#and on rewatch it feels even wrong-er with the context

[bethanyactually]

an incomplete list of clues in the Black Door episodes pointing to the fact that something was wrong 🚩🔎🚨

Ace flatly refusing to look at or engage with Nancy

Ace not wanting to help Nancy

Ace not caring if a mystery got solved

after an argument, Nancy being the one who walks away first

[secret-diary-of-an-fa]

You’re (Probably) Wrong About J.K. Rowling

So despite being a British person and writer with an adopted trans daughter (sort of), I never weighed in on the matter when British writer J.K. Rowling allegedly said a bunch of transphobic stuff. The reason I didn’t weigh in publicly was very simply this: I couldn’t find the tweet or statement that started it all- the root cause of people’s hatred. Everybody alluded to The Terrible Things J.K. said but nobody was super keen to say what those things actually were. Which naturally led me to suspect that the whole thing was storm-in-a-teacup bullshit- a notion that I also partially derived from the fact that Rowling is kind of a milquetoast who probably hasn’t had a strong opinion in her comfortably middle-class life. If somebody online claimed I’d said something offensive, I’d believe them, because I basically start a knife-fight every time I open my gob. But J.K.? Do me a favour. Of course, I didn’t look very hard to find out what J.K. said, because the other reason I didn’t comment was that I didn’t care all that much. I’m a grown man. My contact with the Harry Potter universe is nostalgically rewatching the films once in awhile and maybe, at some point, playing the new RPG that’s just come out, should I ever have videogame money again. It’s not like I’m super invested in that world on an emotional level, because I only have the normal number of fucks to give about wizard children and the people who chronicle their adventures. So, my plan was to just never mention any of this. And then I stumbled on the comment that started it all by pure fucking chance and it was… so dull and inoffensive that it actually amazed me to the point where I medically had to say something. Yeah. I am literally incapable of shutting my fucking mouth when someone does a stoopid, as it turns out.

“Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating sex is real?” (I think the implication of the question mark s ‘er, no thanks’, basically). And that’s it. Nothing even implying that trans women aren’t real women. Nothing suggesting that they shouldn’t be treated with respect. SEVERAL opening sentences reaffirming the rights of everyone to live how and AS WHO they like… and then a gentle reminder that physical sex is real and that some people have actually lost their jobs for saying so, which sucks, because you shouldn’t be fired for stating a biological fact (unless the biological fact is that you just shat yourself and you choose to share it, loudly, at an important shareholders meeting). That’s the whole thing. I mean, there are some follow up tweets about how physical sex-based oppression is a real thing and about how J.K. feels a bit hurt by the trans activist community for turning on women-born-women when they try to address that oppression in the employment sphere. But that’s it. Now, maybe she said worse things later down the line- but these are the tweets that got everybody to dogpile onto her and anything after that point has to be viewed in the context of a harassed writer getting increasingly fed up explaining herself to people who won’t shut the fuck up on the internet when she’d probably rather be doing literally anything else.

So yeah. That’s what everyone’s got their knickers in a twist about. And that’s really dumb. In a world full of genuinely hateful bigots, attacking someone for pointing out that biological sex is a real, separate issue to gender identity and that arseholes have gotten people fired over saying that seems… well, it seems like a waste of energy more than anything else. There are people out there who haven’t actually encountered the source of this lunacy and have just taken the word of Internet Peeps that J.K. is an awful person (‘cause getting to the bottom of shit is difficult and what’s a person to do? Not just parrot the last opinion they saw fart its way across social media?).

Look, folks, folkettes, moustachioed three-titted hermaphrodites and people who identify as attack helicopters (shout out to all my homies at the Rotary Blade Club), there’s a lesson here. And that lesson is that you shouldn’t believe someone’s good or bad because someone on the internet tells you they are. People on the internet are just people, and people almost never have the faintest fucking idea what they’re talking about. There’s also a really, worryingly high proportion of internet ‘personalities’ (so called because they don’t have any in real life) who like to stir shit for the sake of stirring shit. Sometimes these people are easy to spot, because they’re bugfuck-crazy right-wingers in tinfoil hats claiming that everything in the media is a plot to destroy traditional family values (the same ‘traditional family values’ that caused women in the ‘50s to overdose on amphetamines to get the cleaning done and fathers to try and beat the gay out of their children). However, sometimes, the shit-stirrers are just a teeny, tiny bit smarter and will use the genuine disenfranchisement of a group to which they technically belong to cynically elicit sympathy for views that would be obvious bullshit if the person spouting them couldn’t claim to be oppressed. Rule of thumb: beware of anyone who wants you to believe that they have it tougher than the slave who had to clean the poop out of Abraham Lincoln’s chamber-pot hat (Fun “fact”: that’s why Honest Abe’s hat was so tall: he used it as an emergency latrine while travelling and it had to accommodate the prodigious length of his turds). Even if the person is right and they really do have it that tough, the fact that they’re prefacing what they’re about to say by EXPLAINING THAT TO YOU REALLY SLOWLY AND EMPHATICALLY should really be a red flag- a sign that they’re attempting to obfuscate the flimsiness of the actual point they’re about to queef out their face-hole. That’s not always the case (duh) but it should put you on your guard.

I can, and will, go further: I have never had opal fruit on me! Oh, hang on, that’s a line from A Bit of Fry and Laurie. What I meant to say was, I can, and will, go further: you really shouldn’t care to begin with if a creator has iffy opinions that in no way impact their work. You shouldn’t even care too much if they’ve actually done terrible shit. Because at the end of the day, the only part of them that’s relevant to you is the work they’ve created. T.S. Elliot was one of the greatest poets to have ever lived… but he was also a raving fascist. Lawrence Olivier was one of the greatest actors of his generations… but also a barely-functional alcoholic who delighted in fucking with his old Cambridge university in ways too baroque and specific to detail here. Frank Miller: amazing graphic novelist; protest-hater and all-round tosser. Don’t even get me started on all the shit Thompson and Bukowski got up to (though not together… I’d love to see that buddy movie, but it wouldn’t accurately reflect reality). There isn’t a composer in the whole world of prestigious, important classical music who wasn’t, on some deep level, a really fucked up person. Francis Bacon rates as one of the greatest artists ever to have been spat out by an uncaring world, but he also systematically ruined the lives of everyone around him, including himself. My point is that you can’t demand your art and media comes exclusively from good people… unless, of course, you’re comfortable exposing yourself to a pitifully small sliver of culture and starving your brain into grey fucking wallpaper paste. Trust me, if you have to seriously consider your options on that one, it’s alarmingly close already. Allow the personal and private failings of creators to be personal and private- even if the creator’s an egotist who keeps bringing it up in public. Accept that, for you, the work is what matters because YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO MEET THIS PERSON OR HAVE ANY IMPACT WHATSOEVER ON THEIR LIVES AND THEY ARE NEVER GOING TO MEET YOU OR HAVE ANY IMPACT ON YOU OUTSIDE THEIR WORK.

This has been a PSA from the Foundation of Terrible Bastards Making Good Art. As both a terrible person and a great writer, I now give you my permission to fuck off.

ADDITIONAL: Okay, so having posted this, I decided I was curious enough to check out JK Rowling’s twitter feed properly. And, to my amazement, I might have jumped the gun when I called her a milquetoast. She actually has some pretty strong opinions,,, but none of them seem to be about trans people in general. She had a go at Nicola Sturgeon for putting a PENIS-OWNING RAPIST OF WOMEN IN A WOMEN’S PRISON PURELY BECAUSE HE CLAIMED TO BE A WOMAN, but that’s not transphobia, is it? That’s an issue of protecting prisoners without penises from being raped by prisoners with penises. The whole ‘is Prisoner A trans or not’ issue is just obfuscation being used BY A RAPIST to get into a situation where they will have the opportunity to rape more people. While JK’s phrasing might leave something to be desired (if you’re the kind of person who needs every phrase to be padded to sooth your ego), “don’t let physically strong penis-owning rapists near vulnerable vagina-owners in an environment specifically designed to make escape impossible” shouldn’t be a controversial thing to say- and has less to do with trans rights than it does with just... common sense, I guess. Look, I’m neither a TERF nor a trans rights activist, though I know people who are both vulnerable women and people who are trans. I am the fucking Neutral Zone between the Federation and the Romulans here, but could we please all agree that miminising the risk of rape in prisons shouldn’t be controversial?

[myinterestsvary-writes]

Rewatching the contentious beach episode again, like perhaps the third time this year hehe. I don’t know, maybe I’m just built different but I still really like that episode and wholeheartedly, unironically stan Tamaki and Kyoya without disregarding the episode or any of their character flaws that are usually effectively lampshaded and/or made fun of. But I do agree with a lot of people in that the manga portrays this much better.

I compared the Japanese and English Dub and the English voice acting does make it sound worse, even if I can still take away that Tamaki wanted Haruhi to be more careful and considerate because she’s a girl because of all sorts of biological and societal reasons. Many of which feminism directly counters partly by saying that “Haruhi doesn’t need a man to save her” and “women are capable to deal with things themselves/they shouldn’t be infantilized or belittled for their gender” but I’ve never been much of an outright self-proclaimed feminist anyway despite agreeing a lot with what they have to say so that probably explains my leniency with this episode.

The point is that it’s not only that she’s weak(er) because she’s a girl. He literally questions if she knew how to fight/defend herself, which tells me that it would’ve made the situation better for her to be in regardless of gender to Tamaki but because she can’t and to add on that she’s a girl as well, in Tamaki’s eyes she was being stupid. I still agree with that specific point, what can I say? Not with everything he said and did though like ignoring her for example, yet this episode still proves that Tamaki is an idiot yet well-meaning and serious/capable in the right situations.

Here’s the thing that’s hard for people to wrap their heads around because there’s so much under-explained ideas clashing with each other that confuses people into thinking it’s bad: Haruhi correctly counters what Tamaki says about her being a girl with someone (her) needing to do something regardless of gender. She sounds far more correct and reasonable in the English Dub—she’s presented as right and relatively calm in both versions actually, I’m pretty sure objectively in the context of the show because Haruhi is the reasonable one here still as usual, though given more character through her decision-making. Maybe it’s because I can understand the language Caitlin Glass is speaking, maybe that’s why there’s stronger reactions from me with it. I understand better in Tamaki’s head that he just wants her to act more like other girls and not be as troublesome, but the show never betrayed her into conforming to those ideas (in the manga, he eventually learns that it’s fine for her to be herself and she learns in the beach episode that still regardless of gender that it’s okay to ask for help which is a fine message to me to portray {“Alright, [Haruhi] you win.” - Tamaki} because…I saw her as being more reckless than brave in that confrontation with very noble intentions, she’s allowed to be flawed and humanized). Tamaki and Haruhi are coming from two different perspectives here, that’s why people choose sides in this episode when I don’t think that’s truly necessary.

It’s a thing that Tamaki idealizes and fantasizes about the perfect Haruhi of his dreams, supported by the fact that they are not friends who spend time together outside the club. It’s a thing that Tamaki is very much wrong (and weird) for doing that. That’s not talked about enough when analyzing that argument scene. What he says here is in character and his sexism/stupidity is not played up to the extreme, just made serious and actually understandable/not niche in that Tamaki’s only understanding of women has been presented so far in his encounters with women from similar SES in the Host Club. It’s consistent to what we know of him so far, his words don’t warrant deeper analysis of his general view of women and why he feels the need to treat Haruhi the way he does because of, for example, how he grew up with his mother. It’s as simple as him being stupid and yes, sexist but realistic. If he were real, there’s no excusing or reasoning away his behaviour excluding the beach confrontation. Since he isn’t, however, I’m pretty sure it’s fine to laugh at him as he’s usually very wrong when it comes to the politics of the show (and the leftist online world—not upset or judging you guys) and this episode is no exception in portraying him as such yet allowing us to find him endearing as he is allowed and should be presented for more than the clown for good character writing imo to avoid flanderization (plus, I do think that he does chill out and becomes more tolerable and understandable if you’ve always taken him seriously as a character because he gets dissected in the manga later on). I can’t explain this well right now, but Tamaki is more than just his incorrect opinions.

[ayankun]

yalright let’s do this

AGENTS OF SHIELD SEASON ONE REWATCH COMPLETE BREAKDOWN MEGAPOST

hella spoilers for the entire canon up through season 5, but not 6 because I only saw it the once and am having a hard time remembering ANYthing about it.

I cannot determine specifically what it was about this season that caused to be branded “literal garbage” in my mind-hole for seven years.

Best guesses:

there’s some cheesy stuff that probably didn’t sit well with me at the time, and, at the time, there was no way of knowing that that kind of stuff was going to be ultimately eradicated

there’s some good stuff, like character stuff and plot stuff, but it didn’t successfully implant positive emotional responses in my brain-hole, leading me to be frustrated/offended at its own self-importance

there’s some stuff that just Doesn’t Work.  I won’t call anybody out, but there are some main side characters whose casting, in my opinion, leaves much to be desired.  when it comes to acting ability, I feel that it’s important to have the ranges of your entire cast match each other.  if you’re gonna hire B-listers, at least make sure they’re ALL B-listers.  if you’re gonna splurge and get some S-tier talent, pleeeeease don’t embarrass the B-listers by thinking you’re doing them a favor by including them on your project.  Understood, this opinion is highly subjective and I can’t expect everyone in front or behind the screen to buy into it, but it’s definitely a pet peeve of mine that causes strong reactions in me*

some of the plots are tired and/or straight up boring.  I got through them easily this time through because I was able to focus on the things I like, which is largely character interactions and re-learning the backstory for stuff that I know will continue to be important later on.  imagine listening to your grandpa’s stories about his life, but instead of telling you the cool stories about going to the moon or whatever, he’s telling you in great detail about the time he got his shoelaces stuck on like, a rusty nail sticking out of a fence.  It’s not a great story but it does explain why his mom only bought him velcro shoes after that and one time when they were trying on shoes in the store a couple of years later, some other kid started making fun of him for having velcro shoes and long story short your grandpa’s relationship with that kid is what got him interested in astrophysics and also he married that kid twenty-five years later -- but right now the story is specifically about spending forty minutes trying not to get tetanus.

Now that I’m older and wiser, what really surprised me throughout, though, was that not only was I not having any type of reaction that validated my “literal garbage” classification, I was noticing that there was A Lot of stuff that ticked a lot of boxes.

I’m talking technical stuff, the textbook basic filmmaking stuff, the stuff that I subjectively find objectively “Good” because it means that creative decisions were made with intent and were also executed proficiently enough to make that intent clear.

I’m talking SYMMETRICAL NARRATIVE which has to be one of my all-time favorite techniques, one that I personally use a lot, and I’m very biased in responding favorably when I see it, so I think ultimately this is a huge reason why this season cannot be classified as garbage this time around.  Because it shows that they cared!  It shows that they had A Plan!  It’s an emotionally satisfying technique that can be used to great effect when tipping the audience off to how far we’ve come from where we started.  It creates this nice tidy structural loop which I find very appealing.

Just real quick, you see this in individual episodes or even scenes, too.  Here’s a classic A+ example from episode 2:

Simmons has given Skye a bottle of water as a gag because that’s what happens on planes, and that bit is a set up to this bit, where Coulson is talking about how he rebuilt the Bus from the “studs up” and it demands to be treated with kid gloves; ergo:

Only to have the thing completely wrecked over the course of the episode.  In the denouement, “just starting to warm up to this place,” Coulson says ruefully, righting a broken glass as if that will put the plane back together; Skye immediately tosses a coaster down and moves the glass on top of it.

As a callback, it juxtaposes the starting-state and ending-state in your mind and highlights the contrast between the two.  And it’s also a nice character-building beat where you, the audience, get to observe Skye’s character in that she remembers a trivial detail that happened to be important to Coulson.  You also get to see Coulson observing the same, and you understand a little bit more about both of them.  *chef’s kiss*

So this is a pretty powerful and common technique, and I guess you could say that any well-resolved narrative is by definition going to recall you to the specifics of how it started.  Like ep 1 we start with Mike and Ace, their call and response “what are we/we’re a team,” and an understanding of Mike’s desire to be his kid’s guardian and hero and his desperate search for the tools that will allow him to become that.  In the finale, we see the pay off where Ace (via Skye) reminds Mike of this motivation, and Mike is finally in the position to protect his kid by taking out the Big Bad.

But I don’t want to go through the list to demonstrate that everyone’s character arcs likewise left them in a thematically resolved position relative to where they started.  Obviously this is an expectation of all (well structured) narratives. 

(And I don’t really mean to talk about callbacks themselves, such as Fitz’s obsession with monkeys or May’s repeated demand of “don’t call me that.”)

Stuff that only comes up at the beginning and the end.  Here’s the kind of symmetry that I mean:

Skye’s use of GPS encryption and the location of the diner where she first meets Mike.  Both topics come up in ep 1, and are revisited in ep 20 when she’s stalling for time against Ward and brings him to the diner by telling him that it’s the GPS coordinates necessary for decrypting the drive.  It says, last time you were here, Skye, you were living out of a van and fangirling over people with superpowers; now you’re an official agent of SHIELD (fun while it lasted, anyway) and you’re currently doublecrossing your own doublecrosser who was directly responsible for transforming you into the competent spy you are today.

Same thing: the only time we see Lola fly is at the end of ep 1, when Coulson and Skye are heading back to the Bus, and in ep 20 when Coulson rescues Skye from off the Bus.

Ep 2: 0-8-4.  We’re introduced to the very first object with the titular designation, and Simmons idly wonders “imagine what it would do to a person.”  Ep 22, it’s used to evaporate Garrett.  Same ep, we also meet the little, what even is it, that dendrotoxin EMP (??? I don’t recall whether the gadget is named) that Ward uses, and Coulson uses it in ep 17 to incapacitate Garrett.

Similarly, all the cool alien gadgets we spent the first few episodes gathering and locking up, including that first 0-8-4, are all broken out into the wrong hands in ep 18.

Also in ep 2 we are introduced to the idea of being thrown out of the airplane and Skye & co specifically prevent Ward from being sucked out.  We’re introduced to the concept of Coulson’s cellist!  Fury also makes a cameo (”talkin to me about authority”) ! 

It’s a little later on, but ep 6 has Simmons jumping out the plane, and Ward proving his Good Teammate status by jumping out after her (while Fitz is struggling on his way to do the same).  Ep 21, Ward boots FitzSimmons out the plane, and in ep 22 Fitz finally has the chance to properly save Simmons himself.

Ep 19 Coulson has a chance to save his cellist (again)

Ep 22, Fury comes back all Deus ex Machina and relinquishes authority of SHIELD directly to Coulson.

There’s also some dialogue recycled on purpose to make a point, like Fitz-Simmons introductory scene is recreated almost verbatim in ep 21:

Ep 2, talking to Skye about his mission vs ep 18 talking to Raina about his mission

(gotta admit, the man took this role seriously.  check out that cheekbone game he achieved in such a short time)

And again, Ep 1 Ward vs Ep 18 Ward.  They even framed it the same!!

All this to say, Season 1 is Structurally Sound and it has my blessing.

Now let’s move on to the list of things I liked that surprised me:

It’s pretty well polished, visually.  Joss Whedon’s veteran control of the director’s chair is readily apparent in the pilot, setting the visual tone for the series.  There are some made-for-tv shots over the course of the season, sure, and the least impressive compositions tend to involve CGI backdrops, but they do make the most of their interior sets and work hard to dress up various LA locations to, er, inspire the idea of the international scope of the show.  In my last update, I talked about ep 8 The Well in the context of Quality Directing, so it definitely goes above and beyond the basic shot-reverse shot when it wants to.

Ward.  Just for the record, I think Brett Dalton is great at his job and really brought exactly what they wanted to this character.  Eps 1 and 2 are a little shaky and stiff, but everyone’s performances are, as they let these characters coalesce around them.  I remember not liking Ward when I was watching this live, and honestly I think this was intentional.  He’s that character that you expect that you’re expected to like, you know, the traditional cocky savior type that lots of those fancy heroes are.  But because he’s so tropey in his characterization, you’re just ... over it?  And then when they flip the script and you’re supposed to hate him -- WOW.  It’s like two Christmases at once.  They took something you were already doing and rewarded you for it.

I’m not unaware of the “redeem grant ward” phenomenon.  I’m aware that the character had fans who were honestly drawn to and appreciative of the character before that persona was revealed to be a lie.

And honestly, it’s not that I like OR dislike Ward at all.  As a person.  It’s annoying that he’s a cocky bad-boy.  But it’s sweet when he plays nice with Simmons.  It’s embarrassing that he and May have “a thing.”  But it’s cathartic when he opens up to Skye about his past.  And Then, the sequence where we know he’s Hydra but Skye doesn’t.  And Then, the sequence where Skye knows he’s Hydra but he doesn’t.  And Then, his weird yucky confusion where he still wants to pursue something with Skye or doesn’t want to put down puppy-dog-eyed Fitz.

As a character, Ward is a great character.  His set up is so bland that the twist does appear to come out of nowhere, but on a rewatch all the groundwork is there.  His characterization as a baddie is enthralling.  I’m forecasting into season 2 a bit, but you want to follow his nefarious exploits just as much as you want to see his ex-friends smash his face in.  Brett Dalton played it right, A+ good job.  It makes Framework!Ward just that much more of a beautiful thing, to get to see what it would have been like if the Season 1 persona had actually been the man.

Also as covered in the last update, I was really very pleased to see how much character work was being done in this season.  Because I only watch and rewatch starting from the second season, there are important plot points that I’d been grudgingly attributing to this season about which I’d forgotten the specifics, such as, what’s the deal with Gravitonium, howcome we hate Ward so much, where did they get that memory-torture-machine, why are you acting like I recognize Titus Welliver’s character?  What surprised me was how much of a focus there is on character development as well.  A lot of good origin story stuff, like how green FitzSimmons is and how soft and good-hearted Skye is and all the reasons we respect and trust May and all the reasons we would follow Coulson to the ends of the earth.  Watching a found family start to put down roots is worth it, too, ten times out of ten.

The tie-in stuff wasn’t as overstated and stifling as I remembered it being.  They were allowed quite a long leash even this far back.  Centipede is based on Extremis, but helms a a unique narrative.  The Asgardians-of-the-week are just MacGuffins for driving character stories.  Turns out all of SHIELD has been Hydra all along!  Sucks to be you, a show about the Agents of SHIELD ... oh wait, Daddy MCU’s insane twist is mirrored in the DNA of your team’s composition AND baked into your overall season arc?  Well then.  Carry on!

Engaging with Season 1 explicitly as a prequel is a powerful thing.  First time through, I had the distinct realization that “too much of a good thing” was at play regarding Coulson.  He’s everybody’s favorite MCU character in 2013, hands down, but ... getting intimate with him for 40 minutes a week really waters down his mysterious G-man appeal.  BUT.  After spending six+ years with the man, Season 1!Coulson is a precursor to the 3-dimensional Director you’ll fall in love with, rather than a distortion of the one-liner MCU!Coulson you thought you wanted.

So what’s next!  Absence makes the heart grow fonder, and here all all the things I associate with AoS that were not present in Season 1:

Robot hand.

DaISy JoHnsOn

AGENT/DIRECTOR MACK where is he I need him

Fitz’s facial hair

Their underground SSR base with the exposed brick, I miss that place all the time

Hive, Bobbi*, Hunter, Kyle MacLachlan, Maveth (everything** about Seasons 2 and 3, really).  Robbie Reyes.  Aida and Kasius!!  I know these things are temporary, but they’re so important to the best bits and I love them.

Getting to see episode after episode where there are scenes at a time containing a majority (up to 100%) of women and/or POC characters with executive agency, and none of those characters are token or temporary but were placed there with intent to normalize a diversified cast.

My absolute favorite episode of all time, 4x15 Self Control.

Things I am not looking forward to:

**Lincoln.  I’ve seen these seasons four times and just now I had to google his name because I wasn’t sure it wasn’t Logan.  He’s garbage and I’m glad he’s dead.  Other opinions are available.

Misc. Thoughts

*I said I wouldn’t name names but Adrianne Palicki is a C-lister who can swing a B+ if the stars align. I love Bobbi, though, especially the way the character’s reputation precedes her, how her adorableness complements her badassness.  In fact, the character’s a great foil to May, who is also a badass lady and S-tier agent but has a completely different approach to being those things.  Bobbi’s a reminder that badassness and aloofness are not correlated at all.  Also there’s a headcanon out there that she’s non-binary (one of the reasons she prefers Bobbi over Barbara) and that is a concept I can get behind.  Bobbi’s perfect and I’ll fight you if you don’t agree.

Poor Trip!!!!!!!  When you always start from Season 2, he’s really just a flash in the pan, there and gone.  I’ve always been like, “well, he didn’t really have a home here, no carved-out niche, so I guess getting Coulson’d and becoming something to avenge is the best a character like him is gonna get.”  But now that I see that he comes late to the game as a literal stand in for Ward, his story is that much sadder.  He was never intended to BE a character.  He’s introduced with Garrett as a pawn/distraction during this arc’s who-is-Hydra shell game, he’s kept to demonstrate what kind of friend and agent Ward should have been, his defining character trait as a gentle flirt only serves as a catalyst for Fitz’s coming to terms with his feelings for Simmons.  The poor guy is just a walking plot point, up until the bitter end.  :<

I had entirely forgotten and/or never tracked the fact that Fury put together Coulson’s team specifically to monitor him after project T.A.H.I.T.I.  I’d forgotten the distrust Coulson has for May after he perceives that she has betrayed him by being a part of this.  It’s a season-specific reveal that is literally never mentioned again.  It’s important to the fabric of the narrative of that particular arc, offering up May alongside Ward and Trip as fodder for the aforementioned shell game, but the true inciting incident of this entire show just gets swept under the rug and ceases to matter.  I’m kind of :/ about that.

When you’re bi and non-binary, you’ll get a lot of mileage out of wanting to be/be with Daisy and/or Fitz, don’t judge me

In conclusion, Season 1 is the opposite of literal garbage, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. is my favorite show and my favorite MCU movie, Daisy Johnson is my favorite Marvel superhero (not related to Season 1 but still true), and nobody had better spoil Season 7 for me pleaAAASE don’t let it happen.

[lonely-canadian-shrimp-universe]

Good Omens:A First Foray

The First Impressions of a Viewer with No Context

I knew a good chunk of the plot because at first I honestly wasn't going to watch it, so I didn't really shield myself from any spoilers on tumblr.

That being said, I was hooked right from episode 1. I went into it thinking I was gonna be all over Crowley (given my other favourite characters in most other franchises) but the first time Aziraphale smiled I M E L T E D. SO PURE AND SWEET Also when "Aziraphale" was said I had a moment of 'oh. that's how you say that' Also the earth and my mom share a birthday. When Nanny Ashtoreth showed up I KNEW I was gonna need more content of her. Wife 100%

The fact that, try as they may, Zira and Crowley are completely incompetent and really only matter in the last like 16 minutes before the end of the world is really great. It's like watching a show that's about the really interesting side characters you get to see for 2 minutes and WISH you got 6 hrs of. Thank you, Neil.

Ep 2 we get to meet Newt and Anathema and omg I love them. I need Anathemas wardrobe ugh. And newt??? disaster Newton Pulsifer??? he's a mood. Not totally sure how I feel about their relationship but I love the contrast of "hey we just met like an hour ago and we're dating now thnks" to "we've known each other for 6000 years but there's no way he likes me the same way? side note, isn't it funny how the world is always emitting a low buzz of love my dear?" "ngk"

Agnes is amazing and I love how sassy she is. 10/10. I love how Aziraphale is not at ALL concerned about being shoved against a wall by Crowley. Like not one bit. He's like "oh finally, it's only taken you 6 millenia" honestly same

Ep 3 gives us the 30 minute cold open who's only purpose is to show how these two kept coming back to each other for 6 millenia, no matter how the last meeting may have gone. Here are a few thoughts:

Crowley has very pretty hair. Also I could 100% see by this point how these two have been gay for each other since day 1. Er rather day 7? Golgotha Crowley is v pretty and learning later that those are traditionally female garments was a treat. That scene was otherwise hard to watch, and they definitely thought so as well. The globe theatre was really fun to watch, I love Shakespeare. Sadly, Hamlet reminds me of my awful 10th grade English teacher. she ADORES that play. So thanks,  Aziraphale.

Bastille= PEAK GAY LOOK

I'd seen the church scene and "you go too fast for for me in MANY a gift,  but hearing them was OOF. Michael Sheen didn't have to go so hard on that line but OH BOY DID HE EVER. I may have cried.

I honestly didn't realize that the intro didn't play until the middle of the episode until I rewatched it??  like that completely flew over my head.

THE BANDSTAND. THE E M O T I O N. AZIRAPHALE WAS SO HURT. he was so torn because so much of him still wanted to believe in the good of heaven, but his heart (or the angelic equivalent) had long ago sided with Crowley. When Crowley came back and asked him to run away to Alpha Centuri??? UGH. that dude instantly assuming they're gay? same. same random dude. same. And omg Crowley praying??? to God??? he cares about humanity and it SHOWS. By this point I was REALLY relating to Aziraphale. His reluctance to stray from what he knows and was told reminds me so much of myself. that A n x i e t y.

the end of episode 4 and into episode 5 HURT. the bookshop? "I lost my best friend"? The fact that Crowley was ready to give up and wallow drunkenly through the Apocalypse because continuing on or running away held no meaning if he didn't have Aziraphale by his side. I cried. On the other hand, defiant Aziraphale? "Angels can't posses people" "Demons can..." YES BBY STOP BLINDLY FOLLOWING ORDERS!!! FREE THOUGHT BABEY!!! Now: Shadwell and Tracy. Shadwell is hilarious and I love him, end of story. He's just so... out there. crazy dude. Madame Tracy on the other hand? AMAZING. her actress (I can't think of her name and I have a REALLY ONE TRACK MIND) absolutely KILLED it. AMAZING. The seance?  That dude who WAS JUST LOVING EVERY SECOND? Loved that so much. still cracks me up. When they first get to the airbase and Crowley compliments his dress and Aziraphales like OwO like fellas they gay.

1970s crowley... the mustache... "Can I hear a Wahoo?" Hastur... love him... "What's a computer" part of me wants to think he's just fucking with Crowley because who wouldn't but also he's so deadpan and yo I can't read expression AT ALL.

Love the fact that Crowley was ready to yeet off to a far off star system light-years away, but at the same times like "you expect me... to go to TADFIELD? In this weather??? Maybe I should drive but I mean, have you SEEN the TRAFFIC Angel? And now the M-25s on fire. Great."

Hastur going from on top of everything and tearing Crowley down to panicking because YOU'RE DRIVING TOWARDS A WALL OF FIRE.

snek eyes :3c

"Young man your CAR is on F I R E"

ALSO the horse people getting lost is peak entertainment. Honestly the horsepeople are great. War? Gorgeous. Famine? Love him. He's got style Pollution??? They're amazing, and also THEY THEM PRONOUNS BABEY. that made me v happy bc I just got used to usin em myself uwu. D E A T H. He knows his aesthetic yall. love it.

suppose nows a good a time as any: THE THEM.

I didn't really like Adam at first, he seemed a bit snobby. he's grown on me now but... ngk. Wenslydale was an instant fave. he's adorable. love him. Brian? total mess. super genuine. Great kid. PEPPER. she's great. she's sassy. she's gonna go far in life. all together, they're a tight knit group and I love them and they're all my children now thabks. and the parallels to the horsepeople? p e r f e c t

Alrighty Episode 6!!!

The beginning terrified me. All this time I was rooting for Zira and Crowley to finally get their happily ever after and yknow how most media is nowadays. There's a reason Fix-it Fics are so popular. So the beginning of the episode scared me. Also Beelzebub 💖

I love the Them vs The Horsepeople. "I believe in Peace, bitch."

I didn't even realize til later that that was Aziraphales sword. didn't even catch that line.

When Beez and Gabriel showed up? THAT DUMB SMILE OF GABES? I really hated Gabriel. The way he treated Aziraphale REALLY rubbed me the wrong way and I just did not like him one bit.

W I N G S. PRETTY WINGS. also didn't even realize that what Crowley did was STOP TIME. LIKE WHSOHDOEBE WHaT? ??

 "it burned down... remember?" uuggghhh kill me with how soft and gentle he's being!!! he knows that bookshop MEANT something to Zira hdoehekdn

T H E B O D Y  S W A P

the caught me COMPLETELY off guard... at first. I was completely unaware right up until "crowley" was attacked. I caught that little "Tickety boo" and I paused screaming like CROWLEY WOULD NOT SAY THAT IN THAT SCENARIO NO WAY THAT IS N O T ANTHONY J CROWLEY W H A T 

The heaven scene solidified my then hatred for Gabriel. I like him now but oof that scene he's still VERY punchable.

Crowley: Nearly threw hands with the Archangel Gabriel

The Hell trial. So Extra. Asking for a rubber duck? iconic! "Michael, dude!" oh mood.

when they switch back and it's all revealed? G l o r i o u s. They played each other so well!!! honestly props to Michael and David, their acting was PHENOMENAL.

The ending. A happy ending. The amount of love with which Zira says "to the world" killed me. I'm dead now thanks to that. I'm typing this from the grave,  that's how powerful that line is. Honestly, knowing next to nothing going in was kind of wild and my crazy reblogging spree actually got some of my mutuals to watch the show which is pretty neat. Going back through 3 more times now, Aziraphale definitely resonates with me the most. I actually have a small blurb I wrote on the positive effects he's had on my perception of myself in terms of stimming.

All in All this show hit me in a way I did NOT expect it to, and I'm glad I found it when I did. I was at a point where I was kinda feeling like I'd never really have a fulfilling relationship because of my asexuality, and then I found good omens. I def read the characters as ace while watching it and it was amazing seeing two characters who can love each other fully, without the need for anything explicit. The show was an instant fav and I'm trying to find a physical copy of the book (that I can afford) so I can read the original text. This is a story that's going to stay important to me for a very long time, I can feel it.

[purple-pen-reviews]

Look Who’s Back [German: Er Ist Wieder Da] (2015)

Rating: 9.4/10

Look Who’s Back is a 2015 German comedy film directed by David Wnendt, starring Oliver Masucci, Fabian Busch, Katja Riemann, Christoph Maria Herbst, and Franziska Wulf. It is based on a novel of the same name, written by Timur Vermes, and features certain parts containing Oliver Masucci engaging with actual German citizens as the Hitler character mixed with scripted segments. The film’s plot revolves around amateur reporter Fabian Sawatzki (played by Fabian Busch) discovering a man who appears to be Hitler (Oliver Masucci), and trying to make him famous on the internet. The two traverse the German countryside, shooting comedy skits as well as various political vignettes. Eventually, Hitler and Sawatzki score a TV show deal, where Hitler begins to gain serious political traction.

The film presents an several interesting morals, one of the most important being about how history is subject to repeating itself, and that we are usually too busy telling ourselves that “it could never happen to us” to see it actually happening to us. The movie goes about doing this masterfully, and in a way that is paralleled by the character of Hitler itself. It starts off as a hilarious, mockumentary-style comedy film, but slowly transitions into a serious drama that presents hard-hitting moral questions. Both the comedy and the drama of this movie hit the nail on the head, and it is both gut-bustingly funny as well as ethically intriguing. There are two excellent performances in this movie, one being Oliver Masucci as Adolf Hitler. Masucci’s interpretation of Hitler is spot on - there were times during the movie that I got so invested in his acting that, for just a split second, I believed that I could actually be watching the real Hitler walking around Germany. This suspension of disbelief is further aided by the film’s second excellent performance - the citizens of Germany. Much like the American film Borat (dir. Larry Charles, 2006), Look Who’s Back features many unscripted moments of the main character interacting with regular people. I hate to say that some of the best acting done in this film isn’t acting at all - many of the lines from this movie are the actual opinions of actual people. Which is eye-opening, because you would think that people wouldn’t be so quick to agree with a man dressed up as Hitler, yet scenes involving just that make up a good 15 minute section of the film.

Regardless, Look Who’s Back is both an excellent comedy and drama film, and I would recommend anyone who enjoys dark comedy or historical/political satire see this movie (currently available for streaming on Netflix) immediately.

One of the best parts about this movie is it’s excellent comedic timing. Oliver Masucci’s Hitler narrating the ridiculous events happening around him create some of the most quotable moments in movie history. The level of quotability of this movie is on par with that of a Mel Brooks or Monty Python classic.

 The movie begins as such, with Hitler narrating himself as he wakes up in modern-day Germany, and from there, the comedic roller-coaster begins. Hitler stumbles around, being mistaken for a street performer, is almost run over by a mob of segways, and then maced by a woman who thinks he is insane. Blindly, he shambles over to a newstand, discovers the year is 2014, and passes out into the arms of a newspaper salesman. During this time, the jokes come full throttle like charging bayonets, and only stops when the story switches over to several expository scenes about Fabian Sawatzki, Mr. Sensenbrink (Christoph Maria Hurbst), and Ms. Krömeier (Franziska Wulf). The movie slows down, and in my opinion, gets pretty boring, and the writing is pretty cheesy as well. The jokes don’t flow as well as the others during scenes without Hitler. Attempts at comedy during these parts seem forced, and aren’t all that funny. The whole time during these scenes, I was thinking to myself, “when will we get back to Hitler?” - which is disturbing, when taken out of context...

The history nerd in me was laughing out loud at some of the things Hitler says in this movie, like “Turks in Berlin? How remarkable! The Ottoman Empire managed to turn the war!” and, “Yesterday I was moving the 12th army... Today, it’s a newspaper rack!” However, the jokes in this movie aren’t just for history buffs - in fact, most of what Hitler says is pure comedy gold, due to Oliver Masucci’s excellent deadpan performance as the most reviled man in history (who seems completely aloof to the fact that he is regarded as such). The line between Masucci’s comedic performance and his dramatic performance is almost indistinguishable, meaning you never see a joke coming until it’s hit you straight in the face. One second, he’s grilling Sawatzki on how to defeat Poland in a land war, and the next, he’s unintentionally making a joke about the dry-cleaners “blitz cleaning.” Most of the comedy from these scenes comes from the belief that, if the real Hitler actually had to go through these absurd situations, he’d probably react in exactly the same way. 

The scenes where Masucci, while impersonating Hitler, discusses politics with real German citizens made me laugh when I watched this movie the first time, but upon rewatching it, they became less funny. At first, I kept thinking, “How crazy would you have to be to openly agree with a man dressed as Hitler?!?” but as I watched the movie for a second, third, and even a fourth time, I realized these people weren’t all that crazy. Sure, their beliefs about politics and society were ignorant, but were the people themselves evil or crazy? Not at all. Every single one of the people Hitler met with were sane. They were just normal citizens with different points of view. Whether or not their opinions were correct is a subjective matter, but were the people themselves wrong or evil for thinking that? No; and that’s another one of the subtle messages that this movie conveys. You don’t have to be crazy or evil to have these kinds of opinions. We’ll come back to that subject later. 

(Side Note: there was a scene in which Hitler discusses how the effects of race-mixing are detrimental to people with a German woman in the movie, and I just so happened to be watching it with two women who are of mixed-race descent themselves. It wasn’t supposed to be funny, but given the circumstances, we laughed the hardest at this scene.)

I cannot stress this next sentence enough; everyone needs to watch the scene with Hitler and the dead dog. It’s absolutely hilarious. Going into this movie the first time, my friends and I thought that Look Who’s Back was going to be some stupid, badly acted, horrendous foreign film that we could ironically laugh at. This scene was the moment we realized that this movie was a cut above the rest. This movie vastly exceeded my expectations, and this scene is exactly why. The only gripe I have with it is that the dog, when Hitler shoots it, is very obviously fake, but can I even complain about the fact that I obviously didn’t just watch somebody shoot a dog? Is that really even a complaint?

There are many more funny moments, including when Hitler goes to the Central Square in Bayreuth to raise money by drawing caricatures of people, the montage of Hitler & Sawatzki’s exploits around the German countryside, as well as Hitler and Sawatzki’s banter on the road, but I wouldn’t want to spoilt everything. Just go see the movie. You won’t regret it. 

Two of the subsequent scenes seemed weird; one being the YouTube community’s reaction to Hitler’s new popularity as well as Hitler’s weird narration of his feelings about Katja Bellini (Katja Riemann) seem out of place, and honestly, a little unsettling. I feel like the movie would have been fine without them. 

I also find problems with Sawatzki’s decision-making skills. Why would he bring this killer new idea to Sensenbrink, who obviously hates him? There has to be other options for him. Later, he does the right thing by giving Hitler’s new manuscript to Katja, but that only exasperates my point. Why did he even bother going to Sensenbrink in the first place?

The scene in which Hitler discovers the Internet is decidedly reminiscent of Monty Python’s Flying Circus. When asked to type into the Google Search Bar what he is interested in by Ms. Krömeier, he types, “weltherrschaft,” which is the German word for “world supremacy.” Makes me giggle every time. His infatuation with Wikipedia, his struggle to find a username, and his complete bewilderment with modern technology only adds to the suspension of disbelief I previously mentioned. 

Look Who’s Back also makes excellent use of foreshadowing. Firstly (and in a more minor way), while Sawatzki and  Krömeier are making out on  Krömeier’s couch, a menorah hits Sawatzki in the head, foreshadowing that the  Krömeier family is Jewish, which becomes a conflict of interest later in the movie. Secondly, there is a line in which Hitler describes Sensenbrink as a man who, “hopes he is a success, but he’s only an accessory to success. Because he suspects this, he fears the moment it is revealed that the success is neither his, nor was he an accessory to it.” Sensenbrink’s moment of realization comes when he sees how much success Sawatzki is receiving from Hitler, and how little he himself is receiving, as highlighted by the insulting minor role he plays in the movie’s script. Interestingly, he says the line, “You could’ve gotten Benno Furmann or Bruno Ganz,” when commenting on the no-name status of the actor portraying him. Fun fact: Bruno Ganz was the name of the actor who portrayed Hitler in Downfall (dir. Oliver Hirschbiegel, 2004). My theory: someone didn’t like the fact that Oliver Masucci was cast to play Hitler during pre-production, and this line was added to the script out of pettiness. 

It is around this point that the movie takes a turn for the dramatic, and there are some shocking parallels to current-day American politics taking place all throughout this movie, but none more so than when Hitler begins going around the talk-show circuit. He even says his plan for the future is, “to make Germany great again.” Sound familiar to anyone? Also, quotes like, “You know how many people are cheering him on? Not because they think he’s funny, or ironic. They think what he says is cool! They think he’s right!” and, “People can’t stay mad at Hitler for very long. Even the people who hate him go buy his new book, just to see what his next crazy move is,” as well as, “Back then, people were laughing at first too,” from later points in the movie are very telling. I won’t go so far as to say that anyone should take my words as correlation between Hitler, the most reviled man in history, and any current politicians, but I would say that this movie does have a message to tell us; that we cannot let ourselves become blind to the repetition of history. 

There is also a line that Hitler says that I feel perfectly encapsulates the movie itself. He says, while on a talk show talking about how some people see him as a comedian, “I want to reach people, and you can’t reach someone who isn’t listening.” This movie begins as a comedy, but over the course of the movie, important questions begin to pop up, until you’re hit over the head with the movie’s ultimate message at the end. That’s what makes for a good movie; when the experience of watching is it improved a second time around. Rewatchability makes good movies great.

The scenes where Hitler interacts with various political groups were hard to follow, as I am rather ignorant on German politics. However, from these scenes comes one of the greatest insults of all time, delivered by Hitler about a group of vegan Neo-Nazi cooking show hosts; “They want to be the heirs to national socialism? They are nothing! Build the Fourth Reich? They can’t even build an Ikea shelf!” However, these are the last truly comedy-oriented scenes. The last truly funny moment in the movie before it makes a turn for the dramatic is a parody by Sensenbrink and the MyTV staff of the breakdown scene from Downfall. 

The scene where Grandma Krömeier recognizes Hitler is phenomenal, as well as the following scenes where Sawatzki begins to realize who he’s truly dealing with. Even if you don’t particularly enjoy the dark comedy of the first and second acts of the movie, you need to watch this movie for the drama of the third act. The final scene in which Sawatzki confronts Hitler has some of the best dialogue of the entire movie, and drives the point of the movie home hard. The music accompanying this scene is perfect too. Enis Rotthoff really did an excellent job scoring this whole movie; every scene’s music perfectly accompanies it’s content, and nowhere more so than the final confrontation between Sawatzki and Hitler. He isn’t John Williams, to be sure, but he’s at least got all of his bases covered as far as matching musical tone to cinematic tone. The movie ends perfectly, too, with images of actual right-wing demonstrations over a song. 

By the end of this film, my jaw had completely dropped to the floor. I was amazed at how slowly and steadily this film had transitioned from one of the funniest mockumentary comedies I’ve ever seen to some of the most impressive storytelling I’ve seen in the last few years. This movie was so amazingly believable; not I thought it would ever be possible for Hitler to return from the grave, but certainly that if Hitler were to ever come back, it would 100% happen like this.

I loved this movie, and it greatly exceeded my expectations from what I thought it was going to be like. Go watch it now on Netflix; I don’t think you’ll regret it.