#it's kind of Their Thing at this point and tptb probably think it's an essential part of the show | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

twdmusicboxmystery · 3 years

Text

TWD 11x02: The Talking Dead

Okay, I DO have a details post, which will go up tomorrow. Because Emily was a guest on TTD this week, I thought it would be more important to post this first this week.

P.S. Apologies for the low quality of the pictures. I wasn’t able to get my usual screenshots this week, so I had to take pics of my TV. ;D

Right off the bat, let me say there weren’t any huge, smoking guns about Beth’s return in the episode. In other words, not much that the general audience (GA) would pick up on.

But we’re not the GA, are we? LOTS of suspicious dialogue and symbolism came out of this. Way more than we usually get from TTD. So, let’s dive right in.

The first thing was in the introduction. When Chris Hardwick was introducing his guests, as he always does, he used the phrase, “Beth is back!” That sort of thing always catches our attention and makes us side-eye.

@wdway observed that Emily’s outfit was a mixture of black and white/cream colors, Xs, and diamond patterns. In the past, I might not have been entirely swayed by that. (We’re assuming she chooses her own clothes, right?) But there have been too many times in the past when similar things have happened. Like for the S8 premiere when she wore that bright pink top that looked exactly like the pink bra ashtray in Still? Yeah, I’m no longer convinced Emily ISN’T dropping hints through her clothing.

It was also observed that her hair was very long. Whether extensions or not, it was very long (Beth length) and very blond. Might have been another hint.

One of the first questions Chris asked he was what she thought of Maggie’s SURVIVAL. That’s important both because it’s a question about someone who was left for dead surviving and also because Maggie crawling under the train was a direct parallel to Glenn, who was a direct parallel to Beth. So I was definitely side-eyeing that.

At one point, Chris referenced the Commonwealth interrogating people before letting them in, and he asked if Hershel had done that at the farm, would Rick’s group have made it past the screening process. Emily, overall, said yes. But Josh (McDermott who was on with her) said Shane wouldn’t have. They then started talking and making typical fandom jokes about Shane’s craziness.

The reason this made me smile is because Emily often deflects questions by saying she doesn’t remember, or doesn’t know, or that she no longer keeps up with the show. But here, she talked about specific characters and events in specific parts of a season 9 years ago as though she’s VERY familiar with it. It was like, “oh, but that character didn’t do that until minute 32 of episode 8 of season 2. But I don’t know. I don’t really keep up with things anymore.”

Okay, I’m totally exaggerating there. She wasn’t that specific. But that’s what it felt like. The little fibs she tells to keep people from suspecting Beth’s return are showing.

In talking about the significance of Maggie giving Negan a gun, Lauren said something kind of interesting and Beth-ish. She said, and I paraphrase, that Maggie is struggling to hold onto the person she was, rather than giving into who she might become. Just very reminiscent of Beth’s line to Daryl from still. “You gotta stay who you are, not who you were.”

Chris then asked what Beth would have thought of the current Maggie. And he asked specifically, “Would she even recognize her?” Now, of course he meant that in terms of recognizing who she’s become, because Maggie has changed so much as a person since Beth’s death.

But given the memory loss theories and all the surrounding evidence, we really think there’s a good chance Beth won’t recognize Maggie right away. So that was a huge hint to drop.

See what I mean? It’s not that they talked about Beth’s return in a huge, smoking gun sort of way. Rather, they just dropped a lot of hints through dialogue and the way they phrased questions.

The other thing I noticed is that Emily, in answer to the question, said that without Maggie, everyone seemed adrift and as if they didn’t know what to do because they no longer had a leader (until Maggie showed up again) to tell them what to do. Especially since it didn’t directly answer Chris’s question, I felt like maybe Emily was hinting at Beth’s leadership. New sheriff in town, and such.

Then Josh brought the shiv to everyone’s attention. I don’t think I mentioned this yesterday. If not, it will be in tomorrow’s Details post. But we saw Eugene wheedle a piece of wood into a sharp shive/spike and stick it into his sleeve. It was very reminiscent of Beth hiding the scissors in her cast in Coda. And Josh specifically called attention to that scene. He actually compared it to Terminus, rather than Coda, because we saw them trying to create makeshift weapons in the train car in 5x01. But still, it’s all season 5 and revolves around Beth’s arc.

Actually, as they went along through the episode, they did callbacks to various things in S5 a BUNCH of times. Kind of convenient given that Emily is sitting on the couch next to him, no? Both Lauren and Josh mentioned Terminus multiple times in various ways. Which works because Eugene’s group has been around a lot of train cars these past few episodes. But the thing is, they didn’t really equate Eugene’s storyline directly with Terminus. They were simply finding ways/reasons to randomly mention it.

They also brought up Noah’s death multiple times, comparing Gauge’s death to it, since in both cases, people watched them die horribly from behind a glass partition. Totally makes sense, but yet another tie to Beth by really talking about Noah a lot.

Lauren, talking about good vs evil and what people are capable of, a la Maggie’s disturbing cannibal story, said it wasn’t just about what outward choices people make. She pointed to her chest and said, “it’s what’s in here.” That just gave me huge Beth feels from Still, when she said, “…or it kills you. Here.” And pointed to her chest in the same way.

It just felt like they were invoking Beth a lot during this episode.

This next one was kind of the big kahuna. Chris, just out of left field, looked at Emily and asked, “Will Daryl prove Beth right? Will he be the last man standing?”

And that’s important because it has nothing to do with this discussion or this specific episode. Daryl wasn’t even in this episode.

And I have to acknowledge that there’s a good chance Emily was supposed to be on last week, and her appearance was pushed. We just don’t entirely know what happened there. So possibly, they would have asked this last week during a more Daryl-centric discussion. But still, Chris didn’t say that. It wasn’t like, “Oh you were supposed to be on last week and we wanted to ask this…” No. He just launched into it.

Furthermore, Emily knew exactly what he was talking about. Yes, it’s a well-known line of Beth dialogue from Still that she probably would have been familiar with either way, but even so. The “will Daryl prove her right” came directly from Daryl’s origins episode. So again, despite “not keeping up with the show,” she clearly watched the Origins episode and knew what Chris was talking about.

A couple of suspicious things in her answer:

She essential said yes, that she believes Daryl will be the last man standing. But she also said she didn’t think he would be the ONLY last man standing. Then Chris made a joke saying (and I paraphrase), “Yeah, it’s not like Beth could have said, ‘Daryl, you’re going to get a spinoff.’” And they all laughed and joked about it.

Let’s consider her statement first. She said he wouldn’t be the only one who was standing last, but how would she know that? If she doesn’t follow it anymore and is only associated with it as a previous, deceased character, how would she know that.

And yes, you could argue that this was conjecture on her part, but she said with such…I don’t know, authority? As though she knows something we don’t.

I think you can interpret this one of two ways. The first is what I’ve hinted at above: that she knows others besides Daryl will survive to the end of the show. And I totally agree with her on that. While most of us believe, I think, that Daryl will live until the end, I think plenty of others will, too. Rick and Michonne. Probably Carol and Zeke. Hopefully Maggie, though I’m a little more worried about her. You get the idea. But once again, why would Emily know anything about that?

The other way you could interpret it is that this is a statement about Daryl not being alone. He’ll be the last man standing, but he won’t be the ONLY one. He won’t be alone in that, because Beth will be by his side.

And here’s your friendly neighborhood reminder that in an interview with Larry King prior to S5 airing, Gimple confirmed that Daryl will find love in the apocalypse at some point.

Then there’s Chris’s statement about the spinoff. Now, that came from Chris rather than her, but it was still a really random reference. For me, what Chris does or doesn’t know is kind of irrelevant at this point. I personally believe he knows everything and is fully in on Beth’s storyline. But even if I’m wrong about that, these questions come from tptb. If Chris recognizes their significance, he’s being instructed to ask them and direct the conversation in a particular way.

And they way he threw in this mention made it seem like he was equating Beth with the spinoff in some way. Even the way he said, “there’s no way Beth could have known to say…” the thing about the spinoff struck me as interesting. Because back then, I truly don’t believe the writers knew anything about the spinoff. As I like to say, everything changed when Kirkman abruptly ended the comics and the writers decided to pick up all the characters and story lines and move them to a different vehicle: the spinoff. Probably for legal reasons. But they couldn’t have know that would happen back in S4.

There’s also the unspoken implication that, while Beth couldn’t have “known” about the spinoff, she didn’t know about other things. Like her return and Daryl’s fate.

Emily even told a story about how when they were getting ready to film the porch scene for Still, both she and Norman were hounding Angela Kang (not the show runner back then, but the writer of that episode) about the last man standing line. They both wondered if it was some kind of foreshadow. She implied they were both worried that Daryl would die soon because of it.

A few things about that. 1) I don’t think either of them actually believed Daryl was soon to die. I seriously doubt that. This is just one of those stories they tell to illustrate a point. Which leads me to my next point. 2) Clearly they are implying that this IS some sort of foreshadowing. They’re just not being specific about what it foreshadows. 3) Keep this in mind--that they were both asking about what a certain line of dialogue might foreshadow--the next the time actors try to claim they have no idea what anything means or what’s going to happen next. They’re VERY aware of how the writers put these symbols in and are constantly wanting to know where the show is going, just like we are.

So yeah. I was definitely a fan of that whole discussion.

The Inside the Dead portion referenced some interesting Easter eggs, including Gorbelli foods (seen in Tara’s backstory in S4, which had lots of Beth parallels) and Duane Jones Whiskey (alcohol, Morgan, etc; we’ve compared that with Beth before). Kinda small potatoes, but still important.

I missed part of this next question, but they asked Emily something about whether she thought the Commonwealth is going to turn out to be a good thing and helpful to Alexandria. She said no. Again, maybe not a smoking gun but given that we think she’s most likely coming through Eugene’s story line, it might have been a hint.

They asked her about the Eugene/Stephanie story line, and she said she was excited for any love story in this world. *coughs Bethyl hint*. She also said she’s suspicious of ‘Stephanie’ (emphasis mine) *coughs plot hint*.

For the quiz, they talked about how many walkers Dog killed in the episode (1). Where Mercer said he went to school (Westpoint). What was interesting, is that they kinda gave something away there. After giving the answer, it said, “Mercer didn’t go to school there, but the actor that played him did.” So, they kind of hinted that Mercer SAID he went to Westpoint, but was lying. Just more evidence that Eugene’s group is being lied to and manipulated. Finally, they had a fill-in-the-blank of Eugene’s dialogue. It was when he asked how he was being processed. And one of the options was “as in bologna and other meant stuffs…” (again, I’m paraphrasing; forgive me if my wording is a little off). Anyway, it said at that moment, Eugene was thinking about Terminus. So, just another callback to that story line in S5.

Near the end, Chris asked Lauren and Emily what they miss most about working together. Lauren’s replay was, again, suspicious. She said Emily was “such a bright light,” which we equated to Norman’s famous description of Beth as Daryl’s light that “went out.” She also talked about how it was a testament to Emily’s goodness that she’s “being so missed.” Which made me think of, “you’re gonna miss me so bad when I’m gone, Daryl Dixon.”

Finally, even before the episode aired, @wdway had a theory about Emily being in the studio for the episode, rather than via satellite. Well, I guess it was more of a hope than an actual theory. Now that the episode has aired, it’s an actual theory.

See, she had a hunch that maybe the Commonwealth story lines (what Josh should be filming right now) might be filmed in studio, rather than on location in Georgia. And there IS an AMC studio in L.A. What we saw--Josh in person on the show while Lauren was there via satellite because she’s in Georgia--does seem to back up this idea. Or at least the possibility.

The fact that Emily was also there in person could be a coincidence. But it could also possibly mean that she’s filming in studio for the Commonwealth story line as well. @wdway thought of this because we think she’ll first come through Eugene’s arc, and none of the Commonwealth stuff is being filmed on the main Alexandria lots where people generally look for spoilers.

Not something that can be proven either way, of course. But a great theory that I’m 100% behind!

Okay, that’s it for TTD (but that was a LOT) and it makes me super happy. Together with the screeners not being able to talk about episodes moving forward, I think we’ll see Beth very soon. Any references in TTD that I missed?

#beth greene #beth greene lives #beth is alive #beth is coming #td theory #td theories #team delusional #team defiance #beth is almost here #bethyl

30 notes · View notes

addictedtostorytelling · 3 years

Note

Hello! Not sure if this has been asked before but how did Sara become qualified to become lab director without having experience as supervisor? Wouldn’t they have given the job to someone with more superiority or was it just for the drama of it all lol

hi, anon!

i mean, in the later seasons of csi, they completely fuck up the concept of what a crime lab director even is to begin with, as they act like it’s feasible for russell to be one IN ADDITION to being the graveyard shift supervisor AND IN ADDITION to being a field csi level iii, even though it’s very much not.

lab directors allocate funding, generate budgets, ensure the lab and its personnel have proper accreditation, order new equipment, interact with the press in regards to high-profile cases, authorize procedures, serve as public officials on the lab’s behalf, attend city council meetings, check that the lab is adhering to local laws and policies, etc.

russell is seldom shown doing any of that stuff, much less shown doing it with the frequency and to the extent that would be necessary in order to keep the biggest and most prestigious municipal crime lab in the country running.

in any case, in-show, tptb say that sara gets the job of lab director because russell essentially handpicks her to be his own successor and allows her to run the serial bombing case during the events of the series finale to prove she has the chops.

of course, in reality, lab directors whose departments work out of major metropolitan areas aren’t necessarily involved with the actual, boots-on-the-ground side of criminalistics.

that’s what underlings are for, as they themselves have more than enough administrative work to do otherwise.

that so, sara’s performance in solving the bombing case really wouldn’t play into her candidacy for the director position all that much. as lab directors are essentially just administrators/managers who handle the legal and financial side of running a crime lab, the city officials in charge of filling the position would be much more interested in sara’s credentials in that capacity than they would be in her solve rates and/or investigative methodologies.

and, honestly, though sara is an exceptional and experienced criminalist, the truth is that she really isn’t qualified for the job, as she has no previous management experience whatsoever and hasn’t even been an assistant shift supervisor, let alone filled any role more senior than that one at the lab, prior to the time that she applies.

the writers of the series finale 1000% gave her that job for the ~drama~ rather than because it made sense to do so from a logistical perspective.

i mean, even just on the character side of the equation, sara applying for that position only really tracks in the sense that she probably feels a deeply personal obligation to do so, considering that she has from her point of view already “sacrificed her marriage for the sake of her career.”

it’s kind of a “well, if i’m not going to make the most of this opportunity and put down real roots in las vegas, then why they hell didn’t i move to south america to be with my husband when i had the chance?” deal, you know?

otherwise, outside of that “since i’ve come this far, i might as well go all the way” line of thinking, in what universe would our dumpster-diving, crawlspace-spelunking, gun-toting, body-finding, car-detailing, vacuum-contents-sifting, filthy-coveralled, messy-ponytailed, sooty-faced fieldwork princess who has never thought highly of administrators nor aspired to lofty leadership positions herself believe that this position were the right one for her?

sara sidle is awesome at a great deal many things, but sitting behind a desk, being the man™ is not one of them.

that so, the only reason to even feint like she might take the job is to raise the stakes and make the audience wonder (even for half a second) if she’ll choose career or love in the end.

all of this said, it’ll be interesting to see how the writers for the reboot handle the issue of sara’s position at the lab.

it’s possible that they might say, “after their boat ride, grissom and sara immediately turned around and went back to vegas so that she could start her job as the lab director, and they’ve been there ever since—you guys just haven’t seen what they’ve been up to until now.”

however, it’s also possible that they could frame things so that sara declined the job to go with grissom, and they’ve been away from vegas ever since, meaning that when they return to vegas for whatever reason is provided in the reboot’s series premiere, sara will likely be doing so in a different capacity than as the director.

if she is still the director, it will also be interesting to see if they go back to treating the job as an administrative position (which is how it was always depicted in the earlier seasons of the original series) or if they’ll go on pretending that it’s just a glorified supervisory role (as per how they treated it during the russell era).

anyway.

thanks for the question! please feel welcome to send another any time.

#answered #anon #asks: csi #**#my meta #meta: csi #meta: sara #later seasons #csi finale #let's talk shop #csiverse

18 notes · View notes

mollyamory-again · 5 years

Text

And then I wrote a really long reaction post for Endgame...

Here’s the short form: <3 <3 <3... ?? @#(*$A)(@#*!?! <3.....<3 ....?<3? <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 !!!

The super long form is below the cut...

So, I went into this movie with a lot of feelings, and I came out with a lot of feelings, and it's taking me some time to process them.

The first, and maybe the most important thing I want to say, is that regardless of my personal fannish/emotional reaction to some of the events -- the film itself was an absolute triumph. I mean - it was amazing. There were a great many things to love - and that is a list that includes some things I hated. Love/hated. Both! The fact that they could bring a series of films that spans over a decade together in a way that had people laughing and crying in the theatres, often both at the same time - it's just truly, truly awesome. It says something that they were able to build these real and true characters who feel important enough that their fates can actually break our hearts.

So I applaud that, and I hope the film industry takes a good long look at these films and learns from them. Audiences are willing to wait for the pay-off, we're willing to tackle difficult things, we're willing to fall in love with what we see on the screen if the writers and producers and directors put the effort into allowing it.

That said...

I really liked this movie overall, but I went into it really wanting two specific things for myself, and I didn't get them. In fact I kind of got the opposite of them, and a lot of my coming to terms with the movie has been coming to terms with just... not getting what I wanted. And finding a way to be okay with that.

I wanted Tony to live - and if you're back here behind my spoiler cut, you know I didn't get that one. It was really hard to lose him. He was my favorite character in this whole crazy cast. I loved that he could be so wrong sometimes, and with so much utter conviction. I loved that he could be terrified out of his mind and then just do the terrifying things anyway, because somebody had to, and he could. I loved how smart he was, and how vulnerable he was, and how he built walls of words to defend himself and define himself. I loved how hard he loved the people that HE loved, and how much he was willing to do for them. I loved how great he was with kids (and I love that he got one of his own!) and I love how that seemed at least in part because he never finished growing up himself.

So while I am wrecked that this is the end of Tony in this particular strand of the comics universe, I can't deny that it is 100% true to who he was. He was always going to be the guy who would do this, if it needed to be done. And it did, so he did it, and it broke my heart - but in the end I have to be okay with it, because yeah. That was Tony Stark, distilled down to his purest self. I hated it, but I also loved it, and more importantly I think, I bought it.

I also really would have loved to have a kind of on-screen farewell to my pairing, and I didn't get that, either. I'm a Science Boyfriends kinda gal, and there was almost zero interaction between Bruce and Tony - there was zero relevant interaction. But it is what it is - this was never going to be everything to all people, and that's one of the relationships that didn't get priority. I'm okay with that, too - mainly because its absence means they didn't do anything TERRIBLE to it, either! When it comes to my pairings, I'd far rather TPTB leave them alone than do something I don't like. That said - it would have been nice if they'd you know, exchanged a couple of lines? And it would have been SUPER nice if Bruce had been around to react to Tony's death. Getting past it, getting past it.... ;)

My biggest fear going into this movie was that it would kill my fannishness about the Avengers. I just recently rediscovered it, and I've been writing like a MAD thing. I've stayed up too late writing, I've gotten up way to early to write... I've written through nights when I was supposed to be raiding with my online pals, or watching stuff with my housemates. I've definitely done quite a lot of writing when I was supposed to be working! And it's been fun, and it's felt really good, and I just didn't want to lose it. I missed fandom and other fans, and I missed caring so much about characters and pairings. Having it all back again these past couple of months has been a blast -- so I went into Endgame a) pretty sure they were going to kill Tony and b) pretty sure that killing Tony would kill my fannish joy.

I am happy to report it did not. I'm still in love, and I'm still writing like crazy. I gave myself some pretty stern talking-tos in the lead-up to the movie, along the lines of "Are you really going to let a couple of rich white geekboys decide what happens to YOUR Tony Stark?" and in short form, "CANON IS NOT THE BOSS OF ME!" I think it helped. I'm still here, anyway!

There are a few other things I really didn't like. One - the CGI for Bruce was a horror show for me. It landed right in the Uncanny Valley, and I could barely stand to look at him on screen. Every time he showed up, it was like a cartoon character appearing in my live action show. I think that actually may have helped me with the Tony thing, though -- because it yanked me out of the movie when Bruce was onscreen, and that gave me the distance I needed to not become a puddle of shivering misery on the floor when Tony died saving the world.

Don't get me wrong - I really do like that he's able to integrate now. I like that he has control. Still, I'm not sure this is a road I ever really want to go down in my writing. I like Hulk too much to want to see him essentially killed by Bruce (which is kind of how I'm reading this.) I get that Hulk IS Bruce IS Hulk and if I were his therapist I'd be all over it. But I'm not his therapist - I'm one of his slashfic writers. And as such, I prefer him splintered and angsting over it. :)

I have a lot of thoughts and feelings about Natasha, and I'm not sure they're particularly coherent. I think if Endgame had happened exactly the way it did, WITHOUT the disgusting Ultron lines about how she's a monster because she can't have kids, I'd be fine. As it is, Ultron happened and then Natasha gave herself up for a guy with a family, and from a purely Doyle-ist perspective I find that sequence of events suspect, and deeply gross.

On the other hand, from a purely Watsonian perspective, I fully agree with what <a href="https://cesperanza.tumblr.com/post/184622436895/i-cant-believe-that-as-a-prominent-woman-in">cesperanza had to say about Nat</a>, so I'm just going to let that stand for me, too.

Probably the final thing I didn't like was fat!Thor. I do get the arguments on the other side of this, that it's cool to show even a super hero can get depressed and live off cheez whiz and get fat and disaffected. But I also think that's not all there is to this; I think you don't make Chris Hemsworth run around in a fat suit without on some level doing it for the point-and-laugh. And I find that kind of "joke" toxic and disgusting. I'm not going to go on and on about it here, but in short just - a world of no from me on that.

So what's my score so far? 2 things I wanted but didn't get, 3 things I didn't like? But on the bright side...it's now time to move along to the bright side! And the bright side is pretty damn bright.

I was incredibly happy that Tony and Steve were able to repair their relationship. Civil War was such a tough movie to watch, and while there was at least a thread of hope for them at the end of it, this resolution was a long time coming. They're so very different in their worldviews and methods, but so very alike in their absolute dedication to protecting people and doing the right thing - the friction has always made perfect sense, but getting to see them come to terms with each other ... that's something I have really wanted for a long time. I was extremely sad watching Tony just chew into Steve at the beginning of Endgame, but not at all surprised - Tony was completely done in, physically, mentally and emotionally. Just seeing Tony that physically wasted and weak was hard. Steve's reactions to it were perfect, though, just perfect. I don't think I could have asked for any more than I was given for the two of them.

I loved Tony's relationship with his daughter - in fact, I love Tony's relationship with every character below the age of majority that he's ever been on screen with. Tony may be my OTP (One True Parent) in fact - he's just so deeply interested in these kids (Harley, Peter, Morgan) as human beings. And he treats them oddly as equals, while still somehow managing to parent well for each of them. He's hilarious and snarky and caring and he connects. I don't know, I just adore it. We didn't get to spend a lot of time with Morgan, but it was obvious she adored Tony and was well on her way to growing up to be just like him, and I wholly approve.

And before I leave the topic of kids - Tony mourning Peter broke my heart, and his love for Peter when he came back knitted it back together again (that hug omg, </3 -> <3) and then Peter's breakdown when Tony was dying, finally calling him "Tony" instead of Mr. Stark or sir...there it goes, heart broken again. BROKEN.

I and the rest of the universe loved Steve wielding Mjolnir (and Thor KNEW it!). We all saw this coming from way back at the party in Ultron, and a part of what this series of movies has managed to do that I love is take moments like that, a billion movies ago at this point, and pay them off one by one. Sure, it's fan service, but because they were patient, it feels earned. I adore it.

I'm going to wrap this up for now because if I don't, it's never getting posted - I have a ton of thoughts and even MORE feelings about this movie, and I'll be posting more of them because how can I NOT. But I do want to talk a little about one of the major things that literally filled me with joy:

The return to Avengers 2012!!! <3 <3 <3

I just want to go back and live there - like, I want to build a tinyhouse with a telescope in the window and just stare at it all from the shadows forever. I could literally sit for days upon days of "what happened in Avengers 2012 around what we saw on the screen in Avengers 2012" - that could be an entire TV series and I would tune in for every freaking episode. It was SO. MUCH. FUN! From "feel free to clean up..." to "take the stairs" and "SO MANY STAIRS" to Loki pretending to be Steve and Loki stealing the tesseract and poofing out to Thor saving Tony with his hammer and both of them so jazzed about it... OMG. I just love it all, and I'm so happy they did it. I loved everything around it - I loved Bruce trying half-heartedly to smash, I loved the Sorceress Supreme up on the rooftop fighting the Chitauri, I loved Bruce getting smacked out of Hulk and Hulk on a lounge chair with a sunhat over his face. EVERYTHING. I just. <3

I went into Endgame expecting the worst for my favorite character, and I got the worst for him. But the more I think about this movie, the more I find that it's a happy place for me. It gave me what I didn't want and it made me like it. Like - a LOT. I went into it expecting/fearing that it would kill my fannishness about Avengers, and it's done the exact opposite - it's brought me back into fandom, back into contact with fans, back into thinking all the thoughts and feeling all the feelings and wanting to share them with other people who are thinking and feeling about the same thing.

I feel like this entire series of movies, this slate of characters, this universe they've built - it's a gigantic wonderful amazing heartbreaking heartmending accomplishment, and I'm just super glad it's all here, and that I got to experience it all.

(And I can't wait to write a metric fuckton of stories that ignore it! Tony may be gone in this timeline, but he's never going to die in mine, damn it!)

#avengers: endgame #spoilers #all the feelings #ugh my heart

108 notes · View notes

incarnateirony · 5 years

Text

Omg

People need to stop using what they think are intellectual arguments to try to shade at shit while COMPLETELY MISUSING IT.

Example: There was a cross in the reunion episode!

Okay, great, let’s look at all the other uses of crosses. Oh look, episodes about faith, faith, faith, faith, faith, and faith. Right after not believing in anything, not backshadowing him with the cross, reuniting, and then having the cross, only to later confirm he now has faith.

Thing someone thinks is occam’s razor: It could mean anything any time and at any moment could mean something totally different without any regard to the base themes being employed literally every time. It could just mean resurrection like jesus!

What’s actually occam’s razor: The cross is tied to faith theme episodes. Like, I don’t know. The episode Faith.

Y’all stop. It’s like arguing from an angle of belligerently intentional ignorance.

And losing your patience with people who have no idea what they’re talking about downtalking at people who know what they’re talking about, after fucking up and making their own bed to begin with while they stomp around like a child and get other angry bitter people stomping with them to make a fuss -- getting annoyed, at any point, is in no way the sign of being the More Logical Person. Sometimes you’re so illogical you piss everybody around you that knows what’s up, off. See: Kelios.

If your only victory point is staying calm while you piss off people that know better, you’re not smarter. You’re just annoying. You know how there’s that “annoying stupid Republican” idea floating around out there where they just can’t say anything without being annoying or infuriating? It started somewhere. And it’s not because Someone Lost To Them. It’s because ain’t nobody got the time for their Headass.

PS: It’s not “stuck up” to cite your actual career, education, or whatever else after already being driven up a wall by a bunch of bitter fansplaining from people who can’t grasp concepts like the above. If someone’s talking on an elementary school level to a person who works in an industry, the person will first gently tell them how it works, and when the child starts kicking and huffing and throwing insults, will call a parent, but if no parent’s available, they get “you’ll understand when you grow up” and that’s essentially what’s happening here.

Being intentionally fucking numbskulled about things because someone wants to be bitter and act like they understand a business, when they literally do not understand the business, and have shown they do not know the business, and continue to insist to yell down at people that know about the business, eventually makes people who know the business go “You do know I’ve done this for a living and you’re totally on crack, right?”

If all of the people with Actual Experience are saying a thing, maybe you should stop trying to Fansplain or Hobbysplain shit to them and actually consider adjusting your perspective instead of acting entitled all the time.

Imagine trying to be a trainee in a workplace with this attitude.

Machinist: Okay, these are the lathe codes. Just use these, and avoid this one.

Trainee: What’ll happen if I enter this instead.

Machinist: Don’t, that jams up the machine for some reason.

Trainee: That doesn’t make any sense! You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Machinist: Look, kid. Just don’t. If anything goes wrong, hit this emergency stop button.

Trainee: I’ve read online that some of those buttons break the machine

Machinist: I... look. Hit emergency stop if anything goes wrong.

Trainee: Don’t tell me what to do.

Machinist: I been working here 30 years kid.

Trainee: That doesn’t matter, you’re just pulling the experience card, I’m skilled too.

Machinist: .....

[ 2 hours later Trainee punches in code he’s told not to and bores at a bad angle and burns out a multi-hundred-thousand-dollar machine because he didn’t use emergency stop, loses his job ]

Ask me how I know a story like this, while we’re at it.

Frankly, no. Alone, a degree doesn’t count for a whole lot. There’s an assload of educated idiots that manage a passing grade and then never see the profession in the real world. But when the people who have been out there, in the real world, dealing in an area, are telling you what they know, maybe you should give it some consideration. But when that degree is, say, a double degree lit professor, or that degree is someone in marketing that’s also run all levels of the actual industry for years on end, maybe they might know a little something about something that your basic lit course or bitterness aren’t taking into account.

Apologies to you, random blogger #89234 with an interest in a thing, but if the accumulated hobby information you’ve collected is outright in conflict (see machinist example) of How Things Actually Work, you cease being a supreme authority, and if you start acting like a little prick about it to people who actually know the ropes, well -- we can’t fire you from the internet (as appealing as that sounds at times), but we can deadass tell you “you have no idea what you’re talking about.” HOW DO U KNOW “BECAUSE I’VE DONE THIS FOR A LIVING.” HUrRruUrURRRr thAT donT meaN anyTHING

Yes, yes it does. It means I’ve been there, I’ve watched things be set up, be destroyed, transition, be debated over, been in the heart of it. It means I’ve watched friends lose their gigs and get sidelined and others take off so hard we barely maintain contact anymore. It means I’ve had to listen to marketing groups piss and moan over working titles because it’s not X enough for Y demographic (you want to know a pain in the ass? marketing test group runs for pagan mythology LGBT friendly content in a southern religious conservative region --and you know what, I can release that, because it’s mine and a discontinued project now; unlike, say, if one of us happened to land at a CW/SPN marketing test group somewhere and happened to have to sign an NDA about what they were polling about).

It means I watch when a TPTB family member posts in a private facebook group and it means I talk to the sound dev crews about how they make certain things -- not some one off room-mating or the occasional DM or whatever, because we can all talk actual shop and not fanbuzz; in fact, I’ve BEEN a roommate people tried to get stuff out of and they probably walked away thinking they were super in-the-know while there’s a thousand things I didn’t/couldn’t say but they’d never know; and it means I know which of my fandoms have shared PAs you guys never knew by name; it means they can actually break out about the kind of lenses and audio devices they used to perform a certain shot and the abstract methods they attained it and I can actually come back with a suggestion that doesn’t embarrass both of us to sit out there in the air; it means I know how to appeal to a shifting demographic and discuss the problems in limited circulation.

It means that I know how the gears of a machine work and don’t just sit from the outside going “well maybe it’s-” no, it’s this, this, and that. No, you don’t get to pontificate what you think Actually Is In It when I literally know What Is In It. That isn’t how reality works. Well you can, but the reality of it is that no, your opinion or Hot Take(TM) aren’t equal. I don’t care if you’ve gone to teaparties with them, I really don’t.

The quickest way to get someone from a creative team to disengage from actual content conversation and instead feeding you fluff is when you obviously have no idea of the machinations involved and are coming as a fan or hobbyist. You don’t think people can tell the difference. You think you sound like you’re exceptional. But when you open your mouth it takes about two seconds for us to know.

I can turn a regional studio owner’s ear in the middle of a freaking dollar general by saying a few things; or a major music producer; why? Because we’ve been there. And we’ve been there long enough when y’all try to come up talking like you know shit.

Reality: You don’t. I don’t care how many clickbait articles someone has written. I literally have 0% care for how much public facing PR you’re fed. Or anything you think is non-public facing that they were willing to give You, the general You, a fandomite or hobbyist or yes, reporter. Hell, the latter list of LOL tends to think X rando directing assistant or whatever will have All The Secrets at a business level. Thing is, when I was any kind of PA or adjacent, I sure as hell didn’t delude myself into knowing everything going on above my head, just what I needed to know. Do it long enough and yes, you learn the business mechanics themselves but no one person beyond the upper executives is gonna know everything. Each knows what their job specification is.

Frankly, again I say, if you want to really know what’s going on, you check out what marketing is polling, because that’s what Big Business is putting in discussion, and really, that’s that. Then again, if you get into the groups, enjoy that NDA, and not being able to tell anybody about anything about it, and just waving your arms emphatically about an idea that people try to lol about.

Am I talking SPN? Am I talking something else I worked on or attended or know about? In the end, does that really matter?

Not all topics come down specifically to experience and expertise within a subject, but some do, and if you’re out here acting like a twidiot over it, eventually, the people who work in it go, “look y’all bless your heart but we actually do this, so sit down?”

Nobody’s saying you CAN’T meta or lit crit without a degree or experience, but if you’re out there being a shady fuck towards people who literally know what they’re doing, with minimal to no actual substance to your shade, just convenience to those who want to believe you, then yes. The people who actually know what they’re doing > the people that don’t and are just ass speaking or throwing “what ifs” or “it could bes” on hunches regardless of the follower counts attached.

A lot of people do good meta or spec without a degree or experience, because they just have a good reading and, I don’t know, understand what shit like Occam’s Razor actually means. It’s not mandatory. But if you’re about to start swinging on someone, son, just because you’re piloted by bitterness and aren’t even thinking to 1+1 this charade, you should probably check your narcissism points if you’re butting off at-random against people who do have experience and a fairly synchronized understanding.

Or at least more than piss-poor long-disjointed sub-par disembodied and fractal arguments that sum to nothing, their captain wank planet forces combined.

There’s a pillar or two of meta and Destiel meta fandom I avoid like the plague because I can read it’s pure fluff and completely uncorroborated with an actual basic application of Occam’s Razor. That doesn’t mean I spend my time shading them or dragging their crap out or picking fights with them or just being a bitch about it on my blog.

A few people could learn from that.

#mildew #long post for ts

15 notes · View notes

possiblyimbiassed · 6 years

Text

Sherlock and the media – Part II

When I wrote this meta about media’s role in BBC Sherlock, I wasn’t really planning to write a ‘Part II’ of it. But then all these great and thoughtful additions to it (see rb notes to the link above) were so inspiring that I can’t resist doing a follow-up. To me it’s easier to see patterns if I try to summarize and structure the various observations and comment on them topic-wise, as well as on a couple of things we seem to agree on. And please feel free to correct me if I’ve gotten anyone’s ideas wrong.

1. The depiction of media in BBC Sherlock is indeed mostly negative

@whimsicalethnographies points out, in addition, that media has the potential to be a positive force in real life, but that’s often not the case; a free press is essential, but the ability to navigate it is just as important. There’s a “huge critique of the media AND the way we consume it” in this show.

And I fully agree with this; media can (and should) play an important investigative and educational role if and when it manages to be an independent source of information. But we mustn’t forget that most of the media is commercial, that its primary interest is to make money. Which means that when the choice stands between trying to be objective and respect people’s integrity on one hand, and bringing sensational news that sell on the other, the latter will often be priority. And as long as we as readers don’t apply critical thinking, a lot of dubious ideas and outright lies will pass for truth, and we’ll tend to consume them and believe them unquestioningly. And I think we see several examples of characters that fall for this in BBC Sherlock, with the results ranging from relatively harmless (Mrs Hudson is now convinced she should never wear the colour cerise because of something a celebrity said on the telly) to disastrous (The Chief superintendent of NSY proceeds to arrest a man who has helped them for years, based on speculations inside his corps and gossip in the media).

So, source criticism is incredibly important.

I’ll leave the rest under the cut for more patient readers, because this is quite long. :)

@raggedyblue observes that the press never looks well in Sherlock; it’s a “very powerful, two-edged sword” which has “the power to change” when taken critically. But it can also “turn people into herds of sheep” (which I believe CAM condescendingly says right out: ‘a nation of herbivores’).

@221bloodnun also sees an increasing role of media as villains in the show, where Mary appears to be the composite of them all. While John’s main problem is media’s representation of them, Sherlock’s problem is the villains, if I understand it correctly.

So yes; together these things make a terrible adversary for our heroes. I think we have it all in BBC Sherlock; villains who use media as a tool for their crimes (Moriarty), villains who thrive on media (Smith) and media itself being the villain (CAM). And then we have the trickiest part; Mary, who is supposedly in opposition to media (seemingly attacking CAM, seemingly a victim of his blackmail), but actually a big part of the problem (a glossed-over murderer).

@raggedyblue also mentions that one of the few press-related characters in ACD canon is Langdale Pike, who is both source and receptor for gossip. (And “strangely very similar to the description of Mycroft, both are sitting all day in the same place, and despite this, they always know everything about everyone”). In The Adventure of the Three Gables, Watson refers to the press that propagate Pike’s reports as “the garbage papers which cater to an inquisitive public.” (I guess their modern equivalents would be the tabloids?) And in Sherlock T6T, observes @raggedyblue, Langdale appears among the government’s codenamed people who helped edit the video of Sherlock shooting CAM. “That’s not what happened at all. But it is what will be told”. We’re not told who of the five characters present at the hearing is supposed to be ‘Langdale’, but my bet is on Mycroft. :)

To the few media-related characters from canon I’d also like to add Mr. Horace Harker of the Central Press Syndicate, the journalist in The Six Napoleons, whom Holmes lies to in order to take advantage of media’s influence on the suspect.

Holmes lets the journalist make a good story out of the idea that the police are on another track, and Watson comments it like this: “I could not but admire the cunning with which my friend had inserted a wrong clue in the evening paper, so as to give the fellow the idea that he could continue his scheme with impunity”. Manipulation involving media. Hmm.

2. The possibility that Sherlock might have faked his suicide to protect John from being destroyed by media, rather than snipers.

@sherlocks-salty-blog takes this even further: “That would explain why Sherlock is so willing to accept Mary in their life? to kill CAM despite of this could be a death sentence? why he was waiting his death in TST? And willing to acept Mary’s deathly advice to save John in TLD?“

Yes, I think you might be on to something there, @sherlocks-salty-blog. Sherlock behaves very differently in S3 and S4 in comparison to S1-2. He is far more passive towards John leaving him for another person than one would have thought after John’s string of girlfriends; Sherlock even organizes the wedding (something so ‘mundane’ that it would be the last thing I’d expected from him). And his acceptance of ‘Mary’ after her shooting and almost killing him is absurd, to say the least. And then even killing for her sake, telling other people that she is his friend in T6T, and taking blame and a beating from John for her death in TLD. Taken at face value, none of this in HLV and S4 makes an iota of sense. Which is why I believe that it’s all happening inside Sherlock’s head and that it’s actually about something else entirely; I think it’s about guilt, about The Fall and about ‘protecting’ John (and probably himself) from having to face the truth about their relationship, actually being honest to each other. It’s probably also fear of what the press might do to John if they would appear publicly as a couple. I think in general Sherlock feels haunted by the press, and he doesn’t like it one bit.

Another interesting observation from @raggedyblue is that CAM and the press are apparently not interested in Sherlock’s drug use; his relationship with John is seen as more scandalous and therefore pressure point. Yes I believe Sherlock learns this the hard way in HLV; you can’t always fool the media. Once they’ve picked up your scent they’ll keep digging. But the total disinterest from the press in Sherlock’s evident drug habits in TLD is still a bit suspicious to me; if anything, this is yet another piece of evidence that TLD happens inside Sherlock’s head. I think this might also be Sherlock’s internalized homophobia speaking; he has probably convinced himself that society will see his sexual orientation as worse than being a drug addict, thus he’s far more reluctant to talk to anyone about his true feelings for John, than about taking drugs. The drugs are rather the excuse, an escape from having to deal with his emotions.

3. As for Sherlock’s public persona, or ‘facade’, I definitely think media plays a role there:

@sherlockshadow recalls an interesting quote from TAB: WATSON: “That is the version of you that I present to the public. I write all of that, Holmes, and the readers lap it up. But I do not believe it. You are a living, breathing man. You’ve lived a life, you have a past. Experiences. Impulses”. To me this confirms that Watson’s chronicles in canon, as well as what we see in the BBC Sherlock show in general, are elaborated products rather than any kind of objective ‘truth’. So it makes sense that the authors would let Watson address this in TAB, which is kind of a mix between BBC Sherlock and canon.

According to @sarahthecoat, The Strand Magazine has become the lens through which we see Holmes, while Holmes himself remains unseen, as exemplified by Holmes hiding in the hansom in TAB.

Yes, I agree, and I think basically the same goes for John Watson’s blog in our times (except for the last post). The interesting thing about BBC Sherlock, however, is that many things are rather shown from Holmes’ perspective. In fact, I believe the whole show is. ;)

4. On a meta level of this show, might there be a message about the media?

@gosherlocked offers the idea that media might symbolize certain parts of the public, of public opinion towards people who are different in one way or the other.

Oh yes, I agree that this might definitely be the case; Sherlock says it himself about CAM (=media):

I think media’s behaviour in the show reflects the fact that the LGBTQ issue is constantly joked about and alluded to, but never addressed seriously. Kitty Riley’s prying into Sherlock’s love life or the papers calling John a ‘confirmed bachelor” in TRF are examples of this. I also believe that this is entirely intentional from the show-makers, because I think it’s meant as satire - maybe a kind of satire that (sadly) flies over the heads of most of their audience, and over real life media’s head in particular, but still satire; harsh, damning mockery. And I suspect that what they’re making fun of might be the hypocrisy of the public opinion, the parts of the audience that uncritically swallows whatever hetero norm rubbish of a storyline they’re served without even questioning it - including the part of traditional sherlockian fandom that would be apalled by the prospect of a gay Holmes. Seemingly ‘warm paste’ but subversive under the surface, I believe.

Another good point, made by @elldotsee, is this: “Oh! I also believe that TPTB are doing the same to us IN REAL LIFE. all the interviews, especially since s4 that insist that there was “never any romance” between John and Sherlock, that Martin and Ben never “played at being lovers”, etc etc. they’re using the media to make us believe the fairy tales, just like they told us they were going to in the show. Maybe this is their “big, ground breaking idea”.¨

Yes - that’s exactly what I think too, @elldotsee. I strongly suspect the writers are playing with us this way. In fact, I believe that the main purpose, the central message with this show is not ‘Johnlock’ per se; it’s not to give LGBTQ people their long due representation in the world’s most famous detective story (even if I do believe this will still be their endgame). No, I think this is a comment on the still very much lingering homophobia and heteronormativity, and just how easily people buy into media’s lies and fairy tales about it. I believe S4 is a Dystopia, as @tjlcisthenewsexy has pointed out earlier - a worst case scenario. But I think they’re very deliberately messing around with their audience, trying to teach us a lesson: ‘Think critically, do not just lap up everything you hear from media’.

The cast and crew can say just about anything in interviews, and next time contradict it, and real life media can twist it around a million times; it’s still only the work that matters.

Therefore, If we want answers, we have to look at the actual show, not at what’s said about it in media.

(By the way @elldotsee , you wonder when John’s blog stops updating? As far as I know, that happens shortly after TSoT but before HLV, and Sherlock makes the last post when John is on honeymoon. I wrote about these things in my meta series ‘What happened to Sherlock?’ (X, X, X, X). John types on a jpg-file in T6T.)

5. About ‘straight-washing’

@tjlcisthenewsexy had a lot of interesting additions, some of which I replied to here. One of them was that S4:s function might be to ‘set the record straight’, just as Janine’s interviews about Sherlock being ‘as red-blooded as they come’, did in HLV, thereby denying any gay relationship between him and John.

@sarahthecoat points out something similar; that Janine’s ‘straightwashing’ of Sherlock in the press in HLV could be seen as a parallel to Mary’s ‘straightwashing’ of John by marrying him.

Come to think of it, that’s pretty much exactly the implications of ‘Mary’s role in canon and in Sherlock, according to this excellent analysis by @green-violin-bow: “And there you have it: the central problem of Mary Morstan/Watson, in both ACD canon and BBC Sherlock – she shoots Sherlock in the heart – or does she save his life?“ “Mary Watson’s presence provides Holmes and Watson with a lifesaving alibi”.

Which was probably the only narrative option for them in the Victorian times, where they would have been imprisoned if found together (and that would go for the author writing about them too). While in our time the same solution seems to me like an infuriating backlash, something we should never tolerate.

6. About media and power

@elldotsee lifts several good points, of which I find this one particularly interesting: The name ‘Napoleon’ is associated with three different persons in this show: 1. CAM is referred to as the “Napoleon of blackmail” in HLV 2. Moriarty calls himself the “Napoleon of crime” in TAB 3. Craig the hacker in T6T says that “Thatcher’s like – I dunno – Napoleon now”

To this I’d like to add the conversation between Sherlock and Faith in TLD (transcript by Ariane De Vere, my bolding):

SHERLOCK: D’you know why I’m going to take your case? Because of the one impossible thing you’ve said. FAITH: What impossible thing? SHERLOCK: You said your life turned on one word. FAITH: Yes: the name of the person my father wanted to kill. SHERLOCK: That’s the impossible thing. Just that, right there. FAITH: What’s impossible? SHERLOCK: Names aren’t one word. They’re always at least two. Sherlock Holmes; Faith Smith; Santa Claus; Winston Churchill; Napoleon Bonaparte. Actually, just ’Napoleon’ would do. FAITH: Or Elvis? SHERLOCK: Well, I think we can rule both of them out as targets.

And instead, Sherlock eventually comes up with the word ‘anyone’ as a target for the serial killer. Yes, because Napoleon wasn’t exactly a target, was he? He was rather the aggressor. Well, in the ACD canon story The Six Napoleons, busts of him are repeatedly smashed of course, just as busts of Thatcher is destroyed in both the episode TST and John’s blog post The Six Thatchers. But in the quote above, Napoleon’s name is also placed beside Winston Churchill, a famous British prime minister. This, in combination with the linking of two villains and Thatcher to Napoleon’s name, makes one thing rather obvious to me: that Margaret Thatcher is also seen as a villain by Sherlock, and the show; maybe she’s even seen as a serial killer. I think there’s a reason why these two names – Napoleon and Thatcher – are so emphasized in the show. Because they link three things together: Homophobia (Moriarty), Media (CAM) and the government (Thatcher). All of them can produce death if their doings drive people to suicide.

7. Kitty Riley

@ebaeschnbliah points out something that I hadn’t noticed at all: that the words ‘Make Believe’ can be found on the wall of Kitty Riley’s room in TRF.

Wow - fairy tales… ;)

@tjlcisthenewsexy also brings up Kitty Riley and the bathroom scene, but then also says this:

“Sherlock WAS protecting John - protecting him from what Sherlock KNEW was coming very shortly. I mean it’s already in the show, really - “Sherlock is a fake” might as well read “They’re gay”. Kitty Reilly colluded with homophobia (in the form of Jim Moriarty) to put together that shaming article that supposedly lead directly to Sherlock’s suicide. Yep….it’s all in there”.

I do agree with this, and I’d like to linger a bit longer on Kitty’s possible role here, because I believe there’s definitely more to these events than meets the eye. There are so many weird things about the scene in her apartment, and the events leading up to it in TRF, that I can’t help wondering which parts of it are actually ‘real’. So let’s have a closer look.

First of all, John hasn’t written anything on his blog about the central case of TRF - the case that meant Sherlock’s supposed death - except this:

And then this: “But you know what happened? Sherlock saved the lives of two kids. Regardless of anything else, he did that. And they didn't even like him very much. If you really think that he was guilty or that Moriarty wasn't real then feel free to explain this “ (link to the post with Moriarty’s hacking of his blog).

But this makes me suspicious, because it doesn’t exactly make sense; why is it ‘too final’? Why is it so negative for John to write about this? Wouldn’t it be John Watson’s dearest interest to write up the truth about this case, trying to clear Sherlock’s name from media’s slander? That’s what he does in ACD canon, at least; he describes The Final Problem with the events at the Reichenbach Falls in detail, to let the world see that the slandering of Holmes by his enemies is completely false (excerpt from FINA, my bolding):

“It was my intention to have stopped there, and to have said nothing of that event which has created a void in my life which the lapse of two years has done little to fill. My hand has been forced, however, by the recent letters in which Colonel James Moriarty defends the memory of his brother, and I have no choice but to lay the facts before the public exactly as they occurred. I alone know the absolute truth of the matter, and I am satisfied that the time has come when no good purpose is to be served by its suppression. As far as I know, there have been only three accounts in the public press: that in the Journal de Genève on May 6th, 1891, the Reuter’s dispatch in the English papers on May 7th, and finally the recent letters to which I have alluded. Of these the first and second were extremely condensed, while the last is, as I shall now show, an absolute perversion of the facts. It lies with me to tell for the first time what really took place between Professor Moriarty and Mr. Sherlock Holmes”.

But apparently our modern John didn’t want to do this on his blog, in spite of having witnessed Moriarty’s whole performance in Kitty’s apartment. John must have plenty of evidence that show Sherlock’s real part in the case, and he and Molly assisted in the whole chemical analysis at Barts. And what about his own role; if Sherlock was arrested for kidnapping, wouldn’t John be his accomplice? But answering the vile attacks on Sherlock in his comment section John just says “Believe what you like”, and not a word about media’s role. In fact, the media is never even mentioned by John between TRF and Sherlocks return in TEH, in spite of having played such a damning role in Sherlock’s downfall. John does write up some other of their cases after this, but the kidnapping case seems taboo. I sense a kind of fear here; there must be things we’re not told. Was John under pressure?

The circumstances around Sherlock’s arrest in TRF look odd to me, to say the least; apparently he’s a suspect for having figured out how to save the kidnapped children, and because one of the kids got frightened when she saw him. But there’s no actual evidence that we know of, only Donovan’s very dubious speculations about a possible motive, based on an upset child’s reaction. And Sherlock made his deductions about the place at the police station, in front of everyone. Basically, they had nothing on him to hold water in a court case. How can anyone be arrested for kidnapping on those grounds? And if Sherlock wanted to avoid being photographed by the media when brought in by a police car, why not just take a cab to the police station by himself? After all, that’s what he usually does!

But instead, he sits and waits to get collected, and then he escapes together with John, and drags both of them handcuffed in front of a bus, based on the extremely risky prediction that the assassin might save them. Is it really worth risking John’s life to prove a point about a computer code? Weird... And then there’s Kitty. Why break into her apartment? This guy is now wanted by the police, and the first thing he does is committing a crime at the very place of the journalist who has been slandering him in the press? Anyway, when John and Sherlock arrive at Kitty’s apartment, the wisest thing to do would be to use any tool in her kitchen to immediately get rid of the handcuffs, right? And then perhaps search her apartment for clues? Nope. Instead, they just sit handcuffed in the dark, waiting for the journalist with her door open.

I think the symbolism of this is very apt; they’re closely and firmly bound to each other, but completely in the dark about it! :))) And then Media comes to reveal it...

More absurdities: Kitty shows them her still un-published article, as if this would be ‘proof’ that Sherlock is a fraud. Let’s take a closer look at it. This is her earlier brief news flash in The Sun, advertising the coming article:

Transcript: SHERLOCK: THE SHOCKING TRUTH - EXCLUSIVE

(Close Friend Richard Brook Tells All)

SUPER-SLEUTH Sherlock Holmes has today been exposed as a fraud in a revelation that will shock his new found base of [ado]ring fans. Out-of-work actor Richard Brook revealed exclusively to THE SUN that he was hired by Holmes in an elaborate deception to fool the British public into believing Holmes had above-average ‘detective skills’. Brook, who has known Holmes for decades and until recently considered him to be a close friend, said he was at first desperate for the money, but later found he had no [...]

And this is the still un-published manuscript that Kitty shows Sherlock and John in her flat - the document that Kitty calls ‘conclusive proof’ (together with some loose papers from Moriarty which do not look like cuttings from newspapers; the paper is entirely white and there’s no logo or date or similar evidence that they have actually been published):

Transcript: SHERLOCK’S A FAKE!

“He invented all the crimes” (Exclusive from Kitty Riley)

Out-of-work actor Richard Brook reveals exclusively to us that he was hired by Holmes in an elaborate deception to fool the British public into believing that Holmes had above average ’detective skills’. “He had the whole ‘Moriarty’ cover cooked up from the beginning and invented all the crimes”, said Brook. “All I had to do was learn my lines.” Brook, who has known Holmes for decades and until recently considered him to be a close friend, said he was at [...] desperate for the money but later [...] he had no choice but to continue the deception. I didn’t realise what I was getting into until it was too late. I’m not proud of myself, but at least now the world knows the truth about Sherlock Holmes”. In what will no doubt spark a massive internal investigation at Scotland Yard, Holmes has also fooled several high-ranking detectives into believing.

‘Well boy’, Uncle Pumblechook [...]

But a closer look at Kitty’s supposed manuscript reveals that this same text (except for the ‘Uncle’ part) is copy-pasted and repeated again and again – this is indeed fake news! And we never got to know what evidence they actually had on Sherlock, the incriminating facts that ‘only someone close to Sherlock could know’ and that Mycroft supposedly ‘blabbed’ about to Moriarty. What was it about? His drug problems? Youth crimes? Mental health issues?Mythomania? I’m still at a loss to see how these papers could prove that Sherlock was a ‘fake’ who had ‘invented all the crimes’ without further details. The fact that we never get any specifics is extremely suspicious to me; what crimes exactly? Is he supposed to have invented Jennifer Wilson’s murder? Eddie Van Coon? Alex Woodbridge? If the crimes weren’t committed, what had NSY been investigating? Fake bodies? And if Sherlock was suspected of having committed them all, why wasn’t John suspected as an accomplice? It doesn’t make sense...

It strikes me, however, that Kitty’s most juicy bit that she wanted to publish about Sherlock, the one about ‘you and John Watson - just platonic or?’ is no longer mentioned in all this. Not a word about the ‘confirmed bachelors’ anymore - why is that? This is all about Sherlock, not John. I very much agree with @tjlcisthenewsexy here; “Sherlock is a fake” might as well read “They’re gay”...

‘Real’ newspapers

To give a more complete picture of media’s role, I’ve made a quick research about the different newspapers shown in BBC Sherlock; which are they and what do they say? It turns out that most of them actually exist in real life. Below is a short presentation and some of their headlines in the show:

The Daily Express (UK ‘middle market’, conservative tabloid)

“Boy, 18, kills himself inside sports centre.” (ASiP) “Bachelor John Watson” (TRF) “Crime of the century” (TRF) “Moriarty walks free. Shock verdict at Old Bailey trial” (TRF) ”Shag-a-lot Holmes” (HLV)

Going by the insinuations about John’s sexual orientation, this paper is depicted as sensationalist in BBC Sherlock, which there’s also lots of evidence for in real life, in spite of being described as ‘middle market’ (see Wikipedia link above). It has been accused of xenophobia, among other things.

Sunday Express (belongs to The Daily Express. Known for controversies )

“Who wants to be a million-hair” (TBB)

Daily Star (’Redtop’ UK tabloid, known for controversies, same publisher as Daily Express)

“World Exclusive Boffin Sherlock solves another” (TRF) “How was he ever acquitted” (about Moriarty; TRF)

The Daily Mail (British conservative ‘middle-market’ tabloid) REPORTER 3: Yes, but if they are murders, how do people keep themselves safe? LESTRADE: Well, don’t commit suicide. (The reporter looks at him in shock. Donovan covers her mouth and murmurs a warning.) DONOVAN: “Daily Mail.”

The Times (British conservative newspaper; not regarded as ‘tabloid’)

John looks at the article reporting Beth Davenport’s apparent suicide. Next to a large photograph of Beth is a smaller one showing the man who just visited the flat and identifying him as D.I. Lestrade. (ASiP)

The Daily Telegraph (aka The Telegraph. British daily broadsheet newspaper)

Sherlock reading, headline invisible (TBB)

The Sunday Telegraph (owned by The Daily Telegraph)

Sherlock reading, headline invisible. Picture seems to show Connie Prince (TBB)

Daily Mirror (British ‘redtop’ tabloid)

“Tragic Carl died doing what he loved” (Sherlock’s clip; TGG) “7 times a night in Baker Street” (HLV)

The Guardian (British daily newspaper known for liberal or left-wing viewpoints)

“Amateur detective to be called as expert witness. Scotland Yard calls upon ‘nation’s favourite detective’ in Moriarty trail” (TRF) “The case is riddled with irony and intrigue but perhaps reflects a deeper malaise that seems to be at the heart of a society” (TRF) “Shock verdict at trial”(TRF) “Moriarty vanishes” (TRF) “What next for the Reichenbach hero” (TRF) “Lord Smallwood suicide” (HLV)

The Sun (British ‘redtop’ tabloid, many controversies around misogyny, homophobia and Thatcherism)

“Sherlock – the shocking truth” (by Kitty Riley, TRF) ”Sherlock’s a fake! ‘He invented all the crimes’” (unpublished, Kitty Riley, TRF) “Suicide of fake genius” (TRF)

Global CAM News (Invented newspaper, as far as I can see)

“Trepoff ‘Guilty’ Sensation!” (MHR)

The Independent (British newspaper, ‘social-liberal’; since 2016 it only exists online)

John reading, headline invisible (TRF)

When making this list, some of the newspapers reminded me of these lines from Tom Robinson’s satirical song from the seventies (my bolding):

Glad to be Gay (Lyrics) Pictures of naked young women are fun In Titbits and Playboy, page three of The Sun There's no nudes in Gay News, our one magazine But they still find excuses to call it obscene Read how disgusting we are in the press The Telegraph, People and Sunday Express Molesters of children, corruptors of youth It's there in the paper, it must be the truth

Three of these six newspapers and tabloids are figuring in BBC Sherlock, one of them (The Sun) highly contributing to Sherlock’s Fall by carrying false and defamatory news about him. And there’s also this, in the rooftop scene at the end of TRF:

JIM: “Genius detective proved to be a fraud.” I read it in the paper, so it must be true. I love newspapers. Fairytales.

This may be a complete coincidence, of course, but I did find some other possible references to Tom Robinson too, which I described in this meta some time ago.

OK, this is already a monster-post, but just one more little observation:

I know we shouldn’t lend too much credibility to the media, right? But ‘you can’t kill an idea, can you’? Not once it’s made a home in your head... :)

Headline in TSoT: “Potential freezing spell puts funeral directors on red alert”. So, maybe a ‘freezing spell’...

...should put us on ‘red alert’...

...and not ‘bury’ this show entirely just yet? I’ll leave you to your deductions. ;)

@ebaeschnbliah @raggedyblue @sarahthecoat @gosherlocked @sagestreet @tjlcisthenewsexy @221bloodnun @elldotsee @mrskolesouniverse @whimsicalethnographies @sherlocks-salty-blog @fellshish

#Media's role in Sherlock

76 notes · View notes

fadedtoblue · 6 years

Text

Overall thoughts on Jessica Jones S2

So how about that S2 huh? I finished it Sunday night but found that I really needed to take some time to sit and try to destruct all of the emotions I had over it. A good conversation with a friend the other morning helped me get a better grasp on my feelings regarding this season. Specific thoughts below the cut...

Clearly this season has been a divisive one amongst the fans...mostly that it imploded a lot of things / characters who were well loved and didn’t live up to what it was in S1 -- to a certain extent that might be true. I’ll say that I understood what they were trying to do with this season but I don’t think they were able to bring it altogether with the execution. Nothing wrong with trying to do something different but when the final product doesn’t feel like the best outcome, it’s difficult to not be disappointed. Anyway, I’ll try to break down what I liked and didn’t like.

The good stuff:

Seeing these characters in this world again. Coming off of Defenders, I was most intrigued to see Jess, Trish, and Malcolm and well, if that’s what you’re looking for you get it in SPADES. Everyone plays a crucial part in season 2.

Character driven stories to the max. If you enjoy character driven stories, then you’re in luck, as this is essentially the majority of JJS2. Any of the good stuff that happens is purely on the character level -- whether’s it’s shading in more sides of Jessica’s personality and messy internal conflicts, or showing Trish’s steady and frustrating decline, or introducing new side characters to drive home the crux of each character’s central conflict...this is where the show really made sure to take their time. Everyone has their own moment to drive the narrative forward, though some are able to do it with more purpose than others.

Exploring new relationship dynamics. This will probably also end up being in the bad category lol, but generally speaking, I liked that they tried to show our primary characters in dynamics that felt different from last season. It made me feel like the world had continued moving, and the characters were growing, which was cool. And I realize I may be in the minority but I actually ended up liking Alisa and the surprise twist that she was Jessica’s mom actually worked for me?? I wasn’t sure what they were doing with her, as I found her to be frustratingly one-note when they first introduced her -- like, okay, she’s just going around killing people involved with IGH? What’s the point? But the reveal that she was actually Jessica’s mom made it all click for me. Sure, it still skirted the line a bit between drama and flat out soap opera but I think this was one of my favorite new dynamics. It was a hot mess in a lot of the moments, and it really shouldn’t have been one of the main drivers of conflict in this season, but I’m sympathetic to the messed up mother / daughter connection and seeing Jessica fall apart and not know what the hell to do about this woman.

Malcolm. Special shout out to Malcolm who was truly the MVP of this season. He also goes through his own shit but he is probably the one who manages to come out of it in better shape than he went in. It was sad that the trust was so broken by the end between him, Jess, and Trish, but I think he needed to mature beyond the naive idealist who idolizes Jessica and find his own footing.

The bad stuff:

Too much character focus, not enough of anything else. They threw a LOT our way for all of the characters. Jess dealing with her family’s deaths. Jess dealing with her trauma at IGH. Jess dealing with her relationships with Trish and Malcolm going down the shitter. Jess going apeshit on the competition and going on probation and to anger management. Jess dealing with her mom being alive and being a scary ass murderer. And oh wait, Jess also randomly kills a guard and has a dissociative episode where she imagines Kilgrave around every corner. And this is just Jess! It’s incredible that for all of the things I listed, which I think worked in that they contributed to Jessica’s gradual breakdown over the season, it really felt as if we were treading water most of the time narratively. Because every time something bad happened, or she made a bad decision, or whatever...nothing happened. Nothing got really resolved or truly broken until the end of the season. And the thing is, I 100% track with why Jessica keeps flip flopping around. I absolutely see that she’s barely hanging on and she literally can’t deal with it all and especially WHY she can’t deal with it. But it could have been more to the point and still driven us to larger, more important story details. This feeling of nothing happening also applied to Trish, who had a story line I appreciated on paper -- showing just how hard a person can spiral downward, especially someone who used to be an addict and now isn’t just dealing with street drugs, but ridiculous power-inducing shit -- but my god, this woman has this awful fall off the wagon, pretty much blows up her life, career, relationships, also nearly dies in her quest to gain powers from the mad doctor, but still manages to bounce back enough to snipe Alisa with a handgun from 50 feet and deal with zero consequences. I’m not going to list out every storyline for every character, but while these character building moments work to a point, the lack of balance and payoff make for difficult TV watching. Also Jeri’s storyline started out intriguing when there was still a connection to IGH but once that went out the window, it just felt like it should have been on another show altogether.

Too many plot contrivances. This was a point of conversation I had with my friend and like, nothing wrong with plot contrivances to create moments for our characters to DO something but I think a better written show could have created these moments more naturally. And maybe the problem was that some of these moments felt contrived because things were getting dragged out and it was hard to ignore the moments when they happened.

Bad overall plotting of the storylines. So the weird thing is that I pretty much got why everything happened the way it did. But literally every storyline could have been condensed by 2-3 episodes. It was as if this stubborn dedicated to driving the story purely by character also meant to the writers that they needed to slowly draw out each detail and reveal. No, not really. With each delaying tactic that kept us from getting to the next point in the story, it killed any momentum that was starting to build up. I have no expectations that JJ should be an action driven show, but if you’re going to go full tilt into the psychological slow burn, there has to be a balance somewhere. If it’s not going to be some overarching villain, then it should be a better mystery. You know?

Lack of payoff with IGH. Listen, I don’t know what’s up with TPTB and if there’s something preventing these creative teams from writing compelling shadow organizations or whatever, but we’re 0/2 now and that’s so majorly disappointing. To find out that IGH was ultimately just one somewhat well-intentioned dude who got a little carried away with human experimentation...really?! That was something that majorly deflated my sails as it could have been exactly the kind of grounded connective thread that could’ve being pulled across all four shows. This is where the separate but connected universe really bites these shows in the ass because obviously, they all exist in the same time and place and share characters but because they also need to stand as individual shows and be able to pursue their own creative agenda, the choices made by one show inevitably affect the others show that could’ve used IGH.

Random stuff:

As much as Tennant’s Kilgrave (and his crazy good screen presence) was missed, I think it was ultimately the right choice to keep him limited to an episode. My husband was griping about how they could have integrated Kilgrave’s over the shoulder taunting throughout the whole season instead of saving it for the end, but I disagreed. The way they set up his reappearance made a lot of narrative sense to me -- that her accidentally killing the guard, on top of the incredible stress she’s under to take care of everyone’s shit, is what makes her temporarily dissociate and conjure up this vision of Kilgrave. The shtick would have gotten old quickly if he’d be present the whole season, and it would have severely undercut her progress from last season, at least the aspect where she was able to face her abuser and take back her life. I guess you could have done some version of PTSD and that’s why he’s in her head, but I think it would have been a distraction.

Trish is an interesting pickle for me. I am not that emotionally invested in her as a character so for me, the shift in direction doesn’t devastate me as much as it seems to have done for a lot of people I know. And honestly, I think the point of her storyline was to make her this awful and unlikeable. There was already a kernel of the competition and jealousy that existed in her relationship with Jess, but her idealism and compassion for her sister usually won out. And I think it’s also worth noting that she was already pushing Jessica’s boundaries way too hard, even before she falls off the wagon, but obviously falling back into drugs exacerbated a lot of the things that were already lurking under the surface. Also, I don’t think I was even bothered by the fact she’s the one who killed Jessica’s mom, but as I briefly alluded to earlier, it really bugs me that she didn’t reap the full consequences of her season long arc, especially since she still gets to become Hellcat at the end. That being said, karma has a way of coming back and biting you in the ass. If Jeri had to reap the karma of her craptastic behavior of S1 this season, then I fully expect Trish to face it in S3. Ideally we’ll see her attempt to be the hero she’s always wanted to be and crash and burn in spectacular fashion. There’s a reason why our heroes are the heroes and while I don’t think it means Trish will never get to be a hero, being a hero for the wrong reasons doesn’t make you a hero. And this is a tough lesson that I really want to see Trish learn.

Alright, I think I covered most of it. Apologies for any errors, I try to edit my word vomit but I’ll usually miss something :p. And if you want to chat / vent about particulars, I’m all for it! Hit up my asks or send me a message!!

#jessica jones #trish walker #marvel's jessica jones #jj s2 #meta #my thoughts #p talks about stuff #jj spoilers #jessica jones spoilers

33 notes · View notes

ladyvialana · 7 years

Text

Voltron On Ice!!! or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Season 4

So, unlike last season, this season I’m going a bit more in depth with my reaction. And a lot more meta. (A bit like the show, I guess.) There will be two posts to this review/analysis: this post, which is a more general reaction/analysis regarding particular things; and the second post, which will delve into the characters from team Voltron and how this season has affected/developed them.

There will be three parts to this post: a general look at the structure of season 4 in relation to the whole series, discussion about Lotor (and the other main antagonists) and a more analytical look at episode 4, since I actually really liked it and everyone else seems to hate it.

TL;DR: I really liked this season and think we are in for a fantastic ride with the rest of the show. It is kind of all action, little progress this season, but there is still quite important plot and character development and also great insight into world building.

Let’s dig in!

(Fair warning, this is actually quite long for a discussion post (2k words!). And there are no images to break it up. Sorry!)

First up, let me get the whole reaction to the seasonal structure out of the way.

This season, much like season 3, works on its own as a whole. But there is merit to the argument that they should have been released together. For season 1 and 2, structurally, we seemed to have more character/lighthearted episodes in the first half of the season and the back half of the season was faster and more plot-heavy. Structurally, season 3 mimics that character-heavy beginning of a “full” season and season 4 mimics the plot-heavy “back end”. This definitely plays havoc on the pacing of both seasons. However, unlike the earlier seasons, there are two distinct plot arcs which separate the seasons and also a major time gap that separates them (during which some plot and character development happens which I will mention in the second post). Also, in terms of overall focus, they are actually quite distinct. So, while there probably was some fiddling up at a higher level coming into play with the releasing of the episode like this, I still think it works.

Getting into more of a discussion about the focus/driving force of each season, Season 1 was an introductory/training season where we got to know the characters and see them develop their skills and bond with each other so they could challenge the big boss at the end. The overarching goal of the season was to get to Zarkon and fight (and lose, and learn from that loss to come back stronger). Season 2 was about muddying the waters a bit and introducing new elements/allies - it’s sowing the seeds for the rebellion/alliance. It was building up a stronger force to come back to fight the big boss again and actually win this time because the team had learned and knew what they were doing now and had support. Season 3, in a way, mirrored season 1 in that the team was unsettled after a major change to the status quo and they had new members and new positions and new responsibilities. It was about them coming together to form a new team and taking on a new boss (and losing again, sort of; they definitely didn’t win) and learning more about each other and themselves in the process. Season 4 mimics season 2 in that they have to build up their alliance and strengths again, but unlike season 2 (in the same way that season 3 doesn’t completely mirror season 1) the destabilisation of the team that happened at the beginning of the season was not fixed and, as a result, they almost lost completely to the big boss of the season (survived only due to an outside force - kind of like Thace’s intervention in season 1, but far more sinister in implication).

Season 1 was about coming together and learning. Season 2 was about building strength and understanding. Season 3 was about rebuilding and moving forward.

Season 4 was all about deconstruction and expansion. Unlike other seasons, season 4 was not always positive or progressive and, narratively, that’s not a bad thing. In fact it’s very much needed, especially in a show like this. Our heroes need to be challenged and need to fail at times so they can come back stronger. Season 4 was actually quite dark in some ways and, despite it being very plot-driven, had some fantastic character developments which I will talk about below and more in my second post.

Okay! Next: let’s talk bad guys!

I enjoyed Lotor a lot more this season. I think in season 3, he managed to get everything he wanted far too easily. But this season was all about him hitting stumbling blocks and finding ways to get back up after being knocked from his path. I think that determination to succeed at his goals whatever the cost was actually shown properly and seeing him forced to react and think on his feet (and his utter ruthlessness in his actions) was brilliant. I’m really intrigued where they’re going to go with him from after the end of the season and how team Voltron will react to him and his offer of “discussion”.

Just as a further point though, I do not believe Lotor is getting a redemption arc (or, at the very least, this is not the start of a potential redemption arc). Just because he might be more sympathetic to the audience does not mean he will be redeemed. He is not joining team Voltron for altruistic reasons, nor is it some aim at self-improvement or a desire to change. He didn’t see the actions of his side as horrendous or too much for him to handle, he just saw an opportunity to get back at Haggar and maybe get some (disposable) allies on side at least temporarily while he gets back up from the fall from his/the generals’ actions and get some distance between him and Zarkon. The middle of camp Voltron is probably the safest place for him given he is now enemy number 1 in the Galra Empire (and if he can convince a few gullible people to sacrifice themselves/turn to team Lotor for his sake, then all the better for his end goal). Lotor had a setback but he is conniving and holds his own self-interest above all else. If helping team Voltron helps him then he’ll do it for as long as it serves his purpose; if he helps them in spite of his own self-interest, only then will it be the first step. But, as at the end of season 4, there is (barely) a potential opportunity for that first step towards redemption (or an opportunity for Lotor to kill everyone in their sleep and steal away with the castle and the lions - whatever gets him what he wants). I just don’t see it happening and think it would be a waste of a rather effective and three-dimensional villain.

Honestly, and very unexpectedly, the one I’m rooting for to get a (semi-)redemption arc is Haggar. Though, redemption may be the wrong word for it. That scene at the beginning of episode 3 where she’s looking at Honerva’s face was haunting and I feel a great foreboding in regards to her overall character arc/endgame. She definitely is the one holding way more cards than anyone else regarding the corruption of quintessence and I genuinely believe that she will be key to the final endgame climax regarding dealing with that major plot point. She’s important - way more important than Zarkon and even Lotor - to the final showdown and overarching plot.

Zarkon is still kind of one-note, though (but it’s a very menacing note) and I’m interested to see how far this further “de-humanisation” (for lack of a better word) is going to affect his existence and goals. How much of the Zarkon we saw in flashback is even still in this being?

I’m not sure how to take the actions of Lotor’s (former) generals. As with Lotor, it’s interesting to see them showing fear and weakness as well as solidarity in the face of what seems like their leader’s insanity. But surely they had to know the kind of person Lotor was when they joined up with him. Maybe they did romanticise him too much (Acxa certainly did) so I really want to see how they’re dealing with, essentially, all of their hopes and futures destroyed. (I mean, good decision making on their part to not stay with the guy who might turn on them at any point without warning. At least their survival instincts are intact if nothing else.)

Finally on this post, a look at a particularly hated aspect of the season (that I actually liked).

Now, I didn’t want to delve into the episodes individually too much given that I was really looking to analyse the season as a whole through the characters in my second post, but I did want to have a brief (ha!) discussion about episode 4 just to finish off this first general post.

Just as a quick note: I am not trying to present anyone’s thoughts/opinions/feelings about this episode as invalid. I’m just presenting my personal thoughts on the episode and explaining why I actually like it. You are under no obligation to agree with my reading of the text; I do understand and sympathise with why people don’t like this episode.

So, in saying that: unlike basically everyone else in the fandom, I genuinely loved this episode. I thought it was funny and entertaining and it was also one of the most uncomfortable episodes of the series so far. It is fantastic metatextual presentation of the show’s interaction with both the execs/TPTB and the more inflexible and outspoken fans. It’s about breaking expectations through self-parody while also presenting a really powerful message about the power of propaganda. You are meant to feel uncomfortable about this episode; it’s designed to make you think critically about the show and how you watch/interact with it. For all that, it’s surprisingly less judgemental than I’d expected (given how I’ve seen this play out in other shows/fandoms before) and presents more of a criticism of the actual construction/distribution of the show than the reception/fandom. In some ways it’s a lighthearted joke at itself and the various criticisms of the show (Hunk being portrayed as a joke was meant to be uncomfortable - the distillation of the characters down to one-note ideas is meant to be a commentary on marketing and mass-production and the way the execs push certain agendas despite good and effective storytelling *cough*Shiro’s early return and toy sales*cough*).

This episode as a whole is meant to leave a sour taste in your mouth - the propaganda (critical reception/fan interaction) worked; Coran doing drugs to ensure the show/war effort’s success was ultimately given a retroactive pass given that the end (disturbingly) seemed to justify the means; they didn’t even really defeat the monster, just kicked it away to not even deal with later. Everyone (aside from Lance maybe) was exhausted by the whole situation but did it just to get the numbers they needed for the rebellion and it worked. Rising body count in this season aside, this episode really pushed home that they are fighting a war and they will use every weapon in their arsenal to win. War is just as much manipulation of news and images and facts as it is killing people. Coran’s story (the Legend of Voltron) is what people will remember, not the actual facts. This is the truth of their rebellion now and they’re going to have to live with this presentation of their struggle in the future no matter how (seemingly) benign the exaggeration. The episode’s overly humorous (almost frenetic) tone strikes a completely discordant note with the rest of the (actually quite dark and serious) season. The contrast between the laser shows/ice skating/Lance’s aerial acrobatics and the fact that we saw actual on screen deaths throughout the season and witnessed Voltron being particularly brutal while fighting in the season finale just makes it all the more striking. The deaths and seriousness hold more weight because of this contrast but the laughter is also far brighter in turn. Because, despite the fact that (as we are very aware) propaganda can be used for terrible purposes, this episode proves that Voltron is the greatest symbol for hope for the universe and has been sorely needed.

Now, I’m not trying to present this episode as perfect or argue that you have to like it. This episode is disliked by many people for many reasons and everyone’s feelings about it are valid. I just wanted to present an alternate viewpoint. You don’t have to agree with me or take anything I’ve said as gospel truth. Even if you read this and think I have a point but you still don’t like the episode: thank you for at least reading this far.

So, these are just a few things that I wanted to discuss before getting to the character stuff in my next post I really wanted to delve into after season 4. I hope people enjoyed reading it (even if you disagree with everything I said). Feel free to message me/reblog/comment if you like. (I’m a little unsure how to end this - I tend not to start discussions; usually I’m just sliding over some fic and then scuttling back to my hiding place.)

See you in the next post!

#voltron meta #voltron spoilers #voltron season 4 #voltron #vld #meta #text #vialana's rambling

15 notes · View notes

stiawol · 7 years

Text

Star Trek Discovery - thoughts after 5 eps

So I probably don’t really like this show. I mean, we’re five episodes in and while there are characters I like, I’m not sure I’d care all that much if they died in the next episode. In fact, I don’t think I’d be to terribly sad if the plug was pulled on the show all together, except for the fact that I love Star Trek and there would be almost no chance of another show, ever. Of course, if this is the route TPTB continue to force Trek on, well . . . . It’s Trek, but not really Trek.

There are elements of Trek, it’s true, but I’m not sure they’re all the right elements? And I’ll probably muddle this up and make my point incomprehensible, but I’m going to try anyhow.

First off, I’m all for a diverse crew; in fact I actually really like the diversity of this crew. But it feels like the people behind the show are making the diversity an issue and it shouldn’t be. We’ve had diverse characters in Trek before, but that was never the defining characteristic of the characters. It was a facet of their character, but they were whole characters in and of themselves and they just happened to also be black or alien or android or female or blind or whatever. It wasn’t irrelevant, either. It was just a fully integrated element of a whole character. But with the characters on Discovery, it often feels like the *only* reason a character is a character at all is because they ticked off a box on a diversity check list. Maybe they’ll be developed further in the future, but I’m not holding my breath.

If that made sense, I’m so glad. But I don’t make any promises for the next part.

My second point is the issue of the Prime Directive. It’s kind of a big issue in most of Star Trek. After all, it’s called the PRIME Directive for a reason. It’s not sub directive 3-b or something; it is the one essential command that all members of Starfleet are supposed to abide by. But I kind of wonder if TPTB ever got that memo, because I’m not seeing a whole lot of adherance to the Prime Directive in Discovery. They mentioned it in the first five minutes of the first episode, but mentioning it and actually following it are not the same thing. There was an episode in the Next Generation (more, actually) where the crew had the opportunity to save a race on the verge of extinction. They wanted to - they saw a civiliation in its death throes and they wanted to help, to allow the civiliation to continue on and maybe someday develop the technology to explore the stars themselves.

And, in the end, they did. And viewers could switch off their TV sets happy about rooting for the good guys. But that’s only the part of the picture we saw. Our only authority on the Dremans is a 10-12 year old girl who is witnessing the death of her planet. We assume, because we like Data and Picard and the Enterprise crew in general, that they are correct and the planet will be destroyed in short order if they don’t act and the Dremans lack the ability to stop it. But they have never encountered the Dreman’s before. They don’t really know anything about the Dremans and their abilities or their technology. How do we REALLY know that the Dremans weren’t actually hours (or minutes or seconds) away from powering up a sonic inducer that would have shattered the dilithium lattices. Can we be *absolutely certain* that the Enterprise didn’t delay the Dreman’s launch into deep space exploration by a more than a decade or even a few thousand years?

*That* is why the Prime Directive exists. It isn’t just because the actions of a crew or individual might prompt a previously secular civiliazation into believing in an all-powerful and all-knowing deity. It is because we ultimately do not *know* exactly all the repercussions any action we take might have. A book can change the whole future of a civilization, a stray tricorder can prevent a pandemic, or a careless gesture can start a war.

I’ve rambled long enough and I think I’ve pretty much avoided any serious spoilers for Discovery so far, so I’ll close here. Discovery has issues. I don’t like them, but I don’t think it’s irredeemable just yet. I’ll continue to watch and I’ll probably post again at some point in the future.

#star trek discovery #Star trek #Prime directive #diversity #stream of consciousness #nothing to see here #I’m hopeful but not optimistic #original content

2 notes · View notes

aoitrinity · 7 years

Text

Supernatural Survey

Tagged awhile back by @rosewhipped22--thanks for providing me another reason to avoid being productive! WOOT!

1. What season did you start watching Supernatural? A little under a year ago, at this point. It was toward the end of July last year (during the hellatus between S11 and S12). I binged all eleven seasons in 40-some days, because I’M COOL LIKE THAT. But, uh, yeah, I’m a total newbie here by comparison.

2. Who was the first character you fell in love with? Oooh, tough choices...I probably got very attached to Bobby before anyone else, really. Ellen followed pretty soon after that.

3. Who was a character that you hated at first but grew to love?: Uh...this is going to sound weird, but I was initially VERY apprehensive about Kevin. That lasted for all of an episode and then Osric won my heart.

4. Which character would you most want to be in a long-term relationship with? Charlie. We could play video games and read Harry Potter aloud and go to Renn Faire together...

5. If you could go on a date with just one character, which one would you choose?: Just one date? Probably Sam.

6. What would you do on that date? We’d find some really eccentric history museum or something and spend the day nerding out over plague masks or something similarly bizarre.

7. Which character would you most want to be like?: Nnngh, this is hard...but if I HAD to chose, probably Jody? She seems to really have her life together. She’s kind and intelligent, but also as badass as they come.

8. Which character would you most want to see brought back from the dead?: Well, Cas would be the obvious answer, but after that? Eileen! PLEASE PLEASE PRETTY PLEASE! And if we can’t have Eileen, then give me back Charlie GOD DAMN IT! *shakes fist at TPTB*

9. Which character would you most like to punch?: Lucifer. Please God. That’s all I want. I want to punch Lucifer right out of the show X.x

10. Who is your absolute favorite character?: Castiel. Hands-fucking-down. Simultaneously a badass angel-of-the-fucking-lord and a soft little goober with the most adorable head tilt.

11. Which “Big Bad” do you think was the worst?: Worst like...stupidest? Dick Roman would win that one by a mile...everything about that character was so fucking ham-fisted. Worst in terms of most challenging? Does the MoC count? That shit seemed pretty fucking awful.

12. Which character are you most like?: I’m like some weird hybrid of Kevin and Charlie, but probably closer to Charlie.

13. What death hit you the hardest? WELL UP UNTIL CAS TOOK THAT CAKE IN 12.23...definitely Bobby. The fact that it stretched out over the whole episode...that Bobby was literally all they had left at that point in the season...the nature of the goodbye...man, that was rough. If we’re talking anger, though, Eileen’s death made me PRETTY FUCKING ANGRY. 14. What season finale hit you the hardest?: Season 8 hurt really badly. It was so tragic, watching Cas standing there as his grace caused his brothers and sisters to fall out of the sky in flames...I cried a lot. Season 9 had me crying too, when Cas found out Metatron had killed Dean...and Season 11 was really difficult too, mostly for the scene where Dean had to say goodbye to Cas and Sam. But if I had to pick just one, then probably Season 8.

15. What are your ten all-time favorite episodes?: Iiiiiii can’t narrow this shit down, damn it! That’s too cruel! Uh, well, off the top of my head, here are ten I really, really like, in order of occurrence-- 5.04 - The End, 5.22 - Swan Song, 6.20 - The Man Who Would Be King, 8.17 - Goodbye Stranger, 9.06 - Heaven Can’t Wait, 11.04 - Baby, 11.20 - Don’t Call Me Shurley, 12.10 - Lily Sunders Has Some Regrets, 12.12 - Stuck in the Middle (With You), 12.19 - The Future

16. What’s been your favorite season?: Surprisingly, probably Season 12? There were SO many good episodes in the back half of the season...I also really like 11... and 8... and 9... and 6... and...

17. Who is your favorite angel? Castiel--see #10

18. Who is your favorite demon? Crowley. How do you top that, seriously?

19. Who’s your favorite evil character? Rowena. Oh man, what I wouldn’t give to have her back. Sassy, powerful, amazing hair, AND a Scottish accent? SIGN ME UP.

20. Do you have any Supernatural ships?: I will sail aboard the SS Destiel until the day I die. I also very much ship Saileen (#BRING BACK EILEEN).

21. Who’s your favorite supporting actor?: Misha! But, uh, if he doesn’t count as supporting anymore, I REALLY love me some Rich and Rob. And Osric. And Felicia. And Sebastian. Damn it, I CAN’T MAKE DECISIONS.

22. What’s your favorite quote from the show?: So many choices...but the one that always sits with me is Cas’s, “Now I realize that there is no righteous path, it's just people trying to do their best in a world where it is far too easy to do your worst.”

23. If you could cast one famous actor in an episode of SPN, who would you choose?: Oooooh...John Barrowman? Is he famous enough? Because hot DAMN I would pay good money to see that.

24. If you could write your own episode, what kind of creatures would you like to see included?: Dryads! They could do some really creepy stuff with trees...

25. Who’s your favorite girl that Dean’s hooked up with?: Rhonda Hurley--thank you for that beautiful gift of Dean-in-pink-satin-panties <3

26. Who’s your favorite girl that Sam’s hooked up with?: Jess (GOD DAMN IT WE WERE SO CLOSE WITH EILEEN)

27. What are some of your favorite convention moments?: I think the underbear takes the proverbial cake here.

28. If you were going to guest star (or be a recurring guest star) on SPN, how would you want your character to be described?: Snarky, intelligent, and fucking badass! So...Jody, essentially.

29. What do you hope to see in the next season?: CANON DESTIEL FTW :D!!!! Also, hopefully, further erosion of the Brodependency, more Sam being confident and independent, more Dean continuing to open himself up emotionally, and for the love of God, bring back Cas and Eileen and Rowena. Oh, and lastly...I really need to see Lucifer dead. That would be the icing on the Season 13 cake.

30. - 40. If you had to choose…

Bobby or John?: Bobby OF COURSE

Bela or Ruby? Ruby. I always hated Bela...she felt so two-dimensional :\

Jess or Madison?: Jess--I love me some Adrianne Palicki.

Jo or Lisa?: Jo; Lisa was way too vanilla

Charlie or Kevin?: Charlie, but I hate having to choose >.>

Balthazar or Ash?: Balthazar. I love them both, though!

Cas or Crowley?: Castiel all the way

Ben or Claire?: Claire!

Jody or Donna?: Jody, but I want them both. All the time. WAYWARD SISTERS IS GOING TO BE MY LIFEBLOOD.

Sam or Dean?: Dean, but again, I don’t like picking >.> So now is the part where I tag other people, but I’m bad at tagging people and I don’t know who has or hasn’t done it so...do it if you want! I love to read peoples’ responses to this kind of thing *^.^*

#spn survey #decisions are hard #i have strong feelings about so many of these questions #i hope i didn't overthink it #i probably did though #sorry!

3 notes · View notes