#so is using the wrong flag

[isacksteban]

if ur so mad my fc beat urs go cry abt it why r u responding to everyone in villas comments like a fucking loser

[creekfiend]

when items which claim to be made of linen are like "hand wash gentle only do not use machines" it's soooo. guys linen is like. the durable fiber. I should be able to fucking boil this and hit it with rocks biweekly. you are doing something wrong

[cuddlytogas]

So I accidentally almost got into an argument on Twitter, and now I'm thinking about bad historical costuming tropes. Specifically, Action Hero Leather Pants.

See, I was light-heartedly pointing out the inaccuracies of the costumes in Black Sails, and someone came out of the woodwork to defend the show. The misunderstanding was that they thought I was dismissing the show just for its costumes, which I wasn't - I was simply pointing out that it can't entirely care about material history (meaning specifically physical objects/culture) if it treats its clothes like that.

But this person was slightly offended on behalf of their show - especially, quote, "And from a fan of OFMD, no less!" Which got me thinking - it's true! I can abide a lot more historical costuming inaccuracy from Our Flag than I can Black Sails or Vikings. And I don't think it's just because one has my blorbos in it. But really, when it comes down to it...

What is the difference between this and this?

Here's the thing. Leather pants in period dramas isn't new. You've got your Vikings, Tudors, Outlander, Pirates of the Caribbean, Once Upon a Time, Will, The Musketeers, even Shakespeare in Love - they love to shove people in leather and call it a day. But where does this come from?

Obviously we have the modern connotations. Modern leather clothes developed in a few subcultures: cowboys drew on Native American clothing. (Allegedly. This is a little beyond my purview, I haven't seen any solid evidence, and it sounds like the kind of fact that people repeat a lot but is based on an assumption. I wouldn't know, though.) Leather was used in some WWI and II uniforms.

But the big boom came in the mid-C20th in motorcycle, punk/goth, and gay subcultures, all intertwined with each other and the above. Motorcyclists wear leather as practical protective gear, and it gets picked up by rock and punk artists as a symbol of counterculture, and transferred to movie designs. It gets wrapped up in gay and kink communities, with even more countercultural and taboo meanings. By the late C20th, leather has entered mainstream fashion, but it still carries those references to goths, punks, BDSM, and motorbike gangs, to James Dean, Marlon Brando, and Mick Jagger. This is whence we get our Spikes and Dave Listers in 1980s/90s media, bad boys and working-class punks.

And some of the above "historical" design choices clearly build on these meanings. William Shakespeare is dressed in a black leather doublet to evoke the swaggering bad boy artist heartthrob, probably down on his luck. So is Kit Marlowe.

But the associations get a little fuzzier after that. Hook, with his eyeliner and jewellery, sure. King Henry, yeah, I see it. It's hideously ahistorical, but sure. But what about Jamie and Will and Ragnar, in their browns and shabby, battle-ready chic? Well, here we get the other strain of Bad Period Drama Leather.

See, designers like to point to history, but it's just not true. Leather armour, especially in the western/European world, is very, very rare, and not just because it decays faster than metal. (Yes, even in ancient Greece/Rome, despite many articles claiming that as the start of the leather armour trend!) It simply wasn't used a lot, because it's frankly useless at defending the body compared to metal. Leather was used as a backing for some splint armour pieces, and for belts, sheathes, and buckles, but it simply wasn't worn like the costumes above. It's heavy, uncomfortable, and hard to repair - it's simply not practical for a garment when you have perfectly comfortable, insulating, and widely available linen, wool, and cotton!

As far as I can see, the real influence on leather in period dramas is fantasy. Fantasy media has proliferated the idea of leather armour as the lightweight choice for rangers, elves, and rogues, a natural, quiet, flexible material, less flashy or restrictive than metal. And it is cheaper for a costume department to make, and easier for an actor to wear on set. It's in Dungeons and Dragons and Lord of the Rings, King Arthur, Runescape, and World of Warcraft.

And I think this is how we get to characters like Ragnar and Vane. This idea of leather as practical gear and light armour, it's fantasy, but it has this lineage, behind which sits cowboy chaps and bomber/flight jackets. It's usually brown compared to the punk bad boy's black, less shiny, and more often piecemeal or decorated. In fact, there's a great distinction between the two Period Leather Modes within the same piece of media: Robin Hood (2006)! Compare the brooding, fascist-coded villain Guy of Gisborne with the shabby, bow-wielding, forest-dwelling Robin:

So, back to the original question: What's the difference between Charles Vane in Black Sails, and Edward Teach in Our Flag Means Death?

Simply put, it's intention. There is nothing intentional about Vane's leather in Black Sails. It's not the only leather in the show, and it only says what all shabby period leather says, relying on the same tropes as fantasy armour: he's a bad boy and a fighter in workaday leather, poor, flexible, and practical. None of these connotations are based in reality or history, and they've been done countless times before. It's boring design, neither historically accurate nor particularly creative, but much the same as all the other shabby chic fighters on our screens. He has a broad lineage in Lord of the Rings and Pirates of the Caribbean and such, but that's it.

In Our Flag, however, the lineage is much, much more intentional. Ed is a direct homage to Mad Max, the costuming in which is both practical (Max is an ex-cop and road warrior), and draws on punk and kink designs to evoke a counterculture gone mad to the point of social breakdown, exploiting the thrill of the taboo to frighten and titillate the audience.

In particular, Ed is styled after Max in the second movie, having lost his family, been badly injured, and watched the world turn into an apocalypse. He's a broken man, withdrawn, violent, and deliberately cutting himself off from others to avoid getting hurt again. The plot of Mad Max 2 is him learning to open up and help others, making himself vulnerable to more loss, but more human in the process.

This ties directly into the themes of Our Flag - it's a deliberate intertext. Ed's emotional journey is also one from isolation and pain to vulnerability, community, and love. Mad Max (intentionally and unintentionally) explores themes of masculinity, violence, and power, while Max has become simplified in the popular imagination as a stoic, badass action hero rather than the more complex character he is, struggling with loss and humanity. Similarly, Our Flag explores masculinity, both textually (Stede is trying to build a less abusive pirate culture) and metatextually (the show champions complex, banal, and tender masculinities, especially when we're used to only seeing pirates in either gritty action movies or childish comedies).

Our Flag also draws on the specific countercultures of motorcycles, rockers, and gay/BDSM culture in its design and themes. Naturally, in such a queer show, one can't help but make the connection between leather pirates and leather daddies, and the design certainly nods at this, with its vests and studs. I always think about this guy, with his flat cap so reminiscient of gay leather fashions.

More overtly, though, Blackbeard and his crew are styled as both violent gangsters and countercultural rockstars. They rove the seas like a bikie gang, free and violent, and are seen as icons, bad boys and celebrities. Other pirates revere Blackbeard and wish they could be on his crew, while civilians are awed by his reputation, desperate for juicy, gory details.

This isn't all of why I like the costuming in Our Flag Means Death (especially season 1). Stede's outfits are by no means accurate, but they're a lot more accurate than most pirate media, and they're bright and colourful, with accurate and delightful silks, lace, velvets, and brocades, and lovely, puffy skirts on his jackets. Many of the Revenge crew wear recognisable sailor's trousers, and practical but bright, varied gear that easily conveys personality and flair. There is a surprising dedication to little details, like changing Ed's trousers to fall-fronts for a historical feel, Izzy's puffy sleeves, the handmade fringe on Lucius's red jacket, or the increasing absurdity of navy uniform cuffs between Nigel and Chauncey.

A really big one is the fact that they don't shy away from historical footwear! In almost every example above, we see the period drama's obsession with putting men in skinny jeans and bucket-top boots, but not only does Stede wear his little red-heeled shoes with stockings, but most of his crew, and the ordinary people of Barbados, wear low boots or pumps, and even rough, masculine characters like Pete wear knee breeches and bright colours. It's inaccurate, but at least it's a new kind of inaccuracy, that builds much more on actual historical fashions, and eschews the shortcuts of other, grittier period dramas in favour of colour and personality.

But also. At least it fucking says something with its leather.

[jakeperalta]

people on instagram saying new years day isn't a nice romantic song and is actually full of red flags... I am going to start biting

[catenary-chad]

Why Greaseball is a Really Great train villain: a looong post (4.8k words) on all the historical train context behind replica Greaseball 

For all my issues with the other main engines, I think (replica) Greaseball is FANTASTIC. He just works on so many fundamental levels and gets so much better/worse with historical context.  If we make him an EMD E9 locomotive (a common headcanon) things get even more interesting, and there’s even a convenient irl engine to base him on! 

Note: if you’re into real US trains this info probably won’t be as new to you as my Nez Cassé post, since E and F units are so well preserved and documented in English.      A lot of the topics I go on are pretty widely discussed in US railfan circles and not terribly obscure.  Also this is just about replica, Elvis-style Greaseball vs Wembleyball… her being more modern and European changes a lot and I would take a very different approach.

Also CW for non-graphic discussion of abuse in the very last section. I have a separate warning before it comes up so you can leave before then.  

DIESEL TRACTION IN THE US

First of all, to clear up a common misconception: 99% of all diesel locomotives are diesel-electric.  The diesel engine is used to generate electricity to power electric motors to turn the wheels.  This is why dual-mode engines that can switch between drawing third rail/overhead wire electricity and making their own with a diesel engine are so common.  Besides the power source, they work similarly, so it’s not hard to incorporate.  This is NOT how hybrid cars work, though diesel-electric setups have been used on very heavy trucks for purposes like mining.  Diesel-mechanical is more in line with how automobiles work but is basically unheard of outside of very small switchers in the US (mostly in museums now) and 50s-era shunters and that one weird Fell diesel in the UK. The technical reasons of why isn’t really important here, but has to do with the difficult of making an appropriate gearbox for road locomotives and appealing qualities of electric motors for train use (high starting torque). 

Internal combustion-based locomotives are actually much more recent than pure electric ones.  Electric engines achieved practical use around the 1890s and were well-established in urban and mountainous areas by the 20s-30s…. which is when diesel boxcab switchers first started production in substantial numbers and lightweight diesel trainsets like the Zephyrs, M10000, and Flying Hamburger started to pop up.  The earliest diesels were either slow (switchers) or fast but very weak (lightweight trainsets and railbusses). There were major tech limits to maximum horsepower in diesel locomotives until the second half of the 20th century, which is why several of them were often needed to replace one steam or electric engine, and why you had some weird turbine designs in the 50s-70s as an alternative. 

Early diesel locomotives in the US actually had a lot in common with their early implementation in the UK.  They’re often perceived differently because Thomas the Tank Engine had so many characters based on unsuccessful early British diesel models, while most of the failed earlier US diesels are obscure compared to the successful and widespread ones (that often have the strongest museum presence). There were some notably good early switcher models (some still being used today) that were among the first to replace steam engines because it was one of the tasks that they had the biggest advantage over them in, and limited size wasn’t an issue.  Road diesel implementation was messy and due to the early state of the technology, some railroads like the Pennsylvania Railroad had a strategy more akin to early British Rail in that they planned to just slowly phase out steam as they electrified.  Higher wages and stronger unions were also a factor in both countries dieselizing, due to the vastly lower labor needed for diesel locomotives vs steam and generally safer, more pleasant working conditions on them.  There was also a need to shed a reputation for being outdated to draw in customers again with both.  There was also a desperate early demand for diesel power that led to a lot of questionable builders and designs being picked up early on and later dumped for being nonstandard.  

The main difference is that dieselization’s serious pursuit in the US started around the Great Depression and really picked up in the late 30s, almost two decades before the Modernization Plan of 1955.  So it was a far more mature and well-established technology by the 50s and Greaseball is very much based on this dominant position vs the messy early experiments of the Thomas diesels.  

Greaseball’s helmet heavily resembles the fronts of the E and F unit carbody locomotives made by EMD from the 30s-50s.  I’ll go into those specific models later, but the manufacturer alone is really interesting and has a lot of great symbolism that works with Greaseball. 

Earlier diesel manufacturers included steam builders like Alco and Baldwin, outside companies getting into the diesel locomotive market like Fairbanks-Morse, and EMD, which started as an independent company but quickly became part of General Motors.  One of the major advantages EMD would acquire is mass-production in assembly lines, the way cars were made, as opposed to building one engine at a time like steam shops did.  So Greaseball has some quiet ties to the auto industry (and boy did GM hurt trains in other avenues).  They also used common parts between models, making them relatively easy to repair and rebuild.  You had all kind of mods and changes done to their engines over the decades, which is a fun tie-in to the bodybuilder AND greaser aspect of Greaseball.  I’ll go into how I think he’d specifically be modified/rebuilt later though.  

Another major factor of EMD is… they often weren’t the best in a lot of ways and very much an example of “survival of the good enough”.  Until very recently they all used relatively dirty and inefficient two-stroke engines and other manufacturers often had stronger or technically superior competing models… but it was the ease of working on them and relative reliability vs their competitors that contributed to their success and helped make EMD the dominant manufacturer.  

Bonus fun fact: EMD (and later General Electric) had a lot of success in the export model market due to their early reliability, especially vs British diesel engines.  One of the funnier instances being several colonial African railways holding onto steam into the 70s because they were forced to buy crappy British diesel engines otherwise, and promptly dieselizing as soon as they could buy American ones.  EMD made huge inroads into the British freight market with the Class 59 and 66 (the latter also used in continental Europe).  These came too late to have had any affect on the development of the show early on, but it’s an interesting instance of American encroachment that could be thematically relevant.  The sheer ubiquity of EMD diesels worldwide makes Greaseball weirdly relevant in a lot of countries if you basis swap him a little.  I haven’t figured out quite how I’d approach Girlball but I’d definitely make her one of these export models since it fits.  

Anyways, back to the general history timeline because it’s important for the other reason EMD was so successful.  By the late 30s, diesel switchers were widespread and road models were starting to come out in limited numbers.  Widespread dieselization would have happened nearly a decade earlier if not for World War II.  When the US entered the war, copper, oil, and diesel engines became critical to the war effort.  Coal was not and steam engines don’t use much copper, so the existing steam manufacturers were forced into building them.  EMD’s FT series had proven itself prewar and the company was among the few to be able to develop their locomotive lines during the war.  This gave the company a huge advantage post-war and their E and F units dominated the road locomotive market afterwards (switchers remained more competitive since they had more development before and during the war). 

 If you’re European and know little about American trains, you may wonder when things started getting electrified after that.  They didn’t.  Outside of one stretch of the Northeast Corridor, a recent project by Caltrain, and some isolated freight lines… the US didn’t electrify anything after WWII, and if anything de-electrified much that had existed.  The oil crises of the 70s almost led to something, but the subsequent drop in prices in the 80s made that dry up too.  Leading to the modern day status of having only 1% electrified rail mileage.  The rest is all diesel domain.  They were never a stopgap here.  Due to railroads remaining private businesses post-WWII and facing almost unwinnable economic and political conditions vs roads and air travel, the cost of electrification was out of the question and the much smaller up front cost of diesel engines made them take permanent hold over most of the country post-steam.  To this day, railroads avoid paying up front for things vs just paying more in yearly maintenance for diesel locomotives, and the price of fuel has never gotten high enough to incentivize electrification.  There’s also a whole carrot vs stick situation with state governments raising emissions standards without providing assistance to electrify that leads to a crappy state of limbo that just gives automobiles even more of an unfair advantage, but that’s another tangent that’s not relevant enough to go into.  

This is all a long way to say that Greaseball as the conservative, oppressive establishment is spot-on to the status of diesel traction in the US.  It really can’t be overstated how dominant and inescapable it is.  It’s kind of hilarious hearing people from the UK or Europe talk about how gross and stinky and backwards they are and how much more disliked they are there.  This is why the Greaseball vs Electra feud is so appealing to me- the US is one of the few places where they would be considered remotely competitive and where that matchup is politically relevant.  There’s this compelling thread of Greaseball being a “pragmatic compromise” that’s held on so long it’s become status quo, but would be viewed as a regressive relic elsewhere in the world, akin to how the US’s economic politics are seen in much of the rest of the world.  Greaseball is the majority who very much has capitalism and inertia on his side, Electra is the more qualified but long-sidelined minority who wishes things were even a little more like Europe economically and politically.  They’re so rural vs urban, right vs left wing coded it hurts. Diesel power mainly thrives where frequencies are low and distances are long and rail is a private business that often can’t afford to electrify.  Urban trains are almost exclusively electric due to their inherent frequency and pollution requirements, and are almost synonymous with being state-owned. 

Him being particularly nasty to steam engines also checks out, he’s the era of diesel locomotive that often directly replaced them and I’ve seen claims EMD did deceptive things if not outright cheated on tests vs steam engines.  At the very least they had fairly aggressive marketing.  There’s a reason why I object to the idea that Electra would cheat against a steam engine (even in the early days electric ones trounced them so thoroughly it routinely exceeded railroads’ expectations), but think Greaseball doing it makes sense.  Him playing dirty against Electra also makes sense because they’d have similar top speeds (and that’s being very conservative with Electra’s abilities and keeping them a relatively old model) but Electra benefits far more from a clean setting and would be relatively vulnerable to attack. There’s been decades of cultural downplaying of the advantages of electric vs diesel trains due to the latter’s sheer dominance in the US too. Further tying into the political aspect, electric trains are one of those things whose status only goes up the more you actually learn about them… and it really knocks combustion engines down several pegs, paralleling how right wing politicians in the US tend to be actively anti-education because they quietly rely on voters being low-information and uneducated about how negative the effects of their policies often are.  

Greaseball as a macho jock is also reflective of the perceived strength of diesel vs electric engines.  Because the US is infamous for its large heavy freight trains that are almost entirely diesel-hauled (besides a single power plant out west), electric freight is an almost alien concept and people associate electric traction with high speed trains, subways, maybe lighter, faster European freight trains at most.  People often act like they’re weak because of this.  This is patently untrue, just look at IORE or the Virginian Railway.  Also see my earlier discussion of how weak diesel engines were early on.  Electric locomotives still have vastly higher horsepower per single unit and the only reason there aren’t ones as strong as diesel engines in the US is lack of demand.  It wouldn’t be that hard to build one for that niche.  But diesel has strong associations with being the “strong and manly” blue-collar option because of its use by every large freight railroad and almost every shortline for all the tough, gritty jobs, unlike those darn city slicker commuter trains. Let’s just conveniently forget that the Milwaukee Road existed and that mines are full of weird little battery-powered “lokies”.  People will even crow about the Big Boy all day and rarely acknowledge the multiple electric engine models of that era with comparable abilities.  

EMD E and F UNITS

Finally, we can discuss Greaseball’s more specific basis.  Greaseball’s helmet doesn’t have a single explicit one like Electra’s, but its styling is very typical of 30s-50s era carbody diesel locomotives, specifically the “bulldog nose” E and F-Units.  These models were and still remain some of the most popular toy and model diesel engines, and are some of the most recognizable American trains in general.  Which they totally deserve, they came in a lot of fun colors and were VERY widely used from the 30s to early 80s irl and were still used in limited numbers for decades after that and are extremely common in museums today.  It’s probably harder to find a railroad museum in the US that doesn’t have one.  They are probably THE symbol of diesel trains in the US, especially circa the 50s.  Even highway signs for train stations resemble them.  

Carbody locomotives like these made the streamlined body a structural element of the engine to save weight and required indoor walkways for maintenance access vs being able to open external panels.  Alco and Baldwin also made far less successful carbody locomotives as competitors but they looked very different. Funny enough, a number of electric locomotives of the era also were built this way, but with cabs at both ends, some of them looking a LOT like Greaseball’s helmet.  

The E-units were EMD’s first line of road diesel locomotives, mainly designed for passenger service.  Since the 30s there were several different models of the line, the first few being built in smaller numbers, and the later ones being much more widely produced post-WWII.   They were relatively long and large for a diesel engine of the time, with atypical A1A -A1A (powered/unpowered/powered x2) wheel arrangements and two seperate prime movers (the actual diesel engine) to produce more horsepower due to the limited abilities of individual engines.  While successful compared to their competitors (which were… generally a mess) there’s a sense that they were designed for a time that would never come.  

They were very much optimized for being smooth at speed for passenger use and while not useless for freight service, weren’t ideal for it due to their limited strength and not having all powered wheels for traction.  Which was a terrible market to be in with the massive decline in passenger rail post-WWII.  The E-units still generally had long and successful lives, but were never as successful as their younger, smaller sibling, the F-unit.

F-units visually resemble shorter E-units, but with single prime movers and Bo-Bo wheel arrangements (four powered axles).  By modern standards they’re small and not terribly powerful, but for their time they were solid and VERY successful in freight service, and often took the place of E-units in passenger service since they worked for that too, and were more versatile overall.  There are a bunch of F-units running in museums because they look good and are easy to find parts for due to the sheer quantity produced (also some, but far fewer E-units). You could totally make Greaseball an F-unit and it would fit with how there’s been some infamously short Greaseball actors.  

There’s a lot of fun commonalities between both models that are relevant to Greaseball.  Both were explicitly designed to be used in multi-engine sets due to their limited individual strength, which perfectly fits Greaseball having his Gang follow him around.  Working in packs that large is a VERY midcentury diesel thing.  Both had the massive drawback of having no rear visibility and basically no ability to go backwards for switching.  That was one of the main traits that led to this style of engine falling out of favor, roadswitchers that actually had rear visibility were more versatile than having separate road and switch engines.  In a race going backwards, Rusty would clean his clock even if he was SUPER crappy and could only go walking pace, because Greaseball would be flying totally blind and crash.  It’s also a hassle to perform maintenance and get inside that body style and the noses were reportedly harder to manufacture.  

As a cursed side note, ATSF solved these problems with their old F-units by roadswitcherfying them into CF-7s.  Hey, they were old and past their prime but still useful and worked GREAT as ugly utilitarian roadswitchers and ran for decades afterwards.  There’s several of these things running in museums.  I’ve actually worked on one and I approve of roadswitcherfication because they really are way less of a pain to maintain this way.  

Speaking of rebuilds, the highest horsepower Greaseball would have as an E-unit would as-built is only 2,400 if he was an E9, but because early EMDs got modified so much and routinely re-engined, we can play around with this.  It fits the character and the Railways Series routinely did this kind of thing.  We’ll suppose Greaseball was re-engined or otherwise modified to get up to 2,700 horsepower… but then there’s the reported issue that the unpowered axles might make him too slippery to actually apply full force, so we’ll get a bit more out there and say he got more substantially rebuilt into a Co-Co (six powered axle) arrangement.  Now you have something that would be vaguely comparable with one of Amtrak’s dysfunctional SDP40F diesels of the late 70s-early 80s, if still a bit weaker but probably more physically stable.  It’s hard to avoid that Greaseball is kind of statistically wimpy no matter how you slice it.  They’d need to tweak the numbers in the song a little, but again, swapping out engines in early EMDs was super common and suits him so it’s not too much of a stretch to bump him to 3700 or something.  You still have issue that he’s not large by UP standards specifically (they are INFAMOUS for large single-unit engines) but he’d still be fairly large vs more typical passenger diesels of the time.  

Anyways, another VERY fun fact about E and F units is that they were regularly used on corporate trains after most of them were withdrawn from regular mainline service in the 70s-80s.  People often complain that Greaseball is barely relevant circa the 80s, which isn’t really true since a lot of E and F units were used on commuter lines for years afterward (if often in cab car form, which are terrifying in any talking train verse).  But there’s another huge loophole that gives a perfect excuse for his existence well into the modern day.  Union Pacific itself used a set of three E9s on their corporate specials until 2019!  They only got pulled due to wheel issues… got no lovers if you got no wheels I guess.  But now you have a perfect excuse for why Greaseball is a 50s-era engine with UP colors pulling passenger trains well after the railroad axed those services in the early 70s.  He’s a corporate pawn!  He’s one of the faces of their company, chauffeuring executives around. Which leads into another fascinating topic with him.

UNION PACIFIC, FREIGHT RAILROADS, AND PASSENGER RAIL

All of the modern big Class I railroads in the US suck in similar ways, but Union Pacific has a stronger identity and seems to have the largest cultural presence abroad, making it the most visible and appealing of them to the public.  It tends to be THE American railroad to many, which goes well with Greaseball’s basis being THE American diesel engine.  Yes, they do have some cool heritage fleet stuff and really cool heritage unit paint jobs, but you’ll never see me depict them in a terribly positive way (if at all) because they’re a PR campaign like the Budweiser Clydesdales for an infamously awful company.  Make no mistake, this is a company that’s been voted “worst place to work” on multiple occasions (and its cohorts aren’t much better).  That’s the ironic thing about Electra being made a crappy boss, Amtrak is notably much better to its workers (and steam engines are the most competitive where labor is cheapest and least organized).  The main thing is unreasonable on-call hours, lack of sick leave, vacation, and break days in general, and working conditions.  Look into the blocked 2022 railroad strike for more on this.  Greaseball could be SO nasty to the freight to reflect this if you made him a symbol of railroad leadership.  You’d have any railroaders in the audience booing him if they did this in the US, it’s a very relevant political issue.  Ironically, things weren’t nearly as bad labor-wise in the 80s, ALW just really bet on the right horse in terms of railroads to align a train villain with.  But there’s a more prominant and existing aspect of canon that also fits the crappy things UP and other class Is do.

Passenger rail has never been as profitable as freight in the US. To give a modern ballpark estimate, I’ve heard $30,000 revenue on a fully loaded longer passenger train vs $500,000 revenue on a train of oil tankers.  And that’s not even including the higher maintenance standards that passenger rail requires, which adds millions to its cost and makes it almost impossible for it to turn a profit.  There is a reason why almost all countries with widespread passenger rail today have nationalized rail systems and even US passenger service is all government-run outside Brightline and museums.  

This situation was particularly bad in the 50s-60s before Amtrak took over passenger service.  Passenger trains absolutely bled money overall, and many of them were required to keep running even at massive losses per government regulation because they were an essential service.  This contributed to the financial ruin of many railroads, and most of them dropped passenger service or sold it to the government as soon as it was offered.  UP in particular was more financially stable, but also happily got rid of their passenger trains when offered.

Since then, the giant merged Class I railroads have become almost exclusively freight-oriented and hostile towards Amtrak-run passenger services.  They’re almost all terrible, but UP is one of the more visible offenders, holding up commuter services in Chicago, and contributing to the massive delays in long-distance western trains.  “Coach sexism” in the form of widespread hostility towards passenger rail by the likes of UP is one of the few canon social metaphors that WORKS.  The other engines would not be that way considering the systems they’re aligned with, but Greaseball could be made so, so much worse.    

There is a weird element of “I hate my wife” boomer humor when people describe passenger trains.  There’s “keeping freight trains in line” schedule-wise due to their time sensitivity.  There’s being seen as needlessly spendy for PR reasons (often true in the older days) paralleling “my wife wastes money on stupid things”.  There’s being seen as more delicate and refined due to needing better track conditions and gentler handling because you know, humans have standards that grain hoppers and sand don’t.  There’s the way that passenger rail isn’t as profitable as freight and basically requires government subsidies… not unakin to caring jobs and “women’s work” in general vs blue collar industrial jobs (Caveat: passenger rail employees were almost all male until Amtrak).  In short, yeah the freight railroads’ treatment of passenger trains in the US does have parallels to sexism, if slightly different from how canon does it. Abruptly dumping them in the 70s also fits Greaseball ditching Dinah mid-show. 

Even if you go the comparatively mild route of mirroring modern railroads, you still have him treating the coaches as second class vs freight (despite them being legally prioritized).  This is a major issue and why Amtrak has so many delays on long distance trains.  To summarize a complicated issue: due to the relatively unique economics of railroads, they are incentivized to run fewer, longer, irregular freight trains that have become so large they don’t fit in sidings and can’t physically let prioritized passenger trains through.  They then get delayed for hours, especially if the freight train breaks down (bonus: freight trains have a staff of two, engineer and conductor.  The conductor may have to walk up to THREE MILES to check out a possible defect on a car, delaying even more).  The Class Is have a broadly hostile relationship with Amtrak in general for various reasons related to insurance and minimal investment in track maintenance, and it even affects non-Amtrak passenger services like steam excursions.  UP has its personal steam fleet for publicity reasons,  but all of the Class Is are various shades of hostile to running steam excursions with passengers now due to those same reasons.  Even UP barely sells public tickets for theirs.  

Bonus: the reason Mexico has basically no passenger rail now is due to the nationalized railroads being taken over by companies heavily aligned with US freight railroads and with many similar attitudes towards passenger service.  They ditched virtually all of it en masse when they took over. Turbo works perfectly as just Greaseball but in Mexico because the same thing happened there… only a few years before the Mexican Stex production happened.  Electra might be an even more pathetic and unthreatening character there though, because the single, long-delayed electrified mainline built by NdeM was ripped out after only a few years of service by the  private freight railroads.  

WARNING: Leave now if you do not want to read about how abusive Greaseball could be made based to US railroads’ treatment of passenger trains pre-70s.  It’s not graphic, but it is blunt and dark.  I put this at the end for a reason, there is nothing beyond this last section.  

Basically, canon even at its worst arguably undersells how awful Greaseball could be to Dinah and the coaches if you make them symbols of UP and other major railroads vs passenger service pre-Amtrak.  They could be even MORE toxic.  You have a situation now where he outright hates her and wants her gone for above reasons, but is forced to stay in the relationship due to outside requirements and is fundamentally built for that kind of setup as an E-unit.  Railroads forced to keep passenger services usually didn’t have mandated quality standards for them.  They just had to have something.  This led to pathetically short trains (one or two cars), understaffing, and poor maintenance because they just had to have SOME passenger train on that line.  Track conditions reached terrible standards in the 70s on railroads that were near bankruptcy and delaying maintenance.  I absolute do not blame canon for not going this dark in a kids show, but basically there is no limit to how miserable Greaseball could make her life, short of actually killing her. I can’t understate how much she symbolizes something he’d want to rid himself of at any cost but can’t and will take that out on.  It’s BLEAK.  I don’t think I’d even write them this dark myself.

Well… now you see why I do not redeem and revise Greaseball the way I do Electra.  While the latter is wrongly demonized in an impressive number of ways, Greaseball is awful for all the right ones, to extents deeper than the creators probably ever imagined.  He is so versatile and nearly timeless in his awfulness.  If Greaseball were portrayed as remotely good I’d be ripping him to greater shreds than I do Rusty, but he’s great as a hateable bad guy who’s entertaining and globally recognizable even by much of the general public.  Despite all this, I’m fine with him just being a cartoon bully because it’s more palatable and not wrong.  But you could also make him so much nastier than even the workshop if you wanted to go darker.  

[kwillow]

I ask this as an Ambroys appreciator, but I genuinely need to know: Does our boy have any redeeming qualities?

...Yeah. Not really.

Ambroys is, for me, a fun exercise in making a character who is basically nothing but flaws. And they aren't even the "good" flaws.

He's not one of those "hates the world but fights to the death for his loved ones" types; he will throw his loved ones under bus to look good for strangers, who he also doesn't respect. He's not "an asshole but he owns it" because he will bend to other people's wills to try to appease them while continuing to be an asshole behind their backs. He's manipulative but not because he's a clever chess-master, he's just audacious and shameless enough to lie and guilt-trip people without remorse. He's too ignorant to be sophisticated but too educated to be naive. He can fight well enough, but he doesn't seek out worthy foes, only weaker enemies he can easily grind into the dirt for a cheap thrill. He's a coward. He's lazy. He doesn't "get" art. He has no convictions. He sucks!

But I think the fun with Ambroys is that he's such a worthless person, but he so, so desperately wants to be admired and praised and just liked. So he has to engage in this dance of maintaining a good public face over the void of his personality, where he tries to appeal to people while also being able to indulge his vices, because he doesn't believe anything he does or thinks is wrong... just unpopular. But being unpopular is worse than being wrong.

[myirlnameiscloud]

Nonbinary flag colorpicked from this moment when G1 Starscream broke the fourth wall

[uniiiquehecrt]

Voice actors are NOT the same as actors.

It takes a specific kind of skill-set and training to be able to warp and meld the voice. It takes a certain kind of talent and dedication to hone that talent into the ability to meld the voice and invoke emotion with one's voice alone. Actors are used to using their voice secondarily to their body language and their facial expressions. It's all mirrored back on camera. They do have nuance. But it's a different kind of nuance and a different kind of training to produce that nuance.

Voice actors might get their likeness transposed on their character's design, and maybe their mannerisms might seep into the character's animation. But when it's all said and done: their presence is in their voice. They are bringing a character to life, showing that emotion in their voice, trying to keep a specific accent, drawl, pitch, tone in that voice and keep it consistent for their recording sessions.

The voice actor is like a classically trained musician who can play first chair in a competitive, world-renown orchestra. The actor (who fills the voice actor's role) is like a moot who played violin in beginner and intermediate high school orchestra and thinks they can get into Juilliard with that 2-4 years of experience.

This doesn't mean that the HS orchestra moot can't play. They can even be really good at it. Maybe they won competitions and sat first chair. But they are not in the same league as the person who's been training their whole lives and lives and breathes to hone their craft using the instrument and all of the training they've ever acquired to perfect it. They are not meant for the same roles. They are not in the same caliber. You do not hire the HS equivalent when you want to play complex music in a competitive orchestra.

Actors are not the same as voice actors.

And furthermore, actors - especially big name actors - taking the roles of animated characters for big budget films or TV pilots makes no sense anyways when - at least in the case of TV pilots - there's not a point to hiring a big budget actors anyways. That money could be used elsewhere (like paying your animators), and the talent that is brought onto the screen for X character could then be hired on to voice said character no recasting required.

I wouldn't say voice acting as a profession is in danger exactly, but it's certainly being disrespected and overlooked for celebrity clout, and this has ALWAYS been an issue. Shoot, even Robin Williams knew that much - which is why he tried so hard not to be used as a marketing chess piece for Aladdin and got royally pissed off when it happened anyways. People shouldn't go to any movie (but especially not animated films) because "oh famous actor is in it". People should go because it's a good movie and the voice acting is good.

People who honest to god think that voice actors are replaceable because "oh well anyone can voice act" or "I like xyz celebrity so naturally it'll be good" ... Honestly I just wish you'd reassess your priorities because you're missing the point and are part of the problem.

Voice Actors ≠ Actors.

[castieldelamancha]

once they are halfway in the renovations and the dilapidated shack is starting to look more like a place where someone could actually live ed and stede start sitting outside in their porch at night, at first they don't talk much but one night, the sky clear and vast above them, ed tells stede they missed an important lesson on piracy, "navigating following the stars, babe" and stede doesn't see the point of that, because well they aren't in a ship anymore, but ed is looking up at the sky, having none of it, he mutters a quiet "you can always follow them back home" and stede just reaches a hand to take ed's and when ed finally looks at him again he tells him "but i am already home, my darling"

[solstrix]

Allow me to properly introduce myself ~

[saltpepperbeard]

✨January 1st Moodboard✨ 😍💖🤡

[letsgo-together]

[grapeflavoredtoes]

Having a religious family while being queer is actually horrible. I can't stop thinking about the fact that if I ever get into a serious relationship with a woman I could never bring her home to my family. She could never meet my parents, we would never be accepted by my sister or my mother or maybe even my father. I hate that out of all the things that could separate us they choose to let who I love destroy our relationship. I'm not out to my parents and I know I wouldn't be accepted, I've heard my mom talk about how we shouldn't fellowship with gay people, and I've heard my dad talk badly about gay couples in public when he sees them. I feel even worse about it because I'm bi and my father used to blame everything he did on the fact that he was bi, so I'm worried if I do work up the courage to come out some day my mom will think I'll end up like my dad. Even my sister who seems more open to it told me that if someone she knew was gay she'd pray for them, because it was wrong.

Sorry for the rant guys, hearing my family talk bad about gay people all the time has been terrible for my mental health <3

[rocketrouquine]

The way they gave us these 3 first episodes is actually so satisfying because I feel like I got a whole season already with all this shit happening (especially with this ending) and now I’ll have to wait several months (or a year or more) in a brain rot to know/see what’s next. But, wait ! Actually NO, that’s next week and I just SQUEEEEEEE !

[crescenthistory]

what university sends out academic integrity suspicion mails on CHRISTMAS EVE??? 😭😭 i know they’re just being overly careful with this assignment and that it’s not Actual suspicion, just that i have to meet with my tutor to “check in” and “ensure” but BROOOO that shit makes me so stressed out

[rxttenfish]

oh shit right i forgor to say

chin tilting down for merfolk = dominant

chin tilting up for merfolk = submissive

of course this is speaking in the very VERY general body language terms of dominant vs submissive, and is more about how threatening or aggressive they might be in any given situation. generally head lowered is also dominant as well, and head turning back/away is submissive, but head lifted can be either submissive or dominant based off of the chin position.

mostly its about showing the gills and the soft spot of their neck underneath their jaws. this is an incredibly delicate area on merfolk not just for the gills and fins (which, again, glorified lung tissue), but also because this area is very lightly scaled, making it easier to harm than nearly every other part of their body.

if a merfolk tilts their chin up, theyre exposing that bit of anatomy, thus implying either trust towards whoever theyre making this gesture towards that they will not hurt them, or going "please dont hurt me, im not being threatening to you, i will do what you ask if you dont hurt me". it can also be seen as polite to do for certain positions and roles like mirandas, implying that you arent going to try and threaten her and her position by showing that youre already on your back foot. it can also be done between merfolk who are extremely close to each other, including touching each others throats, as a gesture of trust and love and knowledge that the other wont hurt them (going back to the mutual sort of belonging that defines a lot of merfolk relationships, an "i am yours and you are mine" that goes in both directions. an "i am submissive to you and you are submissive to me" kinda thing). but merfolk might also tilt their chin up towards pups or younger merfolk that are around, both making a submissive gesture towards them and proving that they arent going to hurt them, something which is highly approved of as a means of getting the parents involved to relax and know that said merfolk isnt going to try and hurt the pups.

if a merfolk tilts their chin down, theyre covering that spot and making it harder to access without putting yourself at risk of getting bitten by them first. it can be a gesture of fear and stress, sort of as a bracing for impact and making sure they arent exposing any soft places on their body, but it can also be a very aggressive gesture, implying that theyre willing to fight for whatever they stand for in that moment, and that they do not plan to make it easy for anyone else. lowering their head is seen as very dominant and aggressive for this reason, especially because it has the context of already aiming for the soft places on the other merfolk's body, and with a flare of their fins it can be some of the most intense and directly confrontational poses merfolk can take with other merfolk. lifting their head but lowering their chin can imply confidence, a total awareness of themselves so certain that they arent even afraid that the other party might try something — while lifting their head and lifting their chin exposes as much of their neck and gills as possible, making it an incredibly submissive and fearful gesture.

turning their heads away is also seen as more submissive, but is usually done with tilting their chin down. in this case, it means moreso along the lines of "you are stressing me out, im giving you a chance to leave while you can". it also puts them in a better position to turn away and flee if they need to (they swim facing the direction of their head), so it also indicates a want to leave or a separation between them, sometimes intentionally built up as a wall. other stress indications like tightly closed eyes, intensely focused eyes, fins flattened back against the neck, jaw held open, lips pulled tight, "panting" even moreso provide red flags that the other party needs to back up or provide space or else there might be consequences. when theyre on land, merfolk will also pull their tail between themselves and the other party, also helping to build up that wall and separation, to try and build space between them and the other person.