The cast of Sam Raimi's underrated western The Quick and the Dead : Leonardo DiCaprio (before Titanic), Gene Hackman (soon after Unforgiven), Sharon Stone (after Basic Instinct) and Russell Crowe (some years before Gladiator).
238 notes
·
View notes
March 8, 2024
↳ FC BARCELONA vs MALLORCA
146 notes
·
View notes
My hot take is that it should have been Rebecca, not Ted, who talked to Jamie about his father in 3x11. Here are my reasons:
1. So much of Rebecca's arc is about recovering from an abusive relationship while her abuser is still, somewhat unavoidably, part of her life. Her experience with Rupert and Jamie's experience with his father aren't identical, but she knows better than anyone else at Richmond how it feels to have someone like that turn up at her place of work, and how stressful their planned encounters are, even when they're just in the same large stadium and don't need to directly interact.
2. As the owner of the club, Rebecca almost certainly knows what happened at Wembley, and she's not only well-placed to make practical arrangements like getting James banned from the match (since none of them knew he wouldn't be there) but also, as of 3x10, has come to terms with with her relationship with Rupert — both the good parts and the many, many bad parts — in a way that enables her to interact with him when necessary without massive emotional distress, while also keeping very firm boundaries in place. Basically, she, unlike Ted, could offer advice based on relevant personal experience.
3. Jamie could finally find out that Ted didn't have him sent back to Man City — while it would be nice for Ted to say it, Rebecca is better placed to give the full story, and she and Jamie have a lot in common when it comes to expressing their hurt in a way that leaves a lot of collateral damage.
4. Explains why they're hugging in the finale.
235 notes
·
View notes
i should make this into a proper meta someday but i'm writing it down so I won't forget...
as much as the Mortis story may seem weirdly out of place with the rest of the Force lore, it can work as an illustration. sure, in the movies "balance" means "no more Sith" and the less dark side around, the better (balance in the movies is absolutely NOT 50% light, 50% darkness like it seems to be on Mortis) but hear me out. on Mortis, the Father (balance) says he has to keep his children from tearing each other - and the fabric of the universe - apart, but....... that's not what's actually happening.
The Son (the Dark Side) wants to kill Balance. The Son does actually kill the Daughter, aka the Light. The Dark Side is always, always the aggressor, and the Light only ever defends herself, defends the innocent bystanders, and defends Balance.
The Light protects Balance against the Dark's attacks on both Balance and Light. That's the conflict here, it's not that both Light and Darkness need to be kept in check. The Father never has to worry about the Daughter's actions.
And you know what else? The Father - the one in the middle, the representation of balance - makes a ton of mistakes and fuels the problem by bringing Anakin to the planet (since the Mortis Gods are heavily influenced by the presence of anyone around them, and the Son very clearly begins to mirror and embody some of Anakin's darker parts). Balance is only restored when the Father follows the Daughter's example of self-sacrifice and, very importantly, allows the Son to be killed.
If the Son had been killed first and not the Daughter, do you think the planet would have gone haywire? There's no real evidence of this.
Anyway, all of this to say, the Light is not and has never been the problem, the Light actively defends Balance even to the cost of itself, and the Dark is a poisonous destructive Force that threatens everything and even goes against its own interests and Mortis doesn't contradict that.
The Jedi - and other 'light' Force users - weren't "dogmatic" or "going against balance" for completely rejecting the Dark. They were defending balance and rightly siding with good.
230 notes
·
View notes