#also Nemo is an infinitely interesting characters

[nilboxes]

When looking at Aventurine and him wanting some kind of freedom, do you think he's like a caged bird that when the cage is open he's to scared to leave the cage? Alternatively, if he does leave the cage he's overwhelmed by the infinite possibilities that he doesn't know what to do with all that freedom to the point where freedom becomes a cage.

Ahh I have so many thoughts about Aventurine and his perception of freedom, which I find to be cute because I always thought he's a lot more free than he thinks, that he is capable of thinking, as he's so mired in his own absurdism and nihilism that he cannot really appreciate what he has, and that is, I guess, a conflict and tragedy of his character necessary for the narrative to play with and for us to have an entire 3D character to come witness, I don't hold it against him.

Aventurine would be the bird who doesn't know what to do when he has his freedom because he has nothing to "fly to" and to "fly for" but it is necessary for the bird in the "cage" to want in order to have something to "live for" (ie, a purpose)

But see, Aventurine is not special. He is not the only one who is in a cage or not free. No one in the world or universe is free at all. We are all on predetermined paths because of causality. One thing leading to another. For example you had eggs for breakfast because that's all there is in your fridge because that is all you can afford because raising chickens is cheap and eggs are more nutritional than eating pop tarts etc etc.

Another measure of freedom is whether or not one is bound by economic constraints or obliged to fulfill responsibilities... There really is no true "freedom" out there, so to speak, because defining freedom in the first place is a bit tricky too. What is free? I am free to leave this post here right now to demonstrate my free will, is that all it takes?

Sorry if that gives you some despair but hear me out.

I would argue Aventurine is not exactly even in a cage at all. I would rather make the analogy that he has a "leash" on him (I know this is terrible to say about a former slave but hear me out) because the leash is very very long and is only rarely tugged, and a leash can be tugged on both sides.

Aventurine for one is really, really rich. Like he can buy something for trillions of credits rich without batting an eye. That an insane amount of money. He can presumably, go wherever he pleases so long as he is serving the interests of the IPC as his superiors dictate (which is who? Only Diamond tbh) and he is not imprisoned, one could argue he's stuck in the job but like... if he wasn't in the IPC what would he do? What purpose is there left for him? All he wanted out of life was to be happy with his family, but they are long gone, and he presumably entered the IPC in order to make a difference for the remaining Avgin, who are also all gone, which he only finds out after becoming Aventurine. So he is highly, highly purposeless.

This is the core, I think, of what makes him feel "unfree" because he either has the IPC or nothing. That's where he is in the story I suppose, struggling for purpose in order to gain a sense of himself most of all and to gain the sense of freedom. Because importance of *feeling* free cannot be discredited also, because even as I say everyone is fundamentally unfree, I myself don't really feel as such where it matters? If that makes sense. Like, I cannot do everything that I want at the moment. I would love to jump on a plane and go somewhere, but like, I'm not "free" enough to do that. BUT there is a foundational sense of freedom where I don't feel constrained by my circumstance. I am not held physically hostage, my thoughts are free and not being unwillingly influenced by others, and I have a choice in certain matters.

I covered this in my latest drabble in Nemo Saltat Sobrius, where Dr Ratio discusses and presents *some* manner of freedom in the form of a perspective for Aventurine. We may be constrained by a lot of things, but we are free-est if we are able to choose, and to choose well. And I think, Aventurine, for all that he feels he is in his gilded imprisonment, should still able to do this where he is in the story, so eh, I don't feel like he's necessarily too bad-off (as opposed to well-off) within the IPC sorry it's not that dramatic.

Anyway sorry to circle back to Aventio and to "what-ifs" but yeah. I have a LOT of thoughts about Aventurine and freedom as just demonstrated there. Sorry it's so long lmao.

[perplexingly]

I've never actually read 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea but that art you posted has torn into my heart and just lives there now, I adore it and can't stop looking at it

Aww thank you very much! 💛 By the way, I highly recommend it!! 19th century books in general are often written in this light manner that makes them an easy read, and there’s place both for puns and for social justice, and the light tone doesn’t get in the way of drama when it matters : D

[lorei-writes]

Match-Up #2

To follow the example of the previous match-up, this time @readerinsertfanfiction​ submitted a form for @silhouette-of-a-dream​​ .

Be warned, this contains spoilers for main routes.

I love you too, Nemo, haha. Thanks <3 Sorry for bad timing, but oh well, it all ended up well. ^^”

Hmm.. I think some of those qualities could be both great assets and grave flaws, depending on the relationship. Being caring, nurturing, empathetic and altruistic could make one an incredible source of support - however, I reckon that this “resource” isn’t infinite. In other words: I think that being matched with a person requiring some level of help wouldn’t be a bad idea, but a person who requires constant, ongoing support could be... Draining? I could see a person with said qualities getting so invested into assisting somebody that they would forget about their own needs... As such, I reckon, an equally giving partner would be appreciated.

Shingen (+) Hideyoshi (+) Nobunaga (-) Mitsuhide (-) Mitsunari (-) Kenshin (-)

Additionally, given your creative side, I’d say a person at least somewhat vaguely interested in all sorts of art could be a good fit.

Shingen (+) Masamune (+) Yoshimoto (+)

I can see that several of those flaws revolve around experiencing and being prone to experiencing immense amounts of dread/anxiety (serial worrier?). As such, I reckon that the suggested suitor shouldn’t add to that... Which, of course, given the setting isn’t possible.

All suitors are disqualified. 

Now, that this terrible joke is out of the way: as such, I’m going to consider only the suitors who willingly endanger themselves for the sake of the “greater ideals” (loyalty, the good of the clan/being a perfect leader, peace) and who may not change their outlook on things, at least not completely (read: they surely will try, but taking such risks will most likely still occur). (Note: Shingen is not included, as I do presume part of the driving force behind his actions is him dying of a terminal illness. Once this condition is dealt with, he does not seem to be comparable to the other mentioned suitors, at least in my opinion).

Hideyoshi (-) Masamune (-) Mitsuhide (-)

Given her having a tendency to feel strongly... I think a suitor in good contact with his feelings may be preferable.

Masamune (-) Nobunaga (-)

I presume that partners unable to understand cynicism should be removed too...

Mitsunari (-)

Given Jules being insecure, I reckon an openly supportive suitor may be appreciated.

Shingen (+) Masamune (+)

Likewise, I also do presume that a character who ends up changing his mind about his outlook on life and moves on from his grief may not be a bad idea.

Kennyo (+) ?

To counter the nervousness, suitors with calming presence may be a good choice. Conversely - nagging and overly melancholic people, begone.

Shingen (+) Kennyo (+) ? Hideyoshi (-) Yoshimoto (-)

1st Summary:

Shingen ( + + + + ) Kennyo ( + + ) Kenshin & Hideyoshi ( - ) Nobunaga & Mitsunari & Mitsuhide ( - - )

READ THE REST OF THE MATCH-UP & THE CONCLUSION BELOW THE CUT.

Points distributed for likes:

Shingen ( + + + ) <- Shingen, he does appreciate art, family Masamune ( + + ) <- gardening, he does appreciate art

(If you were surprised - yes, Masamune gardens. Source: Mitsunari’s romantic epilogue). 

Points distributed for dislikes:

Mitsuhide (-) <- abuse of any kind (torture) Nobunaga (-) <- mainstream

Additional points distributed for issues that may stem from mentioned dislikes:

Yoshimoto (-) <- yes-man (? with the way he initially pursues his role as the leader of a dying clan and wishes for it to bring him to his demise; Mitsuhide’s route). Masamune (-) <- abuse of any kind ( while he does not support any form of abuse, but he’s capable of rationalizing it, especially if it affected him. Him being emotionally removed from the matter and his partner being emotional, I could see this leading to rather heated arguments or simply being a point of conflict, even more so since some of the previously abusive people are still part of his life. It could end well, but it could also not - I consider it a gamble).

2nd Summary:

Shingen ( + + + + + + + ) Kennyo ( + + ) Masamune ( + ) Yoshimoto & Kenshin & Hideyoshi ( - ) Nobunaga & Mitsunari ( - - ) Mitsuhide ( - - - )

Only characters with ( + ) by their name will be considered in the final stages.

None of the remaining suitors meet any of the dealbreakers. 

None of the remaining suitors fall meet any of the pet peeves.

Does that mean there can’t be too much Shingen fanfiction or else it would become mainstream?

Points distributed for wild cards:

Shingen (+) <- adopting people  Kennyo (+) <- adopting animals (in a way? He was shown to care for a wounded cat).

Shingen (/) <- alike to Comte, he can sometimes be rather enigmatic, perhaps not so much in a shady way, but oh well. 

Final ranking:

Shingen ( + + + + + + + + ) ( / ) Kennyo ( + + + ) Masamune ( + )

Shingen:

If one were to humour the idea of playing alongside with Shingen’s flowery speech, then perhaps they’d describe the man of interest as rock that withstands any storm. To a certain extent, this statement wouldn’t be too misjudged - Shingen does radiate an aura of maturity, he’s intelligent and dexterous enough to handle plenty matters on his own, his presence is calming and, if everything fails, his dad jokes can always lighten the mood. However, all stones erode and he does not give himself a high enough priority - as such, an equally giving and loving partner, perhaps one who’d be able to talk some sense into him, would be a treasure. 

For somebody to grant him a family would be Shingen’s greatest dream - and if it came true, he’d surely work to maintain it. Yet any home is just as peaceful and happy as the people inhabiting it. If he could make you see yourself through his eyes, he would - so that you could see all the amazing things he notices. So that he could show you how removed from truth are your insecurities. Meanwhile, he himself could probably get some help in learning to love himself and prioritising his own needs.

I could see health concerns being a possible starting point for arguments. Remember to rest your personal Shingen whenever it’s necessary, he shouldn’t overwork himself. Also, please, let him recover after the surgery, ffs. Free time ideas: baking and cooking together, working together in a shared crafting&art space, strolls through the town/alongside the shore/ just anywhere your feet would take you, relaxing in hot springs 

Kennyo:

A gentle soul that was shattered may never be returned to its original state... However, it does not mean it is devoid of what it used to be. With his face split in (ugh, forgive me) almost equal “ “halves” “ , he appears to be a walking metaphor of his emotional state - part of him thinks only of revenge, while the other, compassionate one, is hurting as a result of him trying to abandon it. A person reminding him of who he could become, someone inspiring and with feelings strong enough to reach him? Such a person may be able to lure him out of his self-imposed prison, be it with care and affection or discussions and pointing out flaws in his reasoning. Whichever it would be, the kind, gentle, compassionate man is still residing inside of him - moreover, he’s showing his true colours unprompted just as well.

Kennyo does have a certain aura of maturity. He suffered plenty and as such, can understand pain well - and if he ever were to overcome his own, he’d gladly lead a hand in moving forward past any anxieties. He has fought enough as well. He’s knowledgeable and cares deeply, even if he shows it in the little ways. As for what could he gain... Well, acceptance and warmth, something he deprived himself of.

Possibile issues may initially arise around him claiming that he is a demon. However, if his shell was cracked, he wouldn’t be able to hide his true nature anymore - and perhaps with enough patience, he’d grow to accept it as well. Free time ideas: going on forest trips (perhaps foraging as well), reading together, snuggling into him while he tells his stories,  drinking tea outside during summer evenings

[scrawnydutchman]

‘Inside Out’ Movie Review

*NOTE: The following review contains major spoilers, highlighted in bold letters for readers convenience. If you haven’t seen the film yet, skip past the bold letter segments and come back to read them once you HAVE seen the film for my full thoughts.*

Now I know what you’re thinking. Why in the hell am I putting up a review for a film that’s close to three years old now? Well, here’s a little context. Those of you internet surfers may have seen this little meme float around the web recently:

Everybody has their own opinions on this and there’s good reason why it’s trending. It’s a legitimately fun discussion to hear about everyone’s favorite movies from the “happiest” company on earth. For anybody curious on what I think, HERE’S the version of the meme I created:

*the distinct lack of any and all Emperor’s New Groove and/or Hunchback of Notre Dame is a crime against cinema*

You’ll notice how Finding Nemo beat Inside Out in the first round, and next to the bracket for Inside Out  I wrote “never saw it: may change later”. Well, after family and friends highly recommended I sit down and see it, I’m here to tell you that now that I’ve seen Inside Out . My opinion . . . has not changed. Finding Nemo beats it. Easily in fact. Let me explain why, starting with Story.

Story:

Synopsis: Inside the minds of every human being resides five emotions: Joy, Sadness, Fear, Anger and Disgust. These emotions have a duty to protect their human from danger and guide them through life. We follow the inner workings of a little girl named Riley’s psyche in which Joy has taken the leadership role to make sure every day of Riley’s life is a good one. She maintains Riley’s optimism and makes sure nothing gets in the way of her happy life by keeping Sadness on a leash. Things change though when a challenging time in Riley’s life occurs; she and her family move to San Francisco. Joy struggles to keep Riley’s optimism up and inevitably she and sadness get removed from headquarters, leaving the rest of the gang to try and do Joy’s job while she’s away (and failing at it). Can Joy and Sadness get back to headquarters in time to save Riley and make sure she can be happy again?

This movie is infinitely praised for being one of Pixar’s most creative and original films,and to be fair it’s not hard to see why. It’s a very outside the box idea that’s rarely been explored before and this movie explores it in a way only Pixar can come up with. It also has a lot of fun with demonstrating real life psychological concepts in a way that feels very fresh. 

It also has a moral lesson that’s both original for a kids film and absolutely necessary for children to learn. Accepting that sadness and other negative emotions are not only a part of life but an ESSENTIAL part of life is a pill most people, even adults, have trouble swallowing. Of COURSE everyone wants to feel happy all the time, but it’s unhealthy to bottle up feelings that are a necessity to dealing with life’s special challenges.

Also . . . the climax of this film IS very emotional. Not Coco levels of emotional, but still sad in a way that got me to tear up a bit.

That said, it isn’t ALWAYS effective in how it expresses it’s ideas. While the visuals of this film are excellent (which we’ll get into in a bit) this film often runs into a bit too much of a ‘tell, don’t show’ attitude. A lot of concepts introduced in this film are verbally explained by one of the characters when they could have just as easily been presented clearly enough with visual context clues. I get that it’s a kids movie and kids may not be as skilled in picking up nuances, and to be fair this movie DOES explore a lot of concepts a child may not be immediately keen on, but film is meant to be a visual medium in which ideas and concepts are made understandable by what the audience sees rather than what they’re being told verbally. It especially makes it a problem for how characters are portrayed because one in particular feels like she exists solely as an exposition dump for three quarters of the run time. We should probably talk about characters for a second.

Characters:

So not gonna lie, this is by far the weakest area of the movie. How can I be such a heartless monster to say such a thing? Well, the best way to explain it is to compare it to Finding Nemo, the whole reason I even saw the movie to begin with. Coincidentally enough, these two movies actually have a lot in common. They’re both “buddy road trip” movies where two characters go on a big scope adventure, come across wacky colourful characters on their path and ultimately learn a lesson not often addressed in kids films. The difference is, Finding Nemo does more to establish character motivation AND it takes more time to establish multiple character arcs, ironically within the same runtime as Inside Out more or less. Marlin’s motivation for being a strict and neurotic parent is immediately shown, NOT told, in the opening. Same thing with Nemo’s tendency to rebel. Both characters are given arcs in which they each learn a unique lesson. Marlin learns to take more risks to accomplish goals and Nemo learns to be self reliant when separated from his dad. Plus along the way they come across TONS of memorable side characters. Dory, The Sharks, the school of fish, the seagulls, the pet fish in the fish tank. It does more to establish an infinitely more appealing cast of characters.

Inside Out is focused on Joy . .  .TOO focused on Joy. She’s the only character with a truly fleshed out story arc. She’s the first character we see in the film and we’re verbally told through her perspective on why things are the way they are. She’s the only one of the five emotions who really learns anything and really changes. 

The only other character in the story with an arc is Bing Bong the imaginary friend, who appears pretty late in the film and effectively dies soon too. His arc is wrapped up pretty hastily.

Every other character in this film is a means to an end. Fear, Disgust and Anger all exist to get a major story beat going. That’s it. Their banter between each other is likable at first but is pretty wash rinse repeat. Her parents only get one entertaining scene in the film that express any kind of personality and then the rest of the time they serve the same functions as each other (seeing if Riley is okay but ultimately not doing anything about it). Sadness is the biggest offender of not serving much beyond being a means to an end because despite having the most screentime after Joy she mainly serves as exposition dumping. Every time Joy isn’t sure about how the brain works (if she doesn’t know where things are or what they are why is she in charge?) Sadness just verbally explains it to the audience. “Oh, that’s long term memory. Oh, that’s abstract thought. Here’s what we should do about it.” She also propels the plot forward in a pretty lackluster way. The reason conflict even happens is because Sadness is compelled to taint memories (for reasons they never really explain). Riley isn’t even a character, really. She’s just an outward demonstration of the ramifications of the real conflict.

And I’m just gonna come out and say it . . . .Joy is too difficult to like for a good chunk of this movie. The movie shows her as very controlling and bossy and selfish. It immediately made me sour towards her. I know, I know, the idea is that everyone wants to feel Happy more than anything else and she DOES learn the error of her ways in the end, but they could have done a little more to make her actions sympathetic than just immediately show her hog the controls once Sadness shows up. It’s weird that Joy rubs me the wrong way more than Disgust does, a character specifically designed to be bitchy. To compare to Finding Nemo again, we understand that Marlin’s actions aren’t right in the beginning, but we know WHY he does it. It’s not for any malicious intent either. He only wants to protect his son because he learned the hard way how fragile life is and he feels like he failed to protect his family before. Joy just gets needy as soon as another character shows up and seemingly for no other reason than she just wants to have the final word in what happens. Maybe they could have made her more sympathetic by showing Riley get into a hard to cope with situation like her dad being really mad and yelling at her for something she did and Joy feeling like she owes it to Riley to make sure she never feels that bad again. That way it’s at least for somebody else’s sake besides her own. This is admittedly a hard problem to articulate because you could argue everything the emotions do, they do for Riley’s sake, but while all the other emotions clearly act with Riley’s best interests in mind Joy is shown to do what she does more out of competitiveness than duty.

Acting:

Every cast member of this flick does a great job. Amy Poehler makes a strong performance as Joy, really communicating the oozing enthusiasm and the struggle to maintain a positive attitude. Bill Hader does a great job as Fear and has some of the more effective deadpan line delivery in the film. Lewis Black makes an effectively funny Anger who makes great comedic foil for pretty well every other character he interacts with. Mindy Kaling arguably does the best job as Disgust. I say that because making a character designed to be unlikable like this (the typical girl bully “shallow bitch” archetype) endearing and not annoying has to be no easy task. Phyllis Smith does an okay job as Sadness. She’s especially funny when she has to say something sarcastic. Richard Kind plays Bing Bong and does a great job as sort of a washed up but charming imaginary friend. The rest of the cast is passable but not remarkable.

Visuals (Animation & Design):

As anyone would expect from Pixar, Inside Out is yet another visual marvel. This movies greatest strength is it’s use of colour. More specifically, colour contrast. The shear opposition between the bright saturated colors of the mind and it’s deep, unsaturated grays and blacks of the sadder scenes is excellent. There are some shots in this film that are poster material simply because the contrast adds SO MUCH to the overall composition of the frame. It makes your eye all the more drawn to the colours that really pop when they’re set against gloomy atmospheres.

One shot in particular that stands out is an extreme wide shot of Joy crying in the abyss, with her glow piercing the darkness and another memory fading away in peripheral vision. 

The animation is great too. I like how while the human characters move rigidly and in accordance to real world physics, the emotions go to a cartoony extent with their dynamic poses, snappy energy and great use of line of action. The designs really showcase the best of their over the top acting, ESPECIALLY fear. the lanky, noodly armed guy has some of the most effective slapstick because of how fast and how far he stretches his limbs. In fact, all the designs of the emotions are great. As is always a necessity in character design 101, you can put them in silhouette and still be able to tell which is which.

Of course, a standout moment in the film when it comes to animation is the “abstract thought” scene. Borrowing a page from the book of Picasso, the designs in this scene are wonderfully out there and I love how it addresses such a meta idea for a kids movie. This is the one moment of the film where i think verbal explanation from Sadness is necessary.

The textures on the emotions are a nice touch too. I wouldn’t have guessed that the fuzzy, almost plush like look would have been an effective choice on characters meant to represent concepts as metaphysical as the emotional spectrum, but it’s genuinely a sight for sore eyes. I’ll admit SOME of the textures of specific location pieces seem a bit . . .dated and unpolished, but to be perfectly honest I saw this after I saw Coco so chances are the unbelievable textures of that are just spoiling me. I won’t hold it against the overall score.

Sound design (Music & Sound Foley)

As I’ve said in past reviews, this is a hard area to talk about, mainly because the film handles the sound design about as well as any other big budget film. I don’t remember anything music wise aside from one scene where I swear to God they just took the melody of Plug-In Baby by Muse. 

There’s also the scene of the movie where they’re trying to break Bing Bong out of a balloon cage while not waking up a nightmare clown. The balloon sound effects are REEEEEALLY loud; easily the most blasted up sound foley out of everything in this movie. I guess it’s effective as the point of the scene is they’re trying not to wake the clown guy up but even so I think they could have made that point without making the loudness of it outweigh any other sound THAT much.

Conclusion:

Overall, this is a serviceable Pixar film. Where does it rank as far as Pixar films go? Well, probably lower within the Top 10 if I’m honest (The best Pixar films are The Incredibles, Coco, Wall-E, Ratatouille, Toy Story, Finding Nemo and Up, not necessarily in that order). It’s DEFINITELY not better than Finding Nemo. Finding Nemo does a lot of what Inside Out accomplishes except better with a more memorable cast, more relatable main characters, more fleshed out character arcs and less on-the-nose portrayal of it’s ideas. Inside Out has greatly effective animation & design as well as a healthy set of clever ideas, but I’d say it’s weak amount of character is what drags it down. It’s definitely worth checking out at least once, but it’s effect isn’t enough to shake the decisions of my Disney bracket. You now have permission to rant to me about how wrong I am.

Score:

Story - 1/2 - Average

Characters: - .5/2 - Below Average

Acting: 1.5/2 - Above Average

Visuals: 2/2 - Excellent

Sound Design: 1/2 - Average

6 out of 10. An okay movie, but ultimately disappointing.

[codywalzel]

The Emoji Movie (And Weak TV/Movies in general)- A Entreaty to Cut the Snark

(In a public forum anyway, if you just want to goof off in conversation with friends, knock yourself out.)

So, if you’re drafting your scathing tweet for whatever the current week’s freshly released and much hated property happens to be:

Please don’t. Take Emoji, for example. First off, I didn’t work on Emoji. I have many friends that did during my time at Sony, but this essay isn’t for their sake. I would have worked on Emoji if offered for reasons I’ll get to later, but for now let me start with this: None of the respectable artists that worked on the film wanted it to turn out how it did. Business people with only a secondary interest in art controlled a product, with which they hoped to make money, and guess what, it worked. I’m not trying to throw executives under the bus here either. Executives, whose job is to make money, not to make “good” movies, don’t always the time or budget to assure quality. And honestly, even for the world’s best filmmakers, with infinite budgets and complete control, quality is never a certainty. So, especially in a time crunch, with a full slate, and unproven filmmakers, quality is not necessarily the best business plan for execs. At least that’s the perception to many of us working on a project, and I can see from their perspective the logic that stance. It’s a, “I don’t care if the fart joke is stupid, kids will LOVE it!” kind of thing. Often, sensationalism and even bad press can actually be a good business plan, because that assures the movie won’t be buried. Kids like poop jokes, and adults want a ticket to the train wreck. The decision-makers on the film probably leaned into the low brow as an allure for the marketing campaign, making it a far more visible film due to all the negative buzz surrounding it. The producers don’t care if they’re serving McDonald’s or filet mignon, they’re playing a completely different game, and it’s about getting butts in seats at any cost. Incredibly talented artists fought hard to make the most of a bad situation, and as is usually the case, were outvoted time and again by money, because money had completely different goals. I’m in no way advocating an acceptance of mediocre filmmaking, or a lowered set of expectations for your media consumption. I am, however, trying to make a case that the culture of snottiness, and smug, side-mouth “witticisms” is one of misspent energy, presuming your goal is to help contribute quality art to the world. 

The reason I say not to waste time crafting some cutting diatribe is, the public negativity won’t ever hurt the execs, they won’t see the criticism, and they don’t care because the movie did fulfilled its financial responsibility as a product. But the artists who try and fail to make good movies take the brunt of all the negativity and snark that gets thrown out there. Even though filmmakers will likely never see your specific post, every bit of nasty amateur commentary contributes to a general culture of creativity-stifling artist bashing. Although we should always hold professionals to the highest standard, you have to try and be realistic about the amount of control they have on a project like this. This is not to say you shouldn’t recognize crappy choices for what they are, go ahead and notice what doesn’t work about a movie. Professional reviewers can and should dissect a work’s failing. But, there’s no point in taking so much glee in throwing rocks in the town square. The world just really doesn’t need another sick-burn Tweet featuring your “hot take” on the movie. We get it. You’re smart and the filmmakers are dumb. Your opinion is the same as everyone else’s, but you worded it slightly differently, so that 160 character Twitter review that starts with “Apparently…” and oozes smarm from there is better off left in the drafts. This type of schadenfreude is among the nastiest behaviors to which creatives regularly subject each other. To be working on a very visible project means that almost every artist on that film or show has legions of fans that adore their original work, and an entire industry to speak to their talent. Yet so often I see the artists themselves, and not just the one work, lumped together in the public eye as “the idiots who made that bad thing.” You might ask, “Why would they take that crappy job then?” For the same reason people who haven’t make it into the industry yet take jobs bagging groceries: to pay rent, to support their families, to pay for classes to improve themselves, or just to get them through to the next, better job. It’s not every day that the Iron Giant or Finding Nemo is staffing up, and you never know what kind of project a movie is going to turn out to be going in. So many huge successes fought their way to greatness after an incredibly rocky start. And many movies at a promising studio, with a great premise and solid leadership, end up being terrible. There’s no way to know going in. If you truly think you’re the exception to that rule, take out a loan and open a small studio, because you’ll be the most successful figure in Hollywood history if you can predict a hit every time.

Everybody knows now that the Emoji Movie is bad at this point. Any of the slew of amateur ”reviews” now will just be a race to the bottom, another rotten cabbage to throw at the guy with his head in the pillory. In these situations it feels like all the sassy internet hecklers, many of whom have little or no relationship with the process of actually making films, are lining up to kick a downed opponent, and make themselves look like a tough guy. Each slam is looking raise the bar on the new meanest possible insult, “_____ (movie) was so terrible it made me want to kill myself with my own ticket stub through a thousand tiny paper-cuts”.  The desperation of scrambling to find a “hot take” on an exhausted property is palpable. So many Facebook Status “Film Gurus”, Youtube Movie Ranters, and the ever scholarly forum commentators, are always at the ready to weave a mixture of diatribe and condescending, film-school-freshman lecturing. There’s this ever present tone of “if they only knew these obvious filmmaking truisms, they’d be smart like me, and make better movies. Please, please when will a producer drift into this forum, recognize my intelligence, and give me movies to make instead?” They then usually proceed to lay out some “rules” they’ve read from various screenwriting books. Rest the rules, because I guarantee you that the artists involved in these films read the same books. The filmmakers are just as big of film buffs as us, they watch all the same shows and movies, and they study filmmaking theory through books, blogs, criticism, and movie absorption the same way we do. Yet, with all their knowledge, you still get this kind of “bad” movie, which just shows you how hard it is to make a movie work. There is a harsh reality to showbusiness’ balance of commerce and art: a businesses’ goal is profit, and Hollywood Filmmaking is a business. Here’s a shortened example of what it might take to get a “good” movie made: 1. Someone makes it through the long and cut-throat-competitive thresher of endlessly pitching their ideas. For the sake of condensing many steps, we’ll cut to the part where the project is the 1% that makes it through development hell, and we’ll say the filmmaker survives their 50/50 shot of being replaced by the studio for someone they like better.  2. The filmmaker convinces the studio that “quality” will be a factor that earns money for this movie, and not one of a many possible marketing directives.  3. The filmmaker is also able to assure those footing the bill that they can achieve quality, and in the process get enough creative control to make the thing work. That often includes either convincing a studio that your ability to execute a vision is superior to theirs, or tricking them into thinking both of your visions of the movie are the same, and quietly seeing how many of their notes you can hide under the carpet while you and your trained creative team actually make it work. (On rare occasions execs are either excellent collaborators, or trusting enough of filmmakers to let them do the creative work they were hired to do.)    4. Assuming the filmmaker is able to settle the control issue, and wrestle the steering wheel from the people whose money they are spending, then the filmmaker must then have been correct about their vision being a good one that will work on screen.  5. Finally, if the stars align, then the millions of moving pieces that make up a film/show are somehow kept from falling apart. If all those fragile pieces work in unison, and nothing major changes with the leadership at studios, or the state of the industry as a whole, the project has a chance of being “good”. Even then, there’s no guarantee that “good” thing will make money.  On every project I’ve ever worked on, even the ones I’m proud of, the whole is so much less than the sum of it’s parts. Sometimes I already follow every person I work with on a project on social media when I come in on the first day. There are usually talented people in every department, an all star team, but the project is almost never an all star result. Sometimes it’s not even something I would watch.

Due to the safety and reach of the Internet, the culture of “critiquing” filmmaking has given every basement dwelling cynic and film school sophomore an outlet for their bitter condescension. I think this has led to the general impression that the most important thing that critics do is tear movies apart. I’ve even seen actual, professional critics resort to a kind of schoolyard rap battle to see who can deliver the most crushing blow to a film. But, the most acclaimed critics in film history spent much their time championing films they love- celebrating successes rather than brutally attacking failures. People like Roger Ebert and Leonard Maltin became legendary figures in film history by using their influence to introduce the world to filmmaking that might have otherwise gone overlooked. Hate what you want. Bash what you want. I’m not going to try and fight some crusade against internet flame culture. But, since so many of the people who so joyfully hate on films online claim a passionate love of cinema, just know that a horde of nasty tweets doesn’t help cinema in any way. Way more terrible movies are made than great ones, that’s both the law of averages, and a sad reality of the business. So, although one can learn just as much from a bad movie as a good one, keep it balanced- If you find that the goal of your criticism is to dog-pile an already hated property, I'm begging you to choose again:

-Be the bold person to articulate dissatisfaction with a beloved movie instead.

-Or champion the strong parts of a despised movie.

-Or even continue in the awesome tradition of Tony Zhou, by doing the hard work it takes to neatly point out successful things a strong movie accomplishes. 

-But most of the time, if you're in such a bitter mood that you want to publicly slam a bunch of strangers, your best option is to bury that opinion deep, deep inside of yourself, log off of your computer, and go deal with whatever is making you so angry.

[sookashira]

Tag games from days ago lmao

Tagged by @ss-perfect-otp

1: name: Gabriela 2: nickname: uff... too many lol starting for the different ways people writes my name and "Gabby"... XD Also Ela, snowflake, copito, cosi, shira bla bla. 3: zodiac sign: Aries 4: height: 1.53 / 5'0 5: orientation: straight 6: nationality: chilean 7: favorite fruit: ehh... idk lol 8: favorite dish: pizza 9: favorite flowers: Tulips 10: favorite scent: lysoform lol ¿? vanilla 11: favorite animals: penguins, squirrels, red panda 12: coffee, tea or hot chocolate: tea 13: average hours of sleep: 5-7 14: cat or dog: cat 15: favorite fictional characters: too manyyyyyyyyy xD like Sasuke and Sai from Naruto, Annie, Bertholdt and Jean from snk, Haibara/Shiho from Detective Conan, Tamaki from Ouran, Ryouga/Pchan from Ranma 1/2, Ron Weasley from Harry Potter, etc 16: favorite film: ... Finding Nemo lol 17: number of blankets you sleep: 1 18: dream trip: Korea and Japan lol where my interests are + the food and culture! AND THOSE AESTHETIC PLACES. 19: blog created: this one in 2015 20: number of followers: 3844 ;u; <3

_

Tagged by @pureren

RULES: put your music on shuffle and write down the first ten songs, then tag some friends/mutuals.

Tessa, you know I mostly listen kpop and Im embarrased sharing that here because most of anime fans dislike it lol (or only like bts lol and i don't like bts)

1. Thousand miles away - UKISS 2. Nobody knows - Standing egg 3. Hands up! - One Piece opening 4. The Eye - Infinite 5. Bauklötze - Kobayashi Mika (SNK ost) 6. Breaking free - Gabriella and Troy (HSM) lmao 7. WoW! - Lovelyz 8. 1000 years, always by your side - SHINee 9. Bon bon - Hey! Say! 7 (Lovely Complex ending) 10. No more than strangers - Babysoul from Lovelyz

THANKS TESSA, AFTER A LOT OF TIME I LISTENED THAT SHINee SONG AGAIN AND I REMEMBERED HOW MUCH IT MAKES ME CRY. AWESOME. JUST WHEN I NEEDED MORE TEARS AND PAIN. THANKS VERY THANKS.

If I was tagged in more games they were eaten by my likes and the notifications -sobs- I'm sorry ;u;