#minority actors and storylines are concerned

[storiesconsumemysoul]

Look I'm still processing my own feelings around the Siuan Sanche decision and execution but I gotta get this out of my system real quick. Firstly, some of y'all are way too comfortable swatting down, mocking, and condescending to fans (BIPOC fans in particular) who are upset. I'd recommend reigning that shit in. You can disagree and push back without resorting to all of that. Many such examples abound already within this discussion itself. Maybe try to emulate that approach instead of just bulldozing through an emotionally and politically charged discourse for minority fans.

Secondly, try engaging with this backlash with the larger context of the show in mind. Or even just S3. Look at how many characters (with speaking roles) died this season and how many of them were black. Think about the unnecessary death of Child Valda (Eamon Valda) this early in the series. The actor, Abdul Salis, devoured his introduction scene (and every scene since) so goddamn thoroughly that he instantly made the White Cloaks a terrifying presence that has resonated throughout the rest of the show. This brilliance gets rewarded with an anticlimactic quick death, with no buildup, by the hands of characters we haven't had the time to get to know properly, and who didn't even share a single scene with him prior. Right when Perrin, who does have a real established connection with him, is set up to spend a whole lot of time with the White Cloaks. Why not keep him for longer, doing what he does best, so that when the girls kill him down the line we'd have spent enough time building up to their confrontation to make for a proper earned send off worthy of such a towering talent?

And Ryma, played magnificently by Nyokabi Gethaiga, who absolutely electrifies from the get-go and through (2x6) in particular (along with her warder Basan played by Bentley Kalu). Ryma whose scream and anguished face as she is being collared by the Seanchan has haunted us for the last two years. Who left such an impression of her kindness, her strength, her faith in her sisters, her bottomless love for her warder, and with so little on-screen time. Gets one singular scene this season. With no acknowledgment, explanation, or addressing of any part of her role last season. How was she freed? When? Why was she not part of the effort to uncover Black Ajah in the tower when we saw her so deeply pained and shaken even by just the realization that one of her sisters could betray their sisterhood? She was written into such an afterthought background character this season that so many audience members seem to have straight up not even recognized her as the same character from S2, as Ryma, at all.

And Ihvon, originally played by Emmanuel Imani and recast this season to be played by Anthony Kaye, who dies in ep.(1) and, to the show's credit, haunts Alanna and Maksim's storyline so strongly that we feel his presence throughout the season. But we see none of that reflected in the tower. With Stepin (Peter Franzén) in S1, we get such a beautiful display of the warder's brotherhood, cultural ties to each other, and most importantly, how deeply loved Stepin was by his fellow warders. S1 makes us feel the loss of him reverberate through them all so devastatingly. Where is that grief for Ihvon? Where is his community? We spend so much time in the tower immediately in the aftermath of his death, and yet there is no one to mourn or honor him in the absence of Alanna and Maksim? We couldn't have had some of our characters pass by or even just hear about the other warders holding a funeral for him? Or just remembering him in some way?

I could go on for a good while still honestly. And sure, we could make legitimate arguments and have readings that justify these choices individually. But regardless, what this shows in aggregate, is a pattern of clumsiness in handling dark-skinned black characters/actors in particular. While at the same time, playing around with extremely politically, historically, and emotionally charged images of black bodies. Be it Ryma being collared and never addressing it again, Child Valda's whole thing, etc. etc. ... and now Siuan Sanche bruised black and blue, bloody, stripped to her shifts, bodily dragged across the hall, and decapitated. These are incredibly powerful and visceral images.

And no, before someone tries to make this point, I am not saying you can't graphically kill, write off, or deprioritize black characters/actors for perfectly legitimate artistic or practical reasons under any circumstances. I am saying that those choices don't exist in a vacuum. The context of the text at large and the real world are inevitably going to be part of how those decisions are received. It's not enough to have good faith diverse casting. And it is not unreasonable to expect a continued treatment of care and thoughtfulness past the casting stage and into every other facet of their presence and exit from the story.

[911lsbts]

Rob, you recently wrapped production on the fifth — and potentially final — season of “9-1-1: Lone Star,” which will kick off with a three-episode train derailment. What else can we expect from the new season?

Rob: We all went into it pretty much knowing that it was going to be the last season, so that affected everything we did. We wanted to really show everybody what is still possible in network television if people have the appetite to do it. It feels like it’s probably the end of an era of a certain type — well, it doesn’t feel like it. It is the end of an era of a certain type of show we once had an opportunity to make, and I think they’re great. We wanted to go out making our case for the value of shows like that, and I think we did a really good job. The stories that we were able to tell on a weekly basis in terms of the scope and scale — that’s probably the thing I’m the most proud of. They were truly like mini-movies every week.

One of the most common critiques of “Lone Star,” since its premiere in 2020, has been the way that the show has consistently underused minority characters in order to center your character, Owen. Rob, you’re an executive producer in addition to the star. John Owen, you were a writer for the first three seasons. How would you both respond to that criticism? Was that ever a concern when you were writing or producing the show?

John Owen: [Deadpans] I can tell you confidently, it was never a concern of Rob’s.

But no, I think, look, everyone’s always going to have a take on what it must be like internally, creatively, and usually, it’s not 100% percent accurate. And in this case, it’s not accurate at all. I was there when we were blue-skying Season 1 — and I want to preface this by saying I was starting out as a very green, new writer and learned from some of the best. It was such a fun experience for me. Owen was always the central piece of the show. He was one of the mediums through which we got to tell stories about the other characters and built them out into such lovable characters that people got frustrated, maybe, when they didn’t have as much screen time.

I remember my first episode that I wrote, being so excited to tell the first story that really featured Mateo [played by Julian Works]. He and Marjan [Natacha Karam] have this beautiful storyline where she’s helping him study, and I think that was one of the first times we learned Julian was a throwdown actor. And then we were like, “Great, let’s write to him.” So I know, at least from the room’s perspective, we were learning strengths and then started leaning into them. I think in any case where a show has a strong ensemble, people always are going to be frustrated with maybe not seeing as much of their favorite characters as they’d like — and I think that’s a good thing. You always want to leave people wanting more.

Rob: I think when [creators] Ryan [Murphy], [Brad] Falchuk and Tim Minear came to me, they were very clear about what they wanted to accomplish with the show. They imagined a show centered around the only survivor of a terrible tragedy in 9/11 and him rebuilding a firehouse, but also rebuilding his family. And in terms of playing time, I think that they did a really good job.

I don’t think there is another show on television with as diverse a cast as we had, telling the kind of diverse stories that we did. Owen was there as a way to tell those kinds of stories and I’m really proud of how we were able to do it.

[capableism]

Audience Reactions to Disability and LGBTQIA+ Storylines

Audience Perception of Character Traits In narratives with disability compared to sexual orientation, both pick traits that make others seen as selfless. The diagnosis of Charlie's eating disorder occurs after the audience sees how concerned Nick and Charlie's sister Tori are. One part of the concern is Charlie's actions; the other is how to approach the topic.

Charlie's Eating Disorder Diagnosis

Photo by Elena Mozhvilo from Unsplash

Balancing Actions and Approach Nick researches to find out what's going on with Charlie. This step of struggling is part of the process of being diagnosed, and how scary it can be to talk about the possible relief of treatment for the diagnosis there is.

According to Henderson, "Stigma is thus a product of social interaction between 'the normal' and 'the stigmatized.' During the process of stigmatization, people with mental illness are distinguished and labeled.

The Struggle and Fear of Diagnosis

Individuals who display certain characteristics that are culturally defined as 'deviant' thus become linked to undesirable features ('labeled') and are open to discrimination." Finding a letter in the LGBTQIA+ community in Heartstopper is loving and liberating. That's how it is for Nick and Charlie.

Stigmatization and Social Interaction

Contrasting Experiences: Nick/Charlie vs. Ben

However, another boy named Ben is meant to be the villain and an antithesis to Nick.

"Ultimately, Ben is alone. He doesn't have queer friends or gay relationships like what Charlie and Nick have. Ben doesn't have accepting friends or accepting family members like Charlie and Nick have. Boys like Ben are suffocated by the closet and erased by homophobia." (Telvin)

Disability as a Punishment Trope

This phenomenon of making villains queer can be seen in Disney's Ursula or Captain Hook. Scar and Darth Vader are well-known villains who have disabilities.

Disabled villains are a writer's way of using a disability to be the reason they are evil. They are "paying for their sins" with disabling consequences.

Casting Choices and Representation Disabled actors playing disabled characters are not often seen on screen. Casting an LGBTQIA+ actor for those parts is more expected in the social media age, where stars are placed to share personal details of their life.

Social Media's Impact on Casting Expectations

In the case of minority characters, fans quickly judge actors outside the character's demographic. As wholesome as Heartstopper is, when fans started harassing Kit Connor, claiming he was queerbaiting it forced him to come out. Nick Nelson is a heartthrob.

Source List Henderson, L. (2017). Popular television and public mental health: creating media entertainment from mental distress. Critical Public Health, 28(1), 106–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2017.1309007 Tevin, JD. "The Wholesome Facade of Heartstopper." Medium, 7 Sept. 2023, medium.com/@jdtevin/the-wholesome-facade-of-heartstopper-8c7170931c98. Accessed 24 Feb. 2025.

[klb07]

Safe Between Scenes - Part Eight

Summary: Fourteen-year-old Barrett joins the cast of Supernatural to play Dean Winchester’s son—a storyline no one expected, especially not Jensen Ackles. Known for keeping a professional distance from younger actors, Jensen is surprised when Barrett, with his sharp wit and effortless talent, breaks through that wall with ease. What starts as a strong on-screen dynamic turns into a quiet bond behind the scenes. But when Barrett suddenly vanishes from set without warning, Jensen realizes there’s more to the teen’s life than anyone knew. As filming moves forward, Jensen can’t shake the feeling that Barrett might need someone to step in—someone to care.

Chapter Eight: "We Need To Know"

It had been three days.

Three days of nothing. No texts. No calls. No news. Just the echo of that one sentence stuck in Jensen’s mind like a stone in his shoe.

“Something happened with Barrett.”

It wasn’t enough. Not for Jensen. Not when the kid had shown up to set every day with a smile, cracked a joke right before a serious scene, and hit his mark like a pro. Not when that same kid had gone home to—what? A war zone? A ghost town?

And now he was just gone?

Jensen paced the trailer, phone in hand, messages to Barrett still unsent in his drafts folder. He hadn’t told anyone how much it was bothering him—until Jared walked in.

“You’re gonna wear a hole in the floor,” Jared said, setting his coffee down. “You’ve been off all week.”

Jensen stopped pacing long enough to glance at him. “He’s fourteen, Jared.”

“I know.”

“No one will tell me anything. I asked the producers, and they just give me this blank PR-safe line about ‘rewriting arcs’ and ‘trusting the process.’ Like this is a plot point that got dropped. He’s not a plot point.”

Jared leaned against the counter. “You texted him?”

Jensen held up his phone. “Three times. Nothing. Read receipts off.”

Jared was quiet for a beat, then said, “Let’s go to legal.”

Jensen blinked. “What?”

“Let’s go. Studio legal probably knows more. Even if they’re not supposed to say anything, maybe we can get something. You’re basically his TV dad. If anyone gets a pass on caring too much, it’s you.”

Jensen hesitated—but only for a second. Then he grabbed his keys.

The studio legal offices were in a different building—bland hallways, humming fluorescent lights, a front desk that didn’t look up when you walked in. But when Jensen and Jared stepped through the door together, it definitely got someone’s attention.

A paralegal blinked at them. “Uh… do you have an appointment?”

“Nope,” Jensen said. “But I need to talk to someone. It’s about Barrett Jameson.”

The paralegal glanced at a calendar, flustered. “I… I’m not sure anyone’s authorized—”

“It’s fine,” said a calm voice from behind her. A woman in a black blazer stepped out of a nearby office, holding a folder. She looked between the two of them. “Mr. Ackles. Mr. Padalecki. Come in.”

They followed her into the office, closed door behind them. She offered a seat. Jensen didn’t take it.

“We heard Barrett’s not coming back,” he said. “And no one’s saying why. I want to know what happened.”

The legal rep sighed, set the folder down. “I understand your concern. But as you probably know, we’re limited in what we can legally disclose.”

Jared leaned forward. “We’re not asking for a case file. We just want to know if he’s okay. He’s a kid, and Jensen’s close with him. He’s not just a co-star.”

She paused. Measured them both.

Finally, she said carefully, “What I can tell you is this: Barrett is currently in the care of the state. There was an incident involving his home environment, and CPS made the decision to intervene.”

Jensen’s chest tightened.

“Is he safe?” he asked.

She nodded. “As safe as the system can make him. He’s in a group home at the moment. That’s all I can say.”

“Can we contact him?” Jared asked.

“I don’t know if he has access to his phone. Most of the time, minors in his situation don’t. But…” She glanced at Jensen. “If he listed you as an emergency contact or indicated any sort of personal relationship, there might be a way to request visitation or submit a letter.”

Jensen exhaled slowly. “And how do I do that?”

“I’ll print you the form.”

She stood and stepped out, leaving the room quiet.

Jared turned toward Jensen, who hadn’t moved.

“He’s not just some storyline,” Jensen muttered. “He’s a kid who never complained, never asked for anything.”

“I know,” Jared said softly. “We’re gonna find a way to help him.”

Jensen stared at the closed office door, jaw clenched.

And for the first time in three days, he let himself hope that maybe he’d get the chance.

[heradion]

Teen Wolf : The Movie- Fan Complaints vs Article

Going to preface this by saying I am not going to respond or entertain any hate comments about the characters or actors. This is simply criticism on the writing of the movie and not hate on the actors.

Arden Cho and Dylan O'brien being missing : Fans complaint : How can you bring the Nogitsune without having two of the most vital characters from the show. Article: O’Brien is also missing from the spinoff film, a decision he told Variety was due to time constraints and a desire to leave the past behind. While Cho barely warrants a mention in the film and O’Brien’s famous Jeep is elevated in his stead, Teen Wolf: The Movie still resurfaces the villains and storylines most closely associated with their characters, a decision that makes their absence feel even stronger. 

2. The movie feels like a poorly written attempt at re-living high school glories and past. Fans complaint: Scott having to face the Nogitsune and Allison feels like his life is still unfulfilled even after 15 years. Some people were also concerned about Allison still being the same age/ a minor when they got together.

Article: Without O’Brien, Cho or any acknowledgment of the fanbase that made Teen Wolf succeed, the movie version of this hit series lands like a sparsely-attended high school reunion: painful to watch and a waste of two hours. Teen Wolf: The Movie is a reunion in the most literal sense, as its characters are literally forced to traverse their old high school haunts.

3. Weird plotline/plotholes coupled with bad writing Fans complaint: There are plots in the movie that contradict what was said in the show, and the writing/ dialogues lack strength.

Article: While creator Jeff Davis drags viewers along with the constant rhythm of familiar faces, the callbacks alone can’t justify the film’s existence — especially when it comes at the expense of its biggest fans. 

4. Treatment of Queer and POC characters (Relevant to the show) Fans: Did not like how Arden Cho was treated and queer ships like Sterek or Thiam were queer baited.

Article: its popularity dropped in its fifth season, partially in response to the show’s (and Davis’) tendency to build up popular queer characters or characters of color only to discard them. Arden Cho, who played the sword-wielding kitsune Kira Yukimura (and Posey’s love interest), was the first woman of color in a lead role on the show. But she was unceremoniously dropped from the cast before the sixth and final season, a decision that enraged die-hard fans. And that rage came bubbling back up again in May 2022, when Cho told The Cut she turned down Teen Wolf: The Movie because she was offered half of what her white, female counterparts were.

So to sum it up:

A lot of Teen wolf fans and lovers of the show came back to see their favourite characters return and were fairly disappointed by the results due to the poor writing .

What are your thoughts?

[castlebyersafterdark]

fans who don’t even ship the boys have been cracking jokes for years now that finn and or noah just wanna kiss each other under videos of them, and like I get that it’s a joke but the joke is spawning from somewhere you know? like all these people are independently coming to this “joke” by seeing something that’s making them say that, be it just their chemistry or they sense a tension or whatever, so yea like I have zero worries that their kiss is gonna not deliver. I mean we have Noah finally out and comfy in his sexuality more than ever, and while Finn is a question mark in terms of how he identifies(I still suspect he ain’t straight) he too seems even more calm and centered in himself and happier than ever before so I know they are gonna go for it. If the Duffers had Finn and MBB awkwardly make out that much as like 13-15 year olds or however old they were at the time, then they are gonna give us a great kiss with byler now that they are grown ups and this is like THE couple at the climax of the series. My mind is thinking a mixture of Jopper and Jancy kisses but even more passionate/romantic/cinematic.

Cinematic!! It's gotta be cinematic, it's the Big One. Sometimes I hope I'm not being too dramatic or presumptuous when I call Byler Theeeeee Couple but really, they're the ones who have the final season to get together. Think about it: all the other big couples have already gotten together. Where else does romance have to go concerning this route in season 5? Others have obstacles or an arc to continue but there's no 'getting together' storyline left (other than Vickie/Robin, but they are kind of a minor storyline at this point. Love them, but they can't carry a season). And television series are all about the getting together story. That's the truth. So, yet another reason we should have faith in Byler because, that's just formulaic writing for this media format!

So, yeah. They're the climax of a lot of storytelling in this show, and some may feel some sort of way about them being the plot twist, but it's the payoff rather than that, really. The slow burn, that can no longer smolder and instead blazes. We've seen the chemistry, too! That's so funny that people joke about the chemistry and say it's the actors but only as a joke, come off your high horses and stop judging people who have a little fun talking about the actors, it's all fine. That's always been a part of fandom.

I'm also ready for Finn and Noah to have a bunch of kisses in season five so Noah can get a little cheeky in interviews and say, 'I'm not sure what Millie was talking about - Finn's a great kisser.' I see the vision so clearly and I also see my goddamn grave when this happens and it kills me instantly 🤣🤣🤣

[fmp10blaire]

The Ethics of My Project Pt2

Which brings me to my next point of reference.

Controversial TV Personalities

// Mentions of Sexual Misconduct and Assault, Abuse [Against Minors], Paedophilla

Sherry Pie

The full Season 12 Promo Banner featuring Sherry Pie (far right end).

Joseph Gugliemelli, known onstage as Sherry Pie was a contestant of Season 12 of the hit show RuPaul's Drag Race, who was infamously disqualified pre-airing and post-filming of the season due to sexual misconduct revelations.

In 2020 a post had came forward stating that Joseph had catfished the writer and persuaded them into sending sexually explicit content with the guise of being treated as an audition onto a broadway show, preceding this seven other men would come forwards to discuss their experiences.

In response, Joseph released a statement on Facebook expressing sympathy and regret for his actions, however VH1 and World of Wonder (the production company for Rupaul's Drag Race) released a statement stating that Sherry Pie would be edited out of the aired episodes of the show and would not progress to the finale (which was scheduled to film later in the year but was postponed due to the Covid 19 Pandemic) - they would also go on to donate the 5K that Sherry had won during a challenge to The Trevor Project.

The subsequent result of his disqualification had led to a major shift both in the show's format and the fandom, as this had prompted major discussion about WoW's responsibility with even considering Joseph for the season, along with the storylines of the season having been altered, likely resulting in a change in winner (just my opinion).

Dan Schneider

Of Nickelodeon, was a producer of a few of the network's most popular shows, such as Henry Danger, Victorious, Sam and Cat and iCarly.

In 2018, Deadline released an article discussing the decision for Nickelodeon to split from Schneider and cease production on the show Game Shakers.

Though entirely speculation, sources at the time said that the split had came from concern with Schneider's behaviour towards the actors and staff, but the publicity-safe statement had stated that they were simply parting ways and had wished each other the best.

Though in 2021 it was disclosed that the decision was made by ViacomCBS, following an internal investigation due to Schneider's problematic and abusive behaviour.

Schneider has also received criticism for his alleged 'foot-fetish' which was made apparent due to the constant theme of feet in his shows and posts made on social media.

And in 2024 the documentary series 'Quiet on Set' had released, detailing a more in-depth analysis and highlighting testimonies on Schneider's behaviour, prompting scrutiny and a lawsuit from Schneider who claimed it was accusing him of sexual misconduct against children (despite the documentary containing nothing of the sort).

Rolf Harris

An Australian Musician, Painter, Actor and TV Personality, Harris's career came to an implosive end due to the convictions of him having sexually assaulted four underage girls.

During the Yewtree Operation (which was sparked preceding the eventual release of "Exposure - The Other Side of Jimmy Savile", several other high-profile figures were also convicted, mainly Max Clifford and Stuart Hall.)

He'd faced twelve charges and he was found guilty of each of them, having been sentenced to only five years but gaining release after three years with parole.

Liz Dux (the lawyer for the women who came forward) had responded to this, stating that:

"What he did was damage young women's self-worth, their confidence and for some of those women, he affected them deeply for the rest of their lives.

It should certainly affect the way he's treated when he applies for early release – he hasn't understood the severity of his crimes. This letter* was clearly written by a man who has contempt for his victims and is utterly unrepentant. Far from being reformed by his time in prison, it seems to have fed his perverse sense of indignation and his arrogance is undiminished. If it is the case that a parole board can't take this into account it is totally wrong. Harris has caused those he abused great harm, and by writing this letter, he continues to cause them harm."

*The letter being song lyrics written by Harris, and sent to one of his friends during his time in detainment, being cited as highly abusive.

Harris went on to die in 2023 by the suggested cause of neck cancer.

And likely the most notable, and horrible of them all.

Jimmy Savile

Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile was a TV Personality primarily known for his extensive career on The BBC Network, attributed for the shows 'Jim'll Fix It' and 'Top of the Pops'.

He worked under The BBC for over 40 years, and during his time he had faced a sea of allegations against him that were all silenced for one reason or another, having assaulted and committed non-consensual acts against underage persons (primarily girls).

There has been massive amounts of evidence in regards to his allegations throughout his lifetime, with even his own auto-biography having cited that he'd committed 'improper sexual conduct'.

Along with the former Sex Pistols and Public Image LTD Vocalist John Lydon stating that he'd love to kill Savile for his hypocrisy, regarding that he's "into all kinds of seediness that we're not allowed to talk about", and this was edited out of the broadcast.

He'd go on to expand, saying "By killed I meant locking him up and stopping him assaulting young children... I'm disgusted at the media pretending they weren't aware."

In 2009 he had an interview with his biographer wherein he'd defended Garry Glitter's case of being in possession of child pornography, stating:

"Gary has not tried to sell 'em, not tried to show them in public or anything like that. It were for his own gratification. Whether it was right or wrong is, of course, it's up to him as a person."

This interview wasn't released until after Savile's death.

Preceding Savile's death in 2011, the Newsnight programme had begun an investigation into the case of Savile, which was scheduled to be aired but was blocked in place of a tribute to Savile's work and time with The BBC.

This prompted massive backlash with many stating that, even in death, The BBC was still trying to guard the reputation of Jimmy Savile, and this came to a head in The Pollard Review.

(Feel free to read through it).

The Pollard Review, executed in 2012, was an internal investigation by Nick Pollard into the circumstances of the documentary being scrapped in order to solve the answer of whether or not the decision was biased.

In my opinion, the answer was very vague (whether intentional or not), but there was one quote from the ITV which solidifies it in my mind.

The ITV would then go on to release their own documentary, 'Exposure - The Other Side of Jimmy Savile' in September 2012.

And in March 2013, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary reported that 214 of the complaints that had been made against Savile after his death would have been criminal offences if they had been reported at the time.

Perhaps one of the biggest tragedies of Jimmy Savile's life is his death, and I mean that very lightly, he deserved it sooner.

But it's just depressing to note that, even though I'm scratching the surface of the surface in regards to his crimes, that because of his death he's essentially gotten away with all of his wrongdoings without having to ever reconcile or face any punishment, which is also the fault of the organisations that bent so far to protect him and failed to protect the victims of him.

Institutional Protection is a very real issue and it's been an extremely problematic thing since the beginning of time, and because of this Savile was able to get away with this for so long, and it's frustrating.

But it's for reasons like this that we can recognise the faults and go forwards to do better.

[thelostgirl21]

Okay, now that video makes me feel even more uncomfortable with his silence on those issues.

Because, by contrast, I remember this interview:

GAY TIMES: There will be a few homophobic haters out there, people who think a queer storyline is outlandish in a world of basilisks, dopplers and chernobogs. We saw this recently with The Last of Us. Is this something you’re anticipating or are you not entertaining all of that anti-LGBTQ+ tomfoolery?

Joey: In this fandom, there is a very vocal negative space. That vocal negative space is actually the minority, I think. The thing that I’m most concerned about and will do my best to counteract is when discourse becomes bigotry. Then, I don’t know what I’d do with myself. I think I’d log onto Twitter and battle them all off myself. There is going to be inevitable backlash but what we’re doing is worth it.

https://www.gaytimes.com/originals/the-witcher-joey-batey-hugh-skinner-queer-interview/

So, it's unlikely that he's unaware of the presence of those toxic fans, when other co-stars are very aware of it, and ready to state that bigotry directed at others is never okay.

Although, I should mention that this interview (the video you showed) seems to have been done in Season 1 (if we look at the clips they are playing).

And Cavill seems to have understood the question as meaning how does he feel about people seeing his own interpretation of the character in a negative light.

I'd be curious about how he'd answer if someone asked him about it today; while being explicit about them specifically referring to the toxic hatred that has been directed towards the way the female characters have been put front and center on the show, the diversity of the casting choices, and the decision that was made for Jaskier to be portrayed as a "personizer" rather than a "womanizer", so to speak.

Would he still attempt to go "well, you know, people are just passionate about it", or admit that "regardless of how passionate some of those fans may be, bigotry directed at specific groups of people, the cast, etc. like that is never okay."

Because I've met quite a few of those actually passionate fans he's referring to. People that genuinely love and prefer the game - as is their right - and might be sad and upset that Netflix chose to give priority to the books and their own vision / adaptation of the books rather than integrate more lore from the games into it.

They aren't toxic, and they aren't the ones going around bashing minorities and making it some huge morality issue about how the show is not respecting the BOOKS' integrity, and SAPKOWSKI's vision, while clearly defending elements only found in the games (falsely claiming that it belongs to the book), and holding sexist, racist, queerphobic and even ableist remarks.

When we are talking about toxic fans, we are talking about toxic fans. Not passionate and disappointed ones!

Those are two very different categories!

Do toxic fans still have the right to their sexist, racist queerphobic and ableist opinions? Yes. But people that stand against those harmful views have a certain responsibility to clearly state "treating others the way you do is wrong, I don't agree with it, and I'm opposed to it."

And this is where having an influential actor - whose voice is constantly being misused by those toxic fans - remaining silent about it, gets very close to endorsing those views, especially if in the past Cavill has basically said that "it's not toxic, it's just passionate".

Like okay, maybe in Season 1 most were still "just passionate" for the most part, as it hadn't yet been made entirely clear what the direction of the show was going to be (and how much importance Ciri, Yennefer, Francesca, etc. would have in it).

But you've still got that very vocal negative space that has since grown, and that now see Cavill as their "champion of the manosphere", that are absolutely awful online, and feel validated by their Geralt of Rivia's silence.

If you look at 1:28:15, Henry does show support for his main co-star's performances, but he does so by suggesting that their characters tend to be oversimplified. Which is technically okay, because he's entitled to be dissatisfied with the show's writers interpretation of certain characters.

But again, that dissatisfaction is still indirectly suggested rather than stated.

But suggested in such a way where he has the "courtesy" of making his co-stars appear like victims/hostages of a show that is "oversimplifying characters" (a.k.a. failing the source material™), so they can almost be seen like THEY are too afraid to speak out against the "big bads" because they need the money and the job.

So it does sadly make that very vocal negative minority feel validated in their interpretation of Cavill having left because the show was "becoming too woke", etc.

He did also wish Liam Hemsworth well, and the little of what he's ever clearly stated has always praised his co-stars (the main ones, at least).

But, at some point if you've been made aware that you've got the freaking manosphere worshipping you, where does it become your responsibility to say "I know these men interpret my behavior as saying I support their bigoted views and frustrations with the diversity of the cast and the place given to women on the show, but I don't."

The thing also is that, even if he was to say something now , would these people then invent some story about him having been threatened by Netflix with legal actions for standing for his beliefs, etc.?

They've created such a persona for him, that would they even be willing to believe that he's not the alpha male anti-woke dudebro they believe him to be?

But, at the very least, he'd be standing for what's right, rather than looking like he's willing to sell his soul to the devil if that means staying on top.

So, my own personal perception of him?

Somewhere between A and B.

I don't blame him. I don't hate him.

Self-preservation is human.

He's not publicly nor explicitly endorsing those toxic views.

But I can't help but feel like he lacks the courage to do anything against it, because he'd rather prioritize his own popularity and safety above doing the right thing.

Taking a stand against bullies means risking having them turn against you.

And Cavill has often spoken about having been bullied and called "fat Cavill" as a child.

What is sad about that tale, is that the way he says it, you get the sense that instead of having learned to be proud of being fat as a child, and realised that those people were just assholes, he "won" and "showed them" by working and training hard to achieve the standards of physical beauty that those bullies likely held in high regards.

And some people do protect themselves from bullies by allowing them to think that they are on their side (even if they aren't).

As much as he wants to be Superman in real life, I still see him as a child that never outgrew being a victim in a sense, and that will still want to protect himself by avoiding to provoke aggression from bullies directed towards him.

He might secretly agree with certain sexist views of society (A), but I've a feeling that a huge chunk of the issue is closer to (B).

Not because he's got a narcissistic personality disorder per se (he hasn't raised any clear enough red flags for me to diagnose something like that from him), but he would rather have the monsters "on his side", than become the target of their ire, and continue to reap the benefits in terms of them supporting his career.

He's human, not Superman. Humans are messy and scared and sometimes self-serving in the choices they make.

I don't blame him, but I'm not comfortable with the way he's chosen to handle those toxic fans, and I don't support his methods, either.

And even there, all I know from him is the little I've heard and seen in interviews. It's highly likely that his motivations for not saying anything are even more complex than I can imagine.

I've been thinking about The Witcher books and tv show recently. Because half of the things that make Geralt seem cool and edgy in the show just don't exist in the books.

In the show he's always so stoic. Most of his exposition has to be told by side characters implying things and you just have to gage his reaction to decide if it's true or not. In the books however, he gives a full lore dump to anyone who's remotely nice to him.

Random Character: So how've you been?

Show Geralt: Hmmmm.... 😒 😔 😒...

Book Geralt: Terrible actually, thank you for asking. Monster hunting is dying out and I have zero transferable skills. Yennifer's left me again and Jaskier's off god knows where. Overall I suppose it could be worse, but that's the life or a Witcher. Also, my perfectly good leather jacket got ruined in a fight the day after I bought it :(

[whyyamihereagain]

seeing people say that maybe Finn or Noah would refuse to film a byler kiss because they would be uncomfortable filming a gay kiss is making me so fucking angry

do they really have such a low opinion of the actors that they think they would refuse to film something because it’s ‘gay’??

same with people saying Noah is a minor so they don’t think they would make him kiss another guy. it doesn’t even matter that he won’t be a minor when they start filming, but people actually think there’s a problem with him kissing another guy when Finn and Millie had to make out when they were much younger and people weren’t this concerned about it. 

so much homophobia disguised as “concern” for two actors who have not once indicated that they would feel anywhere close to uncomfortable with a gay storyline 

[goodqueenaly]

I can’t wait to see Arya’s storyline in TWOW (among other reasons) because I feel like GRRM is setting up tension coming to a head with a long-running theme for her - that is, disguise and identity.

Of course, Arya’s narrative has incorporated this theme for a very long time, indeed from the very first book. Long before she had any desire or need to adopt a false identity, Arya was being mistaken for an urchin boy at the Red Keep, while the first book ended with her disappearing into the common crowd at her father’s execution. Ever since, Arya has often adopted or been forced to adopt alternate identities: while most of the world believes that Arya Stark died during the purge of the Stark household in King’s Landing, the real Arya has traveled across the Riverlands and on to Braavos, mistaken by any number of onlookers as merely another child. Nor has this tension decreased in Braavos, where Arya’s ostensible professional role as a trainee of the Faceless Men - an organization that identifies (or, rather, non-identifies) its assassins as “no one”, and which disguises its members both sartorially and supernaturally - clashes with her personal thoughts and desires. 

So as TWOW opens for Arya, we see an even greater increase in this tension between disguise and true identity with her very first chapter, as “Mercy”. Once again, Arya has taken on a new cover identity with the Faceless Men - but this time, that cover even more explicitly embodies this conflict. As “Mercy”, Arya works at a playhouse, even getting the chance to act in its latest show (albeit in a minor role). The Gate’s very existence as a business literally depends on false identities: patrons come to its shows to see the players adopt roles they and the actors both know are not their real selves. Nor is this any random story Izembaro is staging, but a drama pointedly (if sometimes quite loosely) based on recent events in Westeros, events that directly involved and concerned Arya’s family and people she knew personally; indeed, Arya’s role in the play may even have been partially based on her own sister. Having hidden the true identity of Arya the Westerosi noble girl, once at King Robert’s court, behind the cover of “Mercy” the mummer girl, Arya is now, as Mercy, taking on the identity of a Westerosi girl at King Robert’s court. Everyone at the Gate, moreover, is very much aware that she is not the nameless Westerosi maiden, nor will she truly be raped by the real Tyrion Lannister; this is a dramatic disguise, happily recognized as false by all onlookers.

Nor does the conflict of disguise and identity end there. While the Gate audience and Arya’s fellow Mummers readily accept that Arya is not her role in The Bloody Hand, only she and (presumably) Izembaro know that she is not “Mercy” but really an acolyte of the Faceless Men - and, of course, of the two of them only Arya knows that she is in fact Arya of House Stark. This is not the first instance of Arya’s personal character coming through her Faceless Men disguises (having killed Dareon the Night’s Watch deserter while Cat of the Canals, and having used her skinchanging ability as Beth to pass the kindly man’s test), but it is the first time that Arya specifically weaponizes her Faceless Men disguise to achieve a goal she has as Arya Stark: using Mercy’s giggly personality and (almost) maiden age, as well as the sexualization of (and sexual predation on) mummer girls she had heard of and herself experienced, to lure Raff back to her apartment for killing. Too, Arya explicitly links her plan to kill Raff with her current role as an actress, blurring the line between the inherent falsity of the staged drama and her own use of the false identity of “Mercy”. Immediately before she starts to speak with Raff, Arya thinks that “He’ll want me or he won’t … so let the play begin”, and she offers to “teach [him] a line” because, so she says, he “could be a mummer if [he] wanted”; though Raff doesn’t know it, he is now an actor in Arya’s drama, where she is playing Mercy and he her target. Likewise, the chapter climaxes with Raff unconsciously repeating Lommy Greenhand’s last words, with Arya thinking to herself with amusement that “You know your line, and so do I”; this moment becomes a sort of play within a play, as Raff unknowingly assumes the role of his own previous murder victim. Yet even as Arya follows up with Raff’s words to Lommy, repeated back to him in the moments before she kills him (and in a similar way to how Raff had killed Lommy), the story explicitly - and uniquely, for this chapter - identifies her as “Arya”; as it was Arya who wanted Raff dead for his cruel murder of Lommy, so it is Arya who cuts through the layers of disguise and identity, casting off the covers of her roles to satisfy her long-held aim of bringing justice against Raff. 

Yet as “Mercy” is only the first chapter of almost certainly several for Arya in TWOW, so I think GRRM will continue and indeed heighten this tension between disguise and identity in subsequent chapters. One very natural way to do so may be for GRRM to have Jeyne Poole go to Westeros, in the company of Justin Massey (and perhaps Alysane Mormont as well). Putting aside the narrative sensibility of such a decision, I think the reintroduction of Jeyne into Arya’s storyline will work on this thematic level as well, forcing Arya to consider disguise and identity in a new, and perhaps final, way. After all ASOS, Jeyne has been forced into the role of “Lady Arya Stark” - that is, supposedly Arya herself, with Jeyne’s Stark-passable features acting as a convenient mask for those wishing to exploit the false identity. While many within Winterfell under the Boltons privately recognized that Jeyne was not really Arya Stark, Jeyne was nevertheless held out - including, later, by Stannis - as the true “Lady Arya”; more to the immediate point, Justin Massey has no reason to believe that Jeyne is not in fact “Lady Arya”, and consequently no reason, should he take her to Braavos, not to address her as such.

So Arya would have quite the crisis of disguise and identity to consider should she encounter Jeyne Poole, now addressed as “Lady Arya”, on the streets of Braavos. Instead of Arya herself hiding the identity of “Arya Stark”, often holding onto it in hidden ways (as with her mystical connection to her wolf Nymeria or her refusal to discard her sword Needle), here would be a girl without the true internal identity of Arya Stark carrying on (albeit not by choice) the outward appearance of “Lady Arya” - the Stark colors in her clothing, the vaguely northern features of her face, most of all the name. Too, because Arya and Jeyne grew up together in Winterfell and interacted (albeit far from happily for Arya) on a regular basis, each is in a unique position to specifically identify the other; while Jeyne may not immediately recognize Arya (depending on the level of disguise the latter might have at that moment), Arya would certainly have the ability to unmask Jeyne, so to speak -  to positively name Jeyne as Jeyne, with the most authority to do so because she is, in fact, the person Jeyne is supposed to be. With Arya already likely in more trouble with the Faceless Men (having now killed another for personal reasons, and this time the guard of a Westerosi envoy), this will be the moment, perhaps, where Arya can finally, after books of hiding, publicly reclaim her identity as Arya Stark, abandoning the need for disguise and setting on her path away from Braavos (and her would-be training as “no one”) and back home, to the heart of the Starks at Winterfell.

On top of all of this, GRRM may also draw on a worldbuilding detail of Braavos included in TWOIAF to underscore this tension even more. Maester Yandel writes in TWOIAF that one of the major celebrations of Braavos is the annual commemoration of the Uncloaking of Uthero. This holiday honors the official reveal of Braavos to the world as an established city-state, when “Sealord Uthero Zalyne … [sent] forth his ships to every corner of the world to proclaim the existence and location of Braavos, and invite men of all nations to celebrate the 111th festival of the city's founding”. In honor of the event, Braavosi hold “ten days of feasting and masked revelry—a festival like none other in all the known world, culminating at midnight on the tenth day, when the Titan roars and tens of thousands of revelers and celebrants remove their masks as one”. There is obviously no guarantee that the Uncloaking of Uthero celebration will occur during Arya’s time in Braavos, yet its inclusion could serve as a perfect outward expression of this thematic tension of disguise and identity. As Arya has worn invisible masks (as the identities she has had or been forced to have) and even supernatural masks (in the form of the magic done by the House of Black and White to give her difference faces), so now she would be in a celebration which requires its participants to don literal masks. Just as the Uncloaking remembers the end of a century of disguise for the city-state - when Braavos, finally free of the threat of extermination by its Valyrian enemies, could publicly proclaim its existence to the world - so Arya may be coming to the end of her long (relatively speaking, at least, compared to Braavos’ isolation) period of disguise and hidden identity, finally ready to claim her true identity in the eyes of the world. As the festival ends with all celebrants removing their masks together, so Arya’s time in Braavos may end with her finally removing all the masks she’s taken on or been forced to take on, reverting back to her true, very Stark-looking face as she returns to her true, Stark identity. 

[attheexactlyrighttimeandplace]

Some thoughts about the writing and teasing of the romantic tropes on the show, specifically focused on Galadriel, Sauron/Halbrand, with some maybe unpopular opinions in the mix (mostly some scepticism about how it will turn out for the show and the fandom).

I was writing an analysis that is a half speculation half review of episode 8 in which i explain why i think some characters arcs have been rewritten this season and why it doesn't work for me, when i realized that what emerged of these messy choices is mostly the transformation of the relationship of Halbrand/Sauron and Galadriel in the season finale, in something way bigger than what it was supposed to be initially (it's my theory).

I mean they only shared 2/3 scenes together in episode 8, but the execution of these scenes was done in a way that seems to make their relationship at the centre of the story and to promote the actors concerned, as if they had become the two young hot stars of the series.

Morfydd Clark has always been the leading lady but i never had the impression until now that her Galadriel overshadowed the rest of the cast. Halbrand was certainly given a lot of attention for a minor character, but mostly because he shared almost all his scenes with Galadriel.

Retrospectively, it seems like the writers used this storyline of letting Sauron (and not halbrand) tag along with Galadriel mostly to put the actor in the spotlight. I mean their relationship could have been played exactly the same even if he had stayed Halbrand the southlander, descendent of the men who took a blood oath with Morgoth, the man who sided with Adar during the mass murdering of entire villages. Reduced in the last episodes to what he really was: a fraud with the revelation that he was never the king of the Southlands and his crimes were too horrendous to be forgiven, and that Galadriel by bringing him back to this land had only revealed the hold that Adar had on him and the gravity of his crimes making redemption impossible for him.

Sauron didn't need at all to be bind to her to be established. There was at least one subplot inside season 1, that could have been perfect for Sauron and that didn't require to involve Galadriel with him. This other actor would have been the best choice for the Dark Lord, would have been everything that Charlie Vickers completely failed to be in the few scenes where Sauron revealed his identity: badass, threatening and looking like an ancient being with a very old soul.

I have one or two theories about the reasons the two showrunners (and only them, not the rest of the writing team who are veteran and whom i hope are wise enough to not try to make Tolkien's work something it isn't), took this direction but i'm more interested in the consequences of it.

I'm surprised that anyone can still believe after watching this season that the showrunners didn't intend from their meeting to give a romantic turn to their scenes. I know what Charlie Vickers said in his post final interviews: that he and his co-star Morfydd Clark played their bond as purely platonic (which is a really sensible and valid take), but he seems to forget that this interpretation doesn't match the context of their scenes.

No matter how hard they tried to limit their chemistry, all those scenes spent on a raft alone, wet and thus barely covered by their clothes, all those close ups on their faces while they are shouting at each other and getting more and more physically close to the point they lost all sense of personal space, all these camera shots focused on their arms/hands touching, the intimacy created by the way they stared at each other in episode 5: the entire sequence of their verbal sparring during their meeting at the royal court, that was filled with so much emotional strain when their opposition devolved into conflict, that it lead them to their haunting confession scene in the forge, in which they have watched in each other's souls according to the director of the episode (which was true at least for Sauron who saw the truth she was hiding until then), to their final mutual acceptation of their pull to each other and the desire to keep it and deepen it, and of course the proposal made during the mind control scene in which he offered to her a vision of the future where she would be his queen, it was all romantic tropes or filming techniques used to create the impression of romantic attraction.

I know the counter argument: "but Sauron can't love". I don't believe either he can love, but he can show for sure obsession of control, possessiveness, lust, jealousy and agressivity which are all the ingredients of toxic relationships.

All those examples proved in my view that the showrunners want to stage on this series their own dark "romance". I don't know why they think it's a good idea or why they think it's something that the viewers want to see (i don't want it and i'm not alone), but i believe they think it's not a violation of the canon if it's done in the same way it was done by Tolkien in one of the non published versions of Luthien and Morgoth's meeting (Charlie Vickers mentioned this last story too as an important part of his interpretation of the journey of Sauron before he become fully incorporeal, so i assume the writers wants to integrate it in Sauron's arc at one point, with Sauron and Galadriel reenacting the part where Lùthien played Morgoth).

Like many fans have already guessed, it won't be of course as fully developed as a real relationship would be, not now that Galadriel has clearly rejected any kind of interest in being his ally or his queen and will try to cut as much as possible any form of contact with him, after he forced himself on her mind. But one of the rings created in episode 8 is for her, and since Sauron helped to shape them, their power will allow him to read her thoughts and dreams if the series follows the book canon.

That's why, i expect more harassment and violence in season 2 under the form of CGI sequences like the mind control scenes in episode 8. More harassment as he's not taking no for an answer, and he turned possessive: since the scene in which he grabbed roughly her arm on the ship in episode 5 while she was offering only a handshake, to the way he emphasized the pronoun my in his line "my ally" in episode 8. And more violence too with Celeborn's probable arrival during this season, that will crush definitely any hope of submitting her and appropriating her mind, her thoughts, her desires and replace them by his, or get back her magical ring that he considers to be his property because he helped to make it.

To be honest, at this point i'm less worried about the risk that all those seeds, planted to attract a larger audience, potentially result in an unnecessary toxic one sided romance that would take too much attention and place, the damage has been already done on this front; and more concerned by how it can worsen the bad image, negative criticism of the show. The writers will still want the fans to root for the good guy, for Celeborn but after spending an entire season building this kind of chemistry between Sauron and Galadriel while they have barely mentioned Celeborn, it will be like emptying the ocean for a big minority of the fandom.

So this character that was completely absent from season 1, that was remembered only once by his own wife, that has a bad reputation in term of charisma, dynamism and popularity based on the fans reactions to the books and the films, is going to show up just like that, and claim back his status of husband of the heroine, and the showrunners think that no part of the fandom will turn against them and the rest of the writers?

My experience of fandoms tell me otherwise: it's not going to work, unless they have as much luck with the casting as they had with Lloyd Owen (whom could have easily endure to be in competition with Charlie Vickers, because of how popular he is in every way: for his acting, for playing a hero like Elendil admired and/or loved by all the others characters, for his looks and because the chemistry between Elendil and Galadriel has been clearly established), and it might even backfire and hurt the show's popularity and its reputation.

We're talking about a prestigious adaptation of Tolkien's work destined to become a classic, not the low quality franchise that is the Game of Thrones, thus the last thing the series needs is to be associated with ship wars on top of all the slamming it's already taking, especially when there was such a large margin to avoid them...

It's a recipe for a potential disaster, though i still believe strongly that season 2 will be better than season 1 if only because it will truly be an adaptation of the Appendices of LOTR, now that we reach the point where the war to control the rings can fully start.

My hope is the bad romance will be outshined by the epicness of the conflict for power and the new alliances that will be formed due to Sauron's attacks against the Elves, that it will be reduced to a footnote, something done only to "spice" the tale, and add some layers to Galadriel's arc. Something quickly forgotten when Sauron's physical body will be destroyed in Nùmenor.

[thomas-the-goat-of-satan]

I feel like the way that the Euphoria writers handled Kat's storyline in season one was pretty inappropriate. the way that they chose to tackle the topic of sex work though her character was just SO misguided. to be frank, it feels like they were marketing sex work to teenagers through her character without adequate warnings... and that doesn’t really sit right with me. now, the only reason that I really have an issue with this plotline is because Kat is 16 years old. she's a fucking minor. and the show’s decision to have her confidence boost come from making and distributing child p***ography is uncomfortable at the very best. and yeah, I've seen the defense that the actors themselves aren’t actually minors, and I acknowledge that. but... the viewer is SUPPOSED to view them as teenagers, regardless of whether or not their actors actually are. and yes, I also know that Euphoria is an HBO show, and therefore only adults (theoretically) should be watching it. but I know as a teenager myself, that young people can 100% get their hands on this show. I'd actually be willing to bet that Euphoria's core audience is entirely made up of teenagers and young adults. AND ALSO. it’s strange to think that Euphoria was created with the idea of only adults watching, considering the explicit content involving minors, so I’m just going to assume that it was created with teenagers and young adults in mind as the target demographic. because if it wasn't? well, that's another issue in and of itself. another problem that I have is... Kat has yet to receive any solid consequences. every other character in Euphoria has so far had a relatively solid consequence to the mistakes they make, except for Kat, and maybe N*te. for instance, Rue with her drug addiction, and Cassie being irresponsible when it comes to sex. I just want to reiterate that I'm of the opinion that sex work is a completely valid avenue. but I DO think that it’s a complete disservice to the viewers to just NOT discuss the dangers of sex work at all, ESPECIALLY when it concerns minors. and yeah, I imagine that they’re going to explore the darker side of sex work in the second season, but I feel that it's irresponsible to not touch on it even a little bit in the first season. it just feels like a major glorification.

[girlsgonemildblog]

Valley of the Dolls and Hollywood's Desire to Self-Protect

Poster from imdb.com

Valley of the Dolls (1967) tells the story of three young women working in show business in the 1960s. Originally adapted from Jacqueline Susann’s 1966 book by the same name, the screenplay was written by two women, Helen Deutsch and Dorothy Kingsley. The director for the film, though, was a man, named Mark Robson. The plot centers around three protagonists, Anne Welles, Neely O’Hara, and Jennifer North. Their stories connect and separate several times as they each navigate Hollywood, growing in stardom and fading into oblivion. All three storylines follow two themes, the role of women in the 1960s and the abuse of drugs by these women to deal with the pressures of their culture. The film largely stays true to the novel, but alters some important aspects in order to soften the critique that Susann originally proposed. Valley of the Dolls is an attempted commentary on societal demands on women in the 1960s, but is unsuccessful in its criticism due to continuing to perpetuate several misogynistic standards and Hollywood trying to alleviate itself of guilt.

Valley of the Dolls is one of few movies from its era that centers on multiple female leads without allowing for any male characters to come in and dominate the narrative. The story goes further than to just portray women, and even passes commentary on the harmful expectations put on them by society. There are messages about the workforce, body image, and marriage roles all present. Still, while the film may seem to have a feminist message for most of the plot, it falls short in its final moments. The two women, Neely and Jennifer, who are outwardly ambitious and more sexually promiscuous, are punished for their behavior, while the virginally pure and soft spoken Anne is the one who gets a happy ending, though not in the traditional sense.

The first woman to look at is Neely O’Hara (Patty Duke). Neely, the youngest of the three, is also the most talented and the most ambitious. While her two co-protagonists experience minor stardom, Neely becomes a full-fledged celebrity. As Neely begins her rise to the top, she is forced to work out, despite already being nearly rail thin. During her work-out montage, she even asks her trainer, “you call this acting?” This moment serves to show that for women, being an actor was not strictly about their talent, but also the way they looked. Working out is a part of the job for Neely because if she gains weight, people will no longer want to look at her and thus she won’t be able to be on stage or screen.

The affect of her ambition on her womanhood is also seen through the depiction of her first marriage to her hometown sweetheart, Mel (Martin Milner). When Neely gets her big break, she asks Mel to marry her, flipping the tradition of a man asking a woman. This is the first evidence of the gender role reversal that will be present later. In one scene, after Neely has made it and begun earning more money, the audience sees that Mel is now in charge of keeping house, a job typically meant for the wife at this time. The two get into an argument and Mel, sick of being bossed around by Neely, states, “I am not the butler,” to which Neely retorts, “you’re not the bread winner either.” The two get divorced shortly after. In the beginning of the movie, as Neely is about to be cut out of the broadway show, Mel gives her advice on how to handle the situation in a way that is both best for her career and best for earning money. Mel is more than happy to support Neely’s ambition when she is starting out and he is controlling her success. When Neely grows beyond his grasp, begins to overshadow him, and no longer needs him, the turmoil of their relationship begins. Mel’s male ego cannot handle having a wife who not only is not reliant on him, but who he is reliant on.

In contrast, Jennifer’s fatal flaw is not her ambition but her body. The audience is introduced to Jennifer (Sharon Tate) as she is scantily clad in a leotard with a giant showgirl headpiece on. Her first line is concern that she cannot walk, “I feel a little top heavy,” to which her director replies, “Dear, you are top heavy.” This is met by a chorus of laughter from the men in the room and clear distress from Jennifer’s face. Jennifer’s sin is simply her breasts and her beauty; she is punished for merely existing in her natural form. On the phone with her mother, she states, “I know I don’t have any talent, and I know all I have is my body.” She recognizes that she has no marketable skills, but with the way that society has commodified the female figure, she can use her natural assets to get ahead.

Jennifer’s plot line introduces the character of Miriam (Lee Grant), the sister of Jennifer’s husband, Tony (Tony Scotti). Miriam also manages Tony. This is interesting because all the other women in the film are controlled by men, but Miriam is not only not controlled by a man, but controls one herself. Jennifer, who seems not to have a manager, but operates as an independent, eventually is taken on by Miriam, emphasizing the way that Miriam acts as a male figure, controlling and dominating her world like men normally do. Miriam eventually sells Jennifer into porn. When Jennifer tries to protest, Miriam insists, “Tony wouldn’t know the difference.” Jennifer’s plea of “well, I would,” falls on deaf ears. Miriam views the world like a man, thinking only a husband should be offended by his wife’s immodesty, not recognizing that the woman is also a person with feelings about the exposure of her own body.

Jennifer’s whole life and career is based on her body. When she is diagnosed with breast cancer and must get a mastectomy, she states, “all I ever had was a body. All I know how to do is take off my clothes.” She is realizing that without her breasts, she will have no way of earning a living or supporting herself, as she has done her whole life. This drives her to suicide, deciding she would rather die than lose her body. The message of this scene is clear; despite the fact that society has deemed her figure the only thing that gives her value, her exploitation of it still must be punished by death. Women are supposed to surrender to the forces of the patriarchy, not use them to their own advantage.

The third protagonist, the redeemable protagonist, is Anne Welles (Barbara Parkins). Anne is introduced at the very beginning of the film through her own narration as she tells the listener that her family’s home has been around since the revolution, showing that she represents American tradition. The story of George Washington drinking from their well symbolizes that people like Anne are what give America life. This American idealization is what protects Anne throughout her career. As she enters the office for the first time to the slut shaming of a pregnant cat, the audience immediately knows that this place will not be very friendly to women. This is fortified when her boss tells her she is “too good looking” for her job and talks about getting her “broken in”. This is exemplifying the idea that beautiful women aren’t meant for work while also objectifying them by talking about women like they’re shoes.

Her romantic interest, Lyon (Paul Burke), who is also her boss, calls Anne, “barely pink” when he first meets her, admiring how young she is. He later tells her that jewelry is not for her, and that she should only be gifted flowers, specifically white ones. These are both attempts to preserve Anne’s delicacy, or “pinkness”.  Diamonds and gold are too flashy for a soft spoken woman like Anne, and the white flowers clearly symbolize purity. Constantly throughout the entire film, the audience is reminded of Anne being special and unlike other “bad” women such as Neely or Jennifer. At one point Lyon tells Anne that no other girls compare to her because they can’t “stand up to her image”. Not her actual person or personality, but her image. Anne does not have actual personhood in the eyes of Lyon, but exists only as the idealized woman.

This is further exemplified when she becomes the Gillian Girl. The man who hires her says he wants someone known with Gillian exclusively. The idea here is they want her to be only an image of beauty and innocence; if she works with other brands or as an actress she becomes more than one-dimensional and people can discover that she may have flaws. Anne’s ability to maintain her image of perfection and purity throughout the entire film is why she gets to live happily ever after at the end, unlike her two counterparts. She returns to her hometown and lives out the rest of her life as the embodiment of American tradition.

This movie gets its title from the nickname that Neely gives the pills that she and the other two protagonists all become addicted to. The name, “dolls”, calls to mind a picture of girlhood and female adolescence, highlighting how young Neely is (only 17) when the story begins. Many movies of the 1960s, such as Dennis Hopper’s Easy Rider (1969) were depicting taking psychedelic drugs and having crazy trips. Valley of the Dolls shows a different type of drug use, the abuse of painkillers. Though the main characters are movie stars and models, their drug habit was likely more relatable to the suburban movie-going audience than that of Hopper’s characters. It was all too common for housewives to be prescribed “mother’s little helpers” to deal with what was condescendingly written off as “hysteria”. Another difference between these two movies is that psychedelic trips were portrayed as freeing, eye-opening experiences. In contrast, the painkillers are entrapping for the women and ultimately ruin their careers and end their lives.

The character who has the least interaction with the “dolls” is Anne. This is done to keep the idea of Anne as the “pure”, “good” character. The way she begins to take the drugs is interesting, though; she first picks up the bottle when she realizes that her long-term boyfriend, Lyon, is having an affair with her best friend, Neely. This serves two purposes. This first is that it shows that the pills are not used for pleasure, like psychedelics would be, but for numbing purposes. This also displays the corruptive force of Hollywood; it is not until the plot moves from New York to Hollywood that these women turn sour. Because of this city, Neely betrays her best friend and sweet, innocent Anne is driven to drug use.

Jennifer is seen taking the pills two times, twice as often as Anne is. The first time she takes them is when she learns about Tony’s illness. Again, they are used to numb emotional pain. The second time Jennifer is shown taking the pills is when she purposely overdoses on them to kill herself. This is the most extreme version of numbing difficult emotions a person can take, and the most obvious way that the movie could show that these drugs do not provide enjoyment but rather stop misery. What the “dolls” provide is nothingness, and Jennifer takes this nothingness to its maximum.

Neely is the character whose story is most entangled with drug use. She begins when her trainer gives her diet pills to slim her already thin figure. During this montage, the audience clearly sees Mel, the symbol of her pre-fame life, shake his head and tell her no, but she responds with a shrug, as if to say, “what’s the worst that could happen?” Shortly after, she tells Anne that she takes sleeping pills that are so strong, she has to take red pills to counteract them to wake up in the mornings, but then must take the sleeping pills again at night because the red ones have not yet worn off. Taking the pills is an endless cycle for Neely that will lead her to spiral to rock bottom.

In a following scene, Neely is seen being an absolute mess on the set of a movie, causing them to call for her husband to take her home because she cannot work under such strong influence of drugs and alcohol. When Anne and Lyon go to check on her, Anne lectures her about the danger of drinking while taking the pills, but Neely asserts that she must do so because it makes them work faster. This moment shows the desperation Neely has to stop feeling. Later on, after getting drunk in a dive-bar, having sex with some random nobody, and being robbed the morning after, Neely overdoses and nearly dies. Anne implies that this may have been intentional, despite Neely insisting otherwise. The audience is left to wonder.

During the third act of the movie, after Neely has gone to rehab and gotten clean, her older rival, Helen Lawson (Susan Hayward), brags about how she never needed pills like Neely did. Lawson claims her current sobriety is only temporary and Neely will eventually return to her old bad habits. The character summarizes Neely’s entire story with one line, “nothing can destroy her talent, but she’ll destroy herself.” Lawson’s words come true; Neely’s final scene sees her relapsing on opening night of the show she’s supposed to star in and being replaced by her younger understudy, the very thing she was afraid of. Her story closes on her drunk in an alley, screaming her own name.

To properly analyze this film, one must compare it to its source material, Jacqueline Susann’s novel by the same name. Though the movie stays true to the novel in most major plot points, there are distinct narrative changes and omissions that drastically alter the story. One of the most distinct examples of this is that Lyon refuses to marry Anne until the final scene of the film. In the novel, he marries her when they first reunite in Los Angeles. When he begins his affair with Neely, Anne is pregnant with their first child, which gives Anne a stronger motive to turn to the pills than she has in the movie. The book version of the two women are also much closer friends, which creates a more dramatic change in Neely’s character than in the film. Removing these two extremes makes Neely’s character arc less impactful.

Another aspect that was removed is Tony’s obsession with sex. An important part of Jennifer’s characterization is that she has always been made to feel that her body is her only source of value. This is added to, in the novel, by the fact that sex is the foundation for her relationship with her husband. This is only alluded to in the film with one line when they are walking in the park. In the novel, it is emphasized explicitly at multiple points. One of the reasons Jennifer chooses to kill herself rather than lose her breasts is because she believes she will lose even her husband’s love. The film likely made this change, as well as the marital change, to make the characters of Tony and Neely more sympathetic. While this goal is accomplished, it also softens the harsh realities that Susann was trying to expose in her novel.

One final difference between the film and novel is the ending. In the film, Lyon finally proposes to Anne and she rejects him, getting to move on with her life and live peacefully. She gets a happy ending. The novel ends with Anne and Lyon still married, her discovering that he is having yet another affair with a client, and her returning to the pills. This final note makes it clear that there are no happy endings for women in this city. The change is another example of Hollywood trying to show itself in a more flattering light than the one Susann placed on it.

Valley of the Dolls, the novel, was written by a female author as a way to condemn the mistreatment of women in the 1960s, specifically the mistreatment perpetuated by Hollywood on women in show business. The film adaptation tries to duplicate this commentary, but fails for multiple reasons. The first is that it chooses to save the “good girl” character. In the written work, all three stories ending in tragedy shows how no woman is safe from the effects of the patriarchy. Opting to protect the “pure” character alters the message completely so that it is no longer a criticism but a continuation of the idea that ambitious, promiscuous women deserve punishment and good, virginal women deserve happy endings. In addition, it omits important plot points that provide motivation for the characters self-destructive actions, such as Anne taking the pills for the first time and Jennifer committing suicide. By removing the catalysts, the characters are turned into cliché hysterical women. The film fails to adapt Susann’s novel correctly because it replicates the sensational bits while omitting the message. Unlike the book, the film serves only to entertain and not to critique.

[fromthedeskofthecaptain]

Ghosts Empire Online Spoiler Special final part...

Ben, Larry and Martha.

Martha notes Fanny’s character development. They are planning to show more of her soft side in series three.

Ben wants to hold back from the Captain’s death, partly because it’s not the most interesting thing about him. He’s very aware that the tone needs to be quite carefully balanced between comedy and genuinely heartfelt emotion and doesn’t want to get too “heavy” with the Captain’s storylines, while still injecting drama and focusing on why he is as he is. Larry says they knew very early on how Cap died, but some of the characters have not been worked out fully or have changed because they realized something else has more dramatic possibilities.

Episode 1 -

Larry makes the point that the ghosts are like toddlers “with their hands tied behind their backs” in that they can do very little for themselves and Alison now has a morning routine revolving around setting them up for their days. He felt they had to do a ghost hunter episode at some point because it was obvious and a reversal of series one’s “cynicism” about the existence of ghosts from the living characters.

Cap’s fitness obsession is in there in part because Ben is really into running but Larry points out that his own run through woods in episode five was harder on him than filming the Captain’s short jog was on Ben! Ben had a stunt coordinator to help him do a tiny jump onto a crash mat when he was leaping to save Lady Button from being seen. They all found this hilarious because it was such a minor stunt and they’d all done loads of falling over in Horrible Histories.

Episode 3 -

They talked about the level of explosion they needed to have to warrant the Captain’s concern about the buried secret (once we discovered it wasn’t wholly a metaphor) without it being something that would’ve killed everyone. Larry finds it funny that Ben was so into war films as a child that he immediately said “oh, you’d need a limpet mine!” (These are attached to ships to create holes below the waterline).

Captain’s viability as a character comes from his internal conflict over being gay. He thinks the Edwardian era until the 50s was probably harder for gay men than prior to that. He doesn’t elaborate on why, but seems to say there was something about that time period in particular.

(Ed: He doesn’t say why he thinks this. I speculated on a few ideas

1. Perhaps the late Victorian surge in the power of the national press and use of the camera reduced people’s sense of privacy and enabled people to be the subject of campaigns and notoriety, e.g Oscar Wilde.

2 Perhaps he meant the 1885 Labouchere Amendment to the criminal law that made “gross indecency” short of proven anal sex a crime as well. Prior to that the law on male homosexuality was from Tudor times and required evidence of anal penetration proven to a legal standard. Any other sexual or intimate act between men had been legal (albeit not necessarily socially accepted). The amendment meant anything that could be considered foreplay or “coming on” to someone was now illegal. No definition was provided in the Act, which made it easier, not harder, to prosecute.

3. The First World War and all that surrounded it led to the particular construction that can be summed up as “patriotism requires battle-readiness, which means skills and virtues of traditional masculinity which are predicated on heterosexuality.” This is a drastic simplification, of course.

Aaaannnd back to Ben...

He says he never expected the degree to which the Captain has been adopted as significant character that embodies how so many people feel. Larry says that he thinks this is because Cap is a character who is gay, not a gay character and the majority of his story is about his functioning as a personality. His personality affects how he processes being gay and how he processes many other things too, but it isn’t that being gay IS his personality. (Ed: This is so important! As a gay woman I really struggle with characters who are written as “scene” because often that does mean that their entire personality is their sexuality, which I find reductive and alienating. It’s also exhausting when people have this self-portrayal in real life.)

Larry says he thinks the Captain would never have “allowed himself the possibility” that he’s gay because what could he have done about it in his time with his personality and attitude to risk, etc. Ben says Cap’s sexuality has never been treated as a joke in itself.

Fanny has a sexual awakening over Mike that the host described as “going Benny Hill”. Martha can’t watch it because it’s too much. They had to edit it a bit because she went over the top.

Larry says Robin being a conspiracy theorist is because he has no frame of reference for any of the things being discussed so he just believes everything that auto plays on YouTube.

They have to check about swearing and sexual references with Compliance. Ben says it’s funny what they will have problems with and what will be fine. (He seems to say it seems to lack internal logic.) Larry thinks being a quite daft show with a lot of overt silliness helps them get away with e.g. Pat saying “bullshit.”

Martha and Larry love that Simon puts a word in when he is making a noise of exertion when he’s moving things. He’s done Shawaddywaddy, Nixon, and has moved on to footballers’ names. He ad libs them all. They realized that with the burglary episode Julian would have to do everything because otherwise the plot wouldn’t work but thought it’d be ok if they had him be overtly annoyed about it and showed him to be the work shy layabout he thinks poor people are.

Initially, in their first pitch, Julian was dressed in PVC with a ball gag etc and they realized (Ed: thank god!) that they just couldn’t put that on television, so suggested what had happened in a much more likely to be allowed on TV before midnight way.

The hitchhiker Alison meets gave them pause due to its bleakness. Larry says they kept it to remind the audience that ghosts are everywhere and it is a horror comedy. He likes to keep the tone shifting and keep things unexpected. They reference how eager Fanny was to help the burglars, in that she can’t bear to see people do a task badly.

Mary and Kitty work as a team because the actors get on together, plus Kitty is so naive and Mary is such a “wildcard” that “if they only have each other to keep themselves on track” it’ll all go wrong (Larry). They joke about Cap being excited to have a moment to fight off insurgents. Ben calls it “frontline stuff!” and notes that Cap is an appalling military leader “in the wrong job.” This is partly because of leaving those two to do an important job, but generally, too. (Show some respect, Willbond).

Kitty’s song for Music Club was going to be “Saturday Night” by Wigfield, but they couldn’t get clearance. Larry also mentions not being allowed “Come on Eileen.” It’s clearly affected them all very deeply!

The End! (Until the last episode of the podcast, which I think is just about the Christmas special.) x

[stephendavid]

The Oscars 2022: Will Smith B**ch-Slaps Chris Rock Over Benign Joke The Oscars meet the Streets when over-rated actor Will Smith stormed on stage to physically assault Chris Rock over a mildly funny joke poked at Smith's 304 wife. This joke was no more offensive than any other mild ribbing given at the Oscars every year. The audience finds such jokes amusing because it takes the arrogance and pomposity of the rich and famous down a peg in the midst of their self indulgence. As many have pointed out, Smith himself initially took the joke as funny and inoffensive. That is clearly captured by the cameras. It wasn't until he looked over and saw his wife snarling that suddenly he decided to act "offended", stormed on stage and viciously tore into Chris Rock with a hard slap that appeared to be nearly a punch. So why did he decide to suddenly "lose it"? It helps to understand that Will was making a show of protecting the "honor" of a wife from a joke that in no way dishonored her. And it also helps to remember that Jada Pinkett-Smith dishonored herself over recent years by not only disrespecting the sanctity of their marital bed, but also making it very public. And Will Smith joined her in his very public cuckoldry. The two of them confirmed on "Red Table Talk" television show that Jada had an affair with one of her son's friends, August Alsina, who is 20 years younger than her. They claimed Will knew about the relationship and had given his permission. The couple went on to declare they had an "Open Marriage" and were free to have sexual relations with whomever they chose. But at the Oscars, in front of millions of viewers internationally, Will decides to defend the supposed "honor" of his wife over a silly joke -- the woman who publicly Cuckolded him? I suspect the last few years of being the butt of many Cuck jokes simply caught up with him. He saw his wife get pissed and made a conscious decision to grand stand and play the offended husband - an act only his most enamored fans and female followers bought into. And it just made him look all the more insincere and pathetic. And bringing street violence to the international stage may just be the final nail in the Oscar's coffin. Ratings for the Oscars have plummeted severely over the last 12 years, and especially fairly steadily over the last 8 years, from 44M viewers in 2014 to 26M viewers in 2028, 24M in 2020 and 10 Million viewers in 2021. There have been hiccups in the trend, with tiny gains for a single year, but the precipitous downward spiral has been very consistent for most years. The Oscar's are just an exercise in Hollywood self-indulgence. They don't represent any semblance of objective evaluation of talent, and are just an excuse for the rich and famous to rattle their jewels and show off their fashion on the red carpet. And the audience is bored and shrinking. The recent announcement of the "Academy Aperture 2025 initiative" limiting inclusion to only films adhering to a straight jacket of racial and sexual identity requirements drives home the total lack of concern for talent, creativity and authenticity in future Oscars presentations and awards. Oscars nominees must, in the future not only have at least one major lead actor from a preferred (non-white) racial minority group, but 30% of all minor parts must go to females, LGBTQ+, non-White and/or disabled. And the storyline of the film must also be confined to and focused on females, LGBTQ+, non-White racial groups or the disabled. And there are further quotas and restrictions on the Identities of those working behind the scenes and off-camera (script writers, camera personel, lighting etc). I don't think it's pessimistic to think there won't be an Oscars presentation show on any major network in a prime time slot by 2025. The infusion of Mediocrity, Woke hatred and backstreet violence in both film and Awards ceremonies will have destroyed this formerly great entertainment industry.

[earnestly-endlessly]

i would love to hear more about the mutant crimes division and the soulmates AUs!!!

Thank you so much @ikeracity for the ask. I have already answered an ask about the mutant crimes division here. But I do have plenty to say about my soulmate AU. This is probably the story I’ve been sitting on for the longest time and the one I’m most interested in writing. 

Hearts Like Ours (the soulmate AU)

They say that your heart stops beating for one entire minute the first time you meet your soulmate. Erik knows it’s bullshit. He should know, being a cardiothoracic surgeon at one of the most prestigious medical faculties in the city. As it is, Erik doesn’t really believe in soul bonds. He’s perfectly happy with life as it is. He has a secure job, he owns a nice apartment in the West Village where he lives alone with his loyal companion and trusted friend Max, the dark brown German shepherd he saved from the shelter, and can have things just the way he wants without someone nagging him about mundane things like who should do the dishes, or who should do the laundry. Erik is perfectly happy being alone, and unlike the majority of the population, he’s not waiting in the vain hope to find his one true love and soulmate.

Erik’s world takes a sudden, dramatic turn during a double shift when a patient is wheeled into the ER with multibletrauma injuries and a serious head wound after having been hit by a drunk driver during one of New York’s worst snowstorms in years. It takes a single glance, a minor touch of his hand against the patient’s, and two quiet words when Erik feels it. His whole world stops for a minute and he feels his pulse thundering in his ears until it all lurges back into motion. Belatedly, he realizes what has occurred and in his delirium he lurches back as if burned. His vision blurs and he feels the earth shift underneath his feet. Next thing he knows he‘s on the floor, surrounded by concerned faces of his co-workers and curious looks from the interns. For a moment he doesn‘t understand what has happened, but then the lurching realization hits him like a freight train. He’s been soul bonded and his bonded is being wheeled away from him to surgery. The day couldn’t have gotten any worse, that is until the picture of him and his bonded gets splayed on the front page of the New York Post. Not only has he soul bonded, but he‘s bonded to Charles Xavier, one of the most respected specialists in neurological science and a professor at Oxford University. Oh, and he also happens to be an heir to one of the biggest pharmaceutical companies in the states and who has the networth of 3 billion dollars with close ties to the Manhattan elite.

Soon, the whole affair attracts the attention of every media and news outlet in the country, and Erik finds himself in a situation he never wished for in the first place.

The idea for this story came to me when I was working on a morning shift at the hospital and thought: how would someone respond to finding your soulmate but they’re in critical care at the hospital and you don’t know if they’re even going to wake up? Then I started to think of how our current society would function if everyone had a soulmate. What are the odds of finding your soulmate? How would this affect history, religion, culture? How would this affect the relationships you have with the people around you?

I always wanted to write a Medical AU, so I decided that Erik would be a cardiothoracic surgeon who is taking an extra shift to oversee a patient at the ER with the new medical interns when Alex Summers wheels in a trauma patient. Due to the severe snowstorm, the ER is in chaos. Erik touches the patient to check his vitals when he figures out that the patient who has been rolled into the ER is his soulmate.

Originally Charles was going to be a well-loved Hollywood actor who has made a career of selling the idea of the perfect soulbond. The idea was that Erik would be swept up in a situation he isn’t prepared to face. I wanted Erik to see the idea of Charles as he has portrayed himself and experience the complex feelings of watching the public side of Charles and slowly falling for the idea of him against his better judgment. He also has to deal with the media and the tabloids which means that he’s way over his head and doesn’t know how to cope with the situation at all. Additionally, Charles’ lawyers are interfering with Erik’s affairs while Charles is still in a critical condition and can’t even speak for himself.

I later decided that I found the idea of Charles being an actor a bit too much for the story and, as I developed the relationships between the characters, I thought it was a better idea that Charles was a professor in neuroscience at Oxford and was attending a conference in New York when the accident occurs. The only thing that made the ‘actor idea’ convenient for the storyline is that for a large part of the story Charles is comatose and severely injured. I found it intriguing that Erik would get an impression of Charles as a character before he has any chance to know him personally. However, Charles being a Xavier makes him automatically well known within the upper crust society of Manhattan, and Charles’ reputation as a serial dating bachelor who spends thousands of dollars on expensive hotel suites and alcohol gives Erik the impression that Charles is nothing but a privileged, naïve rich boy who has no sense of the real hardships of life. This is exactly what Erik feared all along and did not want. Now he’s bonded to a man who has a reputation and Erik is hard pressed to figure out a way to legally separate their bond before he loses his mind. To make things even worse, the media has painted the whole affair as the perfect love story, but the reality is so far from it.