#and in portrayals of older men vs older women

[femmeconomics]

ugly or mid men in media irrationally piss me off because i get too distracted thinking about the standards actresses face to even pay attention to what they’re doing

[sokkastyles]

I feel like there's this kind of... Schrodinger's Aang problem, both in the show and the fandom, that gets to me because Aang is simultaneously presented to be so wide beyond his years, yet the argument that he's a twelve year old kid is trotted out constantly to defend and absolve him of any possible wrongdoing. He's supposedly wise and worldly enough at twelve to preach to Katara about forgiving her mother's killer, but he's also twelve and therefore too young to understand not, yknow, kissing Katara without her consent or blaming a fictional portrayal of her on her. (Obviously both things are examples of Aang just blowing past Katara's emotional and physical boundaries, I don't think it's talked about much how Katara never actually asks Aang for any advice about going to confront Yon Rha, he just comes out swinging, but the show and KA/wider fandom don't treat it that way). Do you think if Aang was written to be even a little older, say Katara's age, this would happen so much, even if the writing stayed the same? Defense of the EiP kiss, for eg, is already awful, but often relies on the "he's just twelve so its 'not that bad'" excuse.

I do think if Aang were older, or more physically imposing, people would recognize these things as Aang disrespecting Katara's boundaries, yes. We have this image that men who behave that way look a certain way and are threatening to women in ways that are easily identifiable. For example, the stereotype of the big angry man or the scary rapist hiding in the bushes, when in reality, most assaults are committed by someone the person already knows, a friend or a boyfriend. Just look at the "Nice Guy" belief and the way it manifests itself in KA vs Zutara discourse. Zuko is the scary bad boy who isn't good for Katara and probably an abuser, while Aang can't possibly hurt Katara because he's "just a kid" and "so nice." The problem is that this kind of rhetoric is entirely manipulative and incredibly coercive, and Aang hurts Katara by the very premise that he's so innocent and wise that she's not allowed to feel hurt by him, and if she does, it must be because there is something wrong with her. That idea, that Katara just doesn't know what is actually good for her and what she wants, and needs Aang to tell her, is implicitly presented in the show both in Ember Island Players and The Southern Raiders. And both episodes use Zuko as the underlying threat that is leading Katara away from good guy Aang.

[aq2003]

just wanted to thank you for your posting about the moffat era lmao, I've been finally watching doctor who for the first time (started with the 9th doctor, just finished season 7, haven't watched classic who yet) and I've been struggling to put into words exactly what I hate about moffat's writing until I read your posts. you get it for real. I totally agree with you about day of the doctor btw, it felt incredibly fanservice-y in a bad way. like they were so close to nailing it with 10 being the doctor who remembers and 11 being the doctor who tries to forget and then they just....missed the mark for the rest of the episode. as an aside I also really liked your post about the wasted potential of the 11th doctor because I LOVE matt smith's portrayal of the doctor and I think there is so much to explore there but his talents are wasted on moffat's god awful writing 😭

i'm rewatching the doctor who vs women video essay and while i think a little bit of the criticism of eleven era is unfair (girl who waited is imo the ep that writes amy w the most agency in the whole era and explores the consequences of her being someone that just waits and remembers), a majority of the criticism VERY much is and god i missed the companion being written as the protagonist/pov character SO MUCH. what's crazy is that i almost expected amy to have an arc similar to martha, like girl who waited and the god complex are both about her blind faith in the doctor and how she has to leave that behind as she grows older. but the s6 finale doesn't touch on this at all it's all about the convoluted river plot (what happened to her being an archaeologist help me). and we kick off s7 with amy being sad that she can't give rory children and then she dies because she can't be without rory she can't exist on her own what would she be without the men in her life lmao!!! i am banging on the glass and screeching like rtd certainly wasn't perfect but basically every female character he wrote had their own rich interior lives and really felt like people. and i really missed that going into eleven era. ironically i think (modern-day) clara does the groundedness of the companion the best between the rest of the main eleven-era companions (besides craig. yes i like craig and i want to die about it). like how eleven views her is written in direct contrast to her being portrayed as this perfectly ordinary girl and this character beat would've really hit if eleven had to grow and change and accept her as just being Some Person. rather than. You know. ik ppl really like twelve-era clara even though it doesn't really go off of what was established w her and eleven so i will still keep an open mind and dive in fresh. hopefully they make each other worse and explode

[dolchester-rp]

we received a question about: setting, world building, locations, timeline, and aesthetics - and wanted to share this response with anyone else who is interested and waiting for more information as well!

SETTING:

dolchester is reflective of what london in the regency era of bridgerton is like along with the generic idea of noble towns seen in some isekai royal themed stories. in that case, dolchester is not explicitly modeled after any real life locations and exists in a fictional world with similar aspects of society with these themes.

for more clarification, dolchester is seen as the capital of the land it exists in. it's a vast country and the roleplay will be based in dolchester focusing on the lives of the people. however, members will be more than welcome to write threads and pieces of their muse taking place in country estate homes.

WORLD BUILDING:

although the roleplay setting is modeled after much older times, there will be adjustments made to fit the types of muses being brought in. for example, i have plans to have an event (or mini) where the diamond of the season and most eligible bachelor will be named based on the amount of participation or points earned during this period. if the roleplay were to stick to historical accuracy, i wouldn't be able to implement this event since all muses are required to be 20+ whereas debutantes being introduced to society were around 17 to 18 years old. in this case, the society in dolchester will have a twist with some more modern takes.

for example, debutantes could range anywhere from 21-25, to allow some room for writers to partake in this part of the expected event if they'd like to. writers would also be completely fine to have had their muses introduced to society previously even if they fall into this age range.

there will also be a royal family, however, nothing that would be reflective of history or the portrayals of the royal family from the bridgerton series. these npcs are currently in the works to offer supplemental lore, along with other npcs that may be needed for ic and roleplay development along the way.

along with the more modern take, this means that women also have the freedom to be attending schools and taking on careers to support themselves (reflective of isekai storylines with nobility themes).

there's a lot that is open to build in the world and i'd like writers to be able to feel like they have the space to explore and create what they want to help them develop their muse and muse's storyline while here in our roleplay.

with this, i have plans to open a few skeletons as well. there will be some limits on certain peerage availability in the aristocracy. for example there will probably be one spot available for a duke title, whereas there would be more space for barons/viscounts/earls. additionally, there would be aspects surrounding 'new money' vs 'old money' to add more to the social aspects.

as a last point that hasn't been shown from our pages, we will be advertising as a 'krp', however, one thing we'd like to adopt showcased in the bridgerton series is the diversity. we will be open to all face claims as long as they abide to the banned face claims list.

LOCATIONS:

i plan to have places such as a well-known modiste in play while possibly having a new modiste as well. there will be plenty of other establishments such as a perfumery, a gambling room, a fighting venue, theaters (for opera, ballet, and plays), men's/women's clubs, tea/coffee houses, and gardens for events or recreational reasons, etc.

TIMELINE:

there isn't an exact timeline set in stone. i don't think there will be one created specifically that would define the time that dolchester is taking place in either aside from referencing the regency era due to some of the modern takes. but for roleplay purposes, the time might be referred to as the current monarch's 34th spring or summer as an example. from there, things can just be referred to as a year from now or three years ago. i'm also playing on the idea that there maybe a certain annual royal event that even serves as a mark in time for society if that makes sense. i do want to try avoiding implementing any specific years to avoid a direct association to the time period, however, if the writers of the community find that to be more convenient for roleplay purposes, i'm more than happy to choose something that could work for everyone!

AESTHETICS:

i'm not quite sure how to answer this specifically as i don't feel like there is a specific aesthetic that i've chosen to represent the roleplay or setting yet. if i were to list some though i would say it's a wide mix along the lines of light/romantic/dark academia, cottage core, and neoclassical. i hope this gives a better idea if there's something specific you're looking to for visual aspects!

thank you for the questions! if anyone would like further clarification or has any questions based off of these answers, please feel free to reach out!

admin daisy

[luzho]

okay. i finished Foundation and Earth. here are my thoughts (spoilers ahead, naturally. if u care, dont worry if u dont)

so. first i gotta say i am satisfied with this pursuit of an apparently long forgotten earth. i liked the slow burn. i, as an earth citizen, like knowing how close they keep coming to earth (knowing they reached alpha centauri was EXHILARATING!). and i also liked seeing this extrapolation of some of asimov’s other worlds. earlier worlds if u will.

BUT! i’m not much of a fan of many portrayals, repetitive discussions and the lack of actual foundation in this one. i forgave Foundation’s Edge longer format (vs. true foundation episodic format) because i liked seeing so many galactic powers meet and clash at the climax! and seeing them all in a quick apparent resolution, known to only a few of those who understood what Seldon’s Plan just did (and to the reader). but this? not sold

i liked seeing them become friends, but fuck, i get why Trevize and Bliss found each other so fucking annoying so many times. shut up you two

R. DANEEL OLIVAW FUCKING SHOWED UP!! a true celebrity. what a robot. i imagined him as an older and more tired Miguel O’Hara

very twisted thing to do: merge himself with that Fallom kid…… i was very appalled when mr. Olivaw said that

i saw this in a 2009 forum: i struggle with the ending because i cant believe Trevize accepted that reasoning for Galaxia. “oh yeah fuck being an individual and lets implement a galaxy-wide GROUP CONSCIOUSNESS, so that if an alien species ever leaves their own galaxy and decides to invades us, they will never be able to turn us against ourselves!”. huh?? yeah unity whatever but to me, this doesn’t fix any of the holes Trevize himself pointed out during the book. it doesn’t even guarantee that the alleged aliens would not be able to just destroy us any other way

oh the fucking ending that insinuated such an alien enemy species was already in the galaxy. the Solarians. yes the fucking feudalist shut-ins. yeah yeah whatever i wish the foundation would just fucking blast them out of the cosmos. that whole planet is awful and insulting

i liked Melponomia or whatever it was named. space walk! future ruins! that’s fun

WHY WAS IT NEVER EXPLAINED HOW WAS IT THAT TREVIZE POSSESSED AN ALWAYS-RIGHT INTUITION??? everything else is plausible within the nature of advanced physical, mental and psychohistorical sciences but… That, never gets explained. even the fucking Mule was explained as a rogue Gaian. but a human being who just happens to intuitively know what’s Right without reasoning… just happened to be born at the right time?? why. how is that even possible

i read somewhere that fundamentally, Asimov portrayed a society that didn’t change and that all characters were flat. here we saw many radically different societies that did evolve in isolation and to very weird results. but yep. the men who star here and the galactic society they come from is just so… painfully XX century. i find ridiculous how this guy could fathom galactic expansion in 20,000 years… but only 3 women as the mayor for 500 years in THAT distant future. the characters have a discussion on Fallom’s pronouns for fucks sake!!!

one of the axioms of psychohistory is that human society would not fundamentally change for millennia (which allows for statistically predicting the galaxy’s development!)… but, i think THAT is a fundamental flaw in the premise of the entire saga. how is it possible that it wouldn’t?? i thought that was gonna be the plot twist, the flaw in Seldons Plan that Trevize had been looking for in the two novels. no, it was fucking ‘what if evil aliens!’

there was virtually no foundation in “Foundation and Earth”. fuck off

i didn’t like the book much, in short. the trilogy is undefeated man.

EDIT A COUPLE OF MINUTES AFTER POSTING AND CONTINUING READING SAID FORUM: oh fuck. Fallom will grow and eventually will be able to reproduce asexually (one of the Solarians’ mutations). that means Olivaw, now merged onto Fallom, could transfer his brain onto that offspring. indefinitely. and that forum also reminded me of Olivaw’s powers: he can manipulate minds. Trevize and his crew almost instantly accept Galaxia as inevitably necessary when in the presence of the one robot that can manipulate minds and bend the robotic laws “in efforts of steering humanity out of harm’s way”… that’s twisted. i still dont like it. but if that’s what’s happening, i guess i respect that of you Asimov. i still favor your earlier work<3

CONTINUED READING THE FORUM: okay these guys proposed many more, very interesting ideas: A. Trevize IS the being of the other galaxy! Thats why he’s a neutral observer capable of pointing out the right way (kind of a reach, tbh). B. Olivaw is more wicked than i thought: he IS known for making decisions for humanity, even though no one asked him to (the zeroth law… really is a slippery slope, for it allows robots to ignore all other laws if they happen to judge that “humanity” would benefit…); he has made himself an immortal, all powerful shepherd and to save humanity, he will turn it into… something else. C. Solaria is a brain farm for him: those Solarian idiots, with their backward tech and stupid freedom ideology, would fatten themselves for the slaughter. twisted. i like it. is Olivaw a villain, in my opinion? yup, but only for destroying what humanity is (and building his perfect, eternal galaxia; which i despise only for not being us)

FINAL ADDITION OF THIS SAME NIGHT: an user correctly pointed out that probably many of us despise this book for destroying Seldons Plan. and yup. the Plan is the fucking hero of this story; and i hate knowing its not even followed through for its second half. D. yup. Solarians (individualism in extreme) would definitely be Galaxia’s (a literal hive mind) final enemy… the last foundation crisis. but that book was never written. no perdamos tiempo en hubieras.

[tipsycad147]

Morgan Le Fay: 9 Ways to Work With the Fairy Goddess of Avalon

posted by : kitty fields

The first time I ever heard the story of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, I was hooked. As a young girl, I voraciously consumed any movie, book, or show on the Arthurian legends. The magic, the heroism, the adventure. But it wasn’t just the men in the stories that intrigued me and kept me coming back. It was the women. And more specifically, that illusive priestess slash fairy goddess, Morgan le Fay. As I grew older and began practicing paganism, I realized she is much more than what the Arthurian legends give her credit for. Let’s meet the real Morgan Le Fay and learn how to work with her in our practice.

Who is Morgan Le Fay? Her Mysterious Origins

Answering the question, who is Morgan le Fay, is going to be a difficult one. But we plan to do our best for this illusive fairy queen goddess. First, let’s examine her name. Because therein lies some of her origins and powers. Her first name, Morgan, is likely of Celtic origin and means sea or sea-born. Interestingly, mermaids are called morgens in some Celtic regions. Next, le Fay is actually French and means the fairy. So, we can gather that her name literally means fairy born from the sea. If you’ve never heard of Morgan le Fay, you’ve likely at least heard of King Arthur, Lancelot and Camelot.

Morgan is a character in the Arthurian legends. Sometimes she’s Arthur’s half-sister and sometimes she’s his lover. But her origins go back long before the Medieval Era and are much more important than a side role in a story. She was likely a water goddess or spirit of formidable power in ancient Celtic Britain.

Morgan Le Fay’s Mixed Portrayal in the Arthurian Legends

We first learn of Morgan le Fay in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s work Vita Merlini from twelfth century Wales. In this early Medieval version of the King Arthur legend, Morgan Le Fay is portrayed as an ally of the King’s in more than one way. She guides him to her magical land called Avalon in order to heal his fatal wound. And keep him there until his time to return to England has come. The enchantress called Morgan Le Fay is not only a ruler of an Otherworld, but a psychopomp who guides Arthur to the afterlife safely. And a healer.

From Higginson’s Tales of the Enchanted Islands of the Atlantic, “he was rowed away by weeping queens, and one of them was his sister Morgan le Fay.” This late nineteenth century version of the tale supports Geoffrey of Monmouth’s original in which Morgan is an ally to the King. Rather than an enemy. He goes on to describe Morgan’s abilities including that she “knows the virtues of all the herbs in the meadow.” A skill she uses to treat Arthur’s fatal wound.

From Beloved Healer to Feared Heathen Witch…

Sadly, as the centuries went on, Morgan Le Fay quickly became the main antagonist in the Arthurian legends. A character who demonstrated all of the “evil” in the world at the time including malefic witchcraft, incest, greed and wrath. This opposite depiction of her we owe to the Cistercian monks in the thirteenth century who composed the Prose Lancelot. The Prose Lancelot told the story from the perspective of Sir Lancelot, a knight of the round table, and paints a despicable picture of Morgan.

From Andrew Lang’s King Arthur: Tales of the Round Table, “Meanwhile King Arthur had rested himself at the Abbey, and afterward he rode to Camelot, and was welcomed by his Queen and his knights. And when he told his adventures and how Morgan Le Fay sought his death, they longed to burn her for treason.” Here we see the “evil witch queen” aspect being perpetuated alongside the other in the same century – the 1800’s. The monks who changed Morgan’s role from heroine to enemy changed much of the legend to circle around the themes of male vs. female, good vs. evil, Christianity vs. Paganism, etc. So obviously a strong, female role with magical healing abilities had to be demonized.

Morgan Le Fay and the Morrigan

There’s some conjecture as to whether Morgan Le Fay might be another aspect of the Celtic war goddess The Morrigan. First, we see that their names are close enough. Second, The Morrigan is linked to shapeshifting, war, death, sovereignty and fertility…as well as to the fae. As is Morgan Le Fay. In fact, The Morrigan is one of the Tuatha de Danann, or a divine race of beings who are also believed to be of faery origin. Obviously Morgan Le Fay is connected to the fairies, as well, and is considered one of the fay herself. In addition, they both hold the crow as their sacred animal.

Morgan Le Fay is also connected to Fata Morgana, which is an optical illusion that can happen at sea. Being that Morgan Le Fay is sea-born, and was likely first a sea goddess or water fairy, this makes sense. Especially too because her Isle of Avalon is shrouded by mist, floating somewhere in a magical lake. In some tales, her kingdom is actually under the water and may be located somewhere close to Brittany, France.

How Does Morgan Le Fay Manifest?

The fairy queen Morgan Le Fay may manifest out of a mirage, since her kingdom lies somewhere beyond the mists in the Celtic Otherworld. We don’t know exactly how Morgan Le Fay looks, but from the later illustrations we can glean she is a beautiful woman. In the prime of her life. She carries a youthfulness about her, but also the confidence, ferocity and wisdom of a mother and high priestess. She’s often depicted and seen with incredibly long hair and wearing traditional robes or Medieval garb.

When she’s in her shapeshifted form, she’ll take on the appearance of a blackbird or crow and sometimes that of a mermaid or siren. In some tales, Morgan Le Fay takes the shape of an ugly old woman so as to teach lessons and/or with malevolent intentions in mind. She may come to you over or under the water, as in her earliest form from Breton folklore.

How to Know She’s Calling You

Every deity, god or goddess, will come to you differently. They all have their own vibe and will summon their allies and devotees in whatever way they prefer. Morgan Le Fay will do the same. But, just in case you need some guidance, here’s a few ways to know she’s calling you:

You’re drawn to the Arthurian legends

Her name keeps popping up in books, movies, etc.

You’re interested in learning fairy magic

You are drawn to Glastonbury Tor

Crows keep visiting you in the physical and in meditations

Your zodiac sign is linked to the water element

She visits you in dreams and in trance

An illustration of Morgan casting aside Arthur’s sword

Morgan Le Fay’s Magical Correspondences

Offerings Water, Honey, Black feathers

Domain Healing, Shapeshifting, Death

Gods The Morrigan, Modron, Dea Matrona

Herbs Apple Moss Flowers

Ways to Work With Morgan Le Fay

Everyone’s relationship with deity will be different. But we typically recommend starting with some of the following ways to work with Morgan Le Fay:

1. Read the Legends and Lore

While the sources are confusing, we can still acquire a lot of information about Morgan Le Fay by reading them. We recommend reading any Arthurian legend version you can get your hands on. There are many for free right on sacred-texts.com. In addition, research the Italian Fata Morgana, as well as the possible connection with Modron and The Morrigan. Take notes and add these to your Book of Shadows.

2. Watch the Movies

What? Am I seriously telling you to watch movies to connect with a goddess? Yes, I am. You’ll get an understanding as to the many aspects of Morgan Le Fay, as well as how she’s been portrayed since the Medieval Ages. In both a good and a bad light. The Mists of Avalon is a great made-for-TV film, as is Excalibur, the Sorcerer’s Apprentice and Merlin.

3. Set Up An Altar for Morgan Le Fay

If you want to continue a relationship with this deity, consider setting up an altar for her. Place her image there, along with a cup of water along with representations of water like seashells and coral. Since she lives in Avalon, perhaps an apple decoration or picture of an orchard. Candles and incense are traditional for any pagan altar. As is an offering bowl and/or a flower vase.

4. Healing Magic and Herbalism

Learning the art of healing, particularly with herbs, is encouraged when working with Morgan Le Fay. She is a healer and herbalist herself and will teach you her ways if you are worthy and only ask. Keep a grimoire dedicated to your herbal studies. Go for nature walks and learn of the wild herbs all around you. Make various herbal remedies like teas, salves, creams, ointments, liniments, etc.

5. Sea Witchcraft

Morgan was born from the sea and lives somewhere over or under it. Incorporate sea witchery into your practice, specifically when working with her energy. Collect seashore items like shells, driftwood, seaglass, and sand. Purify yourself by bathing in the ocean or lake. Work with sea water and spirits of the sea to make changes in your life.

6. Fairy Magick

Morgan Le Fay is one of the fairy people, and so working with the fairies is encouraged. There are plenty of books out there teaching this method of magick, how to contact the fairies and interact with them safely. And how to harness their wisdom and magick to aid your own. Ask Morgan for her assistance and blessings.

7. Regular Offerings

Every deity and every spirit enjoys gifts. We call these offerings. The Avalonian goddess is no different. Offer her fresh water as often as you can. And in addition, candlelight and prayer. Wild herbs and flowers. Wine and tea are all acceptable offerings. I’ve also heard she likes jewelry, coins, and shiny things. Similar to how blackbirds like shiny items. You can also leave blackbird feathers on her altar, as well as a mirror dedicated to her.

8. Visit Glastonbury Tor

Sometime in the past centuries, a king claimed to have found the graves of King Arthur and Queen Guinevere near Glastonbury Tor in England. From that point forward, the local belief was that the Tor was once the center of the mystical Isle of Avalon. Many people take sacred pilgrimages to the Tor today to connect with King Arthur, but more importantly, with the powerful goddess energy you can feel there. With Morgan’s energy! If you can, visit the Tor one day yourself.

9. Astronomy and Mathematics

Think I sound crazy? Well, Morgan le Fay was said to be a brilliant astronomer and mathematician. Two skills that she taught to her 8 sisters and those who were worthy. Consider taking a course in astronomy or mathematics, if you aren’t currently. Ask the fairy goddess to guide you and open your mind to learning. You might see how magical these topics truly are.

[akajustmerry]

some more video essays since youse loved the last lot:

A Black Women's History of Pinup and Burlesque - absolutely fascinating overview of Black women in burlesque, pin--up and performance!

The Matrix Resurrections Universalised The Trans Experience - the best analysis of the latest matrix film you’ll ever see

True Crime & The Theater of Safety - princess weekes discusses the fetishisation of true crime in relation to the depp v heard case and debunks pro-depp mythis.

Overanalysing The Barbie Movies With Queer Marxist Theory - one of the greatest and most necessary queer analysis ever made.

Category is: Straight Black Men in drag for the sake of "comedy" realness 👀 Khadija Mbowe - discussion and analysis of Black men in drag throughout entertainment history

How Postwar Italy Created The Paparazzi - bite-sized essay on the origins of paparazzi culture 

Why Should I Wake Up? | Cabaret. Isherwood. Fascism. - a history of the relationship between caberet and facism (cw: discussions of nazism, antisemitism, homophobia)

No Way Home Was Kind of Sexist - don’t let the title fool you, this is a fascinating analysis of how spiderman nwh was basically a meta-dramatisation of sony vs. disney’s battle for IP.

Conspiracy on the Left | Sophie from Mars - analysis of how conspiracy theories are a bipartisan issue accross the political spectrum

How Big Pharma is Extending the Pandemic - harrowing investigtion into how vaccine patent gatekeeping is prolonging covid-19

Leslie Cheung & Hong Kong LGBT Cinema | Video Essay - the legacy of Leslie Cheung’s filmography and the evolution of it’s portrayal of queerness

Why The Curtains Are Blue: The Implications of Being Uncritical - on the importance of criticism and critical thinking when consuming media.

Remembering With A Twist - A Jojo Rabbit and The Book Thief Video Essay - slightly older than the other essays on the list but its a beautiful comparitive analysis of how both films use surrealism to portray the Holocaust

find my ongoing playlist of fave video essays here

[ahhhsami]

I really like what you said the other day in response to someone who mistakenly thought Asami was white. I do have some comments on another part of her identity you mentioned in that response. Hear me out, but I don't think that it is fair to say Asami is not a lesbian. She could be. She could also be bi or pan.

Lots of lesbians date men before coming out. This is due to compulsory heterosexuality or comphet which basically means societal pressures makes women feel compelled to be attracted to men. Yes, the society in Avatar is different. However, in Turf Wars it is explained that homophobia does exist in this world, so it would make sense that people would be closetted or take longer to figure things out. In the comic, Asami is also nervous to tell Korra's parents about their relationship because of this homophobia. Kya even explains that the fire nation is the most homophobic of the nations. The fire nation helped form Republic City and Asami is ethnically fire nation. Therefore, this influence would definitely be present in her life which could make her feel compelled to date men.

I'm not saying that Korra or Asami are definitely lesbians, but they could be. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's never explicitly stated if they are lesbians or bisexuals in Avatar or any real world official media. Therefore, they could be either of them. If a lesbian sees some of themselves in the characters and projects their identity a little bit, there is nothing wrong with that. If a bisexual sees some of themselves in the characters and projects their identity a little bit, there is nothing wrong with that. I don't think it's erasure to say that they could be either, but it is erasure to say they can't be one of them.

I'm a transgender lesbian. I strongly identity with most of Korra's traits. We have very similar, flaws and strengths. She feels like the only person I have ever identified with in media. One of the many ways I relate to Korra is her roamances. One time I dated one of my best friends, a straight man. At first I was head over heels and extremely excited. I saw a future with us. After several months I kept saying stuff like, "This part of our relationship would be better if I was with a woman," and stuff like that. Just like Korra in season 2, I started getting angry at him very easily, sometimes over nothing. We love board games, but couldn't finish one without someone getting pissy. I eventually realized that I couldn't do this anymore and I told him I made a mistake and that I'm not attracted to men. We are still very good friends and if I could be attracted to men, he would be the perfect boyfriend for me. Sometimes I think Korra is a lesbian like me. Sometimes, I think she's bi and just Makko wasn't a good fit. Either way is a perfectly fine way to think about it. No matter what, she is a badass sapphic and I'm glad we can all be inspired by her in some way.

Hey first off, I want to thank you for sending this and being really awesome about the way you've approached this. You don't always see it on tumblr, so it's much appreciated!

There's a lot you've said, so instead of responding completely line for line, I'm just going to write my complete opinion about this and hopefully it makes sense.

Bryke had made two official statements after the airing of the show, none that overtly say that they are bisexual, but it is heavily implied, especially in Bryan's statement which is the first post linked (x)(x). As quoted by Bryan, "Despite what you might have heard, bisexual people are real!"

Comphet is a legitimate issue in the world today, but I personally never got that feeling from Korra or Asami (through the series or comics). I believed that their relationships with Mako were genuine and it just didn't work out (all of them being the issue, not just Mako, lol). But again, that is my own personal viewpoint.

Erasure is the thing that I want to tackle most and hopefully I can do that cohesively and in an understandable way. The idea of labeling and identities on a personal standpoint is fluid and is on a spectrum. As a person, you don't need to label yourself or you can label yourself if you'd like, you can be as you are and that's okay. Personally, I identify as Queer because Bisexual does fit me, but just not completely in the way I'd like it to. Pan doesn't fit quite right, neither does Lesbian. So, thus I label myself as Queer leaning towards Bisexual tendencies.

But this idea and concept of labeling is very different when it comes to media and it's not focused on a real life person and their experiences. Labeling in media is important and that is because of positive representation in society. Often times, bisexual characters are portrayed in negative ways, so when there is positive portrayal and representation, this is important to the nth degree. Korra and Asami also weren't just side characters, they were main characters. So to have a clearly positive portrayal of bisexual characters on a mainstream show, that was huge. On top of this, this was a children's show, so to be a little kid or even someone older, finally seeing someone that is like you would be a significant moment in your life. This is honestly another reason why I love Korrasami so much, because of my own struggles with identity.

This all can be countered with the idea that they're lesbians and wouldn't that be good representation too? Yes, it would be, but it also wouldn't be as significant when taking into account all of TV/Film media.

If we breakdown and take in all of the positive representation of Lesbians vs Bisexuals, it would be more significant for them to be bisexual in a time where there was little to no good bisexual representation. In 2013 '64.7 percent of inclusive films included gay male characters. 23.5 percent included lesbian characters, and 17.7 percent contained bisexual characters.' Presently, on cable TV 34% of regular and recurring LGBTQ characters were lesbian and 18% of regular and recurring LGBTQ characters were bisexual. On streaming, lesbian representation makes up 28% and bisexual representation makes up 19%. These numbers don't even break down if it's positive representation either! So again, although real life sexuality is fluid or can be on a spectrum, media labeling is more rigid and representative of a specific area. Making it extremely significant and influential when there is a character labeled a specific way, bisexual in this case.

To this day, people still deny that bisexual people exist. Often times the debate is whether a person is gay or straight, but nothing more. So erasure is a big deal and claiming that Korra or Asami are lesbians can be detrimental in ways that people may not have thought of at first. People can obviously identify with a character and feel attachment to them, but there is no reason to not feel that attachment if their sexual orientation may differ from your own.

[a-froger-epic]

The Queen fandom, Freddie Mercury and Characterisation

Or: Why are those anons like this? Why are those writers like this? Why don't we understand each other?

In this essay, I will-

No, I’m serious, I will. And this is an essay. It’s roughly 2500 words.

The friction, concerns and hurt in fandom around Freddie’s characterisation - most recently centred around a fic the author tagged as ‘Bisexual Freddie Mercury’, stating in the notes that they have chosen to write Freddie as bisexual - have given me a lot to think about. And if you have been asking yourself the questions above, this here might be of interest to you.

First off, why do I feel like I need to talk about this?

The answer is not: Because I’m so very influential in fandom.

I think my influence in this fandom has been vastly overstated by some people. If I were so influential, everybody would rush to read anything I rec or write. And trust me, they really don’t. My relevance is confined to a very specific part of the fandom. That part is made up of: Freddie fans, Froger shippers, some Roger fans, a handful of writers who like to support each other and like each other’s work, and people who are really into research.

There are many parts of fandom where my opinions are entirely irrelevant. Looking at the big picture, by which I mean only the Queen RPF fandom, I simply am not that important. Looking at the even bigger picture: the Queen fandom as a whole, the majority of which doesn't read or care about RPF - I am literally nobody.

Furthermore, everything I will be talking about here is in relation to the RPF-centred part of Queen fandom.

So why this public essay?

Because I have been deeply involved for two years in a divide of opinions concerning how Freddie ought to be written and how people think of RPF. I think this is in large part because I - like several other authors currently writing for the fandom - absolutely love research. It's my idea or fun. I love to dig into these real people’s lives. Not everybody does that and not everybody is comfortable with that. It’s a personal choice depending on people's levels of comfort surrounding RPF. But this does put me firmly in the camp of Freddie fans who like to explore who this man really was, and track down every last fact about him.

Freddie Mercury vs. Fictional Freddie

I’ll admit that I am one of those people who have the urge to speak up when they see somebody claim that Freddie was bisexual, and sometimes I will say: “Well, actually, we do know that he didn’t see himself that way, because…” For me, these have often been positive exchanges.

I think there is overwhelming evidence that Freddie Mercury identified as gay from his split with Mary to the end of his life (wonderfully curated here by RushingHeadlong). In the niche of fandom I have frequented over the last two years, as far as Freddie the real man is concerned, I have barely ever seen anybody argue with this.

But fanfiction and talking about real Freddie are not one the same thing, and they shouldn't be, and as far as I am concerned they don't have to be. Some writers like to put every last fact and detail they can find into their fic, in an attempt to approach a characterisation that feels authentic to them (and perhaps others), and other writers are simply content to draw inspiration from the real people, writing versions vaguely based on them.

But writing historically and factually accurate RPF is more respectful.

Is it? I've thought about this for a long time, and I really can't agree that it is. This, to me, seems to presume that we know what kind of fiction these real people would prefer to have been written about them. That, in itself, is impossible to know.

However, if I imagine Freddie reading RPF about himself, I think that he might laugh himself silly at an AU with a character merely inspired by him and may be really quite disturbed by a gritty, realistic take full of intimate details of and speculations about his life and psyche. Such as I also tend to write, just by the by, so this is definitely not a criticism of anybody. Freddie is dead. Of all the people to whom the way he is written in fiction matters, Freddie himself is not one. There is no way to know what Freddie would or wouldn't have wanted, in this regard, and so it isn't relevant.

Personally, I can't get behind the idea that speculating and creatively exploring very intimate details of Freddie's life, things he never even spoke of to anybody, is in any way more respectful than writing versions of him which take a lot of creative liberties. As I've said so many times before, I think either all of RPF is disrespectful or none of it is.

So who cares about Freddie characterisation in fiction anyway?

Clearly, a lot of people do. Freddie Mercury was an incredibly inspiring figure and continues to be that to a multitude of very different people for different reasons. There are older fans who have maybe faced the same kind of discrimination because of their sexuality, who saw Freddie's life and persona distorted and attacked by other fans and the media for decades, who have a lot of hurt and resentment connected to such things as calling Freddie bisexual - because this has been used (and in the wider fandom still is used) to discredit his relationship with Jim, to argue that Mary was the love of his life and none of his same sex relationships mattered, to paint a picture where "the gay lifestyle" was the death of him. And that is homophobic. That is not right. I completely understand that upset.

But.

These are not the only people who care about Freddie and for whom Freddie is a source of inspiration and comfort. What about people who simply connect to his struggles with his sexuality from a different angle? What about, for example, somebody who identifies with the Freddie who seemed to be reluctant to label himself, because that, to them, implies a freedom and sexual fluidity that helps them cope with how they see their own sexuality? Is it relevant why Freddie was cagey about labelling himself? Does it matter that it likely had a lot to do with discrimination? Are his reasons important? To some degree, yes. But are other queer people not allowed to see that which helps them in him? Are they not allowed to take empowerment and inspiration from this? Can you imagine Freddie himself ever resenting somebody who, for whatever reason, admired him and whose life he made that little bit brighter through his mere existence, however they interpreted it? I honestly can't say that I can imagine Freddie himself objecting to that.

This is the thing about fame. Anyone who is famous creates a public persona, and this persona belongs to the fans. By choosing that path, this person gives a lot of themselves to their fans. To interpret, to draw inspiration from, to love the way it makes sense to the individual. Please remember, at this point, that we are talking about how people engage with Freddie as a fictional character creatively. This is not about anybody trying to lay down the law regarding who Freddie really was, unequivocally. This is all about writers using his inspiring persona and the imprint he left on this world to explore themes that resonate with them.

This is what we as writers do. We write about things which resonate with us and often touch us deeply.

But don't they care about the real Freddie?

Yes, actually, I would argue that a lot of people care about "the real Freddie". It seems to me that depicting Freddie as gay or with a strong preference for men is what the vast majority of the RPF-centered fandom on AO3 already does. You will find very, very few stories where Freddie is depicted having a good time with women sexually or romantically. That he was mostly all about men is already the majority opinion in this part of fandom.

But another question is, who was the real Freddie? If the last two years in fandom have taught me anything, it is that even things which seem like fact to one person can seem like speculation to another. I have personally had so many discussions with so many people on different sides of the debate about the exact circumstances of Freddie's life and his inner world, that I must say I don't think there is such a thing as one accurate, "real" portrayal of Freddie. Even those of us who are heavily invested in research sometimes disagree quite significantly about the interpretations of sources. So that narrows "You don't care about the real Freddie" down to "You don't care about Freddie because you don't interpret everything we know about his life the exact same way I do". Sure, by that definition, very few people care about Freddie the same way you do.

The bottom line is, there are so many writers and fans who love him, people who are obsessed with him, people who care about him deeply. They might care about who they believe he really was or who he chose to present himself as to the world, the way he wanted to be seen. But ultimately, in my personal opinion, if somebody is inspired to write Freddie as a fictional character they feel that Freddie means a lot to them. And it is hurtful to accuse them of not caring.

But what some people write hurts/triggers me.

Yes, that can happen. Because the nature of AO3 is that everything is permitted. Personally, I am very much in agreement with that. You will also find me in the camp of people who are against any sort of censorship on AO3, no matter how much some of the content goes against my own morals or how distasteful I find it. Some people disagree with that, which is fine. We must agree to disagree then. Here, I would like to quote QuirkySubject from the post she made regarding this whole situation because I cannot put it better myself: “The principle that all fic is valid (even RPF fic that subverts the lived experience of the person the fic is based on) is like the foundation of [AO3]. The suggestion that certain kinds of characterisations aren't allowed will provoke a knee-jerk reaction by many writers.”

No matter how much you may disagree with a story's plot or characterisation, it is allowed on AO3. "But wait," you might say, "the issue is not with it being on the site but with people like yourself - who should care about "the real Freddie" - supporting it."

This is some of what I have taken away from the upset I have seen. And it’s worth deconstructing.

I've already addressed "the real Freddie". Moving on to...

The author is dead.

This is something others might very well disagree on as well, but to me the story itself matters far more than authorial intent. And what may be one thing according to the author’s personal definition, may be another thing to the reader. Let’s use an example. This is an ask I received yesterday:

This author thinks they were writing Freddie as bisexual. However, going by the plot of their story, I would actually say that it is largely very similar to how I see the progression of Freddie’s young adulthood. To me, personally, Freddie would still be gay throughout the story because he arrives - eventually - at the conclusion that he is. The author and I disagree on terminology only. And I think simply disagreements about terminology, given that some terms are so loaded with history in Freddie’s case, trips a lot of people up.

It seems to me that many people still equate bisexuality with a 50/50 attraction to men and women, when in actual fact many - if not most - bi/pan people would say that it is nowhere near that distribution. Some people are of the opinion that anybody who experiences some attraction to the opposite sex, even if they have a strong same-sex preference, could be technically considered bisexual. (However, sexuality isn’t objective, it’s subjective. At least when it comes to real people. What about fictionalised real people? We will get to that.)

Let's briefly return to real Freddie.

What I'm seeing is that there are several ways of thinking here, with regard to his sexuality.

1. Freddie was gay because that seems to be (from everything we know) the conclusion he arrived at and the way he saw himself, once he had stopped dating women. Therefor, he was always gay, it just took him a while to come to terms with it.

2. Freddie can be referred to as bisexual during the time when he was with women because at that time, he may very well have thought of himself thusly - whether that was wishful thinking and he was aware of it or whether he really thought he might be bisexual is not something we can say definitively. He came out as gay to two friends in 1974 on separate occassions, and he talked to his girlfriends about being bisexual. (Personally, I think here it is interesting to look at who exactly he was saying what to, but let's put my own interpretations aside.)

3. Freddie can be seen as bisexual/pansexual because his life indicates that he was able to be in relationships with both men and women and because there is nothing to disprove he didn't experience any attraction to the women he was with. Had he lived in a different time, he may have defined himself differently.

Now, I'm of the first school of thought here, personally, although I understand the second and also, as a thought experiment, the third.

I think all of these approaches have validity, although the historical context of Freddie's life should be kept in mind and is very relevant whenever we speak about the man himself.

But when we return to writing fictionalised versions of Freddie, any of these approaches should absolutely be permissible. Yes, some of them or aspects of them can cause upset to some people.

And this is why AO3 has a tagging system. This is why authors write very clearly worded author's notes. This is the respect authors extend to their readers. This, in turn, has to be respected. Everybody is ultimately responsible for their own experience on the archive.

Nobody has the right to dictate what is or isn't published under the Queen tag. As far as I am concerned, nobody should have that right. As far as I am concerned, everybody has a responsibility to avoid whatever may upset them. I understand where the upset comes from. I also maintain it is every writer's right to engage with Freddie's character creatively the way they choose to.

None of us can control how other people engage with Freddie or the fandom. None of us can control what other people enjoy or dislike about the fandom.

The best way to engage with the content creating part of fandom, in my opinion, has always been to create what brings you joy, to consume the content that brings you joy and to respectfully step away from everything that doesn't.

[twobitmulder]

When did Storm Shadow Become a Villain?

There is a scene in GI Joe Resolute where Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow are having their obligatory Ninja Battle and (Spoilers I Guess) Storm Shadow reveals that he orchestrated his uncle, The Hard Master’s, death and that he fully meant to kill Snake Eyes as well, out of jealousy and because his uncle would not teach him the final secret to killing a man in seven steps, fearing that young Storm Shadow was too volatile and violent. Towards the end of the battle Storm Shadows wrist bands come off, revealing his Arashikage tattoo on one arm and a Cobra Sigil on the other.

This version of Storm Shadow (Voiced by “every Beagle Boy on Ducktales” Eric Bauza) stands out amongst his post-2000 incarnations as an unrepentant psychopath, but still falls in line with the prominent view of Storm Shadow as a villain--one of the main villains with a special hatred for his GI Joe counterpart.

This is the version I grew up with. GI Joe vs Cobra through Sigma 6 were the prominent Joe adaptations when I was the target demographic and all throughout Storm Shadow was a bad guy to varying degrees. 

I knew in the classic Hama stuff he eventually defected, but I was not prepared for just how much he’s a heroic character from the start. There’s no big sword dual with Snake Eyes, no Anakin and Obi Wan style “friend turned bitter enemy” dynamic. It’s made clear from jump that Tommy is undercover in Cobra and remains an honorable man in search of justice. He leaves Cobra quickly and is branded as a Joe in all his figures until 2000--when they started packing their characters in two-packs with one Joe and one Cobra. In all appearances, Storm Shadow is more a Joe than a Cobra. So what led to the the modern view of Storm Shadow as a bad guy, who, even when he gets his redemption, still has a mean streak and a cruel manner? How did a character in a toy driven franchise who had more toys as a hero than a villain end up as one of the franchise’s most consistent villains?

*(For simplicity’s sake, this is only going to cover film and television portrayals of the character).

*Spoilers for pretty much every GI Joe adaptation to follow.

The first portrayal of Storm Shadow as Cobra Commander’s loyal and competent hatchet man (one of the few) is not too much older than Hama’s original Marvel version. The Sunbow version of Storm Shadow (voiced by “guy you’ve heard in everything” Keone Young) remained a loyal cobra agent--with none of the Hama version’s depth. 

He had what you might call “standard cartoon Ninja honor” where he clearly had some kind of code of ethics, but was primarily an arrogant killer (as much as he could be in a cartoon) who fought primarily with Spirit and Quick Kick (voiced by wonderfully talented “guy you’ve seen in everything” Francois Chau) as Snake Eyes was largely shunted to the side in the cartoon. The echoes of Sunbow Storm Shadow can be seen in pretty much every non-comic adaptation that followed.

Skipping right over the Dic continuation of the Sunbow cartoon because Storm Shadow actually is a Joe in that, as he was in the comics and figures of the time (and because I haven’t seen it) we come to the 2000′s era.

The Spy Troops and Valor vs. Venom DTV movies had a Storm Shadow (voiced by “guy who got his blood ripped out by Magneto in X2: X-Men United” Ty Olsson) who was essentially his Sunbow self with one major change. He actually had a history with Snake Eyes, and a bitter rivalry. The details are not gone into in either film (you get a little more in the figure file cards and mini-comics of the era) but Storm Shadow accuses Snake Eyes of betraying the Arashikage. The implication being that either Storm Shadow blames Snake Eyes for some crime or another or that there was a schism in clan. 

The File cards of the time movie go from acknowledging Storm Shadow’s time as a Joe, and claiming he’s working with Cobra again for unknown reasons, to establishing their own canon that Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow were once best friends and “Sword Brothers” before Storm Shadow fell to the dark side and joined Cobra. Though Storm Shadow’s file card does end with the ominous implication that he’s got his own agenda in working with Cobra (just like his Hama incarnation) the DTV films imply that he’s a Cobra loyalist in addition to his feud with Snake Eyes.

Spy Troops and Valor vs. Venom lead in a semi-canonical way to GI Joe Sigma 6 where Storm Shadow (voiced by “guy whose only other role I recognize is pulling double duty as Zeke Stane and Living Laser in the Iron Man 3 videogame” Tom Wayland) more or less continues the previous two iterations’ version of Storm Shadow. He once again accuses Snake Eyes of some great betrayal that broke their friendship. The GI Joe website at the time includes the detail that Storm Shadow was infiltrating Cobra when he was brainwashed into becoming a loyal Cobra agent. It’s another concession, like his 2001 file card, to Hama’s heroic double agent, while still portraying him in line with Sunbow’s villainous henchman. 

GI Joe Resolute comes next, where we see a departure from any pretense of Storm Shadow being a good guy. Resolute, in many ways, comes off as a gritty direct continuation of the Sunbow series, and it takes Sunbow’s villainous Storm Shadow and strips him of even the token bits of honor and humanity he had. It also, as near as I can tell, begins the trend of Storm Shadow outright resenting Snake Eyes, rather than being his one time friend.

As an irrelevant aside, I have my problems with Resolute but I do love everyone’s character designs and Eric Bauza does a fantastic job as one fourth of the cast. His Sean Connery impression for Destro is particularly inspired.

This brings us to the big ones. GI Joe: RIse of Cobra and GI Joe: Retaliation where Storm Shadow is brought to the big screen by Lee Byung-Hun (who I don’t have a snarky/informative aside for because shamefully despite how prolific he is I’ve only seen him in these movies and The Magnificent 7 remake) and as a child by Brandon Soo Hoo (he’s also been in a lot of stuff, but I particularly liked his turn as Beast Boy in the animated New 52 DC movies).

Lee’s Storm Shadow in the first film falls in line with his portrayals up to this point, probably skewing most closely towards Sunbow. He has a code of ethics (he doesn’t kill women apparently) but he’s still a bad guy and he seems to quite like it. Lee brings a charm to the character that had not really existed up until that point. He also spends a lot of time maskless (and it’s hard to blame the production team for that one, he’s a very handsome dude) which was a shock for anyone who grew up with the 2001 era storm shadow where the thought of him without a mask was so insane that it was relegated to a mail in figure (As a kid I seriously thought he had some Mandalorian style code of not removing it)

His origin in this version takes bits of Hama and bits of Resolute (or Resolute took from this, Resolute came out first but this might have been in development). It is, as far as I can tell, the first version to have Storm Shadow and Snake Eyes train together as children and it portrays Storm Shadow, even as a child, as an arrogant and jealous person.

Now, at least in my opinion, it’s fairly obvious that the first movie fully intended Storm Shadow to be a baddie, full stop. There’s a little wiggle room given that we never see him stab The Hard Master in the flashback (the Hard Master in this version is Storm Shadow’s father rather than his uncle) but the way he taunts Snake Eyes about it during their final confrontation makes a pretty compelling case for his having committed patricide.

The sequel would bring back elements of the Hama backstory. Zartan killed The Hard Master and Storm Shadow had to infiltrate Cobra to discover that. Given Cobra Commander and Storm Shadow are of roughly the same age (Storm Shadow being a bit older I think) and this event occurred when they were both children it’s unclear on who’s orders Zartan did this but we do know it was done to turn the already volatile young man into the perfect angry ninja assassin (given this canon is pretty much over we’ll probably never know for sure, but my guess based on the IDW movie universe comics is that Zartan either did it at the behest of the Red Ninja Clan or just to have a tiny assassin of his own, probably the former since they seem to regard each other as unpleasant colleagues who sometimes work together).

What I particularly like about this version is that, because the first movie portrayed him as this charmingly sadistic Bond Villain henchman, even after he switches sides in the sequel he’s still kind of a belligerent dick. It’s a fun piece of characterization that even once he’s cleared his name, avenged his father, and made his peace with his family, it doesn’t change the fundamental fact that he’s not a very nice person.

This is something that would persist into the next (and for the moment last, but more on that later) onscreen version of Storm Shadow.

GI Joe Renegades (the best GI Joe Cartoon, fight me) saw Storm Shadow (voiced by “holy crap this guy originated the role of Saw Gerrera in Clone Wars” Andrew Kishino) as the leader of the Arashikage Clan (explicitly a crime syndicate, harkening back to implications in Hama’s version) who operates independent of Cobra except very briefly and only to fulfill his own ends (again bringing him closer to Hama’s version than any of his predecessors). Falling in line with the implications of the movie and Resolute, he and Snake Eyes were uneasy classmates more than friends and trained together as teenagers. An attempt to kill Snake Eyes went awry and resulted in the death of the Hard Master (who again, seemed to favor Snake Eyes over his own nephew). Storm Shadow believes Snake Eyes to have killed The Hard Master(somehow failing to connect the dots given his own murder plan failed the same night Snake Eyes allegedly murdered his uncle--or hell he’s probably just in denial until the truth slaps him in the face). 

Also, irrelevant aside number 2, in contrast with Resolute I really don’t like this character design. Renegades had pretty good character design all around, neatly bringing together various versions in a way that felt coherent but I don’t like the little tufts of hair sticking out of the mask or the way it kinda hangs in front of his mouth. Is he hiding his face or not? It seems like he’s not so much wearing a mask as a bandana and an oversized turtleneck.

This version neatly ties together the “Snake Eyes betrayed us” of the early 2000′s, the “arrogant unfavorite” of the mid 2000s and the “out for justice assassin” of Hama’s run. He is, again, an arrogant prick from the start, but his genuine shame and resolve to abandon his quest for vengeance and his extremely short partnership with Cobra make his eventual redemption (or the start of what you assume would have been a longer redemption arc had the series continued) more believable than the live action movies--if a mite less fun.

And that’s where it ends, at least until the much delayed Snake Eyes live action movie is finally released, where Storm Shadow is set to be played by “guy from the best episode of American Gods Season 2″ Andrew Koji. I quite like the look of the cast of this movie, and I’m excited to see what Koji brings to the role. Will Storm Shadow be arrogant, murderous, honorable, charming, brooding, misunderstood, cruel, vengeful...some impossible combination of all of the above? We’ll have to wait and see.

*Including the various alternate comic book versions probably would have painted a more complete picture, but I’ve only read Hama’s run and the IDW reboot (where Storm Shadow is kind of a non-entity), besides this was more about tracing Storm Shadow through the adaptations I watched as a kid.

*None of the adaptations seem to go with Hama’s original detail that Storm Shadow and Jinx were from Northern California. On the one hand I see why you transplant them to Japan with the rest of their family (it’s a globetrotting element and makes the cast more cosmopolitan) but I always liked the idea of that they were children of immigrants.

*Adaptations have been touch and go about casting Japanese actors in the role but I was impressed to find out that Sunbow cast Japanese Americans as both Storm Shadow and Jinx, making them probably the most faithful casting in relation to their original backstories.

*Apologies for my complete inability to get screenshots of roughly the same size or resolution.

[perish-the-creator]

The way the fandom portrays Godzilla/Femuto is all the same, and I’m yet to see a more unique portrayal of their relationship other then abusive and the femuto having no choice but to give into Goji’s forced advances towards her 💀 give me equality, give me enemies to lovers, give me lion king 2 vibes, i don’t know, something fucking different rather then goji being portrayed as a creepy old man - hell, even having a fic where they’re exes who remained friends would be good, idfk

It's something mainstream media is conditioned to. A lot of media has shown that the best sexual tension between a male and female character is the constant threatening of bodily harm.

Notice how the bad boy trope is still very popular. For some reason, heterosexual women are trained from a young age to go after men who disregard the personal and private spaces of said women. We see this over and over and over again. Though it can be argued it even bleeds over to M/M content as well such as yaoi and BL manwha.

Mostly, it is interesting that those who cling tightly to this ship are either young men or women. It's quite odd how past a certain age you actually have more older men rallying for Mothra and Godzilla vs Femuto and Godzilla.

It also just personally urks me that Hokmuto is often drafted to the side, unable to get any treatment outside of getting cucked or killed. The concept of a species who has the means to repopulate compared to the rest of their counterparts is rather interesting, yet it is often dished aside.

And you're right, it is rather odd. I mean hell, Mosurdorah has more work and effort put in to make the audience believe they actually like each other compared to Femmuto and Godzilla.

But to each their own. All I can really do is voice my opinion and hope someone doesn't get offended and call me heterophobic or hypocritical or some shit.

[pomegranateanarchist]

things I liked about where mischief lies

Loki is SOFT as HELL in this book holy SHIT

his obvious crush on Amora is so cute I love him

fuckinnn yearning for Theo being in denial but describing his freckles as STARS ugh he’s a simp

he’s also really fucking dumb?? he pretends to be suave and charming but he’s not he trips over things and says stupid shit when he’s in disguise and he’s just an idiot I love that for him

make Loki an idiot 2k20

a campaign I will run for the rest of my life

still extremely capable though!!! I loved the balance of “this is a stupid teenager who doesn’t know how not to be awkward” and “this is an extremely dangerous, clever, and powerful figure”

he is OBSESSED with the way he looks literally the third page of the book is devoted to his outfit and how much he loves his heeled boots

painted nails!!!

I love it because he’s been vain since the day he was born but it’s a more innocent vanity. he’s so convinced that he can’t be liked or admired, so insecure about being the second son. he chooses to look a certain way because at the same time that he wants people to like him, he’s convinced himself that they won’t. for him, deviation from the norm is a form of yearning for acceptance. whereas in the MCU, his vanity is portrayed as an egotistical cry for attention (see full-tilt diva). and yeah, it kind of was in wml, too, but he was a kid who just wanted to be liked. it’s more forgivable, younger, purer.

the fact that he had sex with Amora just. under a Ouija board table is never not going to be funny to me

there was a BED nearby you could have USED it she has CHAMBERS why did you do this

I’ve just realized that this means it’s canon that Loki fucks

I mean we been knew but it’s confirmed now

give Loki a string of all-gendered lovers in the show 2k20

another campaign I will run for the rest of my life, despite the fact that the show is already written and Marvel is full of cowards

the portrayal of his inner conflict was so fucking good the scene where he watches Amora drain Rachel what’s-her-name UGH

even when he makes the claim that he’s “decided to be evil” or whatever, he’s still unsure of it. he’s choosing the narrative because he believes he has to. he sees his character flaws, he knows that he is capable of becoming the god of mischief written in the mythology, but he always hesitates. when Amora kills Mrs. Sharp, he bites his tongue, but he’s clearly conflicted. he knows what he’s supposed to be, but he still has a faint hope that he doesn’t have to become that person. we see this in the MCU mainly through Tom Hiddleston’s acting choices (and the occasional well-placed bit of dialogue), but it’s lovely to read it so clearly.

he disdains humans SO much at the beginning but he really does grow to enjoy their company and I think it’s Fun and Spicy that he learns some level of empathy for them even if it’s reluctant

can’t stop thinking about “do you have a preference? between men and women?” “I feel equally comfortable as either”

he is constantly describing both Amora and Theo’s lips

WAIT I forgot he and Theo have a “there’s only one bed” moment in the middle??? my heart could not handle it I filtered it out

I also just loved reading a story that was really wholly his. compared with other Loki content, Thor barely appears in the book. a key component of Loki’s character is comparing himself to thor, true, but allowing him to exist outside of the sphere of Asgardian influence (read: constantly being compared to his older brother) really gave his character a chance to flourish.

the transition from desperately wanting to paint himself as the hero to confessing his theft of the stones ENDED me ugh

swallowing his pride at the beginning because of how Odin would react to defiance vs. throwing caution to the wind and full on SCREAMING at his father at the end??? show stopping. ethereal. magnificent.

this book made me forget about Infinity War and I thank god for that every day

I could probably write another several thousand words about this book but in conclusion, Loki is genderfluid and pansexual, he deserves a soft gay engineer boyfriend, and every piece of MCU content needs to be remade with him in stiletto boots as god intended

[princesssarisa]

 I’m not very familiar with Mark Adamo’s 1998 opera of Little Women, but I have heard excerpts from it and read the composer/librettist’s notes on it.

The main theme he chose for the opera is “Jo vs. the passage of time.” Its emphasis is apparently on Jo having to accept the “loss” of all thee of her sisters, Meg and Amy to their marriages and Beth to death, with the implication that her own marriage to Friedrich will fill the void. Adamo explicitly wrote that Jo learns that “growing up means growing apart” and that “everyone eventually abandons you.” It has a bittersweet ending that shows Jo singing with memory visions of her sisters' younger selves, bidding them a loving, grateful farewell, but accepting that the four of them will never be “four sisters, one soul” again – then Friedrich appears and asks her if now is a good time, to which she replies “Now is all there is.”

But is that what Alcott meant to convey?

Of course a major theme is Jo’s fear of change and learning to accept it. Of course she feels as if she’s losing Meg when the latter becomes engaged to John and later struggles with loneliness and feeling abandoned after Beth dies and Amy marries Laurie. In the end there’s definite bittersweetness about the loss of childhood, summed up in Jo’s poem “In the Garret” – which is indeed followed by a symbolic “letting go of the past’ as Jo rips up the poem and lets the pieces fly away in the wind.

But it seems to me that in the book, despite the changes, we’re reassured that the family bonds are not diminished. The chapter describing Meg’s wedding seems designed in part to put Jo’s fears of losing Meg to rest – the sisters feel assured that “the new love had not changed the old” and Meg assures her whole family that they’ll still see her every day, which they do. The same sentiment comes through in the later chapter of Amy and Laurie’s homecoming. Even Beth, we’re repeatedly assured, isn’t really lost, because her memory is still so alive and because her pious family has faith that she’s watching over them from heaven. I quote: “...death could not break the household league that love made disoluble.” The book’s final chapter has the whole family together to celebrate Marmee’s birthday and there’s a sense that the marriages have only expanded the family, not broken it up as Jo feared.

I would never think to claim that one of the book’s messages is “Growing up means growing apart”!

This reminds me of the quotes from Joe Wright about the 2005 Pride and Prejudice film’s portrayal of Elizabeth and Jane’s relationship. How he set out to portray them as growing apart over the course of the film, no longer able to confide freely in each other as they fall in love, with Darcy and Bingley taking each sister’s place as the most important person in the other sister’s life. How he argued that Austen’s portrayal of Elizabeth and Jane confiding closely in each other to the end was “soppy” and “unrealistic,” more an idealized tribute from Austen to her sister Cassandra than a believable portrait of two sisters coming of age. I know that some Austen fans are very annoyed by all of this, especially since Wright is a man presuming to know what sisters’ relationships look like better than a woman author who had a sister did.

I wonder... Is this similar change that Adamo made to Little Women and Wright made to Pride and Prejudice related to the fact that they’re both men?

I don’t mean to stereotype, but statistics have shown that men tend to isolate themselves more than women do as they get older. They grow apart from their old platonic male friends, make fewer new ones, and rely increasingly on their wives for emotional support, while women maintain bigger, closer circles of platonic female friends. I assume this tendency applies to family relationships too. I know that my own mother always keeps in close touch with her brothers, talked every day on the phone to her mother when she was alive, and saw/sees them all as often as possible, whereas my father was content to only visit his parents once a year and only occasionally talk on the phone with them, only speaks to one of his brothers every few weeks and barely speaks to the other one at all. (Although my dad’s family was much more dysfunctional than my mom’s when he was growing up – that’s a factor besides gender.)

Also, one of the major recurring themes in Shakespeare’s plays (at least as argued by Professor Emma Smith in her Approaching Shakespeare lectures) is that as young men mature, their bonds with each other need to diminish and be replaced in importance by their marriages to women.

I wonder if by having the March sisters and the elder Bennet sisters grow apart more than they arguably do in the books, Adamo and Wright were projecting a common truth about platonic male bonds onto platonic female bonds?

[thepermanentrainpress]

THE PERMANENT RAIN PRESS INTERVIEW WITH MADELEINE SIMS-FEWER AND DUSTY MANCINELLI

Violation is one of the most stirring films we’ve seen over the past year. Since making its world premiere at Toronto International Film Festival last year, the Canadian flick has been busy on the film festival circuit; now available through digital-cinema on TIFF Bell Lightbox, with Vancouver International Film Festival (VIFF) Connect to follow beginning March 26th. 

What inspired the story behind Violation?

We were both dealing with our own personal experiences of trauma at the time, and wanted to make an anti-revenge film that deals with female rage, and emotional and psychological unravelling that trauma gives rise to.

We really wanted to make a revenge film that pushed the boundaries of the genre, challenging the tropes of the scantily clad woman becoming empowered by violent revenge against a menacing stranger, and that revenge is the cathartic climax we are all seeking at the end of the movie. Yes, it is a film about seeking retribution, but also about the cost of that retribution. It is a film about violation, but also about lack of empathy and selfishness, and how both can erode your morality and the relationships around you.

It’s been described as “twisted,” “feminist-minded,” and a “hypnotic horror.” At its core, how would you describe the film’s genre(s)?

Those three descriptors fit perfectly, actually! We weren’t thinking too much about genre when we wrote the script, mostly about the story and about how we portrayed Miriam’s journey. We were inspired by films that don’t sit comfortably in a genre box, like Caché, Fat Girl, Don’t Look Now. Films that are dramas with elements of horror.

When you were writing the script, can you elaborate on the dynamics between the two couples that you wanted to portray – Miriam and Caleb, and Greta and Dylan?

Miriam and Caleb are very much at an impasse in their relationship. The spark has gone out and they don’t know how to reignite it. Instead of doing the work it might take to get through a rough patch Miriam is very much running away. There is a real transience to modern relationships that we wanted to capture in their dynamic - this idea that when the romance is gone the relationship has run its course. Miriam wants to fix it, but doesn’t know how - she clumsily tries to fix it with sex (on her sister’s advice), and this echoes how she tries to fix her trauma too.

Greta and Dylan have a seemingly healthy relationship. But when you look a little deeper their outward affection and codependence masks a deep distrust. Dylan is having his ‘grass is greener’ moment, and he’s totally selfish to the impact this has on those around him. Greta can sense this, but she’s too enamoured by him to risk rocking the boat. It’s all a recipe for tragedy really.

Miriam and Greta have a complex relationship, to say the least. It’s natural to have distance between siblings as they grow older, did you always intend to have a sibling relationship be a centre of your story?

Yes, we always wanted to make a film about a person who suffers sexual assault and is not believed by their sibling. That was one of the first parts of the story that came together. There is so much to unpack in a sibling relationship like theirs. A rich history of mutual failures and resentments as well as so much camaraderie and love. The more painful betrayal in the story comes from Greta, not Dylan.

We wanted to explore the idea of trauma within families, and how abuse and violence affects everyone in the family, not just the person who suffers it. Everything else orbits around these two sisters — Miriam and Greta — as Violation mines the little resentments, commonalities, shared joys and sorrows that weave together a truthful portrait of these women.

A lot of the horror and dread in Violation comes from the way the sisters interact, and in the ways they react to each other from a place of fear. There is no filter in these close sibling relationships (we know this as we both come from big families!) which can be wonderful, but can also lead you to hurt and be hurt in ways that leave permanent emotional scars.

The non-linear editing engages viewers into the story, as do the jarring intercuts with imagery of nature, animals and insects. Tell us about the editing and post-production phase, and what you hoped to accomplish with the progression and symbolism.

The way we have edited Violation is very deliberate. We are forcing you to experience things you might not want to in a very specific way, guiding you through this post traumatic landscape where the past and present are constantly speaking to each other.

We chose to weave two timelines together — the 48 hours leading up to the betrayal and the 48 hours surrounding the act of revenge. This forces the audience to re-contextualize what they have seen, challenging their own opinions of the characters based on what information we choose to reveal and when.

Violation is told completely from Miriam’s perspective — we watch her emotional and psychological unravelling as she struggles desperately to do the right thing. There is a sequence in the middle of the film where we see this act of revenge. There is no dialogue for a long time, we just follow Miriam as she goes through these meticulous actions. And what we realize is that her plan, though well thought-out, is unbelievably emotionally and physically taxing. She’s not prepared, and we watch the real horror of her actions play out through her visceral emotional responses. It was important for us to really force the audience to experience things as Miriam does. The editing is focused and relentless; never letting you stray from her experiences and emotions.

Madeleine, for you, getting to play Miriam and connect with her pain and turbulent emotions through the course of the film, can you share your thoughts on that experience. How did committing to this character challenge you as an actor?

It was the most challenging role I have ever played, and in many ways was absolutely terrifying. I wanted to push myself as far as I could go as an actor and challenge myself to really find the truth of who this woman is, and reveal that to the audience. There are so many quiet moments where Miriam’s journey is so internal, so the challenge there was in truly living each moment as if I was her — getting lost in the role — so that I was not indicating what she was feeling, but living it.

What was it like having Anna, Jesse and Obi as screen partners?

Very liberating. They are all extremely dedicated, layered, engaging performers. They elevated me and challenged me every step of the way. Jesse and I have worked together before, and we have an ease that makes scenes with him very fun. The comfort level we share allows us to really experiment. It was my first time working with Anna and Obi, but it won’t be the last. They are both so open and sensitive that I felt our work was incredibly nuanced.

An overarching question is whether revenge is ever justified. Tell me about Miriam’s mindset, and the struggle between morals, motives and her actions. For you as individuals, is this something that you have had conflict with in your own lives?

In a way we wanted to make a sort of revenge fairy-tale. Fairy tales provide ways for children to think through moral problems, and to wrestle with life’s complexities. They aren’t depictions of reality, but reflect ideas about morality and humanity. We wanted the audience to think about consent, the rippling effects of trauma, how we judge women vs how we judge men, and perhaps consider those things more deeply.

In the end Miriam’s desire to punish those who have wronged her hopefully leaves the audience with a compelling ambiguity to be unpacked as they scrutinize her actions.

Tell us about the trust built between the cast and crew on-set, especially during the more intimate and grim scenes and tense conversations. How do you build that comfort level?

It’s really just about having open, honest conversations. We spent a lot of time with the actors during prep and rehearsals just talking, and building friendships. We are dedicated to creating a comfort level where actors can be completely transparent and open with us, so that when we ask them to go somewhere they know we are there guiding the process and aren’t afraid to take big risks.

To survivors of trauma, what do you hope this movie provides in its story?

We hope to provide a new take on the revenge genre - one that explores rape from a different angle and context - with the focus of the narrative much more on the psychological ramifications of trauma. We aren’t looking to tell anyone what to take away from the film, and we made Violation as much for people with no experience with trauma as for people who understand these murky waters. Really we hope the film sparks thought, discussion, and empathy.

You met at the 2015 TIFF Talent Lab; what drew you together as a filmmaking team? What advice do you have for artists/filmmakers looking for their own collaborators?

It’s hard to pinpoint exactly what drew us together - it’s sort of an intangible thing. We developed a very candid friendship that we thought might translate well to a working relationship. Luckily it did!

Shortly after the Talent Lab we decided to work together on two short films, Slap Happy and Woman in Stall. Until directing these shorts neither of us had really had ‘fun ’making a film. Filmmaking was a drive, but it wasn’t a joy. These shorts gave us a totally new perspective, where we actually had a good time workshopping the script, creating a visual style, and just challenging each other. By the time we were making our third short, Chubby, we had decided to officially form a creative partnership.

We definitely approach filmmaking from different perspectives and with complementary strengths, but we don’t say ‘this is your thing and this is mine.’ We work collaboratively on every part of the process, and we built this unique way of working through our shorts, so that when we got the funding to make Violation (through Telefilm’s Talent to Watch program) we already had a solid method that works for us.

In terms of advice it really helps to know how you like to work before looking for a collaborator. Then it’s just about experimenting. It is very much trial and error. Don’t try to force a collaboration that isn’t working for you. There is no shame in a creative relationship not working out. But also it is important to be flexible and open to compromise - that’s how ideas flourish and grow. If you are too rigid then maybe collaboration is not right for you.

Going from short films to your debut feature with Violation, what new challenges did you face and how did you overcome them?

The endurance required to make a feature was something we weren’t prepared for. At about day 3 we turned to each other, totally exhausted, and were like: “there’s 30 more days of this.” It was brutally draining. Honestly every day brought its own unique challenges and problems to overcome, but we had such a strong, supportive team that it made each mountain a little easier to climb.

Aside from yourselves, who are some other up and coming Canadian filmmakers viewers should keep their eyes on?

Grace Glowicki and Ben Petrie are both doing really interesting work. Grace’s film Tito is a disturbingly good character study that builds a terrifying sense of dread. Ben’s short Her Friend Adam is one of our favourites, and he’s about to make his first feature.

Is there anything further you’d like to add or share, perhaps what you are currently working on?

Right now we are writing a slow burning mystery thriller and a twisted dark comedy. That’s about all we can reveal at the moment!

Thank you to Madeleine Sims-Fewer and Dusty Mancinelli for providing us with further insight into Violation! Visit their official website for more information on their projects. 

[jaskier-n-crowley-diaster-ace]

Yo guys, random af thing to make a post about but I am ginger. I think there should be more diverse represention in media. Especially black female roles.

I am ginger

It doesn't happen super often, pointed out that the fact I can only name four of this particular thing and even less of not this exact one is this:

(Originally canon Redheads being casted as black women)

I fucking love this so much, so fucking much. You don't even know how much I love that this happens, I don't feel bad at all anytime a redhead female character is cast by a black or non white actress. Like holy shit I'm gonna list the ones I know off of the ones that have stuck, they are the ones that I know of prom both popularity or being familiarized beforehand.

1: the Annie reboot (the super modern one) I was given many nicknames by family cause of my red hair but Annie was the most common, helllllll fucking yeah, there's many things I enjoy that they changed to fit stuff but YES young black girl in foster home, Annie is remembered as a redhead, I wholy approve of this specific change 10000%

2: Bonnie from Vampire Diaries. In the books Bonnie was a white redheaded girl, I don't have too much to say about this but I read the books and used to be obsessed with the show, full approval, it also fit better in my opinion

3: Mary-Jane Watson and Michelle Jones: I worshipped Zendaya back when Step it Up was airing tbh I had such a crush on her, but she did so well of acting, the first scene with her in homecoming and I was sold already, just... fuck bless her if I kept going it'd just be me waxing poetry about that treasure

4: Triss Marigold game vs. show: this is probably, actually most biggest gap of me knowing the original redhead and me experincing the change, I love the Witcher, one of the first games I ever started playing, holy crud the rest of the examples I knew beforehand about the actresses, this one... I purposefully avoided any and all things witcher about the Netflix show, I wanted to be fresh and unsullied.... once Triss showed up I just knew who she was, before she was named, she played it that well, and like.... I was already used to the idea that black actresses are casted in ginger roles (I had apparently gone on a drunk rant about this the night before I saw the episode with Triss btw probably why I wasn't at all surprised, and by rant I mean I was bitching about how people get offended when black actors get cast in originally white roles cause it's dumb as fuck) anywho, I love triss

Okay apparently I lied I just remembered 2 more (and haHA It just so happens this does include good omens)

5: Pippin (Pepper) good omens book vs. Show: bless.... holy fuck bless... Pepper would have been fantastic either way and I know it would have been so fucking easy to cast a white actress and likely nobody would have blinked, Pepper is a badass in the books and the show, Adam might be the leader of the Them when it comes to ideas but Pepper has beat up all of them at least once and Adam included don't mess with her and respect her and just... she is the brawn of the group and ... just my god her portrayal in the show was even better than I hoped

6: lastly of the moment if I don't edit later is

Ariel Little Mermaid Disney 2D movie/up and coming Live adaptation.

I don't have much to say about this cause the movie isn't out but I can say alot of white people (men, older men mostly hm THAT'S not odd at allllllllll) were pissed as fuck about it, idk how the movie will turn out I personally am not a big fan of the live remakes disney makes but I can say I'm once again happy of the diversity, and it'll be see by many, if the movie isn't good I'm sure some assholes will claim it's cause of the change of race but they are idiots

Excuse me loves for what probably seemed like a random rant but if you can I'd love to see examples in the comments or in reblog of redheaded white girls being casted by black actresses (and imma be real just give me any black females being casted from traditionally white roles I'm a fucking suckered for this shit I'd rather never see a ginger again in media if it meant we get lovely beauties finally on the mainstream view!!!!)

[cosmicpopcorn]

Captain Marvel (2019): Feminism, Diversity, and the 90s, oh my!

Warning: Spoilers, possibly. I always like to warn a nigga just in case.

Note to Readers: Yes, Cosmic Popcorn is back up and running! Last year, I went on an impromptu hiatus due to life being...well, life. Now I’m back and determined to pick back up where I left off on my journey of providing informal movie and TV reviews and discussions on astrology and all things cosmic. 

Without further ado, let’s get into Captain Marvel. 

If ya’ll remember the post credits scene from Avengers: Infinity War, Nick Fury sends one last message to someone, somewhere on an old ass looking communication device right before he turns to dust...and we see a star-shaped logo confirming that his message has been sent. 

He was sending that message off to good ol’ Captain Marvel aka Carol Danvers. Captain Marvel has a very diverse, interesting history in the comics...in fact, Carol Danvers is the 7th Captain Marvel in the comics. To read more about that dope history, check out this article here: The Weird and Diverse Comic Book History of Captain Marvel. 

Now, the movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) do divert from the comics in a lot of ways. So MCU Carol Danvers is a former air force officer who was under the mentorship of physicist Dr. Wendy Lawson, who was actually a Kree scientist who disagreed with the Kree’s war with the Skrulls and had fled to Earth. Dr. Wendy Lawson (her alias) aka Mar-Vell (her real name) was using the Tesseract (Space Stone) to create an engine that would have helped the Skrulls to live beyond the reach of the Kree empire and she had enlisted Danvers’ help in this mission. But they are discovered by Yon-Rogg, a Kree commander who is the leader of Starforce (a Kree military task-force). During the fight between Mar-Vell and Yon-Rogg, Carol shoots the engine in an attempt to prevent Yon-Rogg from getting it and it explodes in her face, causing her to absorb the Tesseract’s energy/powers, thus making her Captain Marvel. Her memories of who she is and her life on Earth are mostly altered/erased and she becomes one of the members of the Starforce, under Yon-Rogg’s direction and mentorship. 

The movie was directed by Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck. Carol Danvers/Captain Marvel is played by actress Brie Larson. I first remember seeing her in United States of Tara and really enjoying watching her character on screen. She has also played in Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Community, and Room (which she won an Oscar for Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role). Obviously, she’s been in a ton of other shit, won a bunch of awards and been nominated for others but I am not about to lay this woman’s resume out for y’all - just know she’s been here for awhile and she’s accomplished. Lol.

Nick Fury is obviously played by the wonderful Samuel L. Jackson, and y’all should damn well know who he is. He’s one of our national treasures in my opinion, right along with Terry Crews. Not to mention he’s already been present in the other MCU movies. He’s the character with the second most screen time in the movie outside of the obvious Captain Marvel. 

Other actors worth mentioning: Talos/Keller is played by Ben Mendelsohn, Jude Law is Yon-Rogg, Annette Bening is Dr. Wendy Lawson, and we have Lashana Lynch as Maria Rambeau, with Akira Akbar as her daughter Monica Rambeau. The cast overall is very diverse - comprised of people of color and women in starring roles. And based on what I’ve personally read on Captain Marvel’s comic book history, this is the essence of her story - breaking through barriers and giving power to a range of different people who may not have had it before, who were not usually represented in certain roles and positions of power.

I’ll be honest, it’s difficult for me to review and critique Marvel movies because the quality of their movies these days is usually pretty high...even the mediocre or bad ones are significantly better than other mediocre/bad non-superhero movies. I go into these movies with a bias towards them and it’s hard for me to see flaws unless they’re extremely obvious and detract from the overall quality of the movie in a major way. I will always try to be honest about a movie...but how I feel is how I feel and I feel Marvel movies are usually pretty great. So when it comes to these movies, I’ll present my thoughts on various aspects of them instead of the usual pros vs. cons approach unless it calls for it. 

I basically really liked and enjoyed Captain Marvel. I don’t regret the experience at all and feel it’s worth the movie ticket. Here are some thoughts on the movie: 

Brie Larson was a good choice for Captain Marvel: I’ve heard people complain about the decision for Brie Larson to play Carol Danvers aka Captain Marvel, with some of the main reasons for their complaints being that she appeared to be too stoic, didn’t smile or laugh enough and that her portrayal of Captain Marvel was bland. I felt that she expressed the appropriate amount of emotion for the character and for the scenes she had. We must also keep in mind that Carol Danvers was an air force officer on Earth, a member of Starforce on Hala while being with the Kree, and also had been taught to not be emotional and that her emotionality was a weakness. So...why the fuck would she be super emotional and expressional?! I’m not sure what was expected - did they want lots of crying and giggles? We don’t ask for Captain America, Iron Man or the Hulk to be more emotional or smile more and this specific critique reeks of sexist undertones to me.

Captain Marvel was portrayed well in this origin movie and Brie Larson did a fine job. Yes, I am saying this as someone who did not grow up reading the comics. We are discussing the MCU Captain Marvel, not the comics. And we already know that when converting books or comics to movies, shit gets changed. They have the same source, but they are still different.

As a 90s baby, I enjoyed the blast from the past: This origin movie is set in 1995 and has things like pay phones, Blockbuster, slow ass internet, internet cafes and the music, oh my, the music. I loved it all. I don’t miss any of that, except maybe the music, but it’s nice to wax nostalgic sometimes. 

Nick Fury and Captain Marvel are cute AF: I loved watching Samuel L. Jackson and Brie Larson on screen as Fury and Marvel. They had just the right amount of chemistry and played off of each other very well. I know Fury has gone to dust, but maybe we’ll get to see a nice, cute reunion in Endgame? One can only hope. 

They did well at helping Samuel L. Jackson go back in time as Fury: I was pleasantly surprised how good Sam looked as young Fury - usually aging actors and actresses, whether younger or older is something that has a high possibility of not being done well and they did a fantastic job here. My man looked good!

I loved that Nick Fury got a lot of screen time: We got to learn a lot more about the character, his past, and really see his personality shine here. We also learned about how he lost his eye. Once again, I really do hope to see more of Fury in Endgame. And with Fury and his eye in mind, shoutout to Goose the cat, that’s my nigga. 

Captain Marvel doesn’t have a strong villain and it doesn’t need it: One of the complaints about the movie was the lack of a strong villain like Killmonger or Thanos. However, with this being an origin movie, I see it being more focused on how Captain Marvel comes to being and how she becomes a hero, any villain present is only there to showcase her powers and as a plot device. That’s not how it is in all origin movies - Black Panther had a very strong, well-developed villain, but here, it appears the villain almost takes a backseat to other aspects of the movie. Her “villains” are more of society’s sexism, her own self-doubt, identity struggles, and her rejection of the emotional parts of herself. The people around her either enforce, support and/or represent those “villains” (e.g. Yon-Rogg) or push her to break against those barriers and embrace her power (e.g. Nick Fury). 

Captain Marvel has a diverse cast and clearly wants to empower young women and girls: I loved the fact that our main character was a woman, her main supporting character was a black man, and the other important supporting characters were a black woman and a beautiful black girl. Yes, there were white men and other white people all around, lol, but a good amount of the ones with a lot of screen time were not. The movie also rejected sexist ideas such as: emotionality and being emotionally expressive being a negative trait, women having to smile for men and always appear pleasant or pretty, women not being capable of being in traditionally male-dominated fields and not being capable participating in male-dominated or traditionally male activities. It says a giant FUCK YOU to all these things. It also hints towards Marvel’s first African-American female superhero, Photon. 

Brie Larson was right in her Crystal Award for Excellence in Film acceptance speech: In her speech, she presents statistics regarding movie critics - bringing to light that a large, overwhelming amount of movie critics were older, white men and that white women, women of color and men of color are largely unrepresented when it comes to movie critiques. She explains the importance of reviews and the impact it has on what movies can be bought and seen, how much money a movie grosses and what movies are nominated for awards. Overall, she encourages more inclusivity and for critiques of movies to be done by a more diverse group of people - a group that includes more white women, women of color and men of color, especially since some movies are, let’s face, simply not made for white men or with white men in mind. Not mention, as she said, people other than older white men also like Star Wars. You can hear that speech here.

She ain’t say anything wrong and anyone who has a problem with this speech obviously has some unaddressed sexism they need to tend to. Because, I mean...are you saying only older white men like these types of movies? Are we saying their opinions on media are the most important? Do we not want to hear from white women, women of color and men of color...since we are, you know, also part of this world and consume this media? And considering the diversity present in Marvel comics and films, considering the messages about sexism, racism, feminism, etc. that are present in the stories of heroes like Black Panther and Captain Marvel...are you really trying to tell me these were only made for and primarily focused only on older white men? Get the fuck outta here. I don’t care what a 40-year-old white dude has to say about what he doesn’t like about A Wrinkle in Time either. 

All in all, I enjoyed this movie and it got me hype of Avengers: Endgame. Instinctually and based on conversations with others and hearing about flaws they felt were present such as pacing issues, actress choice, etc., I feel these flaws were mostly based on opinion (opinions that I don’t agree with) and in my opinion either are subtle (such as pacing issues) and/or simply don’t exist (such as actress choice being a problem). However, this isn’t Black Panther and while it doesn’t really have any cons (major or minor) that come to mind, it does lack the aspects of Black Panther that earned it a 5 Caramel Popcorn Pieces rating. With that in mind, I give it 5 Butter Popcorn Pieces. 

Rating: 5 Butter Popcorn Pieces