#expecting something

[mylucayathoughts]

I've been seeing a lot of people post this statement from Nick's article about feeling guilty taking gay roles but to be honest I don't get that statement. Why would you feel guilty? You got a job because you had the skills and talents , just like any other job. No one apologizes for getting a job! I got my job because of my hard work and skills, I'm not gonna apologize for taking it from someone else. Should queer actors apologize for taking straight roles? Should Jonathan Bailey or Matt Bommer apologize for playing Anthony Bridgerton or Neil Caffrey. I would hope not! They're brilliant in those roles.Should we recruit psychopaths or criminals to play those roles convincingly? So why here? Why shoehorn queer actors by saying they could have had the queer role instead. This is going against the essence of an actor whose job it is to portray someone else convincingly..and Nick is not the first actor who said this. I've rolled my eyes before, I'll roll my eyes unfortunately now again. I just wish I hadn't it from someone I admire ( I still do and think he's immensely talented but statements like this make me sad)

Dear nonny,

If you are here to really know my opinion on this, as to why he said he felt guilt, welcome 🙏 I appreciate this! If you are here expecting me to just agree though, I unfortunately can't. So read if you are okay with a different pov.

Also, if you have read the one sentence that says he felt guilt and you did not read the interview then I would encourage you to read it. Or at least read the interview question and Nicks full answer to the question.

From your ask, it seems that you agree queer actors should be able to take up straight roles and straight actors should be able to take up queer roles, without judgment, without reservation. They should get these roles simply because they are good for those particular roles, because they can properly portray them.

I agree with that part. But I'm sure you have seen (or you haven't which is fine) that not everyone agrees with that idea. Some actors have been criticized for taking queer roles when they identify as straight. Darren Criss publicly announced how he won't be taking up queer roles anymore, and he explained why here. I understood it as that he wanted more queer representation in Hollywood and that he thought when queer people play queer roles they can use real life experiences to embody them. Here is an article where renowned actors, media personalities and human rights spokesperson talk about the importance of queer people taking up queer roles in Hollywood. There is a real discussion about these things, from experts across Hollywood and media. So this is completely normal, for an actor who identifies as straight to feel some sort of guilt taking up queer roles.

I am posting a screenshot of the part from Nicks GQ interview you are referring to.

Nick even mentions that it's not all guilt, it's like a sense of uncertainty because of the discussion that exists and his own belief system which he explains as "queer characters aren't solely their sexuality" which I absolutely love.

To me, this is Nicholas simply being aware of what is happening in the industry, what discussions are being had, what kind of work his fellow queer actors are getting, what audiences sometimes expect. This is Nick understanding and acknowledging his privilege as a straight white man. This is Nick being sensible about the topic in question.

I'm aware that these things can be very subjective and please know that however you might feel about it currently, they are not wrong or terrible or absolutely correct. But It is always rewarding, if you dig a little deeper about a topic or a comment that bothers you. And you will possibly find information that may change the way you feel. I really do hope you feel better 🙏

[kalahs-beautiful-realm]

[jotasuis]

How I found out about trump getting shot

[beebfreeb]

[quibbs]

just had SO much fun with the fallout tv show... i love you missus okey dokey

[drulalovescas]

We've come a long LONG way

And so did Jensen to be honest

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

The squad of all time has arrived on scene.

[elodieunderglass]

changes and trends in horror-genre films are linked to the anxieties of the culture in its time and place. Vampires are the manifestation of grappling with sexuality; aliens, of foreign influence. Horror from the Cold War is about apathy and annihilation; classic Japanese horror is characterised by “nature’s revenge”; psychological horror plays with anxieties that absorbed its audience, like pregnancy/abortion, mental illness, femininity. Some horror presses on the bruise of being trapped in a situation with upsetting tasks to complete, especially ones that compromise you as a person - reflecting the horrors and anxieties of capitalism etc etc etc. Cosmic horror is slightly out of fashion because our culture is more comfortable with, even wistful for, “the unknown.” Monster horror now has to be aware of itself, as a contingent of people now live in the freedom and comfort of saying “I would willingly, gladly, even preferentially fuck that monster.” But I don’t know much about films or genres: that ground has been covered by cleverer people.

I don’t actually like horror or movies. What interests me at the moment is how horror of the 2020s has an element of perception and paying attention.

Multiple movies in one year discussed monsters that killed you if you perceived them. There are monsters you can’t look at; monsters that kill you instantly if you get their attention. Monsters where you have to be silent, look down, hold still: pray that they pass over you. M Zombies have changed from a hand-waved virus that covers extras in splashy gore, to insidious spores. A disaster film is called Don’t Look Up, a horror film is called Nope. Even trashy nun horror sets up strange premises of keeping your eyes fixed on something as the devil GETS you.

No idea if this is anything. (I haven’t seen any of these things because, unfortunately, I hate them.) Someone who understands better than me could say something clever here, and I hope they do.

But the thing I’m thinking about is what this will look like to the future, as the Victorian sex vampires and Cold War anxieties look to us. I think they’ll have a little sympathy, but they probably won’t. You poor little prey animals, the kids will say, you were awfully afraid of facing up to things, weren’t you?

[mirrorhouse]

I've been a third all my life. Not saying that to fight, just saying that it's true. I feel like I get to pick one thing for myself, and it's her.

INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE | 2.06 + 2.07

[no-face-no-shame]

Locking in seconds before doing the most insane thing possible

[chloesimaginationthings]

Shout out to FNAF phone guy finally getting a name!

[magnusbae]

To illustrate this post by @mayahawkse I would like to visualize to you the difference:

A post in 2023:

A post in 2014:

A zoom out of the same post:

This is what a community looks like.

See how in 2023 almost all of the reblogs come from the OP, from their few hours/days in the tag search. Meanwhile in 2014 the % of reblogs from OP is insignificant, because most of the reblogs come from the reblogs within the fandom, within the micro-communities formed there. You didn't need to rely on tags, or search, or being featured. Because the community took care of you, made sure to pass the work between themselves and onto their blog and exposed their followers to it. It kept works alive for years.

It's not JUST the reblog/like ratio that causing this issue, it's the type of interaction people have. They're content with scrolling and liking the search engine, instead of actually having a reblogging relationship with other blogs in their community.

Anyways, if you want to see more content you like, the only true way to make it happen is to reblog it. Likes do not forward content in no way but making OP feel nice. Reblogs on the other hand make content eternal. They make it relevant, they make it exist outside of a fickle tumblr search that hardly works on the best of days.

If you want more of something, reblog it.

[jakeperalta]

letting celebrities think they can and should "use their platform" to speak on all current events and political issues regardless of how educated they are on them was a grave mistake

[silver-the-rat-royalty]

In Arkham they don't allow outside media in fear of the rouges getting any ideas. This leads to them treating the staff like their own personal TV show, this leads to a level of parasocial obsession that can often be detrimental (See Harley Quinn as a notable example). So when DR. Jazz Fenton comes in with subtle hinting of government conspiracies and a 'i've seen worse' attitude they are INVESTED. Meany of them are staying just for the show, their plans can wait they NEED to know this woman's backstory.

"hey it's been awfully quiet"

"Yeah, new hire at Arkham, it happens sometimes"

*3 months later*

"sooo"

"yeah something's definitely up"

[arealtrashact]

Newest additions to the pack

[aziraphalesbowtie]

no one’s doing it like 12 in the husbands of river song. the absolute SERVE when he revealed who he was to her. PEAK ROMANTIC IRONY.