#is all on mainstream streaming services so it's not there

[andy-clutterbuck]

I’m sorry if I actually misremember and it wasn’t you or if the link is easily accessible and I somehow still missed it… didn’t you use to have a masterpost with links to a bunch of andy’s projects??? If you do/did and wouldn’t mind reposting it, I wouldn’t say no 😅 Either way, thank you 🤗

Hi ya! That was me, indeed 💜 If anything doesn't work or you have any questions feel free to ask. Here's the masterpost:

[no-brand-gays]

checked my computer storage today and it said i had 17 gigs of files in the apple TV app and i was like wtf when have i ever used apple tv. so i open the app. it's just the 5-hour-long satrips of both day 1 and 2 of µ's final love live

[livvyofthelake]

we need to get colin morgan and bradley james back on the television in a big way. no pair of actors have served odd couple realness on such a scale since them we need it back the world is so bleak!!

[sirfrogsworth]

I'm not upset that blu-rays are being phased out. Formats all become obsolete and then die out.

My worry is there is not an adequate replacement for physical media. If you stream a 4K movie, it is usually over compressed and has a lossy audio track. Usually the quality *improves* when you move on to the next thing. But in this case, only the convenience is improved.

And there is no way to truly own the media you buy online. Even on Amazon when you "buy" something, that just means you have indefinite access to the file on their server. But if they lose the rights to that content or decide to delete it for tax purposes, you lose it too.

There is a service called Kaleidescape. It allows you to download blu-ray quality movie files onto local storage. Unfortunately the service has way too many caveats. You can only play the movies on their proprietary equipment. If they go out of business you will lose all of your movie purchases. And while they have a lot of mainstream, big budget movies, their selection is far from vast.

Oh, and their hardware starts at $8,000 and each movie is between $10 and $30 to purchase. And if you want to save more than 125 movies, the cost balloons to nearly $20K for the hardware.

The quality issue will eventually solve itself. New codecs like AV1 and H.266 will allow files to be compressed without losing any quality.

But I have no idea what to do about being unable to truly own your media. No studio will agree to DRM-free downloads that you can store anywhere and play with any device.

Maybe they can create a system where you can register any device you own and be allowed to play the file on those registered devices. So you get a file you can download, but the DRM requires verification you own the device it is being played on.

Perhaps they could designate a few cloud storage services as approved download platforms. You are free to shift your media from cloud to cloud, but it must always stay on the cloud and be registered to you. That way if a cloud storage company bites the dust, you still have the option to move your media to another place.

It's not as good as DRM-free local storage, but I don't see studios agreeing to anything else.

In truth, people are probably never going to buy movies in the future. If you have the option to rent for $3 or buy for $20, people probably aren't going to see the value in spending that much to own a movie.

Maybe the solution lies in some kind of law. If a platform no longer wishes to host a show or movie and they can't sell it to another streaming service, then they must give up the rights and allow the Library of Congress to save and distribute it.

[bowtiepastabitch]

Here's the deal on the Good Omens limbo situation. My optimistic and analytic two cents, if you will.

If we look at this through a capitalistic lens, the chances of the show being cancelled are pretty slim at the moment. Think for a moment about the top three amazon prime originals that you pay/keep the platform for. Can you think of three? I honestly can't, not off the top of my head. I know I'm not really the target audience for streaming services, since I don't watch a lot of new shows, but still. I can name plenty of netflix shows I like/might watch. That's why Netflix can cancel anything and everything so easy. They don't have just one or two fandom cash cows.

Amazon, though, doesn't have a lot. Here's a list of all their original shows. I only even recognize 8 titles. I've only actually watched 2. Plus, Good Omens is currently one of the biggest fandoms in fandom right now, with Aziracrow being the top ship on ao3 for the Jan-Dec 2023 wrap up and again on the Summer 2024 leaderboard, as well as the top ship on tumblr and Good Omens as the top tv show (plus second overall after Artists on Tumblr) for 2023. We're a big deal, and I'd bet money that they're betting money on us. I also lowkey think we're the reason Amazon is spending money on a british miniseries starring Michael Sheen tbh but that's just speculation. The show has also won a slew of awards, the same of which cannot, to my knowledge, be said of many of their other properties.

So let's talk production changes; I think there's a good chance they're doing this for the same reason. Our fandom had unique access to the creator via tumblr, and a majority of the conversation around the allegations of SA against Gaiman were and are taking place in fandom spaces. There have been petitions to fire him from the show and conversations (both productive and otherwise) about the duties of fandom when engaging with content connected to problematic individuals. Meanwhile, Gaiman has effectively dissappeared from the internet. Additionally, the video and threads sharing that Terry Pratchett wrote most of the original book have been making the rounds here and I think on the bird app(?). All that to say, if they're betting on us they want to make us happy and keep their good PR. I don't ever expect a major corporation to make a "good" decision, but they will always make the profitable one.

There is, of course, also the matter of the Pratchett estate and the other major players in the matter: the actors, directors, and creative team. These are forces at play with the power to block or stall productivity and profit for Amazon through copyright and labor power. I can imagine there's conversations happening backstage that we don't know about as well as what we see in headlines.

Ultimately, I think the biggest risk to season 3 is unfortunately going to be Neil Gaiman himself and how he responds to the situation at hand. If he steps back quietly, we're living in our best case scenario and everything moves forward as much according to plan as can be expected with at least this small justice being served. I see a hissy fit on his end as the greatest potential wrench in proceedings, but that would exacerbate the (currently quiet in the mainstream) bad PR for him so I give it low odds.

All that to say. From a pragmatic viewpoint, Amazon's best interest seems to be entirely tied to ours as a fandom, and I anticipate Season 3 being made and most likely being only minorly delayed. Either way. What happens behind the scenes in corporate office buildings between rich white men is entirely out of my and your control. I know how huge anxiety can get when it relates to a special interest or a community that has a huge role in your life, and whatever happens we're in this together as a fandom. It's going to be alright. Take a deep breath and maybe get some water. Whatever happens, we're in this together as a fandom, and at least it won't be the end of the world;)

[elliesgaymachete]

I think Game of Thrones damaged collective expectations for television media and is the reason for the decline of full length low budget seasons.

We all know HBO is high budget cable even before, but Game of Thrones was arguably the first time one of their shows became so massively, globally successful. People who had never consumed fantasy media in their lives were watching Game of Thrones. It became mainstream culture rather than nerd culture so your coworkers weren’t going to make fun of you for liking it. In fact, your coworkers probably watched it too.

Before this the only TV shows that achieved anywhere close to this level of popularity (and even then were not nearly as popular as Game of Thrones) were network shows, usually TV comedies. These were low budget and had full seasons! Things like HIMYM, Big Bang Theory, The Office. You either watched them or knew multiple people who watched them. Sometimes TV dramas also reached this level of popularity—Shondaland shows to name a few. Grey’s Anatomy, Scandal, How to Get Away with Murder. Even if you didn’t watch them, you had heard of them. These were also network shows. Low budgets, 22 episodes. Not to mention network television is FREE so it has the potential to reach a much wider audience than cable.

But Game of Thrones exploded into common popularity. Even people who didn’t watch much television watched Game of Thrones. And you know what they had because it’s an HBO show? Insanely high budgets and 10 episode seasons. They were basically making ten short movies released as TV seasons. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that itself, it worked well for Game of Thrones. The problem is how its affected television production since then. Sure shorter seasons and miniseries have existed before, but it feels like they’ve been in an upward trend ever since Game of Thrones

Every studio with a streaming service wants to create the next mega popular phenomenon like Game of Thrones so they copy the formula. Big budget, shorter seasons. Quality over quantity. But in doing so they neglected the main format television has used for quite a while. Network seasons are fewer and far between with smaller budgets and shorter seasons so they can invest more in the high budget shows. And a few of them were good, but somewhere along the way, they lost sight of the quality part and throw microbudgets at shows for six episode runs and are surprised when no one gets invested after only six episodes when we used to get 22 episodes and since no one’s watching anyway they just cancel it without giving the show a chance to find its legs. If it happens to get a lucky with a second season but there’s not EXPONENTIAL growth in viewership? Cancelled. Why is no one watching tv anymore? Why does no one want to pay for our streaming service that releases maybe one show you like every other year? Why why why they ask when they ruined a perfectly good formula and make things less and less accessible

[fablepaint]

I’ve been following lackadaisy for so long it feels like an actual dream to see it out and animated… I was wondering 1. How long have you been animating and 2. Have you ever worked with any other indie animators? Or maybe in a more mainstream studio if not that?

Long enough that my first cartoons were toys and clay figures recorded on VHS tapes. Long enough that Maya had no edge loop tool. Long enough that I remember when Adobe Animate was Macromedia Flash and actually functioned and didn't crash.

I've done industry work, I've done indie work. Pretty much any commission I did for folks qualifies as "indie". And I've worked on indie group projects. A few MAPS/Reanimates. I hosted the All Dogs Reanimate. I contributed to the Hazbin Hotel pilot and Farfetched. I've done multiple Game Grumps animateds. I've done animations for Lindsay Ellis and Extra Credits and more. That was all inbetween studio jobs on various shows on TV and streaming services. I've juggled a lot. Some stuff you've seen, some is so obscure and bad I'm glad nobody remembers it. It's all been a lot of experiences that inform my approach in Lackadaisy's production.

[renthony]

Lost in the Remaster: Star Trek, Vintage Special Effects, and the Charm of Old Media

by Ren Basel renbasel.com

Originally created by Gene Roddenberry, Star Trek is a franchise that spans decades. From the original series of 1966 to current shows such as Lower Decks, it stands as a titan of television and pop culture. The real world has undergone incredible change since Star Trek’s first appearance, yet nerds everywhere still find entertainment, inspiration, and hope in its classic episodes. Recently, along with my husband and best friend, I decided I wanted to attempt the gauntlet of watching the entire franchise from beginning to end, revisiting favorites and finally checking out the ones I missed. Media and fandom studies are my passion, after all, and Star Trek is a foundational part of modern American nerd culture.

Starting with the original series proved more difficult than expected. Living in a tiny apartment, we don’t have much space for DVDs, so Star Trek wasn’t in our existing collection. The local public library didn’t have copies, either, and putting in a purchase request doesn’t guarantee it will be made available. My family doesn’t have the funds to pay for every single streaming service on the market, and Star Trek isn’t available on any we do have access to. Piracy was starting to look like the only option, but even that fell flat when we couldn’t find a version with subtitles. Finally we dug it up officially and with subtitles, for free via PlutoTV, but there were still limitations: PlutoTV only streams season one, and season one is only available in the remastered edition that replaced the original special effects with new visuals.

It wasn’t ideal, but, hey, it was Star Trek.

Watching just one episode a week gave us enough time to scrape together savings to get what we really wanted for seasons two and three: the official BluRay release, which includes both remastered and original-release versions of each episode. The remasters are fine, but as a lover of media history and practical effects, I’m always disappointed to lose a chance to appreciate the originals. It doesn’t matter how good it might look, remasters are never as much fun to me as matte paintings, camera tricks, and whatever the prop department could pull off with ten dollars and some glue.

Finally having the BluRays in hand for season two only affirmed my love of vintage practical effects. Seeing the Enterprise in her original glory, before she was ever rendered in digital form, felt like opening a time capsule. I love time capsules. My favorite pieces of media are always those which capture a moment in time, showcasing the aesthetics, concerns, and culture of the time and place they were created. Star Trek: the Original Series is rooted in the late sixties, when mainstream culture in the United States was experiencing immense upheaval and social change. That context is written all over the show. The vintage effects add to it, grounding it in a very specific time and place. Updating the show’s effects takes away some of that 60s aesthetic, and while some may see it as making the show more timeless, I don’t care for it. To me, seeing what they could pull off before modern technology is half the fun of watching old shows. The ingenuity and creativity of propmakers, makeup artists, and set designers working on shoestring budgets is unparalleled.

To be clear, digital effects are also done by skilled professionals who deserve much more respect and many more labor protections. There are some truly stunning works created with digital tools. That said, I hate when digital effects are used to cover up the practical effects that came before. It feels disrespectful to the original artists, as if telling them their work wasn’t good enough; as if their work was just a placeholder until something better could come along and fix it. Practical effects aren’t a placeholder, they’re an art form in their own right, and that art form is one for which I have deep appreciation.

It frustrates me that the original, non-remastered episodes were such a pain for us to access, but I’m very glad to have added them to my personal media collection. No matter what future tweaks Star Trek’s rights holders might make, I can always pop in our personal copies to enjoy the Enterprise and her crew in all their vintage, “outdated” glory. If you’re also too young to remember the show’s original airing, and you have the opportunity to watch the unedited version, I highly suggest you do. Watching the version that aired in 1966 gives the show a charm that no amount of remastering can ever match.

_

Like this essay? Tip me on Ko-Fi, pledge to my Patreon, or commission an essay on the topic of your choice!

[queerly-autistic]

I've seen some concern about the fact that the BBC has double-billed the last four episodes of Our Flag Means Death and bumped it up later in the schedule - concerns that this means it's not doing well for the BBC - and so I'd just like to allay some of those fears, if possible? To start with, it's important to recognise that the BBC does this all the time. I was in EastEnders fandom for many years, and nonsense schedule changes were a regular annoyance. When I shared OFMD's schedule change with my little group of friends from that fandom, everyone rolled their eyes and went 'oh yeah, typical BBC shenanigans'. As an example: the BBC was really pushing EastEnders last year, they'd been hard-marketing towards the big iconic Christmas episode since February, and then, around comes Christmas, and the BBC inexplicably sticks it on at 10pm (when it's usually broadcast at 7.30pm).

So this isn't unusual. This is extremely common. There's often very little rhyme or reason to the BBC live broadcast scheduling. To try and accurately read between the lines of this is like trying to analyse the written output of a cat walking across a keyboard.

But another big thing to remember is that Our Flag Means Death is a streaming show. The BBC dropped all of the episodes in one go because they know that it's the streaming audience where the show is successful. It's the same with What We Do In The Shadows - we know that the show does well for them, because they keep renewing their contract to show it, but because it does well specifically with a streaming audience the live episode broadcasts are perpetually bumped to a weird time (sometimes one in the morning!!).

The BBC is under contract to do a live broadcast of these shows, but that's not where the audience is. And that's why the episodes get shuffled around or bumped to a late timeslot or double-billed together. Them not necessarily getting spectacular overnight live broadcast ratings is not a big barrier to potential pick-up - streaming numbers is the important metric. And, just yesterday, the BBC dropped a card for the show over the credits of House of Games, a very popular (and mainstream!) afternoon gameshow, asking people to go stream it on iPlayer. if you haven't seen it, I managed to screen-record and post it on Twitter here (subtitles included): https://x.com/QueerlyAutistic/status/1762913455051325888?s=20. This is a really, really good ad to get - a very mainstream slot that potentially brings attention to the show from new audience demographics. The fact that they put an ad-read for the show in this particular slot is more indicative to me of the fact that the show is doing well for the BBC than any predictable shenanigans around live broadcast times. They advertised the 'niche' queer pirate comedy to a very mainstream middle-of-the-day audience! That's not nothing! And the fact that they were specifically advertising it as being on iPlayer - not the live broadcast - indicates to me that that's where it's doing well: that's where they know their audience is, and they don't care about the live broadcast, because the streams are where it's at. The live broadcast is probably just a contractual obligation at this point.

Our Flag Means Death is still regularly listed under 'trending' on the iPlayer website, and the Parrot Analytics for the show in the UK are excellent. And that's what we want. That's what we need to convince streamers. Remember: the YouGov survey about the show specifically asked questions about it in the context of streaming services. Overnight figures are lovely to have, too (so keep tuning in!) but this is a show made to stream. It was all dropped on iPlayer first for a reason; they're specifically pushing it on iPlayer for a reason. And, at the end of the day, it's streamers we're currently trying to convince to pick up the show, not broadcast television networks.

So, don't read too much into it. We're still doing good, UK crew!

[theconstitutionisgayculture]

Man, I like Daily Wire in concept but Matt Walsh needs to shut the fuck up about video games. The same guy who tried to resurrect the tired old "violent video games are harmful!" crap is now acting like he's the first person to notice that video games are pushing woke nonsense (even though there are about a hundred channels and outlets that have been talking about this for years) but his solution is to, of course, for the right to stop playing video games.

No. Just, no.

This is the same "bury our head in the sand and pretend pop culture doesn't exist" mindset that got us into this situation in the first place. You can't win a war (and there is a culture war going on, no matter how many people on both sides want to pretend otherwise) by retreating from every battlefield. You win by raising awareness of a problem and then offering a real solution.

And it's especially stupid seeing this cultural retreat mindset from someone working for DW because DW actually knows exactly how to fight this battle. They created their own media company to fight against woke Hollywood. Are all their movies and shows good? No, not at all. But they still did the right thing. They put their money where their mouth is, and created an alternative.

A much better example is Angel Studios, which is probably the only Christian movie studio I've ever seen that puts out top quality content with great acting, writing, and production values. They're raking in money and getting their content onto mainstream streaming services as well as theaters. In other words, they're taking their message to the people who need it the most. The ones who aren't already in the echo chamber. Unlike Daily Wire, which only offers its content on its own website through a subscription service to its own audience, and never advertises anywhere.

Another successful example outside of movies is Eric July's Rippaverse. He's been killing it with his comics, with every single one of his campaigns raking in over a million dollars, every cent of which is reinvested back into his business, helping it grow, creating more content, and expanding his already impressive roster of writers and artists. Mainstream writers and artists, by the way. Like Chuck Dixon, the guy who co-created Bane and wrote the seminal Tim Drake Robin comics, among many other credits, and Mike Baron, who wrote some of the best early Punisher comics. Eric had a following before he started the Rippaverse. He runs a successful YouTube channel and he's a regular contributor to The Blaze. He could have walled himself off with his fanbase, wrote comics about ancaps saving the world from the evils of government, and made some money while pandering to the people who already agreed with him. Instead, he went big. He invested his own money, runs his own distribution center, owns his own business with zero outside investors, hires the best talent he can, and offers a product that focuses on story and characters over messaging. His work isn't even "anti-woke". It's just not woke.

And that's what we need in video games. We need alternatives. We need to roll up our sleeves and wade into the deep waters and actually contribute our ideas and our talents. Offer an alternative. Hire people who know what they're doing, who care about quality content first and social engineering never. There is a huge untapped audience who would pay hand over fist for good video games free from microtransactions and woke nonsense.

But retreating is not an option. It's not brave or moral to hide in our echo chambers and scoff at anything fun. Entertainment is necessary. And maybe more importantly, it's not going anywhere. We will never live in a world where people go to work and spend time with their families at home and do nothing else. We need to engage with the world as it is. Not wait around for whatever our idea of a perfect world is to magically form so we can finally interact with it. You can't change society if you keep pretending large swaths of it don't exist.

[the-breath-in-air]

9 Queer Movies from the 1990s You May Not Have Heard Of

It's New Years, which means it's time for lists. And while everyone else is doing 'top X of 2023,' I've decided to list 9 queer movies from the 1990s. Why? Because I wanna. Plus, in discussions of representation, I often see folks talk about it with a heavy focus on mainstream 'Hollywood' produced movies, which leads folks to talk as though progress has been linear. As if, in the past there was no/'bad' queer representation and now there is 'good' representation. But of course it's not that simple. Plenty of amazing queer movies were produced in the past decades...they were just indie movies and thus difficult to find in a world prior to Netflix and Mubi and whatnot. But now we have streaming services, so allow me to share some of my favorites from the before times (specifically the 1990s).

Without further ado....here is an alphabetical list of queer movies from the 90s you may not have heard of (especially if you're under 30).

--

Beautiful Thing (1996) (dir. Hettie Macdonald)

Before there was Heartstopper, there was Beautiful Thing. It's a story about two gay teens, one sporty and one very much not sporty...and about how they deal with pressure to come out and pressure to hide who they are. It's a very sweet coming of age story, really. However, unlike Heartstopper, in Beautiful Thing the economic class of the protagonists plays an important role in the story (the characters all live on a counsel estate in London). The characters stories are nearly as much about them being working class as it is about the two main character being gay. It's one of the first movies I ever saw about gay teens, and I loved it. I still get a wistful smile every time I hear Mama Cass Elliot's "Make Your Own Kind of Music." (cw for parental abuse)

--

Edward II (1991) (dir. Derek Jarman)

The real Edward II was King of England for 20 years in the 14th century. At the end of the 16th century, Christopher Marlowe wrote a play about Edward's reign and eventual downfall. In 1991, Derek Jarman streamlined Marlowe's play and brought all the homosexual subtext between Edward and Gaveston way out front. In the film, Edward II is in prison and reflects on the events which have led him to that point. The trouble begins when Edward takes the throne and brings his exiled lover, Gaveston, back to England. All around them the rest of the aristocracy (including Edward's wife) conspire to bring Gaveston down. The movie itself is anachronistic (set in 1991), with minimal sets and costume, and staged a lot like a play. A lot of the dialogue is right out of Marlowe's play, though there are some changes to the story (notably at the end). It's honestly my favorite Derek Jarman movie, and frankly one of my favorite movies, full stop. (cw for blood, animal corpses, violent death)

--

Fire (1996) (dir. Deepa Mehta)

Fire is the first film in the Elements Trilogy written and directed by Deepa Mehta. Each film in the trilogy is about different characters in India, with the connection between the three being thematic rather than plot or character. Fire is about two Indian women, Radha and Sita, who form a bond through their struggles living within a traditional "joint-family" (i.e. a family where all extended family live together and all money and resources are shared). The women in this family have very little agency and this film explores how the two main characters navigate through it. The men in this film are also repressed by the social structure in which they live, and this film spends some time looking at that as well. It's a film about queer desire between women living under patriarchy. (All the movies on this list are available on streaming services in the US, except Fire. However, I was able to find it uploaded to a random YouTube channel) (cw for someone catching on fire, brief domestic violence (a slap), and non-consensual kissing)

--

Happy Together (1997) (dir. Wong Kar-wai)

In Happy Together, two men from Hong Kong travel to Argentina and eventually get stuck there when they run out of money and are unable to return home. The relationship between these two men is very tumultuous, with a lot of arguing and breaking up and getting back together. It's one of the first movies I saw in which queer folks have, just, regular ol' relationship drama - exasperated by the regular ol' struggles of life. (i cant remember if there are any content warnings i should put here; it's been a few years since i've seen it)

--

Lilies (1996) (dir. John Greyson)

Lilies is a Canadian film in which a prisoner requests a bishop come to the prison to hear the prisoner's last confession. It quickly becomes clear, however, that the prisoners have something else in mind when they begin staging a play. It turns out the bishop and prisoner knew each other as teens, and the play is about the events in their lives that led up to the prisoner being put on trial. So you end up with a play-within-a-play (or rather a play-within-a-movie). The film weaves between the production staged in the prison and the memory of the events in a really fluid way. All the prisoners portray their characters in the 'memory' sections, which lends itself to some really great moments in the prison sections. And at the heart of this memory/story is a queer love story. (cw for parental abuse, murder, fire, and suicide)

--

The Living End (1992) (dir. Gregg Araki)

This is a film about two young gay men who are diagnosed HIV positive. Unlike more mainstream films about HIV that came before (and after), The Living End wears its anger and pain on its sleeve. The entire world is entirely fucked up, and so these two men turn to a nihilistic outlook. The acting is just okay and some of the dialog is a bit ridiculous...but what draws me to rewatch this movie is the way that it conveys the emotion of the time. It's a ball of rage manifest on film. (cw for attempted suicide, rape, murder)

--

Love is the Devil (1998) (dir. John Maybury)

One of the problems with the average biopic is that it attempts to portray a person's entire life in a single movie. Thankfully, Love is the Devil doesn't have that problem; it focuses on only 8 years of Francis Bacon's life - the time he spent with a man named George Dyer. By this point, Bacon was already an extremely famous artist (and, at least in the film, a bit of an asshole). Bacon meets Dyer as Dyer attempts to burgle Bacon's studio - and thus begins an extremely dysfunctional love affair. If you want to see Derek Jacobi and Daniel Craig portray this dysfunctional relationship, then this is the movie for you. Also, if you want to see a biopic that lets the subject of the film be portrayed as a shitty person, this is a film for you. (cw for bdsm, drug use, untreated mental illness, and suicide)

--

Orlando (1992) (dir. Sally Potter)

From right out the gate, Orlando announces its queer themes by having Quentin Crisp portray Queen Elizabeth I, and Tilda Swinton portray Orlando (a man). From the first scenes it becomes clear that gender is going to be a main theme in the movie. Orlando is a young man who will never grow old and never die. He begins life in the 1500s, during Queen Elizabeth's reign, and we see him (and later, her) throughout the centuries between then and 'present' day (1992). The film is broken into thematic chunks (poetry, politics, society, etc). In each of these chunks we see Orlando's life as it reflects the social norms of the time (especially gender norms).

--

Swoon (1992) (dir. Tom Kalin)

Like Rope (1948) and Compulsion (1959), Swoon is a film about the Leopold and Loeb murder. Unlike the earlier films, Swoon makes the gay relationship between Leopold and Loeb explicit. Their relationship in the film is fairly uneven, with Loeb being characterized as more of an explicit manipulator. Leopold, on the other hand, is driven more by wanting to please Leob. Complicating this dynamic is the way that Leopold is the one more interested in their sexual relationship. Is Loeb exchanging sex for help with his criminal activities? Or is Leopold committing crimes in order to elicit sex from Loeb? Or both...something a bit more complicated than either/or? The film, especially the latter half, eschews and lampoons the sensationalism of the reporting of the crime from the time. (cw for murder, blood (in black and white), and animal corpses)

--

Honorable mention goes to more well-known movies I didn't put on this list, such as: But I'm a Cheerleader, Velvet Goldmine, Bound, Adventures of Priscilla Queen of the Desert, The Birdcage, To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar, My Own Private Idaho, Bent...there are actually a whole lot of queer movies from the 1990s, now that I think about it.

[thealogie]

my new pet theory after reading American/British cinematographer blurbs about all the previously mentioned examples is that it actually isn't one specific thing, it's the general commitment to allow imperfection and give an image a soul instead of following all the purely technical cinematography "rules" to a t.

like sure, you want something to be sharp, well lit, you want to have contrast instead of flatness, you want to compose something along thirds so it looks balanced to the human eye, you don't want everything to be super grainy etc etc but the thing is we've gotten to a technical point where it's very easy to do all of these things and when you do all of them at the same time it just looks soulless and terrible.

So what you can do to avoid that is:

Shoot on film (challengers)

Use vintage/exotic lenses (challengers, civil war)

Allow actors faces to go into darkness, allow imperfectly exposed images, allow black, crank up the ISO of the camera and use tiny amounts of light only (better call Saul)

Color grade in a genius way (add noise, grain, do things with saturation and contrast that aren't the technical standard)

Play with framing and what we're used to seeing as a balanced image (Mr robot)

Play with movement in unexpected ways, for example zooming or moving very rigidly (Wes Anderson). When handheld first became more of a mainstream thing it was so new and exciting as well!

Play with formats, colors (black and white), weird view angles (fish eye) and more.

If you're interested in cinematography even a little bit watch poor things. It does many of these things at the same time, incredibly well and in a way that actually supports the story too.

There's a cinematographer who says once he's done setting up a shot, having framed and lit it and thinking it is perfect, he always turns off one light. Or he kicks the camera a bit so the framing changes in an unexpected way. He says otherwise the perfection will suffocate the image. I think that might be what we're seeing with good omens.

I think franchises are more likely to fall into this rut of delivering a technically perfect product. Especially when there's a lot of vfx and post production down the pipeline there are so many factors a dp can easily get scared to not deliver what is needed in the next step. When something aggressively has to be sold to & by a streaming service like Amazon there is often pressure to take no risks. Comedy as a genre also has less examples of a wide range of different good cinematography styles. When I think of the word comedy the term "high-key" (aka well lit) comes up as we were taught in film school, according to the sit com standard. And modern day fantasy/magical realism comedy? I think is hard to pull off in a way that actually resonates and creates something new (not to say it couldn't have been done better sgdjdjs. looking at Gavin Finney's filmography I don't see anything particularly significant so...)

That's my two (three... five) cents. Thanks for the research rabbit hole on this Sunday evening 🫡

I love that this inspired a whole very nuanced and well researched essay on a Sunday. Thank you!!!

[shifuaang]

Just give it a chance! Don't be so harsh! Lower your expectations! You all are being toxic!

The gall, the audacity, the nerve, and the gumption to ask people to give the live action a free pass to be mediocre (and even downright atrocious at times) is laughable. The vast majority of you have ripped into the original show with the same stale arguments over and over and then expect the same fans you've patronized and ridiculed for almost two decades to extend grace to the remake because? it'll hurt your feelings if we don't?

It always, always comes down to the argument that the original is bad!actually because it was created by two white men, which completely disregards all of the show's consultants, animators, writers, producers, etc, many of whom were people of color and women. It has become the easy way out to pull a Bryke card when dealing with any aspect of ATLA that people don't personally enjoy, largely because of shipping reasons. It's so disingenuous and hypocritical, as I have seen the same 'fans' who lambast the original try to get actual POC and Buddhists fired from their jobs, doxxed, or run out of the fandom just for enjoying the canon or certain ships. You don't actually care about anything you're arguing for or against.

Meanwhile, you are willing to make an exception for and be open towards a show produced by Netflix - a streaming service that:

a) is destroying the film industry through homogenization and capitalism b) notoriously cancels its original shows created by marginalized peoples/featuring diverse characters to make room in the budget for mainstream garbage c) treated its writers so poorly that they had to go on strike for nearly half a year d) hired an actor from a fraudulent tribe to play Sokka (even if he has native ancestry, they still perpetuated colorism by giving the role of a dark-skinned character to a light-skinned actor)

So forgive me if I'm unwilling to 'lower my expectations' just because you decided you can't enjoy a show that is basically "what if every horrible fanon take was made canon?" unless the whole fandom is enjoying it with you. I am not going to stop criticizing something that very much deserves the scrutiny it is receiving.

[the-goo-goo-muck]

NOW PLAYING

MELODIC

what music do they play when you two get to it?

Starring: Choso Kamo, Kento Nanami, Kiyotaka Ijichi, Satoru Gojo, Shiu Kong, Suguru Geto, Sukuna Ryomen, Takuma Ino, Toji Fushiguro

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Choso Kamo: Clueless <3

“Music? You’d like me to play music while we have sex?” His bluntness never ceases to embarrass you.

“Well not if you don’t want to, it was just a suggestion. It might make things less awkward for you, you know?”

Flash forward to that night, he’s got you sitting on his lap, he leans over to push play on his phone, & you burst out laughing.

“Is something wrong? Do you not like this song?”

“…Cho, it’s Shake It Off by Taylor Swift.” He nods, so eager.

“I know, isn’t it such a good song?” & you just can’t say anything, not when he looks so excited, hopeful that you’re pleased with him for his song choice. So you spend the night orgasming to Choso’s Spotify Pump You Up playlist.

Needless to say, you picked the music from then on.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Kento Nanami: Unbothered <3

If music is something you wanted, or that made you more comfortable, of course he’d play it, but Nanami isn’t a big music listener. & ultimately, anything that takes away even an ounce of his attention from fucking you senseless isn’t ideal for him.

But if you requested, or he thought to try it, he’d probably find some lofi playlist on YouTube, turn it on, & completely forget about it. Something relaxing, so that after he’s content with how ruined you are, he can tickle your back & play with your hair until you fall asleep.

But sometimes an ad comes on because no way is Nanami paying for YouTube premium, even if he is loaded as hell, which frustrates him so thoroughly that he just shuts the laptop altogether & tosses it on the floor.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Kiyotaka Ijichi: Too Concerned <3

He’s so genuinely concerned about it the entire time. He’s done far too much research about this; he looked on multiple different music streaming services for the best playlists to listen to when having sex. After mulling through the hundreds of lists that include songs by Megan Thee Stallion & XXX by Kim Petras, he finds something he thinks is…suitable. At least, it’s not too on the nose.

But he’s barely gotten your shirt off before a Ke$ha song comes on, & Kiyotaka turns beet red.

“I-I’m sorry, if you don’t like this song, I can ch-change it,” & he’s so flustered, so embarrassed.

“Kiyo, we don’t have to play music, sweetie,” you coo, & he knows you’re teasing him, just a little bit, but he’s so grateful anyway.

“Oh, thank God.”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Satoru Gojo: Shithead <3

Gojo thinks he’s just soooo funny.

He’s three fingers deep, his spit dripping down your chin as he kisses you, humping your leg, when you push back against his shoulder & roll your eyes. “Satoru, really? Sexyback? Justin Timberlake?”

His grin is shit-eating. “What, Princess? This song doesn’t get you going? Your pretty girl’s telling me otherwise with how she’s clenching around my fingers.”

“Fuck off.”

“No, no, if this isn’t doin’ for you, I’ll change it.” You bite back a moan & smack a pillow across his face when All Through the Night by Boyz II Men turns on.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Shiu Kong: Normal, For Once <3

Actually probably has pretty good music taste. He hates the term “indie,” but he’s also not into super mainstream stuff. & sure, maybe he wants to show off his music to you. . .just don’t say that.

He likes things with a heavy bass & not many lyrics, he doesn’t want anything distracting him from how good you feel. He controls the playlist, though, he never lets you pick the music.

“Because last time you chose the music, I fucked you to the beat of the Tarzan soundtrack by Phil Collins.” He’s scrolling through Apple Music, queuing up some of his favorites.

“But—“

“Don’t even start with me, doll. I don’t care how much you like those songs, it was fucking gross, listening to a Disney movie soundtrack with my dick in you.”

“Well, you didn’t have to make it weird, Shiu.” You folded your arms, pouting.

“It was weird to begin with!”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Suguru Geto: Back in Black <3

“You’re really aging yourself here, Sugu,” you tease. You didn’t even recognize half the songs he played with how old they were. Because, quote, “music was just better back then.” Yeah, back before he was even alive. But try tellin’ that to Van Halen over here. 

“This is a great song, babe. Sorry that you don’t have good taste.”

“Coming from the man with the taste of a 50 year old divorced man.” It was cute, how he could have you moaning around his dick & then arguing about music within the same couple of minutes. Had he even finished? You couldn’t remember, & you were busy now. 

“Hey! Divorced dad rock is a great genre of music.”

“Not when I’m sucking you off, loser.” 

“Well, when I’m giving you head, you can pick the song, how about that? But when you’re sucking my dick, I control the speaker.” At this point, it's simply an immaturity contest.

“No, Sugu, I cannot deepthroat your cock to AC/DC ever again. Or any song with an electric guitar solo.”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Sukuna Ryomen: Disturbing <3

“‘Kuna, what the fuck is this?” you mutter, leaning to squint at the screen of your laptop. “Sounds of war & explosion, 10 hour asmr version?”

“You asked me to play something, woman, & now you’re complaining?” He drags you by your chin back to his lips.

“I meant something like music. . .but sure, make me seem like the weird one in this situation.” You shrug, & he hates this sarcasm you’re so fond of.

“Weird? What is weird about this?” & you almost feel bad because he looks a little upset that you don’t like his creepy asmr.

“I genuinely cannot tell if you’re being serious. I’m not a kink shamer, ‘Kuna, but this is fuckin’ weird.”

“Shut up, woman, you will cease to care once I put my cock in you.”

You shrug. “Fair enough.”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Takuma Ino: Tearjerker <3

He’s eating you out from behind, a personal favorite of his, when you’re turning your head at an uncomfortable angle as the first notes of a new song play.

“If you, if you could return. . .”

“T-Takuma,” you attempt to speak. “Why are playing Linger?”

It takes him a moment to come out of it, too entranced by your cunt. “Wh-what? I thought you loved this song,” & he looks so sincerely confused why you’d be bothered. Frankly, he’d tuned the music out completely. How could he think about anything else but this?

“Yeah, when we’re in the car or something, not when you’re eating me out. This song is so sad! It’s a breakup song.” He simply does not get it.

“Well, I like it.”

“You’re not even listening to it!”

“Are you? Fuck, that means I’m doing a bad job then.” Soon, you’re tuning out the music too.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Toji Fushiguro: Fuckboy <3

Puts on some shit by Chase Atlantic because he thinks that's what girls like & promptly forgets it’s even playing. He does not care, just wants to bone, no other thoughts, head empty. A couple minutes in, you turn off his godawful tik tok playlist & he doesn’t even notice. Once he’s pulling out & shucking the condom somewhere, he looks blankly around for a second, then back at you.

“Hey, did you turn the music off?”

“Yeah, Toji, Nasty Dog by Sir-Mix-A-Lot wasn’t exactly getting me off,” you scoff, sneering at the name.

“Hey, I got that from you, brat. It’s from that stupid Hugh Jackman edit you keep watching. . .I’m hotter than him by the way.”

“You’re both old enough to be my dad, but sure, Toj’, you’re hotter.”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[utilitycaster]

I agree what the cast says does not hold as much weight as what happens on stream. I think this is why I get frustrated by the 'Orym is to blame for Laudna killing Bor'dor' debates, using things Liam and/or Marisha have said on 4-sided dive that contradict the actual scene, where Marisha states Laudna barely notices Orym and Ashton, and *nothing* will stop her from doing what she wants to do. At worst, it's inaction. Have interviews and things like that always held so much weight in fandom?

I am absolutely the wrong person to ask here; I was not super in fandom when I was younger. I am going to, as I am wont to do, make some educated guesses but please take with a grain of salt.

I think there's a few things going on. A lot of people have told me that Glee was the first fandom they personally recall where it became about winning more than like, having fun and sharing ideas, and I wouldn't be surprised if that is at least an influence. (The idea that two ships that do not conflict and indeed have incompatible sexualities are in some kind of deathly serious competition is truly so baffling to me that I have to chalk up that particular bit of, if I may use a yiddishism here, mishegos, to Glee for sure.)

I also think that there was a time and there are shows where interviews did (or do) carry more weight, namely, those with executive meddling, or loss of creative control, or, notably, queer ships until quite recently. I have a lot of friends in the Star Trek fandom even though I'm not knowledgeable at all and from what I am given to understand, there's been a few ships squashed or delayed by executive whim or homophobia that the actors would pretty openly and consistently confirm at conventions. (The ones I know are Riker and Troi; and Garak and Bashir; but I have only hazy recollections of TNG and know NOTHING of DS9 so this is second-hand). I've talked about this before, but Word of God used to carry more weight for me when you simply couldn't have same gender romances on network TV or most mainstream film without risking your career. Now? You're a coward and a panderer.

Anyway I think with actual play specifically, which is improvised (ie, intent can shift dramatically and unexpectedly) and which has a lot of talkback shows and also a disproportionately huge amount of content people get in the habit of cherrypicking, and in extreme cases this turns into cherrypicking themselves straight out of the actual narrative and into microexpressions and OOC interviews and side conversations from three years ago.

I also, and I am too tired and too many drinks in (two drinks in, to be clear) to articulate this tonight, find that actual play in particular has amassed a certain fandom that I think was attracted to things I like and support (queer characters, women/queer people/POC creating and driving their own characters, independent creator-owned productions, improvised and therefore at times really unique stories, not needing to have streaming services in some cases) but also doesn't actually like Actual Play as a medium (see: every single D20 fandom meltdown low-key boils down to "I have zero genre awareness of both whatever is going on narratively and also I high-key loathe D&D as a means of storytelling and particularly the existence of violence in narrative, yet I am watching the Violent Narrative D&D show, so dance or me, my puppets, wait why aren't you dancing.") So I think you get a lot of people who are just making dumb fucking arguments because they decide what they believe and then poorly reverse engineer the support instead of doing things in the proper order and I think the people claiming Orym is responsible for Bor'Dor's death are in that category and we should stop treating them as people who are adding anything of worth to the conversation.

[elitehanitje]

Tony Khan needs to do more to promote All-In. I know he has said he responds well to positive reinforcement, so... what should I do? Bake him apple pie or blood sacrifice? I do have some suggestions:

Send the wrestlers (and himself) to do some Korean Englishman and/or JOLLY segments to promote AEW and ALL-IN in London. Josh and Olly have millions of followers, especially in England and Korea. They also have a good relationship with Fulham in London, Fulham Football Club, Fulham High School, and even other football clubs in the UK. It's time for AEW and their wrestlers to be included and catapulted to the mainstream consciousness. When they interviewed the celebrities and offered them food, people were paying attention.

They did the HOT ONES segment with Adam Cole and MJF last year, and now we need to send Bryan Danielson, Swerve Strickland, or Will Ospreay. I know that when Adam Cole and MJF did the show, ticket sales went through the roof according to lots of chatters. Hot Ones seems to prefer WWE, judging from their repertoires, so maybe AEW needs to be included as well. I don't want WWE to monopolize the Hot Ones.

Seriously, I used to ask my (ex) fandoms showrunners to promote their shit on those shows for so many years, and immediately when they actually did that, everyone would buy tickets, streaming services, and watch the shows.

Lastly, according to lots of British fans on social media, after the disappointment of the Euro Cup, they want to see Zack Sabre Jr, their king, be in the All-In. I'm not a Brit, American, or Canadian, but I totally agree with this. It's the Summer of Sabre, he needs to be there, in whatever capacity. People will flock to Wembley to see him!

Also, add Mariah May who is predicted to win the championship and will become the Queen. Pair her with Zack, and turn them to King and Queen of Nasty.