#like the film version which is notoriously bad

[seeminglyseph]

“But I mean all stories have proven that robots will inevitably become evil and destroy humanity”

Incorrect! Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics! Fuck you!

[chimaeraonwards]

Pendatang and why I think it's important for the fight against censorship

Malaysia's first fully crowd funded film is finally out and its free on YouTube!!!

(btw its fully subtitled in English, Malay, Chinese (Simplified), and Tamil for those who want it)

Pendatang by Kuman Pictures is set in a dystopian future where, due to racial extremism, Malaysia is fully segregated. Citizens live in their own areas based on their race and mixing between the races is punishable by 25 years in prison.

The story centers around a Malaysian Chinese family who is forced to relocate to a designated house by the authorities but they find a Malay girl hiding in their attic.

Anyone who is familiar with the Malaysian film scene would be wondering, "A Malaysian movie about race and inequality? How the fuck did this movie get through the censorship board?". Well, easy. They didn't even try.

In the name of keeping peace in the country, The Malaysian Film Censorship Board (Lembaga Penapis Filem - LPF) is notorious for censoring local movies to the point it loses its impact or keeping movies in a limbo for years. But films need LPF's approval to be able to release theatrically local cinemas.

The makers of Pendatang knew that this film wouldn't have made it past the censorship board or any other kinds of local governmental/commercial release or funding channel. So from the start, they set out to crowd fund this movie to release it for free online - where the LPF has no jurisdiction.

They managed to raise past their goal of RM300k (which is about slightly less than 100k USD). And one year later, they've kept their word - the movie is available on YouTube for free with no ads (making it a non-profit movie).

This is what the makers have to say about this move and what they hope it achieves:

So not only is it a badass move to bypass censorship and non-profit, its also a ground breaker and this opens up a whole new avenue for Malaysian filmmakers.

But it can't be that bad, can it? Well here are some films that weren't so lucky with the LPF.

Mentaga Terbang a story about a young girl's religious journey after her mother's passing to find out what happens after death. It was banned in Malaysia.

Tiger Stripes, the Cannes award winning teenage body horror film detailing a girl's journey with womanhood. It was so heavily cut by LPF that the filmmaker has disowned the censored version and has come out to say that essence was removed from the movie.

Spilt Gravy on Rice is a dark comedy based on a play of the same name. It is a story about a journalist who is close to death and decides to fix his family issues with his 5 kids who all have different mothers. The film was submitted for approval in 2012 and was forced to make changes (including an alternate ending) and was finally approved in 2020. Due to covid, the premiere was delayed till 2022. The original playwright, Jit Murad, passed earlier that year and never got to see his story in the big screen. You can find the film with its original ending on Netflix now.

This is why a movie like Pendatang is so important. Some suspect that Pendatang will be taken down or blocked by the government. I hope it won't.

Malaysian filmmakers want to share good stories that shouldn't be watered down. Malaysian voices want to be heard and shouldn't be unnecessarily filtered and censored.

[hero-israel]

As a black person I actually find the logic of many Zionists to be audacious.

My people were sold and kidnapped. We were enslaved for hundreds of years. We had the most despicable things happen to us. I’m sure you may relate, we were put into breeding camps, they used our parts to make clothes and furniture, allegedly they ate us, they tortured us, etc.

There is more than enough proof I am indigenous to Africa hell I found and reconnected with the family one of my ancestors was taken from. I am very lucky.

At no point have I ever thought about going to West Africa and taking the land back, stealing property, imprisoning, and murdering people who’ve lived there for centuries and still live there today. Even though there’s a possibility that they’ve participated in the selling of at least one of my ancestors.

Just because I can trace my heritage there doesn’t suddenly mean I have a claim on the land. I have heard so many Zionist say they belong there more than Palestinians, that there claim on the land is stronger. Maybe it’s not all of them but it is enough to be concerning.

Also bring up Liberia if you want. We didn’t ask for that.

This is a fair critique and it brings up one of the most important aspects of Zionism, and of all Jewish life in the modern era and from now on: that Zionism was always morally RIGHT, but it did not have to be morally NECESSARY.

For decades there was a raging, controversial, legitimately two-sided intracommunity debate over Zionism, like nothing you see among Jews today, memorably portrayed in Chaim Potok's novel "The Chosen" (and subsequent film version). The Reform Jewish Movement, our largest denomination, was governed by an explicitly anti-Zionist platform for over 50 years..... until they changed their minds in 1937. The Jewish people always trace their heritage to Eretz Yisrael, always could claim a rightful place there - but things should never have been allowed to get bad enough, fast enough, that in the truest sense their only choice was to create a state of Israel or die.

As early as 1920, Hitler said his goal was total extermination of the Jews. Nobody cared. America sealed its gates to Jewish immigrants in 1924. Germany began visibly prepping for genocide around 1935, again nobody cared. At Evian 1938 - "the great betrayal" - pretty much every powerful state in the world acknowledged that the Jews were about to be wiped out, and knowing that, refused to allow refugees to enter (except for the Dominican Republic, the mensches). England bowed to Arab terrorism and sealed off immigration to Mandate Palestine - which was a violation of international law under the League of Nations but, again, nobody cared. Nobody, not one single country, fought to protect the Jews or to help them escape. The Allies couldn't be bothered to bomb the tracks into Auschwitz, but they would heroically sink refugee ships. After the war, 250,000 Jews lingered miserably in displaced persons camps for YEARS, with not one single country being willing to admit them, and in nearly all cases there being nothing to return to anyway. There were still Jews kept in Dachau, guarded by Germans, until 1951.

From a 1945 report to Truman: "Many Jewish displaced persons … are living under guard behind barbed-wire fences … including some of the most notorious concentration camps … had no clothing other than their concentration camp garb…. Most of them have been separated three, four or five years and they cannot understand why the liberators should not have undertaken immediately the organized effort to re-unite family groups…. Many of the buildings … are clearly unfit for winter…. [Author contrasted these conditions with the relative normal life led by the nearby German populations and wondered at the contrast] ...We appear to be treating the Jews as the Nazis treated them except that we do not exterminate them. They are in concentration camps in large numbers under our military guard instead of S.S. troops. One is led to wonder whether the German people, seeing this, are not supposing that we are following or at least condoning Nazi policy...."

Those who attempted to return to their former communities were routinely murdered (seen at the end of "Maus"). There was a massacre of Holocaust survivors in Kiev, Ukraine in September 1945, another in Kielce, Poland in July 1946.

The Jews saw Palestine as their only hope, because it was. And when they saw their enemies there were led by actual red-handed Nazi war criminals, and heard that the stakes were once again their total genocide? Well, that's when you fight.... damn hard... to build the state and the military that will, FOR ONCE, protect you.

You talk about "At no point in my life have I considered claiming a part of Africa and fighting the people who I find there". Well - what if it was extremely obviously that or death?

A popular saying among Jews: "Israel was not created because there was a Holocaust. The Holocaust was created because there was no Israel." It's true - but it should not have been necessary to have an Israel to prevent the Holocaust. The rest of the world should have done that, and they didn't so much fail in preventing it as much as they succeeded in enabling it. You are correct to say that African-Americans did not ask for Liberia. The concept was made up by white people to try to get blacks out of America (though it gained popularity with black people after "milestones" of new cruelty such as the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act, and I believe Marcus Garvey is well-liked to this day). Well, Jews did not ask to have no government in the world grant us equality or defend us from genocide. We did not ask to have no choice. And we do not ask for our response to the latest attempted genocide to be condemned by the same nations that enabled the last several.

Today about 90% of Jews are Zionists. Not just out of the everlasting moral principle, but because of the life-or-death reality that when we needed ANY OTHER OPTION TO WORK, NOTHING DID. And since then, there has been even clearer demonstration of the tenuousness of Jewish survival and the depths of inhuman hatred we face from our enemies, as the 3,000-year-old Mizrahi Jewish civilization was successfully uprooted and purged from dozens of countries (which had already been oppressing and massacring them long before Zionism) as collective racial revenge against Israel. The mere fact that that was logistically possible - that it could be done, quickly and repeatedly - speaks worlds about the normalized culture of eliminationism surrounding us. What do you really think are the chances that African-Americans could be altogether physically purged from the USA or some of its states? Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan, and Eritrea finished their Jews within the last 5 years.

As "critics of Israel" have made it extremely clear that all Jews worldwide remain legitimate targets, that all "colonizers" (unquestionably including Americans like me) "deserve it" ("it" to include infanticide, rape, kidnapping, and mass murder), and as America visibly decays into algorithmic racist authoritarianism and climatic desperation.... you should not expect that 90% to change.

[ghostsghoulsandhatboxes]

hattie box head canons go

died at 37 due to decapitation (duh), he looks older than he is due to stress in life and postmortem decomposition

mortal name was horace hatford, but he exclusively goes by hatty/hatbox (or simply h. hatford) now

ezra's younger brother, their parents had a habit of jokingly picking on hatty a lot which did not help his self esteem issues

autism creature. sensitive to loud noises especially

hes just. he has a lot of mental issues. depression and social anxiety king

selectively mute, mostly just laughs. even if youre a good friend of his he doesn't talk very much

real voice isn't as deep as it sounds in the ride, he imitates ghost host's manner of speaking for performances

loves sewing, started out making clothes (worked as a tailor in life) but also does plush toys and embroidery

more under the cut. theres a lot

favorite movie genre is sci-fi horror, but his least favorites are slasher and supernatural horror films; slashers tend to trigger trauma surrounding his and his loved ones' deaths, and supernatural horror hits different when you're a ghost (mainly the annoying amount of misconceptions and inaccuracies)

his least favorite horror movies are hereditary and pet sematary for similar reasons; he can't stand it when kids die in movies (and the decapitation scene in hereditary is especially triggering to him)

bi and demisexual but mostly just calls himself queer. he's happy being with emily so sexuality labels don't really matter to him

genderfluid, doesnt rly care about what pronouns other people use for him but mostly prefers he/him, she/her, or it/its.

has a glowing heart like emily's, which is usually hidden under his clothes

used to be a notorious prankster around the mansion, which is actually part of why he got kicked out; aside from his signature trick not being up to par at first, he liked to mess with cast members who were trying to set things up by spooking them, stealing tools, etc until they got fed up and had him booted

(based on his animatronic's b mode) had some stage fright when he came back to the mansion back in 2015; he panicked and froze up all day and felt really bad afterwards bc he didn’t want to mess up and get booted again. the ghost host was pretty understanding of this but hatty's still nervous that if he screws up badly enough he could get kicked out again

can growl like an animal for some reason. nobody knows how or why he learned to do it but he mainly just uses it to fuck with people (constance, mostly). can also "purr", it's more like a rattling wheeze. a bit unnerving but emily thinks it's cute though

spent his years away from the mansion exploring haunted places all over the world, and knows a lot about the history of said places (special interest)

can teleport his head anywhere within a 5 foot radius of himself; it can be physically carried up to 15 feet away from him, but it's tethered to his body by a sort of invisible "thread" and cannot go further than that

mild telekinesis abilities, learned from leota

has back and wrist issues carried over from when he was alive, hence the cane and shaky hands. floats most of the time bc he can't walk very fast

he gets frequent hand pains, if he does manual work like writing or sewing for long periods of time he has to take a break for a while since his hands will start hurting too badly to do anything

collects every piece of disney merch with him on it

pale asf as a mortal but does have some hispanic/latin ancestry from one of his grandparents

also bonus emily hcs

died at 23 from being stabbed in the heart

was originally engaged to dorian gracey, who was constance's nephew

loves painting, sometimes touches up the haunted portraits in the mansion at their owners' requests

adhd haver, will often fixate on a project to the point where she won't leave the same spot for days

can transform from shadowy to corpse-like to her usual mortal-esque form; her shadowy version is covered in a sort of liquid darkness that can shift in coverage, which is typically concentrated on her face and hands

was kicked out of the mansion's tour route by constance and now just stays behind the scenes. she's pretty bitter about this and regularly argues with connie about nearly anything

her heartbeat increases in volume and speed when excited, scared, or when experiencing other strong emotions

favorite movie genre is psychological horror, is also a fan of found footage horror

bi and demisexual as well

and for both of them :]

hatty likes to rest his head against emily's chest to listen to her heartbeat, they often fall asleep like this

emily is much taller than hatbox, being 6' while hatty is only 5'4"; she can lift him up pretty easily

hatbox sometimes borrows emily's shirts to sleep in

they have movie nights together at least once a week, they mostly watch classic horror and disney animated films. sometimes they get distracted and just start making out and stuff

hatbox doesn't really like being touched by anyone, especially strangers, but is very physically affectionate towards his wife

often each of them think about what their lives would've been like had they lived longer (eg them having a happy ending, getting married and spending the rest of their mortal lives together, maybe starting a family, etc), makes em both really sad though but they're happy being together in death

hatty is always more relaxed around emily, though usually he can seem a bit grouchy and antisocial to most other people

[tymime]

I'm very alarmed by how many people are dismissive of the lost media community, even going so far as to spread misinformation about them. I've seen them characterize lost media seekers as ignorant whiners and brats, and that they're wasting their efforts. Do these people have any idea how difficult it actually is to find this stuff? It can take years, if copies even exist. Don't they value art preservation?

You'd be astonished by how many shows that are barely twenty years old that have simply vanished, with no clear indication of whether or not the copyright holders kept a record of it. When fans try to contact the people involved in the show, they often refuse to answer emails. These aren't old, aging shows from fifty years ago, decaying in some film can. These are shows from as recent as the 2000s and 2010s.

There's been a toxic attitude going around big media companies for a couple decades now, treating their IPs (and their customers) as disposable, moving on to the next thing as soon as profits dry up. This is a big part of the reason media becomes lost in the first place. Old show not getting enough ratings? Need to make room for a new show? Just get rid of it! Now, some of these examples aren't lost media, admittedly- but they definitely could have been, if not for an on-the-ball internet pirate downloading and backing them up. There's a series from 2002 called Whatever Happened to... Robot Jones? which hasn't been on the air in about twenty years. The original audio track was missing for many years, and had to be pieced together from several sources, with the video elements coming from a foreign dub. There was a music track heard in an episode of SpongeBob called "Humpback Hop" with several minutes cut from it, unheard of for two decades, and even the composer had lost all of his copies of it. It seemed like even Nickelodeon didn't have it in their archives, because they rerecorded it for a DVD menu. It's a miracle somebody finally tracked it down. There's a series from 2007 called Out of Jimmy's Head, whose original English version is still half missing. Even though by all accounts it's a crappy show, I still want to see it. (update: This show has been found, thank goodness.) And even though I'm not a fan, there are dozens of 2010s Cartoon Network shows that were once on HBO Max, that are simply gone. They're not in reruns, they're not officially streaming. You have to resort to piracy to view them. I wouldn't wish this fate on anybody. The Willow series from 2022 was taken off Disney+ mere weeks after its debut, just because not enough people watched it. It's stuck in the middle of a storyline.

Nintendo has been notoriously bad about this. They don't want you to play any NES, SNES, GB, or N64 games that aren't the most iconic best-sellers. They take down ROM websites, even if most of the games there aren't first party or being sold in any way. The only way to legally play a game that isn't available on the Switch is to pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars for a working console and cartridges. Most people can't afford to do that.

If it hadn't been for the efforts of unofficial programs like Ruffle and Flashpoint, thousands of flash games and cartoons would be unplayable and unwatchable.

Even if the cartoon is safe and sound locked away in some vault, instead of missing entirely, it still winds up unseen that way. The public has a right to see a show they used to be able to see and enjoyed, instead of it being unviewable for all eternity. "Oh, but they have a right to not let us see it! They own the rights to it, after all, and can do whatever they want!" some might say. What if WB went out of their way to destroy every DVD, Blu-ray, and video tape of Looney Tunes, and locked away all their copies? Would you feel the same way then? Would we not have a right to see them? Would you just roll over and take it, and let corporate overlords tell what you can or can't watch? Just shrug it off and say "Oh well, guess I'll never see it again"? How would it not irritate you? TV and movies aren't the same as some painting or statue where usually only one version of it exists in some museum or private collection. Media is meant to be distributed and seen worldwide, for everyone to enjoy in their homes. If they're stuck in some warehouse on some hard drive, they may as well not exist.

It extends out into other aspects of our lives- old buildings get torn down instead of getting restored, vintage interiors get torn out or covered up by something modern or ugly. There was a time when films and video tapes were routinely destroyed to make room for new ones, because nobody thought anybody would want to see them again. We need to get past this destructive pattern.

Am I grateful for streaming services and the content they make available? Of course I am. But as many have said before, they could take it all away, and a show can simply vanish, leaving fans to resort to piracy just to see it, if anyone even bothered to save it beforehand.

Being dismissive of these efforts is the sort of attitude that's part of the reason media gets lost in the first place.

[tomothysturridge]

Gestalt, Leopold/Loeb, & Like Minds

Once again, Like Minds (2006) is sticky in my brain. This time because if we take the movie’s explanation of Gestalt as a framework from which to view Nigel/Alex and the very clear subtextual comparison to Leopold and Loeb (they come up twice in Sally’s research) then the idea that Alex is an entirely innocent party falls apart entirely and if the writing wasn’t so against a woman being right, Sally should have realized this.

Not to bring up how Alex’s “Nigel’s death was a means to an end” comment should have been a fat clue again but mentioning that in conjunction with Gestalt should have clued her into the fact that what Alex meant was Nigel’s death was a moving part in the larger, more import whole of what they were trying to achieve. At some point before the trigger was pulled, either one or both of them had to have realized that — you could argue Nigel realized it in the moment and Alex only saw it after but in conjunction with everything else it’s hard to believe Alex was that slow to the punch.

This also leads me to another point: Nigel, at least at the beginning of the encounter at Casa Colbie has no intention of dying — he wants his Maraclea, that's why set the whole thing up, so why does he end up dead at the end of the night? If I'm being honest, my little conspiracy is that Alex realized before Nigel did that he had to die. Maybe he realized Nigel was truly his Maraclea (but that’s a topic for another day). Alternatively, perhaps one or both of them realized that they had to “become one” as Nigel puts it in order to be at their fullest potential. It is heavily implied in the film that Nigel is still “haunting” Alex. He can still hear him and feel him. If this is the case, Alex is both the unprincipled man and he has the implement for killing in his head. They can no longer be separated, they are one.

Also if we just map them onto Leopold and Loeb, it’s clear that Alex’s version of events want us to view Nigel as Leopold, the ‘dominant’ partner in the gestalt relationship and Alex as ‘Loeb.” Leopold is the one who believed that he and Loeb had some great destiny BUT if we look at the empirical evidence we are given, Alex is, function wise, the Leopold in the situation. He is the “unprincipled man” where Nigel is just the “implement for killing.” Also the only thing we are told by Alex that Nigel said that it is provable (Sally found the notebook) that he said is that entry on Alex in his notebook in which he accuses Alex of having delusions of grandeur. So let's take Nigel's only actual words at face value here -- If it is true that Alex in fact does possess delusions of grandeur as Nigel said, then that makes him much more like Leopold. Loeb also notoriously saw himself as a “submissive” partner to Leopold and wanted to be dominated by him. Similarly, Nigel seeks direction from Alex and sees himself merely as a “spade.”

All this is to say that I do not believe for a second that Alex is innocent of their crimes because when you dig into subtext of gestalt as presented in the movie and the irl case that the movie is based on, it is so damn hard to believe he is. I think this is the puzzle he wanted Sally to solve but she couldn't because of her bad writing.

This is also all very gay. Leopold and Loeb were very gay but again, that's a topic for another day.

[rael-rider]

While I really love the MCU Guardians of the Galaxy, I really wish they specifically didn't have so much synergy with their comics counterparts. Obviously Bendis' habit of bringing in random Earth characters didn't help, but the team dynamic in almost every run but Ewing's has been just a worse version of the films'. Gunn's changes aren't bad for the movies' sake, but when they try and make the established 616 gotg act like them it just comes off as weird, and for some reason we're still doing it in the year of our lord 2023. I just wish the MCU didn't have such a profound impact on the comics so we could've had two very different but well-written versions of the team.

Synergy hit the Guardians harder than any other characters and it was inevitably going to happen even if Gunn wasn't involved because the moment Feige wanted to do a GotG movie the comic Editors wanted to make the characters more audience friendly and basically tasked Bendis (who really didn't want to do it and had to be convinced to, which also explains why his run is so bad) to be the person to do t.

Even though Bendis has admitted that beyond reading Clarmeont and Byrne's Star-Lord he really didn't read or care much about the other characters. he was going to reinvent them and the plan from what I could tell was to synergize the movie with his own comic. But it's really that. Most writers that got involved with the Guardians really DGAF about them or just don't know what the hell to do with them. After the first movie came out you could told most just copied what Gunn did with them in the MCU. Problem with that is that no one is as good as James Gunn at doing his brand of humor, no one saw past the comedy aspect and reduced them to just jokes. Drax always took everything literally and couldn't understand metaphors or figure of speech. Gamora was always a flawless stoic badass. Rocket was angry 24/7. Groot had no personality. Peter Quill was a manchild that everyone disrespected and ridiculed.

This was especially bad during the period between vol.1 and vol.2 where everything was just a repeat of the plot in the first GotG movie. Guardians don't get along, Guardians find an ancient powerful Mcguffin, Guardians have to fight bad guy who wants the Mcguffin, Guardians have to band together and get along in order to defeat the bad guy. If they fought a bad guy it was usually Korath, Nebula, Ronan, or the Chitauri.

The GotG cartoon was notorious for this, and when it started bringing out non-MCU stuff it was things from the Bendis run and it's why you had multiples episodes with Asgardian and Symbiote related plotlines.

I also get the feeling that a lot of the writers that handle the Guardians don't really care about them as characters nor about their history. The current GotG writers for example feel like they really care more about writing a space western than really writing a Guardians story. The Guardians in the comic just feel like Guardians in name only.

[denimbex1986]

'Let's be fair, right off the bat: Christopher Nolan's "Oppenheimer," based on the Pulitzer Prize-winning book "American Prometheus" by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, is a remarkably accurate look into the life of American scientist J. Robert Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy). It explores both his experiences working as the director of the Manhattan Project, fighting to build an atomic weapon before the Germans could manufacture their own, as well as the character assassination he endured at the hands of Lewis Strauss (Robert Downey Jr.) as a result of the left-wing ties he cultivated in his youth. Christopher Nolan brings his reliably detail-oriented vision to the project, endeavoring to get as close to the real version of history as possible.

But even with a three-hour runtime, it's inevitable that some historical facts are left by the wayside, whether timelines are consolidated to account for narrative flow, the roles of certain characters are shifted slightly, or elements of the overarching story are neglected. We expect this from most biopics because, at the end of the day, a movie is its own take on the story. But today, we're putting on our pedantic hats and taking a look at the spots where "Oppenheimer" and history diverge.

1. The J in J. Robert Oppenheimer

Early in the film, one of Oppenheimer's colleagues makes a comment about how the "J" in "J. Robert Oppenheimer" doesn't stand for anything. (This would not be particularly unusual for the time — famously, the "S" in "Harry S. Truman" doesn't stand for anything either.) But according to "American Prometheus," Oppenheimer's birth certificate confirms that the J stands for Julius, which was the name of his German Jewish immigrant father. It is perhaps likely that he never went by Julius or any derivative of that name because it's an uncommon practice in most Jewish communities to name babies after living relatives, at least in the Ashkenazi tradition, as it's considered to be bad luck.

That Oppenheimer's family didn't follow this particular superstition demonstrates their somewhat fractured relationship with Judaism. Raised by parents of a generation and class in which the primary goal was to assimilate to American culture, Robert Oppenheimer was Jewish by birth, but observed few religious practices. He was in fact educated primarily within the Ethical Cultural Society, a non-religious group founded by Jewish-born Felix Adler, who wanted to incorporate the elements of humanitarianism he considered cornerstones to Jewish culture without necessarily embracing Judaic faith.

2. The infamous apple incident

It's no secret to anyone familiar with Robert Oppenheimer's life that he had a hard time when he first left home for Cambridge to study physics in the prestigious Cavendish lab. He was considered by many contemporaries to be a little emotionally stunted and not quite mature enough for life on his own. Adding to these difficulties were the fact that he was training in a lab that focused on experimentation rather than theory, an environment in which the notoriously clumsy Oppenheimer did not thrive. Struggling to cope with stress and mental health issues, Oppenheimer impulsively poisoned an apple on the desk of his supervisor, Patrick Blackett. 

In the film, he manages to discard the apple and it appears that no one is any the wiser, but in real life (although no one was actually hurt by his stunt) the school found out about what could be interpreted as attempted murder, and it was only with the swift intervention of Oppenheimer's parents that he avoided being expelled or even arrested. He was allowed to stay at Cambridge only under the condition that he met with a London psychiatrist on a regular basis.

3. The ranch in New Mexico

Ever since his teen years, Oppenheimer had a special affinity for New Mexico, a place where he felt more at home than anywhere else in the world. In the film, he mentions to his European colleagues that he misses New Mexico, and that he and his brother have a ranch there. But actually, although Oppenheimer had visited New Mexico several times before attending university in Germany, he and his brother did not own property there until much later. 

Robert and Frank — with the financial support of their father — began leasing a ranch there in 1928, the year after Robert returned to the United States upon receiving his PhD, and Robert didn't actually purchase their small western estate, affectionately referred to as "Perro Caliente," until 1947. Still, the Oppenheimer brothers spent many happy months there, and it was Robert's knowledge of New Mexico that led him to suggest Los Alamos as the eventual site of the Manhattan Project.

4. Oppenheimer's teaching skills

Oppenheimer was by all accounts a unique personality in that social skills did not necessarily come easily to him, but like everything else in his life, he was a quick learner. After receiving his PhD and several offers to teach at various universities, he landed at Berkeley as an extremely green professor with little experience in teaching. "Oppenheimer" shows him connecting with students pretty much immediately, standing at the center of an engaged group of young physicists hanging on his every word. But that wasn't quite the experience that his very first advisees remember. 

In "American Prometheus," Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin describe his teaching style as "largely incomprehensible to most students" and "more like a liturgy than a physics lecture." Even Oppenheimer admitted how much he had yet to learn about the art of lecturing. After describing some kindly advice given to him from a fellow professor at the time, he wryly said, "So you can see how bad it must have been." 

Nevertheless, Oppenheimer eventually developed an ability to support and educate his students, which made the members of his physics department incredibly loyal to him, a skill that naturally complemented his role as director of the Manhattan Project. It was the strong relationships that he had cultivated as a faculty advisor that helped him recruit so many promising scientists to Los Alamos.

5. Running Los Alamos

Similarly, although Oppenheimer was a good choice to lead Los Alamos as a scientist — he intuitively understood how to assess problems in research and help his colleagues find new paths forward — he had little experience as an administrator. When Colonel Groves (Matt Damon) discusses the potential role with Oppenheimer, they mention the fact that none of his former associates considered him adept at the kind of logistical support such a massive project would require. (According to The Harvard Gazette, one commented that "he couldn't run a hamburger stand."). Still, in the movie Oppenheimer seems to have an innate grasp of how to compartmentalize the research in a way that would expedite the process and keep them ahead of the Germans, who had already embarked upon a similar project. 

In reality, Oppenheimer had no clue how to run Los Alamos. John Manley, who worked under Oppenheimer on the Manhattan Project, remembered that he "bugged Oppie for I don't know how many months about an organization chart — who was going to be responsible for this and who was going to be responsible for that," a request that was dodged seemingly until Oppenheimer could avoid it no longer (via Science Madness). But again, the physicist proved to be endlessly adaptable, acquiring the skills and temperament required to head one of the most ambitious scientific endeavors in American history.

6. Opinions on Kitty Oppenheimer

Robert Oppenheimer's wife Kitty (Emily Blunt) is represented as a complicated woman in "Oppenheimer." She drinks too much, has trouble connecting with her children, and has a turbulent yet committed relationship with her husband (no small wonder, considering his affairs). But the film doesn't really address how Kitty was viewed within the Oppenheimer circle, which is that ... well, she wasn't very well-liked.

Their romance came about suddenly, when most of Oppenheimer's friends were still quite attached to Jean Tatlock, with whom he had been in a long-term on-again, off-again relationship. Upon learning that Oppenheimer was engaged to be married, his long-time friend and colleague Bob Serber reportedly wasn't sure if he had proposed to Kitty, or to Jean.

Robert's sister-in-law Jackie did not mince words about her feelings towards his new wife. She allegedly called her "one of the few really evil people I've ever known in my life" (per The Decadent Review). While most of his other friends and family members likely wouldn't have gone that far, many in their circle found her difficult, and were open with their opinion that Robert likely wouldn't have married her if she hadn't become pregnant with their son, Peter.

7. Do you want to adopt him?

In "Oppenheimer," Kitty makes a joke to their family friends, asking if they want to adopt Peter to take him off her hands. (This is after already relying upon the Chevaliers to watch him for a month or two when he was just a toddler.) Kitty's lack of attachment to her two children was well-documented, and the throwaway quip depicted in this scene actually had a much more serious grounding in reality. The only difference is that it wasn't Peter who the Oppenheimers offered up to another family, but his younger sister Toni.

Toni was born in the midst of Robert's work on the Manhattan Project, when he barely had time to sleep, let alone be a father. When Kitty suffered from what was likely postpartum depression and left Los Alamos to spend some time away to recuperate, she had one of her friends, Pat Sherr, take care of her infant daughter. "American Prometheus" recounts a moment when, upon visiting Toni at the Sherrs' home, Robert was struck by the feeling that he could not provide the same amount of love and attention as they could, and Sherr remembers him asking, "Would you like to adopt her?" Although the Oppenheimers maintained custody of both of their children, their home was not particularly emotionally warm, although friends and acquaintances spoke of memories in which both Kitty and Robert expressed great affection for Peter and Toni.

8. Einstein and Oppenheimer's relationship

Although Albert Einstein and Robert Oppenheimer were two of the most important scientific minds of the early 20th century, they weren't necessarily the best of friends. Oppenheimer considered Einstein's contributions, though valuable, entirely of the past by the time he was making his name in physics, and Einstein went on the record as being extremely skeptical about the entire field of quantum physics. Despite this, when they worked together at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, they developed a cordial rapport that was based largely on mutual admiration for each other as men and not as physicists.

The scenes in the film that depict Einstein and Oppenheimer conversing at the Institute largely reflect what their actual relationship probably looked like. However, there's little evidence to suggest that Oppenheimer would have approached Einstein during his work on the Manhattan Project to double-check his math on the probability of the atomic bomb accidentally exploding the world. This is partially because they hadn't gotten a chance to get to know each other as individuals at this point — still several years away from working together at the Institute — and also because they were fairly open with the fact that they considered themselves on very different pages when it came to physics.

9. Wire-tapping Oppenheimer A significant portion of "Oppenheimer" takes place during the closed-door hearing in which Robert Oppenheimer appeals the denial of his top-secret security clearance that would allow him to continue working as a government advisor. During this time, we learn that despite efforts to maintain high levels of security at Los Alamos, there was a German-born scientist employed on the Manhattan Project, Klaus Fuchs, who was reporting directly to the Soviets on their research. The film implies that Oppenheimer's inability to have identified espionage within his ranks was the precipitating factor in his being placed under increased scrutiny from the FBI, with surveillance that included wiretaps on all his phones.

But Oppenheimer ran in a very left-wing crowd before the war, and had been under strict surveillance since he was in his late 20s. The film makes reference to thousands of pages of documents on his past and various audio recordings of his conversations, which is why it seems odd that they choose to focus on this moment with Fuchs as a turning point in the government surveillance of Oppenheimer.

10. Oppenheimer's influence in Washington

The part of "Oppenheimer" that takes place after World War II emphasizes Robert Oppenheimer's inability to get the United States government to deal more openly with atomic energy, sharing their research with other countries and engaging in disarmament talks. It also casts him as a naive victim of Lewis Strauss' political machinations to discredit him, through confidential meetings that drag his name through the mud and prevented him from playing a more active role in the atomic conversation throughout the Cold War. And of course, it features the disastrous real-life interaction between Oppenheimer and Harry S. Truman, with the president of the United States calling the scientist a crybaby. None of this is necessarily untrue: In fact, that's pretty much what happened to Oppenheimer.

But by focusing on these elements of his post-WWII career, the film doesn't do credit to the influence that Oppenheimer actually wielded in Washington after the war. A greatly respected physicist, he had the ear of the most important men in government, even if he wasn't always able to convince them to act in ways counter to their fears about the Soviet Union's nuclear capabilities. He was an invaluable government advisor and was on a first-name basis with the U.S. Secretary of State — that's not nothing.

11. Strauss' nomination hearing

When we see Robert Downey Jr. as Lewis Strauss in the framing story of "Oppenheimer," he might look like he's on trial, but he's cool as a cucumber. The generally accepted wisdom during these scenes, in which Strauss is taking part in a nomination hearing to become the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, is that he's got the cabinet job in the bag. A Senate aide played by Alden Ehrenreich expresses no doubt that this is all just routine, that they have to go through the motions of a hearing, but that he'll eventually be granted the position is never in doubt. It's only when David Hill testifies against Strauss that the Senate reconsiders, narrowly preventing him from being awarded the prestigious role.

In fact, there was a contingent in the Senate that was determined to see him voted down. Strauss had an enemy in Senator Clint Anderson, and their relationship was so acrimonious that it was described in a 1959 Time article as a "blood feud." The result was a prolonged political battle that saw Eisenhower become just the fifth president to suffer the embarrassment of having a cabinet nomination rejected. And although Strauss' treatment of Oppenheimer was one reason why he wasn't confirmed, it was far from the lynchpin in the case.

12. David Hill's testimony

Towards the end of "Oppenheimer," it begins to feel like Lewis Strauss is a Scooby-Doo villain who's just gotten away with his dastardly deeds. His confirmation as U.S. Secretary of Commerce seems all but assured, granting him greater power and prestige in Washington. But then David Hill (Rami Malek) gives a damning character testimonial, accusing him of destroying Robert Oppenheimer's career for personal reasons and therefore lacking the temperament required for such a privileged role. The effect is immediate: Senators, including a young John F. Kennedy, switch their vote, delivering Strauss the comeuppance he desperately deserves.

David Hill did in fact speak out against Strauss during his cabinet hearing, saying that there was "a kind of madness and irrationality which went through the whole case" in Strauss' efforts to have Oppenheimer's security clearance revoked (per CQ Almanac). But Hill was not actually the only scientist who testified against Strauss at this hearing, railing dramatically against his treatment of Oppenheimer. There was another Los Alamos scientist, David R. Inglis, who was then the chairman of the Federation of American Scientists. Inglis spoke critically of Strauss a week earlier at the hearings, referring to his "substantial defects of character" and the "personal vindictiveness" with which he conducted his dealings with Oppenheimer. This stirred senators to doubt Strauss' fitness for the role long before Hill joined the hearing.'

[cantsayidont]

Controversial media takes of various kinds:

MAD MEN is not a good show. It *could* have been a good show, but it's constantly kneecapped by the showrunners' uncertainty about whether they want to critique Don Draper or fellate him (with the show inevitably opting for the latter) and their determination to sideline the other characters (who are often more interesting, and sometime played by actors less insufferable than Jon Hamm, whom I hate) in favor of Don. The longer the show goes on, the less it knows what to do with the period events it references other than to have the characters nod solemnly at them, it only intermittently remembers that Jewish people and people of color exist (and it never actually cares), and its contempt for its female characters (whose story the show really should have been) becomes more and more troubling. Also, a big chunk of the premise is ripped off rather shamelessly from the popular Sloan Wilson novel THE MAN IN THE GRAY FLANNEL SUIT (which had an indifferent film adaptation starring Gregory Peck).

SOME LIKE IT HOT is not pioneering Queer Representation, it's a series of offensive homophobic jokes and transphobic Men in Dresses gags by a notoriously mean-spirited writer-director who thought that shit was just hilarious, starring two of my least favorite American male stars of the period. It's also not funny at all unless you share Wilder's chaser-transphobe predilections. If you're LGBT and you love this awful movie, I certainly can't stop you, but understand that Billy Wilder was very definitely laughing at you, and ask yourself if you're okay with that.

Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce were perfectly fine as Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson; some of the Universal Holmes films are actually quite good despite their modest budgets; and having Bruce play Watson as a comic-relief buffoon was an eminently reasonable creative decision because it gave Watson something to do onscreen other than be constantly awed at Holmes' brilliance, which is boring and reduces the actor to a glorified prop.

The Jeremy Brett Holmes TV series of the eighties is mid at best: Brett is not the definitive Holmes; his decision to play Holmes as an icy misanthrope (which Holmes is not in the canon) makes those versions frequently unpleasant to watch; and any time the show's writers try to expand upon the Doyle stories, they inevitably go very wrong. I can put on any of the Rathbone/Bruce movies, even the bad ones, and find it at least agreeable background noise, but the thought of revisiting the Granada show makes me grimace.

The Stephen Sommers MUMMY movies with Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz are incredibly racist — as are all iterations of that franchise, including the 1932 Karloff film and the more recent, wretched Alex Kurtzman iteration with Tom Cruise and Sofia Boutella — which really undermines their entertainment value even as Big Stupid Popcorn Fun, no matter how how hot you thought Fraser and Weisz were. THE MUMMY (1999) was startlingly racist by the standards of 25 years ago and it has not aged well.

HEDWIG AND THE ANGRY INCH is incredibly offensive transmisogynistic hackwork and the attempts to position it as a modern-day ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW Participatory Event speak volumes about what y'all actually take from the latter.

[bears-wolves-dragons]

This will be also detailed on tiktok but I'll post details here too. Obviously NSFW contents ahead...

Sky

The initial leak: a simply serious of tweets tagging a few group members as a warning to cease their abusive ways, with some extra popfurs thrown in to draw attention. It was poorly handled and led to a ton of misinformation being spread, and the smoke from this allowed other people involved to vanish.

Kero the wolf: when the tweets hit, Kero went into damage control and claimed he was hacked. He lied consistantly and his fanbase tried to help, but in time his beastforums account was found, as well as 3 videos of him sexually abusing his parents dog, Koda.

Surface

Snakething: the ringleader of the chat. Was filmed raping a puppy, actively distributed animal snuff, and was grooming his young relatives for his friends. Liked corrupting people. Is currently in jail for CP related charges, but was initially arrested for animal abuse.

Daylight

Tane: made CP with a 14 year old he "rescued" from an abusive home, bragged about drugging people at conventions. Never arrested but can't recover his former status in the fandom due to the leaks.

Ember Wolf: perhaps most notorious for an incident where he ran wild in a drug-fueled frenzy at a convention many years back, he bragged about drugging and raping dogs. Deleted everything and vanished while people were freaking out over Kero.

Sangie: owned of Inkedfur, was good friends with Snakething. 3x convicted pedophile, he was more scared of being caught again than Snakething harming his young relatives, one of which Snakething was grooming for him. Had his records cleared and still vends at conventions.

Twilight

Pakyto Dingo: french murrsuiter who, surprisingly, doubled down on his zoophilic beliefs, as it's not illegal where he lives. Allergic to dog semen, so that's something. Literally posted a shortened version of a video he posted in the chat online, in which he masterbated to footage of a dog being brutally anally raped, only removing the opening shot of the video he was watching.

Eliteknight: charged with aggravated animal cruelty, there isn't as much on him as there is the rest. (if this ever changes I'll update this post).

Sephius Rivendale: an Austrian fursuiter/murrsuiter who is into bestiality, crush porn, and apparently has raped puppies to death in the past. Still walks free to this day.

Glow Fox: happily discussed pedophilic and zoophilic content with his friends in the chat, but escaped any serious blowback from the logs. Still makes art, still has fans.

Dusk

Akela: the initial poster on twitter. Snakething was recruiting for a zoo meetup that Akela was running at MFF, in which they all planned to rape a dog together. The meet seems to have happened. Actively covered the identities of people in the chat they were friends with, even if they were just as bad as the ones they smeared online.

Woof: A Cuban national who is considered one of the worst people in the chat. Raped and tortured a puppy to death and filmed it with a friend. Abused countless animals, his own and those of others. Is most likely still free but lost his job and any credability he had. There was literally a huge animal rights protest because of his actions.

Shadow Woof: the mole in the Beastly Beast Beasts chat. Could have gone to the cops when the info was actually useful but never did.

Cenny Husky: Went to Snakething for help to get a dog to have sex with. Snakething posted this in the BBB chat. Was an open zoophile on twitter for a while, then went quiet about it, then openly came out again, leading to people rediscovering he was trying to find a dog to rape. Snakething wanted to film the encounter had it happened, and probably would have pushed him towards more extreme content.

Jace Shepard: a little known member of the group who was into "hard" zoo, AKA torture/snuff. Works around shelter dogs all the time and barely was noticed by the crowds when this was going down.

Night

Tim Win: exposed twice online for being a zoosadist before this, Tim is responsible for filming/creating some of the worst "hard" zoo content on the web, as well as a lot of other bestiality works. Online since the mid 90s at least, with a traceable trail. Has an FBI file on him yet still lives free with his wife and the dogs he likes to abuse, and still filming/creating content as of 2017. His old content was much loved and shared in the group.

Illone Sheppypaws: Kero's boyfriend and very active on some deepweb sites, filmed himself orally raping his parents dog. Died of a drug overdose, Kero covered his identity online and renamed him/gave him a new fursona in order to talk about him in public online spaces.

Midnight

Reddit DMs: Kero and Tim Win were talking on Reddit, and so was Snakething and Tim. There were multiple Reddit pages that featured "hard" zoo content and this is where a lot of these people met up.

Deepweb sites: Woof worked for one, and Illone was known to frequent another. Each time one goes down, another comes back. It's where a lot of the videos shared in BBB were sourced.

The other chats: after BBB leaked, more zoosadist chats were found. Some had user crossover (Tim Win and Kero were both in Sin Bin, for example). There's probably more we haven't uncovered.

Darker

Real Life Cub: Snakething, Sangie, Tane, and others enjoyed what they called RLC: child porn. There's literally a list of fursuiters that Snakething knew that liked such materials, 2 of which were arrested and 1 commited suicide.

Cupid the Deer: Was charged for raping a goverment service dog, wasn't in the chats but was mentioned in DMs. Ultimately went to jail for possessing CP. Seemed to be friends with Snakething.

Darkest

Nacho Doggo: Plans were made in the BBB chat to rape her as punishment for outing Cupid. Her ex was the person who let Cupid gain access to the dog. It was eventually learned she was also having sex with the dog, and she ultimately fled to Germany where she apparently faked her own death to escape the drama.

79 names found: there are at least 79 screennames found, and only a handful of people there have been tracked to their main accounts. Many of these are "zoosuiters".

VOID

Unknown users: because many people in the chats used alt accounts, not all of them can be traced to accounts, and when the leaks were first put out, many people had their names wiped entirely. Although more and more are being figured out as time goes on, it's also getting very hard to trace people by old telegram alt names.

Doug Spinks: the "father" of the modern zoophile movement, he identified that Tim Win was part of the leaks and then dumped the unedited logs when he learned that Tim was being hidden from public eye; Doug actually was one of the people who outed him originally too. However, it seems that the now deceased Spinks may have had a passing interested in zoosadism himself, as he had seen uncut versions of Tim Win's content on forums, which wouldn't have been on anything but forums for that type of content. He also could have stopped a lot of this from happening if he has just reported Tim to the cops instead of pubically outing him, since the videos weren't decades old at that point.

[translationandbetrayals]

First doraemon’s movie and remake

(spoilers)

Doraemon: Nobita's Dinosaur, is the name of a doraemon movie and the remake of it. The original is Doraemon's first feature film and it was released in 1980. The remake, also called Doraemon and the Little Dinosaur, is the first doraemon’s remake and it was released in 2006.

Both movies have the same plot, it all starts with Suneo showing their friends a fossil of a tyrannosaurus rex's claw. Nobita wasn't able to see it, so he got upset and said that he is going to find a complete fossil. Nobita is not supported by Doraemon, so he goes to dig on his own. Nobita ends up in the backyard of a man, when he gets caught, he has to dig a hole as a favor. While doing that He finds a dinosaur egg. Later, he uses the time-wrap, and starts to take care of the egg until it is born. Then a plesiosaur comes out, which Nobita calls Piisuke and decides to keep it a secret until it grows enough to impress his friends. When Piisuke is too big to live in the house, Nobita takes it to a lake. The problems begin when rumors say a dinosaur is in the lake. Nobita decides it's time for Piisuke to go. Things go wrong cause a dinosaur hunter is going for Pissuke, so it ends in the correct period but in a bad location. Nobita and his friends from him go back in time. Doraemon notices the time-machine is broken and they can't go back. They end up using bamboo-copters to travel to japan with little pisuke. Finally they confront the hunters and resist until the police of time arrive. Nobita says the last goodbye to Piisuke and everyone goes back safe.

on the left is 1980 and on the right is 2006

That is the plot of the movies in broad strokes, but despite being very similar there are some differences. There are three main differences that I noticed: the animation, the dinosaurs, and a more family-friendly approach.

Image quality and lights were very different, also the 2006 movie had 3D elements. I think the 26-year difference between movies is easily noticeable. One thing that is retained is the design of the main characters and the art style.

2006

  1980

The dinosaur designs were notoriously different, because in the remake it was very clear that cute and more expressive dinosaurs were good. The cute dinosaurs had round and soft traits and expressive eyes.

on the top is 1980 and at the bottom is 2006

Meanwhile, the others had small eyes, sharp teeth, and looked more like the real dino. In both movies, the scary dinosaurs from the beginning are alike.

on the top is 1980 and at the bottom is 2006

Also, when doraemon used the magic candy to make the tyrannosaurus docile, the difference between scary and friendly is clear, but different in every movie.

On the other hand, what changed the most is how these two species of dinosaurs are like the idea of them in each of their eras. 

on the top is 1980 and at the bottom is 2006

1980

2006

In the first movie the running dinosaur was more like a lizard and it had an artificial color, contrasting with the feathered dinosaur of the 2006 movie. The one that changed the most in my opinion is the T-rex, in the first movie it looked like Godzilla. Researching, I found how Tyranous was shown and I think it is very similar to the 1980 movie.

T-rex from Fantasia, 1940

As well, I found an image that shows the different interpretations of tyrannus during the years and it coincides with both movies. 

Finally, watching the remake I noticed that some scenes were a little bit longer, the characters were nicer to Nobita and some things changed to a friendlier version. The best examples for this are the scenes when the man asked Nobita to make a hole and when Nobita's father talked with his son.

dad scene: on the top is 1980, dad is fighting with Nobita; and at the bottom is 2006, the father tries to reason with Nobita.

digging a hole scene: on the top is 1980, the man is mostly angry and his mood doesn't change much; and at the bottom is 2006, even when he's angry, he's still nice to Nobita most of the time.

This caught my attention because it was obvious why they changed those things, it's to make the movie feel warm and enjoyable, and it makes a lot of sense considering Doraemon has a children's audience.

-Catalina Platz  

[daddyjust]

Bj thomas raindrops

Bj thomas raindrops Patch#

Bj thomas raindrops series#

It logged 13 weeks in the top 10 - the longest stay by any single in the nearly five-year period between The Beatles‘ “Hey Jude” (14 weeks in 1968) and Marvin Gaye‘s “Let’s Get It On” (13 weeks in 1973). “Raindrops” also has a strong bridge (“But there’s one thing I know/ The blues they sent to meet me won’t defeat me/ It won’t be long ’til happiness steps up to greet me”) – later echoed by a trumpet solo following the same tune - which provided vital variation in a song mostly built around a simple, sing-songy melody. Bacharach, a notorious perfectionist, asked Thomas to record seven takes before he was satisfied with the vocal for the film version.įor the single version, Bacharach added a snazzy, 30-second instrumental outro which introduced some rhythmic tension and made the song a better fit for top 40 playlists of the era. Thomas was recovering from a bout of laryngitis in 1969 when he recorded the soundtrack version of “Raindrops.” As a result, his vocal is a bit raspier and huskier than it was on the single version he recorded weeks later. Thomas, who was 28 when he recorded the song that made him a household name, died on May 29 at age 78 from complications due to stage four lung cancer. His easygoing style fused pop, country and folk in a way that made it perfect for this plucky, folksy tune. In all likelihood, no one would have done a better job on the song than Thomas. 1s of his own in the ’70s, with his “Everything Is Beautiful” reaching the top spot later in 1970.)īut songs often seem to wind up where they’re meant to. (Not Stevens’ smartest career move - though he still would go on to score a pair of Hot 100 No. They had approached Ray Stevens, who passed on the song. Thomas, who had previously reached the top 10 on the Billboard Hot 100 with “Hooked on a Feeling” and a cover version of Hank Williams’ “I’m So Lonesome I Could Cry,” wasn’t Bacharach and David’s first choice to perform the song. Thomas' Biggest Billboard Hits: 'Raindrops Keep Fallin' on My Head' & More You can hear the gentle philosophizing of “Raindrops” – sure, things are bad right now, but I refuse to get stuck here – in such future Hot 100-toppers as Neil Diamond’s “Song Sung Blue” and Daniel Powter’s “Bad Day.”ī.J.

Bj thomas raindrops Patch#

But it may have been their most universal, a song that everybody who has ever had a bad day or a rough patch could relate to.ĭavid’s lyric has a dash of whimsical humor (“So, I just did me some talkin’ to the sun/ And I said I didn’t like the way he got things done/ Sleepin’ on the job”) and a lot of philosophical wisdom (“Crying’s not for me/’Cause I’m never gonna stop the rain by complainin’”), with Thomas’ delivery landing gently on each word like the titular droplets. “Raindrops…” was hardly the most sophisticated song that Burt Bacharach and Hal David - the duo who’d penned many of the most pristine and affecting pop songs of the late ’50s and ’60s, including most of Dionne Warwick’s signature smashes - ever wrote. Thomas, 'Raindrops Keep Fallin' on My Head' Singer, Dies at 78 “At the time, it seemed like a dumb idea. “When the film was released, I was highly critical - how did the song fit with the film? There was no rain,” Redford told USA Today in 2019, a half-century later. Good thing the film’s director, George Roy Hill, didn’t listen to one of his film’s stars (and a future director of note), who wasn’t sure the song made sense in the film. Thomas’ “Raindrops Keep Fallin’ on My Head” was the right song at the right time in the right film – the 1969 Paul Newman/Robert Redford blockbuster Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. 1, the enduring optimist’s anthem “Raindrops Keep Fallin’ on My Head.”ī.J. Thomas with a look at his first Hot 100 No. 1 single - by taking an extended look back at the chart-topping songs that made them part of this exclusive club.

Bj thomas raindrops series#

1 is a Billboard series that pays special tribute to the recently deceased artists who achieved the highest honor our charts have to offer - a Billboard Hot 100 No.

[euphoriaonpluto]

Queer Representation

Alright let's talk about Loki and Good Omens.

Before anyone tries anything, I am going to state upfront that I am a biromantic asexual. So keep that in mind before you automatically take what I want to say in bad faith and go to accuse me of bigotry.

I want to talk about how the only ones benefitting from the way we handle queer rep discourse right now are the queerphobic networks and execs.

First, let's look at Loki. The MCU's first canonically queer character. Since episode 4 came out yesterday, I have seen multiple accusations go around of people who are upset about the hinted romance between Loki and Sylvie being biphobic. Bi people are allowed to date people of the opposite gender, you say. And of course they are. But you are purposefully missing the whole point of why people are upset.

The MCU is a 13 year old franchise and Loki is the first time they are actively acknowledging the existance of queer people. This, despite how infuriating it is, is pretty par for the course when it comes to fantasy and sci-fi media. These two genres are notoriously horrible when it comes to diversity and the portrayal of queerness. So it's only natural that people are going to be upset about what Disney is doing right now, and no, they aren't upset because they hate bisexuals.

Fiction in inherently limited to what is portrayed on screen/in the text. We don't know a character's every thought and feeling and we have not seen their entire life. Which is why good media follows the 'show not tell' rule. A character making an off-handed comment about their sexuality is never going to be enough representation, not when Marvel continues to refuse to portray explicity queer relationships or have their queer characters have any experiences tied to their queerness at all.

So sure, bisexuals can date people of the opposite gender and still be bisexual, obviously. But why are you guys acting as it that isn't how most bi people are portrayed anyways? Aren't most bisexual characters only shown being in het-alighned relationships and their identities only acknoleghed like a couple of times in passing converations? Please point me to the abundance of bisexual characters in fantasy and sci-fi shows who have actually been shown being in a relationship with a person of the same gender or have explicitly gone through stuff linked to their queer identity. Please go ahead.

Now let's look at Good Omens, specifically Aziraphale and Crowley's relationship. The constant discourse there is that queer relationships don't always need to be physical. "Aziraphale and Crowley can be asexual!!!! They don't have to kiss on screen for their relationship to be valid!!!!!" Okay fine but can you please first point me to all of those explicit mlm couples that you are refering to when you use the word always. What does always mean in this case? Are you telling me that fantasy and sci-fi shows are so oversaturated with explicit mlm and wlw relationships that some change of pace is desparately needed?

All of this discourse around the two shows is purposefully ignoring the history of homophobia in film and TV. Despite the code being removed almost sixty years ago, the film indistry is still in the shackles of the fucking Hays code. Queerness is viewed as dirty and sinful. Queer men and viewed as sick predators. MLM relationships are treated are perverted and nsfw and will someone please think of the children!

So why, please tell me, WHY are you giving the powers that be such loopholes for them to continue to not portray queerness while wearing a brand new woke hat? Do you not realise that you are giving Disney the option to continue to never portray queer relationships because all they had to do was write one short line of dialogue and now whenever someone tries to demand mlm representation they are going to be accused of biphobia. Loki can go on to never be shown having interest in someone of the same gender or having queer experiances at all, be it discussing his identity or anyone else around him acknowledging it or having his part experiences shape his behavior or anything at all that is just part of real queer people's lives. And people will continue to uphold his character as good representation because he said the sentence "a bit of both". Disney would rather Loki go and fuck a female version of himself than portray a mlm relationship on screen and you go and accuse people of biphobia for pointing that out.

Nuance is great. It's needed. But, perhaps, before we start talking about the nuances of sexuality and identity and the nature of queer relationships we should at least get to see some gay people kiss on screen, don't you think? When there is sufficient mlm and wlw representation in fantasy and sci-fi shows and movies, we can go on to talk about all of these things. But until then all you're doing is giving networks the excuse to never show an ounce of queerness on screen and then market their product as queer rep becase the writer said they love each other on twitter and oh if you object to that at all you're acephobic because their relationship doesn't have to be physical! Nevermind that homophobia still holds that industry by the throat and they continue to find gay relationships are disgusting and less than and to be avoided at all cost.

TL:DR - let some gay people kiss on screen first before you start giving networks exuses to not portray explicit queerness.

[wonderfulworldofmichaelford]

Is It Really THAT Bad?

This… This is where it all began.

Sean Connery wanted to finally make a great film again after constantly passing on big franchise opportunities. Alan Moore was actually somewhat enthusiastic about seeing an adaptation of his comic. The dominoes were in place and set to fall on a major success as one of the most ambitious crossovers ever written made its way to scree

But unfortunately, there were far too many problems. Connery refused to play an addict and so they changed Quatermain into a straight hero and the team leader. Tom Sawyer was added in because the studio thought people wouldn’t care about the movie if there wasn’t an American in it. Connery butted heads with the director on set. A legal issue involving an unproduced script led Alan Moore to become bitter when things were settled out of court, as he didn’t get to defend himself. It seemed like absolutely nothing could go right with this film, and then it was released.

The movie was savaged by critics, bombed domestically, and devastated several careers. Connery was left miserable in regards to filmmaking thanks to this, and so retired from acting save for some voice work. The director Stephen Norrington had such a bad experience that he vowed to never make another film. Peta Wilson and Stuart Townsend both had their careers torched by this, and Shane West ended up having to stick to TV roles after this. Most tragic of all, however, is how Alan Moore came to utterly despise this film, leading to him demand his name be left off of all future adaptations of his work and beginning a long trend of him hating literally every Hollywood movie based on his creations, regardless of quality.

This film is an utter nuclear disaster of cinema based on how it ruined so many careers and crushed the hopes of its creators, so clearly the critics must be right on the money and this league of gentlemen is not so extraordinary… right? With 19 years and several other Alan Moore adaptations behind us, I’ve decided to look back and see if this notorious film is really that bad after all. Alan Moore definitely thinks so.

The Good

I think what really carries this movie is the performances. Nearly every actor is giving it their all here, though there are some standouts. Jason Flemyng as both Jekyll and Hyde, Naseeruddin Shah as Nemo, and and Tony Curran as this film’s take on the Invisible Man are the standouts here. The latter in particular is very interesting; due to Universal having the film rights for the Invisible Man, they had to make up a new version… which is for the best, since in the comics the Invisible Man on the team is a rapist, a traitor, and an utter bastard. Rodney Skinner, the version here, is much more of a playful rogue and a rascal, and it’s easy to see why he became a fan favorite. It’s definitely one of the few points of improvement over the comic.

Speaking of which, the decision to turn Mina into a vampire might seem corny to some, but I think it rules. Mina in the comics was very much the badass normal and the leader of the team, but that was about it  for her aside from her gross romance arc with Quatermain. Here, she gets to be a badass, and has quite a few cool fight scenes under her belt by the film’s end. It’s a bit of creative liberty with not only the source material but the comic as well, but it’s not like Moore didn’t take creative liberties for the sake of the story he was telling (for better and for worse).

My favorite addition by far is Stuart Townsend’s Dorian Gray. Even as a kid, who knew nothing about Dorian Gray and was very much not aware of his own sexuality, I thought Dorian was hot. He also is functionally immortal and unstoppable, which is awesome as well, making him something of a very sexy Wolverine. Parts of his motivation are very stupid (more on that later), but I think he’s a pretty fun token evil teammate. He’s definitely preferable to the Invisible Man of the comics, that’s for sure.

Aside from that, there’s a lot of fun action scenes, especially towards the end of the movie where they just go whole hog with everything. We have a Hyde versus Diet Hyde fight, we have Mina fighting Dorian, we just have a lot of crazy stuff. It’s just a lot of dumb fun.

The Bad

Much like the comics it’s adapted from, this movie does suffer from some problems that could definitely hinder how enjoyable one might find it.

Probably the bigger ones are the fact characters spend less time showing and more time telling, as they stand about in their fancy costumes and announce obvious things. It doesn’t help either that aside from that, the plot is a lot more convoluted than ever before and riddled with confusing twists and plot holes. For instance, the big reveal that the Fantom is actually M, who is actually Professor Moriarty… what, exactly, does this add to the story? Nothing is the answer. Nothing is added by Moriarty being the bad guy except, well, he was the bad guy in the comics! Gotta keep him in!

It’s even weirder when it comes to Dorian. His whole deal is that Moriarty has stolen his portrait, and if Dorian ever looks at his portrait he will die. So it would make far more sense for him to not want to help Moriarty since the guy is doing him a solid by keeping that damn portrait far away, right? Nope, he’s trying to get it back because… who knows.

I think the bigger issue here is that Quatermain supplants Mina as the main hero. In the comics, Quatermain starts out as a useless, washed up opium addict who slowly undergoes character development to become the badass he should be (and then he is unceremoniously killed by lightning shot out of Harry Potter’s penis). In the movie, he’s badass from the word go, and we all know it’s because it’s Sean Connery playing him. There’s no way you’re going to pay the bill for Connery to be in your film and then not have him be front and center. But this isnot even Connery at his best, as it’s pretty clear that he’s kind of phoning things in (though not nearly as badly as he did with Diamonds Are Forever). Worst of all, though,is that this comes at the expense of Mina becoming marginalized, and this is after you give her sick vampire powers! Mina has been made exponentially cooler and you still sideline her for Sean Connery and his bland white American foster son! What the hell!

And yes, Sawyer is bland and boring. They don’t really do much interesting with the fact he’s Tom Sawyer. In fact, outside a deleted scene, it’s not even mentioned and you’d have to really guess who he’s supposed to be. This, I think, is the reason this doesn’t quite work as a film quite as well as a comic, by the way; film rights and literary rights are two entirely different things. The entire conceit of the franchise is that you’re watching Alan Moore flex his literary knowledge and see how many references can be crammed into a single comic panel, something that just can’t work in a fast-paced action movie. Sure, there’s some references here and there, but it’s not nearly as dense as the comics. You’re not getting cameos from Thomas the Tank Engine or Pollyanna here, that’s for sure, and it’s a shame because that’s the fun of League.

Oh, and to top it all off, the CGI is kinda ass. I swear this is not a screencap from a Resident Evil game, this is just how this dude looks in the movie.

Is It Really THAT Bad?

Honestly? Nah.

Now let me be clear, this isn’t a good movie. It has a hell of a lot of flaws, flaws that keep it from reaching its full potential and keep it from being as good as the comic it’s adapting. But I always recall how I saw someone say they saw this film as part of a loose trilogy with Van Helsing and Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, the thematic tie of the films being action-packed CGI spectacles of the early 2000s, and I feel a bit more lenient. This is definitely the weakest of the three films, but I don’t know, I still think there’s merit in it even if it never quite reaches the highs of its comic counterpart.

I’d say this is sort of the Venom of its time, a fun, stupid action movie with tons of actors giving it their all for an almost non-existent plot. I’d say it’s just about where it belongs on IMDB, though I’d round it up to a 6. It’s the perfect thing to just put on if you want some mindless fun or just a bit of background noise while you do something else, and there’s plenty of place in the world for films like that. It’s definitely not so bad that I feel like it should have tanked a half dozen careers and I definitely don’t think it’s so bad that it should have soured Moore’s opinion on Hollywood (and Sean Connery, if his unflattering depictions of Connery’s Bond in later volumes are anything to go by).

The worst thing that can be said about it is that it does very little with the great concept of the comic it’s adapting… But hey, no matter how bad this is, it’s still infinitely better than whatever the hell was going on in Centuries!

[languesbians]

Some thoughts on A VHS Christmas Carol, from a big ACC fan

In this post I’ll be referring to three other musical adaptations: Scrooge! (1970), The Muppet Christmas Carol (”MCC”, 1993) and A Christmas Carol: The Musical (”ACCTM”, 2004).

Bah Humbug!

First of all, nice inclusion of the narrator as a main character in the show. Dickens’ narrator has a lot of the best lines in the original book and not many adaptations include him (MCC being the big exception, of course).

BH is a classic “Scrooge is a bad guy” song, similar to MCC’s “Scrooge” and some others that aren’t as good. As this is a sung-through musical, BH also takes on the whole scene of Scrooge in his offices, with Fred’s visit, the charity collectors and Bob asking for the day off. It pretty neatly covers all of those points, has some really nice use of rhyme and metre, and most importantly is an absolute banger.

3 Spirits

Just to get this out of the way straight off: Meredith looks amazing; I really like this version of Marley and their body language and the music give them a great spooky vibe.

Both MCC’s (”Marley and Marley”) and ACCTM’s (”Link By Link”) Marley songs are some of the most fun in their respective musicals, but VHSCC takes a different approach of going for a more toned-down, otherwordly version rather than a big bombastic one.

This song has some great lines, with special mention to some of Marley’s adapted from the original: “My spirit never grew in life, I only grew my wealth” and “These scary chains I wear are also around you”, plus two of Scrooge’s funniest lines from this scene, “You're just indigestion” and “If they all came together it could save some time” which are good examples of how this show manages to include quite a lot of the original in such a short space of time.

I’m the Ghost

SoCPast is notoriously difficult to faithfully adapt to the original novel in a live-action setting, with only Jim Carrey’s (animated) version even trying. Jaime gives her ghost an almost ethereal voice which helps make her seem more... well, ghostly despite having a relatively ordinary appearance. I’d say it compares favourably to Jane Krakowski’s rather lovely performance of “Lights of Long Ago” in ACCTM.

Scrooge’s two big emotional moments - remembering Fred is his sister’s son and comparing Fezziwig to himself as a boss - are nicely handled here:

GOCP: “Everyone's so happy, but why?” ES: “The boss did a lot for us.” GOCP: “This wasn't very much to buy.” ES: “Not just what he bought for us. He gave us much more than that. He made us have a blast. You don't understand it.” GOCP: “Something on your mind?” ES: “Bob Cratchit...”

So many people are familiar with this story now that VHSCC doesn’t need to cover things in too much detail and can afford to be efficient with its lines - and even if you don’t remember this scene, just that one like “Bob Cratchit” says it all, really.

Two last points: the Ghost’s final “I’m the Ghost” just after “I’m Belle” is very funny, and Fezziwig’s party is unusually short compared to most musicals which make a lot out of it having actual music within the narrative, but that just gives us more time for...

That Scrooge

Huge props to Clark for making a Scrooge/Belle song which isn’t skippable - there’s a reason MCC cut “When Love Is Gone” from the film. Doing it as a power ballad rather than a wistful sad song was a great choice which turns this scene from usually a drag on the pacing to a strong contender for the best song of the show. Oh, and Janaya is so good in the staged version.

Christmas Electricity

Unlike his predecessor, SoCPres is pretty easy to get right - he’s fun, jolly and loveable, and gets a fun song to match his personality. “It Feels Like Christmas” is one of MCC’s best-loved songs, “I Like Life” from Scrooge has a catchy chorus, and ACCTM’s “Abundance and Charity” is... also there.

“Christmas Electricity” is an absolute bop, it’s impossible to not dance to and this Ghost is great in the hands of Starkid’s most talented dancer. I don’t have much else to say which you don’t already know - this song is very popular among the fandom - except for two other things:

Dylan’s reactions to “I spread it to the wealthy” and “Maybe you’re a greedy dick” are really enjoyable

I like the condensing of the “guessing game” scene into just two lines.

Priceless

This song is so incredibly 80s i refuse to believe it was written last year. Like “That Scrooge” it’s an upgrade from the saccharine rubbish most adaptations give the Cratchits (who, in the songwriters’ defence, are famously pretty boring). Giving the roles to two of Starkid’s longest-running and most-loved cast members probably helped quite a bit as well.

"Priceless” somehow makes them feel more... real. Finally they have some personality, especially Peter “Grateful I don't have what Tim has got” Cratchit. Okay, I’m being unfair - MCC and the 1999 Patrick Stewart version mostly avoid this by casting Kermit/Miss Piggy and Richard E. Grant respectively.

The Final Ghost

Even Bill Murray’s Scrooged, with its New York cab driver and unstable fairy as the first two spirits, didn’t veer from the classic Grim Reaper look for its final visitation. VHSCC does away with that old look and makes SocYtC a normal-looking human... except that they only sing in wordless vowels, which is somehow creepier. Swapping the “oo”s with “Ebenezer Scroooooge” at the gravestone reveal is a really nice effect which just hammers home the shock he’s feeling. Also, special mention to Joey and Lauren’s shaky voices in the Cratchits’ bit of this song.

On a lighter note, Scrooge’s reaction of “Okay spirit, funny joke, but that's not what I meant” to SoCYtC taking “Can anyone express any emotion from this death?” is pretty funny. It’s something which isn’t in the original novel but is very in-character for Dickens’ version of Scrooge.

Christmas Day

In the tradition of Holy Musical B@man, Firebringer and TGWDLM, the finale includes elements from multiple songs earlier in the show, like “Christmas Electricity” and “Priceless”. Of course we have to include the “Scrooge was better than his word” bit, and this version includes the bit about Scrooge ignoring people who laugh at him which doesn’t usually turn up, so clearly Clark has been paying attention to the source material.

We end with the final section of “Bah Humbug”, reinterpreted in a positive light to give the musical a big, heartwarming finish and a great tone to send everyone home on.

Conclusions

All in all, this is not only a good musical, it’s also a good adaption of ACC which manages to incorporate most of the key elements (both plot and character-wise) of the original while adapting well to its unusual setting. Credit to Clark and everyone else involved in making it, well done guys!

[artofdying1970]

music tag time :)

thank you for the tag fiona @odearjohn mwah

Who was your first favourite artist? katy perry 100%!! i remember me and my cousin would watch her music videos on her ipad when we were around seven :)

Who are your current favourite artists? phoebe bridgers, mitski, taylor swift and simon & garfunkel ! and the beatles .. i guess 🙄

Are you into musicals? Which ones?/Why not? not really. back in 2016-2017 i was your stereotypical Theatre Kid that liked hamilton, heathers, dear evan hansen etc etc all of those with notoriously bad fandoms lol. i guess it was really cathartic for me because i haven't bothered getting into musicals again, but i'm open for suggestions !! :)

Are there songs you consider so special you only listen to them very rarely? i think 'a burning hill' by mitski is such an intimate and fragile song for me that makes it hard for me to listen to it whenever. i have to be in a certain headspace if that makes any sense LOL

What's your preferred way of listening to music? (time of day, medium, situation) while i do homework ! but the music i like just makes me want to get up and sing at the top of my lungs so sometimes i have to stop lol

What would you say is the most niche music you listen to? this band/duo/thing called girlpool ! they haven't dropped anything since last year but i'm holding out for a new album soon :) i don't think their stuff is for everyone, especially their earlier projects (the delivery on their vocals and harmonies can be kind of annoying) but i think you should check them out if you like the sort of music they play in indie coming-of-age films where nothing happens lol

What's your favourite music related movie/TV show that's not a musical? almost famous !

Albums or playlists? both ! but tbh i tend to lean towards the first. most of the playlists i have up on my profile i don't actually like use? they're mostly just for show i don't trust myself to know what songs go well together lol. but sometimes listening to an album on loop can be quite boring if it has a Very Cohesive Sound so i'll put something on shuffle

Favourite albums? revolver (1966), bookends (1968), the idler wheel... (2012), bury me at makeout creek (2014), be the cowboy (2018), punisher (2020)

Is there an artist you're trying to get into? frank ocean ! would appreciate some song recs/albums to start :)

Whose music do you find overhyped? hngnghh ed sheeran ik it's trendy to hate on him nowadays so it's not really an unpopular opinion but i just. Don't See The Appeal

What's an underrated song? remember my name by mitski .. stream <3

What's a thing a bunch of songs do that you love every time? i don't know any like. music terms but i love love love it when a song starts out relatively calmly and it slowly builds up until it reaches a MASSIVE climax it makes go !!!! (ex. i know the end, bridge over the trouble water etc etc)

What song is better acoustic? does while my guitar gently weeps count?? the album version is obviously iconic but the demo version hits a little harder idk

What's the worst song of all time? achy breaky heart

Do you put individual songs on repeat? If so, for how long and how often? i do it pretty often! mostly for about an hour or so, more if i really like it. i really should stop because i'm going to make myself hate a song i really like (semi-related story: my friend and i were obsessed with 'hard times' by paramore back in eight grade and i played it so much it's STILL my most streamed song of all time accordijg to my spotify stats even though i haven't listened to it in like a year. yeah)

Do you make your own playlists? If so, what's your most entertaining playlist title? i do, but they don't really have fun titles or anything. they're mostly from poems or song lyrics that fit the theme :/ pretentious much ?

Headphones or earbuds? not opposed to either ! but you can't go wrong with the classic wired girlies :^)

Do you always sing the lead vocal or do you harmonize sometimes? If you harmonize, do you ever invent your own harmony? i do a mixture of both . it's a bit of a mess ☹

A music confession jack antonoff isn't that bad of a producer imo. he has a really inconsistent output but that doesn't necessarily mean he ruins everything his production touches :* (this year has been rough for him though lol like chemicals over the country club + solar power were both So underwhelming) i will admit that yeah. he tends to recycle stuff quite a bit lol

tagging the besties (no pressure obviously !!) @mithranqueer @belldog @aerialballet1968 @runofthemilldemo :)