#and I don't mean good adaptation necessarily = faithful adaptation

[cruelsister-moved2]

howls moving castle the film is fine but I think i wouldve been so annoyed if I loved the book first and found out they were making a film and then it was that. sorry to bisexual women but I love cringe unemployed welsh howl

[in-this-crystal-kingdom]

SPOILERS AHEAD FOR SUFFERING GAME GRAPHIC NOVEL

Okay SO. Everyone has some thoughts on this one for sure as I have seen. A lot of people are saying they took a lot from Wonderland and that it's a disappointment as an adaptation but here's the thing: I have viewed the books as separate canon from the podcast since around Crystal Kingdom. I don't necessarily see it as a faithful adaptation but as a cool way to get more people into the story without giving EVERYTHING away in case they decide to listen. However, that being said, I have some things to say. I'm going to start with the negative first because even though I LOVED this book I so have some things I will miss about it (but please understand that I LOVED THE BOOK SM GUYS, I will ofc be adding what I loved after this part)

My Issues/Things I Wish Were Included:

Magnus trying to find his own answers with the voidfish. I was really looking forward to how they would show and represent that!

"I'm afraid no one else will have me" was such a good scene, I really liked the vulnerability Taako showed then because aside from his scene in Petals we haven't seen a whole lot of that from him in the books (again, I veiw the books as separate canon, but it would be nice to see)

CAM! I missed Cam so much he was delightful

No Boss Rush

I don't like that they basically forced Magus to decide if he wanted to lose Julia and never mention Gov. Kallen at all. That was such an impactful moment and they kind of side stepped it unfortunately

Trust or Forsake is missing which is also unfortunate

A lot of what made Wonderland interesting is either spedrun or absent so they kind of took the Wonder out of Wonderland

Taako giving up his beauty is also gone! Which sucks ass! My only true issue with this book that I genuinely was heartbroken over. I understand it can be a hard thing to show, especially when it runs the risk of someone in real life looking at the design and going "ow, that looks like me!'. So like. I get it. I really do. But they cut so much of Podcast!Taako's growth in Book!Taako's character that it was a sore spot for me personally.

If they let Johann live in the next book I will be very upset

SPEAKING OF NEXT BOOK!! Now that I have all my negative out of the way ohohoh boy I'm gonna share the positives I have with it. Given that, again, I view the books as separate story than the podcast, I thought they did a wonderful job overall. Solid 8/10 for me! Here are the things I am still screaming about

Things I adore about this book and will be living rent free in my head forever

TAAKO AND KRAVITZ KISS LIKE 5 PAGES IN AND I SCREAMED CAREY ATE WITH THAT

Merle's kids 😭😭😭

JOHANN IS ACKNOWLEDGED IN THIS ONE RAAAAAAAA I WAS SO WORRIED THEY WERE TRYING TO CUT HIM OUT

I love the redesign of Wonderland looking like a circus instead of a roulette wheel, I liked that a lot

Kravitz calling Taako to tell him to be safe,,, the call getting cut off,,,, pain

I loved the wheel it looked so cool

Edward and Lydia were giving Velvet and Veneer and I am HERE FOR IT

Heart Attack my beloved 🥰

ARMS OUTSTRETCHED!!!!!!!!

WHAT DO YOU MEAN TAAKO SAW KRAVITZ IN THE TAR??? WHAT DO YOU MEAN HE TRIED TO SAVE HIM?????? MCELROY FAMILY AND CAREY WHEN I GET YOU-

Seeing the umbra staff (*cough cough* Lup) BEAT THE SHIT out of Edward was lovely, no notes

HOW GRIFFIN DISAPPEARED!!! I WAS HOPING THEY WOULD DO THAT!!!

BLUEJEANS REVEAL

The Umbra Staff jumping into Barry's arms 😭😭😭

Taako having STATIC IN HIS EYES seeing the staff and Barry together CAREY PLEASE

MERLE SEEING JOHN, THIS IS NOT A DRILL PEOPLE

L U P SHE IS SO FUCKING BEAUTIFUL I CRIED I AM SO GLAD THEY GAVE HER LONG HAIR TOO!!

GOD THE BOOK ENDED WHERE I WANTED IT TO AND THEN SOME ACTUALLY (I thought it would end with the line "Lucretia, what have you done???" BUT MAN I'M NOT MAD IT WENT ON A BIT LATER)

THE IPRE PAINTING. THEM. THEY. ALL OF THEM. I AM DYING. MY CROPS ARE WATERED AS SHIT.

[sciderman]

i’ve been eating up the DP/W brain rot like slop, but your critiques are making me think too much about it and now i realize it’s. it’s not that good 😭 i feel like a toddler being spoon fed by marvel and disney. i’m still gonna like and reblog the homo fanart and such, but damn.

do you think there’s any way for marvel comics to be made into movies well?? i feel like everything is just run by the same people

i feel a little bit like those stories where like, everyone gets like a mind spell on them or like, a love potion or such, and i'm here (immune) to that love potion so it's up to me to shake everyone out of the spell. thank you @makehimwhimper... i love the url, by the way.

marvel comics have been made into movies well! i mean, they won't be anymore, if disney continues to swallow everything up, but - once upon a time, they could be done well! i do think logan is just - straight up a good movie. okay, it's not fun. but it's a good movie. and i think the first deadpool movie - though not perfect, and not any sort of milestone of cinema - has all kinds of charm and a respect for the source material.

i think the best we'll be getting in the way of marvel adaptations is probably whatever sony's doing with spider-verse - but i think a big thing about what makes those work for me is all the new things they did with it - fact is, i think audiences actually DO want to see something new. and i don't know if faithful 1:1 adaptations of comics is necessarily going to work. but just - there's a curse in marvel that i can just smell right now, it reeks - it's the smell of the people working at marvel just not respecting their audience at all. and i think it's a disney problem, really. where disney is in this stage where they'll avoid creating anything new or innovative and depend solely on you recognising IP (but ideally, only recognising it at face-value, so you're not critical when they inevitably get it wrong) - because recognition is just what is selling right now. and it works on 100 different levels - because even if you hate the new deadpool and wolverine movie, you're nostalgic for the better x-men movies. now streaming on disney+. disney has your wallet regardless of if their new movie is good or not. you didn't like the new star wars stuff? you're in luck. the original star wars. now streaming on disney+. they're remaking lilo and stitch. you think it's a stupid idea. the original is so perfect. come to think of it i should rewatch lilo and stitch on disney+. i'll buy some merchandise. so even if you're upset with disney, you're running back to disney's open arms. there's no escape.

it's kind of disney's business model now - that actually works in their favour - to give you a bad movie that reminds you of better movies. because they still own the better movies. they still own the merchandising rights. you don't like the new spider-man? here. the better, older spider-men are here to save the day. but we still own the merchandising rights. anything with that guy's face on it. that's money in our wallet.

disney's found an infinite money loophole. why would they expend effort making a good movie or take risks when a bad movie that references better movies generates so much more income?

[the-lean-buddha]

My thoughts on the news about The Long Walk's film adaption

I have very little faith that The Long Walk will be a good adaption but maybe I'll be wrong! I can dream, and I've been wrong before. Here are my thoughts on the casting announcements and set pictures.

Cooper Hoffman and David Jonsson are the leads, according to Deadline, which means they're presumably Garraty and McVries. Jonsson seems like a good actor but an awful fit for either character, and with Hoffman (presumably Garraty) it comes down to how good an actor he is, I guess, because I can see it working if I squint but I haven't seen anything from Hoffman to suggest he can do Garraty. And I reaaaaally doubt he could do McVries. McVries has a bite to him.

Joshua Odjick is Native American so he's presumably Joe or Mike (not to say that a different character couldn't theoretically be Native American in the adaption, but it's key to Joe and Mike that none of the other Walkers understand their culture at all, and only Baker defends their parents). It's odd that either of those two would have a prominent enough role to be cast already, so I wonder if either one of their roles is beefed up, or if Mike and Scramm will be a composite character and Joe won't feature at all. Alternatively, Odjick isn't playing a Native American character (or he is but Mike and Joe are adapted out), in which case I'd guess Parker.

Roman Griffin Davis is someone I've only ever seen in Jojo Rabbit so I don't know how much range he has. I think he'd fit best as Barkovitch but I wouldn't be surprised if he's been cast as Baker or Olson.

Charlie Plummer is Stebbins. I say this almost entirely because he's a long-haired blonde. If McVries is black then book descriptions (and characterizations, let's be honest, you can't make McVries a black kid in the 70s and keep his character the same) are thrown out the door already, but google Charlie Plummer and tell me he's not been cast as Stebbins. Also, take a look at this.

Ben Wang is Asian American and there are no explicitly Asian American characters, so we've gotta guess this one purely on Vibes (Olson and Barkovitch could both be canonically Asian American, but Barkovitch is openly racist, so). From Wang's YouTube channel and some clips of Chinese Born American I found, he's a nice and playful guy (hmu Ben let's get a lemonade, also tell me who you're playing), so I'd assume Baker or Olson or Abraham because they fit that the closest, I guess? But this is unfortunately a flawed way of guessing because actors playing lunatics are sometimes normal people in real life, walking among us, going almost undetected.

Tut Nyuot's a young, sweet-looking kid. I'd assume Percy? Again, weird to cast Percy already because he doesn't even have any lines in the book, but I can't imagine Nyuout playing a character who's supposed to be the same age as Charlie Plummer's character. Maybe he's unexpectedly good at playing deranged assholes like Barkovitch? We'll see.

For Garrett Wareing I'd say Olson, looking through clips and interviews.

Jordan Gonzalez gives me no strong impression. Sorry, Jordan. Feel free to give me a stronger one over lemonade (and tell me who you're playing). If I'm held at gunpoint then I'll say Abraham.

Mark Hamill is presumably playing the Major. He's absolutely not who I would have picked because he overflows with character and I always pictured the Major as a stoic, empty Big Brother type figure, whose moments of charisma and friendliness were obviously just an act. And I guess Hamill could play that, but I think the Major will more likely have a lot more personality and vim and vigor in the movie, if Hamill was cast - he's easily the biggest draw in the cast. Not necessarily a bad way to portray the Major, but easier to mess up. We'll wait and see.

Judy Greer as presumably Mrs. Garraty will presumably be fine.

Set photos look promising, aesthetically. No half-track, though. And there's a tank. Why is there a tank?

There's a Deadline article suggesting that there are only 50 kids and the pace limit is 3mph. But there's also an article suggesting it's still 100 kids so it might be a mistake? If it's 50 kids then that's presumably done for practicality but it's a bad change, the number will either get too low too fast or it'll drop too slowly (and also no 47 and 61 which would be weird but that's not significant). 3mph isn't necessarily bad, it's more feasible, but it does mean the "first into Massachusetts in seventeen years" can't happen. Maybe they'll make New Hampshire the record instead.

i want lemonade

Reblog with your thoughts! We've got news, people, and I'm sure someone somewhere is more excited about that than I am. Let's get some discussion going on in here.

[pasta-in-the-pudding]

how do Julius and Jason flirt with someone they are interested in making their s/o? Separate of course. What are their strong points? Weak points? Shy or confident? Awkward or sweet talker? Observe you from a far too learn all your interests or just take you on a once in a life fairy tale date and hope it works? Kiss on the first date or wait? Things like this!

You are my favorite blog!🖤

Aw, thank you friend! It feels so good to be people's favorite!

Thank you so much for requesting!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Julius The Dressmaker

Julius is a very interesting person when it comes to dating

Usually he will just try to be himself, but if he picks up on something you find attractive, he will adapt to fit that standard for you

He is very confident when it comes to making someone his s/o

If he wants something, he will do everything in his power to get it

Something that does change from person to person is dependent on whether you are more masc presenting or more fem presenting

If you are fem presenting, he will try to be "manly" for you. He will still be himself, but he will just kind of "masculinize" certain features of himself

If you are masc presenting, he will be more soft and "feminine". Again he will still be himself, just sort of accentuating his feminine features

If you are androgynous he will probably just do whatever he thinks you will like better

He tries to be super smooth with his sweet talking, but most of it just comes out as "sweet" rather than "smooth"

Which is still fine, just not exactly what he wanted

Honestly he probably won't bother to learn much about you other than a few likes and dislikes of yours, he wants it to be a surprise for him when you two are dating

So chances are, he will instead just build up a friendship with you (by friendship I mean very flirty acquaintances), and then ask you out randomly and hopes it works

You could literally just be walking in the hallway and he will ask lol

He isn't much of a "special date" guy, so he'll likely just take you out on something where you two can be alone

An empty movie theatre, shopping, eating at a restaurant, etc

During this time, he will try a little harder to pick up on your likes and dislikes, as well as what you think of him

When it comes to the idea of having a first kiss on the first date, he is of the mind that whatever happens happens

If the opportunity presents itself, he will of course take it

But if you aren't comfortable doing that quite yet, or if he can't get a read on how well you like him, then he won't

He is very go with the flow when it comes to the date itself, it is just sort of whatever you wanna do

If the date goes well, he will ask you on another

and another

and another

Until maybe your 4th or 5th date, then he will ask if you like him enough to become his partner or if you need more time

He is sort of impatient though, so don't drag him along too long or he might lose interest

Jason The Toymaker

Jason is a very "traditional" lover if that makes sense

He is very romantic in every sense of the word, and will make sure he woos you to the best of his ability

He learns almost all of your interests, likes and dislikes, both from observing you from afar and talking to you

Once he knows your interests, he will slowly start building a relationship with you

He isn't very flirty, as it just doesn't suit him

He isn't necessarily shy, moreso bashful

He will shyly offer you small gifts, muttering some excuse about how he was just clearing out some clutter and definitely didn't make something just for you

Speaking of gifts, a lot of his gifts are handmade

He thinks that gifts have more value if they are made specifically for someone

When it comes to asking you on a date, he will kind of take a leap of faith

He will set up a romantic picnic in the garden, set to be taken place at night with some candles for the lighting

He will set it up with your favorite foods and drinks and maybe some of your favorite music

He will ask that you allow him to lead you with your eyes closed

He will place his hands over your eyes and lead you to his little spot, and when you arrive he will uncover your eyes with a "tada!"

He will continue standing behind you, observing your reaction

Assuming you take it well, he will then move to stand in front of you, taking your hands and proclaiming his love for you

Not in an overbearing stalker way, but in a sweet, thought out way

And then you will feast on the foods, talking and laughing the night away

After this, he kind of just assumes that you are romantic partners

BUT he refuses to make any advances (such as your first kiss) until he is sure you are completely comfortable

He also waits for a while because he isn't quite comfortable himself

He isn't terribly used to physical affection, and it will take him a while to accept the idea of kissing

He is fine holding hands and maybe some light affections like pressing your foreheads together, but other than that, he will want to wait

Just be patient with him because I promise you, it will pay off

[darklinaforever]

So now, just because I'm not 100% comfortable with the change from Michael to Michaela, does that mean I'm spitting on the actors and causing them distress ?

Or that I will sign weird petitions ?

You're sick at this point, and are going to extremes that have nothing to do with it, just to probably give yourself higher morals.

And if that's not it, why would you go so far as to say things like that ?

I have never expressed or felt hatred for the members of the Bridgerton cast, it's ridiculous.

Not even for Michaela's actress.

And I will not tolerate anyone daring to say the opposite.

So cut your bullshit after a while.

My god, I'm not even one of those people who are completely / 100% against the Michael to Michaela change.

Like I said :

Bonus : Or they could just do a spin-off about an invented main LGBTQ+ couple navigating the Bridgerton universe.

Another bonus : Part of me is clearly also excited to see what the Fran & Michaela romance will bring, and I have also already said this in other posts.

What's your problem people ? I've already been called homophobic, and now it leads to the fact that what I say would also be racist ? But at what fucking time actually !?

All because I'm not 100% comfortable with the gender change of a male book character who's been around for years, going from Michael to Michaela in Bridgerton.

No, but people are crazy...

I would have the same reaction of not being satisfied, for any other type of character ! You assure me the gender of a character (no matter what it is) and then change it for me in the adaptation, well that's stuck in my mind. I want them to remain generally as such in their adaptation.

Same for the type of couple !

If you present me with a queer couple to whom I am attached, I want them to remain generally as such in their adaptation. If you present me with a heterosexual couple to whom I am attached, I want them to remain generally as such in their adaptation.

For what ? Well because over time, years for some, an image was built in my mind for these famous fictional characters.

And I don't see what's wrong with seeing them generally respected in their adaptation, including their gender.

It has nothing to do with being racist, homophobic / queerphobic, or the fact that I don't want to allow sapphic women a chance to see their love up in lights...

The last case particularly makes me laugh :

So even of course for accusations of homophobia / queerphobia :

Even comments that could apparently be racist... 😑

I still remember that I am a bisexual woman of color ! Just for information !

People calm down a little, it's really getting ridiculous...

And again, not only is there gender change but also what bothers me is that the core of Fran, Michael / Michaela and John's story now seems to have changed, based on the final minutes of the season 3 concerning them having been presented to us. And that bothers me too.

I wasn't expecting a 100% faithful adaptation, because Netflix's Bridgerton never was, but I at least expected that the heart of my favorite book in this saga would be respected a minimum, especially knowing that it is generally also the most popular among readers, even those who basically don't like books, and that is unfortunately probably not the case according to the last episode of season 3, and yes that me disturbs and disappoints me and I have the right to be so without taking my hatred in the face.

But that's not why I say, as some claim, that the season on Fran will necessarily be good and deeper than the book, absolutely not.

I simply said that it would be different, right down to the very heart of the story, and that once again, yes it disappoints me a little. But yet again, I never claimed that the season about Fran would be less good or profound than the book.

I literally already said in another posts that I thought it would probably still be well written overall, regardless of the story they tell and that the actors would do their job very well and have good chemistry together. 'screen.

At this point I have nothing more to add. Insult me ​​if you want, it's not my problem if you're stupid.

I will just continue to block the haters. And if you continue to come boasting that you cannot be blocked like some other anonymous person, realize that you are dedicating part of your time to simply trying to piss me off, that it's quite pathetic and therefore that your life must be quite meaningless as a result and I pity you.

But from now on I will ignore you. Because a debate with people who are deliberately closed off is useless.

[thelioncourts]

So Rolin has confirmed Jacob is gonna be in a supporting role from now, it’s sad.

I think we all really need to stop doomposting/doomthinking/doomwhatever unless the show actually shows us a sudden and immense shift in what they mean by 'supporting.' I understand, desperately, the fear of the show pushing jacob/louis to the side, I understand that the book does it and I understand that shows have notoriously done that to black leads before, so I'm not saying that I think this fear/worry comes from a completely misguided place, but I do think we have to have some faith for now, have to give them some benefit of the doubt.

Sam is listed as 'supporting' for s1-s2 and he is very very very present in the series. If Louis becoming supporting means he'll be in the show in similar/equal length to how Lestat was in s1-s2, then I really don't see how this is unexpected or even a problem. No one has ever -- since 2022 -- pretended s3 wasn't going to be a TVL adaptation, we've known this, so Lestat taking center role this season is what has been expected since day 1.

The show has given us, up to this point, more Louis -- and more fleshed out and full of so many beautiful complexities Louis! -- than I ever thought would or could exist on the screen. And s2 ending on a very good note for Louis -- not necessarily a high note, but a good one -- and his final line only confirm to me that we can expect much much more of him.

I also, just to be honest, don't think the IwtV team or AMC are stupid and the Sam/Jacob - Lestat/Louis dynamic is truly what gets them on radars. I could ramble about that more, but I won't.

They may prove me wrong here and relegate him to a minimal presence and, should that happen, I will accept being wrong here and I will be very vocal in my disappointment that they could switch things up so awfully. But I truly think we need to have some faith and wait and see what all happens before we start down a train of 'Louis isn't in the show anymore, he was just a means to an end for them' because I think that's a gross simplification of what s1-s2 have been and I think they've earned a little bit of favor for now. I also think that sets us up for a truly miserable 1year/1year and 1/2 hiatus that will do nothing but add contention and grief to an already insane fandom.

[tyrannuspitch]

i know it's probably a lot MORE vexing to be on the other side of this equation [ie: a norse myth enthusiast when the public image of your passion has been swallowed whole by Some Hollywood Film that just makes shit up]...

but it is still incredibly vexing to me how so many people who are clearly very well-versed in and passionate about norse myth will tell you that mcu thor is terrible while displaying the most surface-level understanding of it.

like. argh. obviously it's fine to personally dislike something for being inaccurate, but "inaccuracy" is not necessarily an artistic flaw in and of itself. sometimes change is just change.

"ah," you say, "but i don't dislike it for being inaccurate, i dislike it because all the changes are simplifying and reductive." are you sure? is it really that the version you know is complex and subtle, and the version you're seeing for the first time is shallow and dumbed-down... or is it just that you're seeing this version for the first time? is it actually less complex" or is it just complex in different ways from what you're expecting?

but also, mcu thor was never going or trying to be mythologically accurate, because it's literally not an adaptation of the myths. it's an adaption of the comics.

yes, it definitely would be cool to have a blockbuster film that accurately depicted norse myth... but that film wouldn't be "marvel's thor". because marvel's thor is his own entity, and he is not interchangeable with his mythological counterpart. if you wrote about myth!thor when you were meant to be writing about marvel!thor, that would be inaccurate too, and, unlike the films we have, you would be failing your brief.

and god it's just really frustrating because like. even a lot of people who like these movies don't see what they're doing, and don't understand that the simplistic hero narrative is something they're setting up specifically to knock down... but that's going to be even harder to see when you're trying to view the movies through a myth lens, given that they're designed to be viewed either through a comic lens or no lens at all.

you need to trust these movies if you want to see what makes them good, and if you come in with the wrong set of expectations, they're not going to look very trustworthy! they're trying to critique and re-complexify the simplified narrative of (the worst version of) the comics, but if you don't know the comics, you're going to think the movies did all the simplifying themselves, and if you don't have patience or faith in the movies, you're not notice to see the self-subversion going on.

which would all be difficult enough to begin with. but then we also have the fact that these movies are near-universally seen as Bad Movies, disposable, soulless, low art, unworthy of study, etc etc. which means that simply trying to defend them is going to lower your credibility in a lot of people's eyes, and the likelihood of anyone ever actually listening to you and believing you on this topic is pretty much negligible. it is at this point that i conclude that i have most likely fallen victim to a wizard's curse and should resign myself to being trapped in the labyrinth(tm) for the rest of my days.

[rinkwrites]

I'm studying the existence of God, and the cosmological and teleological arguments right now in philosophy, and I just wanted to share some practice q's with y'all.

Does science disprove the existence of God?

Scientists would say that there is much more evidence for the Big Bang than there is for God. For example, the red shift. The red shift is the idea that stars which are further away from us appear to have light towards the infrared side of the visible spectrum, proving that they are moving away from us as their light is moving towards us. Scientists might also say hat we can see evolutions results and we know that we have changed and adapted to become perfect, rather than being created that way like the bible claims we were. There are a lot of other inaccuracies in the bible, such as the fact that the world is much older than the bible claims it to be. They might also point out that there are massive leaps of logic in both the cosmological and teleological arguments, neither of them are logical or reasonable so we shouldn't take them very seriously. Furthermore, scientists might say that there is no definitive proof of God OR definitive proof against God, and we shouldn't believe either until we know for sure

Religious people might say that science can never explain everything, and that we need God to explain some things. Science may say that evolution or the Big Bang is proof against god, but they don't know what caused those things. God could very well have caused both of these things. God could have helped design evolution and carried it through, and he could have been or made the singularity that started the Big Bang. Scientists may claim that they have disproved the bible's claims that the world is 6000 years old, but some theists might say that the bible isn't necessarily all 100% true. Its the morals of the stories, not the stories themselves that matter.

Overall, I think that while currently our science can't explain everything, we will eventually be able to understand everything, and there will  be no more gaps for theists to insert their god into. I think that science does not currently disprove the existence of god fully, but that one day it will.

Is the existence of God unconvincing today?

Atheists might say that people have believed in various Gods and deities for hundreds of thousands of years, but they haven't yet been able to come up with a convincing argument or any proof of God. They might also say that Gods were made up to explain things, such as the Greek saying there was a God called Apollo who drove a sun chariot across the sky, because they did not know that the earth was orbiting the sun, and spinning on its orbit. Science is now able to explain most of the things in this world, so the idea of a God is no longer necessary. They might say we should all stop believing in gods now and just believe in what science can prove. Atheists might also say that we can prove that some of the things in the Bible are incorrect, such as the world being 6000 years old. Due to fossils and rock formations, we can prove that the world is much older than that. Atheists may argue that if that part of the bible is incorrect then why should we beleive the rest of it. Some atheists have also said that the very premise of  God giving us free will is unconvincing, if God is all-knowing then he knows what choice we will make before we even know what we're choosing between, so do we really have a choice in the matter?

Many theists however, would say that we shouldn't be questioning gods existence and trying to prove it. God is transcendent, which means beyond human comprehension. Faith should be inert ad unquestioning, why are we trying to understand something so far beyond us. They might also say that while there are some proven inaccuracies in the bible, it is not the truth of the stories but the morals of them that matter. Whether or not the good Samaritan actually helped out his sworn enemy is irrelevant, the story is just making the point that we should love and care for everyone equally.

Overall I think that there are no convincing arguments for God, and there never have been. In fact there quite possibly never will be. With huge advancements in science everyday, many things which were previously thought of as miracles or the work of the all-powerful being, can now be explained logically.

Does science disprove the cosmological argument?

Some people might say that there is much more evidence for theories such as the Big Bang than there is for the cosmological argument. Scientists have proven that the universe is expanding by seeing the 'red shift'. The 'red shift' is the idea that the light which stars emit appears to be moving down the electromagnetic spectrum, suggesting that the light waves they emit are being stretched as they come towards us. Scientists have said that this means that the universe is expanding outwards slowly, as the very space which the light waves are moving across is getting bigger. Scientists would say that this argument is logical and reasonable, but that the cosmological argument is not. Many people have criticised the cosmological argument for making the big leap from saying 'there is a first uncaused cause' to saying 'this cause must be God'.

Theists might reply by saying that it is all very well for scientists to say that the Big Bang caused the universe, but scientists can't explain what caused the Big Bang. God could have used the Big Bang as his method of creating the universe. Theists might also say that God is transcendent, which means that he is beyond human comprehension. They might say that we are not God, so we cannot understand a universe which He created. They could also say that we should not be trying to explain and prove the existence or non-existence of a being beyond out understanding.

Overall I think that science does not technically disprove the cosmological argument, there is room for both the Big Bang and the existence of God to be fact. However I also think that the cosmological argument is not a very good argument for the existence of God as it has an obvious leap in logic, and it directly contradicts itself.

Enjoy my shitty eight-markers x

[wolves-against-the-world]

What kind of faith or spirituality do wolves follow?

That really heavily depends on who you're asking actually! Most people grew up in some sort of religion, even just through socialization. Being turned into a werewolf definitely shakes that up, and some packs do follow their own customs. There's a few shared "trends" between packs, such as having their dead cremated to avoid post-mortem examinations (mostly for eldritch type wolves). The telepathic bond between wolves and their strong connection to nature also leads to stronger spirituality, though rituals can vary from pack to pack.

That doesn't necessarily mean individual members give up their birth faith though. Of course a lot of religions aren't exactly accommodating for werewolves but there are definitely ways to make it work. Obv the entire eating people thing is a bit of an issue but like. It's not TECHNICALLY a biological requirement.

Let's look at an example:

Attila was turned by Count Emicho of Flonheim, who lead the so-called German Crusade in 1096, and was a commander in the Army of the Night, a shadow army of werewolves in the employ of the Catholic Church. Their theology was fairly similar to the rest of medieval Christianity, with the caveat that they had been cursed and could only avoid their eternal damnation by using their powers to regain the holy land (or whatever was the current goal of the crusades). Attila, Sasha, and Milo were part of that army for a LONG time, but coming out of it - in the face of the horrors they witnessed, Alling with the abuse and obvious corruption going on - they dealt with their faith in completely different ways.

Sasha was agnostic for a while, channeling his anger at the world into hatred for a God he could hold accountable about as much as their commanders. He and Attila had some pretty intense fights about the topic. These days, he accepts that other people have their faiths, but is a complete atheist, because he can't possibly imagine the world we live in can have a sentient, let alone kind creator. He does believe in the spirit of the wild, the Great Wolf, but not that it's a sapient entity, but like you believe in gravity. Nature has its mechanisms, and all living beings are part of that network.

Attila on the other hand retained his faith in a Christian God, though heavily adapted. He grappled with the same questions Sasha and Milo did - in the face of such slaughter and cruelty, how can we think of God as good? His answer was that God gave humanity free will, for better or worse. He did break away from the doctrine of the army that werewolves are damned by merely existing, because it doesn't make sense to him. He sees the great wolf as an extension of divinity, like the holy spirit.

The story centers heavily on Christianity because that's what the pack is familiar with, but there are absolutely Muslim or Jewish or Hindu werewolves, who all integrated their faith into their existence. [I just don't want to speculate on religions I have not enough expertise on.]

[writemywaytoyourheart]

Bedeviled is LITERAL GOLD. I remember reading it for the 1st time thinking, "there ain't no way I just read this for free." Sissy, this is beautiful, I feel beautiful, I feel hopeful, I feel confident, I feel stronger than ever—and as I said before, it has strangely strengthened my faith with Him. It's been so long since I've read something with a happy ending, and now I'm healed. 😭 After reading it the first time did I feel a change in me, like you know when you read something and you get to adapt to what you're reading, but this? Nah, it gave me a different perspective in life, idk what to say anymore, honestly. Not my top favorites, but THE TOP of my favorites and I love you for this.

You will literally never ever understand what this did to me, for me.

You'll never understand what your moment of bravery and decision to send this in has done for me.

I get up, I write, I work, I eat, sometimes I sleep, I stress, and then I do it all over again. Again and again. And sometimes it feels like I'm stuck in a hamster wheel and that yes I might make some people happy for a bit with my stories, but then it's over. The chapters are done and the people are happy... but it's done. And if I don't make more, they won't be happy anymore and I won't be happy anymore; that's how my brain thinks of things sometimes, unfortunately.

I know that's not necessarily true, but hey, human brains are annoying lol.

See, I never even realized that I thought like that. I never knew that I was afraid to be forgotten on that level, the level of having been the one to make someone happy, but then once I'm gone from their brain, I'm gone. Idk if that makes sense.

But anyway, I didn't realize that I was so subconsciously affected by it until this ask. But your words helped at the same time. You showed that my story stuck with you, that what I've created is still a part of your life.

Thank you. Seriously, thank you.

Sometimes I'm good with words, sometimes I'm the worst :')

You were brave and you made the decision to send this to me, and tell me how your life has changed. And just that one decision, these words you've written, my life has changed now too.

I'll never be able to put it into words besides thank you. A thank you that means more than you think it does.

I am so happy for you, and I hope that your life continues to grow in beautiful ways, even through the ups and downs.

Thank you for healing, I hope that healing journey all the best as it continues ❤️ thank you ❤️

ILY 🫂

-chip

[onaperduamedee]

On first seasons and adaptability

Seeing Wheel of Time fans sort of humbly recognizing the first season wasn't great but it's okay since [insert perfectly reasonable, but still subjective points] is wild to me, because no, it was a really good first season in comparison to many of my favourite shows.

It's not rare for TV shows to stumble in their first season, but still find their footing later on. I genuinely don't think The Wheel of Time swayed at all. Many choices feel pointedly intent in their understanding of later arcs from the books. That should be a source of relief for book fans.

I had never heard about the books before and the show got me to embark on a reading journey that's thrice the length of Proust's Recherche. If this isn't a win for book fans, I do not understand what they wanted an adaptation for.

The last time I had been this excited for a weekly release was Ted Lasso. The Wheel of Time is well-made, enjoyable, often thrilling, with lots of heart and ambition, and most importantly very intentional, and all that from the start. I watch too much TV and these really aren't a given in a first season.

This is making me very curious about what people consider a great first season? What are the criteria, beyond viewing numbers, for a good or bad first season? I personally believe it is about introducing to a world, establishing themes and yes, ensnaring watchers the way a skillful storyteller grabs your attention.

Regardless of how the shows evolved afterwards, some of my most memorable first seasons are Elementary, The Good Place, the OA, GoT (begrudgingly), Pitch, for instance. Note that my favourite shows aren't in there.

In fact having a great first season is a rarity, most of us have to wait for the second or third season for the lore to kick in (Person of Interest) or the tone to feel self-assured (Star Trek Discovery). Which isn't necessarily a defect! This is what working with a long format like TV entails.

To expand on the Wheel of Time first season particularly, the argument I have seen the most is the faithfulness of the adaptation.

I am putting aside the fact that I don't think an adaptation has to be a faithful translation to be a good one (Jackson's Lord of the Rings, still one of my favourite movies) for the sake of the discussion.

To me, as standard Fantasy show goes, it's a great show so far. As an adaptation, it is so clever, both incorporating tiny blink and you'll miss it fanservice-ish elements (Aes Sedai taking back trays to in their rooms) and bigger commentary on the main themes (the Stepin arc and what it means for Lan, Nyn, Moi and Rand). The latter is often decried as being unnecessary invention, but this is where the question of adaptability comes into play.

Regarding what would be better referred to as the unadaptability of TEotW, I hadn't read the book before watching the show. Some of my favourite scenes are in fact in the books and never made it to the screen (Nynaeve and Moiraine's discussion about Aes Sedai, White Bridge). Some depictions didn't match what impressed me so much in the books (the Blight, small angry black-eyed Moiraine).

Yet, as I read some, I knew it would not work on-screen.

It's a different medium!

When I was 19, I started planning what was essentially a five acts tragedy about the events that led to the burning of the ships at Alqualondë (in alexandrins, please) from the Silmarillion. Spoilers: I never finished it, barely started it.

TV shows are as different from novels than ballet is from comics. It's not only about codes and norms, as creating in a particular medium often comes down to simple abject feasibility: you can with great difficulty have 3000 soldiers on stage for Le Cid.

But here's the thing, it's often from these very practical limitations that creation is born. Take the Ways: in the books, they captured my imagination the way some of Tolkien's best descriptions did, but there was no way to depict it without tons of CGI. It was bound to look silly. The show's answer is ancient, alien and vast, with visual echoes to our world, as it should be.

It's brilliant, it's stunning and it is an even greater hommage to Robert Jordan's mythology about Ogier and the age of the Ways.

(And I am not even broaching how great a job the show does editing the book, which is fascinating to me as I am making my way through the books. )

[sciderman]

Sci, Mutant Mayhem wasn't THAT good. It was good but-

Changed basically everything about the lore except the fact they are mutant turtles in nyc

Hang on, do you think any of the Spider-Men have been friend with the tmnt?

okay i have no personal stake in the teenage mutant ninja turtles lore whatsoever so i came into it as a novice and i did not expect to like the turtles but came out really liking the turtles so that's the barometer of success to me. i think as a standalone thing without any prior investment in the IP it's really, really solid. like it's a good movie, objectively, on it's own. if teenage mutant ninja turtles didn't exist prior, it's just straight up a good movie. it's a good movie. narratively sound, has a lot of heart, you like all the characters... art direction makes me salivate. i never thought about the turtles before. now i can't stop thinking about them. movie did good job on that front. 👍

i don't know if i'll ever get into the teenage mutant ninja turtles lore but i mean it did what it said on the tin. there were definitely teenage mutant ninja turtles in it. so i got what i was expecting, i think. i wasn't mismarketed.

i think every adaptation of a property SHOULD do something new with it. i don't think an adaptation necessarily owes something to the source material - it owes it to the audience to justify it's own existence as something new. something that exists on it's own, and has a reason to exist, more than just retreading what already exists, y'know, y'know. so i love adaptations that are good on their own. not something to discredit, me don't think!

buuuut i'm sure if i had any personal stake in tmnt i'd have gripes. but maybe not. i love when people do something NEW with spider-man, as long as it's actually good and interesting, and not stupid and bad and soulless. i don't hate on the mcu spider-man adaptation because it's different - i hate on it because it doesn't work, on it's own. there's a reason why the original is effective and the new one isn't. and those reasons go beyond "it's different." miles' story is different, and isn't faithful to the comics exactly, and it's better for it. it's fresh and new. fresh and new is good, sometimes. when something is good, it's good. doesn't have to be faithful. and in fact, being faithful can be a bit of a curse sometimes. it's easy to be faithful. it's more of a challenge to reinterpret something to make it accessible and interesting for new viewers. so! credit to tmnt:mm for that!! sexy of them. so sexy.

i don't think there's a canonical team-up between the turtles and any spider-men - but man, there SHOULD be...

[dragontamer05]

Hot take?

I really don't think ATLA ever needed a live action remake/reboot/re-imagining, and it's not because I think the series is some perfect masterpiece.

I mean it is good and deserves much of the praise it's gotten from the years but it's not perfect (nothing is tbh). And you know that's fine?? Whatever flaws it has doesn't necessarily mean it has to be 'fixed' or redone.

Say whatever you want about it, but I don't think anyone no matter who did it could have made Avatar into a decent set of movies- sure in different hands casting and writing may have been improved but gonna be honest even back then as a kid/younger, I was skeptical of the idea of turning a whole season of episodes into a single movie and how condensed and changed it would have to be to even work. The pacing of a movie and a T.V series are vastly different.

And I still held the skepticism up hearing they wanted to do a live action T.V series- and can't say hopes/faith improved when hearing how the creators of the show had issues with Netflix/ those working on ATLA to the point of eventually leaving it.

But even if they had stuck on idk, just feels like a weird choice. A good part of what helps Avatar work is because it's animated, which just offers more freedom and just often things that can work well in animation don't translate as well into live action.

Personally I think a better choice would have been to take one of the Novels or comics something and adapt that into a series instead.

Quality aside one think that does keep surprising and confusing me is how I'll here/see a lot of people talking about you know the problems with child actors and the industry and how it'd probably be better to like not put kids in such a position but at the same time like want to see these adaptations that would require well hiring children.

[7grandmel]

Todays rip: 16/01/2024

Friday Night Minecartin'

Season 5 Featured on: SiIvaGunner's Highest Quality Rips: Volume D

Ripped by berg8793

The first time I talked about the ripper berg8793 on here was way back in July of last year with DK Rap God - one of the most impressive rips yet made on the channel, and easily the most impressive use of the DK Rap on it. And while rips of the DK Rap are always a delight, it does kind of feel like it steals the spotlight from other songs in the Donkey Kong 64 soundtrack - and that trademark RareWare playfulness in their instrumentation that make rips like Banjostruck possible. Because of that zaniness, rips like Friday Night Minecartin' are so much more than just a mere instrumental change: it ends up feeling like jungle chaos incarnate.

And like, melody swaps are indeed huge on SiIva, be it Eterna's Cocoon, Beyond the Floating Isles, Determination is Magic, the aptly titled Black Parade (MMX Remix), and thousands more I haven't yet covered. But you'll notice there's a pattern they usually follow - they're often aiming to adapt music into a very recognizable, iconic, and just overall good-sounding set of instruments, be it to sound like Undertale music, Kirby music, Pokémon music, and so on. Games like Pokémon Diamond, Pearl and Platinum are practically wholly represented on SiIva through their melodyswaps due to how much people are drawn to the instruments those particular games feature.

And while it certainly isn't the first to fall outside of this trend, I do genuinely think it is kind of cool that rips like Friday Night Minecartin' are out there to buck the trend, to show just how many forms "high quality" can take. Because, if you'd asked me before this rip was made if Ugh from Friday Night Funkin' would sound better as a song within the cacophany of noise that is Donkey Kong 64's soundscape, I would've absolutely said no! Yet that question would also be missing the point - as a form of creative expression, high quality ripping is never necessarily about improving what you're ripping - its just about seeing what is possible with the tools you're giving yourself, and seeing people's reactions to it. And I don't mean to infer that Friday Night Minecartin' at all sounds bad - it, like the best melodyswaps on the channel, manages to sound absolutely fantastic in a way wholly distinct from the original! The chimp noises playing throughout the track and the brassy backing keep the whimsy tone of the original Mine Cart Carnage track, while the change in lead melody invokes just enough of Ugh's energy to feel like a faithful arrangement. The mood of both tracks is obviously completely different, and though its not in the style of music that the Friday Night Funkin' fandom is likely seeking out in particular, it still preserves the quality of one of that game's best tracks!

Funny thing is, I only rediscovered this rip in particular through its accidental use in a YouTube video, which aimed to use the original Mine Cart Carnage with the specific intent of creating a silly, hectic mood for a montage. And though the change in melody was immediately apparent, it still absolutely kept the intended mood he was looking for - and is likely why he mistook it for the original track to begin with. And like, I just think there's something really neat about rips like Friday Night Minecartin' still being made, rips that aren't necessarily made to impress as elevating an old track to all new heights, but just to be fun experiments, surprising twists on an old favorite. Better, worse, different, equal, absurd, normal, whatever - so long as its quality, its enough to make me smile.

[culttvblog]

Blake and/et Mortimer: The Yellow Mark/La Marque Jaune

I see from the Cambridge Dictionary that 'cult' in the sense it is used in the title of this blog is defined as appealing to a particular group of people, and honestly using that definition a TV based on Belgian Francophone comic books about two stiff-upper lipped British men, bizarrely translated into English and turned into a TV series, is probably about as cult as it can get, so of course it had to appear here.

Les Aventures de Blake et Mortimer is a long-running (1946 to the present) series of Belgian comics starring the two eponymous heroes. Professor Philip Mortimer is a leading Scottish scientist who gets into all sorts of adventures because he tends to be a bit impulsive. Captain Francis Blake is one of these people who have definitely been in the armed services but now probably aren't allowed to tell you what they do for a living because of the Official Secrets Act. They live together in London. There's nothing going on, of course, this is the 1950s. Their adventures tend to span traditional detection/security and some much more science fiction subjects. If you haven't come across them the closest comparison I can think of is a cross between Dick Barton and 1930s cinema serials. They are very much of their time, and as such are glorious.

They aren't all set in Britain obviously (one adventure is about Atlantis, for example, and others take place all over the world), but a lot of the point of them is the perceived Britishness of the protagonists. What makes this perception unique to this programme is that the Britishisness isn't seen through the eyes of either Americans or our former colonies. This gives it a distinctively French take on les biftecks.

The series of books was faithfully adapted into an animated series in 1997, with some new adventures added. It is available in both French and dubbed into English. They are exactly the same show with all the titles in French, just with an English soundtrack. In the UK you can buy it on region 2 DVD with just the English soundtrack, but I see from Canadian and French Amazon there is a huge array of different DVD releases in multiple languages, formats, and nary a mention of region, and many of which seem to be priced at huge prices.

Regular readers of the blog will not be surprised in the slightest to know that I think a minority of the reviews online of this particular episode are slightly unfair. Don't quote me on this, but my understanding of Francophone BD culture is that the comic books can be read by the kids (and in my French exchange days the kids would sit on the floor of the hypermarket reading them) but that there isn't any shame in adults reading or collecting them either. Certainly La Marque Jaune first appeared in instalments in 1953 to 1954 in Tintin magazine, which subtitles itself as the magazine for youth from 7 to 77. I think it's not really fair to expect a level of plot that you would get in an adult detective novel. There is an additional adjustment to make, which is that while the show is a faithful adaptation, time constraints necessarily mean that some layers of Jacobs's famous byzantine plotting have had to be omitted. But I just think it's not really fair to criticise thiese things too much.

La Marque Jaune is set in London, which for some time has been terrorised (much of this summary is lifted from the Wikipedia entry) by a mysterious thief who tells the press about the crimes he is going to commit and then commits them, leaving a yellow M behind in a circle. Ultimately he escalates to stealing the Imperial State Crown from the Tower of London and the Home Office asks captain Francis Blake to help Scotland Yard solve these crimes. We are introduced to a selection of the great and the good, one of whom, Vernay, is abducted and a yellow M left behind.

Even though this sounds, and is, predominantly a straightforward detective story, there is a hint of science fiction present, and what I love about it most is that the villain is absolutely deranged. We're talking Avengers villain levels of derangement and the whole plot takes place amongst people who are definitely Our Sort of People. But luckily ultimately the crown is saved. You have no idea how much difficulty I have had stopping myself giving it away, but I suspect this show may not be so well known to cult TV fans, so I will leave the solution for your delectation.

I have a couple of criticisms. One which drives me spare is that the unnamed person who translated the script used to dub the show into English made the decision to translate 'the yellow mark' as 'the yellow brand'. This drives me crazy, and I have even looked it up in a couple of north American dictionaries to see whether it just isn't British English, but no. As far as I can see the verb brand used a sort of mark only means marks made by hot metal, which isn't what is happening. Perhaps they realised that this wasn't the right English translation of La Marque Jaune, since the title of the episode is The Yellow Mark and the English title of the translated book is The Yellow "M", either of which would have been perfectly sensible translations. I may be nit picking if I also point out that in the show the M is described by Professor Mortimer as a Greek mu. Honestly I wish they'd just picked one thing which was actually English and stuck to it.

I'm not convinced I'm being fair, given that this is a fictional work depicting British people as seen (stereotyped?) by outsiders but I'm not convinced any Scottish person has ever exclaimed the thing Mortimer keeps saying, 'By the tartan of Clan MacGregor!' I really hope no Belgian or Canadian kids use this to learn English because the results would be hilarious.

Otherwise, I cannot recommend this show (and the books which inspired it) highly enough and definitely think you should all watch them.

This blog is mirrored at

culttvblog.tumblr.com/archive (from September 2023) and culttvblog.substack.com (from January 2023 and where you can subscribe by email)

Archives from 2013 to September 2023 may be found at culttvblog.blogspot.com and there is an index to the tags used on the Tumblr version at https://www.tumblr.com/culttvblog/729194158177370112/this-blog