants to strut into court flouncing around in glittering gold to make his rivals squirm is such a deliciously petty touch that I have to respect him for.

There's also some other interesting levels to his ambition. He's a fat and ugly man who is queercoded to such a degree that I'd say he's obviously gay, helped along by the fact that he was voiced by late openly gay actor David Ogden Stiers. This is contrasted against John Smith: the handsome, strong, straight man's man who has the love and respect of all of the settlers pretty much automatically. Smith has every advantage in the word over Ratcliffe, and the things that Ratcliffe has to work extremely hard to earn, Smith gets automatically. His jealousy towards Smith is palpable and understandable, and the fact that Ratcliffe is really more of a by-product of the prejudices and flaws of English society is one of the smarter underlying elements to Ratcliffe.

The moment that stands out to me the most for Ratcliffe is in the second film. Ratcliffe sabotages the peace negotiations between Pocahontas and King James I by subtly manipulating the king into having the meeting take place at the Hunt Ball and arranging for the evening's entertainment to be a bear-bating. Pocahontas, naturally, stands up for the tortured bear and offends the king in the process, which is exactly what Ratcliffe knew would happen. He played on what he knew of Pocahontas to manipulate her into basically handing him the authority to launch an armada to wipe out her tribe. He's a devious and clever villain, and you really get the sense from these scenes that he knows how to work a room to his advantage. You totally get why a man like that was such an effective courtier. I also love how Pocahontas and Ratcliffe actually get to interact and trade verbal blows with one another in this film as opposed to the last.

I also just really like David Ogden Stiers. Great actor who puts a lot of charisma and fun into every character he voices.

[pedropascalunofficial]

Pedro Pascal and Lena Headey

Head to head interview

Hunger Magazine, Issue 6. Released December 28, 2014. Photoshoot October 15, 2013.

Thirteen million. That's the number of people, on average, who tuned into each episode of the third season of Game of Thrones. Among them was Chilean actor Pedro Pascal, who was as enthralled by the sex and slaughter as the rest of us. But little did he know that within a few months he'd be pitching up on the shores of Belfast to join the cast as Oberyn Martell, affectionately known as the Red Viper. Sound ominous? It is. The Red Viper is GoTs newest anti-hero, “sexy and charming but driven by hate”. Sounds like he'll be right at home.

Pedro, on the other hand, though he looks good on paper, wasn't the obvious choice for the role. Expecting a big name to ride into King’s Landing, the show's fans took to forums to express their concerns as soon as the news broke. So is he worried? Like hell he is. “The fans had the part cast in their minds already. They knew who they wanted and it certainly was not me. But I'm not stupid, | presumed that people were going to say ‘who the fuck is this guy’. Since I anticipated the reaction it didn't throw me off.”

“There are so many different ways to go into battle with yourself when you're trying to get a job. I felt a certain amount of pressure because I wanted to make everyone happy. The fan base is so specific and, as a fan myself, I understand the relationship that they have with the show. The Red Viper is the best part I've ever played, and in season four shocks come at the most unexpected times. You might think you know, but you have no idea,” he explains.

Looks like the Red Viper could be in line to fill a Walter-White-sized-hole in television, but to test the theory we pit Pascal against Lena Headey, aka the Queen. Because if you can come away from Cersei unscathed, you can handle anything.

LH: So, Pedro, you come into Game of Thrones in season four, playing a pretty major character. Does that fill you with joy or dread?

PP: I'd say it fills me with joy because it’s a really fucking fun part. He’s a badass. He comes up against a lot of the main characters in the show. I'm very aware of the show. I watch it like a fan.

LH: Were you a fan before you arrived in Belfast?

PP: Yeah, I was a proper fan. I was caught up in the drama of it before I even auditioned for the part. I was already up to speed.

LH: I remember meeting you and thinking, “he fucking loves the show’.

PP: I kissed your ass.

LH: Well, it worked. We're friends now.

PP: I was like a tourist visiting the set, and yet I had to act with you and be in a scene with the characters that I had such a specific association with already.

LH: So you’re saying it’s boring?

PP: No, it wasn’t boring at all. It was extremely, relentlessly surreal.

LH: And who were your favourite characters up until that point?

PP: Not you.

LH: I realise that!

PP: There are too many characters to have a favourite, but I was fascinated by the Lannisters because they're so frightening. They scared me and then you would come in and pull sympathy from your audience somehow, and I found that rather fascinating. The Northerners were so easy to like or get behind, but it was quite something to see people sympathise with a Lannister, after you made people see things from their perspective.

LH: Speaking of being slightly ambiguous as a character, you come in as a major player and a very well-loved character in the eyes of people who read the books, and he’s somewhat of an anti-hero. Did you base him on anyone?

PP: What does an anti-hero mean exactly?

LH: It means he doesn't wear deodorant, doesn't it? [Laughs]. Someone you shouldn't champion, but you do, like Walter White in Breaking Bad.

PP: No, | didn’t really base him on anyone.

LH: Did you take anything from classic movies that you thought you could use and spin to your advantage playing the Red Viper?

PP: God, that’s a good question. I probably did subconsciously. Now I feel under the spotlight because I need to think of somebody, and I have so many in my mind! I think that’s something that is happening a lot in TV today: the anti-heroes are central to these television shows, and people are really getting behind them, even though they're not necessarily the most moral characters. So I'd say that ‘ve become more familiar with the character who's obviously very flawed but gets you on their side — you have complicated feelings about them. But I think I saw the story too much from this character's perspective to perceive any flaws.

LH: He has some.

PP: I know, from the outside. But I don't see any of them. What are his flaws?

LH: His flaws? He's a dirty bastard!

PP: Why is he a dirty bastard? He likes to fucking fight, for sure.

LH: Back to you as an actor. You've done it for a long time and, as we all know, the path is not always golden, and sometimes you think, “fuck it” and you want to leave it and do something else. Have there been moments where you wanted to give up?

PP: Yes, there have been moments where I came very close to giving up. But I never had anything to fall back on. I think you can understand that.

LH: Because were stupid?

PP: We're stupid.

LH: I can't even make pizza!

PP: We don’t have any other skills.

LH: None at all!

PP: And that’s the odd conundrum. You get to a point where you think, “This isn’t going to happen. This isn’t sustainable. I'm too exhausted, and it can't be good for me.” There were moments where I truly did try to formulate an idea of what I'd do. I thought I'd go back to school, start pre-med again and go to medical school or something like that.

LH: But that didn't happen, you just thought about it?

PP: Yes, I'd have thoughts, but it was still fantasy really. But at the time it felt like a practical life plan. Do you know what I mean?

LH: Yeah of course, you need to pay the fucking rent.

PP: Exactly. You just try to escape from the chaos of what you're feeling by trying to create order in your life. Order seems like a solution to save you from the pain of acting!

LH: It's a mental pain. Who was the first person you called when you got the role?

PP: My sister.

LH: Does she watch the show?

PP: Yes, she does.

LH: Pedro Pascal... or Pablo as I called you when I had too much wine, which was deeply insulting.

PP: Even family members have done that to me! Do I look more like a Pablo? Because it happens with about ninety-five percent of the people I meet.

LH: No, I think I’m just an ignorant drunk person.

PP: No, you were an ignorant drunk person that night is what you're saying.

LH: And now I’m educated.

PP: [Whispers] But | want you to call me Pablo.

LH: Ok, Pablo! When you first arrived on set in Northern Ireland, what was your feeling showing up to a bunch of British actors? Did it feel different to doing an American project?

PP: Yes, but I loved it. It wasn’t intimidating. I found it surreal because I’d watched and loved the show. I hadn't had the opportunity to work on something that I was really familiar with before, so it was overwhelming. But it was far more delightful than intimidating. Also you guys were really cool. Everyone was friendly.

LH: Oh, that’s just fake.

PP: Well, you guys were good at it!

LH: We know Game of Thrones is very popular obviously. Do you have any thoughts, or fears, about what this is going to bring you in terms of exposure?

PP: I have hope.

LH: Oh, God. I don’t mean to shatter that, but give it up.

PP: I don’t know really. It’s all been filmed, and now I'm back to my normal routine, so I haven't really thought about it. I remember when we finished filming and we were on our way to the airport, you asked me, “How does it feel you're all done?” and I couldn't really answer.

LH: You were quite emotional that day.

PP: I was very emotional because I’d had such an amazing time doing the part. Also just being there immersed in the experience... You described it to me best. You told me how I'd be feeling.

LH: We don't know your character's backstory when you enter the show, and you have some rather brutal scenes. Anyone who has read the books will know what I’m talking about.

PP: My character comes in, he stirs a bunch of shit up, and then he makes this fucking enormous exit. Now can | ask you a question?

LH: What is it? I’m not going to sleep with you. Give it up.

PP: Oh, come on! This has gone to shit and it’s your fault, so good luck to whoever has to edit it! But anyway, sometimes I'd hang out with the cast members and we'd go to dinner and they would get stopped constantly. There was no denying who they played because they were so recognisable, but you got away with it because you have this beautiful blonde wig on in the show, and in real life you are...

LH: Grey?

PP: {Laughs] No! You have beautiful chestnut hair! Is it liberating to not be recognised the way some of the other cast members are?

LH: Yes, it is liberating.

PP: Liberating being able to walk down an alley in Dubrovnik without being stopped?

LH: Yes, except sometimes | get recognised in the weirdest places. A woman was emptying my bag at Heathrow Airport's security gates and just went, “Are you the Queen?” while rummaging through my underwear. It was so fucking weird.

PP: It seems they're more respectful to you?

LH: Because they're frightened. Wait until they meet the Viper.

PP: Well, that covers it.

LH: I think we're going to get our own show out of this, you know

Interested in learning more about Pedro? Check out Pedro Pascal Unofficial on Pinterest!

[plasticnightmaredoll]

How about that WandaVision finale?

I have been MCU trash pretty much since 2008's "Iron Man," and it's currently a great time to be MCU trash. "WandaVision" is one of the few series that not only kept me coming back week after week, but actually amounted to much more than just a gimmicky twist (I'm looking at you, "Behind Her Eyes." Seriously, that show is soap opera drivel with a shocking double twist as its only captivating trait...and the double twist wasn't handled very well anyway)

In the end "WandaVision" was about overcoming grief and accepting reality.

Spoilers ahead!

The "WandaVision" finale was quite good overall, but there were a few disappointments. I'll address the latter first:

We never found out who was in witness protection. At the beginning of the series, Jimmy Woo stated there was someone trapped in West View who was in the witness protection program, and it seemed like it would be a key subplot but ultimately, it didn't lead anywhere. Perhaps it wasn't meant to be seen as anything more than some...random bit of information, but it is odd that they put such a specific detail into the story in the first place if it wasn't going to lead anywhere. Then again, supposedly we may get more questions answered in "Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness," so this subplot may not have been wasted after all.

There were so many theories floating around hinting at who the true villain was behind the scenes, including Mephisto, Nightmare, Grim Reaper, and Chthon. All seemed like valid enemy choices, especially Mephisto as many clues appeared to lead to him, and Grim Reaper due to his helmet making an appearance in the opening credits of episode two. However, there wasn't a big baddie hiding in the shadows, and Agatha Harkness and Tyler Hayward were the only villains. Then again, that doesn't mean there isn't an ultimate villain lurking out there who could appear in "Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness," but it kind of sucks we have to wait until 2022 to find out.

I wanted White Vision to go to Wanda and get together with her since Hex Vision restored his memories. But White Vision just flew off and wasn't seen again for the rest of the episode. I guess he needed time to process all the memories that had just flooded his high advanced robot mind, which is understandable because it was a lot to take in. I would have liked to see him make another appearance in the episode, though, even if it was at the very end with Wanda in her secluded cabin. I just want them to be happy together, ok?

Evan Peters wasn't actually Quicksilver/Peter Maximoff from the "X-Men" movies but someone named Ralph Bohner. This must be the Ralph Agatha referred to numerous times throughout the series but was never shown (not until the later episodes, that is). It does seem a bit weird -- off-putting, really -- that Evan wasn't Quicksilver from an alternate timeline. It would have made sense, and would have been a nice sampling of the "Multiverse of Madness," but in the end, he was just...Ralph. I honestly, don't get it, though: Why choose Evan Peters for such a random role when he was Quicksilver in the "X-Men" movies, and we are getting into the Multiverse part of the MCU storyline? Also, what happened to him in the end? After Monica freed him from Agatha's magic, we never saw him again. So....? What gives?

Although this is more of a personal gripe than anything, I was seriously hoping Doctor Strange would appear in the finale, even if it was in a post-credits scene. It would have been an excellent lead in for "Multiverse of Madness," and I just really love Benedict Cumberbatch's portrayal of the character. But again, this isn't really a flaw with the "WandaVision" series and is more of a pet peeve.

Also another peeve: What happened to Señor Scratchy?

I can't even say that there was a lot to be disappointed in with the finale, though. The lack of an "ultimate big bad meanie" isn't so bad. The series was more focused on Wanda running from her grief, having it smother her, and then earning her acceptance. Agatha and Hayward were sufficient as "true villains" of the series.

The only big issues are Evan Peters being a random dude named Ralph, and the weird subplot of a missing witness that ended up leading nowhere (for now?)

There was plenty of good in the "WandaVision" finale!

Wanda finally donning a scarlet outfit and crow reminiscent of what she wears in the comics was totally bad ass. It looked fantastic, and it shows she's now understanding herself and her powers much more. She isn't naïve about any of it, and is ready to learn how to control and enhance her abilities. Initially, she didn't want to be seen as a witch but ultimately, it is her destiny, and she chose to accept it without fear.

The second and final post-credits scene with Wanda making tea in her secret cabin in the mountains was interesting to say the least. Physical(?) Wanda was doing daily task while her astral projection -- which featured her in her costume -- was studying the book of dark spells (or "Book of the Damned," as Agatha called it). This is a funny nod to 2016's "Doctor Strange" considering Doctor Strange's physical form would sleep while his astral form would study magic. The difference, though, is Wanda is reading from the Book of the Damned, which can't be a good thing. Also, it almost indicates she has two personalities: Wanda Maximoff and Scarlet Witch, and I like that idea. She may have to wrestle with herself internally in the near future.

I was so glad that White Vision was able to regain his memories of his past -- and true? -- self thanks to Hex Vision. I hope White Vision will go to Wanda and reunite with her, but I'm not sure when that will happen. Paul Bettany isn't listed in the cast for "Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness" so...I'm really confused. White Vision still exists and is somewhere but...where? When? How? The cast list for "Multiverse of Madness" is very short, though, and Paul's upcoming films and series list ends in 2020 so...maybe it's meant to be a secret? The movie isn't due out until next year so it COULD be the case. Otherwise, it seems like a huge oversight on the MCU's part to just forget about White Vision. It would be a pleasant surprise if he shows up in "Multiverse of Madness" to help Wanda from doing bad things, losing control, or whatever?

Scarlet Witch is supposedly stronger than the Sorcerer Supreme, which is kind of awesome but kind of troubling because Doctor Strange may not have the best time in "Multiverse of Madness" is he is to confront her. This is why I hold on to the theory that White Vision may appear in the movie to aid Doctor Strange by calming Wanda down. Either way, knowing she is so powerful and at the same time, a very emotional person, hints at an epic fight in the near future.

I really liked how Wanda tricked Agatha into stealing her chaos magic. I was wondering why Wanda was missing with some of her chaos magic spheres, but assumed she was just growing tired and weak and was losing focus. Then it's revealed that she wasn't missing her shots -- she was placing large runes on the Hex's walls to prevent Agatha from using her magic. Then this allowed Wanda to take back her powers and steal some of Agatha's, which, in turn, made her accept her role as the Scarlet Witch. Agatha is punished by being trapped as nosy neighbor Agnes in West View, but I don't think it's the last we'll see of her.

I'm glad Wanda was able to finally accept Vision's death as that was what had caused all this mess in the first place. Despite what she did, she was a sympathetic "villain," if you can even consider her one. She was overwhelmed by grief and found a way to cope...she just happened to drag a small town into her world. Oops.

Monica's powers continuing to evolve was amazing, like how she managed to stop the bullets Hayward attempted to fire at Billy and Tommy. I really like Monica's character and the actress, Teyonah Parris, is very talented, so I'm excited to see more of her in Phase Four.

While it was expected, it was ultimately the right decision to let the people of West View go free. Even if they still resent Wanda for trapping them previously, they are given the chance to return to their normal lives without any harm done to them (well, maybe some mental and emotional trauma but, hey, who doesn't deal with these things in life, right?)

Some things I want to make note of:

Paul Bettany is a fucking troll and I love it! He had hinted at a surprise cameo later in the "WandaVision" series, which would involve working with an actor he's always wanted to work with. This caused a lot of speculation as to who it would be, although, Benedict Cumberbatch was the top choice since Doctor Strange and Vision never had screen time together, and Benedict is a great actor (then again, so is Paul, although, he's underrated, I think). Then there were rumors of Al Pacino being the surprise cameo since he was a major influence on Paul, and there were theories Al would show up as a secret villain like Nightmare. Turns out the secret surprise cameo was Paul Bettany himself since he played both Hex Vision and White Vision, and the two did fight for a bit before having a philosophical chat which led to White Vision regaining his memories. So, yeah, Paul Bettany is Troll of the Year. I guess I was initially disappointed that the big reveal wasn't really a big reveal, but I quickly realized how hilarious it was that Paul played us all so well. He's probably laughing his ass off right now at everyone's "WTFFF?" reactions.

I know Elizabeth Olsen was criticized for her poor Russian accent, but I think she's a very good actress and love her portrayal of Wanda. I mean, accents can be a bitch to master, I get it, and sometimes, I think if the performance is still impressive, we can learn to be unbothered if the accent is off.

I noticed that Chiwetel Ejiofor is returning as Karl Mordo in "Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness," so perhaps he will be the main villain or a secondary villain? He has to be a villain since he is hunting down sorcerers to take their powers. Maybe he wants to take Wanda's powers, too? I mean, she's a sorcerer of sorts, so...maybe that is going to be a plot point? Although, Mordo is probably way out of his depth against her but we shall see.

I kind of still want Mephisto or Nightmare to appear in Phase Four since they have been hyped so much due to clues in "WandaVision." I don't think Wanda will be the big baddie for Phase Four, I just don't see it. Also, I don't see Mordo as being the big baddie, either. Both are very single-minded in their goals, and yeah, Thanos was, too, but he dragged the entire universe into his insane and devastating goal. I don't think Wanda or Mordo have such grand and deadly intentions. Wanda just wants her kids back and Mordo wants to get rid of sorcerers as...revenge against the Ancient One's "betrayal?" I don't know...but I don't think he wants to take over the universe. I never read the comics, though, so I could be wrong.

In the second post-credits scene of the "WandaVision" finale," we see Wanda's astral self studying dark magic from the Book of the Damned, and Billy and Tommy suddenly call out to her. I am guessing she could have been studying spells to see if there was anything that could bring them back since, unlike Vision, they were a creation unique to her from the start. Vision was initially a new, more powerful, more durable body for Ultron, then he was given Jarvis' AI and became, uh, the Vision, so, he never "belonged" to her. Getting her kids back, however, may prove to be a problem for the universe because it could lead to multiverse madness. I'm so funny, I know.

As disappointing as it was for Evan Peters to presumably be some dude named Ralph Bohner and not the "X-Men" movieverse Quicksilver/Peter Maximoff, maybe it makes sense when you really think about it. Marvel owns the rights to the X-Men now because Disney owns Marvel and Disney purchased the rights through their merger with 21st Century Fox. Marvel plans to reboot the X-Men with "The Mutants" movie sometime soon, and that means characters will be recast. They kind of have to because the current cast's movie series has hit a dead end with "Apocalypse" and "Dark Phoenix" proving to be underwhelming. I do wonder how Marvel will breathe fresh life into the X-Men in the movieverse because I feel like there is X-Men fatigue right now? Or maybe it's just me. I've grown disappointed with the franchise and am sort of annoyed at a reboot because it may be too soon. But, hey, hopefully I'm proven wrong!

Marvel also has rights to the Fantastic Four, which means we may actually finally get a good Fantastic Four movie! Three attempts have been made so far (yes, three), and they all failed to impress with the last attempt being an embarrassment. I mean, it was a disaster as nearly everyone hated how boring and bland and choppy it was, and that is reflected in its pitiful earnings. On a budge of $120-155 million, the 2015 "Fantastic Four" movie only grossed $167.9 million globally. OOOOOOOOFFFFFFFFFF.

Phew, that was a huge post, but got all my thoughts out. Considering how shitty things have been since the abomination of 2020 was born, and with little hope for things to improve anytime soon (I have my own problems as well, which aren't going away anytime soon, either, hahaha T__T), it's refreshing to have some stuff to be happy about. Some people hate the MCU, some people have lost interest, and some people may just be indifferent, but I'm definitely and MCU fan and it makes me feel excited and giddy, two things I don't experience often anymore :\

Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments or in a reblog, but no hate and no "cancel culture" talk. I want to keep this post positive.

[i-finally-watched-it]

Ghosts of War (2020)

dir. Eric Bress

Five American soldiers assigned to hold a French Chateau near the end of World War II. This unexpected respite quickly descends into madness when they encounter a supernatural enemy more terrifying than anything seen on the battlefield. (via IMDb)

This technically doesn't meet the requirements of the blog as the only reason I hadn't watched Ghosts of War until last night is because I didn't have access to it, not because I forgot about it or put off watching it. But, whatever. I wanted to record my thoughts!

Highlight/s: Surprisingly philosophical; not a glorification of war & violence, and in fact shows the soldiers as flawed humans rather than the glorified infallible superheroes which, in my experience, is all too common when it comes to the American military in cinema; the movie is basically a metaphor for how difficult, painful & scary it is to process, work through & overcome trauma, and how easy it is to get stuck in a cycle of self-destruction, of two steps forward & three steps back with seemingly no way out, if there aren't sufficient & appropriate support systems - this situation can be fatal. In my opinion, this profound inner struggle in the context of war and the people involved and affected by it (both military and civilian) is something we still don't acknowledge, explore, talk about or support enough as a society; great cast, sets, costumes, visual effects, and cinematography; twisty like a pretzel!

Lowlight/s: Hmm.. I would say the gore but that's more of a personal dislike of seeing people's insides on the outside 😅. It's an expected part of the genre so I guess it's not a huge issue.

Will I watch it again? Yes! Ngl I only watched the movie for Kyle Gallner initially lmao bc I wasn't expecting it to be much more than some B-movie horror crap, but I was pleasantly surprised.

Rating: 👍🏻