#anon interview

[hadesknockedupintheunderworld]

Didn't Tails destroy an entire battalion of racist birds in tails adventure (which took place before he met sonic)?

He did indeed!

[ihateornithologists]

the most annoying people in the world

[reticent-vampire]

INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE 2.06 "Like the light by which God made the world before he made light"

[sophsun1]

Interview With The Vampire + Lestat's love for New Orleans serving as a metaphor for Louis

[drolta]

iwtv + text post part 59

[talesfromthecrypts]

Bram Stoker's Dracula // Interview With the Vampire 1.07 (2022)

[cuntyarmand]

"I'll keep digging. But I'm.. not hopeful there's much more to you Daniel, than a hole."

[nicoyarobin]

[hoosbandewan]

Ewan Mitchell on Good Morning America (June 4, 2024) (requested by anon! <3)

Bonus:

[hadesknockedupintheunderworld]

It just bugs me when the fandom treats Tails as a baby who has sonic as his daddy. Tails may be younger than sonic, but that doesn't make him a helpless diaper baby that needs sonic to wipe his ass. Tails was living on his own even before he met sonic..he has multiple workshops and creates glorious inventions and kicks badniks ass.

So sick of the infantilization of Tails.

I don't have much to say other than

100%

I'm not really broken up about people making fanon aus or whatever. But the amount of times there's like a new Tailstube or whatever and someone goes "OMG see! This is the proof that Tails is a 5 year old baby boy that Sonic is actively teaching to read and is practically parenting! All sega needs to do now is make him stay home and go to school and act more like Sonic's kid brother!!🥰" while Sonic and Tails are chilling in one of Tails multiple homes that Tails owns and allows Sonic to crash at

Or the amount of animations/comics that give him Cream's speech patterns, make him naive af and oblivious to "adult" things like *checks notes*...kissing(?), a gremlin baby child who can't stand losing games to Sonic, actively say "it's basically canon that Sonic actually owns Tails' shit", claim (incorrectly) that classic Tails was an infant child that Sonic picked up and started raising, etc, meanwhile everyone glazes up op talking about how so super canon that is and how that stuff basically canonically happened...

It's just kind of staggering. To me it could not be more clear of a case of people needing their fanon to be "basically canon" so they can feel like they're justified for liking it and so they can justify alienating people who don't share the same headcanons as their illusionary majority

[chicalepidoptera]

Devil's Minion on a motorbike for the anon that requested it 💜🧡

[911onabcbts]

📝: new oliver interview with usa today!

he’s talking about the basketball but also the new 9-1-1 episodes.

[alexturntable]

Int: Who is the best driver pairing for interviews? Laura: Charles and Carlos were always really good. (...) You could get the funny from them but you could also get the serious and you get really really in-depth good answers that tell you a lot. You kinda get the whole spectrum from them. Int: *screams* it's just painful Laura: Oh, because they're no longer together? Yeah I know (...) they're divorced. Broken-up.

[sophsun1]

Interview With The Vampire – 1.01 | 2.03

[brotherconstant]

Interview with the Vampire Gifset request -> Louis + Faceless

[bennetsbonnet]

In that post about Joe Wright avoiding bonnets in p&p 2005 for being “too clichéd” (wtf), you said “and the disdain he clearly has for said author which manifests in various ways”. Could you elaborate on that? (asking only out of interest, not disagreement)

Absolutely (the post anon refers to) it's always a pleasure! Though I will say before starting, I'm not bashing 2005 for the sake of it and no one is "wrong" for enjoying it. For me, it's not about fan wars/arguing about which adaptation is best... I just really care about Pride and Prejudice as a novel and I get frustrated when the beautiful, timeless story is distorted!

My main problem with the 2005 adaptation is how much it misrepresents the characters and changes the speech from the snappy, witty dialogue that Jane Austen wrote into something entirely different. Not only do I believe that it does not need updating for C21st audiences (though it might sound a little strange to the modern ear at first,you quickly get used to it) but that dialogue is what really stood out to me and charmed me when I first read it and I don't care for it being rewritten into either something that is either worse than what is found in the novel, or entirely changes the characterisation.

The one that particularly irks me is Darcy's 'bewitched me body and soul' dialogue as, to me, book!Darcy's confession to Elizabeth of when he fell in love with her:

'I cannot fix on the hour, or the spot, or the look, or the words, which laid the foundation. It is too long ago. I was in the middle before I knew that I had begun.'

is so beautiful and romantic. Why change that? Additionally, this man is not awkward, he can make romantic speeches, he doesn't need to trip over telling her he loves her. And I've previously discussed here why I think Darcy saying he is bewitched by Elizabeth is out of character.

There are many such cases in the film, but that is amongst the worst to me, perhaps only alongside Darcy's first proposal and how much Lady Catherine's visit and confrontation was watered down (and why did it take place in the middle of the night???).

I suppose he didn't write the script so perhaps I cannot blame him entirely for that... but it goes beyond dialogue, to how the actors were directed and the contempt shown for the period it was set in, which is bizarre when making a period drama.

I think it's quite apparent that JW desperately wanted to make Pride and Prejudice into a Brontësque romance with sweeping landscapes and dramatic weather. I suppose you can argue he did that successfully, but it came entirely at the expense of it being the story that Jane Austen wrote. There are lighthearted, humorous moments too but very few of them feature dialogue actually written by Austen ('what excellent boiled potatoes' springs to mind).

He misunderstood and consequently misrepresented Elizabeth and Darcy's dynamic to the point that they are hardly recognisable to the characters Jane Austen created. 2005!Darcy is so painfully shy and pathetic, that when contrasted with such an impertinent and sarcastic Elizabeth, it just seems like she's bullying a smol bean who struggles in social situations. You cannot emphasise Elizabeth's sassiness while making Darcy such a pathetic specimen, it just doesn't work. She isn't the witty, charming character from the novel anymore.

The period inaccuracy is absolutely baffling in ways beyond costumes, beyond the lack of bonnets and that one scene where one of the sisters is having her corset tied so tightly. For me, the worst offences are:

The bleachers at the Meryton assembly. Not only wildly historically inaccurate but makes Elizabeth look like a gossip and an eavesdropper, rather than an innocent party insulted by a rich snob.

The pig running through Longbourn and generally everything about Longbourn itself. The Bennets are not on the same level of wealth as Darcy and Bingley but they are not some poor farmers, with a scruffy house. Elizabeth is very much of the same class as Darcy.

Chatsworth is absolutely, definitively NOT Pemberley. It is explicitly mentioned in the text as featuring in their tour of the Peaks so consequently it CANNOT be Pemberley. It's far too grand an estate for an untitled gentleman. Darcy is rich but Chatsworth is another level.

I care about this because the landscaping is not at all correct as it's very artificial, whereas Pemberley is renowned for its natural beauty. It might not seem like much but it really is a huge part of why Elizabeth fell for him!

Another reason Chatsworth shouldn't have been used is because Elizabeth seeing a portrait of Darcy and looking into his eyes rather than a bust with holes is crucial, as I explained here.

This is all disappointing but I do feel like I could get over it if the characterisation was adequate. Unfortunately, I barely recognise any of them.

Mr Bennet is not a cute fatherly figure. Him not accompanying them to the Meryton assembly is a plot point to underscore his bone idleness. Yes, his relationship with Elizabeth is very sweet and he loves her a lot... but that does not a good father make!

The total character assassination of Mr Bingley... who is not a clueless himbo. As if Jane Bennet would ever fall for a man like that, or Jane Austen would ever write a character like that (except to be the object of ridiculue).

I do not know in what universe Charlotte Lucas, the pragmatic voice of reason would say 'we are all fools in love.' And the 'I'm 27 years old' monologue is just not something I can ever picture her saying... she wasn't a frightened, timid little creature whatsoever.

Wickham isn't bad enough. What he did to Georgiana is blink and you'll miss it, and when he returns with Lydia, Elizabeth glares at him a bit and that's it? The elopement is also resolved very quickly, there is no real tension with it.

The key story beats are butchered too. Especially the letter, not just in how short it is but in the way Darcy hands it to Elizabeth. I think I remember reading something about how JW couldn't imagine how Darcy would be in the room with her, so he just made it like a dream sequence... aka he put his own creative desires over what's in the novel, when Darcy seeking Elizabeth out to hand it to her is very important. Not least, because it shows the length he's prepared to go to in order to set the record straight as it was breaking social convention for a man to write a letter like that to a woman he wasn't related to or engaged to.

That quote, among others, just shows he had a desire to do things differently and it seems to be because he thinks he can do it 'better.' It's bizarre because why bother adapting a classic which is anchored to its time when you blatantly have disdain for it? It's like doing a war film without army uniforms and guns.

Everything I've read from him, he just seems like a smug film bro that believes that he got it 'right' and people had been Missing The Point the entire until he came along. No, you weren't onto anything new. There are certain things, like bonnets, that tend to be in period dramas. And Jane Austen is very literal with her meanings, for the most part. There isn't a new way to interpret her works.

For a film entitled Pride and Prejudice there isn't a great deal of pride or prejudice... it's really just a poor shy boi, who stands there and fidgets with his gloves while not saying anything, and his girlboss, who uses towels that have been getting wet on the line outside to dry herself after coming in from a rainstorm.