#cancelling shows left and right?

[rambling-addict]

Just heard the most depressing news that ruined my morning and probably my whole damn day!

Fuckin’ Netflix has decided to cancel Warrior Nun!!

Like WHAT THE FUCK!

Just NO.

I can’t accept that this is the end.

Wth is the Netflix team thinking??? Or are they even thinking?!

Warrior Nun is a massive success of a show! Even non-lgbtq fans loved it!

Everything was perfectly executed in this show — the storyline, the character developments, the production… They utilised their budget wisely and efficiently! Like what more could they ask for?

And a lot of people subscribed to Netflix just for this show!

So just NO!

I’m still hoping another platform picks up this show!

C’mon, Simon Barry! I believe in you! Save this show and we’re behind you 100%!!

[mariathechosen1]

“Ofmd, heartstopper, wwdits, RWRB, good omens, The Witcher; Queer representation is at its very best right now!”

Where are the women though-

“The world is healing!!!”

What about the women-

“Diversity in television has never been this good!”

Y’ALL, THE WOMEN-

[stagefoureddiediaz]

Reason 156853214577 why Netflix are the worst - cancelling Lockwood and co after 1 season.

It only needed a second season to finish adapting the books. This is Julie and the phantoms all over again 🤬🤬🤬

[aerilune]

THEY CANCELLED SHADOW AND BONE!!!!! I AM FUCKING FOAMING AT THE MOUTH WITH RAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!! We'll never get the six of crows plot which what everyone was most excited to see!!!!! They were going to make so much money literally what the fuck is wrong with those execs???? We could have got our crow content, they could have made millions like?!?!? (I know that's all they care about) I would kill to see that wonderful cast performing the ice court heist I would sell my soul to finally see the crows all together my disappointment is immeasurable I'm sobbing

[cottoncandysprite]

All in the same week. I'm going to set something on fire

[thebroccolination]

How I'm Navigating 2024 (Blorbo Edition)

I'm a big believer in the quality of life being vastly improved by the anticipation of good things to come (concerts, movies, anniversaries, hang-out sessions, etc.), so I like mapping out what I'm excited for.

And in terms of queer media, I'm pretty well sorted for the year. \:D/

Right now, I have these two:

And these two:

Once Cherry Magic and Ossan's Love end, I'll have these two:

And after Young Royals ends, I'll have these two:

And then when Untitled Vampire Series is over, I'll go into paroxysms of genteel screaming while I wait for whatever these two are doing:

So I have a pretty stacked year, all told.

[highfantasy-soul]

Re: Netflix's live-action Avatar the Last Airbender

I was 12 when the animated series started airing.

I caught episodes as they came on Nickelodeon, but I didn’t watch it religiously start-to-finish. I caught episodes when they happened to be on and I happened to be watching TV (I was NOT part of the generation that had unlimited access to shows - tv/computer/video game time was strictly monitored in my household) so there were some episodes I saw over and over again, and others I never did see.

I think it was around middle/high school (honestly can't remember - it was one of the two) that the show got put on Netflix and I started watching it from the beginning with my brother and some friends. Needless to say, I've been a die-hard fan ever since.

I think the animated show is incredibly well done and the storytelling is super on-point for what I love in media. Zuko's redemption arc is still the best arc I've ever seen, and the character growth is amazing.

I had never really fallen into the 'it's not perfect, but…' way of analyzing media, so I never dwelt too much on its flaws - I'd much rather focus on the things it got right as literally every piece of media has flaws and things that could be changed to make it better.

So yeah, hyperbolically, the animated version of ATLA is 'perfect' - but since people insist on anything that's not perfect being drug through the mud and hyperbolically being called 'garbage', I guess I have to dredge up the things I didn't care so much for in the animated version while analyzing how the live-action handled it (or avoided handling it).

I was super excited for the film adaptation - again, announced while I was in high school. I was looking forward to it so much - then, well, we know what happened there.

Things were changed that didn't make sense to change (the pronunciation of character names, the 'test' for figuring out who the Avatar is, the poor bending where movements didn't align to what was happening with the CGI, casting of white people when the characters were always meant to be indigenous and all asian ethnicities, among other issues people have made many essays about)

So, when this was first announced, I was SKEPTICAL.

While the trailer looked good, it seemed very safe - I recognized everything in it and it looked well made, but like, that doesn't mean the whole thing will be good - or justify its existence.

I tried to ignore any 'leaks' or interview quotes because those are always misconstrued so much and people hear one sentence and create a massive narrative in their head about what that sentence means and usually, all their bellyaching assumptions they made from that piece of info is just a non-issue once the show actually comes out.

I didn't give any credence to people screaming about "Sokka isn't going to be sexist anymore?? It's ruined!!" or "They're going for a Game of Thrones tone?? They don't understand Avatar at all!!" or "No side-quests?? They don't understand the point of the show!!"

First off, invoking the demon that is Game of Thrones is just a marketing tactic - that's all it is: MARKETING!! Just like EVERY YA book for years was 'The new Hunger Games' now it's 'The new Game of Thrones' even when the story at hand is NOTHING AT ALL LIKE THOSE THINGS!! It's literally, let me cradle your face gently in my hands, JUST a marketing ploy to get you to see a recent title you DO recognize and have (assumedly) heard good things about (ie popular) so that you then pick up the thing that they slapped that name onto.

Creators rarely have say in what their creation is likened to, they're told by marketing companies to go with it (if they're told anything at all) and they just say "yes, marketing team I have no control over, whatever you say".

Also, a passing comment in an interview is off-the cuff and when someone makes a comment like that, people read WAY too far into it and it's usually not nearly as deep as people make it out to be. That's why I just wait for the actual thing to come out and just watch it and judge it based on what it is, not some narrative someone else has created for it based on half a quote from some random interview.

So going into this: why the live-action adaptation? Why was it necessary?

In my opinion, the answer to this question is the thing many fans hate the most: altering the original story.

A beat-for-beat remake isn't necessary - the original is right there, so in order to 'earn' the right for this adaptation to exist, that necessitates changes to be made that add to the themes, deepen the lore, and delve into different aspects of the world in ways a child's cartoon can't.

So, I'm looking for not a 1-1 remake, but rather an adaptation that enhances the themes, irons out some uneven characterization/pacing, updates the story just enough to really get what they want to across, and delve more directly into some of the harsher aspects of the war.

I have always felt that Iroh's involvement in the Fire Nation military was glossed over a lot in the cartoon - I suspect because he's supposed to be a good guy and we can't have our good guys be overtly war criminals responsible for the deaths of thousands of people.

The effects of hard decisions made during war are shown in the animation, but the decision making process itself is rarely talked about until the very end with the gaang's struggle to keep helping people while also knowing where to focus their energy and Aang's struggle finding a way to stop the firelord without killing him.

something this adaptation can do is actually show the people making the decisions - and directly talking about the horrible effects of it. I'll get to it later, but that's one of the major themes in Episode 4 that I'll talk more on then.

Especially in Book 1, like many first books/seasons, the worldbuilding isn't fully fleshed out and the themes that really come to fruition later aren't as tight as they could be at the beginning. If the adaptation can go ahead and seed/tighten the themes that become big deals later on here at the beginning, it will 'justify' it's existence as the story retold after the whole story has already been plotted out.

Just like with the Percy Jackson and Wheel of Time adaptation, those writing for the show have the benefit of knowing how the story ends and all the stuff that's added to the world building as time goes on that wasn't necessarily known by the authors when they wrote and published the first books - the benefit of hindsight allows the show's script to take into consideration these additions and seed them early on to make the story more cohesive and reinforce themes.

So, this analysis is going to be long and filled with minute details, beat by beat for the episodes.

I have seen so many takes that I just sit and scratch my head at and think 'that was so obvious in the show - how did you miss/misinterpret that thing so wildly?' that I guess what I took for granted as obvious in the show, others didn't, so here's me being pedantic and over-explaining everything so maybe others can see that 1) they aren't the only ones who saw this interpretation and 2) maybe others will see the scenes a different way

Still trying to decide how to break up the analysis as the episode recaps are going to be LONG and since people now demand to see all the citations for stuff, the character analysis posts will be long too as I pull direct scenes to show why I feel the way I do.

I don't want to overload the posts and make it so they're just annoying to read, so I'll probably break them up into the sections of the episodes and maybe break up the character posts.

[Masterlist of my NATLA thoughts]

[robertlutecee]

Lockwood & Co. got cancelled

[literaryspinster]

You can want to see more queer men on television without claiming that queer women are there to be pleasing to men. If it’s true that genre shows (especially ones targeted at a younger audience) are more likely to feature sapphic relationships, then I see that as one of the few instances when women are centered in literally anything. Why go out of your way to make it about men? I don’t get it.

[caliphoria17]

FUCK NETFLIX, MAN! FUCK YOUUU!!! 😭😭😭🤬🤬🤬

[linden-after-hours]

Thinking about how Byler could actually become canon omg omg wow what a world we live in

[pegasusdrawnchariots]

the eternal question: is scheduling w friends as an adult That Hard or am I just bad at it

[the-rainbow-meme]

Neil really said that S2 was supposed to be a bridge that would take us to S3 and still nothing prepared me for something like this

[frankensteined]

who is out here watching emily in paris enough for it to be getting a fourth season?

[cringengl]

Whenever I hear people argue that Will having an unrequited crush is realistic and good representation for the times and that mleven being endgame wouldn't be lowkey homophobic it pisses me off because it's obvious that they haven't actually looked into and read our arguments???

Like when byler is endgame, much of Mike's actions would make more sense, Will going through a whole "i'm never going going find love" arc wouldn't end with him being proved right, Mike and El's love being representative of a typical childhood/teenage relationship that is wrong for both people would just be praised as the most amazing love story of all time.

Also the amount of evidence for byler endgame would just look weird???

If you're going to act above it all and be like "not everything has to be gay" then at least research your arguments💀💀

[fideidefenswhore]

🔥 whatever you like

Thanks!

So, there's been a few articles in the past decade or so that express distaste at the comparison of Princess Diana & AB (and a fair amount of umbrage in misc comments on social media at any parallels being drawn whatsoever, generally, I'm not gonna lie, from C/oA stans...Catherine was the Princess of Wales, Catherine was the one that was popular and beloved by the people, I think these are the broader strokes they believe should be associated with her more...that Catherine was the older of the pair does not seem to matter, that Catherine was, like Camilla, the one that knew 'the prince' the longest doesn't matter, because Camilla was Other Woman and AB was Other Woman, and as such they were both hated by the public, they will never see past any other elements of the story/stereotypes than those, esp. because ultimately they believe all the animus directed at both of those women was/is entirely deserved and justified);

But what's interesting is it's not even so much on the grounds that there are always pitfalls in sanctifying people in general, it's generally pearl-clutching about how Diana deserves sanctification, deserves every possible iteration to be made of her life, and AB does not...the answer to the 'moral quandary' presented in the The Times' BSR review, "Anne Boleyn is being rebooted — but was the tragic Tudor queen a whore and a witch or the Princess Diana of the Tudor age?" by Alison W/eir was basically that she wasn't a whore or a witch, but again, her oh-the-humanity answer of "she wasn't a very nice person" and deserved her "unpopularity in her own time", and was so far from Princess Di, woe to those that popularize AB, somehow she omits herself from that list, how stupid they are to ever believe otherwise, etc

The implication of the above is more what's funny to me... she shouldn't be treated as Princess Diana, because Anne 'had a mean streak' (using "words as one would not address to a dog", from a source no less than above reproach than that of an ex-flame)... but, Diana didn't? The woman who pushed her stepmother down a flight of stairs? The woman who confronted her children's nanny with an entirely personal, private (and leaked, to her belief, although it was later revealed it was another doctoring by Bashir) medical document? Diana was sanctified because she died tragically; if she were still alive today, she would almost certainly be "cancelled"; famous (women, particularly...they are generally judged more harshly) people have been cancelled for much less.

And then we have author Vanora Bennett, who did compare them, but not favorably, and rather misogynistically (to other women, as well):

[Anne] didn’t have the knack for self-reinvention that has brought modern celebrities such as Victoria Beckham long-term success, or the tight-lipped compliance that saw Kate Middleton claim her prize after eight years of waiting for Prince William to propose.

If anything, Anne reminds me more of Princess Diana – both of them charming and glamorous, yet unable to maintain smooth relations with the royals around them; manipulative and sometimes vindictive, yet posthumously elevated to icons of victimhood; dying too soon and leaving young children to cope with their tragic legacy.

Unfortunately this assessment has also been given academic gloss, but luckily this has mainly been limited to GW Bernard's asinine, quasi-profound remark that since Diana had sex outside of her marriage, AB probably did, too.

Idk, I've honestly just been thinking about this because I've been thinking about fan reactions as I watch The Crown, puzzled by how Peter Morgan is so good at writing those royals, but so bad at writing these royals...

Because, really, I think there are elements of both Camilla and Diana's stories in AB's? On the surface level, you have ebullient, charismatic, cheated on by her husband, husband dated her sister 1st, (honestly, never not going to be a weird thing, it must have been borne out of...I suppose, both the utterly limited society of 'acceptable' people to interact with for those of extreme wealth and the entitlement and belief you're above such provincial concerns as ‘That's Weird’), which is probably what led to that being motif in the Kristen Stewart as Diana movie.

And then, Anne was unpopular, but it was said basically, that...those who knew her, loved her, and those that didn't were, at the least, captivated by her despite themselves.

How much of her contemporary slander was from people that had only ever glimpsed her? I think we forget that when we forget how late the sixth-finger and other misc. deformities were alleged. 'Goggle-eyed whore' is the mark of someone who saw her from enough of an distance that the only feature of note was those infamous, large eyes.

Often people confuse charisma with popularity, very often they go together but they are not interchangeable, not synonymous. Charisma can only take effect within intimate contexts. As such, it's true that Anne had one but not so much the other.

Who knows how she might have fared, popularity-wise, if she'd had the powers of radio, TV, etc at her disposal...they're creative reimaginings out of her control/remit, but she has those now and seems to have done better on that front in immortality than she did in mortality/life.

What we have basically is two elements -- "royal mistress" and "threatening the image of the monarchy", and maybe even a little “marrying for love [when royal]”. These are all broad narrative stripes that are seen as “scandalous”, all seen as disruptive, against status quo, so they are always going to inspire creators. At the end of the day, the hand-wringing over that inspiration rings ... insipid? Naiive? Take your pick.