#but it is WAY larger than that. and creators of all types and actors and below the line folks need to fucking eat.

[essektheylyss]

.

[olderthannetfic]

https://olderthannetfic.tumblr.com/post/739381076510785536/so-it-seems-our-flag-means-death-has-not-been#notes

I liked OFMD and I'm sad it's not getting renewed, but I agree that the fandom was especially toxic, even by the standards of currently popular slash-heavy fandoms. I wanted to read fic after s1 ended the way it did, and I read a little bit, but along with it having all the tropes that I can't stand in a lot of what is currently big with the MSF crowd (and that I'd been happy to have a reprieve from in my current main M/M fandom), the toxicity of the online fandom discourse made me quickly realize it was one that I was going to discuss among my current-friends-from-other-fandoms who also watched it, and my sister who watches it, and pretty much ignore the rest of the Internet. It was such a perfect storm of everything awful, from people who are overly invested in it to an unhealthy degree (I think I realized I wasn't gonna be active in the larger fandom around a month or so before the s2 renewal announcement, when I saw earnest PSA tweets telling people to "stop threatening suicide in HBO's replies if they don't renew OFMD"), to bombarding and parasocial obsessions with the creators and actors, to all the classic "anti" and purity police crap that plagues anything that gets popular on here.

The fandom it reminds me the most of, honestly, is Yuri on Ice fandom at its peak in early-mid 2017. Again, a show I love, but a fandom I absolutely do not miss. In some ways they are kind of similar shows: ones with canon M/M romances where they were not billed as that, and they were hinted from early on but people didn't trust it due to years of dealing with queerbaiting, where that sort of thing slowly crept up on people and then became the defining feature of how it was discussed everywhere. I wonder if there's a particular level of insanity that that type of thing breeds in its fans - or maybe, more broadly, "canon M/M with a large female fanbase." Like, you don't see this kind of thing in canon M/M stuff that's mostly watched by queer men rather than women, but there are shades of the insanity I also remember from Glee fandom (I was more active on the F/F side of things there, which had its own unhinged drama, but the Klaine vs. anti-Klaine stuff was so explosive that it was hard not to notice it if you were anywhere in that fandom, like a mushroom cloud in the distance). But YOI and OFMD do seem very... singular in the particular kind of obsession that they generate.

And I really wish people would shape the fuck up, because if they're going to act like this over and over again, that's just going to de-incentivize showrunners to make shows like this for that audience.

Driving Con O'Neill off Twitter was one of the worst parts of it, too. There was something so refreshingly earnest about how much he embraced the fandom, even the weirdest parts - saying with regard to NSFW fanart that "art is art" and retweeting stuff like his character in a crop-top that said "babygirl." It was so nice to see an actor who didn't usually have that kind of following embrace it wholeheartedly rather than steering clear. ....And then people had to be awful and creepy and obsessive and he left Twitter. I bet he's going to be a lot more skeptical of dealing with fans in the future!

--

It's not just the canon m/m aspect: it's the wholesomeness.

Yes, yes, they're all evil pirates, I agree, but watching S1 did give me the feeling of something that was supposed to be very progressive and light-hearted in particular ways. I don't think that's bad, but it does tend to attract some very over-sensitive fans with some very rigid expectations.

It's sadly par for the course that one of the random side character actors is the fun one and people are jackasses and desperately want the leads they ship to be the fandomy ones and/or just start creeping on any actor they can get a reaction from.

[hey-i-am-trying]

Hey! This doesn't have much to do with the rest of what anon's have explained already, as I found their summary pretty on point on the whole Otipep situation, but I also wanted to give my two cents in and that is: Even if the Admin did continue being Pepito, I don't think they would have gone far. And this is not because of their behavior or the fact that they bypassed the first week of development with 07, but it was because the type of role they were looking for would never fit in with the Hispanic crowd.

Considering the most active Spanish speaking CC's that were in the server, like Roier or Mariana, they tend to have a very a light, joking, kind of chill way of role-playing. They prefer being humorous (as we all saw with Roier's tapes) than making profound and deep RP narrative lines. And Roier is the most RP driven out of the Hispanic members! The Admin and the character they wanted to portray might have been successful with other content creators like Philza or Bad, who enjoy playing out more serious story lines, but it would have never been played out the way that it was intended with the creators that the Admin was paired up with. That's why I was a bit confused reading the declaration on twt because you only need to watch one stream of Roier's to notice, he has very little serious moments and most of these are also tinted with comedy. And I'm sorry, but in my opinion, if you know who you're going to be playing with, as an admin and NPC, you need to adapt :/ So yeah, as a Hispanic watcher it felt really out of place, not only in the progressing narrative that had been presented but also in the community's ambience and general preferences when it comes to RP.

Thank you both so much for sharing! I decided to post the two asks together because I believe they compliment each other a lot.

I think understanding the context that the og admin had like 2 days to come up with Pepito story is really important. I find really strange that Pepito, the character, seems to have been intented to be latine or at leat hispanic when the og admin is european and is not hispanic, I am unsure if this decision was made by the admin or if it is how they were instructed to act, but it is odd.

I do not think they had much time to research and understand better what time of rp Roier and the other parents do.

This is not an excuse for the admin, as I still believe they were rude and after so much to reflect about her actions, still come out as being dismissive of their own actions.

However, this is a bit of a larger reflection on the administration and whoever was resposible to instruct and coordinate the egg actors.

I do not understand why the og admin couldn't be up front about being a non-native speaker, the originals eggs were paired with their parents regardless of their nationalities and native languages. Pepito has always act younger than the other eggs so having a charcater that speaks manly spanish but is not a native speakers wouldn't be terrible odd and left room for the parents to be the ones teaching Pepito about the spanish language and latin culture.

It feels like in this search of having Pepito being only seen as hispanic character, the actor and any othe staff involved in this forgot that there are culture nuances to languages that can't be thought in a class.

Thank you again for everyone that shared and I am sorry again to Roier and his community for the things that happend.

[duckprintspress]

Fandom Lexicon: F

Considering that “F” is the first word of “fan,” “fandom,” and “fiction” … there are a lot of entries in the letter F. And here they all are!

Check out the full lexicon posted thus far here.

Spot a mistake? Think of a term we missed? Drop us an ask or comment!

Lexicon Terms Beginning with F: (read more)

Faceclaim: When someone assigns a celebrity’s face to their original character. Most often used in a roleplay setting. Those participating in a roleplaying scenario together may make rules against multiple characters having the same face. See also: fancast. Read more about faceclaims.

Fan edit: 1. A short video in which the creator patches together clips from the source fandom(s) and sets those clips to music and/or uses them to tell an abbreviated version of the original story or an entirely new story. See also: edit. 2. A photo manipulation in which a creator takes images from their fandom and modifies them. Often called a manip. Read more about types of fan edits.

Fanart: Artwork based on original media, often using the same characters and/or settings, but placing them in new contexts. Read more about fanart.

Fanartist: A person who creates fanart.

Fanboy: Someone who gets very excited about something they’re a fan of, but in a way that is seen as more “masculine.” Despite the gendered language, this term can be applied to any and all genders; several non-gendered variations (such as “fanswirl”) have been proposed, but none have caught on. See also: fangirl. Read more about the term “fanboy.”

Fancast: When a fan decides that a specific character would be best depicted by a specific real individual. This usually involves actual actors, but that isn’t necessarily a requirement. Similar to faceclaiming, but typically focused on characters from other media rather than on an individual’s original characters. For example, if someone reads a book and then decides which performers they’d like to see portray the characters in a live-action adaptation, that’s a fancast. Read more about fancasts.

Fandom : 1. A collective term for everyone who is a fan (of anything and everything – from a book through a sport’s team to an activity such as fishing and everything in between). 2. A collective term for people who are fans of a specific thing (media, character, actor, sport, etc.). 3. A term for the environment in which a person might express their enjoyment of a specific thing/things. Read more about what a fandom is.

Fanfic: Shortened term for “fanfiction.”

Fanfiction: Written works of fiction based on original media, often using the same characters and/or settings, but placing them in new contexts, extending the storylines, or otherwise transforming them per the writer’s specifications. Read more about fanfiction.

Fangirl: Someone who gets very excited about something they’re a fan of, but in a way that is seen as more “feminine.” Despite the gendered language, this term can be applied to any and all genders; several non-gendered variations (such as “fanswirl”) been proposed, but none have caught on. See also: fanboy. Read more about the term “fangirl.”

Fanlore: A wiki run by the OTW that compiles fandom-related information – basically a much, much larger and better documented version of this lexicon. See also: AO3, OTW. Visit Fanlore.org.

Fanmix: A fanmix is a selection of music, such as would be on a mixtape or mix CD, that a fan has compiled because of how they feel the music relates to a fandom or fandoms of their choice. Read more about fanmixes.

Fanon: An idea about a character, setting, plot, or other detail about a story that is not explicitly stated in the source material but is believed to be true. Fanon may be personal and believed by only one person or may become popular and become an established part of the fandom vernacular for a given fandom. See also: canon, head canon. Read more about the term “fanon.”

Fanwork: The collective term for all creations that fans make as part of their participation in fandom, such as fanfiction, fanart, edits, manips, filk, meta, and more. Read more about fanworks.

Fanzine: See zine.

Feelings Yakuza: See Okimochi Yakuza.

Feels: As in “right in the feels.” Used to describe when something makes a person emotional despite themselves. Read more about the term “feels.”

Femslash: Lesbian and wlw fanworks, shipping female characters together. See also: slash. Read more about femslash.

Fest: A fandom event centered on a specific theme, often characterized by many prompts or other interaction opportunities scheduled over a period of time that result in the creation and sharing of numerous informal/smaller creations. Read more about fests.

FF.net: Abbreviation for fanfiction.net. A website that hosts fanfiction. Visit FF.net.

Fic: Short for fiction or fanfiction.

Fic Rec: Shortened term for “fanfiction recommendation.” A fanfic that someone has recommended because it’s one of their personal favorites and/or on some criteria (for example, “fanfics set at a beach.”) Fic recs are often compiled into rec lists. Read more about recs.

Ficlet: A short fanfiction. Ficlets are usually under 1,000 words. See also: drabble, flash fic. Read more about ficlets.

Filk: Essentially fanfic in music form, though the medium may make the connection less obvious. For example, Come With Me by chxrlotte is about Aziraphale and Crowley from Good Omens. Read more about filk.

Fix-it: A fanwork that fixes a perceived or actual problem in the source material. For example, a fix-it might offer an explanation for an actual plot hole, or it may be created to segue between canon and popular fanon, or it might be used to change an unhappy event in canon (such as a character dying) into a tale with a happier ending. Read more about fix-its.

Flame: To be intentionally offensive toward someone on the internet. Often used as a verb. Read more about flames and flaming.

Flamewar: When two or more people engage in reciprocal flaming, exchanging increasingly offensive and/or violent posts with each other, the resulting back-and-forth is called a flamewar. This term has largely fallen out of fashion; “discourse” and “wank” are used more often now. Read more about flamewars.

Flash Fic: Shortened term for “flash fiction.” Very short fiction stories, typically not more than a couple hundred words. Read more about flash fiction.

Fluff: Refers to fics or scenes that are soft, soothing, calm, domestic, and/or loving – the in-betweens and soft points we rarely see on the published page or the TV screen because they are the opposite of conflict. Read more about fluff.

Follow Forever: Someone an individual will never stop following on social media, even if their interests diverge. In the past, “follow forever” posts were popular on Tumblr, where an OP would make a list of other users they would never unfollow. Follow forevers have fallen out of style.

Forum: 1. A message board, usually privately owned/not connected to social media. 2. A specific type of Discord channel that bears some resemblance to how Reddit works. 3. The message board section of a large webpage that may have other functionality as well, such as the forums on Ravelry. Read more about forums.

FTM: Abbreviation for “female to male.” A way of referring to a transgender man. Some people find this term offensive, and others do not. Some transgender people use it to discuss their own gender and their transition, and others do not. Read more about the abbreviation “ftm.”

Fudanshi: A Japanese term for a man who is a fan of BL and yaoi (mlm) content. See also: fujoshi. Read more about fudanshi.

Fujo: Shortened term of “fujoshi.”

Fujoshi: A Japanese term for a woman who is a fan of BL and yaoi (mlm) content. See also: fudanshi. Read more about fujoshi.

Fursona: Refers to the name, characteristics, and physical attributes that a furry has chosen for their animal persona. See also [thing]sona. Read more about fursonas.

Fusion: Specifically in a fandom sense, fusion is used to refer to when a fanfiction or fanart combines two or more different fandoms into one shared universe. The most famous example is Superwholock, the fusion ‘verse of Supernatural, Doctor Who, and BBC Sherlock. Read more about fusion fanfiction.

Futanari : A Japanese word that is often used in fandom to describe characters with sex characteristics from both genders. This and the shortened term “futa” are, in the West, most often used to describe a genre of pornographic anime and manga. Read more about the term “futanari.”

[lunarsilkscreen]

Ens*tification

[reference link] whenever somebody says something like this, it means they're criticizing the vibe of the space and not the space itself. Because they won't address their own numbers and instead discourage*other* users from using the platform.

"Seat's taken."

This happens in all sorts of social settings as well. Including Bars, Clubs, Coffee Shops, Public Spaces in General, and even Public Playgrounds (F*ing tiger moms dude.)

Not because of any tangible reason, just because the overall vibe has changed.

Let's start with the privatized dislike button: First, bigger creators had a penchant for attempting to *ratio* certain creators. Usually smaller creators, because they felt fear that the smaller creators were better than them and they *needed to control their territory* like they were a f*ing member of the crips, and some new guy would stop their growth. Some random users would also use bot farms just because they didn't like somebody.

Howard Stern did this too at one point in his career. And, what it ended up doing was encouraging people that hated his type of content into listening to other creators who were polar opposite him.

But it also encouraged *other* creators to act this way, and, ironically; Ens*ified radio into this bizarre place where it seemed like *only* shock Jocks could thrive. Unless you lived in Texas, then it was 24/7 Christian radio. (Because they banned the Shock Jocks.)

Censure by any other name...

Google is a near internet monopoly, Bigger than Amazon in scope and power. They have control over large portions of the backend of the internet. But "it's not a monopoly" because another monopoly controls access to those backends.

Even Amazon is beholden to the gatekeepers and Google's backrooms.

So it's not like I care about what happens to YouTube. But the fact they can produce this content AND get an audience, AND not be demonetized, should mean something to them.

And no matter how much activism there is for a public shared, equal access internet, it's nearly always ignored. Because of technology illiteracy. And these shock Jocks who, I don't want to say pollute the space, because that's kinda their whole shtick.

They obfuscate things that would benefit their shtick, because they constantly feel the pressure of being under attack for their craft.

They focus heavily on what people see on their home screen. They don't realize that the algorithm dictates that on purpose. Sharing child-safe content with children, and spicy content for spicy content viewers. (And, like hot ones, has multiple spice levels depending on what you can stand.)

If you want to address a larger, or more different audience, you could always create a new channel that follows those specifics. But they'd rather have a single channel with all their content.

If you're using clickbait for your videos, you're targeting ignorant people and small children. YouTube started a campaign on removing certain more spicy creators from the "children" space, because parents were complaining about contrapoints and philosophy tube *literally getting undressed on camera* and doing shows naked, and all the parents said was "just don't be in the child spaces."

Writers would call this *the hook*, and what you don't know, thats all clickbait is. But when you rely too heavily on clickbait.... There is no hook.

The same problem occurs with other sites. certain other shock jock creators, and twitch as a whole which, when I signed up, had an entire front page of bathtub streamers and voice actors from porn spaces (still doing porn acting).

"No really, I joined Twitch for the gaming, I swear."

That's some real HQ content there guys.

"WHERE ARE ALL THE VIEWERS GOING IF ALL OUR CONTENT IS NSFW!?"

There's a lot of people manufacturing all this "small creators can't even make money anymore and are financially dependent on viewership!!!"

But here's the thing, no they most likely are not. Having been funded by alternate sources. Or they make content in their spare time. Or saved some money in order to go job hunting and make money on the side.

If they're financially dependent on youtube, they are not a small time creator. They have an established audience, and can't be cancelled.

But since they're all making their chosen content creation spaces an objectively worse place to make content, the question remains; what will these spaces do about it? They're not going to cave to their demands. They likely can't afford to pay more. And creators can't leave the platform and make content elsewhere. (Because they're too reliant on the platform and can't afford it.)

They're intentionally trying to make it a worse place in order to build up subscription services to drive customers to themselves. But the only customers they will get, are the ones who're already fans *and* can afford it.

But they don't see that either. But they do know they can't just leave the service they're a part of. Because they've tethered themselves down.

I have written about the internet, the current problems the internet faces, and possible solutions for those problems. But, alas, nobody is listening.

Or are they?

[bcbfbella]

"I've Been Influenced": The Language of Advertising in a Digital Age

Isabella Cheramie

For as long as the human race has existed, there’s always been something to sell. From the earliest bartering systems to the more refined Renaissance merchant guilds to our modern age of flashy sales pitches, people have always tried to convince consumers that their product was the best and that they deserve the customer’s money more than “the other guy.” 

Handmade signage evolved into bright billboards and flashing neon lights above a storefront. Infomercials became the most effective way of connecting with potential customers. Nearly everyone has spent time at some relative’s house where the only thing playing on TV was QVC or HSN, an endless stream of polished, attractive, and engaging personalities hawking products that you “simply must buy.” Truth is, you don’t need any of it. They know that. You know that. But, still, they successfully convince you otherwise. “It’s a great deal!” they say. “One chance to get it at this price!” “Never again will you get this opportunity!” Soon enough, you’re on the phone or website with your credit card in hand and completing the purchase before you even realize what you bought. 

Why? Because these professional advertisers are fantastic at their jobs. Did you need the newest model George Foreman grill that allegedly gets rid of all the fat on your meat while it cooks? No, but they made you think you did. So, a few business days later when you unbox your fancy new appliance, you are likely hit by a wave of buyer’s remorse. You suppress it with some level of excitement and plug it in. You ignore the questions in your mind: Why did you buy this $115 grill that you’ll probably only use twice before shoving it in the closet and never seeing it again? You shake your head and turn up the heat, smiling. After all, it was a once-in-a-lifetime deal. Congratulations! You’ve been influenced. 

With new inventions such as the internet came new methods of advertising. Likely the most prevalent method today is through social media. Facebook, Twitter*, YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok: what started as easy and exciting ways to connect with your friends as well as the world around you changed rapidly once companies realized the power of user engagement. 

User engagement such as likes, shares, and comments causes content to be pushed to a larger audience. This is the most basic explanation of how these social media algorithms work. So, the more appealing the content is, the better it performs. Understandably, the obviously branded content doesn’t perform nearly as well as authentic and relatable posts. People don’t feel the same connection to corporations and hired actors as they do to real people sharing real stories. It became evident that, to achieve success on social media, these corporations had to change their methods of appealing to audiences. Infomercial-type formats in the traditional sense wouldn’t work well on YouTube and billboard-type ads weren’t the most effective on Twitter. 

So, in order to maintain brand relevancy in an era of increased authenticity, companies decided to capitalize on the success of social media personalities and utilize their audiences and platforms to reach consumers as mentioned in this Forbes article by Joel Mathew. These social media personalities had these platforms due to their parasocial connections with the anonymous users on the other side of the screen. It was their candid ways of speaking – their relatability, humor, and occasional humbleness – that captured audiences. 

But what was it that caught the attention of audiences and made this new type of influencer marketing so effective? Well, part of the answer lies in linguistics. 

When looking at TikTok, currently the most lucrative platform for influencer marketing, it is crucial for a creator to capture the attention of viewers within the first two seconds. It’s like a good book in the way that, if the first part doesn’t make you want to keep reading, it’ll be challenging to finish. As the content grows longer, specifically in long-form video content as seen on YouTube, these first few seconds of critical engagement extend to nearly the entire video. 

YouTube is unique in its creator advertising and marketing systems in that it practically pioneered this entire concept. It was the first to pay creators for simply creating and uploading content regardless of outside compensation such as sponsorships (more on that later). The YouTube monetization system relies on how much advertisers are spending to show ads per 1000 impressions, referred to as CPM. Basically, the more engagement your content received, the more people would see it, the more ads would be shown on your video, and the more money you would make. This system encouraged creators to make content intentionally designed to receive more engagement and lead to greater compensation.

Returning to the basic ideas of audience engagement, a few reliable methods of increasing content exposure emerged. In a recent study on YouTube influencer advertising, the videos of over 150 top YouTube influencers were analyzed to determine linguistic patterns in order to determine what specifically was aiding in their success on the platform. Of the 11,000+ videos examined, researchers found seven specific linguistic styles that were used most: storytelling, intimate experiences, motivation and guidance, expert advice, coaching and mentoring, middle-of-the-road videos, and struggle and overcoming. Social influence theory, as discussed within the study, focuses on three processes to explain influence on social media. These processes are compliance: influence being accepted by individuals in search of approval or to avoid disapproval from the influencer; identification: followers accepting influence in order to establish or maintain a self-defining relationship with the influencer; and internalization: followers accepting influence because the source is in line with their value system. 

So, this explains why the audience is perceptive to an influencer’s message and why they might follow their influence, but what about the influencer’s role in this? Part of it is emotional tone. Think about it: you’re more likely to want to listen to someone who is upbeat and passionate about what they’re discussing, right? When creators use bubbly, excited voices when they’re discussing something (specifically a product), it helps sell the image of an ideal reality. We’re all familiar with the “expectations vs. reality” jokes online. The reality is often a disappointing representation of the expectation just like an influencer’s real life is often a bit boring or not as interesting in comparison to their online persona. Influencers don’t just sell tangible products, they sell ideas. They appeal to audiences through envy and yearning for a more glamorous, polished life. 

Let’s think: you see an influencer showing an expensive new mascara that has absolutely changed their entire makeup routine and made their lashes a million times longer. She swears by this $40 tube as she sits in the glittering bathroom of her expensive New York apartment and gives you her affiliate code so that you can try the mascara too! You’re not just being sold the product – you’re being sold a lifestyle. Maybe if you buy this mascara, you’ll share in some part of her alluring lifestyle. She sounds so excited, so happy and full of life, and maybe, if you buy that mascara, a bit of that happiness and excitement will transfer to you. 

The study did mention, however, that constantly upbeat attitudes aren’t always effective, however. In reviews and product discussions, a bit of negative honesty can go far. Deliriously positive reviews tend to glaze over any potential negatives of a product and only discuss how wonderful it is. When an influencer speaks candidly about the things they dislike, it tends to lend a bit of credibility to what they’re saying. For this reason, it’s important for a bit of negative emotional content to appear from time to time. After all, most people won’t want to engage with or buy things from an influencer that they don’t trust. 

Additionally, the use of words such as “we” and “you” when discussing positive opinions or aspects of things tended to lead to an overall better audience perception. The same phenomena occurred when creators used “I” and “my” when discussing negative opinions or experiences as it made them a bit more relatable to audiences. A bit of informality like the inclusion of slang or jokes can also help to connect with viewers. These approaches made the content feel less like “look at this!” and more like a conversation, strengthening the parasocial relationships and making the influencer seem more trustworthy. 

The study goes on to “score” the perceptions of each of the seven types of linguistic styles that were proposed. Of the 11,151 videos examined, 14.7% of them were videos of struggle and overcoming. These videos were more candid, exploring an influencer’s personal journey and how they got past the obstacles and achieved the wonderful life they show their audience. This sort of video performed overall in terms of engagement which supports the theory that audiences want to relate to a creator. This relation, in turn, builds trust and helps the influencer make more money through regular monetization as well as affiliate links, partnerships, and sponsorships along with any personal business ventures they may embark on.  Because, as influencers are acutely aware of, their success relies entirely upon our perception of them.

While this study did focus on YouTube creators, it’s worth noting that similar methods are employed in short-form content such as on TikTok. YouTube’s monetization program pushed influencers to create more engaging content, in turn pushing them to focus more on content-making as a career which leads to selling things through their influence. While some creators leaned into the authentic side as it was what their audience preferred, others like Mr. Beast went fully into the flashy, wow-factor sort of content. While it does work for some creators such as Mr. Beast, it often creates a sense of disconnect with the audience. Again, we ask ourselves “Why?” Mostly the reason why is because everything is too polished, too flashy, too unrelatable. So while audiences may enjoy watching this type of content occasionally, more relatable and down-to-earth content seems to generally resonate more with a broader audience.

YouTube rewards both authentic and the more non-authentic content alike, though, with its pay scale based on engagement and whether or not advertisers seem to approve of your content. TikTok, however, prioritized authenticity completely. The TikTok creator fund (their version of content monetization) pays creators based solely on organic audience interaction which prioritizes content that remains true to creators’ personal brand and audience.

Despite having over 24 million videos uploaded daily, TikTok and its influencer advertising efforts are still a bit too new to find any robust studies like you can find for YouTube. So, until then, we’re forced to rely on user experiences and opinions. Speaking anecdotally now, TikTok creators seem to be a bit sneakier in their advertising. Oftentimes, you won’t realize that you’re watching a sponsored post until you get to the end of the video or sift through the myriad of hashtags buried in the caption. However, the content feels much more candid. Perhaps it’s because of the short-form content style or simply the fact that everyday people can hop on and make a video about their new favorite item, but TikTok “ads” don’t feel so much like ads as they do a friend telling you about something they love. 

Naturally, there are still some influencers who are a bit more heavy-handed with their advertising and the FDA sort of requires them now to disclose the fact that it’s an ad, but even then it doesn’t have the same overtly consumeristic feel as a QVC marathon. It’s much more subtle, their efforts more subdued even when they proclaim that “this is the best energy drink ever!” It’s sneakier in that way, a more direct approach to earn the customer’s trust by building that parasocial relationship using the same methods as discussed in the YouTube study. 

When you really consider the entire “influencer” thing as a whole, it all seems to boil down to understanding and utilizing the linguistic nuances that garner attention. Obviously, this isn’t the only piece of the puzzle when you try to unravel the current state of content creators and the internet, but the bubble seems to collapse without it. 

So, next time you’re mindlessly scrolling through TikTok or Instagram and find yourself nearly convinced by an influencer excitedly encouraging you to use their affiliate code for some must-have product, pause to look past their words and ask yourself if you really need it. Save yourself some money and scroll past because, most of the time, you don’t! 

Notes: *I refuse to refer to Twitter as X. I think X is an objectively horrific name unbecoming of a social media site. I also firmly believe, as a Twitter user since 2016, that the platform should have never been sold to Elon Musk. 

Sources:

[denimbex1986]

'Those who have been following my stage reviews know I’m a big proponent of live theater. There’s no experience like it. Unlike a film, the magic is happening right in front of you, on a platform where no performance is ever the same from one show to another. Every high moment and mistake is there for the audience to see, to participate in, creating a different type of relationship. However, a downside is having to be present to see these shows, meaning they aren’t always easily accessible. So when you’re able to see a taped performance of a live show, such as Vanya, it’s the next best thing.

Based on Anton Chekhov’s classic Uncle Vanya, Vanya is currently playing on screens worldwide, thanks to National Theater Live, having recently played at the Duke of York’s Theatre in London. Vanya is adapted by Simon Stephens and Directed by Sam Yates, who also directed Magpie starring Daisy Ridley, which premiered at SXSW 2024.

Perhaps the most significant change is that Andrew Scott plays every part on stage, instead of an ensemble cast. As the only performer and co-creator, Scott carries this play on his shoulders.

[Warning: spoilers from Vanya are below!]

Vanya is a case study of humans and their relationships

I was unfamiliar with Chekhov’s Uncle Vanya, which is pretty much a retelling of another work, The Wood Demon. The original play explores the interconnectedness between four people and the emotions that become involved as they grow closer.

The major players in this version of the story are Alexander, an elderly filmmaker, his young second wife Helena, his daughter Sonia, the exhausted doctor Michael who has been called to the estate to provide some care, and of course Vanya. Andrew Scott plays a total of eight characters, each one with a distinct personality, mannerisms as well as patterns of speech.

Vanya brings these characters with larger-than-life personalities to the stage, allowing audience-goers a moment to sit down and experience life among them. The play is a case study of the human experience, which is perhaps one of the best parts of the entire show.

It’s not a super active play, with a gigantic story that moves from scene to scene. Instead, most of the play takes place in one room, with these characters conversing their way through difficult situations. Through this moment-by-moment exploration of these relationships, we learn so much about not just the characters, but also ourselves.

This feat is only amplified when you remember that every one of these characters is played by the same actor. One scene could see Scott jump between any of the eight characters, sometimes all of them, having to change his voice and his mannerisms very suddenly. It takes a high caliber of talent to be able to do, and Scott does it with such ease.

Switching between a gregarious character bouncing a tennis ball around the stage to a delicate, feminine character who fidgets with her necklace and speaks in a soft tone isn’t easy. I’ve heard stories about how difficult it can be to hold a single character when acting, let alone bouncing between extremes. It speaks to the talent that Andrew Scott has, as not many actors could do what he does live, night after night on stage.

A confusing narrative in this Anton Chekhov play

While the talent is impeccable here, there are quite a few downsides to this version of Chekhov’s play, the first being how much I struggled to follow along with the narrative. Part of this problem is that there doesn’t seem to be a specific narrative that connects Vanya from scene to scene; which is a result of the above-stated human case study that the play offers. Vanya is a narrow view into a specific point in these characters’ lives. The audience is getting a snapshot of each character in this exact moment, which doesn’t necessarily lend itself well to an overall narrative.

Instead, Vanya feels like it’s meandering through a story where not much happens. For some, this may be perfectly fine. However, I prefer a bit more story to my stage plays. Adding to the confusing nature of Vanya is the quick transitions that Andrew Scott has to manage throughout the show. At times, Scott switches between characters so quickly, that it becomes near impossible to discern who exactly he’s supposed to be. There’s one scene in particular where he’s sitting on a swing and switches between two characters, with barely enough time to switch the mannerisms that signify who exactly he’s playing.

As a result, I spent a good chunk of time unsure of what I was watching or what was going on throughout the play. I thought that it had something to do with it being an adapted Russian classic, which has never been one of my favorite genres, but it seems to be more reflective of the creative choices for this specific version of Uncle Vanya.

That being said, the work and effort put into this show by Andrew Scott is something spectacular to behold. There’s nothing quite like seeing someone who is not only great at acting, but loves what they are doing, and doing it well. Scott is in his element, with this being another successful role(s) among a long list of fantastic characters he’s brought to life.

Final thoughts on Andrew Scott’s Vanya

While I was a bit confused a few different times throughout Vanya, this version still feels like essential viewing for theater lovers. Now that I’ve seen it once, I think I would appreciate it more on additional viewings because I have a better understanding of what is going on and who exactly each one of these characters is.

The love and work that Andrew Scott put into this show are apparent from the first moment he arrives on stage. Vanya should be at the top of your viewing list.'

[the2amrevolution]

This drama I'm watching has the main character start dating a famous actor - a common trope, and when it becomes public, a bunch of mostly teenagers show up outside her work with signs saying "give him back" and whatever.

Like, they and reporters would be annoying, but she feels all bad and people at her work are mad at her. Why? No? Their delusion isn't her problem? Disperse the problem folks for trespassing and harassment, and ignore everyone else.

Like, if I were her:

"Give him back, he's ours!"

No? You are a stranger? We are coworkers and were friends years ago.

Its just the weirdest concept to me. People say stuff like that about celebrities here, but its mostly as a joke. People who actually get upset at their celeb crush dating are teens and the response is "honey, its okay. You know it was fantasy. You can still like him, but he's his own person," and an adult who gets actually upset is seen as an actual mental health issue because it is. People aren't out validating delusional fans by not letting celebrities date or pretending they're all chaste and whatever.

I've never understood this with celebrity and idol culture in Japan and Korea (and other places probably but those are the two I'm most familiar with).

I really don't understand enabling parasocial to the point of delusional people to dictate your private life. Like, deal with ones who are a real safety issue and then change the conversation and culture in a way that everyone else is forced to develop an understanding of fantasy versus reality or they are the ones who end up ostracized, not the celebs or whoever they're dating. Make mental health a higher priority and have actual availability so that you don't have fans committing suicide when their fave celebrity gets a partner, rather than prohibit adults from having adult relationships.

Sorry you're sad about your fantasy being fantasy, but it doesn't affect their job or the types of interactions they have with their audience in anyway, so as long as you don't hurt yourself or others, you can still fantasize all day everyday if you want to. Pretending your fave idol is going to date you is already fantasy. Its not a big leap to just add them being single to your fantasy if its not reality. People do it all the time. Shit, there's people with intense fantasy relationships with fictional characters. None of that is real, and its not the responsibility of the creator of the characters to make any part of someone else's fantasy real, and such an expectation would be seen as absurd. So why force the artists in a different field to cater to delusion just because their self/persona is a larger part of their art?

[reallyjtl]

This year I created a Youtube channel to just pump out dumb comedy sketches on a regular basis.

https://www.youtube.com/@reallyjtl

So, if you are a fan of a time when Youtube was more about small creators making silly videos, instead of trying to squeeze every dollar out of their viewers - well hopefully this content will be for you. I really appreciate every like, comment, and subscriber. But if you want more content - see below.

Twitch

https://www.twitch.tv/reallyjtl

On Twitch is where you will find me streaming my video editing process. Sometimes I will have my mic muted if my wife is in the office with me as a courtesy. But I'll always respond to chat messages.

Tiktok

https://www.tiktok.com/@reallyjtl

Occasionally I will post "chopped down" videos for tiktok as well as new videos that don't really work with the longer Youtube format. Also plan on doing a series of music videos starring puppets. So if you like puppets, stay tuned and follow me there.

Twitter

https://twitter.com/reallyjtl

I'm somewhat active here and this is your best bet for interacting with me outside of where I upload videos. Probably the best place to reach me in general. I probably won't be posting too regularly here until I get a larger following. It's kind of cringe to tweet with only (21) followers so I'll spare you for now.

Instagram

https://www.instagram.com/reallyjtl/

Same deal here, not going to spam you with a bunch of garbage. I only upload photos when I really think I have something worth sharing. I'm a little more loose when posting to my stories so follow me here if you want to see what I'm doing in general. As I get a larger following I'll probably post teaser and behind the scenes type content.

Patreon

https://www.patreon.com/REALLYJTL

Speaking of behind the scenes, I've started a Patreon. Why would I do that with zero followers? Because I have seen other content creators receive backlash after creating their own Patreons and locking content that used to be free behind paid tiers. I find that to be a little icky. So, I would like to be upfront about what kind of content can be found there. It's mainly for people that want to see more of my creative process, behind the scenes, prop making. Also when I write sketches, sometimes the final result is different than what I originally intended. In those instances, I'll film both versions and release the alternate exclusively on Patreon. There are other bonuses like getting your name or social in the credits, idea pitching, video messages, and gaming sessions. Basically, if you're bored and you want a little more community involvement, this is a way for you to do that for a small donation. I've capped the three highest tiers so those are on a first come first serve basis. Also, the money I get will go towards better props, better film equipment, and paying actors for future sketches.

I know my style of humor isn't for everyone, and that's okay! I find myself laughing at things that others don't find funny and failing to laugh at things they DO find funny. If I make one person laugh that otherwise is having a crappy day, then that's alright with me. And if you read all this, I see you cool person. I see you.

[myhahnestopinion]

THE AARONS 2022 - Best TV Show

There’s certain shows I wait to watch with a friend who never really watches TV. So if there was a specific miniseries And/or television season that you expected would make this list and it didn’t, that may be why. Here are the Aarons for Best TV Show:

#10. A Friend of the Family (Miniseries) - Peacock

A Friend of the Family is related to television’s ongoing proliferation of true-crime, but the show stands apart for two reasons. The first is the almost farcical facts behind the real-life kidnapping of Jan Broberg; the many maddening developments feel barely contained by the nine-episode miniseries rather than ever stretched thin. The second is its uncommon association with the victim of the crime: Broberg herself, now an actress, produces and introduces the show as a chance to tell her own story. Family gathers together an assortment of all-star actors to do so, including Colin Hanks, Anna Paquin, and an unexpectedly dark turn from The Office’s Jake Lacy. It’s the always-impressive McKenna Grace as Jan who fulfills Broberg’s intentions though, giving survivors a powerful portrait of resilience and recovery.

#9. The Afterparty (Season 1) - Apple TV+

The Afterparty’s success is no mystery: the ambitious show was assembled by one of the genius architects of The Lego Movie, Christopher Miller. His whodunnit sees a who’s who of comedy actors - Sam Richardson, Ben Schwartz, and Ilana Glazer, among others - reinterpreting their witness statements through the lens of unique movie genres. Episodes may be animated one week and a musical the next but Miller directs each and every one with aplomb. They’re all precisely placed pieces in the show’s larger puzzle, one content with giving its audience all the clues rather than being determined to outsmart them; the season’s satisfying conclusion gives The Afterparty another reason to celebrate.

#8. Our Flag Means Death (Season 1) - HBO Max

In hindsight, it’s not surprising that Our Flag Means Death stole viewers’ hearts last year: the pirate comedy had an impressive pedigree in producer Taika Waititi, director Nacho Vigalondo, star Rhys Darby, and creator David Jenkins. Still, the emotional impact of the historical-skewing series sneaks up on one over the course of its first season. Flag is planted in the strange-but-true tale of Stede Bonnet, an 18th Century aristocrat-turned-incompetent-pirate. It’s a premise that proves to be a treasure trove of not just humor, but pathos. In another authentic but unbelievable event, Bonnet eventually crosses paths with the notorious Blackbeard; the evolution of their relationship shivers one’s timbers in all the best ways. 

#7. Reservation Dogs (Season 2) - Hulu

Taika Waititi-produced comedies usually reserve at least one slot in this category each year; this time, he earned two. Reservation Dogs expanded its characters’ horizons in its sophomore season, taking them on several excursions away from home and pairing them off into new dynamics. Not lost along the way was the biting humor and big-hearted nature that first made the show a breakout hit. While Dogs is led by a pack of highly talented young actors, the second season also built out its strong staple of side characters in spotlight episodes. Fostering more perspectives furthered the versatility of the inclusive series; its single guarantee is that each episode will be a doggone good time.

#6. Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (Season 1) - Paramount+

Breaking with the serialized nature of its contemporaries Discovery and Picard, Strange New Worlds boldly goes back to what the Star Trek franchise was before: episodic adventures that spotlight its diverse crew. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise years before James Kirk took the helm, and, while familiar faces like Spock and Uhura play a role, the competence and camaraderie displayed by Captain Pike and his crew make them every bit as likable. The standalone format affords the show time for the type of Star Trek shenanigans lacking in recent years, like Vulcan body-swaps or a conscious nebula trapping characters in a fantasy storybook, but the nostalgic show doesn’t just rest on its laurels. Strange New Worlds is home to state-of-the-art special effects and set designs that opens up the franchise to many new frontiers. 

#5. Evil (Season 3) - Paramount+

While creators Robert and Michelle King ended their Good Fight last year, Evil is only picking up steam. After towing a line of plausible skepticism for two seasons, the show finally gave itself over to baser instincts, escalating the supernatural’s presence within its spiritual warfare. This opened the book for even more zany creature designs, and, odder still, cheeky takes on cryptocurrency and the creative process. Its soul, as always, remained with its trio of intrepid investigators, each put through their toughest trials yet by the eclectic collection of demons. The only beings eviler may be the showrunners themselves, forcing viewers to wait an indefinite amount of time for the story’s next chapter.

#4. The Rehearsal (Season 1) - HBO

Comedian Nathan Fielder generously gifted the world with its greatest TV show, Nathan for You, yet that masterpiece may prove to be just a dry run for something even better. HBO’s new quasi-reality series directly markets Fielder’s business acumen to individuals, offering them a chance to rehearse difficult life events before they happen. His plan? Naturally, it involves blowing the budget on precise soundstage replicas, an ersatz family of rotating child actors, and an elaborate scheme to implant trivia answers in an unsuspecting host. In a meta moment, these early enterprises are just a precursor to the show’s real content: a vivisection of its own immoral tactics and of Fielder’s on-screen persona. Though it’s been renewed for a second season, The Rehearsal so far gives viewers no clue of what to expect next.

#3. Barry (Season 3) - HBO

As the show goes on, the ‘comedy’ label ascribed to it bears less and less of an indication of what to expect from Barry. That’s not to say the story of a hitman-turn-actor trying to escape his past isn’t frequently funny - its shots at show-business certainly earn big laughs - only that one doesn’t go into the Bill Hader series expecting such a brutal exploration of toxic masculinity and cycles of abuse. While shows centering anti-heroes aren’t all that unique, few are so unequivocal about the damage their characters do. With that undiluted darkness and a game-changing season three finale in hand, Barry takes aim at toppling television’s greatest works. 

#2. Atlanta (Seasons 3 & 4) - FX

After a four-year absence from the airwaves, Atlanta returned as peachy as ever. The Twin Peaks-inspired sitcom delivered twin seasons last year, a one-two punch of peak TV that let the series go out on top. The third season followed both a European tour and detours away from the regular cast. The fourth reunited its four stars in the eponymous city before sending them off to even greater adventures. Neither was lacking in the absurdist humor and acute commentary that made the show worth waiting for. Even if stars Donald Glover, Zazie Beetz, Brian Tyree Henry, and LaKeith Stenfield weren’t already all embarked on successful big-screen careers, their immense and incomparable talents would always live on in Atlanta. 

#1. Better Call Saul (Season 6) - AMC

Saul’s final call upheld its standing as a worthy successor, and perhaps surpasser, of its parent show Breaking Bad, which previously set the bar for concluding seasons. Going into the closing chapter, one’s investment was mainly in the fates of the spin-off’s original characters. Those were resolved in satisfying states of shock, but the show broke free of prequel predictability further by setting its last few episodes after the events of Bad. While the calculated conflict between warring drug cartels was certainly intense, nothing was as heart-stopping as watching the relationship between lawyers Saul Goodman and Kim Wexler spiral to its denouement. After years of guessing and distressing over the outcome, fans couldn’t have asked for a better end.

NEXT UP: THE 2022 AARONS FOR BEST TV EPISODE!

[mousieta]

I read your post about rewriting lita, and I agree. Unfortunately, too many shows are more about titillating audiences rather than exploring their stories properly. And it's usually down to the audiences. Too many responses to well written and well paced stories is that they're boring or not spicy enough, so producers engage writers and performers who will deliver the spice wanted. Fortunately, with this year, there's been better responses from the audience to shows like bad buddy, the eclipse, my only 12%, and kinnporsche to some extent, but there's still a ways to go before more producers engage better storytellers.

So many excellent points!

It is, sadly, true that too many times the focus on any media is on titillating the audience than maintaining any integrity to a story. So, the audience usually gets jerked around on a speed run of tropes thrown together at will.

Which, I get and, honestly, I don't really judge too hard bc sometimes as an audience you just want cheap popcorn entertainment and nothing more. I mean, loved LITA and watched it to the very end when I am the type of person to drop a show whenever it stops working for me. But it's just frustrating when you have a show that has so much wasted potential to be more.

I think, apart from audience, though, is the value given to BL within the industry. It can't all be laid at the audience. While the actors are giving it their all, working their asses off - understandably so because these shows are likely a stepping stone to a larger career - it feels like we get less experienced crew as well. The sound design for LITA was almost unbearable and the editing choices bizarre at times as well.

So not only are writers hired who'll satisfy the audience desire for cheap thrills, the expectations on those writers are low because there isn't much respect given to that audience.

I've only lately gotten into BL and am still very picky about what I see. The Eclipse and 12% have been on my radar but I struggle with school aged dramas. Thankfully, we still get gems like ITSAY or 180 Degrees, and like you said, P'Aof's work...which, interesting enough are helmed by queer creators. I think that is as important as the presence of a more discerning audience.

[absurdthirst]

Hi Keri, I just saw the post of the one writer who wrote how the pedro pascal Fandom is exhausting and somehow killing itself. I am a passionate reader and fell in love in so many good fanfiction (smut and non smut) written by you and many others. But this post and a post from no Droids some time ago, actually conserned me because for me it's not normal to find such a huge amount of top quality fics with such an amazing range of porn. And then there are people who wrote such horrible things towards the writers, that these people question themselves. Iam so sorry for you and everyone else and even Pedro Pascal (who is literally just doing his job). And every Fic is good, OCs are good, gn! Reader are good, Poc reader is good and male! Reader is good. A Fandom isn't just for one only and everyone should feel included.

The fandom has gotten larger as his popularity has increased and with that comes the things that we do not want in the fandom. Rude ass people

There have been and will always be rude ass people in a fandom. We can’t help that. There are those that just make it miserable for those that just want to enjoy their love of an actor or the characters he plays. 

HOWEVER, the just overwhelming toxicity that has flooded the fandom lately has been nauseating. From people criticizing people for creating OCs of color, or just writing OCs in general, to wanting more smut or complaining about said smut. 

It’s my opinion the vast majority of these people are not content creators themselves. There are here simply to consume the hard work of others that is produced for free and somehow think they are entitled to direct our paths. That’s gonna be a hard no for me. 

There is room in this fandom for every single type of OC, reader insert and story type. Fluff is welcomed, angst is welcomed, smut is welcomed, Plus sized readers, black readers, asian reader, Indian readers, male readers, OCs of color, OCs of different damn species, you name it. Because that is what the fandom is comprised of. We have all different races, all different sizes, all different genders, all different socio-economic backgrounds. It should not just be one way.

Everyone needs to realize there is room for everyone in this fandom. It needs to be diverse. Without diversity all we have is the same boring shit over and over again, and that’s not what we came here for. 

I’m not asian or black and I’ve read both reader inserts and enjoyed the hell out of them. I mainly write smut but I’ve read tooth-rotting fluff and enjoyed the hell out of it. And if something doesn’t interest me, I scroll my happy ass on by. What I do not do is go into a bloggers inbox and tell them that they need to do this or maybe they would be more popular if they do that. 

It’s utterly ridiculous and it’s doing nothing more than driving away people from the fandom and leaving them with a bad taste in their mouths. 

[sailorbadger]

The Fandom’s Least Favorite Character - an analysis on Kate

Kate is probably the most hated character in the Robin Hood fandom. Not even probably, she is the one who consistently gets the most hate. So, what has she done? Did she commit several murders? Did she kill off a beloved character? Did she do something so problematic that she deserves to burn in hell? Did she do war crimes? No, her biggest sin is existing among unfair circumstances.

The title of this post is kind of a lie. This analysis is not really about Kate as a character, but about how she is written, how the narrative presents her and how this all affects the fandom’s treatment of her. I started writing this because I am sick of seeing so much unnecessary hate for Kate. This is just me commenting on larger trends I have witnessed and a decade’s worth of frustrations finally being written out. If you do recognize yourself from some of my descriptions, I hope that this post will give you something to think about, but just know that this is not meant for any one person in particular.

I’m not going to try to convince anyone to think of Kate as their favorite character. I’m not even trying to make anyone like her. I’m just trying to see why she is so hated within the fandom. So, let’s start off with how it all began. Grab some snacks, you’re going to need them; this is a long one.

 Introduction: Is it all Merlin’s fault?

To understand the context in which Kate was introduced to the show, let’s first look at where we left off at the end of season 2. I’ll start with the in-universe changes first. The biggest change obviously is that Gisborne murdered Marian. This altered the whole course of the show. Marian was such a central part of not only the show but also the Robin Hood legends, that at that point it was obvious that things were going to change. Will and Djaq left the show as well. Them leaving is not as dramatic of a change for the show’s narrative since they were not as central as Marian, but they did make up one third of the gang. This meant that there was a need for new characters to be introduced in season 3.

In our world, things changed between seasons 2 and 3 as well. There was a larger gap in production than before (with seasons 1 and 2 coming out in consecutive years and there being a gap year between seasons 2 and 3), and some of the people working on the show left or were replaced. Robin Hood’s spot on the BBC schedule was taken over by Merlin for 2008 so I guess we could blame that show for everything that went wrong in season 3. (I’m obviously joking here but conspiracy theories are welcome.)

The most important change in my opinion – and I think this is even more important to how season 3 turned out than anything that happened in-universe in season 2 – is the fact that Dominic Minghella was no longer writing or producing the show. It’s surprising to me that the fandom as a whole doesn’t ever really talk about this, when in many other fandoms creators or showrunners leaving the show are usually a big deal and mark the end of an era. I myself only found out about Minghella’s departure from the show before season 3 this year, but it seems to explain a lot on why season 3 felt so different from seasons 1 and 2.

With all that out of the way, the stage is set, and it is time to look at how exactly Kate came into the show.

 Six boots, two feet

Season 3 starts off with my least favorite episode of the whole show (see my episode ranking for more details). It tries its best to address the events of the season 2 finale, but in a way that will let it quickly get to the season 3 storylines. Unfortunately, the things that happened at the end of the previous season were so important that they would have needed several episodes to cover the full impact of the events.

Kate herself is introduced in episode 2. She is immediately given a reason to hate the villains and join the fight when her brother dies. She doesn’t join the outlaws right away, but when she does, she essentially has to take over three roles at once. I do not think it’s a coincidence that I think episode 4 is Kate’s best episode and that she’s at her best before she actually joins the gang. That is the point in the show when she is allowed to be her own character rather than someone who is trying to fill a void.

Like I said, Kate has three roles to take over; she gets Djaq’s spot in the gang as “the girl one”, Will’s role as “the peasant with personal connections to the people’s suffering” (and interestingly, since Kate’s family is around, her connection could have been even stronger than Will’s) and Marian’s as “the love interest”. Since the season 2 finale got rid of both of the only female characters in the show, it was inevitable that they would eventually be replaced if the show wanted to include any romantic storylines (it was, after all, 2009, so queer representation was out of the question). With three pairs of boots to fill, and only two feet, it should not come as a surprise to anyone that Kate can’t possibly do it all alone. The show does introduce Tuck and Isabella as well to help fill the gaps, but I think Kate gets labeled as “the replacement” far more often than the other two.

 A triangle without a base is just an angle

Kate had all the potential for a good plotline. Her brother died, making her hungry for revenge, yet this part of her is only sprinkled in every now and then instead of being a part of her character arc. Instead, she is made a part of not one, not two, but three love triangles.

I’ll start with the Much/Kate/Allan one. Spoiler alert: it doesn’t actually exist. All sides of this “triangle” are… weird. The writers try to frame it as a legitimate love triangle, when only one person in it seems to have any real feelings for another character. Much is shown to be interested in Kate, but we as the audience are never given a reason for why he likes her or even how he fell for her. I guess we’ll just have to take his “I fall in love very easily” (from 2x4) quite literally. Kate does not seem to have any romantic feelings for Much, and she seems oblivious to his feelings as well.

To be honest, I don’t think Kate ever really saw Allan as an option either. At best I could admit that maybe she had a slight attraction to him, but I never got the impression that it was something she would seriously pursue. I don’t think Allan was seriously interested in Kate either. His flirting with her is quite similar to his joke-y flirting with Marian and Djaq. My friend and I talked at length about this, but Allan doesn’t seem like the type of person to flirt for real. This could be a whole analysis on its own, so I won’t go too deep into it here. But I don’t think Allan considers Kate a legitimate romantic option.

So, this “love triangle” only exists in Much’s head and in the narrative the writers try to force on the audience. The Kate/Allan side of it is practically dropped the minute Kate/Robin becomes a thing.

Then there is the Much/Kate/Robin/Isabella triangle that is not a triangle either. I already covered Much/Kate for the most part, so I won’t go into it. Since the Robin/Isabella relationship is not that central to Kate’s character, I won’t bore you and myself by going through it that deeply. The buildup for that relationship is practically nonexistent, and so is the end of it. The whole Robin/Isabella relationship feels forced, because the writers didn’t know how to properly replace Marian while coming up with something new.

Kate’s crush on Robin seems to develop out of nowhere as well. It looks like a pattern when it comes to romances this season. Robin himself doesn’t appear to have any romantic interest towards Kate until he and Isabella “break up”. After that point, their relationship progresses way too fast. It doesn’t help that they seem to have no chemistry between them, and Robin treats Kate like a child and then five seconds later proceeds to make out with her.

Honestly, if Kate had to have a romance with a character on the show (and with it being 2009 obviously they could not fulfil my dreams of Kate being bi but that’s beside the point), it should have been with Archer. The two of them had more chemistry in the 30 seconds they worked together in 3x12 than Robin and Kate had the entire season. It would have also made me far less uncomfortable, since the characters would have been closer in age. Which brings me to my next point.

 “There is only one thing worse than a rapist – a child”

How old is Kate supposed to be? Seriously, this show can’t seem to make its mind about her. In general, I do not trust anyone’s age on this show unless it’s been stated somewhere. I know some people try to base the characters’ ages on the actors’ real ages, but to that I say, “fuck that”. Archer is the best example of the fact that this show did not even try to cast people who are the right age, or even look the part. (Seriously, he does not look even close to being 20.)

That being said, Kate is written like she is both 15 and 25 at the same time. I don’t know if the writers had a specific age in mind when they were writing her, but there is a huge difference between those ages. I think it’s the most reasonable thing to assume that she’s in her late teens, maybe at most in her very early twenties. She is still living with her family (I know that most women at the time married in their 20s but it’s not like this show is concerned with historical accuracy) and her behavior is a little immature at times. With all that said, I hope it doesn’t come as a surprise to anyone that I find it incredibly uncomfortable that all the men that are presented as possible love interests to her are fully grown men.

It is the most obvious in Robin and Kate’s scenes. Like I said earlier, Robin treats Kate like a child and speaks to her in a condescending way, only to then make out with her in the same scene. I must wonder why the writers didn’t just age up Kate. I think it would have been more interesting to make her someone who is already married, and instead of losing her brother, it would be her husband that dies. Of course, I would prefer it if Kate didn’t have to be a part of any of these love triangles to begin with but aging her up would have made the dynamics far less uncomfortable. (I do have to also point out the fact that Meg is also written like she is a teen girl. The show then tries to pair her off with Gisborne, who is even older than the men Kate is being forced into love triangles with. So… yikes.)

 Let’s take a break, drink some water

Let’s take a moment to recap what we’ve learned here. First of all, Kate entered the show in unfair circumstances and with only two feet to fill three pairs of boots. She was only ever allowed to be a part romance plots, and she didn’t get a proper character arc of her own. In general, the women in this season were not written well (not that seasons 1 and 2 were the height of feminist television either), and they were reduced to being love interests or tools to further the male character’s plotlines. Without Dominic Minghella involved and with a full year between seasons 2 and 3, the show lost some of its charm. Unfortunately, this meant that Kate was not the best written character. But I do not think she deserves all the hate the fandom has given her over the years.

 Interlude: Doctor Death

Before I get too much into how the fandom has reacted to Kate over the years, I feel like I should explain my own history with this show and the fandom surrounding it.

I started watching the show when it was first airing here on TV. It was some time during season 2, and once I had seen my very first episode, I watched all the following ones as well. With the finale, there was a problem. I had seen 2x12 and knew that the final episode of the season would air the next week. I was so excited for it, but then my mother decided that we would all go out and have dinner. I kept looking at the clock all day, hoping I would make it home in time. I got home just to see the credits rolling. I’m still a little bitter about it.

After this, I was desperate to see how the season ended. I’ll remind you that this was before it was common for shows to be put online officially. Streaming wasn’t really a thing yet. I did the only thing I knew what to do; I went to YouTube. The thing is, I did not know that what I had been watching was the second season of the show. So, you can imagine my confusion, when I find the very grainy version of 1x13 on YouTube and start watching it. Eventually I figured out my mistake and watched 2x13. At some point I watched season 1 as well, but I honestly don’t have that many memories of when I first watched this show. My clearest memory is being betrayed by my own mother when she forced me to go out for dinner.

Since I do not remember what year this all happened in, I did some googling and if I’m correct, season 2 aired here for the first time in the summer of 2009, with reruns in the summer of 2010. Because I have no other memories for context, I can’t say whether or not season 3 was even out in the UK at the time. Anyway, I did not watch season 3 for a few years. I also didn’t engage with the fandom until 2012, when I joined Tumblr. (A side note: while trying to find out when season 2 aired, I found the episode titles and descriptions. Apparently 2x4’s Finnish title was Doctor Death. There were some real gems on that list but this one was my favorite.)

Over the years, I had read bits and pieces about season 3 on the internet. I was still upset about the end of season 2, and the things I read did not make me want to watch season 3. Sometime in 2012-2013 I finally gave in and watched season 3. I was mostly disappointed by the season as a whole, and as for Kate specifically, I found her annoying. In the fandom, I went along with the Kate-hate that was popular in the fandom at the time.

I did a full rewatch of the show with my friend in 2016–2017. During that time, I didn’t hate Kate as much as I did before. Maybe it was that I had a fresh perspective, maybe it was that I had matured in those few years. Who knows? I was mostly disappointed by the bad writing. Even back then, I wished that Kate had been given a proper chance.

The next proper rewatch of the whole series I did was this past winter. I watched the show in a non-chronological order with someone who had never seen it before. This time, I was angry at the writers and found myself half-ironically becoming a Kate-stan. I also began to really pay attention to how the fandom has talked about her over the years and was unnerved by the hate has she gotten.

So, here we are. Time to take a look at how the fandom has treated Kate. Most of this will be based on my own experiences and memories, so if someone else has a different point of view to offer (especially from the early days of the fandom while the show was still ongoing), feel free to comment! I just wanted to give you my own history with the fandom to show that I have indeed been around for most of the fandom’s history.

 The hate-train for Kate-town leaves from platform 4

It seems that from the very beginning, Kate was disliked. I remember reading negative comments about her way back in the early 2010s (I would try to look for examples, but I just spent 30 minutes trying to find out when season 2 first aired here and it’s currently 1am so I am not spending any more time googling right now). There are fics that make fun of her and how badly she was written, and most of the jokes and dislike about season 3 seem to always come back to her. This attitude has been present in the fandom in other contexts as well. Over the years, the hate towards Kate has come and gone along with the popularity of the fandom.

Every once in a while, someone has tried to either write Kate better or even see her as a character that was let down by the writers. Mostly this has not led to any significant change in the fandom’s attitudes. I feel like whenever some of the older fans outgrow their Kate-hate by either just maturing and realizing it’s pointless or just not wanting to waste their time making fun of her, new fans come in and start the whole thing all over again.

I am grateful, however, that the general consensus in the fandom seems to be (at least in the year 2021) that the actress is not to blame for Kate’s faults. It still does make me uncomfortable that people go so far as to cross out her face on pictured etc. just to show how much they hate the character. This hate that Kate gets feels very misogynistic at times and is at least partially the result of the show’s misogynistic writing, but the actress deserves no negativity for playing Kate.

 What about Isabella?

One thing that is very interesting to note is that while both Kate and Isabella were newcomers in season 3 and were both replacements for Marian in the sense that they were love interests for Robin, only Kate has received a significant amount of hate over the years. So why does the fandom not hate Isabella?

I think that a big reason for why Isabella is tolerated – not necessarily liked, I haven’t seen too many people genuinely enjoying her character – better than Kate is the way the narrative treats them. Kate is essentially forced down our throats. The show is so desperate for us to like her that they end up making her unlikeable. Isabella, on the other hand, is eventually made into a villain, and thus we’re not meant to sympathize with her in the end anyway. (I could write a whole rant about how Isabella’s treatment in the narrative is bad but let’s not do it here.) Isabella also has the advantage of being Gisborne’s sister, so her backstory ties better into already existing characters. I think it’s reasonable to say that Gisborne being a fan-favorite in certain parts of the fandom doesn’t hurt Isabella’s case either.

Isabella is also only involved with Robin, while the show keeps pairing Kate off (unsuccessfully) with almost half the cast. I think she was written in a way that reminds people of Mary Sues, and considering how fandoms tend to not like characters like that, it’s no surprise that Kate got all the hate she did.

 Murder and being annoying – they’re the same thing, right?

So why exactly does the fandom hate Kate so much? Obviously, the writing is a big reason. Season 3 is not written well, which means that Kate is not written well either. She doesn’t really get a storyline of her own, and instead her main purpose is to be someone else’s love interest. I would also add that Kate doesn’t really get hate for her personality. Most of the hate that she gets in terms of character traits revolves around her being annoying, but that’s not really a personality trait. So I think the issue is not her personality, but her role.

The next reason won’t surprise anyone who has spent as much time in fandoms as I have: Fandoms do not like female characters. Well, I should probably rephrase that. Fandoms tend to hate female characters more easily than male characters. I’m not going to analyze too deeply on why this is, as I’m sure someone has already done research on this with references to actual feminist theory. There is a lot of internalized misogyny in fandoms, and female characters get hate for even the slightest wrongdoing, while male characters who commit far worse crimes often have a strong fanbase that will defend them despite these flaws, especially if said male character is played by a conventionally attractive man.

Kate is also blamed for things such as breaking Much’s heart, even though she was never really aware of Much’s feelings in the first place, so it was definitely not intentional. She’s blamed for every small wrongdoing in a way other characters in the show are not. I’ve seen people criticize Kate for small things that she has not even done on purpose. Some of these people then also go on to ignore the fact that Gisborne has committed several murders, taken part in the oppression of the poor and done many many more atrocious things, and paint him as a more sympathetic character than Kate. I understand if you do not like Kate, but it feels misogynistic that the female characters are held to different standards than the male characters. I can already hear some of the Gisborne-fans saying “but I acknowledge his actions and think what he did was wrong! I just find him to be a misunderstood and/or interesting character”. To those people I will just say: Why are you not applying this same logic for Kate? Why are you making outright hateful comments about her? If you don’t like her, why not just ignore her? If you are a Gisborne-fan and have never made these comments about Kate, this obviously doesn’t apply to you. And even if you aren’t a Gisborne-fan, but you do recognize this way of thinking in yourself in regard to some other character, I encourage you to think about it critically. I just used Gisborne as an example since I know he’s perhaps the most popular male character in the fandom (at least if Ao3’s numbers are anything to go by). I’ve also seen a similar attitude from a lot of Allan-fans, though in their case the hypocrisy is often not as obvious, but I’ll return to Allan in a moment.

Many female characters end up getting hate because they get in the way of a popular (often m/m) ship. In this regard, Kate is kind of an outlier since she doesn’t exactly do that, since there isn’t really a ship to get in the way of. Sure, she’s eventually paired off with Robin, but Marian is already dead by the time she shows up, and if people were truly bothered by someone other than Marian trying to get Robin’s attention, they would also hate Isabella with the same intensity. I do think there is one “ship” Kate does come in the middle of, and here’s where we get back to Allan.

Now, the ship Kate does get in the middle of is not in fact canonical. I am of course talking about the popular Allan/OC trope. If you go on Ao3 or Fanfiction.net, you won’t have a hard time finding fics where Allan is paired with an OC. This is understandable, seeing that the show only has four main female characters to begin with, one of whom is already in a love triangle with other people, one of whom canonically ends up with someone else, one of whom is actively hated by the fandom and one of whom just does not interact with Allan.

I want to make it clear that I think it’s fine if people want to come up with their own OCs for the purpose of shipping them with existing characters, it’s just not my thing, especially when those OCs are any level of self-inserts. (I personally don’t feel the need to ship Allan romantically with anyone. I just tend to not like OCs in any fandom.) Since Kate is presented as a potential love-interest for Allan, I think many fans who would rather see Allan with their own character or even themselves view Kate as an obstacle or a threat.

As you may see, this fandom, like many others, unfortunately treats the women in the show differently from the men. Male characters like Gisborne are viewed as redeemable so long as they are attractive, but Kate is irredeemable for… breaking Much’s heart and/or getting in the way of Robin/Marian or Allan/OC? This is something that really bothers me. I don’t mind the fact that people don’t like Kate, it’s the extensive hate she gets that makes me uncomfortable.

 Conclusion: Where do we go from here?

Like I said in the beginning, I am not asking anyone to say Kate is their favorite character or to even like her. I just wanted to provide some things for people to think about regarding how they treat female characters. I think it’s about time the fandom took a proper look at itself and critically thought about how it speaks about female characters. It’s 2021, let’s not hate on female characters just for being a little annoying or getting in the way of shipping.

I haven’t seen the fandom analyze that much why season 3 is the way it is. I would love to see some meta about how Dominic Minghella’s departure and other behind the scenes factors contributed to the story and aesthetics of season 3. I would also love to see some actual analysis on the season 3 characters that isn’t focused on tearing them down. If the fandom never made another post about how terrible Kate is without providing any actual reasons, I would be happy. I can sort of understand this immature hatred coming from 15-year-olds, but I’m disappointed to say that I have seen fully grown adults tearing down Kate in this quite misogynistic way. I know that many people do not intend for their dislike of Kate to come across as misogynistic, but it does not erase the fact that that is how many of those hateful comments appear.

I think Kate had a lot of potential. Season 3 had a lot of potential. It is quite a move to kill Marian in the middle of a Robin Hood story, so they had the chance to take the story to all kinds of places. Unfortunately, the season 3 we ended up with was not of the same quality as the previous seasons. Instead of just hating on the characters or story in general, I think we should focus on really analyzing the season, and even coming up with our own ways of improving it. Many people have already done this (though unfortunately many of these attempts also include thinly veiled hatred towards Kate. It’s your story, why are you not treating her any better than the actual writers of the show?), but there’s always room for more takes.

At this point I will shamelessly advertise my own “Kate should have been the new Nightwatchman” theory and my Nightwatchman-fic. I wrote the latter in a way that would let it be a part of canon if necessary. I think that by refocusing the story and shifting the way we read the text, we can find new aspects of season 3, and perhaps even enjoy it more. That is what happened to me during my latest rewatch, and all it took was watching it in a non-chronological order and talking about it with someone who had never seen the show.  

I’m not trying to gatekeep the fandom and say that only thought-provoking analysis or fix-it fanfiction is allowed. I just feel like people should be more conscious of the message they are sending out when they write hateful comments about Kate, censor her name or even cross out her face from pictures. Is it actually funny? Are you contributing something to the conversation? Is it actual criticism or just hate for the sake of hate? You don’t have to start writing posts in the defense of Kate, but you can just start ignoring her. It’s not that difficult. It’s fine to make jokes, but let’s start thinking about what our jokes say about us.

I once more want to emphasize that this is not a callout post I wrote with any one person in mind. So, if you felt offended when I was talking about Gisborne-fans, Allan/OC-shippers or Kate-haters in general, I can assure you that this post was not about you personally. This is not about any individual person. I’m just commenting on trends in the fandom I have noticed over the years. I don’t think any of you have committed any sins or that you need to be cancelled. I just hope that if you did feel guilty reading this, you’ll realize that maybe this post was something you definitely needed to read. As a woman, I would love it if this fandom worked on getting rid of its internalized misogyny.

I’m not claiming to be right on all of this, in fact I have a lot of bad opinions as well. I hope this post has provided people with things to think about. Feel free to use this as a starting point for your own meta or analysis. I’ll end my rant here, and leave you with this thought:

Kate had a lot of potential to be a good character. She did not let us down. The writers did.

[mittensmorgul]

Hi, I have a question, and I hope it would be interesting for you too... Could we talk about angel's wings and feathers?..

I always thought that angel's wings were a part of their true form, a kind of energy which we can only see as a shadows or electric sparks or ash or something like this.

And I didn't think that it could be a real wings with feathers as bird's. Until, while rewatch, I've noticed that angel's feather were mentioned in SPN at least twice (maybe you've noticed more?):

1) In 8.12 when Henry Winchester time travels he uses an angel feather in spell. And then Dean tells that Henry stole an angel feather from the trunk of the Impala. So feathers are reall??? Why did the Winchestets keep the feather in the trunk of the Impala and where they get it? (ok, maybe they found it in the bunker)

2) In 12.13 Sam uses a white feather in spell returning Gavin back in time (we know this spell needs an angel feather)

So now we can see how the real angel feather looks like???

Does that mean that the angel's wings can be presented in physical world like a real wings with feathers and this is not fanfiction? I like this idea so much.

I think that the creators of the show didn't let us to see it, as many other great things, that is sad...

I would really like to know your thoughts about this.

(Sorry for my bad english, it is not my native language...)

Hi there! First off, your English is fine! (lol it’s my native language, and I just typed it “Inglish” by accident, so you’re already doing better than I am :’D)

ETA: DON’T REBLOGGY THIS YET. I forgotted something that @thayerkerbasy just reminded me of, and I’m editing this post... brb... okay NOW YOU CAN REBLOGGY!)

As far as I know, those are the only times in canon we ever see or hear mention of an angel feather, and both times it’s for the same exact spell. They reference that it’s Henry’s spell when they use it again in 12.13, but make no mention in dialogue of it being an angel feather. Yet Sam had a whole jar of fluffy little pin feathers, so the assumption is that they’d been collecting them for a while (unless those were either found in the Men of Letters’ spell ingredient stockpile when they moved into the bunker, or otherwise given to them by Cas at some point).

It’s weird, because they seem like a very limited commodity, especially after the angels fell and their wings all burned up. Even after Cas got his original grace back, his wings never seemingly recovered. When we did finally see his wing prints in 12.23, they were still... not healthy... So my thinking is that any spell that would require them will become impossible to cast when their current supply runs out. All the other angels-- at the end of the series-- were either dead or locked in Heaven with their broken wings. We never learned any of their fates. Maybe they were all rendered obsolete under the Heaven Remodel?

A little behind the scenes from the early days of SPN as a bonus, since it’s tangentially relevant:

When they were filming the very early episodes of SPN, they had a lot of choices to make about what to show us based on what their budget would allow them to portray. Think of an episode like Wendigo, 1.02. One thing I see people say often was that it was a shame we didn’t see more of the monster, but only saw like... bushes shaking, or a vague form moving through the underbrush, or a blur. They made a stylistic choice right there to keep it within budget.

The options they faced were showing us a “dude in a rubber mask” type monster and showing it more, versus one really terrifying shot of a Proper Monster™ dying in spectacular fashion. Rather than go full-on cheesemonster, they chose to leave most of it up to our imaginations, giving us glimpses or hints of the monster.

They went back and forth on this a bit over the years, attempting to show us more on occasion, but most of those times the audience reaction has been varying degrees of wtf... Think about some of the scenes where they attempted to give us more than a glimpse at the supernatural, or a blood splatter, or whatever. It didn’t always work well. Think: the wire fight from 13.23...

I mean, it took us until 11.14 to ever see an angel “flap away,” when we saw Casifer zap Dean off the exploding submarine.

For the most part, I appreciate the fact that they understood the limitations of their own budget and didn’t give angels cheap little wings just to be able to show them on camera. Over time, only being able to see them as shadows, or as char after the angel died, became part of the lore of the show.

I blame Adam Glass for writing that spell, because he probably thought it sounded cool or whatever, that it was effectively a throwaway line because no other spell they’ve ever used has required an angel feather as an ingredient, and in story it was only linked into this larger Men of Letters Legacy plot that in retrospect feels like Chuck tying up loose ends and putting previously “deactivated” plotlines back into play.

I do find it kind of interesting that both iterations of this spell (the second resurrected by Bucklemming) were both tied to Abaddon. Henry’s spell in 8.12 brought her into the story from the past, she eventually travelled to the much further distant past to bring Gavin into the present (presumably with her own power alone, no angel feather required), and then after she was killed, they used the spell to return Gavin to his own time. So in a a way, the spell was part of a closed narrative loop, never to be referred to again.

Kinda wild that we’d never heard of angel feathers being a thing for spells until we learn that Dean apparently had some just stashed in the trunk, though... :’D

As for how corporeal angel feathers are/were, they exist in the earthly plane enough to leave char marks when they burn, when an angel is killed, so they must always have had the potential to manifest physically. I can’t imagine they ever would’ve had a budget to show us anything more than what we usually saw, though. It did give them a LOT of flexibility over how exactly they presented them to us when they DID show us. And I can’t even imagine the suffering Misha would’ve endured as an actor spending all those years wearing some weird wing harness rig. It would’ve been... impractical. And the CGI the show could’ve afforded-- especially in earlier days-- would’ve been... bad...

But what they were able to show us? Was often awesome. Remember when Raphael showed off his wings in 5.03? LIGHTNING!

And when we finally did see actual corporeal-appearing wings in 8.23... it was Dramatique™

And for More CGI Is Sometimes A Bad Thing Science, please have the attempt at Michael’s “true form” from 14.01:

It’s kinda a super-letdown after AU!Michael’s previous shadow wing displays from 13.01, but more specifically from 13.22:

those... were... badass... 

Even the pre-wire-fight wing shadows on Dean were badass:

But if they’d tried to show us more of them, to make them move through action scenes for example, it would’ve been... bad...

So what we’re left with is the knowledge that there is some sort of corporeal element to wings that we simply can’t see most of the time, but clearly angels have the ability to show or hide them at will, even from other angels. Could it be an act of will on the part of the angel that manifests a bit of their grace in the form of a physical feather? Honestly, that’s the theory I’ve personally adopted toward canon. In fanfic, I’ve read tons of various headcanons about what angel wings are and how they function-- everything from “a manifestation of their true form” to “angels share a lot of traits with birds” to “an extension of their grace,” and everything in between.

I personally, in canon, like to think of it as akin to how they’ve used angel grace for other spells. I mean, when we recall that angels haven’t been on Earth much for the last few thousand years (aside from at least a couple of known incidents where angels interfered with humanity, like Ishim and Company in 12.10, for example, and the presumptive extension that the Men of Letters knew of the existence of angels and likely summoned one up a time or two the same way Lily Sunder had, giving one explanation for how Henry Winchester knew of this spell and had an angel feather to use for it, but also recontextualized when Lily Sunder taught us that humans can use their own souls to power spells in the same way angels used their grace... which sort of makes the notion of needing an angel feather AND his own soul to charge that particular spell in 8.12 a bit redundant unless Lily’s knowledge of angelic magic was more advanced than Henry’s... hrmpf.... so much tangent... back to the point)...

We did eventually learn of other spells that required an angel’s actual grace, not concentrated in the form of a feather. The Angel Fall Spell in 8.23 being the prime example. Metatron took ALL of Cas’s grace for that one, even if he didn’t use all of it for the spell and left a “fragment” (Metatron described it as “not a lot, but enough.”). 

ETA: HECK. I have 9.03 on the tv right now and it’s distractedly made me disgusted enough to have forgotten something that Thayer just reminded me of: Lucifer’s “fossilized feather” in 12.07. It held enough grace to restore and heal him after Rowena’s spell in 12.03 had degraded him. Which really only adds to the theory that “feathers” are simply bits of grace that have been rendered solid somehow, but that can be transformed back into grace as needed.

And then there was the Rift Spell for travelling to alternate universes that required archangel grace, as well as the time travel/ward breaking spell that Sam found in 11.14 that ALSO required archangel grace specifically. Would these spells have worked with an archangel “feather?” Possibly, if material feathers are somehow just crystalized bits of grace, but since we never got a full explanation in canon, and never even really saw corporeal feathery wings that dropped feathers or could be plucked, and never even had mention of corporeal feathers outside of their use in this single spell, it’s really up to our own interpretation. And I kind of like it that way, because that way we get to have fun little discussions like this one. :D

I know this isn’t a definitive answer, but it’s how it all makes sense to me, in the hand-wavey sort of way that all of canon works. :’D

[bewitching-elizabeth-olsen]

Press: Streaming, With Only a Little Trepidation

“I’ve never had more fun on a job before,” says the WandaVision lead who spoke with the Ted Lasso star about their shows, the Scarlett Johansson lawsuit, and what happens to the theatrical moviegoing experience now.

In Reunited, Awards Insider hosts a conversation between two Emmy nominees who have collaborated on a previous project. Here, we speak with WandaVision star Elizabeth Olsen and Ted Lasso co-creator and star Jason Sudeikis, who previously starred in the 2017 film Kodachrome.

VANITY FAIR: Elizabeth Olsen and Jason Sudeikis met for the first time just before filming their 2017 indie Kodachrome, but they already had at least one thing in common: a “big old crush” on Ed Harris, as Olsen describes it. “He did not disappoint at all,” adds Sudeikis. “He stuck up for us. He cared about us. He cared about the movie.”

A guide to Hollywood’s biggest races

Now, the two have much more in common, as first-time Emmy nominees. Olsen is nominated for lead actress for her work as Wanda Maximoff in WandaVision, a Disney+ limited series that explores grief and loss, through a superhero story wrapped in a parody of TV sitcoms. Sudeikis earned four Emmy nominations for Apple TV+’s darling Ted Lasso, which he cocreated, cowrote, and stars in as Ted, a cheery American football coach who attempts to coach an English Premier League soccer team.

In early August, Olsen and Sudeikis reunited over Zoom to chat with Vanity Fair about transitioning these characters to TV, their views on the new streaming empires, and what they think of the lawsuit Scarlett Johansson recently brought against Disney regarding the strategy to stream Black Widow simultaneously with its theatrical release.

Vanity Fair: It’s been quite a few years since you shot Kodachrome. What do you remember about where you were on your trajectories at that time?

Elizabeth Olsen: Of life? It was when I was at a down trajectory.

Jason Sudeikis: Personally or professionally? I feel like from the outside, it only seems like you operate in one direction [motions upward].

Olsen: From a personal standpoint. So, I was excited to get to do a small movie, an intimate job that had some levity. And that was really nice. And I have a big old crush on Ed Harris and I still do.

Sudeikis: Yeah. To know that the director was like, “hey, we’re thinking about Jason Sudeikis for this role” and then Ed Harris stayed on, It was like, “all right, pleasant surprise. Pleasant surprise.”

Your current projects, WandaVision and Ted Lasso, may seem very different but do have one thing in common: they both feature characters that originated elsewhere. Wanda is obviously from the Marvel films and Jason you played Ted Lasso in commercials. Why did you feel these characters would work on a TV series?

Olsen: I got really comfortable in the Marvel movies, taking up my piece of the story and my piece of, how does my little arc work in this much larger arc with 30 other characters? And so the idea of all the focus being on me and Paul [Bettany] totally freaked me out. And that it was on television felt weird because these characters are superheroes and maybe they should be seen on big screens and not televisions. But the entire DNA of the show was meant for television. It was written for television. The arc has to be told through television. And from an actor’s point of view, it was something I’d never done. I’ve never done sitcom acting, let alone go through the decades with it.

And I’ve never had more fun on a job before. We got to go to work and just feel like an idiot all the time. And all of us, we’d be like hamming, hamming, hamming, and use each other as these barometers of “are we doing this too much? Is this now just a parody? Is this a joke? At what point are we supposed to dial it back?” And at one point I did, I think, a quadruple take, and that was the first time the director asked me to pull it back and just do a double take. So it was pretty incredible to get to expand on the character and this world, but do it from a totally different perspective. I’m so grateful for that job.

Sudeikis: Have you hosted SNL yet?

Olsen: God no!

Sudeikis: No? Well, I’m not going to agent you and be like, “if they ask, would you ever want to?” But, look, I know you’re funny. It was really fun to watch you do multi-cam sitcom acting. And then the genre thing, it made me be like, “oh, she would crush on SNL”. You’re always going to internalize stuff because you’re, in my opinion, very, very talented and very, very smart. So then even when you externalize things, like a quadruple take, it would be joyful to watch even in the attempt. Watching the show, it didn’t seem at all like an aberration or like you were putting it on. It felt well conceived and well thought out. And it almost made me wonder if the creator was aware of that or was it all just an act of faith on their part.

Olsen: It was a total act of faith. What they did is they took comedy actors who are really funny and gave them the more dramatic stuff. Because they thought that would balance out when we failed. And we’re like, “You guys are very smart for doing this.”

Sudeikis: Now, are you putting that on them or was that articulated to you day one?

Olsen: We talked about it. We were so open about it. We’re like, “this is very clever that you guys put some of the funniest actors in MCU in these dramatic parts.” But SNL, I watch it every Saturday when it’s live. I’m obsessed with SNL and that’s why I would never! It’s like the ocean. I respect the ocean so much and that’s why I don’t need to go in it.

Sudeikis: I don’t know. I think we’ll see. This is going to be like Charles Foster Kane’s declaration of principles. “I would never host SNL.” And then, “And your host, Elizabeth Olsen.”

Olsen: So tell me about Lasso: small to big.

Sudeikis: Me and my buddies, Joe [Kelly] and Brendan [Hunt], did those commercials in 2013, 2014, and we then sat down to talk about it in 2015. And it was kind of like, “okay, is it another set of commercials? Is it a movie?” I knew what the character was and we all grew up with great sports films, by Ron Shelton and Rudy and Hoosiers and things like that. But then also liked Nora Ephron, you know? We wanted to make something that had a little bit of romance. And romance may not be sexual, it’s also a platonic version of romance. And the story just sort of spooled out of us in a way that garnered a pilot episode and then a well-beat-out outline for a season. Because we were kind of modeling it after the British Office where it’d be like six episodes, six episodes, and then maybe an hour and a half special, like a movie type thing. Not wanting to take up too much space and not knowing how long it would go. And so it only could be a TV show, was the way it felt.

And so then it went away for a while because that was in 2015. And then lo and behold, it comes back around when I met Bill Lawrence for this other project. That one didn’t work out, but he was like, “Do you have anything?” I said, “Well, we have this.” And I remember having a whole bunch of stuff in this office, more work than I think he realized. He’s like, “Oh yeah, this is definitely, this is a whole thing. Okay. Wow. You guys have really thought this through.”

Olsen: Did you have a [writers] room or did you already write most of it?

Sudeikis: No, we definitely had a room. It was like I knew the chords, I knew the structure of things. We had a great room of 11 people for the first season. With hiring people, we just had good fortune. I didn’t know it was interesting at the time, but asking people during the interview process who their mentors were, who were the people that encouraged them, who made you think you could do this for a living—you can learn a lot about a person by listening to them talk about their mentors, their heroes.

Olsen: With the jokes, I feel like they’re so quick, but they’re so specific to people who watch sports and who knows sports. Well, not all of them, but a lot of the jokes are. Do you have a list of ones that you want to get in there or are these coming up in the room? Because it gets me as a big sports person.

Sudeikis: It really depends on it. There’s some ideas that I’d had for years and years that are just from old notebooks that I used to carry around when I worked on SNL before you would type things into a phone. And storylines and themes and characters that have just been ruminating in my head based on other ideas for either movies or sketches that didn’t make it. And then a big part of the room is that we have this collective consciousness that isn’t all sports.

And then with specific soccer jokes, we do try to include jokes that we call “two percenters” that only football fans would like. Just as our little tip of the cap because we wouldn’t be here without that group of people digging our shit back in the commercial days.

Your shows were on Disney+ and Apple TV+. Did you have any concerns about them being on streaming services, which were relatively new at the time, and finding an audience?

Sudeikis: It’d probably be more so if it was like Goodyear TV+, if it was some brand that didn’t already rule the world of entertainment and technology.

Olsen: I did a version of that with Facebook. And I didn’t like that experience. I loved my show [Sorry for Your Loss] and I loved everyone that I worked with. But the Facebook relationship was frustrating because of the lack of television experience and how the platform is organized. When we went to season two, we had a meeting that our show called for Facebook to have with us, so that we can give them our notes about their platform and why we think it’s really hard to find our show on their platform and how it’s congested. So I was anxious going into Disney+. But I knew it was Disney. And I think I was more anxious with the Marvel characters being on television than I was about the Disney+ element.

Sudeikis: Golly, I didn’t even consider that. And you’re absolutely right, because Facebook would be closer to Apple. Truth is we didn’t have a choice. We pitched it to a bunch of different places. They were the only ones that would open the door and say, “yeah, come in out of the rain, you can hang out in here. You can do your little show in here.” And so, the trepidation was alleviated by the fact that there was nowhere else open to us.

Olsen: Facebook and Apple I feel like aren’t that similar.

Sudeikis: No, but they hadn’t created content before.

Olsen: Well, Facebook now is [scaling back] scripted content.

Speaking of streaming, both of you have starred in big theatrical movies. Are either of you worried about the theatrical experience, in the way that COVID has changed how movies are being released at this point? We saw how that’s playing out with Scarlett Johansson’s recent lawsuit.

Olsen: I’m worried about a bunch of things. Not worried on Scarlett’s behalf. But I’m worried about small movies getting the opportunity to be seen in theaters. That was already a thing pre-COVID. I like going to the movies and I don’t necessarily want to see only an Oscar contender or a blockbuster. I would like to see art films and art house theaters. And so I do worry about that, and people having to keep these theaters alive. And I don’t know how financially that works for these theaters. I do hope that there’s some sort of solution that the larger companies are coming together to keep, at least in L.A. this is going to happen. But I do think it’s going to be how it kind of used to be when studios owned theaters. And I have a feeling that we might go back to that being the only way to keep them alive with such expensive real estate. But when it comes to actors and their earnings, I mean, that’s just, that’s just all contracts. So it’s either in the contract or it’s not. What about you? Are you worried about Scarlett?

Sudeikis: Of course. How could I not? She’s married to my comedy brother [SNL’s Colin Jost].

Olsen: I think she’s so tough and literally when I read that I was like, “good for you Scarlett.”

Sudeikis: Well, I mean, it is appropriately bad-ass and on brand. I think it’s also married to yes, the COVID of it all and success of the streaming sites. But also just technology. I mean this thing [points at his TV] is as good as any movie theater, and all that stuff is getting cheaper and cheaper. If you’re a family of five and you’re going out there and it’s a whole thing. And yet the communal experience, towards Lizzie’s point is, is one that you can’t replicate in home. You can’t replicate through social media. I think both of our shows have succeeded greatly on their own merit, but it’s certainly written further through people’s love of them socially. Which would have happened back in the day around a water cooler. And while that’s nice, it’s still not the same as sitting next to everybody and getting scared at the same time or cheering at the same time and laughing at the same time.

I do think though, if we just use anecdotally, Kodachrome as an example, more people probably have seen it because it got on Netflix than they would have in the theater. And the more that happens, the better. So it’s like there is that reach that as long as those streaming sites are still paying to make those little movies, they have the opportunity to be seen. And so it is this balance. I just hope that with that still comes creative autonomy, and we don’t lose sight of that.

What about the experience of making these shows will you take on to your next project and the one after that?

Olsen: Well, I definitely had a shake-up to use my full body as an actor. I had to create a character and voices. And just all the technical stuff that I have loved doing my whole life was just shook up a bit. And so I’m now really excited to do more of that and to feel a bit freer in building characters. And so that has really informed the next thing I’m working on now and preparing for. It’s just kind of put me back in my actory body in a really good way.

And hosting SNL.

Olsen: Of course, now I’ll host SNL because stage fright has nothing to do with that. I can do a monologue in front of people and make them laugh.

Sudeikis: Not a prerequisite. Having worked there for 10 years, not a prerequisite. Well, the tacky answer is it’d be tough not being the boss again. And I’m fucking flabbergasted that people have picked up so much what we set down for them. You know what I mean? From colleagues on the writing and acting side to just regular folks back home, people I’ve never even met. It’s thrilling. I have to try to make sense of that for myself. And I think a lot of it has to do with it being something so personal. And so that might be the thing to lean into.

Olsen: It’s interesting you say that because immediately three days after wrapping, I had to go into a film where we’re not in WandaVision land, obviously. I mean, they kind of are a muscle, these Marvel movies. Instead of going back to that routine of it, I tried to do what you’re saying. I was like, “okay, so what can I play with that I haven’t gotten to that’ll at least satisfy something inside me that I want to play with right now?”

Sudeikis: I don’t know when I’ll get to do that again, when I’ll do that next. Because yeah, it’s Lasso—

Olsen: Lasso forever.

Sudeikis: At least for a little bit longer.

Olsen: Is it what you said, three seasons and then a special?

Sudeikis: I mean, the special would have been the third season with the initial thing. Now you sound like you’re my agent or manager.

Olsen: Oh good, that’s what I came here for. That’s what I wanted to do.

Sudeikis: Who sent you? I know the end of this story. I mean, the fact that we have a third season could fucking blow it all and ruin what would people like so much of the first season. We might be in the middle of doing it now in the second season. I don’t know. We’re just doing it the same way we did it last time. So we’ll see. But yeah, that’s a big old, long winded question mark.

Olsen: Or an ellipsis.

Press: Streaming, With Only a Little Trepidation was originally published on Elizabeth Olsen Source • Your source for everything Elizabeth Olsen

[raayllum]

me and my friends also got in an discussion about catra being latina (which we also hate, as latine ppl) and we got harassed too. i thought that after that whole issue with noelle people would start thinking more critically about it

it’s one of those things that i think white gays in particular tend to fall into of

1) prioritizing lgbt+ (specifically same sex relationships) rep above all other types of rep, including or especially race

2) always thinking that more representation is better

let me explain — although i wouldn’t be surprised if i’m preaching to the choir — point by point. 

prioritizing same sex relationship rep is what queer representation in media has always done. it’s one of the things that reaffirms fandom biphobia, of maintaining that a fan favourite character has to be “at least bi” to ship them consistently with someone of the same sex (lance, sokka, finn from sw). that partner is often headcanoned as gay is the #1 fandom darling (keith, zuko, poe dameron, etc). it sets up a hierarchy of “gay as best” and bi as a consolation prize. 

for example: i was in a m/f fandom a few years ago with two characters of colour, both of whom 99% of that ship fandom — myself included — saw as bi and pan respectively. the male character was later confirmed queer in the show with an ex boyfriend (who he shared one singular scene with and it was their breakup years before the show started, with no previous mentions and one singular 12 second mention of him afterwards) and married to a man in the epilogue (who we never saw him talk to even once before hand). the creators themselves went on record saying they wanted everyone to interpret that character’s sexuality however they wanted. so i kept seeing him as bi the way i had for two years before hand — not because he had to be queer in some way for my ship to work, but just because i liked it and thought it fit his character.

and then i got harassed for it. 

which is to say that white gays will gloss over whatever they can to have their gay ship be canon and beloved and the Best Ship Ever™ and any critique or different expressed preference is Homophobia or a moral failing, obviously. 

it means racist tropes will get glossed over for “cute gay rep uwu” (i.e. finn, a black man, being infantilized in fanworks with his relationship with poe, a lighter skinned latino man, or consistently drawing finn as significantly larger despite the actors being the same height more or less). after all, for the three bi + gay mlm ships i talked about that are widespread, the darker skinned guy is always the “consolatory bi” and the lighter skinned, usually favoured one in those pairings is always the “gold star gay”

it’s the mandate that bi characters are only good if they’re in same sex appearing relationships. it’s the sort of visibility argument that harms a lot of different groups of queer people (bi, pan, ace, aro, trans, nb people, just to name a few) and this emphasis on visibility makes people forget race visibility

for example, if you haven’t done research on racial coding or harmful stereotypes, that catra being latina sounds great on paper. why wouldn’t you want a latina women of colour in a wlw relationship? it looks good!! it sounds progressive. 

but as you and others have pointed out — or experienced — it’s a lot more complicated than that. harmful coding / racial stereotypes have to be thought of and examined and resisted. you can’t just slap any race onto a character, their personality, and history without thinking it through. you can’t white wash character creation. everyone has different stereotypes to combat against and implicit biases that can be unconsciously assigned to a character based on their race and they all deserve space. what is progressive or subversive for latina, or black women in terms of representation, is going to different from one another and from what’s subversive/progressive for white women. sometimes, it actually is better to keep a character white if making them a specific character of colour would do more harm than good

overlooking racial representation and race dynamics in fiction is the most egregious thing tumblr does and it drives me fucking nuts, basically - especially when privileging a white gay ship over a canon interracial m/f ship. twitter is even worse about it

and it’s very unfortunate that she-ra by and large didn’t really think about it and when they did (the joke about bow’s family, noelle supporting catra being latina) they made it worse

and it’s baffling, honestly, that i’m like, 9 years younger than noelle?? less?? and i’ve been doing that sort of research for seven years now and i know i still have a long way to go but like. i really hope all the writers on she ra think things through more for their future projects and how they respond to fans