#especially with how little of the actual romance aspect is happening considering that was a main draw for the first half | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

darklinaforever · 11 months

Text

So... There's really just interest that the Wyler relationship is on hiatus, instead of the writers having just taken the romantic aspect out of nowhere. Because removing the romance between these two makes no sense. Especially when Jenna said that Tyler was off the mark in terms of romance, the writers corrected it by saying that, yes, Tyler's feelings for Wednesday would continue to be explored. But if they took off their jackets and just took off the romance to please Jenna, they're cowards. I'm sick of these writers who create romances and then try the next season to pretend it never existed. Either Jenna is lying so we don't get spoilers. Or else she's delirious. Everything is possible. Actors have lied before to avoid spoilers, and sometimes other actors, like those on HOTD, make statements about their characters that have nothing to do with what's happening on the show. Like Emma D'arcy saying Daemyra is a grooming relationship... So let's wait and see before we freak out.

Also, what's Jenna's problem with ROMANCE ?! In case she doesn't know, she and others who criticize this aspect of fiction, well it's actually the best and best selling type of story ! People like it ! I'm seriously sick of the fact that today romance is considered almost dirty. That's the limit. A story with romance in it, even if it's not the central subject ?! "Yuck ! How horrifying ! Besides, it's so unmature and unoriginal !" Like... Are you going to get people treated. Already because originality, regardless of the type of story, no longer exists. It is not for nothing that we find similar codes in yet very different stories. Then, if you hate to see romance in fiction so much, to the point that it's not mature for you to represent it, I would like to know how you consider it in reality ? You didn't want to fall in love ?! Love is somewhat the basis of human relationships, whatever the form. And I don't understand why today, representing romantic love in fiction is so critical, even almost shameful, as if it were worth less than other types of relationships on this planet ?! I find that seriously infuriating.

Also, I've never seen anyone complain that romance wasn't something appropriate for Wednesday in the movie "Addams Family Values" or even the musical ! And in both versions, the "romance" is between Wednesday and a normal guy. Here, Wednesday's love interest is literally a monstrous creature ! It's much more interesting than these two previous models that NO ONE has ever criticized ! (At least I never have them be...)

Or is it that they don't care about the character of Wednesday to say that romance is not something made for her... She's a fucking teenager ! Shit ! And before you tell me that romance has nothing to do with the general universe of the addams family... GOMEZ AND MORTICIA ?!

It's a universe that has literally given us one of the most beautiful romances of all time ! Why wouldn't their own daughter have the right to give us another fucking iconic romance ?!

So apparently romance isn't something cut out for Wednesday's character. My question is : Why ? Most of Wednesday's performances are when she's a little girl, so okay from then on. But when she is depicted as being in her early teens or as a teenage girl, romance has already been touched on for this character, in two different mediums, a film and a comedy musical.

And nobody had questioned it saying that it was not something appropriate for the character ! The only things that change with the series is that the romantic interests were human and that Wednesday was not the main character, but one of the main ones, since the subject generally remained the Addams family. But in the show, although Wednesday becomes the main character, romance isn't the main topic either, just one of many topics about her, so why is it so bothersome here ? Romance is a part of life, at least for some people. Especially teenagers. And this idea that Wednesday, in particular, is not a character made for a romance, is in fact totally unfounded and biased by this momentum that today society has absolutely associated strong women with celibacy in fiction. Shit. Women can be strong and in love ! One does not prevent the other ! And to think otherwise is very frightening ! It's actually just as scary as the time when women were only associated with romance ! To do the opposite extreme is just as horrible. Especially since I never see this kind of debate when a guy is the hero and he falls in love, even though that's not the main subject of his story. Strangely, no one will criticize…

Also, another detail, the series is somewhat associated with Tim Burton, the majority of whose works contain romances and or couples...

95 notes · View notes

devilmaywrite · 2 years

Note

Omg, I've just seen the fluff alphabet and can I ask for A, C and V for Dante and Vergil. I think it may be funny see how different they are in that aspect.

Thank u!! ❤️

i actually don’t think they’d be too different when it comes down to it fjkdslfj dante’s part is inspired by a post @time-is-a-lake made a few days ago <3

rbs and feedback much appreciated

Dante:

A - Acceptance — How long did it take for them to accept that they were in love? What were they like after accepting it?

I think he’s fairly quick to realize it but he takes a very long time to truly accept it. He tries to push you away at first, not wanting to drag you into the mess that is his life. Not wanting to doom you to the same fate that seems to befall to everyone around him. His heart couldn’t take it if something happened to you so it’s incredibly difficult for him to open himself up to that again. He doesn’t want to get hurt again, nor does he want you to get hurt because of him. He’s also baffled by the fact that you want to be with him, want that life for yourself because of him. He tries to take it in stride once he actually accepts that he has feelings for you. But he stumbles. A lot. He’s never felt this way about anyone and his lack of self worth and anxiety poses many issues. But he’ll figure it out with time. Your patience is deeply appreciated and more than worth it. Dante will spend an eternity at your side if that’s what you wish.

C - Confession — How did their confession go? Was it planned or was it out of the blue?

He really tries to plan something out, how extravagant his plan is, is up to your preferences. He’ll plan to keep it more lowkey if you’re not into theatrics. Hell, he might just plan a whole fireworks show if you’re just as dramatic as he is. But I don’t think he’d end up actually going according to plan and it just slips out as casually as any of his quips do. Or perhaps, at night when you’re sleeping and he doesn’t think you can hear him. Less chance for rejection that way.

V - Vulnerable — What’s something their s/o does that makes them weak to their knees?

I don’t think this is actually all that difficult due to how little experience he has with romance, and people just being kind to him in general. Nor has he had much stability, so just knowing that he has something to come home to everyday has him pretty soft. Genuine worry about his wellbeing, listening to him talk about things he’s interested in, laughing at his jokes, complimenting him also mean a lot to him, more than he lets on. He’s also a sucker for anything physical as that is his love language. He’s a lovebug but initiating touch or seeking him out for comfort touches him as well.

Vergil:

A - Acceptance — How long did it take for them to accept that they were in love? What were they like after accepting it?

He’s more resistant to this than Dante is. Romance has never been something he’s really considered given how his life has gone so far. He’s only just now began to accept that human part of himself -- that part that allows him to have these feelings for you. He has a very long way to go on this journey and that part of him that’s terrified of others hurting him has not gone away, and likely won’t for some time. So he has a hard time accepting all of this -- accepting that you love him especially. But he so desperately wants to be loved, to have someone accept him for who and what he is, to have someone who doesn’t define him by his past. So to have that from you forces him to accept his feelings for you after some time. Like Dante, he stumbles a lot and it’s hard for him to adjust to but you’ll find that you have someone fiercely loyal and protective now at your side. Forever, if you’ll have him.

C - Confession — How did their confession go? Was it planned or was it out of the blue?

You’ll probably have to the one to confess first since there’s a small part of him that doubts your feelings for him. So it’s easier for him to verbalize his feelings after he hears it from you first. He’d like to plan it out but Vergil is impulsive -- despite popular belief, so it’s likely something that slips out against his will. He also likely has awkward or inappropriate timing, and he’s scared -- terrified, really. It’s not the most eloquent confession but it’s so incredibly sincere and touching; you can’t find it within yourself to complain.

V - Vulnerable — What’s something their s/o does that makes them weak to their knees?

I don’t think this is difficult to achieve with him either since he’s not been shown much kindness in his life. He’s been tortured for about half of it and never exactly surrounded himself with people who genuinely cared for him in his younger years. So genuine affection is nearly foreign to him and it catches him off guard. He’s also quiet and often withdrawn and with this comes a certain level of awkwardness. So he’s hesitant to really try and interact with much of the crew. So if you were to go out of your way to talk to him or try to include him, he’d seem uncomfortable and likely would be, but he appreciates it more than anything. Being kind to him and gently trying to get him out of his shell are great ways to earn his affection.

#time to fuck off for another 7 months <3 #i did have fun with this though fjkdls #devil may cry #dante x reader #vergil x reader

240 notes · View notes

wonderfulworldofmichaelford · 2 months

Text

Michael After Midnight: The Films of Quentin Tarantino

There are few directors out there as ridiculously praised and extremely controversial as Quentin Tarantino. He’s done nothing his whole career but release films that garner critical acclaim and massive fanbases due to the stellar acting and writing within his films, but at the same time he’s been relentlessly criticized for his excessive use of racial slurs, his excessive homages to the point of plagiarism, and his habit of inserting his fetishes into every single one of his movies. What fetishes do I mean? Let’s just say his films have a lot of sole, and it would be no easy feet to go toe-to-toe with how in your face he is about what he likes.

While the man does have his problems (don’t get me started, I’m here to review movies, not gossip) and his style certainly isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, I’ve found myself enjoying his work a lot ever since I was a teenager, and his films are what pushed me into checking out a lot of more obscure films in the exploitation genre; in particular, I’m a pretty big fan of blaxploitation thanks to Tarantino’s work, and I doubt I would’ve ever checked it out if not for his constant homages. I can’t really hate a guy who helped make me aware of Pam Grier, can I?

What’s most impressive is that out of his ten films there’s not one I would say is genuinely “bad.” Sure, there’s at least one I think is a boring, middling affair, and there are a couple of heavily flawed but still solid films, but there isn’t a single awful movie in his filmography. That’s honestly pretty impressive, especially considering the sort of weird throwback films he makes. After finally sitting down and watching Once Upon a Time in Hollywood recently, I decided it was finally time to bite the bullet and do what was a long time coming on this blog: Review Tarantino’s movies. And then I just decided, hey, why not review them all at once, as an homage to Schafrillas Productions and his director rankings? Oho, see, I can homage things too!

To be clear here, I’m only reviewing the films Quentined and Tarantined by the man himself; the “Tarantinoverse” is a bit more expansive than his own filmography, as True Romance (which he wrote) is canon and Machete, Machete Kills, From Dusk Til Dawn, Hobo with a Shotgun, Planet Terror, Thanksgiving, and the Spy Kids movies are all part of the “show within a show” side of his world, but those are all topics for another time. Right now, it’s all Tarantino baby! Now let’s get on to the actual ranking, and pray that I don’t put a foot in my mouth with these opinions.

10. Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood

I feel pretty safe in calling this Tarantino’s worst film. It’s not necessarily awful or anything, it has good qualities to it, but it takes every problem Tarantino’s style has and cranks it up to 11.

The film is long and dialogue-heavy, with lots of that classic Tarantino writing, but while individual scenes are good such as when Leonardo DiCaprio’s character is filming a scene with a little girl or Brad Pitt’s character goes to the ranch the Manson Family are holed up at they never really feel like they congeal into a cohesive narrative, instead feeling more like a long string of vignettes. This is especially bad in regards to Margot Robbie’s Sharon Tate, whose numerous scenes really add nothing to the movie but constant looming reminders that Helter Skelter is going to happen and lots of shots of Robbie’s feet. The excessively padded runtime is so bad that when you finally get to the part where the tables are turned on the Manson Family, a historical twist that should feel fun and cathartic, it comes off as too little, too late instead.

It’s really a shame the film is so meandering, because in almost every other aspect it really shines. Every actor is giving it their all; Pitt and DiCaprio are absolutely fantastic, Robbie brings charm even to her filler role, and every single bit part actor is fully committed and leaves a mark. Standouts include Dakota Fanning as the de facto head honcho of the Family when Manson is out and Mike Moh as Bruce Lee in a scene that is at once deeply disrespectful to one of history’s greatest action stars and also very funny. This is a film you can tell everyone involved gave a shit about.

But for me, it’s not enough for me to really love the film. I like a lot about the movie for sure, but I just hate how nothing ever really comes together in a satisfying way. Maybe if a bit of the fat was trimmed I would have a higher opinion of the movie, but as it is three hours of vignettes (even well-acted ones) is truly excessive. It’s mid at worst, but for Tarantino that’s still pretty shocking when everything else he’s done is above average at worst.

9. Death Proof

This is a truly underrated film, but frankly, it’s easy to see why it is that way. This half of the double feature that was Grindhouse is a throwback to films that were actually two movies spliced together, and it has all the issues that entails. The first half of the film is a more grounded, dialogue-heavy buildup to a terrifying conclusion, while the second half is a wild and crazy action and stunt showcase, and the two halves feel at odds with each other…which is by design, but still.

This might be a hot take, but I find the slow burning first half to be the superior part of the film. As much as I love Tarantino’s insane action films, Kurt Russell’s portrayal of the sinister Stuntman Mike is just just utterly gripping; he is easily one of the best villains in Tarantino’s filmography. The whole first half establishes him really well, building up the anxiety until he finally gets to show the girl he leaves with just how well he death proofed his car. He’s just so damn cool.

And then comes the second half where he’s reduced to a bit of a chump. And this probably wouldn’t be nearly as bad if the protagonists up against him were compelling, but they’re not. They’re a bunch of girls who are boring at best and relentlessly unpleasant at worst; the fact they leave behind one of their friends to an uncertain (but likely unpleasant) fate at the hands of a creepy redneck is especially appalling. Beatrix Kiddo they ain’t.

This is a wildly uneven film, so I can see why it didn’t find its audience right away, but I think these days it had garnered a minor cult following. If you can handle the flawed second half, this is still a really good movie with a captivating villain performance that more than makes up for its shortcomings, but I definitely can’t justify putting it any higher on this list.

8. Inglourious Basterds

Oh, this might be a controversial one. This movie is the same sort of beast as OUATIH, which is why I have it so low, but with one crucial difference: It does everything better. Yes, this movie is long and a bit meandering, but it always feels like it’s moving towards a final goal. Yes, it ends with a history-altering plot twist, but this one might be the most cathartic one of all time. And yes, there’s gratuitous feet shots, but at least they’re in plot-relevant scenes.

Of course, the best thing about the movie is the villain, Hans Landa. Christoph Waltz’s big American breakout is one of the most compelling villains of the 2010s, a charismatic, cunning, self-serving Nazi bastard who you really want to see get what’s coming to him. I might be inclined to call him the best Tarantino villain of all time.

I think what weirdly brings the film down is the titular Basterds themselves, and not because they ultimately feel superfluous to the plot; it’s the same sort of thing as Raiders of the Lost Ark, them being absent wouldn’t have changed much but we also wouldn’t have much of an exciting adventure. My issue is that Brad Pitt aside they are just not interesting or compelling at all. You really need to work hard to sell attempted filmmaker Eli Roth as the ultimate Jewish badass, and the film doesn’t really deliver. If only Adam Sandler took the role as was the original vision; we really were robbed. It’s all the worse because it cuts away from the actual compelling plot with Shosanna for these schmucks.

To be clear, I don’t think this is a bad film by any stretch of the imagination, but I find it falls short of the hype around it. I’ve seen it described as movie with a lot of great scenes that never really comes together to be a great movie, and I mostly agree with that assessment; there’s so much to love here, but also so much I don’t care about. It’s definitely worth watching but it’s also where you can see the seeds for the problems with OUATIH planted.

7. The Hateful Eight

This isn’t a Tarantino film held in a particularly high regard; it’s not exactly hated, but it’s not what anyone would call their favorite either. Its contentious nature boils down to something apparent right in the title: Every character in this movie is a fucking asshole. It can be genuinely hard to get invested in these people when they’re a big collection of liars, killers, sadists, criminals, racists, and rapists.

Now, if you can stomach these nasty characters, what you’re left with is “John Carpenter’s The Thing… but a Western!” And I have to admit as a huge fan of The Thing, this is a very solid reimagining of the concept in a grounded setting. I do wish there was any character to root for here, but watching a group of people slowly tearing each other apart in a claustrophobic, isolated setting is still fun to watch. I don’t think it’s nearly as good or insightful as Carpenter’s movie, but very few movies are.

This is definitely a movie I can see people hating more than the previous two films, but I feel like this movie is more consistent than Basterds or Death Proof. Those movies have higher highs, but this movie never hits the lows they do, and even if his character is a massive asshole Samuel L. Jackson is always great to see in a Tarantino flick. Plus that brief appearance from Channing Tatum is great, especially with how it ends. This is a very solid film, but “very solid” is about as high as the praise I’ll give it will get.

6. Reservoir Dogs

Tarantino’s directorial debut, and boy is that readily apparent. It does a good job at establishing hallmarks of his style, like the sorts of conversations his characters have, their love of racial slurs, non-linear storytelling, and his trend of casting himself as a douchey minor character. It does everything fairly well, and I’d go as far as to call it one of the best directorial debuts ever… and that’s about it, really.

Like this is a very good film with strong performances—Michael Madsen and Steve Buscemi being the standouts—but it definitely feels less refined than his later works with the same style. His sophomore film just completely blows this one out of the water, to the point it’s hard to muster up the interest to revisit this as opposed to watching Pulp Fiction for the hundredth time. It’s not that this film is bad; it’s just that Tarantino’s later films do what this one does better.

It’s definitely a good film, maybe even great, but there’s clear room to improve. Hell, there wasn’t a single shot of a woman’s feet in the whole movie! Tarantino was slacking.

5. Kill Bill: Vol. 2

Now we’re in to the really great movies. And yes, while it doesn’t keep up the energy of the first film, I would definitely call this a great movie.

Where the first volume was driven by action, this one is more driven by talking, and thankfully the characters are saying a lot of interesting things here (the standout being Bill’s media illiteracy in regards to Superman, which reveals a lot about his character). There’s also the reveal of Beatrix Kiddo’s name as well as her backstory, and there are some standout moments like Beatrix escaping from being buried alive and the tense final conversation with Bill. Overall, the film does a fantastic job at fleshing the story out and expanding our understanding of the characters.

Like I said, though, it just doesn’t keep up the energy of the first film. Budd is great and serves as a more psychological opponent, burying Beatrix alive as a way to test if she has the resolve to finish her quest for revenge, but both Elle and Bill himself are dealt with in a rather anti-climactic manner. It says a lot that O-Ren, one of Bill’s former lackeys, put up a grander and more impressive fight than her boss did. While I do appreciate the more philosophical approach, it’s hard not to be miffed when a duology called “Kill Bill” doesn’t kill Bill in a more grandiose way befitting the character.

Obviously, I don’t think it brings the film down much, and this is still a good conclusion to the story. I just can’t help but feel it could’ve amped things up just a bit, y’know?

4. Jackie Brown

This is probably the weirdest film in Tarantino’s filmography, being an adaptation of a book that lacks a lot of his usual style and features a lot of people he didn’t work with afterwards (like Robert De Niro and Pam Grier). This has led to a lot of people praising it as one of Tarantino’s best works for being unique among his oeuvre… and also a lot of people deriding it for how different it is from his usual style.

I definitely think it’s up there with his best works, but I don’t think it’s the absolute best. It’s sort of like how I see Christopher Nolan’s Batman movies; they’re great films (well, the first two anyway) but I can’t in good conscience hold them up as the best Batman media because they ultimately lack a lot of what makes me love Batman as a character. And this film lacks a lot of what makes me love a Tarantino movie; it’s a fantastic, realistic crime drama, but that’s not really what I’m watching Tarantino for, you know?

Still, its placement on this list should tell you I still see this as a must-watch. Starring Grier alone makes it worth checking out, and it definitely showcases Tarantino has far more range as a filmmaker than you’d expect.

3. Django Unchained

Right from the opening song, you can tell this is going to be an epic movie. Tarantino truly nailed the Western on his first go around, adding his own spin to the genre and making a truly stellar film. However, it’s not without a few issues.

The main cast is fantastic. We have Christoph Waltz as a noble and heroic abolitionist, an atypical role he pulls off flawlessly; Samuel L. Jackson as a sinister house slave who is all about licking the boot that treads on him; and of course Leonardo DiCaprio as a hammy, egotistical slave owner, a stellar villain role that should have nabbed him an Oscar. Even minor roles are great, with Don Johnson appearing as a plantation owner early on and Jonah Hill of all people popping up as a proto-Klansman.

You might notice I didn’t mention Jamie Foxx as the titular Django. That’s because, unfortunately, he’s a bit of an issue with the film. It’s not Foxx’s performance; he makes Django cool and likable, and his awesome trademark Tarantino roaring rampage of revenge in the third act sells him as a truly badass character. No, the issue is the narrative seems to seriously sideline him in favor of Waltz’s character, to the point for large swaths of the film he feels a bit like a side character in his own story. I don’t find it to be a huge issue, but it can be frustrating, especially since this is a very long movie and a few scenes drag on a bit longer than necessary. You really couldn’t give the title character a bit more to do until the last half hour, Quentin?

Still, I don’t think its issues hold it back all that much. This is an incredibly fantastic film whose highs easily overshadow its frustrating lows. Frankly, if any Tarantino movie deserves a sequel, it would be this one; I think Django has a lot of interesting stories in him, and a film where he actually gets to be the central character the whole time would be great.

2. Kill Bill: Vol. 1

This right here is pretty damn close to being my absolute favorite Tarantino film. Where something like OUATIH is all of Tarantino’s flaws compounded into one film, this is all of his strengths together in one film. Fantastically violent action, stellar casting with not a single weak performance, an awesome soundtrack, tons of great homages to the works that inspired it, non-linear storytelling used effectively, and more style in a single frame than some movies have in their entire runtime.

Frankly, I don’t have a lot of issues with the movie, though I kind of don’t like how all the action is front loaded while all the character insight and dialogue gets shoved into the second part. It’s nothing that makes me think less of either film, but I think maybe sprinkling more insight into who the Bride is in this movie and putting some more action in the second part would keep the sequel from feeling a bit anti-climactic. I also wish we got more of Vernita Green, the first assassin we see dispatched onscreen and the one who gets the least characterization; with a third film increasingly unlikely at this point, meaning we won’t ever see her daughter seek her vengeance, it’s a shame we don’t get at least a little more of a look into who she is as a person like we did with Budd and especially O-Ren.

Aside from that, though? This is Tarantino at his best, and Uma Thurman’s crowning achievement as an actress, one that cements her as action royalty alongside the greats like Schwarzenegger, Stallone, and Weaver. There’s just one film Tarantino did that, objectively, is a much better film, and I’m sure as soon as you saw this ranking you knew exactly what it’d be...

1. Pulp Fiction

Of course this takes the top spot. Was there ever any doubt? This movie is everything Tarantino is about rolled into one supremely satisfying package.

The cast is nothing short of phenomenal. We have Bruce Willis in his prime, we’ve got John Travolta pulling out of a career slump, we’ve got Uma Thurman and Ving Rhames in roles that put them on the map, and we have a veritable buffet of talent in minor roles, the most memorable of which is Christopher Walken telling a child the delightful story of a pocket watch’s journey home from war. There’s not a bad performance here. But of course the real superstar is Samuel L. Jackson, who gave a career-defining performance as Jules, the baddest motherfucker around (it says so on his wallet).

The great performances wouldn’t matter much if not for the great script, though. The dialogue in this film is unreal with how good it is, with characters having very odd yet also very realistic and natural conversations. Jules and Vince discussing burgers, for instance, is one of the most memorable sequences in the film… and it’s just them driving! Some of the writing is a little contentious (did you really need to have your character say the N-word fifty times, Quentin?), but none of it is really bad.

I will say Tarantino as Jimmy is one of my few issues with the film, but also an issue I kind of like anyway. His acting is a wonky and there is genuinely no reason why he should be spouting off all these racial slurs (even in-universe, since his buddy Jules and his wife are black), but the sheer audacity of the whole thing saves it. Still, I can’t help but feel the scene hasn’t aged as gracefully as a lot of the film, and the amateur performance from Tarantino sticks out all the more because he is standing right next to two of the most talented actors ever.

Another aspect of the film I think has aged pretty poorly is the gay hillbilly rapists, but I don’t think this aspect is as cut and dry as “hey maybe the white director who has little acting training shouldn’t play the guy who says the N-word.” On the one hand, having the only queer characters in your movie being depraved rapists is not a good look, though this was par for the course for the 90s. On the other hand, the movie treats Marsellus getting raped with the same level of deadly seriousness that a woman in that position would receive in a film. That’s a pretty bold, progressive plot point, especially since men getting raped (especially male-on-male) was and still is used as a joke. And watching the movie in a day and age with tons of queer characters in media does soften the blow a bit, because these aren’t the only gay characters you’ll see in fiction anymore. I think it’s important to have discussions about these sorts of archaic portrayals of queers in film, but I don’t think this breaks the movie.

In modern times the film has gotten a reputation as a “red flag” film loved by toxic guys, and I think that’s unfair; is it the movie’s fault dudebros fail to see the movie is a refutation of crime and violence? Think about it: The only person in the film who gets an unambiguously happy ending is the one who has a spiritual awakening and abandons his criminal ways to walk the Earth. Every other major character pays in some way for their continued violent ways: Butch goes through Hell and ends up in exile, Marsellus Wallace gets raped, Mia overdoses and nearly dies, and Vince does die. Hell, there’s an entire segment where Jules and Vince are repeatedly chastised for careless violence causing a huge mess; as you may recall, Jules’ pal Jimmy was not too keen to find Phil LaMarr dead in his garage, and had some choice words to say about it. Stupid people see the blood and slurs and take it at face value, but the narrative itself tells these sorts they’re well and truly fucked because when you live by the sword, you die by the sword.

Of course, my favorite interpretation of the film is that it is espousing the belief that Beatles fans are superior to Elvis ones, as an extension of Mia’s comment in a deleted scene that you’re either an Elvis person or a Beatles person. Vince is clearly an Elvis guy, and he is presented as an unprofessional, careless buffoon who causes numerous issues and ends up dying due to his own inattentiveness; meanwhile, Jules is vaguely implied to be the proverbial “Beatles guy” (he calls the robber in the diner “Ringo”) and escapes the film unscathed. This is even funnier when you consider that one of Tarantino’s first onscreen roles was as an Elvis impersonator in Golden Girls, something that implies he might be an Elvis guy himself, which would make the film the most epic act of self-deprecation ever.

This is one of the greatest sophomore releases from a director ever, and one of the greatest films of the 90s. This film frequently finds its way to the top of “best films of all time” lists, and with good reason; it is, to this day, just that good. I think there’s a temptation to call any of his other films his magnum opus due to just how acclaimed and pervasive in pop culture this film is, but it got that way for a reason. It is a damn good crime story with all sorts of twists and turns and plenty of stuff for viewers to ruminate on and interpret as they please. Hell, I thought I liked Kill Bill more than it until I rewatched it, but boy does this just blow even that masterpiece out of the water.

If nothing else, the film is incredible for one simple reason: Tarantino managed to insert his foot fetish into the film without it feeling as needlessly gratuitous as it is in some later films! Bravo, Tarantino!

#Michael After Midnight #Review #movie review #Quentin Tarantino #Reservoir Dogs #Pulp Fiction #Jackie Brown #Kill Bill #Death Proof #The Hateful Eight #inglourious basterds #once upon a time... in hollywood #django unchained #action #crime #drama #exploitation #grindhouse #feet

14 notes · View notes

cherrylng · 12 days

Text

ROCKIN’ON - MUSE (November 2009)

DOMINIC HOWARD INTERVIEW

●First of all, what was the goal you set at the starting point of this album? 「First of all, well, I think we finally found the confidence to produce the album ourselves. Then, we experimented and tried to discover the direction of the songs by ourselves. Well, that said, I did give it some thought, like, "Well, what are we going to do this time?" And one of the possibilities we considered was to make a very radical work, something completely different from what we had done in the past. It would be the kind of work that would revolutionize the band itself and everything. But… in the end, we settled on the idea of experimenting a little bit, but not straying too far from what we had done in the past. We also wanted to make an album that would be the "definitive Muse" album. So we wanted to bring all the best elements from everything we have done so far. Then, we decided to condense and narrow down the best elements and make it easier to understand. I think this album sounds completely different from the other Muse albums, and the sound is already very clear, and I think there is a lot of space in the music. In contrast, the previous album "Black Holes" didn't have that… For me, that album is very, very claustrophobic. Every single space is filled with something. There is the sound of instruments, or whatever it is that is hidden (laughs). So we decided to use a lot of what we had absorbed so far. And in doing so, somehow we ended up with a "Muse-defining" album.」

●What was the process and when did the concept for this album take shape? 「First of all, I think this album is more concise and to the point than the last one, especially the lyrics. I think the lyrics are much clearer, because I think Matt was much more ambiguous in the past. Not that the lyrics were bad, but they were more unclear anyway. But this time around, there are some songs that are very straight to the point and direct in what they want to say. At the same time, there are songs that are very personal, based on love and relationships with loved ones. As for the concept, I don't think it was made up in advance. Rather, it took shape as we were making the album. So I think the album has a consistent theme, and there are certainly similar themes running between the songs. However, I think that these aspects developed gradually and very naturally over time. The themes we are dealing with on this album are very current, very contemporary, and a product of the times we are living in and the things that were actually happening while we were making this album.」

●You expand the idea based on the environment, the actual experience of the situation, and the actions that are born from it, and then add elements of storytelling and romance, right? 「Yeah, yeah, the lyrics are always last. Matt does this (and imitates writing something in his notebook), always writing some kind of lyrics (laughs), but sometimes it's the very last thing he writes. So, in most cases, the music comes first, and sometimes it is the emotion or feeling stirred up by the music that inspires the lyrics. So lyrics are always strongly influenced by what is happening and what we are experiencing right now. So, with the exception of songs about love and lovers, the things that are relevant to our reality today, I think, are going to be political.」

●The lyrics are at the end, which means that when you actually record the whole track and listen to it again, you may be surprised to hear, "This is what the song is about!" I'm not sure I understand what Matt is trying to do here. Or do you understand Matt's intention? 「No. Sometimes I am surprised. After all, I don't really know what the lyrics are until Matt sings them (bitter laugh). So, yeah, I guess there are a lot of people who are surprised and think, "Oh, I see, this is how it's going to turn out." When we're working on music, we really always think about it from the perspective of an instrumental song. We often work on songs without lyrics, without words, or even without a melody. So we're going to have a deep encounter with something that's just music without words, and (as I suddenly realized) that's really what we've been doing since the beginning of this band. In a way, when we record an instrumental section, we want it to be great on its own, and to be listenable without the lyrics. If you add lyrics to that, it's twice as great! That's what we were thinking (laughs).」

●The last three songs are a suite. Was this composition decided from the beginning? 「Yes, those songs are actually familiar to Chris and I. We've heard some of the piano parts in them before. Sometimes during soundchecks, Matt would play those parts and we would start jamming a little bit. But that was the end of it (laughs). And I think there were times when we were playing live and Matt would lightly play that phrase in between songs. But that song has evolved a lot. There was actually another part that was the third part of the song, but we decided to use a completely different part, and that's how it came to be.」

What we had in mind was to make an album like "Muse: The Definitive Edition".

●It's a very fantastic ending, isn't it? 「Yes, but before that it was a completely different type of part. But I think we made the right choice with that one, and especially that part 3 is fantastic… It has a beautiful, tragic feeling. There's a kind of sad beauty that I feel when I listen to that part. But it was definitely a big job. I mean, we definitely had the idea of doing something orchestral and cinematic this time, but we weren't sure if that song was actually going to be on the album. But somehow, when we started working on it, we realized that it would fit easily on the album. We were like, "Oh, this is great! And once that happened, it seemed obvious that that song was going to be the last song on the album. It's also the only song on the album that is a bit detached from the world. Unlike the other songs, which deal with realistic themes such as politics and love (bitter laugh). So it's kind of like the soundtrack to a sci-fi fantasy movie about going somewhere new and starting over.」

● (laughs) What new elements, if any, did you bring to this work? 「Hmmm… What I brought to "Undisclosed Desires" was a complete change of genre. We took that song and turned it into a very electronic, even hip-hop-influenced backing track, which was almost new to me and took a lot of learning, sampling, programming, etc. I had dabbled in it before, but I had never taken it as seriously as I did this time. And we didn't have a producer, so I had to fight with the computer by myself (laughs). Since the two of them (Matt and Chris) were not involved in the project, it was almost entirely my own work. I was exploring this and that, trying out lots of different ideas. When I let them listen to it, they said, "It's really cool, let's go with it." Matt added the string part, and I said, "Well, where do we go from here? So we started adding more electronic grooves, darker synths, distorted, grating synths, that kind of thing. I think it became a Depeche Mode kind of dark electro thing. It was a lot of fun for me to get out of my usual safe zone, which is behind the drum kit. I felt like I was now a full-fledged producer (laughs).」

● (laughs) That song is the one you are most proud of and the most important song in this work? 「Yeah. It's a very important song for the album, that one. So I think we'll probably cut it for the next single. That song is really a big step out of the usual sound for the band. Well, we tried to go into a different area with “Supermassive Black Hole” to some extent, but the way we went with this song is nothing compared to that. After all, I didn't even use a guitar on that song (laughs). But I really like “I Belong to You,” too. From the arrangement, to the instrumentation, to the percussion, it's really… I tried to give it a little bit of a strange vibe, a little bit like the Beatles' "Sgt. Pepper's" song. I don't think it was inspired by Paul McCartney, but I realized, “Wait, doesn't this sound like one of those weird songs McCartney wrote for Sgt. Pepper's?” So we all decided to push that kind of ridiculous vibe further (laughs).」

●I'm sure that the period of time that the three of you were working alone at (Lake) Como was quite long. Can you tell me, for example, what a “typical day” was like for you during that period of time? 「I would get up late, maybe around 12:00 or 1:00 in the afternoon. But I wouldn't do anything until after lunch.」

●It's the Italian way, isn't it? 「Yes, because lunch is very important in Italy! (laughs). And that's when we started working. While I was working on something in one room, Matt was working on vocals in another room. So it was very productive for all three of us to be in the same place but doing different things at our own pace. Well, we did move all the recording gear out of the studio a while back, and it was kind of sad. It was a little sad to think that it would be a while before I could come back here again (laughs).」

●What were your sources of inspiration during the making of this album? 「I think we didn't listen to as much music in the studio as we did on the last album. I would say that this time we tried to keep it within the three of us. We wanted to bring out all the ideas from within ourselves. Not from the outside. On the last album, Rich (Costey, co-producer) let us listen to a lot of different things, and there was a lot of, "How about this," and "There's this," and so on.」

● It's like a kid in a candy store who gets recommended one after another and gets lost in them. 「Yes, yes! We heard it and thought, "Wow, that's cool," and to some extent it inspired us. But this time, the theme was to dig deep inside ourselves. But, yeah… My favorite album of the moment is the Justice album. I also used to listen to the Beatles a lot. So, I think "I Belong" may have been unconsciously influenced by them.」

Matt's Interview

#Dom Howard #Muse #The Resistance era #interview #translation

9 notes · View notes

tangerinecherrygal · 3 months

Text

My reading of ‘the Unkiss’:

cw: brief Sexual assault discussion

When I found out that people ship sandor and sansa I was really confused because she’s an actual child. so when i read the scene that people usually reference as a basis for their ‘romance’ out of context (I thought Sansa was around 19 before i started reading) i could see how people may think that, especially dark romance readers. i do also think sandor has some questionable feelings towards sansa.

but in context, knowing about his past and how he had his innocence strippped away from him at such a young age, i believe he was both jealous and protective of sansa’s innocence, not in love with her.

“Lady,” she whimpered softly, wondering if she would meet her wolf again when she was dead.

The direwolves have been shown to consistantly be protectors to the stark kids, so obviously and understandably, sansa is calling out for the one thing that would protect and comfort her without question. Sandor's answer is almost like the answer of a potential guardian.

the ‘sexual’ aspect does seem like it’s there, but not in a romantic way because it would be an assault:

“Little bird. I knew you’d come.” The voice was a drunken rasp.

He is drunker than I’ve ever seen him. He was sleeping in my bed. What does he want here?

He yanked her closer, and for a moment she thought he meant to kiss her.

“Why did you come here?” “You promised me a song, little bird. Have you forgotten?”

him being in her room on her bed does give the impression that he’s going to do something sexual, which is usually associated with loss of innocence. sansa’s innocence is presented in her optimistic view of human nature. sandor is still surprised that she can have faith in others despite what happened to her father, so to me it seems like he wants to show sansa how cruel people can be.

previously it was established that even though he scared her, she still knew that he was a guardian and she would be safe with him around:

“I would be gladder if it were the Hound, Sansa thought. Harsh as he was, she did not believe Sandor Clegane would let any harm come to her.”

if sandor were to betray her trust in him by harming her, he would further reiterate that people aren’t worth trusting.

“Still can’t bear to look, can you?”

She still doesn’t want to see the ugliness and unpleasantness of what humanity is capable of. besides being ugly to look at, sandor’s burns are a reminder of the capabilities of others to harm another person. especially family.

teach us all a kinder way.

the final line of the song reminds us that sansa was taught that there are ways to be good and she still somewhat believes in people, at least for now. sandor is reminded of the importance of believing that good and kindness can prevail. i think this reminds him of his childhood innocence before his brother harmed him and how important it is for children to keep that innocence into adulthood. perhaps he wonders what he would be like if that hadn’t happened to him. the part of him that wants to protect sansa’s innocence seems to kick in and he seems ashamed that he considered harming sansa like gregor did to him.

one could argue that he threatens her life, but if he really wanted to kill her then he wouldn’t offer to take her with him.

She found his cloak […] twisted up tight, the white wool stained by blood and fire.

the white on the cloak is ruined by products of humanity’s violence and destruction. this is like when sandor’s innocence in childhood was destroyed by the abuse he suffered. there is still innocence there, hence the original white still being visible. leaving the cloak with sansa shows that he’s letting what’s left of his ‘goodness’ protect sansa. his cloak has protected her before, and now acts as a reminder of his mercy. This can also be a lesson that sansa must protect herself now that he is no longer there.

I’ve only read the first two books and this is my interpretation so far. but all i know is that this man better stay far away from that little girl or i will be forced to intervene.

It is GRRM so i may be wrong, but I really hope that i’m not.

#tw: sa mention #praying sansa gets her happy ending with her optimism in tact #the unkiss #sansa stark #sandor the hound clegane #a clash of kings #acok #asoiaf #protect sansa stark at all costs.

9 notes · View notes

divinekangaroo · 6 months

Note

In your writing of the earlier seasons, I like how you have Lizzie question Tommy on why he's at her place or have taken her to someplace where he could have easily have taken/gone to someone else. And Tommy never really seem to have a real answer other than to say "to fuck." I like how she is frustrated/conflicted that she's stuck in this loop with him, she doesn't/couldn't say no or ask him to fuck off. It's nice that you tackle that aspect of their relationship.

:) :) :)

One of my reasons for starting that early-season fanfic arc with a sort-of "Lizzie corners Tommy into sex" scene, was seeing some fannish conversations on how Lizzie trapped Tommy all the way through up to entrapping him into marriage... to which I thought, what the, that is not even *possible*, the privilege and power swings ALL his way -- so then of course I had to start thinking about how it *might* happen, where I came to the position that she might corner him (if probably only once) if she was leveraging an embedded personal/moral code or value set of his that he'd never step away from -- BUT, we know the whole point to his character is...not that...yeah anyway XD.

So I wrote my post-S1 scene with them with an undercurrent of wanting to test the feasibility of a 'Lizzie-corners-Tommy' in a way that might hold roughly true to their characters at that point in time, to see how some kind of scenario like this might play out. Even then, pressing on a moral/value point, the power dynamic is always in his favour, which that led to wanting to unpack this thoughtstream of what is yes/no/fuck yes/fuck off like for them, even more. (more under the cut, including reference to consent issues/dubcon situations)

So it's an interesting play throughout all my arc for them, especially when compared to Tommy's focus on obtaining some kind of obvious cue of consent in the immediacy of a sexual encounter. This difference between broader situational context/privilege and how that informs consent and participation, versus immediate situation let's fuck: yes/no.

It was important to me when I wrote their end of S4 absence-of-marriage-proposal story that that there was no 'will you marry me' question asked in any form at all, and therefore no verbalised yes/no from Lizzie; the inverted play being that if Tommy never asked, did *he* actually want it or would he have backed out unspoken, but then she put the rings on both of them -- and he had to open his hand to let her; he could have brushed her off -- with no words ever spoken. This kind of back and forth of the pair of them feeling bound to each other by situations and context and liking and affection and responsibility and debts and and and -> overall, ambiguity, complexity. It's probably one reason why I lean a little harder into a headcanon of Lizzie having nowhere else (safe or dignified) to go because it emphasises that privilege complexity, and also try to fill the stories with lots of cues that, despite his power and money, Tommy probably wasn't the guy she wanted to marry and he is achingly aware of this (her not-quite-romance books disguised as travelogues, her desire to travel when he is ironically not that traveller, her inability to trust/participate in the 'Gypsy thing', her longing for clear verbal praise and verbal acknowledgement/affection when that's his discomfort zone).

He's given her sooooooo much privilege and benefit and uplift but there's always that question of what doors has he left open for her, after all that. I also try to write it such that Tommy's not really overly conscious of all of this: mostly he does good things for Lizzie because he likes her, and because so much of it is good, uplifting, dignified, actual cash etc, he doesn't really consider how he's inadvertantly closed off other pathways for her. By the time he does, Lizzie's had his baby and it's sort of too late to go looking for those old doors and pathways.

(This interest in power, privilege, consent, and what it all really means carries on into my Mosley/Tommy/Lizzie fic too, because irrespective of Tommy and Lizzie making themselves available to Mosley in their own house where, in theory, they have the power, they could walk away, what is the broader context which means that this was not a situation of consent for either of them, irrespective of the power they had to simply have it all stop. And this lens of power and consent being totally different for all three in that room (swan, Lizzie, Tommy). Same with the canon Diana scene/my AU take on this scene.)

The other slightly more pervy reason why I lean hard into this yes/no/fuck yes/fuck off consent thing, is that I headcanon Tommy has Perverted Things (by his measure, which is pretty mild and friendly) he wants to do in bed, but by the time he's comfortable enough with Lizzie (end of S4) to actively engage with that, he understands Lizzie never says no to him. So he rarely goes that route (sometimes if drunk, not the best approach), because he can't trust that she'd tell him to stop if it crossed her line, and he won't be that kind of man. The flipside being the second Lizzie brings up any kind of out-of-the-box sex act, even flippantly, Tommy will *immediately* do it like *shoes off trews off floor wall or door right fucking now* because Lizzie said it so he can trust she wants it, even if it's not super his thing because at least it's something. Which overall is still the same kind of above consent/power/privilege ambiguity and complexity; if he does everything she says even when he doesn't particularly want to but because of physicality/position/privilege he still always retains the power to make it stop; but if he never asks on his own behalf because he can't trust her to say no, then....????)

Anyway the interesting dynamic in their canon relationship is that it never really reads as a traditional heterosexual relationship/marriage, despite that the tokens, visuals, patterns etc following a traditional het pathway. A huge part of this, methinks, is the unspoken context and this play between power, privilege, consent, boundaries, the way they slide around with who 'gives' (of self and agency) and who 'receives' (gifts of further agency), and the very dynamic way they move around on an arc of 'love for who they are (worship/respect)' versus 'love for what they do for you (service)', and the like.

It's an oversimplification but the dynamic in my fics for them I'm trying to hone is a 'broken carer' arc, where they change who is that carer over time and sometimes scene per scene, but it's that sense of one *needs* (or is dependent on) the care of the other in order to function, live or behave in a certain way, whether they want that need/dependency/care or not.

12 notes · View notes

aemiron-main · 6 months

Text

You Don’t Have To Do The Play: TFS, Dark of the Moon, The Confession Booth Scene, and Gay Henry

So, as we know, TFS is going to be a play within a play, and the play that’s being put on by the characters in-universe is Dark of the Moon, which features a romance between a boy and a girl.

And I actually think that this ties perfectly into more gay Henry evidence.

So, looking at the confession booth audition, keeping in mind what I talked about in this post regarding the fact that the Henry-Patty confession booth audition scene has direct parallels to Robin’s coming out scene with Steve, I wonder if this is sort of a much much milder “coming out” scene for Henry/hinting at him being gay, with how Patty says that he doesn’t have to do the play with her:

And then Henry asks “why wouldn’t i?” which, this little interaction here is what makes me wonder about this being a scene that hints at Henry being gay/that Patty might suspect that he’s gay/Henry’s line almost feels defensive here in a “oh god does she Know” way:

Especially since, going back to the “oh god, does she Know,” thing, that EXACT feeling is actually brought up in this scene:

And Henry asking “know what?” could also be tied to him being gay & trying to figure out what Patty’s trying to say/if she’s also queer/just not trying to give himself away.

Which, also, this could also tie into Henry’s line later on after he says that he wants to do the play, where he says that he “already knows” what people think of him- and so, part of me wonders if Henry knows that people suspect that he’s gay, and if part of his reason for agreeing to do the play is to try and throw them off his trail/“see, guys?? I’m not gay, i’m doing a play with a girl!,” because like. if he already knows what people think + is citing that as his reason for doing the play, then what does he think that people think?

Again, I think that he thinks/knows that people think that he’s gay & that he’s hoping that doing the play will help dispel some of those rumors (especially if those sort of rumors are tied to Virginia’s plans to send him to HNL/tied to his appointments with Brenner considering all of the conversion therapy references that we get with Brenner and the lab).

And yes, Patty does cite her reason for telling Henry that he doesn’t have to do the play as being because she’s not popular & doesn’t want to ruin his reputation by having him associate with her (these likes happen after Henry asks “why wouldnt I”/asks why Patty thinks he wouldnt want to do the play):

However, not only is this part a Stobin parallel (see the post I linked), but also, Patty can’t just outright say “well I think you don’t want to so the play because you’re gay and the play involves us as the romantic leads,” especially because we already know that she’s worried about Henry’s reputation, so she’s not going to “accuse,” him of being gay/wouldn’t want anyone overhearing that/wouldn’t want that rumour spreading.

So, it makes sense for her to cite her reason as being tied to her own insecurities/fear about Henry’s reputation, rather than as Henry’s queerness. Which, of course, I think that Patty’s insecurities/the reason she says on the surface is absolutely part of it/I don’t think it’s just a cover to not have to bring up Henry’s queerness, but more “it feels like she’s leaving an aspect out/not telling the whole truth/just leaving the queer part out.”

Long story short, Henry is gay, as usual. Like, the Stobin parallel vibes are still off the charts- part of the whole thing between Steve and Robin is fhat

And so, Patty seems to have a mixture of Steve and Robin parallels, and so does Henry.

Patty has this parallel to Steve (the character who has an unrequited crush on his gay friend):

But she also has the Robin parallel of not being popular/being an outcast (ie the idea of Steve getting teased for talking to her because she’s not popular):

And Henry has the Steve parallel of being more “popular,” although its not so much that he’s popular as it is that he’s new/doesn’t have an actively negative reputation yet.

And Henry also has the Robin parallel of being gay- he’s also on the same side of the confession booth as Robin is in on-screen in the bathroom stalls, and same with Patty and Steve:

And also, re: Henry-Robin parallels, it’s interesting to me that Patty specifically mentions Henry being new in this scene (meaning that she can’t know him super well yet), versus Robin talking about how Steve doesn’t truly know her:

Which also makes me think about PattyHenry-Mileven parallels & how Mike didn’t truly know El either/hadn’t even know her for a week when he kissed her.

Anyway! Again, Henry gets gayer every day and I am SO excited for Patty and Henry Stobin parallels & just for their scenes in general!!

#stranger things #the first shadow #henry creel #patty newby #gay henry creel

11 notes · View notes

dextixer · 11 months

Text

V9 did not offer character progression for Ruby, it just continues to spin in place.

(TW: Suicide)

While not a controversial character, Ruby still has had a lot of discussions surrounding various aspects of her writing. Discussions about her actions, her character traits etc. The most often discussions that have occurred on this topic have been about her perceived lack of character progression, especially in comparison to the rest of her team who all received various arcs that contributed to their characters advancements.

Volume 9 seemed like it was going to buckle the trend. An entire volume mostly dedicated to the break-down of Ruby and the eventual character changes and progress that would follow. At least, that was what was expected... And yet that is not what we have received...

Static or Dynamic?

Before discussing V9 let us first cover the context of Ruby character discussions. Ruby has often been criticized for being too static, for not changing, for basically being a very boring character due to how little she changes from her adventures. In Volumes 1-3 this discussion was not prevalent because in those Volumes Ruby had a clear arc and one COULD see the changes to her character.

Over time she grows more into the leadership role, is more outgoing. She grows through conflict with Weiss. Through the teachings of people like Oobleck and eventually, through the tragedy of the fall of Beacon in which 2 of her friends lives were lost.

In Volume 4 however, she starts becoming different. Unsure of herself, not believing that she has what it takes to be a leader, partially due to the Fall of Beacon but then also partially due to getting her uncle stung by Tyrian. Until the end of the Volume where after a pep-talk from Jaune, she once again assumes her leadership position. And then the same thing happens in V5. V6. V7.V8.

I think most people have noticed that in every one of these volumes Ruby doubts her skills or position, only to end up once more becoming brave. Over, and over again. This caused people to start criticizing her character. Its not progressing. Its just the same character over and over again.

This has lead to defenders of RWBY writing to state that its fine, because Ruby is supposed to be a "Static" character. But quite frankly, i have never been convinced by this argument, because V1-V3 Ruby was not static, and showed to us that she can be dynamic, she can change, learn, grow, especially through conflict and even failure. Her being "Static" runs counter to that.

And yet that narrative/defense has never dissapeared.

Hope is the first step...

With Volume 9, we got a promising start. After the darkness of V7-8, after the fall of Atlas, we have our characters fall into a completely different world. A world based on the story "Alice in Wonderland". A world tailor made to deal with the consequences of the fall of Atlas to the main characters and see them change.

While the hope for other characters doing so dissapeared quite quickly, considering how Blake/Yang had almost nothing to do the entire Volume besides their romance, and Weiss becoming comedic relief. The hope for Ruby remained.

After all, Volume 9 focused very heavily on Ruby. From the very start it showed the dire state she was in, and with each episode that state only got worse and worse, seeing a reminder of a (dead again) friend, being confronted by the smoke version of herself, having to deal with Neo (Again). The entire volume was a reminder of her perceived "failures" as a hero, actual failures, the things she lost etc.

People were hoping and expecting a break-down to happen. Not because they wanted Ruby to suffer. But because such break-downs often lead to character development in many cases.

It all came to a head in episode 8, the darkest episode of the Volume, the episode where Ruby chooses to "ascend" after psychological torture by Neo. The ascencion being a very unsubtle reference to actual suicide in its framing. While the suicide brought its own share of controversy and discussions, Ruby breaking down itself was not a bad thing. This is what people were finally waiting for (The problems are the things surrounding it)

Episode 9 seemed to go along with this trend. In the tree, Ruby meets the Blacksmith, who explains a few things to her, but also is trying to help Ruby, help Ruby to choose who she wants to become. Many people did not wish for Ruby to become anything else, especially due to the previously mentioned suicide imagery. Neither did people want to see Ruby become perfectly okay after the experience, again, due to the suicide imagery.

But there was definitely a wish to see change. To see Ruby improved at least slightly in her condition, not healed, but at least starting on a journey of healing AND learning.

And then E10 happened....

On the road to dissapointment...

Do you know the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting things to change. There is no better quote to describe Rubys character progression from V4 onwards. Volume 9 included.

Me saying that Volume 9 is mostly filler due to Rubys story not mattering and being reset ruffled quite a few feathers in the fandom and out of all my takes that i have made in regards to Ruby, has resulted in the biggest fan backlash and harassment. Partially because of calling V9 filler, but people took a VERY large issue with me saying that Ruby has not progressed as a character.

They keep saying "This arc was about her learning that she doesnt have to be perfect or live up to her mother (who is also not perfect), its about her learning that she can make mistakes and its natural" Of course, they also keep saying that this is character progression. After all, Ruby did go down and up, right? There was a change, RIGHT?

That is not character progress. That is spinning wheels in the same place. Imagine that one of your cars wheels is stuck in a hole. Imagine constantly pressing the accelerator, getting to the edge of the hole, and then stopping, only to go back to the same position. Would you call that progress? I would doubt it.

So why are some people calling it progress when Ruby is doing the same thing?

To make it easier, i will give you two graphs.

This is how usually normal characters have development/progress. They are on some kind of baseline, then they fail, or something around them happens that forces them to change/grow up in some way, and thus their character now gains new traits, new relationships, new knowledge etc. There is Progress.

THIS is how Rubys "character progression" post V3 looks like. She starts on a baseline. Fails. Gets told that she is fine, becomes a leader again. Repeat ad nauseam. This SAME thing happens in V9. It is NOT progress. It is STAGNATION.

I can be proven wrong

I can be proven wrong of course. If Volume 10 releases and we see that Ruby still has many problems plaguing her, that she wasnt just fixed and is now fine. Then i will concede the point that Ruby in V9 did have character progression (I will complain about it not being shown in V9) but i will acknowledge that people were right in saying that V9 was NOT mostly filler and that Rubys story had a good reason to exist.

But until then, these are my views. I welcome disagreement of course, so by all means. Go for it. And keep in mind that this is all just my opinion.

#rwby #rwde #rwby volume 9 #ruby rose #suicide

20 notes · View notes

juantheashura · 1 year

Note

Hey, since in a recent ask you mentioned potentially adding a Aki x Lat x MC poly in book 2 I wanted to say firstly I wholehearted support this as choosing between them when they are both so dang wholesome is the worst and they also have a cute dynamic both with each other and the MC so I think it would totally work. But that being said I think with Aki being so inexperienced both with romantic relationships but also seemingly with just normal health social relationships you do need to go about it super carefully. In my own experience poly relationships need to be super equal and have really good communication. And I feel like if do you want to add that relationship you need to make sure to set it up early right because otherwise if we romance Aki or Lat in book one then start a poly in book two it makes the third person be a bit of a third wheel who is coming into this already established preexisting relationship and especially in the case of like romancing Lat in book 1 then starting the poly in book 2 with Aki like this would still presumably be Aki's first relationship and her first experience being joining a preestablish relationship as a third feels vaguely exploitive. Like you can mitigate that to some degree by how you write them and their interactions but even still for it to feel real or like relationship that would actually work long term I think you need to set it up in book 1 and either have a separate slower burn romance with them both wherein nothing more serious happens until the poly or I think limiting the poly to those who romanced Aki in book one would also work because she's really the part you need to be most careful with how you write given her inexperience. That isn't to say you absolutely can't have book 1 romanced Lat MC start a poly with Aki in book 2 you can but its just I do think you need to be extra careful if you want it to feel like a real healthy stable relationship that would work long term. Like I said I wholehearted do think a poly between them could work and I hope I didn't scare you off doing this I just wanted to add some thoughts based off my own experiences.

Also I've a separate question on a completely different topic, so I know you've said we for sure won't surpass BK or BQ in in the books but I am curious since some of what you have said about why we won't surpass them seems focused mostly on the seer amount of experience and time they have had to grow in strength could the MC given a decade or two eventually reach them or surpass them given even longer?

Also also sorry for any spelling or grammar errors I tried to proof read but my brain is terrible at doing that so chances are high there are more than a few I missed.

Don't worry- I feel relatively the same on the poly aspect of it. I'm very likely not adding a third route in Book 1 for romancing both, I think (at least, not anything directly), but my idea has always been that it'd be a poly dependent on romancing Aki in Book 1, that'd be the only way to be able to get Lat in a relationship as well. Aki needs a little experience with things first, before she starts considering if she wants something more.

I appreciate hearing your thoughts though! I've... definitely never been in a (well, consensually, anyway) polyamorous relationship myself, so I'd be flying relatively by the seat of my pants and what I manage to read about the dynamics. I am definitely thankful for knowing how people with more experience than me feel or think about these things.

As for your second question, it's... a bit more complicated than that, but I'll try to make it a little short:

The Broken King and the Blitz Queen both started off stronger than the MC- as in, their base powers before training were of a higher 'tier' than the MC. That already establishes a gap, but then you have the fact that the two of them had each other to train with as well, meaning that they had a direct challenger through which to better themselves, something the MC doesn't at the moment.

Then you come to the matter of experience. The Blitz Queen, compared to the (current, at least) MC lived in a more unsettled time, which I think we can all agree on. She had to fight more often, and had her powers for longer than the MC (she got them as a toddler, basically), which means she started growing stronger than the MC from earlier.

Then add to that the fact that she had 50~ years to further grow in strength.

Now, consider all that for the King as well, but add the fact he's been using his powers every single day since the Queen died.

All this combined means: Catching up within a decade or two is most likely impossible because the starting gap is oh so huge. You might become someone the Queen or King would have considered a worthwhile companion, but you're definitely more the... say, Piccolo to the King's Goku, or the Sanji to the Queen's Luffy.

#a tale of heroes #ask me anything #wip ask #ro asks #hero monarchs

12 notes · View notes

medicallymercury · 11 months

Text

Burning Bridges (1/07/23)

I just want to say that I am so jealous and amazed by people who are excited to see drama in their continuing medical drama, even when it affects their favourite characters. I am too naturally anxious for that, I just want to see my favourites sit and be happy together, watching the drama unfold while it only affects my liked but not-favourite characters…

What an episode! Part of me does feel like, a while back, that episode would’ve been spread across two episodes or at least that the explosion would have happened earlier on but they still found time for it to have a lot of impact so I’m not too bothered. I have a lot of thoughts on it all - mostly on the Max and Jodie stuff and the Sah, Paige and Teddy stuff - but I feel like I’ll be going on about it all quite a lot so it’s all below the cut.

Jodie and Max have been incredibly interesting to me and I’ve really enjoyed how this storyline has gone so far. I hoped that they would do the the reveal in association with Max getting hurt to have a bit of a twist on how Jodie always seems to be in constant life threatening danger and also for Jodie to have a chance to realise how much Max cares about her and how much she cares about him too. And Dylan being the first person other than Rida to find out was good. Actually, I just wanna appreciate Dylan and Rida in this episode! Feels like a weird pair to appreciate together but I feel like they were both really looking out for Jodie in their own ways. Also Stevie, even though she’s annoyed at Jodie, she still defends her when she finds out about her resigning. I hope that Jodie and Max can start to have a better relationship now but I’d also be surprised if Casualty allows for that level of peace.

I feel bad for Cam but also when he started yelling at Jodie for getting with Ryan my immediate response was uhhhhh maybe not the best approach there, Cam. I’m glad to see him stand up to Ryan though. Ryan is interesting because we’ll get a scene of him looking all sad and vulnerable and stuff and then immediately be reminded of how much of a prick he is able to be. In that scene where Cam tells him they’ve never been friends, I don’t have it in me to feel bad for Ryan because Cam’s right and also he shows up all oh Jodie didn’t sleep with Max as if he isn’t the person who spread those rumours in the first place. I do think that we probably won’t get Cam/Jodie any time soon considering what he said to her but who knows.

I expected that Iain would break up with Faith in this episode but the writers are somehow going to keep her and the relationship going. I will admit that I found the idea of Sah, Paige and Faith going for drinks together pretty funny - I guess I just think of Paige and Faith as being connected to Sah through Teddy and Iain so it’s just like time for unenthusiastic shots with my friends’ girlfriends.

A relatively smaller aspect of the episode but it’s my big issue of the week: I could write like a thousand words about Sah, Paige and Teddy. First of all, it felt kind of like they resolved the stuff between Sah and Paige very quickly, especially considering it’s only been a day in canon but I guess it kinda makes sense that Paige would want to apologise like the day after and Sah isn’t really the type to stretch out conflict if it can be dealt with. The kiss between them was always going to feel a little out of nowhere and I think that was probably intentional but also I feel like I expected that it would be Sah to initiate the kiss? I had initially interpreted their interest and overinvolvment in Teddy and Paige’s relationship (we’ve almost definitely got more scenes of them asking Teddy about the relationship than the relationship actually being a relationship) through my Sah/Teddy Shipper lens but after the spoilers for yesterday’s episode came out I kind of reinterpreted it as Sah sort of vicariously living out a romance storyline through Teddy and then it was Paige that went for the first kiss instead. I don’t know, I’m just struggling to think of anything Paige has done before this point that like, is explained if Paige has some kind of feelings for Sah but maybe I’m forgetting stuff. I mean, seems like Paige has got a thing for paramedics - what she was saying before kissing them was essentially just woah you’re a paramedic, you do this all the time, now let’s kiss.

I feel so bad for Teddy! All the characters seemed worried about the explosion but he really seemed worried, like my heart was broken for him when he showed up crying and that way he hugs the both of them while they’re looking at each other realising what they’ve done to this person who cares about them both so much. I mean, people have certainly done worse things with their friends’ partners in this show but it just feels like such a specific kind of betrayal between Sah and Teddy. I have my personal, ridiculous dream resolution to this storyline but that seems unlikely. I see a lot of people suggesting polyamory and I’m starting to back that too, I’m not big into Paige like I am with Sah and Teddy (which is like a high bar to meet anyway) - but if she makes them happy then I’ll support them all together. I also have some potential terrible outcomes that I hope we don’t see but that also feel very Casualty-esque. For the next few episodes, I’ve seen a lot of people say that they think Sah will want to tell Teddy and that Paige will try to ignore that it happened and I do think that makes sense considering the circumstances and what I think of Sah’s characterisation. I also hope that’s how it goes, I just don’t want to see them hiding it from him because then it’ll be even worse when he finds out.

NO CASUALTY NEXT WEEK!! Tragic, sobbing, screaming. I can’t even do a spoilers review because there’s no spoilers, I don’t know what to do with myself :(

#cas ep: burning bridges #bbc casualty #casualty #shoelace fandom #jodie whyte #max cristie #cam mickelthwaite #ryan firth #faith cadogan #iain dean #sah brockner #paige allcott #teddy gowan #the polyfailure <\3

4 notes · View notes

rookie-critic · 1 year

Text

City of Angels (1998, dir. Brad Silberling) - review by Rookie-Critic

The third stop on my Nicolas Cage weekly movie nights was an odd choice. After two absolutely unhinged films like Con Air and Face/Off, why would my friends' next choice be a rom-com between Cage and Meg Ryan that happens to be a remake of a beloved 80s film by auteur Wim Wenders? The answer was simple: The song "Iris" by The Goo Goo Dolls was written for this movie, and that was intriguing enough to give it a slot, and honestly I'm the kind of person who wants to devour an actor's entire filmography, especially for an actor like Nicolas Cage, so I didn't mind at all. I didn't have super high expectations going into this one, I'd never even heard of it before and, looking at the reviews, they didn't seem too favorable. However, I was pleasantly surprised by how well written, well acted, and just generally well made this was.

Cage and Ryan both give absolutely stellar performances, with Cage actually managing to draw a tear out of me with a line delivered towards the end of the film. Special shout out should also go to Dennis Franz, who is unforgettable as Nathaniel Messinger in the film. While the story may seem a tad ridiculous on the surface; an angel wants to become mortal after falling in love with a human woman, the film does a very good job of bringing that frankly wacky premise down to Earth and making it believable within the rules the movie sets up for itself. I know I've already mentioned that Cage gives a stellar performance in this, but I don't think I've really sold it enough, so I'm going to keep talking about it. This isn't Cage unhinged, this is Cage subdued. It's such a straight-laced, non-bombastic performance that I'm not sure I've ever seen out of him before. Even taking Pig into account, which by all metrics is a more subdued performance from his average outing, still has aspects to it that are wacky, and only one scene in this entire film sees Cage approaching his normal levels of insanity, but even then it fits within the confines of the character. I know that a lot of the charm surrounding Nicolas Cage is his crazed, frantic acting, but when I see him in films like this, like Pig, it makes me a little sad, because I know that he's more than capable of giving a truly incredible performance. One that's memorable for how good his acting is as opposed to how bizarre and bonkers it is, which, again, has its own charm and appeal. I don't necessarily want Cage's reputation as a wildman actor to go away, I don't want his legacy to consider how genuinely talented he is, as well.

While I don't understand the Tomatometer's 57% for this film (inversely to how I don't quite understand Face/Off's 92%), there are aspects of it that don't work for me. For one, while the dialogue is amazing, Ryan and Cage have absolutely no chemistry. Cage is definitely not the rom-com scene partner that Tom Hanks is to Ryan, and it shows. It really is their chemistry because, as I stated earlier, their performances are both stellar, but I just got nothing in the romance department out of them. Another lackluster piece of this puzzle is that it does lean over into overly sappy territory more than once, for sure. A lot of the music cues, while the songs themselves are good, were almost too much. One in particular, when Sarah McLachlan's "Angel" plays during a pivotal romance scene, was actually too much. This very possibly could be because of that song's connection to the ASPCA commercials from the mid-2000s, and if that is that case I can't really hold that against the film, but the on-the-nose nature of the song's titular line and the style of music it is was more of a hindrance than a help, as was the case for the scene where "Iris" plays.

One last thing I'll say in the con category is with a specific scene in the film in which we are shown flashes of black-and-white clips that don't really seem pertinent as well as black-and-white versions of things that had happened earlier in the movie. From what I understand, the black-and-white aspect of this is in reference to original Wim Wenders film, Wings of Desire, in which it is a major plot point that angels can't see color, which is all well and good except for the fact that this had never been established in City of Angels up to that point, which makes it very jarring and confusing as to why that was been presented that way. It also still doesn't answer what those other, unrelated clips were. The closest thing I think for them to be are shots from Wings of Desire that were placed there as a way to homage the original film, but I have no idea if that's true or not, and it still wouldn't make sense as to how they relate to Seth in this film. Regardless, City of Angels was great. It's one of the better genuinely fantastic performances I've seen out of Cage, the writing was awesome despite its leads' lack of chemistry, and most importantly, I had a fun time watching this with friends. What more can you ask for?

Score: 8/10

Currently available for rent/purchase on digital (iTunes, Amazon, Vudu, etc.) and on DVD & Blu-ray through Warner Bros./Regency.

#City of Angels #Brad Silberling #Nicolas Cage #Meg Ryan #Andre Braugher #Dennis Franz #Colm Feore #Robin Bartlett #Joanna Merlin #Sarah Dampf #film review #movie review #1998 films

4 notes · View notes