#the characterization was amazing. well written and well acted film

[psygull]

First Snow (2006)

"Hey, they say it's gonna fuckin' snow down here this year, can you believe that?"

[elionwriter]

MIRACULOUS LADYBUG: AWAKENING

SPOILER REVIEW

Since my last post on Miraculous Ladybug was so vitriolic, I feel like now I have to give my two cents on the film. In my opinion? It was great! It reminded me why I like the concept of the story to begin with. I think sincerely that the movie did a by far better job at telling this story in under two hours than the series did in over 5 seasons.

It's not perfect, mind you, but it is a really good time! The animation is gorgeous, the action sequences were amazing, the story is straightforward and it doesn't make you feel like everyone except for Marinette is an idiot. It does help boost enjoyability not having Thomas Austruc mansplaining at every chance what a perfect society looks like, what the ideal man and woman act like, and what a perfect and healthy romance appears like.

Marinette is lovely! Her characterization is so on point. This time round, you can truly believe that she is a normal girl, with a normal life, just down on her luck. And her character arch is linear and fairly well structured. I really liked that they showed that her failings and clumsiness mostly boil down to uncertainty and self-doubt. It's not the Ladybug powers granting her agily and resilience, the mask just help bring what was already there to surface (something I did not always see in the series especially in the earlier seasons). Adrien/Chat Noir is one of the two characters that most benefits from the adaptation, IMO. He is ever kind and caring but he's not a door mat or a prize to be won. The scene in which he lashes out on his father, calling him out on his neglect: that was just beautiful to witness. And Gabriel Agreste! Oh, Gabriel! Finally, finally this character makes sense and acts like you would expect and hope he would. Surprise, surprise, he actually makes a compelling villain when written right and manages to look competent and threatening. As for everyone else...everyone else mostly disappear in the background and act as their tv counterparts (except for Cloe in the end *cough* *cough*).

While it's a big jarring every time they start singing, the songs 'Better Together' and 'Courage in me' are really catchy and nice. Heck, even the rendition of the main theme 'You are Ladybug' is fun and enjoyable.

The romance is obviously the main aspect of the story and I think it plays out really nicely here! While there obviously isn't much time to fully delve into the love square and you are left a bit wondering why Marinette is so hung up on Adrien when her relationship with Chat Noir absolutely steals the show by being romantic, heartfelt and wholesome, I still enjoyed it. Emphasis on Ladynoir stealing the show, especially when the two spar on the roof, duet in a scene that reminded me of the Moulin Rouge and face the final threat.

The side story of Marinette feeling slightly embarrassed by her dad was unnecessary, but whatever, I guess.

Plag isn't especially great here, but Tikki, oh my gosh, Tikki is a SAVAGE! 🤩 Ten seconds after meeting Marinette and is already about to kick the girl's ass!

Anyway, that is to say, I had a great time watching this, and I hope you all do to.

[andromeda3116]

What did you think about the serenity film? I thought it was awful. I hated almost everything about it. Going to one of your recent posts about "it's canon, but we ignore it because it's badly written" is kind of how I feel about serenity. All I wanted from a follow up film was a Mal and Inara hook up, and what I got was a bunch of characters that completely lost any character development they underwent in the series.

so this ask is years and years old but i honestly never forgot about it so much as i never really knew how to answer

bc like... if what you were wanting was an answer to the ships, then, yeah, i can see the severe disappointment. absolutely nothing is solved vis á vis mal/inara except bringing them back to the place they left off, but.

what they were trying to do, with serenity, was solve the most pressing question -- i.e. the "wtf is up with river" question -- in two hours and change. every other character detail and aspect had to take second fiddle to that because that, had they had a full series to work with, was supposed to be the plot thread.

so everything else took a backseat. mal/inara, simon/kaylee, everything with shepherd book and his story, any characterization for jayne, anything else about the independent movement, all the rest of the concepts and plot threads -- they got sacrificed for the sake of wrapping up the biggest, most important question of the series.

and i get that! i get that that was what they really had to do with the time that was given to them! and so i forgive some issues by dint of --

well, these are explicitly Extreme Situations. so everyone -- particularly mal -- is acting in Extreme Ways.

actually, upon rewatch -- and knowing the deleted scenes, which i do kinda think are critical to understanding the gravity of the scene -- i actually do like jayne asking mal how many of his soldiers besides zoe came out of serenity valley --

because that was the last time that mal was fighting an ideological war, and everyone else died there.

jayne's point is not to attack mal, exactly, it's to ask how many of us are you going to get killed for your ideals this time?

these are the characters that we love, but pushed beyond the extremes that the original show really showed us. and i get why that would be jarring! because we didn't exactly see that they would go this far! because the show didn't last long enough to set this up!

but that's the nature of a situation where a movie has been made to wrap up a show that got canceled too soon.

so, i appreciate serenity for answering the biggest questions and wrapping things up, but i feel like it shouldn't have been necessary, at the same time that i -- tangential to this ask -- recognize that one of the reasons firefly does survive to this day is because it didn't last long enough for the whedonism to ruin it, but i do still feel like it wasn't really earned, character-wise, and felt jarring because of that. it does feel like they were forced into unnatural situations, because they kind of were, and that it was rushed, because it kind of was, but that was a necessity of the situation.

the characters and the story deserved better, not just from the network -- which was obvious at the time -- but also from the creator. this idea and these characters and this concept all deserved better. they had so much potential to be so amazing, but they weren't given the space to actually pan out, and that sucks.

[glynnisi]

Marvel "Solo" Films- Unpopular Opinion

I don't know if there will be a 3rd solo/stand alone Black Panther film, but so far I'd say the Black Panther movies are the most consistent stand alone films in the MCU.

Black Panther was a cultural phenomenon with one of the best villains in the entire MCU. The cast, the world-building, COSTUMES, music. The only downside was that the 3rd act fight was dark. Wakanda Forever was a meaningful study in grief with perhaps the best teaser trailer EVER. Again, great cast, music, costumes, world-building. HEART. Namor was compelling. A little overstuffed w Iron Heart & Val on top of well-done Talokon. M'Baku stands out in both films. Nakia, Ramonda, Okoye & the Dorae. The tone from one film to the other is CONSISTENT.

Iron Man trilogy- the first Iron Man movie was awesome. Darker, grittier than much of the rest of the MCU. RDJ becoming Tony Stark. Cool suits/tech. Funny. Sad. Awesome. And then... the sequels kind of sucked. Yes, they had cool tech & stunts & RDJ carried them. But Tony pissing the suit? Bird? Fake Mandarin? *Cringe* They were bad.

My beloved, Captain America. Chris Evans did a great job as Steve Rogers. More nuanced & less flashy/quippy than Tony Stark, but great. CATFA was a sweet little comics movie w vintage vibe. Red Skull is a campy villain done as well as they could. Pretty good movie, not groundbreaking. BUT THEN- Captain America the Winter Soldier happened. It made Cap a badass. Fight scenes were AMAZING. Elevator scene! Cap & WS in the streets & at the end! Cap vs Quinjet! Nick Fury car chase. Black Widow badassery. Winter Soldier was scary & Hydra menacing. A tight, well-directed, well-written, well-edited, overall great FILM. Best of the MCU. PEAK Steve Rogers characterization. Yes. LOVED CATWS. So, then, Marvel said... "fuck Steve Rogers and his fans" (forever bitter & fuck you too Marvel). "RDJ's aging out & he makes $$$$. Let's give him Cap's 3rd film cuz BatmanVSuperman is coming & we're scared." IF you look at CACW as a Cap film, then Tony would be the villain. He's the 3rd act fight, the other face on the poster, the one trying to kill Steve. But, it's NOT a Cap film because Marvel couldn't suck RDJ off enough & could never nuance Tony's lack of emotional control as villainous. Nope. They made him Wooby crying out for his Mama. Waah! It's Avengers 2.5. It introduces Spiderman & Black Panther. It features every Avenger. It starts w Tony's early life trauma/loss of his parents/intro of his loving mom. (NO Sarah Rogers in Cap3, tho.) Then his guilt over lying & making Ultron & nearly ending the world. The longer end scene is Tony tending to his BF's injuries & sulking over Steve's apology. THEN we get a glimpse of Steve rescuing his friends from The Raft. Steve BARELY had more screen time than Tony in supposed Cap3. So, it's not a stand alone film. Cap fans were robbed.

The Thor films? Well. Uneven is an understatement. 1st Thor is kind of like the first Cap movie. Different tone. Deals well with campy comic elements. Branagh directed it as Shakespearean dramedy in space. Asgard is beautiful. Movie was made for the female gaze (like Mr. Hemsworth) and is a female fan fave. Thor the Dark World... is a dull follow-up. Malekith is the dullest villain ever. Dark Elves are so generic looking it's sad. If they'd been done differently, it could've had real menace. Lots of people are afraid of the dark, after all. Instead, Dark World is the most panned of all early Marvel films. Ragnarok is its polar opposite. Bright, colorful, comic-beautiful, but too funny. There's zero gravity to anything. Asgard explodes? Time for another joke. It's a fave, especially male fans. Thor is more badass in it, too. Loki is great. The faux tease of World War Hulk had fanboys delirious. And then there was Love & Thunder. Oh, L&T. Female fans were so excited for Mighty Thor/Jane Foster. Male fans were delirious that Gorr was coming & being played by Christian Bale. And, it's a huge flop. Again, comics beautiful. Too quippy, Taika. Not dark enough/wasted Gorr. Honestly, I enjoyed the kids/kiddishness because we took our son & he loved all that.

AntMan? The first was well done. Offbeat. Paul Rudd is CHARMING. Luis was the best thing in it. Scott's love for his daughter gave it HEART. Funny & fun. Great tone, though villain was meh. AntMan & the Wasp? Less fun. In big part that's because there were cast members phoning it in. Fishburne doesn't realize he was in it, FFS. Positive fam dynamic was too cheesily played. Meh. Then, Quantumania. Wait that may be the biggest flop of all MCU now. No stakes. No LUIS??? Exposition that something's coming? Lots of "care about these quirky characters you just met" and "listen... we're telling you Kang is bad... what? why should we show you?" Sigh. And... visuals were murky when the Quantum Realm should be vivid and sharp and vibrant and the most important element of the film.

Marvel is lucky so many fans have good imaginations and make their characters better than they did.

[willow-lark]

Hi Lark! You seem really cool! I was wondering, what's your favorite Pride and Prejudice adaptation, if you have one? Have a nice day!

hello hello!! how's it going?

okay. okay. honestly THANK YOU for sending this to me. p&p is my FAVORITE NOVEL and i simply do not talk about it enough on here (or at all regarding my own personal thoughts). but i also hope u understand what u have unleashed within me. bc p&p is a topic that i will not shut up about once prompted. so without further ado:

The Complete Ranking of Every Pride and Prejudice Adaptation that I Have Seen Thus Far (*not including books/written work, bc i have read far too many of those)

Pride & Prejudice (2005 film)

this one is gonna be controversial, whichever one i pick as first. you know, it's got its merits and pitfalls in comparison with the 1995 miniseries, but this film is my comfort movie. it looks pretty, and it's got a pretty soundtrack, and keira knightley is pretty, and i think it adapts the story quite well for having to fit everything into two hours. each character is done well & it artfully represents the book. i just love this film okay!!

2. Pride and Prejudice (1995 miniseries)

okay i ranked this one #2 is everyone happy now!! but yeah. i mean. no one can outdo colin firth. that's a fact of life. this one adapts the books soso faithfully, it's so amazing to see. the whole tone is so well transferred onto the screen. collins is appropriately slimy, mrs. bennet is over the top, & COLIN FIRTH!!!!

3. The Lizzie Bennet Diaries (2012-2013 webseries)

i found this one only a couple of years ago, and i was so mad to be late to the party >:( i love every single part of this adaptation. all the tongue-in-cheek references are so great and i loved how they adapted the bennet sisters, as well as the whole situation to the modern day. just spectacular.

4. Death Comes to Pemberley (2013 miniseries)

okay i will be completely fair i haven't seen this one in a while, but i did just talk to my mother, who's seen it more recently than i, and she insisted that i place this one as far as up as i could. from what i remember it was a very good story, with good acting and an interesting take on all the characters and what they would be doing years after the end of the book. definitely recommend!

5. Bridget Jones's Diary (2001 film)

another one i haven't seen in ages, and also of which my mother was very passionate about the ranking. colin firth AGAIN!! and another fantastically funny modern au that presents a new angle on it. still middle of the pack, though, since i don't have much to say about it 😭

6. Pride and Prejudice (1940 film)

ok now we're getting into territory that is just. not worth your while lmao. like this one was interesting to watch as an old movie but i was overall not impressed. like maybe there's some film buff out there who can tell me something or other about how it pioneered some technique or something, but...

7. Pride and Prejudice (1980 miniseries)

i... could not get through much of this one at all. it just seemed off? in tone, in plot, in characterization... i don't actually know that i finished it! it definitely could not compare with any of the films or miniseries that are higher up on my list.

8. Pride and Prejudice: A New Musical (2020 musical)

just... augh. when i saw that this existed i was super excited! like a p&p musical??? that sounds so cool! but i found it just to be so tedious. the characters & acting were poor, i didn't enjoy any of the musical numbers, and they styled the actor playing mr. darcy to make him look akin to a corpse. not everyone can pull off the colin firth look and you shouldn't force it!! there's this one moment about half an hour in when darcy & wickham meet for the first time that CRACKS ME UP. legitimately hysterical. i didn't make it much further than that in watching it.

/end rant. that was longer than i thought it would be & probably longer than u were asking for 😆 but THANK YOU for giving me the opportunity to talk a bit ab p&p bc i do adore it dearly and would always love to scream about it!! 💕🫂 i'm sure i've seen more adaptations than on this list, but these were the first to come to mind, lol

[oakantony]

why didn't it work for you?

cracks knuckles. (this post contains spoilers)

my biggest issue is with characterization: they really got spider-man entirely wrong.

the movie presents a literal trolley problem--either uncle ben/captain morales/aunt may/gwen staci dies, or else the multiverse explodes and kills thousands.

the thing that makes spider-man spider-man is that he looks at the trolley problem and goes, "i'm going to fucking stop that trolley before it kills anyone on the tracks--or die trying." that is it, period. that's how he operates. he's good in a very simplistic, self-destructive, and often unsuccessful way. because the thing with the trolley problem is that you CAN'T stop it and someone WILL die. but fuck if spidey is not gonna try. HE ALWAYS TRIES.

this movie proposes that not only is there one spider-man who isn't this way--a spider-man who thinks "well, sacrificing one life is okay if it means many people will be safe"--but that there are hundreds. THOUSANDS. of spider-mans who think this way.

this is SO at odds with his characterization in the first movie, in all the other spider-man franchises, that i legitimately sat with my jaw agape in the theater when miguel explained the situation at the 3/4 mark.

it doesn't make sense. like i said, maybe one. maybe two. hell, maybe, in a world of infinite universes, there are a few hundred spider-mans who think, "sacrificing one person is cool."

not this many. absolutely not.

it's not surprising that hobie was my favorite character in the movie. i went into this expecting to hate him (based on the spoilers i'd encountered online, i really thought i'd roll my eyes at his "stick it tha MAN" schtick and his sorta "love triangle" situation). but no, i loved him. and why? because he was the only fucking spider-man in the movie who ACTED LIKE SPIDER-MAN.

okay, and some of the other complaints i have:

the pacing was actually kind of poor.

i get why we started with spider-gwen--but jumping from her to miles was the first of many "jarring" beats in the plot. we spent so much time on some things and not enough on others--

the chase/swinging around town/look at him goooo sequences were too many. and they were too long. we had...what, four? five? six??? I think we had six chase sequences in this movie.

but for peter b parker--we get a literal ten second reintroduction to his character ("haha look at me in a bathrobe with a BABY, aren't I a GOOFY GUY with ZERO DEPTH because we don't have time for that this movie?!?"). insert marge grumbling noise

and, yeah, it's only half a movie. the other half comes out next year. i really dislike that, generally, and i don't think it works here. the movie just...ENDED. it was so unfinished, lol.

peter b parker is another complaint. he gets his own section right here.

they went to great lengths in the first movie to demonstrate that he was--maybe IS--the most powerful spider-man to exist, despite his depression, his not-traditional-spidey physique. he's still incredibly capable and great at his job.

this movie dumbed him down to a single, lazy trope. this is definitely partially a pacing issue, as mentioned above, but i also think it's a characterization issue--they couldn't make him more capable, because if they did that, there'd be NO excuse for why he was following miguel. a smart, capable, well-characterized peter b parker never would have been in that position.

also, they mention he's miles' mentor three times, but he doesn't actually do any mentoring in the film. at least not successfully. (again, i suspect this is because they had to sandbag his character to make the miguel plot make any sense.)

okay, let's talk about what i did like, for a sec, just so everyone knows i'm not a hater-ass bitch.

obviously it is the most visually stunning movie i've watched in YEARS. absolutely blown away by the art.

miles morales is an angel. well-written, well-established, and i love his lanky growin' boy design. ANGEL

spot is an amazing antagonist. wow

i DID enjoy seeing all the different iterations of spider-man, though i do think it got boiled down to a punchline rather than a fulfilling experience... (ahem, this is supposed to be things i enjoyed......AHEM)

spider-gwen is a trans icon and we stan

okay that's all. thank u for asking ily. bye!

[mineofilms]

Reviews of Thor: Love & Thunder, Jurassic World: Dominion & Top Gun: Maverick

Over the weekend of 9/23/2022 I saw Thor: Love and Thunder… Andrzej Żuławski’s “POSSESSION” (1981)… You can see a review of that film all by itself. Link provided at the bottom. I had also previously seen Top Gun: Maverick and Jurassic World: Dominion a few months back. This will be a mini review of each.

SPOILERS AHEAD…

Thor: Love and Thunder is so bad it might be worse than Black Widow as Captain of the worst Marvel movies to come out during Phase IV and possibly EVER... There really isn't anything good about this. The pacing and tone are all WRONG. The jokes, which seemed frequent don't fit and are not even funny. The cameos do not make any real sense and are just there for nostalgic humor purposes.

All the humor from Thor III: Ragnarok and Avengers: End Game that seemed to work in those movies for Thor does not work here and just make the film look cheesier than it already does. Love & Thunder is like a miss mash of deleted scenes/outtakes from other Thor movies that didn't fit in those movies, surrounded by a very basically written cookie-cutter villain and story. Christian Bale, however, was amazing though and I feel like his negative outlook on the film during the pressers is because he believed this would be a serious story, characterization, and it simply was not. He is a serious actor and if you tell him we are gonna make a serious movie and you ended up lying to him, it is no surprise he was negative about the quality of the movie when it was making the marketing rounds.

The romantic connection between Thor and Jane is gone. It is there in plot and we see it on the screen, but it has no chemistry to it. It looks forced and is badly written. The whole movie was poorly written… This was the shortest Thor film of the 4 released and I am glad. If this would have been 2 plus hours I would have shut this piece of garbage off. I almost shut it off my Disney plus because it was “that bad…”

The only thing that even made me smile at all were the screaming goats. That is about it for Thor: Love and Thunder. I feel bad for the people that paid money to see this in theaters and are a fan of the character. The acting is fine; but feels like parodies of their well-established characters.  I thought this would have been a no brainer as far as it being good or not but it is so bad I do not know if we will see another Thor film and not sure if I want to. Even the Guardians of the Galaxy stuff in this was done poorly… Of the 4 Thor films the original and Ragnarok are great and Love & Thunder and Dark World are pretty bad.

Dark World isn’t terrible on the same level of Love & Thunder. It really is technically bad. The writing, tone, direction, choices, humor and the special effects. A lot of the effects look like poor green screen and/or just digital backgrounds, even when there are other key characters in the shot. Film Students, take notice to this stuff…

I didn't care for the latest Jurassic World flick either, Jurassic World: Dominion. It has some good stuff in it, but like the last one, they really didn't execute this well. It isn’t terrible just this one and the last one were not very good, but they were not terrible either. The first Jurassic World was excellent. How they fell so far, so fast just makes my eyes roll.

The cartoon villain, who is already a billionaire, wants to control all the world’s food supply so that he may charge whatever he wants for said food? Um, he is already a billionaire right? Yeah, I can totally identify with that villain’s motivations here. (sarcasm)… This villain is written badly even if it were a Bond villain or a Marvel super villain… I watched Tobe Hooper’s “Invaders from Mars” over the weekend too and I have more positive things to say about that flop than I do Jurassic World: Dominion…

Last on the list is Top Gun: Maverick and that was done right. I am sure there are gonna be haters out there, but I feel like they got the nostalgia right and didn't overly bathe in it as a main focal point of the movie. Which is what seems to be popular in these attempts at recapturing nostalgia. They do go back and do some of the normal nostalgia stuff, but it doesn’t linger, nor does it absorb the entire movie, like say, “Ghostbusters: After Life” did. Where the entire movie revolves around the first “Ghostbusters,” movie with full nods to the original that look great, but miss their mark. They did this with Jurassic World: Dominion with “these attempts at recapturing nostalgia.”

Maverick is its own story. So much so that the only thing I thought that was bad was the love interest aspect of the story. Jennifer Connelly’s character makes absolutely no sense as to why she is there and why she is important to Maverick. That was done poorly and I am sort of tired of these big properties/franchises that do things within the plot, off-screen and either force us to purchase extra properties like; novels, comics, video games, YouTube Easter egg videos, just to get caught up on the story…

To me, Maverick has a really bad love story/drama prequel out there that takes place after Top Gun and Before Maverick, aka Top Gun 1.5, that no one has ever seen, yet, seems to transitioned into Top Gun: Maverick like we all didn't miss a beat, which we did. To me, it doesn't ruin the whole movie, but it is a major distraction and/or miss-step of trying to tell the story here. We really didn't need her, her character in this movie and it hurts the plot.

Jennifer Connelly’s performance is fine. She is always pretty good except for 1985s Dario Argento’s Creepers/Phenomena, depending on which version of the film you find. Granted she was only a child then working with a foreign horror genre filmmaker. Those types of movies are made differently so her being overly bad in it I will chalk up to age and working with a foreign director.

I Give Maverick a solid A-. It would get an A+ but the love story element doesn’t fit. I give Thor: Love & Thunder a D+ and Jurassic Park: Dominion a C. These were 3 huge movies and it is very sad that only one of them ended up being actually good in my eyes, while the other 2 probably will never been seen and/or heard from again just like Amber Heard’s career…

The other 2 films I mentioned here; Andrzej Żuławski’s “POSSESSION” (1981) and Tobe Hooper’s “Invaders from Mars” (1986) are totally worth seeing if you can find them. Why get reminded of nostalgia when you can see its original form for yourself. For my review of Possession, click the link… Andrzej Żuławski’s “Possession” (1981)…

 Reviews of Thor: Love & Thunder,  Jurassic World: Dominion &  Top Gun: Maverick by David-Angelo Mineo 9/26/2022 1,198 Words

[traincat]

I’ve been trying to piece together a few things from your Twitter and Tumblr posts alike and still can’t make heads or tales of things, so would you mind helping out a FF & spideytorch noob? 1) what is currently happening with Johnny in the comics? (I’ve fallen head over heels for this guy, largely all your doing) 2) when’s the last time he and Peter have interacted, canon wise? (And do you think upcoming interactions are likely?) 3) your thoughts on if they’ll have him come out in the near future? (has that ‘biggest change to the fantastic four’ teaser come to pass yet?) Love all your content, thank you!

I'd say no problem but then I started thinking about this current run again and got a headache. But yes, I can do that to save you from reading it, because it is very largely not good.

So I don't think it's unfair to just flat out say the current Fantastic Four run is not very good, largely due to writer Dan Slott's efforts. Slott was previously on Amazing Spider-Man for 10 years, to mixed opinions, but a large portion of Spider-Man fandom, myself included, blames him near singlehandedly for the decline in quality of Spider-Man books over those ten years. I will say, in the interest of fairness, that Slott as a writer has an incredible fondness for the Spider-Man/Human Torch relationship, and that a lot of the recent teamups and interactions between them have been written or co-written by him. So it's all not all negative here. But in general, I personally find Slott's more recent comics (the last seven-ish years especially) to be badly plotted out, messily characterized disasters that feature characters written with all the emotion of a cardboard cutout. That's me putting it nicely.

To explain this fully, you have to understand the position Fantastic Four comics were in from the years 2015 through 2018, both in the fictional 616 universe and in the real publishing world. Following the 2015 Secret Wars event (great if you want some Johnny angst in the background of your plot), the Fantastic Four were disbanded -- Reed, Sue, and their many biological and found family children were presumed dead but in reality were remaking the multiverse, unable, for a reason that was never clearly defined, to reach home. Ben and Johnny were left on Earth. They had an unspecified falling out, likely due to Reed and Sue's absence, and went their separate ways -- Ben joined the Guardians of the Galaxy and went to space. Johnny was featured on both Inhumans and Avengers books. What's notable about this period is that it's the first time since 1961 that there was no Fantastic Four book being published by Marvel. Now the real world reason behind this is both complicated and extremely petty: Marvel really wanted the Fantastic Four film rights. Marvel denied this explanation at the time, stating that the reason was sales motivated, but it was a thoroughly flimsy excuse and Jonathan Hickman, writer of 2015's Secret Wars and overseer of the current X-Men plot, gave an interview saying the decision was film rights motivated. This decision kept the Fantastic Four books off the shelves for three years, up until the Disney-Fox merger, which secured the X-Men and Fantastic Four rights for Disney's Marvel Studios. Marvel then announced that the Fantastic Four book would be returning. So that's a little bit of background as to the precarious place the Fantastic Four currently occupy in the Marvel universe -- it's worth noting that this year is their 60th anniversary, and Marvel has done very little for it. Compare this to the X-Men, whose film rights Marvel also obtained during the Disney-Fox merger, and whose books are currently dominating the publishing lineup. The Fantastic Four definitely occupy an unpopular position, one Marvel themselves is at least partially responsible for forcing them into.

But to move back into the actual content of the book -- the readjustment period Slott wrote reintroducing the Fantastic Four into the Marvel universe can be described as clumsy, at best. It's never fully explained why Reed, Sue, and the kids couldn't return to Earth, something that was explored in Chip Zdarsky's 2017 Marvel Two-in-One, which featured Ben, Johnny, and Doom on a multiversal roadtrip to try and find their family and which I on the whole recommend, despite it having an awkward ending due to being cut short by Slott's announced Fantastic Four main title.

(Marvel Two-in-One 2017 #4)

Instead, the Fantastic Four return to a Marvel universe a little different than how they left it, with the Baxter Building -- formerly the offices of Parker Industries, the company Doc Ock started in Peter's body during Superior Spider-Man that Peter inherited after his defeat and then lost spectacularly when he trashed his own company to fight nazis (good for him) -- occupied by a different fantastic foursome in a plot that goes nowhere and does nothing. This is somewhat emblematic of the early days of Slott's run -- he introduces ideas that fail to go anywhere, including Johnny's rekindled relationship with his other best friend and former college roommate, Wyatt Wingfoot, who he was seen being very cuddly with in the early issues.

(FF 2018 #1) A small group of Fantastic Four fans have argued for a while that if Marvel was to have Johnny come out, a relationship with Wyatt would feel very natural -- they're already close, with Wyatt being an important Fantastic Four supporting character since the '60s. I have some further analysis here on the conspiracy theory that Johnny and Wyatt were supposed to be in relationship at the beginning of this run but that that plot was, for whatever reason, nixed. I don't know that I entirely believe this theory, for the record -- but I do think the pieces line up remarkably well.

Anyway, that didn't/hasn't yet happened, obviously. Slott instead for the most part put Johnny on the back burner for the beginning of his run, up until the Spyre arc, which I have reason to believe is the main story he pitched that he credits with securing him the Fantastic Four title. The Spyre arc suggests that the Fantastic Four's failed space exploration during which they got their powers wasn't just to beat the commies to the moon, as Lee and Kirby envisioned (simpler days), but to reach a specific planet outside of our galaxy. When the team sets out to conquer this mission, they arrive at the planet, but are quickly captured. The planet, they find out, operates like a soulmate AU -- everyone has a fated person that they are matched to via a gold armband. Reed and Sue are soulmates (and Ben is confined to an underground subterranean with the other monsters, because this is a Fantastic Four comic) while it's discovered! Shocker! That Johnny is actually the soulmate of the one the planet's inhabitants, a winged woman named Sky, with the suggestion that this is both why Johnny's previous relationships have never worked and why he loves space exploration -- he was just trying to get to his Soulmate TM.

(FF 2018 #15) "What's going on here? Where are my clothes?" As you can see, this didn't start off super great, with Johnny being separated from his family, stripped naked, and put in Sky's bed with a soulmate armband slapped on him. Did I mention they're only removable if your soulmate takes it off for you? And that Sky has consistently refused despite Johnny asking her to? Yeah. It's bad. (I think it's important to note Johnny's long history as a victim of assault plays into this narrative, whether or not Slott is personally holding that in mind while writing, which I don't believe he is. cw in the linked post for discussions of sexual assault.) There's an additional issue here in that Slott has a history of problematic writing regarding women of color, featuring characters he's created to act as love interests being oversexualized, infantilized, villainized, or some mix of all three, with two examples of this phenomena being Cindy Moon and Lian Tang, both of whom he introduced in quick succession in Amazing Spider-Man. Slott certainly didn't have to write Sky as manipulative or controlling towards Johnny, but that's what he chose to do, and that factors into the bigger picture of unfortunate themes in his writing.

Sky returns to Earth with the Fantastic Four despite Johnny appearing unenthused about the idea and initially generally reluctant to interact with her. Apparently they went on a few dates after this and kind of made up. I don't know because I stopped reading for about ten issues in there but I feel confident I missed very little. It's hard to talk about the Sky plot without referencing Johnny's previous interactions with a character named Lyja, a Skrull whose relationship to Johnny I have a long breakdown of here. It's doubly hard, because Lyja actually showed back up in Fantastic Four during this plot. Lyja's modus operandi has remained consistent throughout almost all of her appearances, which I guess makes sense, because she literally has no storylines that do not involve her being obsessed with Johnny, and this recent story isn't any different: Lyja shows up, Lyja disguises herself as another woman in Johnny's life to get close to Johnny, Lyja gets caught and claims it was all fine because she did it for love. This time she disguised herself as Sky.

(FF 2018 #32) Not gonna lie, kind of proud of him for this one. That's one of my problems with Slott -- very occasionally, he busts out good moments, only to undermine them with the rest of his narrative.

In the same issue, Alicia Masters, the first woman Lyja impersonated in order to get close to Johnny, uses her supervillain stepfather's radioactive clay to control Lyja's mind and send her back to space, and I do think she utilized girl power when she did this. Johnny, left reeling after Lyja's latest attempts to trick him into a relationship, ends this issue by sleeping with Victorious, Dr. Doom's right hand woman.

I know she pegged him. I know it. This scene was a little controversial in Johnny fandom, because a lot of people viewed it as Johnny cheating on Sky and thought that that action was out of character for Johnny. I'm personally of a little different opinion, which is that regardless of whether or not you view Johnny and Sky in a committed enough relationship that Johnny's tryst would count as infidelity when all Johnny and Sky are bound by are magic plot soulmate bracelets, I think Lyja's involvement changes things significantly when it comes to Johnny's characterization. All of Johnny's "playboy" periods, if we can call them that, coincide directly with Lyja having been in and then left his life again, which I think makes a certain amount of sense -- it's Johnny trying to wrest control back after a situation where he had none. None of this is explicitly canon, I have to note, but sometimes in comics you have to do the work yourself. So I think this is a case of something being accidentally extremely in character that Slott accidentally stumbled into because he had these love triangles in mind, not because he put a lot of thought into it.

Speaking of love triangles! Johnny sleeping with Victorious gets more complicated when Dr. Doom announces his intent to marry Victorious -- not because he has any romantic interest in her (this engagement caused a lot of uproar in Fantastic Four because Victorious had been previously referred to as being like Doom's adopted daughter) but in order to install her as Latverian regent in his absence. I'm not going to lie, I love a political wedding. Victorious, for some reason, thinks Doom will be deeply upset that she slept with some closeted blond twink and the member of the Fantastic Four he views least as an enemy and more as an annoyance. Johnny, who Sky is currently not talking to because she "felt" him sleeping with Victorious through their magic plot soulmate bracelets, also feels nervous about Doom finding out about this, which I guess is slightly more valid. Anyway, for some completely ridiculous reason, Victorious decides the best time to tell Doom about this little indiscretion is when they're standing at the altar, which coincidentally the Fantastic Four are also standing at, because Doom asked Reed to be his best man in a not at all homoerotic little setup involving midnight swordfighting and Reed slipping Doom's emerald ring onto his own finger. Sorry to sidetrack into DoomReed territory here but it's just like. It's just a lot.

(FF 2018 #33) Also, Ben walked the bride down the aisle. :,) Look at his gigantic hand.

Anyway then Doom decides he's going to kill everyone in a completely reasonable and not at all overblown reaction to Johnny and Zora having what was most likely both disappointing for Zora and weepy for Johnny sex. And that brings us up to where Fantastic Four comics left us yesterday -- in answer to your "big change" question, that's most likely coming up in the next issue, so it hasn't come to pass yet.

Having gotten all that out of the way -- the last time Johnny and Peter interacted canon-wise was in the recent Empyre Fallout Fantastic Four, at the end of the Empyre event:

It was cute! Slott does right good interactions between them. This is possibly the Stockholm Syndrome talking. I don't know if more interactions are likely imminent -- the Empyre event was fairly recent. On the other hand, Slott does like writing interactions between them. So I'd give it about a 50/50 shot. I was skimming the letter page in the latest issue and someone wrote in asking if Peter was likely to appear in the pages of Fantastic Four again any time soon, so there is definitely a demand.

As for Johnny coming out -- I don't know. It's not a call I feel comfortable making at this moment, which I guess means I wouldn't bet money on it. I'd like to say yes, especially because I think Slott set up, whether that was his intention or more likely not, several good places in his run where Johnny could have come out. The beginning, when he's implied to be living with Wyatt again and where he and Wyatt are paralleled against Ben and Alicia. Ben's bachelor party, where Johnny laments not finding the right person -- specifically person and not woman -- and where Ben tells him to "be brave, Johnny Storm." And the soulmate planet plot, where I think could have had a very different and much better ending if Johnny had told Sky that she couldn't be his romantic soulmate, because he knows he wants to be with a man. But those are just places that I think would have made good opportunities for a coming out story. Instead, Johnny's been involved (dubiously) with three different women over the space of the last 10 issues, which is more heterosexuality at one time than he's been confronted with in the last 60 years. So my thoughts are still that it's going to happen eventually, but quite possibly not anytime soon.

Hope that helps! And that my incredibly long answer about what's currently going on with Johnny in comics sheds some light on things!

[deng-yi-deng]

Dramas I finished in 2021

This is the first year I dropped more than I finished, and I took a reaaaally long break after Broker because...it broke me.

Currently watching and enjoying Luoyang but likely won't finish it this year so I'll save it for next year's wrap-up.

Listed in order of how much I liked them - ymmv.

Word of Honor - (5/5) we all loved this so I don't have to write my own redundant review detailing point by point why it rocked. Thank you WoH team for making an excellent wuxia. Early on everyone was selling this as 'omg, watch it it's so gaaaAAYyyy' which (yes it was and yes that was fun but...) more than that it was so well written it still brings a tear to my eye. See, it's possible. It's possible to have a well-written cdrama that is simultaneously fun and doesn't insult the audience's intelligence. Sure, I also like the actors but my hero is the writer, Xiao Chu. 💌

The Imperial Coroner (4.5/5)- a surprise delight that didn't rely on tropes to move the plot along or get certain characters together. Well paced, decent acting, fun characters, and a plot that actually kind of made sense. Both male and female characters act like...humans? not cardboard cutouts. Hm, I wonder if... yes. The screenwriters were both women - suspicious. Low-budget but made the most of it. Yes, it is very anachronistic (regardless of which vague time period it's supposed to be set in) but still cute and a quick watch.

Dear Diary (4.5/5) - Don't let the ridiculous premise, or the fact that Youku shelved it for years, keep you from watching this. Though superficially it's a romance, the underlying theme of the drama is about learning to accept and embrace your younger self. The plot basically makes sense and the acting from everyone is fabulous. The supporting characters are real and enjoyable. Pacing is tight, and they film on locations!? (except for one cheap set which we'll just ignore). There are a few more plot holes near the end but in general touching, oddly relatable, and the ending is not trite or stupid! Oh wait I'm 3/3 the screenwriter is a woman.

Duolou Continent (3.5/5) Cute characters and enough action/fights to keep me content (though the whole spiritual sausage thing was....a little gross tbh.) I'm not familiar with the source material so can't compare, but it was on the whole fun and in terms of low-budget costume dramas with Xiao Zhan worth a watch. Moved pretty well, though episodes were short. Was very happy to see Calvin Chen (who I only know from KO One) and his surprise six-pack, lol.

My Heroic Husband (3.5/5)- watched because it included many actors from Joy of Life. It mostly held together and was funny in places - I do love a dumb time-traveler joke (the wheeled suitcase was my favorite gag by far.) My main complaint is the FL was unnecessarily weakened/sidelined as the show went on - you don't have to have a helpless wife to be a heroic husband, ok? I feel strange saying it but there could've been more....business focus?? weird. It also indulged in one of my least favorite tear-jerking plot devices (unsure if it's common enough to be a trope but I hates it.)

The Legends (2019) (3.5/5)- yes this is a couple years old but since I like both Xu Kai and Bai Lu, and it's a wuxia...veering into xianxia... gave it a try. The first 12? 14? eps are brilliant. Loved it. FL is written more like a man - morally questionable! smart! independent! but then gradually the plot and characterizations fall apart. I've been informed this was intentional on the part of the writer which is too bad. Some of the secondary characters/relationships are also really good.

Court Lady (3/5)- wasn't sure what to expect, mostly watched for the costumes, setting, and Xu Kai (the first two were solid....last reason was ill informed since he wasn't in it that much and his character was...meh.) The costumes and hair were amazing (sets - a bit anachronistic) in general the art direction was pretty good, but still not Longest Day in Chang'An good. They did ok with the female characters, making them more well-rounded and interesting, but the FL was maybe a bit too too clever/lucky. There were soooo many eps and it followed so many character's sub-plots I kinda lost interest but powered through to the end despite a bit of boredom. Favorite characters were (as usual) secondary. The HE was rushed and cliche and strangely unsatisfying.

The Devil Punisher (3/5)(TW) - started in 2020, finished in 21. Premise was solid but - it was just ok. I enjoy a good cheesily-acted Taiwanese drama now and again. Too much use of misunderstandings between the CP trope - and I don't really like a love rivalry as the main plot device when it could've been something way cooler. Honestly with the longer 1hr plus episodes I may have nodded off during some of the later eps since it didn't entirely hold my interest after we found out (not a shock) who the villain was.

Movies

Including for completeness: both Yin-Yang master movies. I liked the one with Mark Chao and Deng Lun more - it was visually really pretty (are they purposefully making movies giff-able in the same way museums are making some exhibitions instagrammable now??) and I liked the plot. The one with Chen Kun was more of a family movie I guess?? anyway they were both ok.

[hutchhitched]

My thoughts on The 355 (experience) under the cut.

 First, let me say that I understand there’s a global pandemic going on, numerous people are choosing not to go to the theater, and some theaters are closed right now. I take the pandemic seriously. I’m vaccinated, boosted, and wear a mask in public, except when eating and drinking. I know all of these things are happening, and I’m disappointed for this movie. In a theater with over 350 seats, there were about a dozen of us there for the first showing in Houston. There are multiple other theaters, but I checked how many seats were sold at some of the others, and they weren’t remotely close to full either. After delaying the movie a year to allow for the pandemic to wind down, it ended up opening in the middle of the Omicron surge. That’s rotten luck and timing.

 Second, of the dozen people who were there, the most obnoxious one was sitting about six seats down from me in a mostly empty theater. *insert fuming face here* I don’t want to tell others how to enjoy themselves in public, but… Overt giggling when female characters are doing badass things is really irritating, especially when it’s a female-driven movie. Dude clearly had a crush on the ladies—all the ladies—and he was happy to see them on screen. This is one instance in which I would have enjoyed watching the movie in the privacy of my own home so I wouldn’t have been distracted by Overly Happy Movie Watcher.

 Third, Sebastian Stan is fine as hell. I am definitely biased, and I make no apologies about it. So much pretty.

 As for the movie itself, it was enjoyable and beautifully shot. The cast was talented, and the plot held together fairly well. There were a few surprises, a few moments of horror (Nick Fowler is ruthless), and a lot of action. The dialogue was mostly witty, the female cast worked well together, and Penelope Cruz was a delightful foil to the BAMFs that sometimes felt a little bit like they were trying too hard. I have a thing about women being portrayed as tough in movies and about how that’s lauded as being a “strong” female character. A woman does not have to be able to physically fight and bite out sarcastic comments to be strong, so an action film about women is probably not the best way to make me happy. Still, I thought the movie was well-done, with believable action sequences and nothing so extreme that I thought, “That can’t happen.”

 Of the (fighting) women, I enjoyed BingBing Fan’s the most. She was smart and tough, and I liked that characterization. Lupita is always amazing. I have trouble loving anything more than The Help and Zero Dark-Thirty for Chastain, and I had no idea Kruger had been in National Treasure, but now I can’t unsee it. I thought the friendships and rivalries among the women were well-written and acted well. Overall, it was a solid, female led movie that I think audiences will enjoy.

 Critics have not, and I see their point. The villain wasn’t clear, except that somehow it was Sebastian Stan working for the real villain—a character I just didn’t care about at all and have no idea how he was connected (except for that he was—but why?). Also, at some point, women cannot run and kick and fight in high heels. Stop pretending it’s easy. Also, there were a lot of shots of women getting hit/punched/slapped in the face, and it got a little “violence porn” for me after a while.

 As for Sebastian, which is—let’s be honest—why I went to see it, he falls back into his bad boy ways well in this movie. He plays cocky and charming (together and separately) so very well. His smirks and seductive looks are golden, and he marches into a room like he owns the place—and did. I was (major spoiler) delightfully surprised he survived the movie (from the clips I’d seen, I really did think he was going to get kicked off the balcony and fall to his death, which was too much like CATFA for me) because I think this one set up a sequel well. I have no idea if that will happen, but I’m there if they bring him back. He’s a good actor, and he did a great job in this role, which is unsurprising because he always does a great job in bad boy roles.

 What stole the movie for me (besides the hotness/acting of Sebastian Stan) was Cruz. Her one-liners and timidity were simply fabulous. I enjoyed the hell out of her in this film.

 In all, I found the movie fun and enjoyable but not genre breaking. It was both interesting and predictable as well as well-done and sometimes cringey. I’d watch it again, and I hope others feel the same way. If I had to give it a star review, I’d give it 3.5 out of 5. I’d give Sebastian’s hotness level a 5 out of 5, with an extra pepper for his smirks and dress shirts open at the throat.

[swanlake1998]

Article: Oklahoma’s Gift to Ballet: The Five Moons Ballerinas

Date: August 19, 2021

By: Meryl Cates

A festival at the University of Oklahoma celebrates the impact of these ballerinas on 20th century ballet, honoring their Native American heritage.

At the first Oklahoma Indian Ballerina Festival, in 1957, its founder, Moscelyne Larkin, danced Myrtha in Act Two of “Giselle” and Maria Tallchief performed an excerpt from “Swan Lake.” It was a festival created to honor five Native American ballerinas, all hailing from Oklahoma. But it would take 10 years, and the premiere of a ballet, “The Four Moons,” for the festival to really celebrate the dancers’ heritages as well as their artistry.

As prima ballerinas in the 1940s through the 1960s in major companies, Yvonne Chouteau, Rosella Hightower, Larkin, and Maria and Marjorie Tallchief were transformative artists. This summer, the Five Moons Dance Festival, presented by the University of Oklahoma’s School of Dance, will celebrate their impact on 20th century ballet, honoring the significance of their Indigenous backgrounds.

“The Four Moons” ballet, with a score by the Cherokee-Quapaw composer Louis Ballard Sr., was danced in 1967 at the second Oklahoma Indian Ballerina Festival with four of the ballerinas. The fifth, Maria Tallchief, perhaps the most recognized in American ballet, had retired from dancing and remained firm in her decision not to perform. It was the first time, as professionals, they would represent their own stories as Native American women on the stage.

Without any known recordings of the performance, “The Four Moons” has been fragmented into a few hazy memories, with some clues left by reviewers. Larkin (Shawnee-Peoria), performed a swift and effervescent solo, and then Hightower (Choctaw) appeared in a self-choreographed, playful story. Next came Marjorie Tallchief (Osage), whose elegant variation shifted the atmosphere in the theater, enrapturing the audience. That led into a section by Chouteau (Shawnee-Cherokee) about the devastating Trail of Tears, with delicate yet determined bourrées pulling her heavy heart along, despite her gliding feet.

“I’m very glad we did it,” Marjorie Tallchief, 94, said recently, on the phone from her home in Delray Beach, Fla. “It was amazing, at that time, that they got us all together.”

On a program including works by George Balanchine and Bronislava Nijinska, “The Four Moons” was created to honor the histories of these tribes as they were forced from their land and settled in Oklahoma. The dancers themselves were meant to represent the destinies of the tribes; the original program featured them as four moons in a painting by the artist Jerome Tiger, who was Muscogee-Seminole. They would later become known as Oklahoma’s Five Moons ballerinas. (Marjorie is the only one still alive.)

Audiences loved “The Four Moons,” but some critics stumbled over its convergence of Native American themes and classical ballet, seemingly surprised by a traditional pas de quatre instead of a “corn dance or sun dance,” as The Saturday Review put it.

With so much discussion in the dance world about representation and diversity, the moment for a Five Moons festival seemed right to Michael Bearden, the director of the School of Dance, which was founded by Chouteau and her husband, Miguel Terekhov. Bearden also wanted to involve female choreographers, who are still rare in ballet, and Native communities (there are 39 federally-recognized tribal nations in Oklahoma) through conversations exploring aspects of the Five Moons ballerinas’ careers and lives as Native women.

The festival, which runs Aug. 27-29, will feature works by Stefanie Batten Bland, Annabelle Lopez Ochoa, Rena Butler and DaYoung Jung, as well as Osage Ballet’s “Wahzhazhe,” about the story of the Osage nation, produced by Randy Tinker Smith and choreographed by Jenna Smith.

Russ Tall Chief, who lives in Oklahoma and is related to Marjorie and Maria through his great-grandfather, is on the festival’s planning committee and will participate in one of the lectures.

“I think it’s important for us to remember that Maria and Marjorie and all five of the ballerinas came out of Oklahoma, from small rural reservation communities,” he said. “To have these women of color, representing not just American Indians, but America, on the ballet stage was profound.”

Excerpts from the ballet “Wahzhazhe” will include an opening prayer section, an important tradition of the tribe.

“To us, to Osages, there’s a direct silence about Native America,” Tinker Smith said. “Because every day we face challenges. We have to work harder, try harder and do better, just to have things that non-Indians have. And I think that the timing is perfect for this. To have this legacy of these five ballerinas in our past, that are part of us, really inspires the kids. You can dream and you can follow your dreams.”

In the 1940s, when Chouteau, Hightower, Larkin and the Tallchiefs were beginning their careers, they were proudly Oklahoman, though ballet as an art form was widely considered European.

The only season in which Hightower, Larkin and Marjorie Tallchief were together in Col. W. de Basil’s Original Ballet Russe, 1946-47, the program linked them together by their home state, and distinguished them among the company’s handful of Americans. (Larkin was billed as Moussia Larkina; like many others she had opted for a Russian-sounding stage name, which she soon shed again for Larkin.) Only Tallchief is identified further as “of Indian ancestry, part Osage.”

“It was part of me, it was my name,” Marjorie Tallchief said, acknowledging that being Osage was significant in her career. After a lengthy pause, she added: “Actually, my father made me promise that I would never change my name. I just suddenly remembered when I was leaving, he said, ‘You promise me you’ll never change your name?’ And I said, yes. So I never did.”

Marjorie and Maria grew up in Fairfax, Okla., and it was their mother who encouraged their early music and dance training. The Tallchiefs performed sister act dance routines, first locally — including at the Tall Chief Theater, built by their father Alex Tall Chief, which still stands today — and then in California, where their mother relocated them for better ballet instruction. It was in Beverly Hills that Maria made the adjustment from Tall Chief to Tallchief.

Maria joined the Ballet Russe de Monte Carlo at 17, leaving several years later to join Ballet Society, the company that would become New York City Ballet, after becoming the wife of George Balanchine, its founding choreographer. There she ascended to star status.

Balanchine, who adored America, loved her Osage heritage, she wrote in her 1997 autobiography. But strained cultural characterizations prevailed in the 1944 version of his “Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme,” which included a “Danse Indienne” pas de deux. In a performance crisply preserved on 16 millimeter film, Maria dances quick stylized parallel lifts of her knees wearing a billowy feathered headdress, pompoms and a sash. (Balanchine would later rework the ballet entirely, with no “Danse Indienne.”) Maria went on to important roles in ballets including “Firebird” and “The Four Temperaments,” and became a beacon of American dancing.

Marjorie followed her sister into professional ballet, joining Ballet Theater and then de Basil’s Original Ballet Russe and the Grand Ballet du Marquis de Cuevas in France. In 1956 she was invited to join the Paris Opera Ballet as the first American étoile, the highest rank in the company, commanding classical repertoire with her exhilarating control and lyrical stage presence.

Hightower also made her career largely in Europe, eventually becoming a leading ballerina with the Grand Ballet du Marquis de Cuevas. She was so beloved that when she returned to that company in 1957, after ending a touring contract with Ballet Theater, audiences applauded for 15 minutes during her entrance in “Piège de Lumière.”

These five distinguished Native American ballerinas came out of Oklahoma all within one decade. As students, they frequented some of the same studios and master classes, including in Kansas City and Los Angeles, but in fleeting phases, just as they sometimes performed in companies together during their careers. In several interviews, Chouteau credited her Shawnee-Cherokee heritage as her inspiration to dance. (As a child she toured Oklahoma, her family insisting on the authenticity of each of her dances.) Marjorie Tallchief noted the immense influence the Ballet Russe had on small towns as it made its way through the country.

Chouteau and Larkin would go on to perform alongside the dancers that they once admired from the audience. Chouteau was a leading ballerina with the Ballet Russe de Monte Carlo, which she joined at 14; and Larkin made her career with companies including de Basil’s Ballet Russe and the Ballet Russe de Monte Carlo.

As professionals the Five Moon dancers would each encounter challenges, not only because of the grind of constant traveling, but also because they needed to find their place in the culture of their companies not just as Oklahomans, but also as Native women. Being from the United States, they were perceived by the public and press as demonstrating an overall informality, and possessing an ease onstage. While internationally respected, Hightower was still referred to as a “little American girl” in a Dance Magazine feature. Chouteau recalled her fellow dancers encouraging her to pronounce her name in a more French way, instead of how she grew up saying it in her family. They were Americans in a time when ballet wasn’t exactly American yet.

In an early review written about Maria Tallchief, John Martin of The New York Times noted her Osage heritage and said that “with careful handling,” she might very well “develop into ballerina material.” A decade later, in 1954, she was featured on the cover of Newsweek, with the headline “The Ballet’s Tallchief: Native Dancer,” her Osage heritage used to signal a “new order in the ancient and honorable clan of ballerinas.”

A reframing had occurred, especially in the media — if ballet was now American, it proposed, then here were your truly American dancers. “We were a curiosity,” Chouteau said in an interview in The Oklahoman in 1982, when gathered for the state’s Diamond Jubilee.

Marjorie Tallchief said that in Europe, newspapers mentioned she was Osage, but she thought it was a different treatment than her sister might have experienced in the States.

“They didn’t have anything against me,” Marjorie Tallchief said. “Maybe, but not because of my heritage.”

“Back in the Paris Opera I was the only one who wasn’t French,” she said. “Obviously, they noticed this. It’s very hard to become a dancer at the Paris Opera. So anyone that comes from outside as a first dancer” — or étoile — “I would say there was a little pressure on me because of that.”

Despite every desire to define them, and describe them within ballet’s rigid terms, they established five distinct and powerful careers. “These are American Indian people that have made this impact on ballet,” Russ Tall Chief said. “And that they consider themselves American Indian before they consider themselves ballerinas, I think that’s important. That is part of their vocabulary as dancers. They bring that history of American Indian culture to their dance, and to their interpretation of the way that they see ballet.”

[iamanartichoke]

[please blacklist spoiler tags: #loki tv series spoilers, #loki series spoilers, #loki spoilers]

Yes, I did just watch episode 2 at 5:30 in the morning.

No, I am not sorry. Not at the moment, although when I inevitably crash later this afternoon, I will be.

Just some very, very quick - and scattered and messy - thoughts: That is a straight up lie; they’re definitely scattered and messy but not very quick at all.

Under the cut for spoilers and length.

I’m going to start with Loki’s characterization. My honest opinion is that Loki’s overall characterization feels like a fic characterization. He definitely is not Avengers Loki, like, at all. I don't know if Tom just, like, forgot how to play that Loki or ...?? That, or Loki was so much more mind-controlled than we realized and getting hulk-smashed just completely reset him back to zero but also fucked him up a little bit and affected his personality, kind of like how some people completely develop weird new personality quirks after a traumatic brain injury.

… yeah, I think that’s where I’m gonna land for now. TV series!Loki feels like a more-or-less canon version of Loki, but if that Loki got hit in the head really hard and now he’s just a little bit fucked up but overall no worse for the wear. Which - it may be that it’s so early in the morning, but that’s actually really fucking funny to me, lmao. God, I kill me. It’s not funny.

No, but, that’s pretty much how I feel. He’s ooc but he’s also ic, and the reason I’m not particularly bothered by the inconsistency, for lack of a better word, is because that’s what pretty much every fic Loki already feels like to me? (Including my own, so I’m not, like, saying that in a derogatory way.) Which is why I say Loki feels like a fic!Loki and to try to explain it better - there is always, for me, a little suspension of disbelief that I employ when I read fic. The reason for that is because the context, the plot, and the dynamics of the fic are usually pretty different than what we ever get in canon, so it becomes a matter of taking film!Loki and, like, bending him a bit in order to fit him into the perimeters of the fic.

The result ends up being that I don’t see the exact Avengers!Loki or TDW!Loki, and thus by definition the portrayal is ooc, but the version that I do see feels like a genuine extension of the canon version, possessing enough of Loki’s overall traits and characteristics that he feels authentic, albeit a bit pretzeled for the new context.

I honestly think that’s something that’s unavoidable, just due to the fact that in fic - and now, in this series - there are a lot more variables at play than there are in the films, wherein Loki is not just a supporting character but also the villain/antagonist and is therefore very limited in what he does/what the narrative allows him to do. When those limitations are taken away, what are we going to see? Probably a lot of different things, and yeah, a lot of them are going to feel a little ooc. And, like in fic, even if the characterization mostly lands, there are definitely bits and pieces (some fics more than others lean this way) where the author didn’t stick the landing or got carried away or otherwise probably forgot for a while that they were writing Loki, not their own OC.

That’s the point where it strays into cringe territory for me (and where the ‘heh, he’s Loki but with a brain injury’ aspect comes in), but while I had to consciously decide to just ignore those moments, overall the tone in this episode felt a bit more balanced between the new, the old, and the cringe, and less whiplash-y from the beginning of the episode to the end.

… I have no idea if that makes sense, but what I’m basically saying is that while I am enjoying this version of Loki, I do recognize all of the ways he’s ooc but, unlike how I feel about Ragnarok!Loki, the ooc-ness feels genuine and unavoidable rather than just a fundamental and careless misunderstanding of the character altogether. In other words, I feel like any ooc-ness here is happening despite the writers taking care to do their best, and isn’t just a result of Loki being lazily written by a person or persons who just doesn’t want to bother with him at all.

Again, I don’t know if that makes sense, but fuck it, there we are and I’m moving on.

I liked all of the little details, including again, things that felt straight out of fic, like Loki asking Mobius why he has the jetski magazine. (Also, if any of my thorki friends read this, was I the only one who noticed that when we see Loki reading the magazine, it just happens to be open to a page with a picture featuring a jet skier who looks like Thor? l.m.a.o.)

Loki interrupting things to explain the difference between illusions vs the other power (I can’t remember which one, off hand, and if I stop writing to go look it up I will lose my train of thought and not finish this) was great, but his overall input and contributions to the missions inspired very mixed feelings for me. On the one hand, I loved that the narrative, via Loki, is reminding us of all these things that he’s capable of that the films generally left out or brushed aside or ignored - but, every time he spoke, he was met with eye rolls and sighs and just a general feeling of “someone please shut this guy up” and I didn’t like the narrative treating him that way.

But also, it’s understandable bc none of the people on his team are actually on his team. None of them want him there (story of Loki’s fucking life), none of them trust him, and none of them are particularly interested in hearing what he has to say. So it’s like, I understand why they reacted the way they did, and I don’t think their reactions are meant to support an overall narrative undermining of Loki’s skills and input - but, the tone is hard to read for me bc I am very defensive and protective of Loki. I can’t quite determine the line between the TVA agents being unreliable narrators (ie, they’re annoyed by Loki bc of who he is to them, but that doesn’t mean the audience is supposed to feel the same) and the TVA agents validating that Loki is just being a nuisance (and, thus, the audience is supposed to feel the same).

That is, I know how I am consuming the narrative (that they’re unreliable narrators), but I’m not sure if that’s how tptb are intending for me to consume the narrative - and I guess it doesn’t really matter, but it’s worth mentioning.

In general, I really liked, again, Loki existing in his own space and watching the way he carried himself. I especially found it interesting that his hands were almost always in his pockets - for one thing it's a stance I tend to imagine him taking often in fic, but also it’s kind of a weird choice bc pockets don’t seem to be a thing in Asgardian clothing. It makes me feel like Loki is the kind of person who never knows what to do with his hands but is always conscious of them, as is common among anxious and self-conscious people, and I just find that relatable on a weird level.

I am really kinda torn on Mobius in this episode; when not interrogating Loki, he’s much less antagonistic toward Loki and therefore I’m more inclined to take-him-or-leave-him but I’ll go ahead and take him I guess. Yet at the same time, bc he’s not interrogating Loki he’s also not trying to put on a show for Loki and when you take that away, he really doesn’t seem to like Loki at all. It supports that Mobius only wants what Loki can do for him and doesn’t actually particularly care about him as a person, which is fine and more or less what I figured, but it contributes to me not really being able to decide how I feel about him in general. Idk, though, I kinda like their dynamic? Like I want them to end up friends?

Regardless, Tom and Owen have amazing chemistry and it’s really funny to me bc (not to be a jerk) I honestly didn’t know Owen Wilson could act. Like, I’ve never seen him in a role where he wasn’t just playing Owen Wilson. So for him to not only be playing Mobius so well but also having such chemistry and a sense of holding-his-own against Tom Hiddleston is like, color me surprised but pleasantly so.

I like B-15 a lot, even though she obviously hates Loki, so idk why I like her but I do. I like Renslayer less, but meh. (Side note - when I was in undergrad in Syracuse, I took the Amtrak from Syracuse to Boston and back more than a few times, for reasons that aren’t relevant, and that route always had a layover at Albany-Rensselaer and every single time I see Renslayer’s name, I want to call her Rensselaer instead.) Shout out to the guest appearance by Casey, sorry Loki stole your juice lmfao.

The moments from the trailer that were very cringe were less so in context (though still kinda cringe, tbh). I think we’ve seen most of the content from the trailers in the first two episodes now, though, which means going forward, it’s going to be like 95% previously unseen material (aside from the brief apocalyptic shots and so forth).

One thing I fucking loved was how Loki, reading about Ragnarok, was visibly affected and even teared up a bit, and you could tell he was in his feels about it, but then later when Mobius expresses sympathy, Loki is just like, “Uh huh, very sad, but anyway.” It was a subtle (well maybe not that subtle) but effective way to remind us that what Loki presents to other people is more often than not a mask and he keeps his true feelings close to the chest. It makes last week’s breakdown have even more of an impact, I think, bc clearly Loki was at the end of his rope to allow himself to show that much raw emotion and vulnerability, but also - for me - there’s a niggling little doubt there that wasn’t there before, in that there was probably more performance in it than I thought.

By which I mean, I think his reaction to the film of his life when he was alone was genuine but, while I previously thought his admission to Mobius later was also genuine, I now think was probably half genuine and half performative. I know others already figured that out, but I’m a little slow and, also, I don’t mind changing my opinion and interpretation from week to week.

Along the same lines, I wasn’t exactly surprised to see that Loki is “undercover” in the TVA, but it was nice to see it acknowledged fairly quickly. Not sure I buy that Loki wants to overthrow and rule the TVA - it’s still a little too “Loki only wants a throne” for me, but again, just because that’s what he told the variant doesn’t mean that’s actually what he’s after.

And, finally, I like the variant, I love Loki’s reaction to seeing her, and while I realize that the show has acknowledged Loki’s gender fluidity and we’re meant to assume that Lady Loki (I guess? Not sure if we’re going with that or not here) is Loki, I saw a theory somewhere about how this is actually not Loki-Loki, but - I wanna say her name Sophie but that’s the actress, again I can’t go look it up bc I will lose my train of thought - but it’s a character who is similar to Amora and who was created by Loki and models herself as Loki but she’s actually someone else.

Ugh I can’t remember the details of the theory, but I am kinda going with it bc I don’t think that Loki would look so - not surprised but just kind of “oh, well, I wasn’t expecting that” if he were seeing the female version of himself. Like, he doesn’t seem to recognize her the way I assume he would recognize himself, male or female. Not only does that make me feel like she’s actually someone else, but also not recognizing her as the female version of himself doesn’t necessarily mean Loki doesn’t recognize her at all. He may very well recognize her as this other Amora-similar character and, if so, I really want to see how that character fits with MCU Loki (as I think she’s a comic book character but, again, I’d have to go back and find that theory).

Edit: I found a version of it here.

Overall score, B-. Mostly solid, but needs moar Loki breakdowns and tears. (That's just me, don't fucking judge me.) Also, I really hate that we have to wait a week between episodes. I wish they were following Netflix’s method of dropping the entire season at once but, then again, if they did that, I’m not sure any of us would survive.

I gotta get ready for work and I deleted and rewrote so much of this and it still seems nonsensical to me, lmfao fml. Anyway feel free to interact/send me asks/whatever, it’s going to be a long fucking day with all of this on my mind. I’ll be working my way through my dash as best as I can.

Oh, also! Loki is so fucking pretty in this episode! The TVA suit is ugly, but he makes it work, and his hair's combed nicely and he looks like he finally got an opportunity to sleep and shower and eat something and, yknow, it's working for him.

[infinitelytheheartexpands]

My Personal Opinions on Some French Grand Opéras

Here we go. I’ll be focusing solely on pieces in what’s widely considered the “Golden Age” of grand opéra (from 1828 to about 1870).

1828, Auber: La muette de Portici: never seen or heard so I cannot comment, but I do think it slaps that it helped start both the Belgian Revolution and the genre of grand opéra.

1829, Rossini: Guillaume Tell: I love this one. it’s one of the few grand opéras that has a happy ending and it’s fully deserved. it’s long but it all has a point-- the first act introduces us to the community spirit that drives the rest of the action; even though it’s called Guillaume Tell, it’s not just about Guillaume Tell. it’s about a whole movement coming together, with all these vividly-drawn people of different social statuses, ages, heritages, and livelihoods coming together to do good in the world in the face of oppression. also it’s Rossini so it bops start to finish. the finale is one of opera’s best. I could not have higher praise and admiration for this piece.

1831, Meyerbeer: Robert le diable: another rare case of a grand opéra with a happy ending, but it feels a bit more contrived, something I wrote about when I watched it about a year ago for the first time. it’s quite a clever ending, however, and I love that these lovely characters get a happy ending. Robert is the least interesting principal character both musically and dramatically; the musical highlights of the show are mostly Bertram and Isabelle’s big scenes. the former is also arguably grand opéra’s most exciting ballet sequence, the Act III ballet of the nuns (or as I like to call it, the Zombie Nun Ballet). it’s long but it is incredibly worth it. overall, I really do enjoy this opera although it is very much an uneven piece.

1833, Auber: Gustave III, ou le bal masqué: here’s a thing I wrote about it like 3 months ago and I stand by every word.

1835, Halévy: La juive: It’s damn near impossible to find an even remotely close to complete recording. However, what the recordings have is excellent. The score is marvelous all the way through, although for the most part I tend to prefer the ensembles to the arias (the exception, of course, being Éléazar’s 11 o’clock number). Speaking of Éléazar, he’s an extremely complicated and frankly uncomfortable character, toeing the line between being one of opera’s most complex characters, an even more complicated proto-gender-swapped-Azucena if you will, and being an unfortunate vessel of antisemitic stereotypes. This is made even more complicated because Halévy was an assimilated Jewish composer. On the whole, Rachel is the only wholly sympathetic character in the piece, although all five of the principals are lovingly scored. 

1836, Meyerbeer: Les Huguenots: *holds things in because otherwise I would write an entire essay about this opera and you all know that because I have done that several times* Both a great strength and a great weakness of this piece is its sheer wide-ranging-ness, particularly in terms of mood. Unlike, say, La juive, this opera does not have one overall mood, instead steadily progressing from bright, brilliant comedy to one of the most horrifying endings in opera. Dramatically, this is great for the most part, although the sheer amount of exposition in the first two acts may take getting used to. Just as the drama gets more intense and concentrated as the opera goes on, the music gets more intense- and frankly, more often than not better- as the opera goes on. The window/misunderstood engagement business is something I still struggle to see the exact dramatic purpose of, because I think the question of religious difference would likely be enough to separate Raoul and Valentine at the beginning anyway; to me, it feels like Scribe and Deschamps were struggling to find a way to integrate Nevers into the story, as he is crucial to the opera’s lessons about love and tolerance, so they stuck in a quasi-love-triangle in order to justify his presence earlier on. (Also, for goodness sake, could you at least have given him an onstage death scene?) Anyway, in this way the story can be a bit unwieldy and uneven at first, but stay the course with this one...and even a lot of the first couple of acts are wonderful. The characters are all wonderfully written if rather episodic in many cases, but this opera is ambitious and by the end, it’ll tear your heart to shreds. It’s amazing. Uneven, yes, but amazing nonetheless, and I will defend it to the death.

1840, Donizetti: La favorite: I’m not as familiar with La favorite as with some of the others on this list (I’ve seen two different productions once each and I have a recording of it saved to my Spotify library that I listen to bits and pieces of very occasionally) but I do think it’s an excellent piece overall. LÉONOR DESERVED SO MUCH BETTER. The music is lovely all around; I know Donizetti wrote at least one other grand opéra in full and part of another, both of which I need to check out because in its own way, Donizetti’s style works wonderfully with grand opéra.

1841: Halévy, La reine de Chypre: here is a post I wrote about La reine de Chypre. basically all my thoughts remain the same except I have to add: Halévy as a whole just needs more love. there’s a few other of his operas I have waiting (a recording of Le dilettante d’Avignon that has been sitting in my Spotify for who knows how long and a film of Clari with Bartoli and Osborn I’m also sitting on) but there are so many pieces that sound fascinating but have basically ZILCH in terms of recordings.

1849, Meyerbeer: Le prophète: before I say anything else about this opera, I need to ask a burning question: WHY THE HELL IS THERE ONLY ONE GOOD VIDEO RECORDING OF THIS OPERA?!?! on the one hand, I adore the Osborn/Aldrich/Fomina production; on the other, I would also like other productions, please. anyway, I said one time in the opera Discord that while Les Huguenots will probably always be my favorite Meyerbeer opera for an array of reasons, this one is definitely Meyerbeer, Scribe, and Deschamps’ strongest work. it is both unusually dark and unusually believable for an opera of its time—and the fact that it still holds up so well is disturbing to say the least. this opera thrives on complexity in all forms and yet has probably (and paradoxically) the simplest plot to follow of the four Meyerbeer grand opéras. the score is brilliant start to finish, mixing the best of bel canto, Romanticism, and something altogether darker, stranger, and more original. definitely one of the most underrated operas ever. the aforementioned production is on YouTube with French subtitles; give it a watch here.

1855, Verdi: Les vêpres siciliennes: Vêpres is an opera I love dearly although I have yet to find a production that is completely satisfying. I think it’s because this opera is a lot deeper, a lot more complex, and a lot more troubling, frankly, than people are willing to go. also it should be performed bilingually and I am dead-set on this: the dissonance of an opera about French capture of Italian land being sung entirely in either French or Italian is always a little off at least (and also part of the reason why my brain probably adjusted to hearing this opera in either language better than, say, Don Carlos). but anyway, neither side comes off particularly well here, particularly due to the violence and sexual assault on both sides of the equation: both Montfort and Procida are heavily in the wrong, and while Verdi sympathizes with both for personal reasons (Verdian Dad in the former case, Italian Liberator in the latter), there is a lot of troubling stuff in here. nevertheless, the music bops, the story is intriguing, and I think we can all agree that Henri and Hélène both deserved better, especially considering how close they got to bliss (although I think we can also all agree that the end of Act IV twist to almost-rom-com is pretty abrupt).

1863 (full opera: 1890), Berlioz: Les Troyens: I wrote this review of Troyens after watching it in the Châtelet 2003 production in December 2019 (first time ever watching it) and I still stand by just about every word. Such a fascinating opera, great adaptation of the first few books of the Aeneid, marvelous score (of course, it’s Berlioz!)...but could there be a ballet or two fewer, Berlioz? Or at least shorten them up? And that’s coming from someone who likes ballet. But anyway, in every other respect it’s absolutely marvelous. Some people say it’s the greatest French opera ever, and while I hesitate to say that, it comes pretty damn near close.

1865, Meyerbeer: L’Africaine (Vasco de Gama): Vasco da Gama/L’Africaine is even more troubling—much more troubling—of an opera than Vêpres to me and I wrote a whole thing here as to why. I still stand by most of it, although upon reflection, I feel like the ending that drove me so crazy has virtually the exact same idea behind it as the end of Troyens/Book IV of the Aeneid: empire has consequences and those consequences hurt real people, who, though different and not among those perceived as “heroic”, are worthy of being treated as human, not being collateral damage. (I’ve written at least two essays about this for different classes, both specifically in regards to the Aeneid.) It may be time to revisit this one. The score is lovely, after all, although it didn’t stand out to me as much as others by Meyerbeer.

1867, Verdi: Don Carlos: *holds myself back from writing a 10-page essay* y’all, there is a reason that when someone asks me what my favorite opera is, I always choose this one even though I’m horrible at favorites questions. it’s Verdi, grand opéra, romantic drama (SO MUCH romantic drama and SO MUCH gay), political drama, religious/social struggle, personal struggle, social commentary, spectacle, intimacy, masterful characterization all in one. what more could you want? I first saw/heard this opera in Italian long before I did in French, so my brain is more hardwired to hearing the Italian but both are good. my motto is “Italian or French, I don’t care, but Fontainebleau has to be there.” fuck the four-act version. I mean, I will watch four-act versions but five-act versions are just superior. I’d prefer uncut performances (the first part of the garden, the Lacrimosa, the extended opening and ending), but these aren’t dealbreakers for me. it’s the perfect synthesis of Verdi and grand opéra, much less unwieldy than Vêpres (as much I love that one), both musically and dramatically.

1868, Thomas: Hamlet: Part of me wishes this was more faithful to the actual source play (why??? the??? fuck??? does??? Hamlet??? live??? although there are alternate endings), but part of me also realizes that the play is already four hours long as is and singing it plus ballet would make it WAY too fucking long. This does a pretty respectable job. The music is gorgeous, by turns almost sugary-sweet and thrillingly ominous. The Murder of Gonzago scene is an absolute masterpiece. The Mad Scene is justifiably one of opera’s best (although I’m not sure it was a good idea to have that and a frequently-cut 20-minute ballet with no relation whatsoever to the main plot to make up all of Act IV). There are a lot of bops in this one. The four principals are closely followed and still very well-drawn. Both of the stagings I have seen were excellent. An underrated opera.

1869 (grand opéra version), Gounod: Faust: Another of my absolute favorite operas. Since this existed for a decade before its transformation into the grand opéra we all know and love, I won’t comment much about its actual format and adherence to grand opéra tropes aside from saying the Walpurgisnacht ballet is one of grand opéra’s best and extremely good at giving off Vibes TM. I used to hate how the character of Faust was written and thought he was incredibly boring. Not anymore (although of course, I still hate him as a person. fuck him tbh). This opera has a reputation for being saccharine and old-fashioned and I think that’s a bunch of garbage right there. It’s about the search for eternal youth and the expectations of conforming to social values and people’s struggles with themselves when a) they “fall short” and b) when the world ostracizes them for being “different” and “out of line”. I am also firmly convinced that Marguerite is the real protagonist of Faust (like how I’m convinced that Valentine is the protagonist of Les Huguenots if there even is a singular protagonist in that opera but I digress). The music slaps. People need to stop cutting whole scenes out of this. I’m still undecided on the order of the church and square scenes of Act IV. Marguerite and Siébel just need everything good in this world.

Anyway, those are my two cents! I tried to keep these pretty short, so if y’all want any follow-ups, let me know!

[madmaddoxfuryroad]

HSMTMTS: Season 3 thoughts

So I’ve been ruminating a lot about this show today (like every other day) and I got to thinking about what they might do for season 3. Less so plot-wise (I mean season 2 is just over halfway through), but more about what musical they might do, what the cast might be, and how that could tie into the individual characters and their arcs (some more so than others, but c’est la vie).

In trying to figure out what musical they might do, I started first with the obvious: what does Disney own? I don’t think they would return to the HSM franchise (until the final season, but thoughts on that for another day), so anything related to that and other DCOMs I counted out. I also eliminated all Disney animated/princess films. I love them, don’t get me wrong, but seeing as this season they are doing BATB, I don’t think they would immediately go into another animated-film-adapted-for-broadway right after that. So at that point I wasn’t quite sure where to go. Mary Poppins was really the only other thing that came to mind and while I love the film and broadway show I just don’t think it fits the cast well slash even has enough parts to really showcase them. You have Mary and Bert. And then I guess Mr. and Mrs. Banks? Then the kids are a whole other issue. It just felt messy. So I just started thinking about broadway shows that I like, I mean if they wanted to, Disney has the money and could pay for the rights to use most shows. Then everything fell into place.

Into the Woods. I am 100% positive I am letting my bias for this show cloud my judgement, but if you stick with me, I think I can persuade you (or not, your mind is your own and I respect that). First off, Disney owns it. At least I think they do. They made the movie (RIP), so I am going to safely assume they have the rights at this point. Next, yes it contains fairytale elements, which might make you feel it’s a little too close to BATB, but it is such a deconstruction of fairytales and their tropes that I almost feel like it is an amazing follow up to a more traditional fairytale. It introduces conflict and the real world into these fantasy scenarios, which I feel goes really well with high school in general and growing up, expectations being shattered, and learning to alter your world view (I really love this play). Plus, I think it would be exciting to see this cast do a more broadway-type show. Obviously BATB is a broadway show, but I think there is a lot of reliance on knowing the film and less on the play itself. And not going to lie after Julia Lester’s rendition of “Home” last week (which I have not STOPPED listening to) it would be amazing to hear these teens tackle more broadway-style music. Which, takes me to my final point: the cast. What I love so much about Into the Woods is how it is very much an ensemble cast. Yes some roles are bigger than others, but if you have a named character, odds are it’s a fairly good role. And the whole HSMTMTS cast is so talented, I like the idea of them picking a show where it does not feel like anyone is sidelined with their part. Now the only thing left to do is cast it…

FULL disclosure. I ran into an issue early on that I ended up thinking Ashlyn was perfect for every female role and Seb was perfect for every male role. But I was eventually able to push through and cast it (in my humble opinion) pretty well. So I am just going to go off in the order that I cast them, because I think it will help explain my thought process.

THE CAST

Cinderella - Nini. Once I got over my need to hear Julia/Ashlyn sing “No One Is Alone” (loophole to this coming later), this felt like a pretty natural fit and was one of the easiest to cast. For one, I just think Olivia’s vocal range pairs very well with Cinderella’s and she could do beautifully with her songs like “On the Steps Of The Palace”. But what really got me was the way she parallels the character so perfectly. Cinderella is a character who always dreams of more but isn’t quite sure what that “more” is. And because she isn’t *quite* sure what she wants, the character is often seen grappling with indecision (see: “On The Steps Of The Palace”). Most of Act I is her being stagnant and letting the Prince take the active role. Finally in Act II she starts to get a better sense of who she is, who she wants to be, and what she doesn’t want. So this felt like it tied in really nicely with Nini’s journey and would be a great role for her, especially when…

Cinderella’s Prince - Ricky. Yes, yes I know. Ricky and Nini playing love interests? Groundbreaking. But stay with me. For one, I just like the idea of Ricky not getting the lead male role, and this part is perfect for him, regardless. The whole relationship between Cinderella and her Prince mirrors Nini and Ricky remarkably well. The way the Prince sees Cinderella as this perfect maiden who, if he could just be with her, would be the only thing he would ever want/need. But of course this isn’t realistic and isn’t how relationships work, which they both come to terms with by the end of Act II. Their break-up/parting ways scene might be my favorite in the entire play and I think it would be so great for Ricky and Nini to get to perform. In part because the conclusion of the scene is basically them both admitting that they will always love the idea of the other, even though they don’t actually work as a couple. (**I am operating on the assumption that they will have broken up in season 2 and are still broken up, but never really dealt with it). Honestly I recommend just watching the scene I will link it here (it goes from about 2:12:35-2:15:00). Plus, I could totally see there being an episode where they are trying to rehearse this scene, but it just isn’t working so Miss Jenn has both of them improv it or rewrite the lines to something that might feel more comfortable or personal. And I just see that being a really beautiful moment for the two and a chance for growth and closure. I could go on about this dynamic, but I will move on to my final point: “Agony”. First, while it is mostly a comedic song, you can take just the first verse of the song and recontextualize it really nicely as a Ricky pining kind of song, which I absolutely dig (not quitting on my Rina endgame, and you can’t make me) I mean: “If I should lose her, how shall I regain the heart she has won from me? Agony, beyond power of speech, when the one thing you want is the only thing out of your reach”. And BONUS I think we could also get a full-on version of “Agony” in all its absurdist glory with…

Rapunzel’s Prince - EJ. Well, sort of. Technically, no. BUT for the purposes of “Agony”, yes. At this point EJ will have graduated, but I don’t think he will be written out of the show, so it remains to be seen exactly what his place will be. I just think these two 100% need a song together and this is 100% that song. I could see it being something as simple as EJ is helping out with the show, the unnamed kid playing Rapunzel’s Prince is out, so they have EJ fill in. Or they have to have him go on for that kid last minute during the performance. It’s a quick, easily explainable thing that would have SUCH a great payoff.

Jack - Big Red. This was certainly one of the easier ones to cast, but my first thought was of course Seb. Jack is just a boy whose best friend is his cow and Seb radiates that energy. But I needed him for something else. Enter Big Red, the perfect Jack. For one, Big Red has a lot of that starry eyed wonderment that Jack has, that none of the other characters do. There is a purity and innocence to the way Jack sees a lot of things. That pairs nicely with Big Red. And it also opens the door for him to grow and mature more as a character. By the end of the show, Jack is in a place where is needs to transition more to adulthood and with Big Red being a senior by season 3, I think there is a lot of potential here. Also, with Big Red as Jack, I really like the character he is often paired with in scenes, but I will hold back until I get to them.

Witch - Kourtney. Yes. It is her time. One can debate over which character is the “main character” of Into the Woods, but for me it’s the Witch. And Kourtney deserves this. Did I heavily consider Ashlyn for this as well? You know I did. But I grow more and more confident in the casting of Kourtney the more I think about it. First thing’s first: the Witch belts, and I mean BELTS. Dara is such a powerhouse vocally that she would crush every moment of that; I have total faith. But the Witch also has such quiet and tender moments that people don’t think about as much, but are so necessary for the character to be effective and I think she also has that on lock. We have not seen a ton of it (so I would be eager to get more) but when she did her version of “Beauty and the Beast” she was able to find soft but strong moments in the song, and it was so lovely. Then, from a more thematic POV, the Witch is characterized as “the voice of reason”. While everyone else is running around in their fairytale dream world, she is always the one there dolling out the reality checks. And if that ain’t Kourtney. Basically, I think it is her time to get the lead and she would be amazing in this role.

Baker - Seb. Finally settled on a role for him. But really, how could it be anything else? I have felt since the first time we heard him sing (in Truth, Justice, and Songs in our Key, I think) that he was severely underused. The Baker is essentially the male lead, and he has earned it. I don’t think there’s much more that needs to be said here.

Baker’s Wife - Ashlyn. Here’s the thing: could someone else be cast as Baker’s Wife? Yes. And I am sure they would do a fine job. But the thing about this role is that you often don’t realize how fantastic it is until you see someone really great playing it. There’s heart, humor, tragedy, and so much more all wrapped into this character and I would far and away trust Julia/Ashlyn with this above all others. And Baker’s Wife gets to sing a short reprise of “No One Is Alone” so I get to win both ways. No matter how I try to cast it or rearrange characters, I keep coming back to the fact that Ashlyn is just hands down the correct choice. Plus she is one of the better options when it comes to having chemistry with Seb. And I’m not even talking about romantic chemistry, just more about the camaraderie of it, and being able to really see them as a team worth rooting for. They both have an inherent sweetness that makes you care for them, which is crucial for the show. AND this would be another opportunity for Julia Lester to flex her acting after playing VERY different roles in HSM and BATB. Basically, I don’t know when it happened, but I think I am a Julia Lester stan and I only want what is best for her and I think this is it. 

Little Red - Gina. “Didn’t see that one coming did you?” -Pietro Maximoff. And honestly same. There’s always that tough moment in casting when you’ve done the more obvious ones and then you feel sort of stuck with cast choices that weren’t really your choice. But this one really grew on me. Hopefully, I can do it justice. And I will be the first to admit Gina deserves her time to shine because I do think she is amazing. It just isn’t her time yet. It also doesn’t help that Into the Woods is one of the LEAST dance-centered shows and dance it where she really puts all others to shame. So this is where we landed. But it works. I promise. Little Red as a character is pretty naïve, but covers it up with over the top confidence. That feels pretty Gina. I love where her character has gone and all the growth she is displayed in trying to be more vulnerable. But there is still a part of me that does miss mean girl Gina and I think Little Red is a great way to get that energy without backtracking the character development. I don’t think she would be the stereotypical “bratty” Little Red, but I think she could still do something great with it. Also very similar to Jack, Little Red is one of the more innocent characters that has to grow up and face a lot of harsh realities over the course of the play. And I have no doubt Gina would nail that aspect of it, too. And speaking of Jack, Little Red has a number of scenes interacting with him and you know what that means: Gina and Big Red bonding time! I really like the idea of these roles bringing the two closer as friends. And I already head-canon that they would have a ton of fun playing with the fact that they are now Big Red and Little Red (especially since he is on the shorter side and she is on the taller side). Basically I see this as a way for them to build up a really good rapport. I am also pretty convinced that Big Red is a secret Rina shipper, and this would only add to that. And finally even though this is not a dance-heavy show at all, one place where they could add a dance is during “Hello Little Girl”. Now I will be the first to admit that this song is dicey at best, particularly for Disney. But even a scene working on the dance with just the instrumental, no lyrics, could be great. I see it as a partner dance with the wolf (I don’t know dance terms, so maybe this is super vague). And oh, wouldn’t you know it? Cinderella’s Prince is often double-cast as the wolf! (WHAT ARE THE CHANCES) Meaning the Wolf would also be good ol’ Richard Bowen. And I like the idea of getting Rina scenes of them trying to work on the dance, but Ricky is super bad a leading, and they just have fun trying to figure it out. It’s also nice that it is absolutely not a romantic dance so the two wouldn’t feel any added pressure and could just have fun with one another, and that really is when Rina is at its best (not that I would say no to a scene where Gina has to teach Ricky the BATB waltz, but I digress).

Narrator/Mysterious Man - Carlos. By process of elimination, you probably could have guessed who was next. And I know this one also feels like a weird choice but I do kind of love it. First you have the narrator, which is another one of those roles that is only as memorable as the actor playing it, which I think is right up Carlos’ alley. He is always trying to put his unique stamp on things and be memorable and he would take the narrator in a very enjoyable direction. There’s also the matter that I see Carlos as something of an assistant director with Miss Jenn, which makes him a third-party observer of the shows inherently, so it is almost a little meta that he would also end up being the narrator. Then there’s is the mysterious man. I love the idea of Carlos getting to play two very different characters, but I love it even more because the mysterious man is the father of the baker which makes for a lot of sweet moments between the two of them. Yes it might be a little weird for Seblos to be playing father and son, but there is such a vulnerability and tenderness in the moments between the two characters, particularly during “No More” that I can get over it. Because I think they are one of the few pairings on this show that could really pull that off. I just think this character would be a great way to exhibit the range of Carlos.

**BONUS ALTERNATE CASTING**

I really, really love this idea and could not fault them if this was the direction they went, but I ultimately decided against it, mostly because I felt too strongly about another character having the role BUT:

Baker’s Husband - Carlos. I just really love the idea of Seblos getting to be front and center, with their dynamic as the focal point of the show. And honestly Carlos would also do an amazing job as this character. I mean, Seb and Carlos singing “It Takes Two”? How sweet is that? This would also be a great way for the development of their relationship to get a little bit more attention, instead of a side story here and there. There is a lot that could be done with this from a story perspective and I would be here for it.

Unfortunately, then that leaves me unsure of where to put Ashlyn. She could be Jack’s mother, but that feels like such a waste of her. I mean, she would do well and she does have the lead this year, so it’s not SO terrible her having a more minor character, but it just doesn’t feel right. And I really just feel so strongly that she would be the best option for Baker’s Wife out of everyone. And it opens the door to develop the Seb and Ashlyn friendship more, which I am always here for. 

Anyway. Those are my thoughts. If you made it this far: wow and thank you!

[beastars-takes]

Zootopia Takes: Darker’s Not Better

The Shock Collar Draft

So, it sounds like people are largely positive on me doing some Zootopia posts on this blog, and I wanted to talk about this tweet I saw the other day:

I’ll punt on explaining why Beastars isn’t “Dark Zootopia”--that’s a great topic for another post. But I would like to talk about why this popular yet stridently uninformed tweet is so, so wrong. Why the shock collar draft was not better, actually.

And obviously, I’m not writing several pages in reply to a single tweet--this is a take that’s been around since the movie came out, that the “original version was better.” It’s been wrong the whole time.

Let’s talk about why!

Part 1: “Because Disney”

Let’s start with this--the assumption that the film’s creators wanted to make this shock collar story and “Disney” told them to change it.

That’s not how it works.

I try to keep stuff about me out of these posts as much as possible, but just for a bit of background, I’ve worked in the animation industry for about half a decade. I know people at Disney. I have a reasonable idea of how things are there.

There is this misconception about creative industries that they’re constantly this pitched battle of wills between creative auteurs trying to make incredible art and ignorant corporate suits trying to repress them.

That can happen, especially in dysfunctional studios (and boy could I tell some stories) but Walt Disney Animation Studios is not dysfunctional. It’s one of the most autonomous and well-treated parts of the Disney Company.

The director of Zootopia, Byron Howard, isn’t an edgelord. He made Bolt and Tangled. He knows what his audience is, and he’s responsible enough not to spend a year (and millions of dollars in budget) developing a grimdark Don Bluth story that leadership would never approve. It wouldn’t just be a waste of time--he would be endangering the livelihoods of the hundreds of people working under him. Meanwhile, Disney Animation’s corporate leadership trusts their talent. They don’t generally interfere with story development because they don’t need to. Because they employ people like Byron Howard.

Howard and the other creative leads of Zootopia have said a dozen times, in interviews and documentaries, that they gave up on the shock collar idea because it wasn’t working. They’ve explained their reasoning in detail. Maybe they’re leaving out some of the story, but in general? I believe them.

But Beastars Takes, you say, maybe even if Disney didn’t force them to back away from this darker version, it still would have been better?

Part 2: Why Shock Collars Seem Good

I will say this--I completely sympathize with people who see these storyboards and scenes from earlier versions of the movie and think “this seems amazing.” It does! A lot of these drawings and shots are heartbreakingly good, in isolation.

I love these boards. They make me want to cry. I literally have this drawing framed on my wall. Believe me, I get it.

But the only reason we care this much about this alternative draft of Zootopia is that the Zootopia we got made us love this world and these characters. You know what actually made me cry?

Oh, yeah.

So let’s set aside the astonishing hubris of insisting Zootopia’s story team abandoned the “good” version of the story, when the “bad version” is the most critically-acclaimed Disney animated feature in the past SIXTY YEARS.

“But Beastars Takes!” I hear you say. “Critics are idiots and just because something’s popular doesn’t make it good!”

Fair enough. Let’s talk about why the real movie is better.

Part 3: The Message (it is, in fact, like a jungle sometimes)

This type of thing is always hard to discuss, in the main--a lot of people don’t want to feel criticized or “called out” by the entertainment they consume, and they don’t want to be asked to think about their moral responsibilities. But it’s hard to deny that Zootopia is a movie with a strong point of view. Everything else--the characters, the worldbuilding, the plot, grows out from the movie’s central statement about bias.

And the movie we got, with no shock collars, makes that statement far more effectively.

To dive into the full scope of Zootopia’s worldview and politics (warts and all) would be a whole post on its own, so I’ll just summarize the key point of relevance here:

Zootopia's moral message is that you, the viewer, need to confront your own biases. Not yell at someone else. No matter how much of a good or progressive person you consider yourself to be--if you want to stand against prejudice you have to start with yourself.

That’s a tough sell! For that message to land, we need to see ourselves in the protagonist.

Judy’s a good person! She argues with her dad about foxes. She knows predators aren’t all dangerous. She’s not speciesist. Right?

Ah fuck.

Let’s fast-forward to the pivotal scene of this movie. In an unfortunate but inevitable confluence of circumstances, Judy’s own biases and prejudiced assumptions come out, and she shits the bad.

Nick, who’s already bared his soul to her (against his better instincts), is heartbroken. But not as heartbroken as he is a minute later when he tries to confront her about what she’s said, and she makes this face:

Whaaaat? Come on, Nick. I’m a good person. Why are you giving me a hard time?

People like to complain about this scene. That it’s a hackneyed “misunderstanding” trope that could be easily resolved with a discussion. They’re wrong. Nick tries to have a discussion. She blows him off.

This isn’t Judy acting out of character, this is her character. Someone who identifies as Not A Racist, and hasn’t given the issue any more thought. This is not only completely believable characterization (who hasn’t seen someone react this way when you told them they hurt you?) it’s the film’s central thesis!

Yes, Nick somewhat provokes her into reaching for her “fox spray,” and her own trauma factors in there, but she’s already made her fatal mistake before that happens.

(As an aside, people also make the criticism that the movie unrealistically deflects responsibility for racism onto Bellwether and her plot. It doesn’t. All the key expressions of prejudice in the film--Judy’s encounter with Gideon, her parents’ warnings, the elephant in the ice cream shop, Judy’s early encounters with Bogo, Judy's views on race science--exist largely outside of Bellwether’s influence. She is a demagogue who inflames existing tensions, she didn’t invent them. Bogo literally says “the world has always been broken.”)

So, anyway. But we love Judy. She’s an angel. She also kinda sucks! She’s proudly unprejudiced, and when her own prejudice is pointed out to her she argues and doesn’t take it seriously. This is bad, but it’s also a very human reaction. It’s one most of us have probably been guilty of at one point or another.

Look at Zootopia’s society, too--it’s shiny and cosmopolitan, seemingly idyllic. Anyone can be anything, on paper. But scratch too deep beneath the surface and there’s a lot of pain and resentment here, things nobody respectable would say in public but come out behind closed doors, or among family, when nobody’s watching. It’s entirely recognizable--at least to me, someone who lives in a large liberal city in the United States. Like Byron Howard.

Wow, this place is a paradise!

Wait, what’s a “NIMBY”?

Part 4: Why Shock Collars Are Bad

So, with the film’s conceit established, let’s circle back to the shock collar idea. Like I said, it’s heartbreaking. It’s dramatic. It’s affective.

It also teaches us nothing.

If I see a movie where predator animals are subjected to 24/7 electroshock therapy, I don’t think “wow, this makes me want to think about how I could do better by the people around me.” I think “damn that shit’s crazy lmao. that’d be fucked up if that happened.” At a stretch, it reminds me of something like the Jim Crow era, or the Shoah. You know, stuff in the Past. Stuff we’ve all decided couldn’t ever happen again, so why worry about it?

The directors have said this exact thing, just politely. “It didn’t feel contemporary,” they say in pressers. That’s what it means.

If anything, the shock collar draft reifies the mindset that Zootopia is trying to reject--it shows us that discrimination is blatant, and dramatic, and flagrantly cruel, and impossible to miss.

And...that’s not true. If you only look for bias at its most malicious and evil, you’re going to miss the other 95 percent.

The messaging of this “darker version” is--ironically--less mature, less insightful, less intelligent. Less useful. Darker’s not better.

Part 5: Why Shock Collars Are Still Bad

So what if you don’t care about the message? What if you have no interest in self-reflection, or critical analysis (why are you reading this blog then lmao)? What if you just really want to hear a fun story about talking animals?

Well, this is trickier, because the remaining reasons are pretty subjective and emotional.

The creators have said that the shock collar version didn’t work because the viewers hated the cruel world they’d created. They agreed with Nick--the city was beyond saving. They didn’t want to save it.

The creators have said that Judy was hard to sympathize with, not being able to recognize the shock collars for the obvious cruelty they were.

Fuck you, Judy!

But we haven’t seen the draft copies. We haven’t watched the animatics. We have to take their word for it. Anyone who’s sufficiently invested in this story is going to say “well, I disagree with them.” It doesn’t matter to them that they haven’t seen the draft and the filmmakers have. The movie they’ve imagined is great and nobody is going to convince them otherwise.

But the fact remains that the shock collar movie, as written, did not work. And, if behind the scenes material is to be believed, it continued to not work after months and months of story doctoring.

There’s even been a webcomic made out of the dystopian version of Zootopia. It’s clever and creative and well-written and entertaining and...it kind of falls apart. The creator, after more than a little shit-talk directed at Disney, abandoned the story before reaching the conclusion, but even before then the seams were beginning to show. How do you take a society that’s okay with electrocuting cute animals and bring it to a point of cathartic redemption? You can’t, really. The story doesn’t work.

Does that mean people shouldn’t make fanworks out of the cut material? That they shouldn’t be inspired and excited by it? Hell no. This drawing is cute as hell. The ideas are compelling.

But I suppose what I’d ask of you all is--if you’re weighing the hot takes of art students on Twitter against the explanations of veteran filmmakers, consider that the latter group might actually know what they’re talking about.

See you next time!

[galiifreyrose]

Ok I’m halfway through Shadow & Bone and I am LIVING for this show, first off, I’m really really enjoying it but I have THINGS I need to SAY!!!!!

Spoilers below the cut for episodes 1-4

Oh man where do I begin. 

I have so many good things to say.

- The cast is amazing. Everyone TRULY understands their characters and encapsulates the entire book’s worth of characterization in just the way they carry themselves, the microexpressions, everything. Genya, Nina, Jesper, and Baghra all really stand out amongst the “side” cast to me as just... stellar. Beyond stellar. 

- It’s so close to what I pictured that I could cry tbh it’s a JOY to see this play out on a 55″ screen

- The Crows’ prequel story is rEALLY FREAKIN CLEVER in my book. I think it’s a genius way to blend canon and new content and turn it into something new and exciting. That scene with crossing the Fold in a goddamn train?? Inspired. I didn’t know I wanted to see Jesper shoot a Volcra in the face but goddamn am I glad I got to witness it

- Especially in ep 4, I’m so impressed with the editing and the subtle acting, to weave Alina’s loss of faith in Mal in without just hitting you with tons of exposition. I truly enjoyed watching it from a film standpoint

Now I’m going to launch into my rambles mainly around how much simply can’t be conveyed from the book and some Narrative Drama Feelings:

One thing I’ve really noticed is how much I do lean on my knowledge of the book canon. Without KNOWING everything that’s going on in the Shadow & Bone trilogy, I feel like a lot of the weightiness is lost. For example, Alina’s relationship with the Darkling, and all of the inner turmoil that comes with it. All of her internal monologue around Mal, and losing faith in him. The small scenes spent in the Little Palace adjusting. They do as much as they can, but I find myself wanting to re-read the books already.

Now, I personally love the Darklina ship. I know I don’t NEED to explain myself, but I will - because I started shipping it before it was revealed he was the villain, and also because I absolutely love exploring both Alina’s morally gray area as well as his last shreds of humanity, and what could be salvaged, what a redemption could even begin to look like. It’s written to be a polarizing, fascinating relationship, and it is.

HOWEVER! I really, really like how they’ve written Mal in the TV series. I feel like I like him more because I get to see more of his happy, goofy, loving moments. With the flashbacks, with his interactions with other people. Not to say I didn’t like him before, but somehow he’s much more relatable and lovable in the way they’ve done this on TV. 

Now... what kills me is how much time they’re spending on that freakin field flashback scene to Mal and Alina’s childhood, and how much they’re SLEEPING on all the times Alina and the Darkling spend together. Because the bond the latter develop over the course of the books is what MAKES his big reveal and betrayal so good. I think they’ve done a good job setting him up as a confidant, and someone who cares, and given him the stakes of wanting to reverse the curse of his forefathers, but my lord you could have done SO MUCH MORE with the time allotted. I would love to see a whole extra episode! I don’t know! Just more screentime please! And I don’t even say this because hurr hurr I ship it, it’s because it’s what gives so much of the story weight - to have Alina torn between Mal and the Darkling.

It really sings for me at the end of ep 4, when she’s having Genya tailor off the scar and looking at the black kefta, while Mal is narrating a letter to her. I think that juxtaposition of scenes works really well, and they capture a lot of Alina’s internal monologue without actually saying a word. HOWEVER. If you haven’t read the books, sooo much of the emotional gravitas is lost. As is true of any adaption I suppose.

Related, let’s talk about Jessie Mei Li’s facial acting!! My god!! I need to gif it but the conflict, the hope, the intrigue, the fear, the slightly-smitten look on her face all at once when she meets the Darkling in the map room - it’s flawless. She captures EVERYTHING Alina is thinking all at once with that array of expressions and frankly, where’s her oscar. She’s so incredible.

I feel badly because all I’m doing is picking apart things I don’t like but whatever - I also wish so badly they hadn’t revealed the Darkling’s name so early. Because I remember that scene in Siege and Storm:

The Darkling responds simply that he needed to ensure her loyalty, then moves on to talk about Nikolai and Mal, trying to provoke Alina. She asks why he has such disdain for otkazat’sya, and the Darkling replies by asking her what she thinks will happen to her when Nikolai grows old and dies and she remains young, how people will treat her once those who remembered her sacrifices were long dead and buried. Alina realizes that she never thought about it that way before, of how long her life will be and what it might mean to live so long. He tells Alina that she was meant to be his balance, the one who could rule with him and keep him in check, but Alina asks who will do the same for her, pointing out that she might end up just like him. The Darkling is surprised by her answer, but instead of pushing the issue, he tells her his real name, Aleksander, and asks her to say it. The word on Alina’s lips draws them both together, and the Darkling urges her to let him go further, but when she rebuffs him he turns angry and sour, and informs her that he is planning to cross the Fold and attack West Ravka. He claims that David left “secrets” behind at the Little Palace and that after he destroys Nikolai’s only ally he will hunt Alina down like an animal.

YOU MEAN TO TELL ME. THAT YOU WENT AND SHREDDED UP MY FAVORITE SCENE IN LIKE, THE ENTIRE SERIES, JUST SO YOU CAN HAVE HER CALL HIM IT CASUALLY BY EPISODE FOUR??? So I’m. I’m bitter about this. Not even as a shipper, but as a lover of dramatic stakes in a story.

Ok. That’s my take on the first four episodes. I’m really enjoying it and I can’t wait to watch more. For what it is... it’s amazing. And I’m really, really happy with it and so thankful they haven’t massacred it on screen lol