#this was a good interview for him otherwise! love seeing him delve into character and talk more than just the usual in ring yelling

[solosikoasgf]

solo sikoa on wwe's the bump

[mermaidsirennikita]

We need the full lashings against the margarita show

Honestly, I don't have much new to say except that it's actually such a bummer to see a book I love this much be turned into not only a bad adaptation, but a bad show. If it made a lot of changes but was well-written and created, I'd get over it. One example of an adaptation of a book I enjoyed that was a bad adaptation but a good movie is A Simple Favor--it's really not all that much like the book and has a totally different ending, but tbh? The stylistic choices made it better. This can be done. Interview with the Vampire (the show) changed a lot of things about the source material--the time period, Louis and Claudia's race and origins, a lot about Daniel, the explicit sexuality and romance of Louis and Lestat's relationship--but it honestly, for the most part, elevated the story.

But this is like... legitimately a super weak show. I've actually never experienced this before lol. Most of the books I truly love love love don't get turned into shows or movies, and those that have I'm usually pretty happy with. This is new for me!

(Also, wasn't Nicky an Italian prince in the book? This is such a non-issue, but I feel like random Italian royalty~ is way more believable than random Irish royalty. For fuck's sake, a Borghese "prince" was on THE BACHELOR. Beverly d'Angelo was married to an Italian prince. They're not that hard to find. WHERE ARE THESE IRISH PRINCES??)

Special callouts for the latest batch include:

--the "I don't regret that dress", an objectively cool, punchy line that absolutely sums up Daisy's character--a woman who's lived hard and wild and is aware that she's messy and feels bad about some things but also objectively enjoys certain aspects of living hard and perhaps misses them--getting flipped into "I don't regret that day". LOL. WHAT WAS THE REASON. That's what I don't get about so many adaptational choices. There's no fucking reason. No reason at all. It really feels, sometimes, that they want Daisy to be more approachable and everygirl when the point of her appeal is that she isn't approachable and everygirl. You aren't supposed to identify with Daisy; you're supposed to admire her, want to be her, and then realize that there is a catch to being as cool as Daisy. You also have to commit to being as fucked as she is.

--Simone's queer disco queen subplot was legitimately one of the most interesting things the show has given (the song was one of the better ones too, even if the lyrics were... still rough....) but ultimately, she still exists to go save Daisy and that sucks. Honestly surprised the show didn't replace Simone going there with more DaisyBilly fanservice. There's a lot the show sort of skirted around about Simone wanting to be successful as easily as Daisy, a privileged white woman, could be; how much she wanted to be open with her own truly committed lesbian relationship the way Daisy could be about her fly by night straight marriage. But rather than delving deep, we have Daisy literally going "IT'S LIKE YOU'RE IN LOVE WITH ME OR SOMETHING" a la Regina George.

And if Daisy had been sympathetic versus obnoxious up until this moment, if we'd had real investment in that friendship, I think it could've read as a slap in the face. Like "oh wow, this woman who seems cool and chill and impossibly chic is actually a fucking messy drug addict who, like many addicts, says ridiculously gross, fucked up shit in a moment, she is cool and she is chic and she is talented but she has a serious ugly side", which is something I think... Let's give an example. A Star Is Born (2019)! Did well. Yeah, you could make jokes about Jackson Maine pissing his pants, but to ME, the moment that rang as "oh this is ugly, even though he's been so lovely otherwise" is when he, while shitfaced and jealous, calls his wife, who he knows is insecure about her looks, ugly to her face. While she's naked in front of him. That scene, after you watch how loving and tender he is, even while fucked up, reads as a harsh slap. It's very realistic, if you've been around people who are otherwise loving and amazing, who struggle with addiction. They do that shit. It hurts. It doesn't necessarily invalidate who they are when they're in better places; which makes it hurt more.

Daisy has been so fucking obnoxious when she's... Sober? High but reading sober because the show hasn't gone in on how much of an addict Daisy is and their version of "functional heavy drug user" is "basically sober, maybe a little stoned"? That this moment just read as more of Daisy being obnoxious. Plus, a lot of this agency is taken from Daisy's hands, and we're told that Nicky is manipulating her. The thing is that Nicky was a total symptom in the book--he was a symptom of Daisy's addiction issues, her mental health problems, and her damage with Billy. He was not a cause. He may not have encouraged her to get better, he may have sped up some escalation, but honestly? Daisy was already a pretty fucking messy person before marrying him. Daisy was already showing up high and drinking throughout the day. She handled it worse on the tour, but a lot of that was touring and having to be around Billy while being in love with him and rejected by him. The show, imo, has done such a poor job of portraying the extent of Daisy's issues that it feels like they suddenly RAMP UP in these episodes, when in fact Daisy had always been an addict with PROBLEMS PROBLEMS, which is! A huge reason! Why Billy can't be with her. The show boils a lot of that down to Camila v. Daisy, and while Billy's love for Camila (and his kids) was a major roadblock... It's possible that if Billy and Daisy had met while he was married to Camila but without the addiction issue in hand? Maybe things would've been different. I don't know. Maybe. But Billy also literally wanted to be alive and a present father, and he could've done that had he and Camila broken up, but he couldn't have done that had he relapsed.

--I found the "Daisy in the shower with Billy" scene so funny. It was just so... corny. Like, this literally reads as bad fanfic. Camila is shuttled off to the side, barely present and mostly dealing with a guy who she isn't into. Billy is holding Daisy and going "LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME! NOAH THIS ISN'T YOU". It's so unbelievably corny. Billy in the book would've been wrecked about Daisy almost dying and then sublimated that by keeping his distance and then showing up to be like ".... so was it worth it? Almost dying for a bump" and then they would've either been completely cold or had some massive blowup about a song.

Similarly, the way Billy and Daisy fight on this show is so contrived lmao. A lot of the way they fought in the book was similar to how they expressed their love; the love was conveyed in lyrics and performance. The anger was conveyed into conflict about the music, which the show sorta does but it also has them getting up in each other's face to scream about Nicky, and it seems like they are BEGGING you to believe in the chemistry and I.... don't.

--The downplaying of Camila is very sad, and I find it endlessly hilarious that the show is all "pat us on the back, we champion diversity by having Simone go from The Black Best Friend to The Black Best Friend with a Minor Subplot, also Billy's Latina wife is going to be more complacent and mostly just sad about his cheating and probably die sooner also".

Again I say, as Warren and Camila speak Spanish to each other and Eddie gives us his best Nice Guy... If we were going to give Camila full affair.............. why not have it be Warren......

--Karen just announcing her relationship with Graham, which was a full secret in the book even decades later, in order to prop up Graham's ego.................. truly wild. Lol so much of Karen on the show is about male ego, it's ridiculous.

[itsclydebitches]

I keep seeing people calling Good Omens queer bating and a I can't help but ask why? I read the Aziraphale/Crowley relationship threw an Ace lens and they are clearly as close to married as they are probably going to get without stepping on holy ground.... and they love each other... why is it considered queer bating?

Personally, I think it's mostly young queer fans turning legitimate grievances on the wrong target. A case of getting so fed up with queerbaiting in media as a whole that they're instinctually lashing out at anything that seems to resembles it on the surface, without taking the time to consider whether this is, in fact, the thing they're mad at. Good Omens is a scapegoat, if you will. The equivalent of snapping at your partner after a long day. Your friend was an asshole, your boss was an asshole, the guy in traffic was an asshole, and then you come home to your partner who says something teasing and you take it as another asshole comment because you've just been surrounded by assholeness all day, to the point where your brain is primed to see an attack. Your partner wasn't actually an asshole, but by this point you're (understandably) too on guard to realize that. Unless someone sits you down and kindly reminds you of the difference between playful teasing and a legitimate insult - the nuance, if you will - your hackles are just gonna stay up and you'll leave the room, off to phone a different friend to tell them all about how your partner was definitely an asshole to you.

Only in this case, that "friend" is a fan on social media doing think pieces on the supposed queerbaiting of Good Omens, spreading that idea to a) people who aren't familiar with the show themselves and b) those who, like that original fan, have come to expect queerbaiting and thus aren't inclined to question the latest story with that mark leveled against it. Because on the surface Good Omens can look a lot like queerbaiting. Here are two queer coded characters who clearly love each other, but don't say "I love you," don't kiss, don't "prove" that love in a particular way. So Gaiman is just leading everyone on, right?

Well... no. This is where the nuance comes in, the thing that many fans aren't interested in grappling with (because, like it or not, media is not made up of black and white categories; queerbaited and not-queerbaited. Supernatural's finale is proof enough of that...) I won't delve into the most detailed explanation here, but suffice to say:

Gaiman has straight up said it's a love story. He's just not giving them concrete labels like "gay" or "bi" or "asexual," etc. because they are literally not human. Gaiman has subscribed to an inclusive viewpoint in an era where fans are desperate for unambiguous rep that homophobes cannot possibly deny. The freedom to prioritize any interpretation - yes, including a "just friends" interpretation - now, in 2021, feels like a cop-out. However, in this case it's an act of world building (they are an angel and a demon, not bound by human understanding of identity) meeting a genuine desire to make these characters relatable to the entire queer community, not just particular subsets. Gaiman has said they can be whatever we want because the gender, sexuality, and romantic attraction of an angel and a demon is totally up for debate! However, some fans have interpreted that as a dismissal of canonical queerness; the idea that fans can pretend they're whatever they want... but it's definitely not canon. It is though. Them being queer is 100% canon, it's just up to us to decide what kind of queer they are. This isn't Gaiman stringing audiences along, it's him opening the relationship up to all queer possibilities.

We know he's not stringing us along (queerbaiting) because up until just a few days ago season two didn't exist. Queerbaiting is a deliberate strategy to maintain an audience. A miniseries does not need to maintain its audience. You binge it in one go and you're done, no coming back next year required. The announcement for season two doesn't erase that context for season one. No one knew there would be more content and thus the idea that they would implement a strategy designed to keep viewers hooked due to the hope for a queer relationship (with no intent to follow through) is... silly.

In addition, this interpretive, queer relationship between Crowley and Aziraphale existed in the book thirty years ago. Many fans are not considering the difference between creating a totally new story in 2019 and faithfully adapting a story from 1990 in 2019. Good Omens as representation meant something very different back then and that absolutely impacts how we see its adaptation onto the small screen. To put this into perspective, Rowling made HUGE waves when she revealed that she "thought of" Dumbledore as gay in an interview... in 2007. Compare that to the intense coding 17 years before. Gaiman was - and still is - pushing boundaries.

Which includes being an established ally, particularly in his comics. Queerbaiting isn't just the act of a single work, but the way an author approaches their work. Gaiman does not (to my knowledge) have that mark against him and even if he did, he's done enough other work to offset that.

Finally, we've got other, practical issues like: how do you represent asexuality on the screen? How do you show an absence of something? Yeah, one or both of them could claim that label in the show, outright saying, "I'm asexual," but again, Gaimain isn't looking to box his mythological figures into a single identity. So if we want that rep... we have to grapple with the fact that this is one option for what it looks like.

Even if he did want to narrow the representation down to just a few identities for the show, should Gaiman really be making those major changes when he's only one half of the author team? Pratchett has, sadly, passed on and thus obviously has no say in whether his characters undergo such revisions. Even if fans hate every other argument, they should understand that, out of respect, Good Omens is going to largely remain the same story it was 30 years ago.

And those 6,000 years are just the beginning! Again, this was meant to be a miniseries of a single novel, a novel that, crucially, covered only Crowley and Aziraphale's triumph in being able to love one another freely. That's a part of their personal journey. Yeah, they've been together in one sense for 6,000 years, but that was always with hell and heaven on their backs, to say nothing of the slow-burn approach towards acknowledging that love, for Aziraphale in particular. We end the story at the start of their new relationship, one that is more free and open than it ever was before. They can be anything to one another now! The fact that we don't see that isn't a deliberate attempt on the author's part to deny us that representation, but only a result of the story ending.

So yeah, there's a lot to consider and, frankly, I don't think those fans are considering it. Which on a purely emotional level I can understand. I'm pissed about queerbaiting too and the knee-jerk desire to reject anything that doesn't meet a specific standard is understandable. But understandable doesn't mean we don't have to work against that instinct because doing otherwise is harmful in the long run. We need to consider when stories were published and what representation meant back then. We need to consider how we adapt those stories for a modern audience. We need to acknowledge that if we want the inclusivity that "queer" provides us, that includes getting characters whose identity is not strictly defined by the author as well as characters with overtly canonical labels. We need both. We likewise need to be careful about when having higher standards ends up hurting the wrong authors - who are our imperfect allies vs. those straight up unwilling to embrace our community at all? And most importantly, we have to think about how we're using the terms we've developed to discuss these issues. Queerbaiting means something specific and applying it to Good Omens not only does Good Omens a disservice, but it undermines the intended meaning of "queerbaiting," making it harder to use correctly in the future. Good Omens is not queerbaiting and trying to claim it is only hurts the community those fans are speaking up for.

[fawad-khan]

professor ‘fuck me a lot’

A/N: so tom in that esquire interview and that instagram story did things to me ajhsuifhf so here we are! also this is my first professor tom fic hehe. beta read by the lovely @parkerpeter24​ (title credit goes to her too XD)

Masterlist

Pairing- professor!tom holland x student!reader

Warning- smut, thigh riding,swearing, unprotected sex, teacher-student relationship(?), wrap it before you tap it! (all characters are 18+ btw)

Word Count- 3.4k+

Summary- you catch tom in a compromising position.

Thomas Stanley Holland, the new professor was the talk of every single student in the college. He was young, and very smart and knew his subjects well. He had a way with his teaching that made everyone’s ear perk up and pay attention to whatever he was teaching. Everyone was impressed by how he taught from a different perspective, in the sense that he not just gave a lecture, he explained in such a way that each person could visualise and convert the picture into their own words.

He was also very undeniably  attractive. He had attractive features. His chocolate brown dolomite eyes, soft looking lush brown hair, pink kissable lips that so many girls (and even some guys) dreamt of kissing over and over again, desirable cheekbones and the suits he wore for his lectures made him look so fine, drawing attention and he somehow managed to pull you towards him as well.

As if his looks weren’t enough, it was also his voice, and how it sounded like music to your ears. He certainly had a way with his words. Many times you had yourself what would it be like to have that same voice whisper dirty things in your ears. You remember the day he stepped into the classroom on his first day of teaching you.

"Hello everyone, my name is Tom Holland, and I will be teaching you literature from today onwards. I can see lots of bright faces here," he gazed around the room as he continued, "now, before we get started I would like to get everyone's names and just ask some questions in general, that is what we will do first. So why don't we start with," he took a list from his desk and called out a few names, who stood up and introduced themselves.

"(Y/n) (l/n)?" You heard your name being called out. You got up and politely introduced yourself. 

"I actually have a very good report on you here, miss (y/n). Are you that interested in literature? And please sit down if you want." He beamed, but you continued to stand anyway, admiring him already.

"Well, actually I have really been fond of reading lots of books since childhood and always had a hobby of writing small stories and poems and such for the school part so I guess that is how I realized I wanted to delve further into the subject."

"Well I must say, that's very impressive. And do you have any plans after you complete and procure your bachelor's degree?"

"Actually yeah, I have dreamt of being a writer so I would very much like to succeed in that. Otherwise, being a college professor is another option, where I'd love to teach about various literature works."

"That is very good, miss (y/n). Well that is all for now and I'm looking forward to teaching all of you, you all seem like very talented students."

"Thank you, professor Holland." Everyone chorused. He picked up a book from his desk and began to teach. He certainly knew his subject very well, for unlike the previous professor who had managed to bore all of you last year, you found yourself paying attention to every single word he said.

Of course, as time passed, there were more and more girls who always discussed him, innocent things at first like how great a teacher he was and something like he was the cutest professor they ever had. It gradually escalated to how hot he was and how many girls were willing to do him in his classroom and so on.

You would rather die than admit, but you did have a crush on your teacher. A major, at that one. It wasn’t that often that you got a teacher like him, anyway. Maybe that was a small reason why you tried harder in his class and excelled more. He was also often very pleased with your work and had grown to favour you, seeing that you indeed had a lot of potential and admired how you always submitted everything on time and how you were always punctual and overall how dedicated you were in his classes. You had gradually grown to become one of his favourite students.

----

It was a Thursday evening, the clock ticking 7pm as you finally finished your due work of the week. As usual, you gathered your sheets and checked it again to make sure there were no errors. Once you were satisfied, you stapled them and put them neatly in a plastic folder and made your way to Tom’s room for submission. He had made a rule that students could either email their respective essays and papers or physically submit it to him either in the classroom or personally in his room in case someone wanted a little guidance as well.

Checking your appearance to make sure there were no stains or anything like that on you or your dress, you took your file and made your way towards his room for submission. You gave a soft knock and waited for him to open the door. No response. You knocked again. Again, no response of opening the door. Although, you could hear his voice, so he probably was on the phone or in a meeting or something.

You turned the knob of the door and quietly, swung the door open and entered the room. Closing the door behind you, you turned right to walk towards his table and saw something you never thought you'd see.

"Oh my god, I'm so sorry, sir!" You exclaimed, making him startled and jump in his seat.

He was in a webinar session. With no pants on. He was only in a formal shirt and underwear and a pair of socks. You could very clearly see his thighs which were naked in your sight. The thighs you had only dreamt of riding in your dreams. 

He hastingly said something about some technical issues and that he would have to leave and left the webinar and walked across the room to his closet to quickly get some pants. He grabbed the first pair he could see and before he could put it on, your brain decided to blurt out something you wouldn't have dared to ever say to your professor.

"Don't put them on!" You quickly covered your mouth with both hands, your file dropping on the floor. Your whole face went red as soon as those words left your mouth, your knees shaking with nervousness.

He stood in his place, stunned. He could not believe the words that just came out of your mouth.

“What- what did you just say?”

“I -uh” you stammered, covering your face again and taking a deep breath. He walked towards you and took your hand and held it, his other hand holding your chin and making you look up into his eyes.

“Say it again, darling. There is no harm.” he said in a calm and husky voice that made you feel giddy and weak at the knees. “Go on, now.” his fingers gently pushed a loose strand of your hair behind your ear.

You looked into his eyes. Your heart was beating at a very furious pace. A fire was surging in you as his fingers had touched your skin. 

“I said, don’t put them on.” you whispered slowly, your voice lingering in his ears. He smirked and brought his lips closer to your ear and whispered, “and why is it so?” his voice lulled you to him, his one hand resting on your cheek and his other hand lowering to your waist, pulling you closer to him. “don’t be shy, say what you have to say.”

"It's because," you paused, a new wave of confidence flowing through you. This was now or never. "It's because I want to ride them."

"Hmm is that so?" He hummed, lazily nibbling your earlobe, making you hot and bothered. He stepped back and sat on his chair and held out his hand. You took it and he pulled you on his lap and held you tight by the waist with one hand. His other hand cupped your jawline and pulled your face closer so your lips were only millimetres apart from touching.

"Then be a good girl and ride me" with that he wasted no time and crashed his lips on yours, you reciprocating the kiss immediately. Your eyes fluttered shut, so did his. The feeling of his soft, smooth lips felt more amazing than you had fantasized in your dreams. You tilted your head to grant him more access. 

He bit your lips gently, making you moan into his mouth. Your fingers flew to pull his soft hair strands, messing them up as he deepened the kiss and you gently grinded your hips against his.

You were the first to pull away from the kiss, gasping slightly for air to breathe. His hair was slightly messed up, he was out of breath and both of you had flushed faces. The sexual tension that was subtle before was more thick and more prominent.

"I better lock the door, huh? Don't want anyone to walk in on us?" You asked, looking at him. He nodded in response as you got up and went to lock the latch on his door. Now no one would interrupt the two of you.

"Ride me, darling. Be a good girl for me." The raspy voice made you feel wet as you repositioned yourself so now you were sitting on his left thigh, with his thigh pressed against your clothed pussy, making you let out a moan.

You pressed your clothed pussy and began to rock your hips up and down, feeling a sense of pleasure jolting in you. As you increased your pace, you could feel yourself getting wetter and wetter. You held his shoulders for support as you grinded faster, closing your eyes and enjoying the feeling of his thigh.

“Oh my, fuckkk” you moaned out, arching your back as grinded even faster, feeling that you wouldn’t last very long. Tom meanwhile was watching you, feeling his pants getting a little tight at the sight of you riding his thigh. He couldn’t help but let out a groan as he watched you ride your high. With time, he was attracted to you and always imagined what you would be like in bed. He had always fantasised but never thought he would be here in this situation.

“You’re doing great, darling ohhh” he groaned out, closing his eyes and leaning his head back as his hands held you firmly by the waist.

“God I’m gonna cum!” you moaned out, holding his shoulders tight for support as you felt yourself releasing, soaking heavily through your panties and shorts. Your movement became slower as you rode out your high, stopping a few seconds later, panting and sweating heavily. You opened your eyes to look at him all flustered and lips parted.

"Woah" was what came out of his mouth. He gently held you and placed you on his right thigh and the both of you could see a shiny wet spot where you had come just a few seconds ago. He looked back at you and smirked, making you go red.

"I don't normally do this with my students, you must know that."

"Oh that's, great I guess."

"Would you mind if I did what I wanted to do to a student whom I happen to be attracted to?" He whispered huskily, lips dancing dangerously over yours.

"And what would that be? Care to elaborate, sir?" You asked, looking into his eyes again.

"Oh, you'll find out soon enough, darling." With that he kissed you, this time with more heat and passion as though he was holding all his desires as he inserted his tongue into the kiss, exploring your mouth. You kissed him with equal amount of passion and lust, running your hands in his hair.

His lips left yours and pressed kisses on your jawline and neck, sucking your skin gently till he found your sweet spot and sucked a hickey there.

"Careful there sir, don't want people to see that." You gasped out, head thrown back.

"Say my name, dear. Wanna hear it from your pretty lips." He mumbled against your neck.

"Tom!" you whimpered, making him groan as he went back up to kiss you again on your lips. One hand went down to unbutton his shirt and touched his amazingly toned chest. Your fingers danced and touched every part of his chest, every touch sending tingles down Tom's spine, making him bite your lip gently.

He cupped your right thigh and squeezed it, wrapping it around his waist loosely. He held you by the waist firmly and picked you up and placed you gently on his desk, not breaking the kiss for even a second.

He pulled away from the kiss and looked into your eyes again. His orbs were dark with lust.

"Tell me if you want me to stop, okay?" He said huskily, his hand slowly lowering down to your waist and slipping under the hem of your top, making contact with your skin. His touch ignited a fire in you. His fingers drew circles on your curves, sending you tingles of pleasure.

"Don't…..stop…." You trailed off, closing your eyes again, enjoying the feeling of him touching you.

His hands played with the hem of your top before taking it off and stepping back for a moment, looking at you. You were already a mess, your hair strands sticking out wildly, sitting on his desk, looking at him desiringly.

“You are so gorgeous, did you know?”

“Thanks.” you covered your face with your hands. He stepped forward and removed your hands gently, looking at you. He pressed kisses on your neck and collarbone, his hand trailing down to your shorts, unbuttoning and unzipping them. Slowly, he pulled them down to the floor, leaving you only in your bra and panties. 

He continued to kiss you on your chest, unhooking your bra in an instant, exposing your breasts. He took one of your breasts in one hand massaging it gently, taking the nipple in his mouth and sucking on it. His other hand went down to your panties, fingers touching your clothed cunt which was very soaked and he teased you through the material, eliciting a moan from you. Smirking, he hooked his fingers at the hem of your panties, inserting them inside to come in contact with your pussy.

He inserted a finger inside your wet folds, pumping in and out at a slow speed. His mouth switched to suck on your other breast as he increased his speed of thrust. You were by now a moaning mess, moaning his name out again and again while pulling at his curls. You were now very much turned on and very horny, craving him more and more. He inserted a second finger, thrusting faster, making you cum a second time.

He took his mouth away from your nipple with a pop sound and came up to meet your lips again. He finally took out his fingers out of your now swollen clit and pulled away from you, licking them clean, never breaking eye contact with you.

“You taste so delicious, dear.” he groaned out, making you want him more than ever now. You pulled him towards you by the collar and began unbuttoning his coat and shirt, running your hands over his toned abs, enjoying the feeling. He stepped closer, pressing his clothed hard-on against your soaked and clothed pussy, making you groan in pleasure. You couldn’t wait anymore. You needed him now.

“Tom…...please….” you groaned out, making him smirk.

“Please what? Use your words, darling.”

“Please….I need you now.” you groaned as you felt his hard-on press against you even more, making you buck your hips up and down.

“Gladly.” he threw his hanging coat and shirt off his body on the floor, pulling his underwear down to the floor, now completely naked in front of you. He stood in front of you, looking heavenly with his body glistening with sweat and his hair a complete mess. His cock was hard and the tip was flush pink with a little precum leaking. You took off your bra and panties and threw them across the room while he spread the precum and pumped his cock. He stepped forward and pressed a lazy kiss on your lips, aligning his cock just outside your entrance.

“Ready, love?”

“Yes” with that he entered you slowly, thrusting in and out at a slow pace, stretching you out so that you could get used to his size. Given how wet you already were, it was easy for him to move. His cock filled you up perfectly and you felt pleasure jolt through your body as you moaned continuously.

“Go faster.” you breathed out, him obeying gladly as he increased his pace, gripping your sides tight. His hips slapped against yours, a knot forming in your stomach as he hit that spot inside you again and again. He was moaning out loud with you, going faster with each thrust. One palm was on the desk to help steady himself. He pressed his lips against yours to kiss you sloppily, both of you moaning into each other’s mouths. You dug your nails on his muscles and his back, leaving crescent red marks, making him pound into you even harder.

You could feel your high approaching yet again and from the look on Tom’s face, it seemed like he wouldn’t last long before he came too. His finger rubbed your clit, bringing you closer to your orgasm.

“Fuck, I’m gonna cum.”

“Fuck, I haven’t got a condom, oh my-”

“It’s ok, come inside me.” you breathed out.

“Are you sure? I really don’t want to risk it like this.” he asked, looking at you as if to ask if you were sure about this.

“I’m on the pill. Besides, my period was a week ago.”

“Oh, alright. Ohh!” his cock was beginning to twitch as you came undone around him, letting out a cry of pleasure. He grunted out loud as he reached his high, his cum spilling inside you. His thrusts became sloppier and slower and stopped moving a few moments later, his cock still buried inside you.

You clenched around him, not wanting to let go of the feeling of him beside you. Both of you were sweating and panting heavily, you holding him to steady yourself. He reluctantly pulled out of you, his cum mixed with yours flowing out slowly. He smirked at the sight and took out a cloth he always kept in his drawer to clean you up. Wow, talk about a sexy and caring professor.

“How you feelin’?” he asked, pressing the cloth against your core after wetting it slightly, 

“Amazing.” you said, making him smile. After cleaning you up, he gave you a lazy kiss and picked up his and your clothes and handed them to you. You dressed in silence and watched him do the same.

“Hey, so uh, I wanted to tell you. Um, I don’t normally do this with any student of mine. Nor have I ever been attracted to any student. You are truly an exception.”

“Thanks, it means a lot.” you smiled. “And if it helps, I’ve never been this attracted to a teacher before. You are amazing too.” he blushed at that, making you giggle

“Well I better get going.” you said, getting off his desk. You picked up your file from the floor and handed it to him, then took a piece of paper and wrote something on it and handed that as well.

“Here's my submission, and my number. If you wanna maybe text sometime?”

“Sure, I’d love that sweetheart. Maybe we can meet up for a coffee later this week?”

“I’d like that.” you smiled and made your way to unlock the door. Just as you were about to open the door, he called you out, making you turn around and look at him.

“Hey, uh is it ok if we keep this thing a secret for a while? For the both of us? I don’t want you to face unnecessary backlash from anyone because of me.”

“Yes, it’s ok, Tom.”

“Ah, professor in the classroom.” he steps closer to whisper in your ear, “Tom when we are alone, together.”, making you go red.

“Noted, professor.” you winked and exited his room, your heart skipping a beat, silly smiles on both of your faces. 

You were looking forward to your possible relationship development with him and excited to see where it goes, as did he with you.

The end

lemme know what you thought🙈

[lokiondisneyplus]

Holy crap. Look at Kate Herron's shirt. When the Loki director pops up on Zoom, she's donning the most glorious image anyone will see since we laid eyes on Alligator Loki: A Teletubby wearing the Loki horns. Are the Teletubbies Loki variants? Sure, why not!

"I got it on Instagram," Herron says. "There's an amazing comic book artist and he designed it. He made it into a T-shirt for me because I saw it and was like, 'That's incredible. Can I get it for the press junket?'"

Herron, no big deal, just pulled off an MCU miracle. Entering a mammoth franchise with, notably, some of Sex Education's best episodes under her belt, the director deftly brought a plot involving multiverses and Richard E. Grant in a cape and superhero mumbo-jumbo to brilliant, beautiful life. Following Loki's tear-jerking, mind-bending finale, the series has been dubbed by critics and fan's alike as one of Marvel's best efforts—which is no small feat. Of course, we needed to ask Herron how she stuck the landing. Following the most epic finale you, me, or any Teletubby can remember, Herron talked to Esquire about the Miss Minutes jump scare, filming the finale's introduction of He Who Remains, and why she won't return for Season Two of Loki.

ESQ: How are you doing?

KH: I'm good. I think I feel very relieved that I don't have to sit on the secret of He Who Remains anymore, It was a very big secret to hold, but for an important reason, right? Because it's such a good character to be launching. So yeah, I feel good.

ESQ: Loking back at your old interviews, you have such a good poker face when you're avoiding spoilers, but you're also incredible at giving aggregator crumbs.

KH: I play a lot of board games, so you need to be quite good at strategy and poker faces so people can't always read your hand. So I think weirdly board games have prepared me more for working with Marvel than anything else.

ESQ: I have to start with the Miss Minutes jump scare. What went into the decision to make her a memeable, creepy apparition in that moment?

KH: I love horror, and my executive, Kevin Wright, knew that. Me and him were talking about Episode Six and I remember that he was like, "Oh, maybe you could do something creepy of Miss Minutes." And I immediately was like, "We have to do a jump scare!" Because I haven't got to do a good jump scare in anything yet and I really wanted to, because a lot of my friends are horror directors. I was like, "I can't let them down." So I was really excited to have a shot at doing a jump scare. And Miss Minutes, it was really fun testing it because we'd kind of bring different people into the edit, me and Emma McCleave, the editor, and we'd just play it for them, watch them, and check that they were jumping when we cut it.

ESQ: One thing that I think is getting missed in all the craziness is that we see a peak moment of the love story between Loki and Sylvie. Where does the finale leave the companionship that they found in each other?

KH: When I started the show, that was always in the DNA of it—that Loki was going to meet a version of himself and they were going to fall in love. And that's honestly what drew me into the story, because I directed Sex Education. I love stories about self-love and finding your identity and your people. Loki is such a broken character when we join him, and seeing him go on this amazing journey with all this growth and finding the good points of himself in seeing her—I think that was very beautiful. It's also paying respect to the fact that Sylvie's in a very different place to him. She hasn't had the Mobius therapy session. She even says, in Episode Five, "I don't know how to do this. I don't have friends." You really feel for her because she has been on the run and her whole life has been this mission.

It's almost funny because these characters are thousands of years old, but it's almost teenage the way they both talk about their feelings for each other. I think everyone can relate to that, right? In any new relationship, there's always that kind of awkwardness and like, "Oh God, am I too keen? The important thing was the hope—like when Sylvie and him kiss, I think it is genuine and it is coming from a place of these feelings they have for each other. Obviously she does push them through that door, but for me it was a goodbye and it was with heart. But it's kind of a goodbye in the sense of like, I care about you, but I'm going to do my mission because that's where I'm at.

ESQ: I would pay for you to direct the Sex Education episode where Otis falls through a portal into the multiverse, into the main MCU.

KH: He really looks like a Loki as well, which is so funny. I always thought that. I was like Asa does look like a Loki. It didn't come to pass or anything, but it would be interesting to do a Sex Ed-Marvel crossover. I wonder who all the different characters would be within the MCU, but it would be quite funny.

ESQ: You're right, he could pull off a teenage Loki.

KH: Yeah, like a teen or a very young ’20s, maybe. But it was just funny because I was like, "Oh yeah, he looks a bit like Tom." I wonder how they could do it. I'm sure they'll find a way to do a crossover anyway.

ESQ: Can you just take me back to filming with Jonathan Majors? And you capturing him in such a compelling, quirky, scary way—I'm sure your direction was such a big part of that.

KH: I was just so excited because Jonathan is an actor that everyone was so excited about. He's like a chameleon in everything he does and he's so talented. I just feel as a director so lucky to have worked on this because I feel like I've got to work with some of the best actors out there. And when you're with Jonathan, you know you're in the presence of just someone really magnificent. For me as a director, it's giving him the space to play and feel safe. Because we filmed it all in a week, but it was a lot to film in a week. So I think it was really about creating a space where he could have fun and find this character because he's going to be playing him for a long time.

ESQ: What went into the decision to introduce us to the good guy first?

KH: I remember in the script, he comes up the elevator and it was so casual. I was like, "Oh man, that's so fun." And then Jonathan, when he plays it, he's relaxed. And I the thing he used to talk about a lot was that this is a character who's been on his own for a long time. Because at the beginning, we introduced him in a space in the universe that feels like this very busy, loud place, but actually, when we see the Citadel, he's surrounded by the Timeline and he's very isolated. Even in his costume with [designer] Christine Wada, for the idea of his outfit, he's a character who's existed for multiple millennia. So it's like, OK, let's pull from lots of different places so you can't necessarily pin down which time or which place he might be from. Also the fact that his clothes look comfy. They were like pajamas because he's living at home. He loved the idea of the office [being] the only finished part of the citadel and that the rest of the citadel was like this Sunset Boulevard kind of dusty, dilapidated space. And just again showed that he probably just keeps himself to his office. All those elements definitely fed into Jonathan's performance in terms of balancing the extrovert, but also the introvert of someone that would be living by themselves and only talking to a cartoon clock.

ESQ: It really is incredible how you pull a nail-biting finale with this battle of wits and dialogue.

KH: It was really exciting because I feel like Episode Five was a lot of fun because we got to play into all the joy of the different versions of Loki, but also just the fact that it was our big usual Marvel third act, right? Like it was where our big spectacle was as they were fighting this big monster. But I love that our finale bookends, right? We began with a conversation and we ended with one.

ESQ: I also loved that there was no end-credits scene—I think it makes the ending that much more impactful. Was there ever an end credit scene on the table, or any kind of a stinger?

KH: I think no, because weirdly, we never went after the kind of mid-credit sequences. I think we always just were thinking just of the story and where we knew we wanted it to end. For example, Episode Four, originally Loki was deleted and then we went straight to him waking up. And it was only in the edit I was like, “I think it'd be really cool actually. We should move that scene to mid-credits because then we'll really feel like Loki has died." Because if I watched that moment and then it went to the credits, I'd be like, "What?!" And then when we were talking about the best way to talk about Season Two, we were like, "Okay, well, let's do that like a little mid-credits at the end because that is exciting to confirm it in that way." I'd say we found both of those in the edit just because we wanted to kind of do it right and have a fun nod to something that Marvel does so well.

ESQ: Is there anything you can tell about the future of the story you've told here—or even where you personally would like to go with the studio or otherwise going forward?

KH: Yeah, so I'm just on for Season One. So I'm so proud of the story we told. I mean, it was amazing getting to set up the TVA and take Loki on this whole new journey. And I mean, I think we've left so much groundwork for his character, and as people see in the comics, there's so much more to be delved into. And I just am excited honestly to just see where all the characters go. Like, who is B-15? What did she see in those memories and where did Ravonna go and where is Loki? I think for me, we've set up these questions and I look forward to seeing them being answered as a fan in the next season.

ESQ: Absolutely. Well, can we please work on the Asa Butterfield Loki?

KH: I will call him and I'll be like, "You want to do some crazy Marvel crossover?"

[frc-ambaradan]

From this week TOPOLINO, "La Ballata di John D. Rockerduck" preview interview with the authors.

(English translation to follow for non-italian speakers' convenience only: Italians should just go and buy TOPOLINO :P)

THE ETERNAL RUNNER UP

In a week's time, we will turn the spotlight on the n.2 multibillionaire of Duckburg with “The Ballad of John D. Rockerduck”, a story that allows us to deepen the knowledge of a character that always animated Disney comics as the opponent and rival of Uncle $crooge. We talked about him with the authors, Marco Nucci and Maestro Giorgio Cavazzano.

INTERVIEW WITH MARCO NUCCI (WRITER)

Hi Marco! In seven days we get the ball rolling with "The Ballad of John D. Rockerduck": why did you choose this title?

«For a very simple reason: it sounded good! It was the first title that jumped into my mind, and I used it. Then I realized it was good. I like to think of this story as a sort of folktale, able of telling us about many things: about money, but also about ambitions and fears, about personal impulses. And also about strain, why not? Rockerduck will suddenly find himself placed in front of a mirror, as if it were the first time... and what he sees will trigger a series of unpredictable reactions and events.»

Sometimes you need to be a bit of a psychologist: how many sessions with Rockerduck did it take to create this "introspective" story?

«A few sessions and a chat with Alex Bertani (translator note: lead editor of Topolino), who suggested me to delve into the psychology of Rockerduck and gave me some hints about the hidden side of his character to bring out. So I conceived this story, it appeared from nowhere in front of my eyes, point by point, from beginning to end. I wanted this insight into Rockerduck to be told in a funny way and I hope I hit the target. Above all, I would like to thank Giorgio Cavazzano, who did a "Giorgio" job, that is, extraordinary in every part. He is the best artist in the world, full stop. Especially when it rains. I love the his rain, it makes me want to take up an umbrella.»

Given tha you have patiently listened to Rockerduck's confidences, how do you interpret his rivalry with Uncle $crooge? (Or does professional secret prevent you from talking about it?)

«It's part envy, part healthy greed and a part… spoilers, I can't say more. If one day we’re going to carry out the “week after interviews” I will be much more eloquent!»

Have you ever felt second best to someone like Rockerduck is?

«I'm second to almost everyone, in almost everything. I can hold my own with writing, and I admit I am an excellent cook and an all-rounder when it comes to cinema. Everything else it’s a Waterloo. But I don't care. Rivalries are a waste of time: they have the bad habit of just putting you in a bad mood. Indeed, very bad... John D. Rockerduck’s word!»

INTERVIEW WITH GIORGIO CAVAZZANO (ARTIST)

Hi Giorgio! What did you like about this story?

«I liked its originality and the situations thrilled me. When I read Marco Nucci's screenplay I found it interesting and funny, because it touched on aspects of three little-known characters. It was a difficult story to draw but in the end I felt gratified, so much so that I called Marco Nucci to tell him it was brilliant!»

What is the real "wealth" of this multibillionaire?

«Very often the added value comes from the negative side. If he didn’t exist, we’d have to invent him, also because he is the negative counterpart of $crooge, especially when it comes to business and finance. In this story, however, something changes... »

After drawing so many squabbles and challenges between McDuck and Rockerduck, what's your opinion on their rivalry?

«It's a fun rivalry. It could not be otherwise: Rockerduck is a lopsided character, his assistant Lusky is comical... they allow you to tell the rivalry with $crooge in a way that’s always amusing and never repetitive.»

Tell us the truth, how many bowlers did you make the "Rookie" swallow during the decades?

"Lots, he must have had indigestion! The reader always expects such an ending, but I always feel a bit sorry for him. Next time I'll serve him a Borsalino or a beret or a flat cap on a silver platter: I'm tired of drawing bowler hats!»

[doof-doofblog]

"Ian Is The Reason Dennis Is Dead!"

Monday 7th September 2020

Good evening everyone and what an exciting night it is!!! EastEnders is back on our screens tonight!  It's been a good few months since the soap has been on our screens. Tonight it's finally back, even though the time has been reduced from 30 minutes to 20 minutes, it doesn't matter! Our favourite characters will be back and the story-lines will be able to continue, so many answers will be given and so many secrets revealed!

But before we delve into the excitement of tonight's episode, i'm sure the majority of you have been made aware of the news regarding the beautiful Chantelle Atkins. For those of you who might've missed it somehow, EastEnders have announced that poor Chantelle will pass away due to domestic violence at the hands of her husband, Gray.

Since Chantelle and Gray appeared on the Square, they portrayed the perfect family! Two successful people working brilliant jobs, with two beautiful children and on the outside, it looked as if they lived a very happy life! But little do the Walford residents know that behind closed doors, poor Chantelle has been the target of domestic abuse from her husband. Taking beatings and beatings and suffering in silence. None of her close friends or family are aware of what is happening in their family home when no one else is around. Gray appears to have nasty temper on him, and he takes it out on his wife. EastEnders have announced the passing of Chantelle before the soap reappears on our screens due to the fact that the next few episodes will be quite harrowing, as viewers will see Chantelle attempt to escape and leave her husband. Jessica Plummer's last appearance as Chantelle will be on the 18th September. I believe both Jessica Plummer and Toby-Alexander Smith's performance as Chantelle and Gray have been phenomenal! It's a very sensitive issue to portray, but in all seriousness ... this does happen to people every single day, and unfortunately - due to the lock-down, some people are suffering in silence, being victims of domestic abuse and being attacked at their home day after day. I, for one will be devastated to see Chantelle be killed off, but I do feel it's a very important issue and it's fantastic of EastEnders to be raising awareness of such vicious acts of cruelty. What the big questions I want to ask now are, what will happen in the aftermath? Will Gray be found out? How will the Taylor family react to the passing of Chantelle? Will Gray go to deep lengths to hide the truth from his family and neighbours? I'm sure many fans were always hoping that Chantelle would find a way to speak up and ask for help or eventually escape Gray, but sadly in Chantelle's case, it will never be that way. I applaud the cast and story writers who took part in this story-line, it's a big subject and it's needs to be spoken about openly, more and more, and if anyone who views this story-line, who is currently in Chantelle's situation, hopefully they'll get the courage to speak out and/or seek help to escape. --- Now, shall we focus on tonight's episode? I don't know about you lot but I've been really looking forward to the day EastEnders came back on air! And it certainly came back with a bang!! Ahhh it felt so good to hear that theme tune again!! Brilliant!!

Awww and what a brilliant opening, Ian looking all smug and proud, putting the Queen Vic bust back on the counter. Quick question ... where the hell did he get that from?! I'm assuming it's something that could've been replaced, but me - being naive, honestly thought that the old Queen Vic bust which sank during the anniversary episodes, was one of a kind! Clearly - obviously not! Oh gosh ... look at all those photos of Ian and Sharon being landlords of the Vic! Makes a nice realistic touch, don't you guys think? Clearly, Ian has been making himself at home at the Vic during lock-down! Oooh it does look as if Ian and Dotty still have daggers for each other, Dotty's case has come up after Ian grassed her up to the police about selling some form of drugs at the club and they both appear to be going to court together. Dotty is NOT going to keep quiet for long, she will soon tell Sharon all about the secrets Ian has been hiding form her regarding her son, Dennis. Dotty must've been finding it so hard to watch Ian and Sharon together in the Vic, the secret must be eating her up to the core! 

Is it just me, or is Chantelle looking very fragile? She's very shaky, nervous ... it looks as if while she's been in lock-down, she's had nothing but abuse from Gray. It looks as if she's looking to divorce her husband and get away as soon as she can! Watching this, knowing what is going to happen in a couple of episodes time, I'm already feeling worried and scared for her. She's made things perfectly clear that she wants to the divorce to be quick and easy. Gray will still be able to see his children and they'll be living near by. This is something that does worry me, will Gray find out about her wanting a divorce and lash out? She's been told that a divorce could be incredibly expensive. Is she going to be able to afford what she needs to be able to go ahead? I know I am asking all sorts of questions, but with this being the first episode back, there are so many things that could happen with each and every story! Plus it feels like it's been so long since we've seen these characters, it feels so good to have them back again! Will Chantelle be able to open up to Kheerat before it's too late! Suki has already informed him that Gray was the one who put him up to Trading Standards, could there be some kind of conversation to come between Chantelle and Kheerat where he'll confront her about Gray's behaviour, and could she finally be able to tell him how Gray actually treats her?! You can see the fear in Chantelle's eyes as she enters her house and Gray comes to approach her from the stairs, already questioning her where she has been. When he reached into her bag I was worried he was going to pull out some form of paperwork regarding a divorce, but instead he's putting a tracker on her phone, to keep an eye on her. Chantelle clearly isn't happy about this, but sadly, there's nothing she can say. Gray is controlling and is wanting to keep an eye on her every move, he's frustrated as he has been put on furlough from his job, so he has also been stuck in the house while his children have gone back to school and Chantelle working also. How is Chantelle going to be able to escape Gray now he's put a tracker on her phone? Gosh, I just want to hold her and tell her she can escape from this! She later approaches Kheerat, telling him he's the only one she can trust and asks him for the money for her divorce, even though she can't tell him what it's for. But of course she feels guilty for asking after finding out her husband was the one who called up Trading Standards on Kheerat's company. I really do think Chantelle will tell him something, if not everything, but something before she sadly passes away. Kheerat will do everything he can to get justice for Chantelle! 

Oh Ballum!!!! Gosh I almost forgot about Ballum!!! Ha! Ben's hair has surely grown ... of course so had millions of other men's hair during lock-down! I love how happy they both appear to be able to see each other. Oh, is Ben going to ask Callum to move in?! IS THAT GOING TO BE A THING?! Haha is anyone feeling really proud of Callum? Is he now an official police officer? When he stopped that thief and stated "I'm a police officer! You're nicked!" I just felt a little sense of pride! God bless his little soul! Oh and look at him in his police gear!!! He looks SO good!!!!! I can't get over how manly he's become, I know that's a bit pathetic to say ... but we've seen him become a real man, come to terms with his sexuality and now he's followed his dreams and become a Police Officer, with the support of his boyfriend. Callum is eager to get his job done so he can go to the hospital with Ben, needless to say his colleagues aren't aware that he's gay, but in all honesty ... it's none of their business really. But I do have a feeling that eventually it will come to their attention, and as soon as they realise who Callum's partner is, his job could be at risk, even before it's started! Ooooh noooo, Callum is going to figure out what Ben did, while he is sat looking through the CCTV footage that he's been given, Ben slowly appears onto the screen. This would've been when he and Phil went after Danny and his money during this job that was meant to happen. How is Callum going to approach this with Ben? Am I right in thinking that Ben lied to him and told him he had nothing to do with it, but of course, the CCTV tells otherwise. 

Ahhh okay, so Linda has revealed that Sharon has renamed her son "Albie" ... Honestly, I think I preferred Kayden, but each to their own! Awww both Mick and Linda are adjusting to their life out of the Queen Vic. It looks as if Mick has some kind of interview or something the way he has dressed smartly with his waistcoat. Linda has been working in the cafe as a cleaner from the looks of it, while Mick has been home-schooling Ollie. It's going to be so weird not seeing them behind the Queen Vic bar, but I'm sure we'll get used to them being out in the community in a much different way. 

Sharon seems really happy where she is, she is back in her home to be honest! She grew up in the pub, it's only right that she brings up her child where she spent her childhood. It's only when she sees the Queen Vic pub, she stops in her tracks and goes silent. Has Ian made the right decision in ordering a second Queen Vic bust? Or is it something that is going to haunt Sharon, knowing it sank where her son lost his life? It's questionable. 

Oh I am so happy to see Kat back!!! Is it going to be revealed why she left? We know Jessie Wallace was suspended, but what was the reason for Kat to depart the Square? Is this going to made known? Oh and soon as she spots Ruby and Martin together, she's doing what Kat does best and sticking up for her family! Are Ruby and Martin now an item? Have they decided to become official while during lockdown together? It's been revealed that Martin has had the time of his life living with Ruby, but also she has kept secret from him that she has been having money problems due to the club being closed. When Stacey returns, she is going to be such a shock when she learns about Ruby and Martin, I already am kind of feeling sorry for her. 

When Ian and Dotty are back from the court, Ian is just slightly poking at Dotty more and more, saying that she should thank him for changing his statement, or even buy him a drink. You can see it's slowly eating her upside, how much she's desperate for him to have his comeuppance. She's made it clear now that she's not going to prison, what is to stop her from telling Sharon the truth now? What other threats could he throw at her? It's only when Sharon approaches in dismay asking whether any of Dennis's things had been returned from the police that Ian goes all scares. Ahh so, the Queen Vic bust is actually the original, from what I understand, it was recovered from the accident and sent back to the Vic where it belongs! (And there's me thinking it was a brand new one!) Later when Dotty is sat on Albert's bench, Bobby approaches her saying that she must be thankful for his Dad to help her out of the situation. But she makes a slight dig at Ian, saying that her father, Nick Cotton, was more like Mother Theresa compared to him! Which, Bobby can't seem to understand, he can't understand why Dotty enjoys slagging him off, but she makes a fair point that Nick never coward behind someone else and he always accepted who he was and took everyone else how they were. It's then she claims that she just like her father and is proud for what she stands for and believes in. She makes her way into the Vic just as Ian and Sharon are clearing the air about things being returned to the Vic, this is when the climax comes, what viewers have been waiting for for months! Ian getting his comeuppance and Sharon finding out the truth about how her boy died. Dotty goes on to say that people deserve to know the truth about how their loved ones die, Ian trying to worm his way out of the conversation, maybe trying to change the conversation and say it's not right to upset Sharon ... then she comes out with it, "He's the reason Dennis died! He locked him in the cabin on the boat and that's why he drowned!" 

Ian's eyes look frantic from Dotty to Sharon, Sharon face in absolute disbelief that he dearest friend could've done something so cruel to her and not said anything, kept the absolute worst secret from her. Dotty's words ringing in her ears. Is Ian going to worm his way out of it and claim Dotty doesn't know what she's talking about? Or is Sharon going to demand answers from Ian! What an absolute brilliant ending to first episode back on air! It's true tomorrow's episode is going to be just as gripping! What was your opinion on tonight's episode? I personally thought it was brilliant! So many things happening and I can't wait to see them all unravel. I am so glad to be back posting as well, I know it's been a long time and I know I've only done one post a week - if that - but I hope you'll all enjoy my blog now EastEnders is back and better than ever! I'll be back either tomorrow or Wednesday following up tomorrow's episode. Goodnight everyone and enjoy the rest of your night xXx

[chiseler]

THE MYSTERY OF SUNN CLASSIC PICTURES

It was like the positive, life-affirming New Age mysticism of the hippies took a sudden turn for the dark and very strange. In the mid-Seventies, as the country was overwhelmed by a creeping atmosphere of impotent anger, paranoia and existential despair in response to Vietnam, Watergate, race riots, Kent State, the Tate-LaBianca murders, bomb-tossing student radicals, pollution, high-profile assassinations, the oil crisis and the emergence of disco, Americans sought solace in some form by plunging headlong into a collective national obsession with all things Mysterious and Unexplained. Suddenly Bigfoot was all the rage, as was The Loch Ness Monster, The Bermuda Triangle, UFOs, psychic phenomena, near-death experiences, apocalyptic Biblical prophecies, and ancient astronauts. People were desperate to hold onto something, anything, no matter how ridiculous and fanciful, as the whole world seemed to be crumbling and burning around them. If something pointed toward an unseen world, a world outside this stinking mess we were stuck with, or better still promised the complete obliteration of this stinking mess, then at least there was a glimmer of hope. Almost overnight, a cottage industry cropped up, flooding the market with cheap paperbacks, magazines, movies and TV shows—even comic books and board games—devoted to unexplained phenomena of all sorts. Personally I didn’t give a Toss about the state of the world, but I still subscribed to UFO Reporter magazine, had a shelf full of cheap paperbacks with titles like The Search for Bigfoot and From Outer Space, and never missed In Search Of…, the half-hour syndicated series narrated by Leonard Nimoy that  delved into one mystery or another every week. For god sakes, I even had the Bermuda Triangle board game.

But in what may have been the strangest phenomenon of all, far more bizarre than the legends surrounding Area 51 or the Philadelphia Experiment, in 1971 Schick teamed up with the Church of Latter Day Saints to launch a low-budget movie studio that aimed to become the epicenter of High Strangeness culture.

Yes, a razor blade company and the Mormons decided to make movies together. How could the results be anything but unfathomable?

(It’s worth noting before we get too far that in my research into the history of Sunn Classic Pictures, it became clear the indie studio, which still exists in some vague form today, seems to have gone to some great lengths to fog their early history, never once mentioning the Mormons, and in some cases denying there even was a Sunn Classic Pictures prior to 1980. With only a few  rare exceptions, the reasonably small Sunn Classic catalog, now owned by Paramount, never received any kind of home video release, which only adds to the mystery.)

As the official story goes, in 1971, the employees of Schick—a subsidiary if the pharmaceutical company Warner-Lambert—approached Rayland Jensen and asked him to launch a new movie studio. Appalled by all the filth and violence and sex and cursing that infested American movie screens, as well as the so-called “intellectuals” who thought these movies were “good,” they felt real Americans needed a family-friendly alternative. Those Schick employees concluded Jensen was just the man for the job, as a few years earlier he’d handled distribution for a nature picture released by the Utah-based American National Enterprises. The picture had done very well.

Okay, let me stop there. As I said, that’s the official story, as far as it goes and as little sense as it makes. The real story goes more like this.

In 1971, a renegade group of American National Enterprises employees, led by Jensen and inspired by that same disgust with what American movies had become, broke away to form a new production company to release family-friendly, G-rated pictures. Patrick Frawley, the ultraconservative, paranoid, anti-communist conspiracy theorist who also happen to run the Schick razor blade company invested a bundle in the new venture, ensuring he would have some say in the kinds of movies the new company would release.

With headquarters divided between Salt Lake City and Park City, Utah, the newly-christened Sunn Classic Pictures (aka Sunn international, aka Schick Sunn Classic Pictures) set out to Make family-friendly features and documentaries aimed at working class, conservative, God-fearing Americans who didn’t go out to movies very often, likely because of all the above-mentioned filth and sex and violence and cuss words. Moreover, they wanted to make certain these warm-hearted films turned a healthy profit. This involved two basic techniques.

The first was four-walling, a distribution method American National Enterprises helped pioneer. Instead of spending a fortune on all those prints necessary for a massive nationwide theatrical release, Sunn instead rented theaters serving the target demographic, inundated the market with ads and gimmicks, then screened their new film at the selected theater for no more than a week. After that extremely limited run, they packed up and moved the print to another theater far away. It was a tricky ploy. On the upside four-walling a picture allowed the production company to keep all the box office receipts without having to divide them among various middlemen.

If they knew the film was a stinker, it also allowed them to skip town before the bad reviews could do them any damage. On the downside, those limited runs also meant the picture would be there and gone before any positive word of mouth could work its magic. Sunn would try four-walling a new movie for a few months, and if it was making money, they might consider a nationwide release. If not, then they’d start trying to sell it to TV for syndication. It wasn’t a tack that worked all the time, but often enough to make it worthwhile, and it left them more of an escape route than a national release ever would.

So. “Family friendly.” Yes. If you want to make Disney-style pictures but don’t have Disney-style budgets to work with, animated features are out. So are live action films with any kind of special effects. Basically what you’re left with are nature films, right? No expensive sets, very few actors, and as a result very cheap to make. So Sunn began producing wilderness adventure stories.

In those very early days, you can definitely smell Patrick Frawley’s hand in the development process. Films like 1971’s Toklat, in which a man is forced to track down and kill a beloved pet bear after the bear kills a local rancher’s livestock, is a prime example. (As it happens, Toklat was the first Sunn picture I ever saw, Green Bay being a conservative working-class town, and so on Sunn’s demographic map. ) There was something decidedly Nietzschean about those earliest releases. Most of them featured lone individualusts with strong principles who flee the corruption of modern civilization to face the harsh realities of nature alone.

Now, think back and ask yourself honestly” what kid in his right mind has ever liked nature films, Nietzschean or otherwise? Maybe Mormon kids did, but certainly not normal kids. Nature movies are dull as dust, all those endless shots of trees and rivers and shit. Even if it’s supposed to be a true adventure story about some historical frontiersman, so what? Where are the explosions and car chases and monkeys doing funny things? You know who liked nature films? Grandparents! Grandparents loved them because they were wholesome and taught valuable lessons. They insisted on dragging their grandkids to them because they didn’t have to worry about being embarrassed or having to define certain words on the trip home.

The handful of films Sunn Classic released in their first three years—most all of them wilderness adventures about solitary manly sorts learning to dominate nature in one way or another—did okay. They didn’t lose money, but they also didn’t become runaway hits.

In 1974, even after several rewrites, no one at Sunn Classic Pictures had high hopes for the next film on the docket, something called The Life and Times of Grizzly Adams. Sure, it was loosely based on an historical figure who again fled the corruption of the modern world to live in the wilderness, befriending a grizzly bear along the way. But the character was not some stalwart and steely-eyed Ubermensch—he was gentle and kind-hearted. What the hell were they going to do with that?

Enter Charles Sellier, and the second technique that would be central to Sunn Classic’s success. Sellier, today considered one of Sunn’s true founders together with Rayland Jensen, was a recently-converted Mormon in his thirties, as well as the author of the 1972 novel upon which Grizzly Adams was based. As Sunn’s new executive producer, he had a different—and eventually hugely influential—approach to marketing films.

Sellier set aside an estimated $85,000 for market research before a new film went into production. This involved targeting the desired demographic with door-to-door and telephone interviews asking housewives and construction workers what kind of movies they would like to see. This also involved screening early rushes from films currently in production for hand-picked test audiences in order to get their reactions and advice. This is, of course, standard operating procedure now, but it was radical back then, and something that mortified directors and screenwriters. In some cases Sellier even had members of the test audience wired to biometric scanners to measure their reactions to the scenes they were being shown, and use those reactions to have a script rewritten more to the test audience liking. If audience pulse rates went up whenever a certain character was on screen, well, they’d build up that role. If a certain animal warmed their hearts, well, maybe they’d make a whole movie about that particular animal.

Sellier’s method of crowd-sourced filmmaking was first tried on The Life and Times of Grizzly Adams, and sure enough, the film, starring former viker movie regular Dan Haggerty, became Sunn’s first bona fide international hit, bringing in over $20 million. The film was such a smash among grandparents it quickly spawned a Sunn-produced TV series, which was also a big hit among grandparents. To date, the Grizzly Adams franchise remains Sunn’s biggest cash cow.

But something else happened in 1974 that would help make that iconic Sunn Classic logo as familiar and comforting as the Toho, American International, Shaw Brothers and Troma logos. To some of us, anyway.

In 1968, Erich Von Daniken published Chariots of the Gods?, a book which argued, through some mighty suspect and loosely interpreted archaeological evidence, that aliens had visited Earth thousands of years ago, and among other things helped build the Egyptian and Mexican Pyramids, Stonehenge and the statues on Easter island. It was one of the first major hallmarks of the High Strangeness Culture to come.  Originally published in Germany, the book became an International sensation among those with a very high tolerance for pseudoscience, pseudohistory, and bullshit in general..

In 1970, German director Harald Reinl made a documentary based on von Daniken’s book, and it, too, became a big hit across Europe. As sillyassed as the whole thing was, I’d argue the film was even more effective than the book thanks to the visual presentation of all the supposed evidence.

Well, after seeing how much money Chariots of the Gods? Was pulling in overseas, and interested in such topics himself, American TV producer Alan Landsburg acquired the U.S. rights, re-edited the filmn, brought in Rod Serling to narrate, and broadcast it in 1973 as In Search of Ancient Astronauts. It would be the first of a trilogy of TV documentaries about ancient astronauts produced by Landsburg and narrated by Serling.

Noting the ratings that Landsburg doc brought in, as well as that European box office, Sunn obtained the US theatrical rights to In Search of Ancient Astronauts, changed the title back to Chariots of the Gods? And began four-walling it around the country in 1974. It didn’t matter that by that time countless articles and books had completely debunked all of von Daniken’s claims, nor that critics had savaged the film, in some cases even calling it racist for purporting indigenous people in Mexico, Africa an elsewhere could never have created these wonders by themselves. The picture made money. It may not have been Grizzly Adams money, but enough to leave Sellier and Jensen convinced they might be onto something with these documentaries about weird shit. Documentaries were even cheaper to make than nature films, and the demographic they were aiming at seemed eager to believe in monsters and aliens and conspiracies, so there you go. For the next five years, along with the wilderness adventures and wholesome TV adaptations of Huck Finn and Gulliver’s Travels,  Sunn gave the half-wits like me what we wanted.

In 1975, Sunn picked up the theatrical distrobution rights To The Outer Space Connection, the last of Landsburg’s ancient astronaut trilogy (as well as one of the last things Rod Serling worked on before he died). This final entry argued not only that aliens had visited earth thousands of years ago, but had planted humans here in the first place and had been guiding our evolution ever since. This wasn’t exactly a new idea, and could be traced back, so far as I’m aware, at least to Nigel Kneale’s 1958 BBC miniseries Quatermass and The Pit. But the film, directed by Fred Warshofsky, went several crazy steps beyond Kneale, claiming we know exactly where the aliens came from and why, that the Mayans were themselves aliens, and that these same aliens would return to Earth on Christmas Eve, 2011.

The TV documentaries made enough of a splash for Landsburg that he parlayed them into the above-mentioned weekly In Search Of… series, which began airing in 1977, right around the same time Grizzly Adams hit the airwaves.

Both Chariots of the Gods? And The Outer Space Connection helped cement the template that would define the rest of the Sunn-produced High Strangeness documentaries that would follow, making them so effective on the young, the susceptible, and the merely desperate. The real key, it seems, far beyomd the film’s actual content, was conscripting an authoritative host/narrator who can present the most insane pseudoscientific theories and shaky evidence with a straight face while repeatedly using terms like “indisputable,” “Proven beyond a doubt,” and “scientists agree.”: “It’s an incontrovertible fact these ancient carvings prove alien visitors walked on Earth over five hundred centuries ago.” It was the simplest of carnival sideshow techniques, but one that kept drawing suckers to the theaters.

The same year they released The Outer Space Connection, Sunn also released The Mysterious Monsters, which was less a documentary than a series of vignettes about Bigfoot, the Yeti, and The Loch Ness Monster. Director Robert Guenette had been making what you might call speculative Sunn-style documentaries long before Sunn even existed, so he was in familiar territory. In fact, The Mysterious Monsters includes scenes borrowed from Guenette’s 1974 TV movie, Monsters: Mysteries or Myths?, which coincidentally had been narrated by Rod Serling. The (mostly) new and expanded Sunn production was hosted by Peter Graves, who was as straight-faced as they come. In between shots of Graves and ten other men in cowboy hats wandering the forest on horseback looking for Bigfoot, we get eyewitness accounts from those who claim to have actually seen Bigfoot, Nessie, or the Yeti. Unlike most Bigfoot films of the era (and there were a bunch), The Mysterious Monsters infers a decided fearlessness and hostility on Bigfoot’s part, claiming he not only terrorized innocent victims, but wandered into the suburbs to terrorize them. The recreated Bigfoot encounters here are kind of fun, and in fact the film contains two solid scares, at least if you’re nine. Nessie and the Yeti get short shrift, and those scenes of Graves riding through the forest with that hopeless hunting party are interminable, but the picture was another big hit,arriving at precisely the right time given 1975 was a banner year for Bigfoot cinema. In the end, and where he got his information who the hell knows, Graves announces there is a community of some two hundred Bigfeet living in Northern California, though Graves and the hunting party find none of them.

Another hallmark of Sunn’s documentaries was that most inevitably ended with an outlandish, shocking, unexpected, and wholly unsubstantiated claim. The influence of mondo films—Mondo Cane, Africa ama and the like—on Sunn’s documentaries is undeniable. But while mondo films aimed to shock grindhouse audiences with footage (whether real or created) of bizarre and extreme human behavior, Sunn aimed to leave family audiences womderstruck at the possibilities of a mysterious world of magic and monsters just beyond our perceptions.

In 1976, Sunn followed up The Mysterious Monsters with The Amazing World of Psychic Phenomena, also directed by Guenette, this time narrated by Raymond Burr. The film is less a cohesive documentary than another shaggy dog series of vignettes exploring extrasensory perception, astral projection, and telekinesis as well as ghosts and spiritualism, featuring an all-star cast of celebrity psychics including Jeanne Dixon and Uri Geller. Not surprisingly, Burr, who doesn’t seem terribly convinced himself, informs us that there is irrefutable scientific evidence that all these powers are absolutely real and for true.

That same year also saw the release of one of Sunn’s more patently ridiculous outings, In Search of Noah’s ARk, a film which, in many ways, proved a turning point. The film was the first to be hosted/narrated by character actor Brad Crandall, who would go on to narrate most of the remaining Sunn Classic documentaries, as well as appearing in a few of their TV shows. It was directed by James L. Conway, who quickly established himself as Sunn’s go-to in-house director, churning out five or six features and TV movies a year.

Apart from turning to mostly in-house staffers to make their films instead of bringing in outside directors and celebrity hosts, In Search of Noah’s ARk also marked the point at which Sunn further fed their demographic by adding a decidedly fundamentalist Christian focus to many of their films, from Noah’s Ark to their TV series Greatest Heroes of the Bible to two documentaries about near-death experiences to 1979’s (and grammar be damned) In search of Historic Jesus.

In business terms it was a savvy move. To this day, films aimed at a fundamentalist audience, especially if they support a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible, can bring in more money than most Hollywood films. They certainly bring in more than most Mormon themed films, and apparently the more patently ridiculous the involved claims, the better.

The supposed “scientists” who lay out the evidence that the remains of Noah’s honest-to-God ark are still sitting up there on top of Mt. Ararat (should anyone care to take a look) aren’t, um, scientists at all. One, a supposed physics professor, argues there’s a mountain of geological evidence proving the world was deluged by an all-consuming flood, um, five thousand years ago. Another claims the ark was first discovered by a Russian expedition sent by Tsar Nicholas II in 1916, but all the reports and evidence were destroyed by dirty communist revolutionaries, um, two days after the expedition returned. It all goes downhill from there, and you have to feel some pity for the poor gullible fools who believed all this nonsense.

I saw nearly all of Sunn’s documentaries in the theater when I was a kid, and now feel sorry for my mom, dad, and older sister, who I suspect drew straws to see who had to take me whenever a new Sunn picture hit town. When I was ten I bought every last nutty claim. Going back and watching them again four decades later, I find myself blurting, “Wait, what?” Aloud after nearly every scene. They do, however, remain fascinating artifacts and a mirror of a certain psychological makeup. They’re also still fun as hell for all their crazy dumbness, if you keep your critical thinking skills at the ready.

Sunn found themselves in the middle of a shitstorm in 1977 with the release of The Lincoln Conspiracy, also directed by Conway. Historians, critics and the media at large attacked the film for presenting as fact a convoluted conspiracy claiming the assassination of President Lincoln was an inside job, closing, as Oliver Stone’s JFK would years later, with a demand the investigation be reopened. Conway would later claim the film was just a silly speculative docudrama based on a couple recent books, but even the authors of the books denounced the film. Still, a little controversy has never been known to hurt the box office.

Over the next few years Sunn continued to release two or three pseudoscientific documentaries  a year, including Beyond and Back, Beyond Death’s Door, and The Bermuda Triangle, the latter of which claimed all those ships and planes vanished after being zapped by a malfunctioning Atlantean particle bean that was lost somewhere on the ocean floor near Bimini. Bimini? Well, I gotta say, as explanations go, it makes about as much sense as any other.

A personal favorite from the late Sunn era for its sheer nihilistic simplicity was 1979’s Encounter With Disaster, this time directed by Charles Sellier himself. Using his patented market research techniques, he brought a test audience into a theater and showed them dozens of newsreel clips of fires, earthquakes, The Hindenberg, race car crashes and the like, measuring responses to see which were considered the most exciting. He then strung all the most popular disaster footage together and released it as a feature.

Encounter With Disaster was perhaps the one true mondo film Sunn released during their brief heyday, and a definite anomaly. Toward the end, instead of documentary footage, talking heads and manipulative narration, films like The Bermuda Triangle, Beyond Death’s Door and In Search of Historic Jesus cane to rely more on speculative recreations with actors, sets and scripted dialogue. Although a narrator does pop up occasionally to say, in essence, “Yup, this really, really happened!,” the films come off more like splintered docudramas than documentaries, which somehow makes their assorted theses seem even less plausible.

It’s worth pointing out here that In Search of Historic Jesus, as delightfully awful as it is, does, without saying as much, offer a clear case study of the effect Sellier’s marketing machinations could have on a film.

Directed by Sunn’s in-house cinematographer Henning Schellerup (who prior to Sunn had worked on everything from softcore porn to Corman productions) and again narrated by Brad Crandall, Historic Jesus clearly began life as a documentary aiming to present all the independent historical evidence proving the Biblical account of Jesus’ life was accurate. Given there was precious little of that to be found, it became a documentary about the Shroud of Turin. Given there wasn’t really ninety minutes worth of material about the Shroud of Turin, they shot an interview with a fake scientist offering some, um, plausible scientific explanations for the Star of Bethlehem, then plundered some footage from the Noah’s Ark movie (though oddly the data offered in the latter somehow changed between 1976 and 1979). All this left them with a film that was about twenty minutes long.

The film was saved when Sellier gathered a test audience of fundamentalist Christians. After showing them a few scenes, he quickly learned they didn’t need any scientific or historical proof that Jesus really existed. They just wanted to hear more Jesus stories.

Taking their advice, the bulk of the film became a  string of recreations of Jesus’ Greatest Hits acted out by amateur actors playing Jesus, Mary, Herid, Pontius Pilate and assorted disciples. No effort whatsoever is made to prove these recreated scenes actually happened. So instead of a pseudoscientific, pseudohistorical account of the, um, historical figure known as Jesus of Nazareth, it became another Sunday School-ready Jesus movie, all primed and ready to be rented to church groups across the country. In short, then, calling the film In Search of Historic Jesus actually makes sense.

By 1979, Sunn’s documentaries seemed to be running out of gas. They were still turning a profit (especially that Historic Jesus thing), but the profits weren’t what they once were, and the films were costing more to make. Also, other production houses had picked up on the Sunn Classic formula and began releasing High Strangeness docs of their own. In 1978, for instance, Amran Films and RCR released The Late Great Planet Earth, based on “Biblical scholar” Hal Lindsey’s massive bestseller which claimed all the prophecies in the Book of Revelation were coming true, and the long-promised Apocalypse would arrive any day now. If I remember correctly, the world was supposed to end in 1986. The film was hosted and narrated by Orson Wells, who had once been asked to narrate a Sunn film, but was so horrified by their marketing practices he turned down the job.

(A few years later in 1981, Welles would also narrate a documentary about Nostradamus’ prophecies, which was directed, coincidentally enough, by Sunn Classic alumnus Robert Guenette. Just to illustrate how influential Sunn’s experiment had been, The Man Who Saw Tomorrow was distributed by goddamn WARNER BROTHERS, of all places.)

What struck the real death knell to Sunn’s hugely successful string of pseudoscientific and pseudo historical extravaganzas was a changing culture. We were own the brink of Morning in America and the Reagan Era. Interest in silly monsters and psychic phenomena was waning as everyone put the ’70s behind them, focusing instead on the stock market, the threat of nuclear war, cocaine, designer clothes and other tangible real world issues.

Charles Sellier

In 1980 Sunn Classic Pictures was bought out by Taft Enterprises, a Cincinnatti-based conglomerate.  The suits in Taft’s entertainment division had a few ideas of their own about what American moviegoers wanted. When they correctly saw that the days of four-walling were about over as the business ties between the major studios and national theater Chains grew stronger, Charles Sellier walked away to continue writing, producing, directing and marketing films on his own terms. In 1984 he directed the notorious holiday slasher film, Silent Night, Deadly Night, a picture remembered more for its ad campaign than anything in the picture itself. Sellier also later converted from Mormonism to evangelical Christianity.

When Taft likewise decided family friendly entertainment was a dead end, that the market for G-rated wilderness adventures simply wasn’t there anymore, that a film had to be rated PG or R if it hoped to make any money, Jensen and a few other original American National Enterprises refugees quit in disgust, and once again formed their own production company to offer honest American families wholesome entertainment options. Their first film was 1981’s Private Lessons, a teen sex comedy starring Sylvia Kristel. It made a lot of money.

Director James Conway stayed with Taft for awhile, helming several pictures, including the monster movie The Boogens . Interestingly, the very first Taft/Sunn release, perhaps formulated to attract Sunn’s core audience, was the Conway-directed Hangar 18, starring Darren McGavin, Robert Vaughn and Gary Collins. It was the perfect transitional picture, a sci-fi conspiracy thriller loosely based on what might well have been the subject of the next Sunn Classic documentary: Roswell and Area 51. Conway later went on to become an executive at Spelling Entertainment, overseeing a mountain of wildly successful crap.

Over the subsequent decades there were more sales and acquisitions, with the various companies overseeing the Sunn Classic brand themselves being gobbled up by even larger faceless corporate entities. Sunn vanished, then reappeared, then vanished again. Today there are vague, mysterious hints that Sunn Classics Pictures has been re-launched after Rayland Jensen teamed up with Lang Elliott, original founder of Tri-Star Pictures. But if Sunn really has risen from the grave, would it matter?

For good or ill, over the course of that five-year stretch between 1974 and 1979, Sunn Classic Pictures illuminated one strange facet of a very strange era, warped millions of impressionable minds (like mine), fully capitalized on a nation’s despair and collective neuroses, and left an indelible mark on the culture. Take even a cursory glance at what’s airing on the History and Discovery Channels, or at how the marketing departments of any movie studio large or small operates today. They simply wouldn’t be what they are In the second decade of the twenty-first century had it not been for Sunn Classic Pictures., and fore that we can thank the Mormons, a right-wing kook, and Bigfoot.

by Jim Knipfel

[jamesginortonblog]

"More than just being a warm, affable, effusive and generous man, Stephen was also peculiar. He was eccentric. He had a sinister side and a sad side to him, and that makes for an interesting character to play, with all his vulnerability and layers."

James Norton

What was it about Amanda Coe’s scripts that made you want to take on this role?

I was lucky enough to work with Amanda Coe on a previous project called Life In Squares, which was about the Bloomsbury set and had a similar biopic feel about it. I loved that job and had an amazing time playing Duncan Grant, who oddly has certain similarities to Stephen Ward. There’s a certain warmth and lust for life which they both shared.

Working with Amanda on that job was a complete pleasure, and one knows that when you have that much of a good time on a job it’s because of the quality of the writing. So when I heard that Amanda was writing this, and then the scripts landed on my desk, I knew already that I was in for a treat. As far as the project and tone itself, I guess what makes this show unique is that it is from Christine’s point of view. That makes it special and very timely. It’s no secret that she had various incarnations of her story and it became quite confusing and hard to pin down the final truth. So to have Amanda’s thorough intensive research and work, (she is so attentive and so knowledgeable about the period), but also having a personal angle from Christine, it all makes for a very special script.

What was it about Stephen Ward that attracted you to the part, and do you think this drama will show Ward in a different light?

Playing Stephen and having the opportunity to delve into this man’s mind was the key draw for me for this project. There are extraordinary people involved in this story and I think if you were to meet Stephen Ward now you would be entirely seduced by him and want more of his company. Being in Stephen’s presence was a treat, and something his friends really hankered after once they’d had a taste of it. But, more than just being a warm, affable, effusive and generous man, Stephen was also peculiar, and those are the most interesting people to play. Stephen was eccentric but he also had a sinister and sad side to him and that again makes for an interesting character to play, with all his vulnerability and layers.

What sort of man was he?

One can’t escape the fact that he did groom young women, and that is inexcusable. But why did he do that, and what it did for him is also what's interesting. I could talk about Stephen for hours, but in one of the very first rehearsals Andrea the director really piqued my interest by saying, in her opinion, the heart of Stephen Ward is his obsession with female power. His voyeurism and peculiar sexual appetite are the things that make him this fascinating, weird and unique man. His was a fascination with femininity.

Some would argue that Stephen’s actions actually removed the girls’ power, but perhaps he was empowering them? Do you agree?

Often in dramas, people are very quick to categorise their characters as a way of simplifying things. So you have the hero and the villain and the lover and the victim. The thing about Stephen is that he is, like everyone, in that grey messy area in between. There is no doubt that he did manipulate young girls like Christine and Mandy, and part of it was for his own gain: he was a social climber and he was always hankering after acceptance and being allowed into the Gentleman’s Club. His ticket wasn’t his heritage or his money, it was partly his talent as an osteopath and his career.

He was also known as a man about town, and everyone knew that at Stephen’s house there would be parties and young women and a good time. So, on the one hand you have that slightly manipulative and more sinister side to him, but then on the other hand there is this incredible warmth and generosity of spirit - a man that Amanda has really found in the pen. A paternal man, a loving man who wanted the best for people and saw the best in people, and that’s such a key trait that we often don’t see enough of. He gave people the benefit of the doubt. Most of these women would have been rejected by society, but Stephen, for better or for worse, recruited them and found the best in them and empowered them. It’s a complicated dilemma as on the one hand it was exploitation but on the other it was empowerment.

Can you set the scene as the scandal unfolded? It seems like it was the perfect storm.

It’s 1963 and the counterculture revolution was happening, and there was a tremendous clash of temperament and attitude. Stephen, Christine and Mandy were in the middle of that storm. What makes Stephen so admirable and exciting is that he was a trailblazer. He was brave and individual enough to know whom he was and express himself from a very early age. There is this wonderful line where he says to Christine: "You know I’ve always lived the way I want to live, and you can too little baby. You just have to keep to the odd rule, but as long as you know who you are, and have the confidence to express yourself, then go for it.”

That type of motivation is so seductive and empowering. I think a culture like we have today would have allowed Stephen to be himself. He was born in the wrong time and his expression and sense of individuality was deeply frowned upon and ultimately stamped out. When you have that clash and conflict in society it makes such an interesting context for any story and within that conflict and cultural war zone, Stephen is on the front line.

Did you do a lot of your own research for this part? Did you feel a greater sense of responsibility in playing a real life part?

There is always a responsibility when you play a real person. Not only do you have the responsibility to the family and friends who knew Stephen Ward, but you also have, most importantly, responsibility to him. There are many accounts of Stephen’s character in the public domain, but as an actor you have to find whatever shared ground you and the character have in order to make the portrayal real and authentic.

A lot of information about Stephen is still locked up for some reason - the government hasn't come to share it with the public yet and no one knows why, but there are enough books out there on him that helped me formulate a sense of him. Production created this incredible pack that was so informative. It helped me to get a slight sense of the individual and the unique tone and temperament he had.

I always say that as an actor you have a responsibility to love the person you’re playing. You have to find true empathy, otherwise you will always stand slightly outside of their actions and you won't ever be able to fully invest in their choices. That is what has been so exciting for me. With all the accounts, and the letters that he wrote and the transcripts of the conversations he had, there is a version of this man’s soul, but it’s always slightly out of reach.

What is the relationship between Stephen Ward and Christine Keeler?

When Stephen meets Christine she is 17, has just moved to London and is working in Murray’s Jazz & Cabaret Club. When Stephen arrives in her life Christine’s assumption is that he is a sugar daddy, and of course he is not, he is something entirely different and that is what initially draws Christine to him. It’s partly to do with his self-promotion into the society that he aspires to be a part of, but there is a paternal element to him, particularly where Christine is concerned.

Christine always maintained they never had a sexual relationship, yet he found something extraordinarily endearing and majestic about her, and that’s essentially the foundation for this whole story. It’s what he sees in her when she is this young 17 year-old - she has a power and femininity which she exudes, which he wants to be a part of. It’s such an extraordinary and complex relationship to excavate, and that's what actors crave!

Why is now the right time to tell this story from Christine’s point of view?

It makes total sense for this story to be told from Christine’s point of view. We know what it was like to be a man in the 1960s. We know all about the old boys' clubs, but we don’t know what it was like for a young woman. She was part victim, part trailblazer and an icon of the 1960s. She ultimately was a victim of men like Stephen Ward and John Profumo, who exploited a teenage girl into having sex.

This is a story about a young woman who is the catalyst for change, and so it has to be from her point of view and it has to be told by women. We have an almost entirely female crew - our writer, director, producer, executive producer, costume designer and hair and make-up designer are all women and it’s completely intuitive and completely makes sense. This is an iconic story about a young woman told from a female point of view as it should be, led by women and it is a wonderful thing. I’m immensely proud to be part of this and to be telling Christine’s story from her point of view in an uncomplicated and honest way.

This story is about a very British scandal, but how does a story like this travel?

Britain at that time was very much at the centre of a cultural revolution. People care about our cultural heritage, our music, film and storytelling and fashion. I think the reason this story continues to intrigue people is that these types of scandals like Watergate or Marilyn Monroe and the Kennedys, or the Profumo /Keeler scandal were all events that changed the course of history and they always make for the most interesting viewing.

[thenightling]

The several times protagonists have secretly kept slaves

Please note:  This is not a “Call out” post.  It is not meant to shame anyone or tell anyone that their favorite characters are problematic.  Many of these characters come from cultures that are slave based (Ancient Greece / Ancient Nordic / Medical Fantasy) and realistically many of these characters simply would not know any better, in regard to what they do, even though, yes, there were people even in those eras and cultures that were anti-slavery.  

This post is partly to remind us that even otherwise good characters can be seriously flawed and also show how often film and TV writers have written slave portrayals while making careful effort to not call it slavery...

Now on with the list...

1.     Faeries:

Sorry to spoil your view of sparkling pretty pixies but faeries (in folklore) are usually a slave culture.  In most folklore faeries will lure away humans (often children) and promise them immortality as one of them, at the price of their freedom.  Fae have a caste system and usually these humans turned into fae are kept as slaves.

A.   Mab currently owns Harry Dresden in The Dresden Files novels.

B.  In Lost Girl, the character of Lauren was literally owned by the Light Fae, and made to wear a pendant that showed her status as a slave of the Light Faeries.

C.   In the original folklore Puck was actually Oberon’s slave and this is how he is usually portrayed in pop culture.  In some lore he is the bastard son of Oberon and a human woman and Oberon decided to keep him as his slave.  

D.  in Disney’s Gargoyles Puck IS portrayed as Oberon’s slave.  The word “servant” is a favorite stand in for slave in Disney properties but it’s very clear he is a slave.  He wears manacle bracer cuffs similar to the Genie’s in Aladdin, which were the physical representation of the Genie’s enslavement.  

And Oberon literally says (in the Gargoyles episode called The Gathering) “My queen comes and goes as she pleases.   Puck is another matter.  He forgets that he is MINE to command.”  

E.   In the original Midsummer Night’s Dream play by William Shakespeare, Titania and Oberon are arguing over who gets a certain boy and what they intend to do with him.

F.   In Neil Gaiman’s The Sandman, Titania seduces Shakepseare’s son into eating faery fruit and later takes him as her slave.  

G.  Also in Neil Gaiman’s The Sandman, Titania gives Nuala (a faery woman) to Morpheus to use as a slave.  Morpheus is very reluctant to accept this gift as he does not condone slavery.  

F.  Rumplestiltskin has no qualms about slavery in the TV show Once Upon a Time.  Granted The Enchanted Forest does appear to be a slave culture and Rumplestiltskin is a kind of imp.   So there may be some faery-like instincts even though he dislikes faeries.

G.  The Black Faery in Once Upon a Time keeps child slaves for the duration of their lives.     

H.   The poem The Stolen Child by William Butler Yeats is about a child being enticed away to be a faery.  The fae honestly think it is better to serve as a faery slave for all eternity than to be human.

I. The Goblin Market by Christina Rossetti depicts goblins trying to entice human girls with their enchanted fruit, which ensnare you to them.

J.   In the movie Maleficent, the shapeshifter (formerly just raven) named Diaval promises to be Maleficent’s servant in return for her having saved his life.   Disney has a habit of using the word “Servant” in place of slave, as we established with Puck.  Welcome to another “servant” of Disney lore where the word “servant” is being used in place of another s word.  Much like Puck in Disney’s Gargoyles this “servant” isn’t paid and is seen, by all the characters, as being owned by Maleficent.  Granted, Diaval’s enslavement does seem to be willing.  

He also seems to be in love with Maleficent so this could delve into a whole different kind of enslavement besides the “unpaid servant” version.  

____________________________________________________ 

2.    The slavery in Once Upon a Time:

The Disney Fairy Tale / Soap Opera (It was a prime time drama but that WAS a soap opera.  Don’t be offended by the term.  It was a decent one) aired on ABC from 2011 until 2018.     

A.  There is one off-handed scene where a castle guard mistakes Hook (who is in disguise) as a common slave.  This makes it clear that The Enchanted Forest (at last in Regina’s castle is a slave culture.   

B.  When Rumplestiltskin agrees to help Belle’s father deal with the war in episode 12 of season 1 (Skin Deep), it’s in exchange for his daughter.  Rumple considers her his property. The word “servant” is used repeatedly but this is very blatantly a slave situation until he releases her.    The only argument against calling it a slave culture is that she volunteered for it and her father was paid in the aid in the war.  But that can arguably be semi-willing enslavement and that her father was paid for her.  She was purchased.  Note: He does ultimately release her though.  And he falls in love with her.

Note: Rumplestiltskin, himself, is a slave to whomever possesses the magical dagger that gave him his powers. 

C.   Regina kept Graham (the sheriff of season 1 of Once Upon a Time) as her slave.  Regina genuinely held his heart and could kill him at her whim if he didn’t obey her.  And she did ultimately kill him. The writers downplayed this heavily later when they wanted the audience to see Regina as reformed and heroic.

D.  During the Once Upon a Time musical episode in season 6, Snow White and Charming agree to pay Hook for transportation to Regina’s castle (which they never needed before...)  That payment?  They would give him Rumplestiltskin, whom they held prisoner at the time. 

 Not only is this enslavement, it’s amplified to far, far worse since they were standing right there while Hook was literally singing about planning to skin him alive.  They were giving away someone at their mercy, for transportation they don’t need, knowing perfectly well that he would be killed slowly and painfully.  And they didn’t even falter for a second or think twice about their own plan or have a moment of conscience.  (God, I hate those later seasons...)

E.   The Black Faery keeps child slaves that she raises into enslavement.  Granted she was a villain so this is kind of predictable.  

________________________

3.  Aquaman:

A.  Aquaman is an interesting one.  Thanks to Crisis of Infinite Earths in the mid-1980s this was reconned but there was a storyline in the Aquaman comics where a coup rose up against Aquaman and wanted to instigate a war with another underwater kingdom.  Aquaman thwarted this coup and then... gave all the men involved (and there were a lot!) to the kingdom they almost went to war with, to use at their leisure as slaves...

B.   Atlantis’s culture is based on Ancient Greece with some medieval attributes.  It’s glossed over but this entails slavery.

C.   In DC Universe online, the MMORPG, when you play out “Story mode” there is a mission where The Atlantians are trying to enslave humans in the Suicide Slum in Metropolis. It is true that this is the direct result of Circe manipulating Arthur (Aquaman) but he already had slavers and magical equipment specifically for transforming humans into water breathing merpeople so that they cannot escape their underwater captivity.   

Just imagine the awkward conversations in The Watchtower when the other DC heroes like Wonder Woman and Superman confront him on having an elaborate and obviously long-ready plan for enslaving humans. 

 Note: Another gloomy fact, you never can rescue everyone who gets enslaved and there are simply too many NPCs scattered around the slum.   So you know at least some got taken.

Wonder Woman’s own culture is based on Ancient Greece but as far as I can tell Themyscira does not have slavery whereas Atlantis does.

________________________________ 

4.  Thor:

Let’s be blunt.  Vikings were a slave culture.  Asgard in Marvel comics and in the MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) seems to have evolved to medieval Europe but it is still a culture of slavery.

1.  According to Marvel comics lore, all the myths are true. There is myth where (after one of the children is tricked into accidentally laming one of Thor’s goats) two farm children are taken as Thor’s “servants” (slaves).  They are made immortal servants of the Aesir (Asgardians) but they’re still slaves.   

2.   In the comics it’s much more blunt that there are slaves in Asgard.

3. There is a deleted scene in Thor (the first movie) where Loki messes with a castle “servant.”  Note: Norse Viking culture almost never had actual paid servants.  Even the Skalds (storytellers) were slaves.)

(Image of a viking Skald AKA a Storyteller.   

4.   In Thor: Tales of Asgard, the character of Algrim (A Drow AKA a Dark Elf), was the tutor of young Thor and Loki.  He is a ‘servant” of Odin and deeply resents his status of unwilling / unpaid “servant” as the Asgardians spin the situation that he was essentially shown mercy and given shelter and position within Asgard (be it an inescapable one.)   This is probably one of the first instances of Marvel dancing around the word slave, which gets poked fun at in Thor: Ragnarok.   

5.  Loki (who is the protagonist of this particular story) sleeps with a concubine slave in Marvel Knights: Blood Brothers.

____________________________________

5.  The Vampire Marius:

Anne Rice’s writing is no stranger to slavery.   

A.  Armand was purchased by Marius by slavers in the late middle ages / early renaissance period and though he served as apprentice he was owned by Marius, whom he casually referred to as his master.

B. Later, in Interview with the vampire, Armand kept a slave boy of his own, whom slept in a literal gilded cage, and was often used as a snack by the theatre vampires.   It’s believed the boy eventually died. 

____________________________________________  

5.   Aladdin:

This one is pretty obvious.  Anyone who owns the magick lamp has the genie as their slave.  This one is actually addressed, more or less, in story.  But the only character who actually uses the word “slave” to describe the situation is the villain Jafar.  Well, at least he’s honest...

________________________________ 

6.   Stardust:

In the novel Stardust (and film adaptation) the protagonist, Tristran (Tristan) attempts to capture the anthropomorphisized star to give to the woman he is infatuated with, as a giftl.  

Even after he learned the star was a sentient human-like being he still wanted to deliver her as a gift.   Fortunately things ultimately turned out very different.  

Tristan’s own mother had been enslaved by a witch.  

______________________________

7.  Neil Gaiman’s The Sandman.

A. Though Morpheus is firmly against slavery he has many subjects who identify as his servants and I do not think there is a method of payment in The Dreaming.  And it’s not as if they can quit.

B.   Titania takes Shakespeare’s son to be her personal slave.

C.  Puck was Oberon’s slave and he escapes from his master during a performance of Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream during an issue of Sandman. 

D.   During the storyline, Sandman: Season of Mists, Titania gives Nuala (a faery woman) to Morpheus as a gift.  Morpheus is against slavery and Titania knows it.  The implication is she hopes he will not accept the gift as an excuse for the faeries to see this as a slight against them, as an excuse for retaliation - as at the time various supernatural beings wanted the key to Hell, which Morpheus had just obtained.

Morpheus refused to give Nuala any commands and simply allowed her to stay in the castle.   Later when the faeries came to reclaim her in Sandman: The Kindly Ones, Morpheus enchanted her necklace so that she could call to him for a boon of any kind as payment for her service to him, as a means to make the situation not enslavement.

___________________________________________________ 

 8.   Dracula:

This should be a no brainer but since there are some stories where Dracula is the protagonist people tend to forget Dracula has slaves.  Historically Vlad III of Wallachia did NOT like the idea of the Ottomans taking his own people as slaves but as a vampire he keeps the occasional personal slave, such as Renfield.

Renfield is semi-willing even though he fears his master.  He was promised immortality in exchange for his eternal service as Dracula’s slaves and in some depictions such as Love at First Bite, this clearly is the case.

__________________________________

[free-martinis]

I find the title of this article quite misleading (as they often are) but for the links sake I kept it. IMAO it’s been chosen to get a reaction out of people. Martin talks about so much here. His roles in Black Panther, Sherlock, Fargo, Startup, personal things, his new TV series Breeders, being a mod, music etc. 

Read for yourself:

“In a reversal of usual Hollywood practice, Martin Freeman stars as one of only two white characters in a predominantly black film. He plays a CIA agent on the trail of a villain in the superhero blockbuster Black Panther. The other white actor is his Hobbit co-star Andy Serkis. As a result, the two were known on set as “the Tolkien white guys”.

“Yes, that was quite funny,” agrees Freeman, over a sushi lunch. His character, Everett Ross, is also on the receiving end of one of the film’s best lines – “Don’t try and scare me, coloniser!” – after he bumps into Shuri, a princess in the mythical African kingdom in which the film is set.

But Freeman was keen that Agent Ross should be more than the beleaguered operator that appears in the original Marvel comics, saying he didn’t want to play another “goofy white guy among cool black people going ‘What the hell?’” So he discussed fleshing out his character with director Ryan Coogler.

“And he was completely on board with that,” says Freeman. “I had no interest in [playing a thin character] any more than a black actor would have had interest – as they have been for many years – in being a one-or two-dimensional black character.”

Freeman thinks we’ll be seeing more of Everett Ross in the Marvel cinematic universe. But he isn’t sure if that will mean he and Sherlockco-star Benedict Cumberbatch – who plays Marvel’s Doctor Strange in the franchise – will ever share big-screen time. Nor is he sure if he and Cumberbatch will be reunited on the small screen any time soon.

The fourth series of Sherlock finished in January 2017 amid a flurry of negative headlines accusing the once highly acclaimed show of having become convoluted and over-the-top. How did Freeman feel about the backlash?

“Um, we’re British. We basically want everyone to die after the first album,” he says. Yet he thinks some of the critics may have had a point. “To be absolutely honest, it [was] kind of impossible. Sherlock became the animal that it became immediately. Whereas even with The Office [the Ricky Gervais comedy that launched Freeman’s career] it was a slow burn. But Sherlock was frankly notably high quality from the outset. And when you start [that high] it’s pretty hard to maintain that.”

He seems more frustrated by speculation among the show’s rabid fan base that Watson and Sherlock are in love. “There was a chunk of people who just knew it was going to end with us getting together,” he says, still sounding exasperated 15 months after the last episode was broadcast.

For the record, then: “Me and Ben, we have literally never, never played a moment like lovers. We ain’t f------ lovers,” he says forcefully.

Have they discussed a fifth series?

“Not massively. Um… I think after series four [it] felt like a pause. I think we felt we’d done it for a bit now. And part of it, speaking for myself is [due to] the reception of it.”

Rather than the criticism, he means the exceptional personal pressure he found himself under as a result of the show’s success. “Being in that show, it is a mini-Beatles thing,” he says. “People’s expectations, some of it’s not fun any more. It’s not a thing to be enjoyed, it’s a thing of: ‘You better f------ do this, otherwise you’re a c---.’ That’s not fun any more,” he repeats.

The actual reason for our meeting is to talk about Freeman’s new compilation album, Jazz on the Corner, which he has put together with old friend Eddie Piller, the founder of revered label Acid Jazz.

The pair co-hosted a show on independent station Soho Radio a couple of years ago: two hours of “digging in the crates” for beloved old jazz records to play. There was such a positive response to it, that Piller suggested an album.

“And it was nice. It’s just a good excuse to delve through some jazz records at home and kid yourself that, ‘I’m doing this for this work purposes’.”

The actor is a Mod to the soles of his well-shod shoes, but Freeman was keen to break out of the confines of the culture and “go jazz”.

“There are some, for want of a better word, Mods who can’t talk about anything else. Totally mono-cultural. And that drives me totally barmy.”

He himself grew up on the fusion of ska and punk rock that dominated the early Eighties. “Catholicism and Two Tone were my twin religions as a kid,” he grins. “I was crazy about it. I went mad over Madness and The Beat and the Specials. It was great music that managed to touch 19-year-olds and nine-year-olds.”

It’s music first and foremost that keeps him sane in the long hours of downtime on film sets, particularly on huge and laborious productions like the Atlanta-based Black Panther.

His long absences away from home are rumoured to be among the reasons for his split from his partner and Sherlock co-star Amanda Abbington, with whom he has two young children, in 2016. He admits now that juggling work with home life has always been tricky. “Even when Amanda and I were together I was very picky [over what I did]. I even thought about [not doing] The Hobbit! I was thinking, ‘Hmm, that’s a long time away from two little kids…’”

Has the split made him change his attitude to his career? “No, it hasn’t massively impacted on my life. I’m determined to do things that I want to do. And not do the things I don’t want to do. And me and Amanda will always find a way of making it work, because we’re very supportive of each other.”

Freeman is currently single, which might help explain his raft of recent projects, including Black Panther, the jazz album, last year’s West End play Labour of Love, an Australian zombie movie for Netflix called Cargo and new BBC sitcom Breeders.

Created by and starring Freeman, Breeders is about “the stuff in parenting that nice middle-class people just don’t want to talk about, and almost never do," he says. "And I can’t quite believe it. I can’t have serious conversations with parents who don’t admit that sometimes they want to throw themselves out of a window – for real!

“I realised when my kids were very, very young that I couldn’t have any more nice north London conversations about how fantastic it was. Yes, of course it is – you love your kids more than anything in the world. But sometimes you want to kill everyone in your house.”

Part of his recent output would also seem to be driven by a desire to remove himself as much as possible from the ‘everyman’ persona he first cultivated as Tim in The Office, a persona he has vocally resented being labelled with ever since. Recent roles have been grubbier and dirtier, from his mild-mannered insurance man who descends into murder in Channel 4’s Fargo, to the Amazon drama StartUp, in which he played “a bent FBI agent”.

“I really enjoyed doing that,” he says eagerly of StartUp. “In Fargo you saw a guy who at the start was not psychopathic and was not mental. But in StartUp he begins there. This was not an, ‘ooh, he’s an everyman, but he’s taken a turn…’ No, he’s really dark. And I really loved that.

Did it unlock any inner demons?

“Nope,” he shoots back with a smile. “In my job I think that’s exactly how you exorcise things, because you get to do it on the set. Not that I’m never a complete p---k in real life – I am a complete p---k in real life sometimes, but probably less than I would be if I didn’t have this job.”

[robinlordtaylorsource]

Since his thespian beginnings in Shueyville, Iowa, and Northwestern University, Robin Lord Taylor’s stage career has been all but chequered. A self-confessed cinephile, he has graced our screens —both big and small— appearing in the most coveted series, from AMC’s hit The Walking Dead to CBS’ The Good Wife, and blockbuster films like Accepted. But it was his role as Oswald Cobblepot in the Emmy-Winning 2014 series Gotham that put him in the international spotlight.

Although the drama is not yet out of his system, Taylor admits to falling into the TV sphere rather serendipitously. “The reality of making a living as an actor [is that you’d] work for any medium that would happen,” he earnestly confides. “Once I moved to New York, I found myself working more [in TV] but I never ever expected [such huge success]. I grew up in a really small town and, to find myself working in television, and not just television but in the Batman universe still feels incredibly surreal.”

In the diversely dystopian background of Gotham City, Robin Lord Taylor offers a nuanced performance of the iconic malefactor, Oswald Cobblepot (a.k.a. The Penguin). The last time we saw him in the fall finale, things were pretty tense: now in Arkham Asylum and with a certain familiar laugh —courtesy of Cameron Monaghan— back in the picture. “His life is such a roller coaster from season to season of Gotham,” Taylor affirms. “He’s lost the most he’s ever lost. He’d built up an incredible courage, he was the most powerful he’s ever been —even more powerful than when he was mayor— [and now] he finds himself in Arkham Asylum and he’s not just stripped of his money, status and power [but he’s also] emotionally shut down. He’s lost everybody he’s ever trusted. I’m yet to know if this will make him stronger or weaker but he’s really at his best when he’s out —that’s when Oswald really shines. I think people will see some delicious come up.”

The Penguin’s unmistakably angular features, fishy bearings and opulent aspirations have been previously portrayed by Academy Award nominees Burgess Meredith and Danny DeVito; yet, the highly acclaimed Gotham offers a unique insider’s perspective into the character’s eccentricities: presenting us, for the first time in prime TV or film, with Cobblepot’s backstory. “I don’t feel like I have to —Thank God because I don’t think I would be able to— live up to the people that have played Oswald before,” Taylor admits. “I’m telling a different aspect of his story and there are a lot of things that, unless people have really dug deep in the comic books, would have never been known before and that’s very surreal. The pressure is lenient in that way. There’s no such thing as a definitive backstory of every comic book ever.”

Deeply rooted in the “umbrella-wielding madman’s” idiosyncratic physicality, the sycophantically sly Penguin Taylor has gifted us with for the past 4 years has not only lived up to but exceeded the expectations. Most of us love comic books and their universes but there is an intrinsic toxic hyper-masculinity that, thankfully, hasn’t permeated into the Gotham writers’ room as last season Taylor’s Cobblepot was introduced as a clearly queer character —unarguably one of the only queer characters in mainstream comic film adaptations nowadays. “I feel very fortunate [to be playing a queer character] and I’m actually really glad that it’s me,” Taylor admits. “I’m an openly gay. I’ve been married for several years and I feel like I have the tools to address issues dealing with sexuality correctly; because I grew up with them.”

“It’s been interesting to see people’s responses to this storyline. Some people want to make it extremely exclusive, as to saying Oswald is gay now. But it’s much more complex. I knew right away that this [storyline] was serious. His experience is vastly different than mine —I always knew from a young age that I was gay but Oswald’s situation is different [although] it’s obvious that he is in the spectrum,” Taylor continues. “It’s a much bigger conversation than just oh, The Penguin is gay’ and I’m glad that I’ve been able to open up a larger discussion about sexuality [more so] within the frame of a series called Gotham. It not only raises a question but I have also been given an opportunity to confront [homophobe] attitudes dead on. [As I said before,] there are no definitive stories in comic book [yet] I got a lot of threats from this particular story and this character from people saying ‘hey, I’m not a homophobic but I just don’t like that he’s gay because that’s not how he is in the comic books’. That’s actually an incredible homophobic thing to say because they are all different characters. No one had a problem with a young Batman and Selina Kyle (Catwoman) growing up together…”

Despite Cobblepot being a social and otherwise psychopath, Taylor found a humane link to the character precisely in being bullied as a child. “I feel fortunate [to] move the conversation forward. Especially in this day and age with the political climate in America,” he says. “Someone opening up a social media account and spreading homophobia, it doesn’t hurt me personally but it hurts my heart that it’s out there and that there are kids who are bullied for it like I was. I just want to be a voice so that especially young queer kids aren’t afraid [to be themselves]. You are told your whole life that you are nothing [and] being able to take that and use it to fuel the ambition to fulfil your dreams, I see that in myself as well.”

Taylor plays The Penguin with such panaché that’s almost impossible not to feel sympathetic towards the “squanderer and emotionally manipulative character.” All qualities opposed to those Taylor himself bestows: outspoken, unafraid and devoted. Though the comic book non-canonical representation has affected the 39-year-old actor in more than his stagecraft. “I’m much more confident,” Taylor confides. [Landing this role] was such a validation. Gotham really broke through that wall and now I really feel like I have the most confidence in my talent. I feel confident about my experience as an actor. I feel more confident in my body —spiritually and emotionally. Everything is coming really naturally to me and I’ve never had that feeling before professionally. It all has to do with getting older [as well]. I’m less afraid. Of failing. Of making a fool of myself. Of how people are going to judge how I look like or what kind of person I am. I just feel more confident and brave. And I owe so much of that to Gotham.”

And although Taylor feels most confident whilst wearing The Penguin’s shoes, this year will see him taking part in some long-awaited and well-deserved projects for the big screen —with titles like The Mandela Effect, The Long Home and Full Dress already under his belt. “They’re still in production so you never know when or where we’ll be able to see these projects,” he teases. “But, that being said, I am so proud of these films because they are incredibly small, independent projects. They are really works of passion from the directors. I only had about 3 months in between shooting Gotham, [which] is such a huge machine and an incredible work to be a part of. But, the other half of it is to work on a really small set with just the director and a few other actors, which is also an incredible thing to say.” Taylor’s aplomb goes even further into his beloved backstage. “I do see myself in the future hopefully producing and directing but I really want to start in a smaller way,” he confesses. “I feel like someday I would really love to be able to say I directed something as incredibly and technically complex as Gotham but I’m definitely not there yet. I want to start small and then work my way up to Ben McKenzie [his co-star, who has directed multiple episodes of the primetime hit series] status”.

As for what else’s on hold for the virtuoso in the near future? “I’m excited to delve even deeper into this character and to go back to work with all the incredible people that I work with. I feel like I’m becoming a better communicator and actor in general. I’m looking forward to growing in my craft and see where it takes me,” he says. “As a person, I’m hopeful for more receptive humanity from everyone, in light of everything that’s happening in the world. We need to be kind to each other. I know I sound so idealistic but we need to start somewhere, especially now.”

[houseofvans]

 ART SCHOOL | Q&A w/ ALEX GAMSU JENKINS (UK)

With heroes like satirist James Gillary, the father of modern cartoon Hogarth, and American underground cartoonist Robert Crumb, it is no surprise that UK artist Alex Gamsu Jenkins’s illustrations are often dark, grotesque, odd, and pretty darn funny. Using humor as a tool to explore and satirize the world around him, Jenkins’s art is a visual commentary on the world, technology, and whatever else crosses his quick-witted mind. In our latest Art School, Alex shares with us his insight into his process, his art school experiences, and how he overcomes the dreaded– drawer’s block.

 Photographs courtesy of the artist. 

Who are you and what do you do.  Hello there, my name is Alex Gamsu Jenkins. The “Gamsu” is not a bad psuedo name but my mum’s surname as there is another illustrator under the name Alex Jenkins. That being I am an illustrator from South East London. 

How would you describe the work you create to someone whose never seen it? Hmmm, I like to draw odd scenairos which are often of a dark or grotesque nature. But not too much where I percieve it as overdone. That’s why its important to make them humouress or fun so its not overcooked and hopefully not cringey.

You’ve mentioned that your work utilizes humor as a tool to explore and satirize various topics. Do you have favorite satirist and humorists you look too? Who were some of your early artistic influences? I always have a memory of seeing Steve Bell’s caricatures in the Guardian. Particluary John Major in y-fronts , Tony Blair with his stressed bulging eye and more recently David Cameron with his Condom head. I was a fan of how he exagurated their personalities and conjured them into fleshy mass’s with their features. Of course you got your Gillray and Hogarth’s but my hero has gotta be Robert Crumb. His stuff can be looked at as so offensive, but often he’s flipping the script. He would attack and satirize all corners of society and leave no prisoners.

What about humor as an artistic tool do you find so effective when creating your illustrations that sometimes might focus on more critical subject matter? Humour is effective as it can act as a valve and help to balance an image. If the imaginary is 100% violent or macabre, humour can help to disolve the mood and cast a different light on it or make it more acceptable. Also you can probably get away with a load more if it’s under the bracket of comedy. Like Robert Crumb, his characters often delved deep into the taboo (his incestual nuclear family springs to mind), but humour can dilute the offence that is created by the initial image.

What’s your artistic process like and what’s the weirdest thing about your process? I really struggle to think of an idea whilst im walking around doing every day activities. I usually have to sit down and sketch and something will come from there. But I always dread it when my mind is blank and I know eventually I am going to have to sit down and force myself to think of things. I bloody hate the idea of that. I work another job somthimes which involves driving out of London early in the mornings, and strangely I feel in this morning gap (07:00 – 10:00 am) my brain seems more lively and I can get more quick fire ideas down.  I also need to urinate on these car journeys too, so maybe it’s the whole frantic nature of it which forces me to go into full throttle.

What mediums do you love to work with?  I went on a pilgrimage and now I’m fully enveloped into using a very cosmic Wacom cintq.. which is one of the fancy ones with a screen that you draw straight onto. So in a way I have neglected all of my beloved organic materials I grew up with, but I always promise them that we will meet again. I try to carry around a ring bound sketch book and black ink brush pens. I used to see people use the fancy moleskin sketch books with the nice paper. But I think my hands are too big so it would always feel a very uncomfortable experience for me, or they are more for show then being practical.

Can you tell us about your art school experiences, both positive and negative, having recently graduated Camberwell  College of Arts? Before I went to art school, I had these expectations and hopes that it would be a cauldron of talent and expression and that we would be carefully sculpted and guided into successful artists. I quickly found out it had an eerily similair feeling to secondary school. Just my peers are middle class and I wasn’t getting punched in the back on route to lessons. When I trawl over my memories of both secondary school and Art college, everything has dulcit and grey tones to it. Aside from the mundanity I found with Camberwell. It pushed me to have a very good work ethic as the projects came thick and fast. So when it came to being on my own, I still had it drilled into me to try and churn work out.

What makes you smile when viewing art?  Hmm that’s tough. With things like Instagram and the internet at the ready, other peoples’ work is so accessible now that it has the risk of all becoming quite saturated. I think the things that stand out for me are the subject matter and the humour. Especially the quirkier the better.

 What do you think is the biggest misconception about artists? I was always a bit embarrassed when art or illustration would come up in conversation with my friends that I had grown up with from school and that it was something that I had decided to pursue (otherwise it is something that would never of come into convo). I aways feel its something that isn’t taken very seriously, especially by my friends who work normal or manual jobs. Music and film are creative forms which are far more accepted by most, as opposed to illustration which I feel a misconception is its viewed as a luxury or something that isn’t necessary. I would often find myself having to justify it with my friends.

How do you overcome drawer’s block? I dread it when it comes, but I find what helps most is of course sketching and moving onto the next idea quickly. But also if I’m really stuck, then change the environment I’m in. There is nothing worse then feeling stale, groggy crusty and out of ideas. Drink some water, go for a walk, get the blood flowing and then start sketching where ever you end up is what I say.

What type of music do you listen to when creating? I have a routine of watching boxing interviews and opinions on youtube. It can be incredibly mind numbing, but when its looping in the background it almost becomes a white noise and I think somehow, this spurs me on into the twilight hours.

In another life, what would you be doing if you weren’t an artist?  Probably doing something manual but also didn’t involve to much brain power, like garden labouring or something. I remember breifly being in office enviroments and feeling claustrophobic and frustrated. At least with physical work there was always a sense of achievement at the end of the day.

Favorite Vans? I’m gonna be that guy and say Vans Old Schools, probably the most obvious choice one could make. 

What’s next for you? There is lots on my to do list, the main thing is to actually get round to doing them. A solo show would be great and I keep saying getting to grips with animation. I think more for the short term would be to take more time on work, and maybe not focus so much on churning stuff out for the sake of it. Focus more on detail and honing my skills (if I actually have any). Oh and of course to eventually stray away from the wacom.

FOLLOW ALEX | Instagram | Website

[boombitxh]

Scandal Ruminations 7X07

I think that I can finally, for once in my life, with clarity, can tell where Scandal is going! It took me ten thousand years to finally get here but for some reason once I reached the point of indifference I was finally able to objectively watch this show.

 Let’s face it, this show loves to tap dance on our very last nerve. First things first: For what it’s worth I don’t think that Quinn is dead. The actress gave no exit interviews to any press as is customary. I know she just had a baby but these interviews are arranged and conducted way ahead of time.

 I will start by saying this: Olivia still has a few stages to go through before she gets to where she’s going and I’ve identified the stages as follow:

 1)    The Catharsis: the breakdown of what’s left of this version of Olivia. It began this last episode as she grappled with her very own chewy center. She has one but she has deluded herself into thinking that she doesn’t. All the baggage she dropped on Rowan’s living room floor is the most self-aware moment she’s had in years! I found her statement to contradict everything she told Fitz in that 509 argument but I will delve into that later and how S4B & S5 are what bring us the Olivia we see today.

2)    The isolation: Olivia must spend time alone to come to grips with the choices she has made. The choices that affected her personally and the ones that affected her friends/family. This introspection will also serve as the foundation for what Olivia wants to do with her life. If you had asked me a week ago I would’ve told you she needed this introspection but I would have not been inclined to think that she was ready for it. Her moment of self-awareness, in which she acknowledges the root of her problems, her father, serves as the beginning of the breaking down and breaking through to move the show forward and onto her introspection.

3)    The penance: Olivia is not a very verbal person in terms of apologies, I mean I can count on my hand the few times she’s apologized. I think her making amends will be more about actions and less about words.

4)    The Rebuilding: Olivia will eventually power through and finally envision who it is she wants to be and what she wants to be doing. She looked so unenthused when Mellie was giving her the “No man between us” speech that I felt as if she was on the verge of quitting right then and there. The WH at the service of Mellie ain’t the place for her. She isn’t cut out to be command as we’ve clearly been shown. There’s only one place left for her to go: back to the white hat, whatever the white hat means for her from this point forward.

5)    The reconciliation: this applies to all aspects of her life, with Fitz (I was a skeptic but if they’re going to make second-rate Dabby endgame then what has been the point of dragging Olitz out all these seasons. Come on!) and the reconciliation with what we were introduced to as her initial family: OPA.

 I mentioned earlier how her speech to her father was the opposite parallel to what she tells Fitz in their argument in 509. Her words during that argument reflected her and were a deflection of her own actions that lead to that point in the relationship. In no way am I implying Fitz was innocent in all this. Olivia specifically hits Fitz where it hurts by saying she came from a palace compared to him but my oh my how the tides have turned and now she’s capable of acknowledging that she was emotionally deprived and made in her father’s image.

  Kidnapping Arc Revisited

 I am almost certain that Rowan was responsible for her kidnapping. Throughout the whole ordeal he behaved with such aplomb that no harm would come to Olivia and was so aloof that I have no doubt in my mind that he orchestrated the whole thing. It’s important to note that Quinn is wearing her ring when she is snatched in the elevator, thus leaving her ring behind for the crew to find is an intentional act that parallels Olivia’s kidnapping. Since Rowan snatched Quinn (although I’m positive it was Jake who physically did it because what other loyal goon does Rowan have otherwise?) As I was saying, since Rowan snatched Quinn I think the parallel is intentional and would connect him to both kidnappings.

 I think that Rowan orchestrated the kidnapping to further separate Olivia and Fitz. The kidnapping placed Fitz between a rock and a hard place and no matter what he chose he would disappoint Olivia, so by design this would further drive a wedge between Olitz since little Jerry’s murder was not enough to keep them apart.  

 Fitz was torn between two choices:

Not rescue Olivia -this would disappoint her and make her believe he never loved her and would have destroyed her confidence in his love. Keep in mind she tells the kidnapper that the President would be looking for her.

Rescue Olivia –As Fitz acquiesces to go to war to save one person this also shatters Olivia because Fitz makes a choice that she vehemently disagrees with. She does not want to feel responsible for a war, much less the lives that will be given in exchange for her survival.

Fitz would lose no matter what choice he made, and either choice would forever change him in her eyes, further driving a wedge between them. No matter what he chose he could not win and would be tarnished in Olivia’s eyes, between a rock and a hard place.

 Note that the S4 finale has Olitz reuniting but it is only possible because her father is finally locked away and out of her life. It is obvious that Olivia has not dealt with her PTSD at this point in S4 and all the trauma that remains bubbling beneath her surface comes to light in S5A.  

 Fitz’s marriage proposal under the worst circumstances possible triggers Olivia’s commitment issue which at that point in the story is not new.  Under the pressure of an impending wedding that neither of them were ready for at that point in time Olivia does what she knows will relieve her of this - she frees her father.  If her father is free Olivia is under his control, whether she knows it or not. Olivia’s PTSD reaches new heights when Fitz creepily moves her in without even asking and this is when it takes a drastic turn—Olivia is now caged and is reliving her prior traumatic experience. To free herself she severs all ties with Fitz, abortion included, and fully begins to live in her father’s image post 509.

 Motherhood & Babies

 Something that I’ve noticed for a while now is the consistent theme of babies and motherhood. All of which can be traced back to the very first season and I have confessed on here that I don’t think that Olivia wants to be a mother but it’s just so in your face that I had to stop and reconsider. It’s likely that Olivia thinks she won’t make a good mother, what could be called her family life has been nothing but torture so it’s not hard to see why she would think that, and that is further reiterated with her choice to have an abortion. HOWEVER, I have been having conversations with people analyzing the motherhood/babies theme for a few months now and it is obvious that on some level Olivia resents Quinn because she has a life that Olivia might’ve imagined for herself. In this season alone Olivia has touched her lower belly, like she did in 509 when she says there is no future for Olitz anymore, at least 3 times that I can easily remember. This is intentional

 After thinking about it for a while I came to two conclusions: One that I’ve discussed on here before, the idea that Olivia having a child would further advocate for choice in alignment with the social messaging of the show. Allowing the character to experience both ends of the spectrum re motherhood would cement the idea that women are in control of their bodies and should be able to choose when to take on motherhood if they so desire.

 The other conclusion is the fact that what Olivia has come to believe about herself & her abilities/lack thereof regarding motherhood are untrue. Olivia is the matriarch of OPA, it was her nurturing force that brought them together. She found all those people, took care of them, and put them back together! If that doesn’t stand out as one of the foundations of her mothering abilities, then I’m not sure what will.

 Now that makeshift family is sort-of broken, and notice that every single member has done morally questionable things, all their ugly has been exposed and their relationships deconstructed.  After they get over their final hurdle with this Olivia & Quinn situation they have nowhere to go but up. Notice that no one has said the words “over a cliff” in a while because they no longer have that sycophantic relationship with one another, and especially with Olivia. That wasn’t healthy, which is why the deconstruction is pivotal to change within this group of people.

 Extraneous Characters

 This episode confirmed my suspicions that Jake is working behind her back. My spidey senses tingled in the beginning of the season and I was right. Jake is not interested in bringing Olivia into the light, his only concern appears to be freedom. Therefore, he is participating in this whole charade with Rowan and undermining Olivia. He looks like he’s involved to the point where he is taking orders from both Rowan and Olivia, but at the end of the day he’s interested in freedom the same way other characters were interested in freedom this last episode. Rowan’s bones are just a sad euphemism for his freedom to take back command. Notice that Jake suggests Olivia kill Rowan because he is too weak himself and wants Olivia to subconsciously free him. That thing she told him about him needing her too much? It’s true. And Olivia gambles with her father until the very end so that she can prove that she is the one in control and free of him. The complete opposite is true; she is still his prisoner as she described how she was made in his image. Rowan has never stopped being in control.

 Now that I mentioned Jake it’s also important to mention that I’m sure his days on here are numbered. This last episode planted the seed in Cy’s brain that something is amiss. Using Fenton as a scapegoat was a bad idea; Cy is now questioning the intel Jake claims he had and he seems to be the only person who remembers that this asshole killed James in cold blood. It’s the perfect time for revenge.  Cy will help unfurl what exactly has been going on under the roof of this WH all along. THE TIME IS NIGH! PLEASE! PLEASE JUST GET RID OF JAKE!

Also, important to mention that Pryce of power guy was (is?) a member of the press just like James, it was no coincidence that Cy of all people has that discussion with Jake.

 Mellie ,*cue eyeroll* The most useless character on here that can’t do anything unless she is coddled and spoon-fed. She needs Marcus for advice, she needs Olivia to hold her hand every second, SHE is the one that’s President but in the end, she relents and decides to pick Fitz’s brain (and reports) to see how she should propose Criminal Justice Reform. No idea ever comes from her! EVER!

Her whole “we don’t need no man” speech was one of the creepiest things I’ve ever witnessed on this show. I’m not sure if it was the acting or what but I picked up on the strangest tension. And about men coming between them? Fitz was between them in the beginning, and he is between them now because Mellie is discussing and setting policy goals with Fitz instead of with her COS, especially after Fitz has been pseudo-banished. No man between them? LIES! It’s always the same man, now it’s just not in a romantic context.

 In the end this whole Rashad thing will blow up but I refuse to think that this bitch will have the satisfaction of firing Olivia. Olivia looks like she’s barely hanging on by a thread as it is, I want her to quit and reclaim her agency! For all the times that Mellie treated her like some whore that was responsible for serving her now ex-husband! And all the times she’s been dismissive of her this season! Or how she wants all sort of plausible deniability while Olivia gets her hands dirty as command! Enough of this kumbaya sisterhood shit, it’s fake, let’s end it!

 The only thing I can’t quite decide on is Rowan’s fate. The kill order is still standing; we were left with that cliffhanger… But I wonder if the show is gonna go down the whole patricide route? I’m not sure. It is obvious that Rowan and Olivia cannot coexist, for her to be able to live her life she needs to be free of him. It is no coincidence that she was somewhat functional the first two seasons when Rowan was not in the picture. Once he entered the scene her life started to spiral, culminating with this last episode in which Olivia unloads all her baggage and all the fingers point to Rowan.

   Last Few Words

 For the first time in a long time I am eager to see the show return. We only have 11 episodes left but these are all loose ends that need to tied up. For a long time, I resented the show because I felt as if the writing was constantly contradictory and I felt like it was impossible to interpret it. The characters would act a certain way but their words were the complete opposite and I just found myself running out of patience and not knowing what to believe. I had to reach a place of indifference to be able to interpret it. I in no way believe that all, if any, of these predictions will come to fruition and this may be more along the lines of wishful thinking perhaps. I want to fall in love with Olivia the same way I did at the beginning and I REFUSE to think that they will let her go out unhappy. Whatever her version of happy is then so be it, but she is not cut out to be Command.  The writing’s on the wall and we are reaching the end so everything tends to feel on the nose and too intentional for there to be coincidences. I’ve thought of other things that I did not include on here because this is so insanely long but would love to discuss and pick at other ideas. :) 

I think that we will come to find that Olivia has a deliciously chewy center. (And I’m sure Fitz can attest to that!)

[storm-driver]

Kingdom Hearts: Why are the Remixes Good?

I see people bashing the Kingdom Hearts development team for “buying time” and “making a quick buck” with re-releasing the Kingdom Hearts games on the PlayStation 3 (and later the PlayStation 4). “They only did it because they needed to sate your hunger with mildly new stuff in each collection, only trying to buy time for Nomura’s ignorance to the final installment.”

JUST STOP. THAT’S NOT AT ALL ACCURATE.

The ORIGINAL Kingdom Hearts, made for the PlayStation 2 way back in 2002 (I was literally a babe when that game came out, can you believe that) is probably the most cherished game in the series, but... also the most annoying to play. Platforming was a little jumpy then and the way the combat rolled out was sorta messy. Nevertheless, the game proved to be fun and full of good story. 

The original developers lost the assets to the game and took the collective decision to remake it from the ground-up. This let them fix a LOT of issues the game had with it’s camera work and select cutscenes, including the installation of new bosses, weapons, abilities, and an easier-to-use reaction command system, or as people call it in KH2, “PRESS TRIANGLE TO WIN.”

In addition to fixing the mechanical issues, the in-game models were updated to their HD versions, Yoko Shimomura re-composed the soundtrack for the game, and many cutscenes and textures were upgraded to match the stunning HD of the PS3. 

This was only the beginning. Since 358/2 Days came out originally on the Nintendo DS, cutscenes were limited in this game. The story was told through, dare I say, poor quality in-game dialogue with hardly any voice acting to back it. This did make the characters in the game feel a little less like themselves. The HD Remaster of 358 really helps to bring back that tie. It completely scrapped the combat system used in Days, but did well to keep up it’s heart-wrenching story. While there is no gameplay, it was a touching movie that I still shed a few tears over. 

Albeit, nothing much changed in Chain of Memories aside from the final boss having a remastered soundtrack, it was nice to see the cutscenes in HD. And if you’re like me, that sweet 60 fps on the PS4.

“Storm, this isn’t selling me. It still sounds like a cash-grab. ”

UNDERSTANDABLE! I honestly thought the same thing a long time ago! Allow me to inform you more on the next addition: Kingdom Hearts 2.5!

Kingdom Hearts II is, arguably, the best game in the franchise via gameplay. The combat system is much less punishing if you get hammered, and very cinematic. You thought Ars Arcanum was a cool way to finish off an enemy? Try having the scripted event be throwing the enemy INTO THE AIR and SMACKING IT IN THE CHEST SEVERAL TIMES, then having it LAND ON THE FLOOR BEHIND YOU AS YOU STRIKE A POSE.

Vertigo Toss is the coolest shit ever and I don’t know how to top it.

How do you make it better in the Remix? Anyone knows, compared to Kingdom Hearts I, this “much better” installment was very lacking in secret bosses and bonus content to do after completing the game. So that’s exactly what the developers added: extra areas to explore, more bosses to fight, new abilities to abuse, cool content to have fun with, AND A HELLISH SECRET BOSS THAT TIES INTO THE LORE.

The game also added in new cutscenes to help explain what’s going on within the Organization, as well as Roxas’ motivation behind fighting Sora, and Sora’s resolve to thank Naminé for what she’d done for him. On top of very beautiful HD graphics and a new soundtrack, the game was enjoyable for the viewer and a challenge for the player.

Birth by Sleep didn’t receive much change aside from the new graphics and a few remastered soundtracks. However, the Mirage Arena was modified for single-player use, new bosses were added, and a new Secret Episode was included in the game after finishing the Final Episode. This Secret Episode would tie into the later release of Kingdom Hearts 0.2 on the PS4. 

It’s well-known to hardly affect the plot, but some of my theories say otherwise. Coded was a fun, side-game that delved into the data world of Jiminy’s Journal. While not a whole lot happened there, it was a fun game that did hint towards new releases for the future. The Remastered movie pulled a 358 and completely scrapped the gameplay part of the game. It became a 3-hour movie, mostly for viewing pleasure and not exactly designed to move the plot of the franchise. But there were a few-tear jerking cutscenes in there. It was well-worth the remake.

“Okay, but I’m not seeing the point. This still feels like a time-staller for KH3.”

Patience, my reader. We’re on our latest Remix: Kingdom Hearts 2.8 Final Chapter Prologue

yeah, i know, it’s a ridiculous name, but this is Kingdom Hearts, we all thought Goofy was dead for 2 minutes

Dream Drop Distance is infamous for being a mind-fuck to the viewer. While it has it’s flashy gameplay and interesting mechanics, the game is best known for it’s sudden exceleration in the plot with the introduction of time travel.

Yes, because things weren’t confusing enough. Plot aside, the gameplay didn’t change all that much. A few new Dream Eaters were added into the game, but aside from revamping the touch-screen commands, nothing really changed. 

Here’s the real reason everyone bought 2.8: Kingdom Hearts 0.2 Birth by Sleep - A Fragmentary Passage

HAH, YOU THOUGHT THAT LAST NAME WAS RIDICULOUS.

Kingdom Hearts 0.2 was a completely new experience in the franchise. It had only been touched on in the Secret Episode of Birth by Sleep and this short game was only a fraction of what was initially planned. I look at this game to be a demo for Kingdom Hearts III, as it uses the finalized graphics, mechanics, and game engine that is to be used in the final installment, as well as having a final cutscene that connects to the beginning of KH3, as confirmed by developers. 

The game should only take the average player about 2 to 3 hours to finish this game. It is VERY short, but very amusing. Featuring absolutely stunning graphics, beautifully orchestrated music, fun gameplay, and an immersive world, I find people replaying this small demo all the time. Not only for it’s fun gameplay, but also the character development and story.

Kingdom Hearts Unchained X Back Cover is an HD recreation of the cutscenes in the mobile game, Kingdom Hearts Unchained X. It’s best understood by watching and/or playing the mobile platform, as the story may not make sense without its guiding game. The remaster touches on the 5 Union Leaders and how they intend to fight the impending darkness, as well as introducing the 6th Apprentice and what his role just might be.

“I can see why that LAST one wasn’t a cash-grab, but it definitely felt like a stall... Storm, where are you going with this?”

I admit, I do believe somewhere in my heart that the Remixes were a way to keep us busy while Kingdom Hearts III was being developed. But in no way or form do I think they were meant to just earn money. Granted, they certainly did, but I doubt that was the goal that the team was going for.

Kingdom Hearts has received MANY new fans since the initial release of Kingdom Hearts on the PS2. And what with how spread out every game is onto different consoles, it’s hard to actually play them all. Tetsuya Nomura, game director and developer, stated in an interview himself that the main reason the Remixes were made was to allow Kingdom Hearts fans new and old to visit and revisit the series without having to dig up old consoles. 

Kingdom Hearts 1.5+2.5 released onto the PS4, along with Kingdom Hearts 2.8 and the soon-coming Kingdom Hearts III places each and every game onto the PlayStation 4. Albeit pricey even now, every single game is accessible on a single console. Unchained X, or Union Cross, is still a phone game, but I do think they intend to recreate the story cutscenes and release them onto the PS4 in a potential DLC package. 

“So... they made it easier for the fans?”

Not just easier, but they made this series mean even MORE to the fans. The recreation of 358/2 Days and Coded as movies, and the addition of new story content and gameplay material would not have been added if it wasn’t for the fans to enjoy. I don’t think I could love Roxas as much as I do if I didn’t get to see that HD Remaster of Days. 

And with the release of Back Cover, it’s proof that they intend to bring Union Cross to the console players in some form or another. I can’t play Union Cross simply because I have a phone that doesn’t allow it to work properly. So being able to watch the “important” cutscenes in stunning HD feels like a privilege that I’m entirely thankful for.

And most important to me was the release of Kingdom Hearts 0.2, a practical demo for Kingdom Hearts III. It was a proof-check for the developers, so they could make sure that we knew their development was coming along just fine, so they could make sure that we LIKED what they were making and to see how they could perfect it for the grand title they’ve been working on for over 7 years. It was a reassurance that Kingdom Hearts III was on it’s way and that we would ENJOY it.

The Remixes were meant to tide us over, yes, but they were meant to make us fall in love with this game even MORE. So it would be beloved by our hearts and enjoyed by new ones. The Remixes, in all honesty, just made the Kingdom Hearts series better. I can say that as a fact.

[thesffcorner]

Kill Creek

Kill Creek is a horror novel written by Scott Thomas. We follow Sam McGarver, a best selling horror author who is suffering from a massive writer's block. He has separated from his wife and is teaching at a university, while trying to write his next novel. He gets an invitation to do an interview for WrightWire, a pop culture website known for putting on massive, scripted shows, and he accepts, not realizing that not only will he not be alone during this interview, but it will also take place at the notorious Kill Creek Manor, a house with a dark and haunted past. The idea of this book sounded awesome; 4 horror authors have to spend a weekend at a haunted house for an interview; kind of like Until Dawn, but instead of teenagers the victims are masters of the genre and could therefore have a unique approach and even predict what the house would throw at them. The first half of this book was excellent; I liked the set-up, I liked the characters, the history of Kill Creek was suitably dark and twisted, and I really liked the direction of the plot. Unfortunately, as soon as the characters arrived in Kill Creek, much like his own lead character, Thomas’ story quickly devolved into cliches, nonsensical plot twists, characters acting completely opposite to what they did before for no reason, and this really interesting premise was squandered. The book never recovers from the wasted potential that is the interview, so I figure I should start with the positives. For a start, I appreciated that all of the characters, while not all likable, were at least relatable and consistent. With the exception of one, each character had an understandable starting point, and though they all end up doing questionable things, I still rooted for them, and wanted them to survive the book. I liked the way each character’s personal trauma and past informed the ways in which they interacted with the house, and for the most part found all of them equally intriguing, at the start. The house itself was really well done. A lot of the book relies heavily on the Southern Gothic tradition, which I enjoy. It’s a big house that has been abandoned for decades, in the middle of nowhere in Kansas, and it does all the things creepy houses do; cold spots, sounds, apparitions, power turning off and on, rooms that go nowhere, creepy crawl spaces, etc. I almost wish, considering the role the house played that we got to spend more time inside it, and really delved into it’s dark history, like Del Toro did in Crimson Peak. I also liked what we get to see of Sam’s classes. His 5 elements of gothic horror were brilliant and I kept reading the book wondering and theorizing about how everything fit in them. I also liked the interview, where Sebastian was explaining what true horror means to him; it was a great deconstruction of Lovcraftian horror and I really liked that the queer character was the one who gravitated most to it. There were other scenes that left an impact: Sebastian seeing Richard for the first time, Sam hugging Wainwright after he tells them what happened to Kate, his stunt with the Underground, Daniel mourning his daughter. The moments of humanity and genuine kindness made me root for the characters, which is something modern horror desperately lacks, often treating its characters like disposable blood bags. Unfortunately, there are more issues than positives. Now, I am by no means a purist; different genres can borrow and modify elements from each other, as even Sam points out in his lecture. There are elements that make a specific piece of work ‘Gothic’ horror, but that same work can also fall under the slasher, body horror or even religious horror category. What Thomas is essentially trying to do here is to take 4 genres of horror fiction: Lovcraftian horror, southern Gothic, slasher and erotic horror and piece them together into one book. And the effect is much the same as the one you get at the end of Cabin in the Woods; confusing, predictable and not particularly effective at any of the genres. I am never scared of Gothic horror; the most I am, is unnerved or unsettled. However, when I watch/read anything pertaining to torture-porn, body horror or even slasher, I am terrified, and there wasn’t a single point in this book where I was even slightly unsettled. Gothic horror and straight up slashers don’t mix, at least not the way Thomas has done it here. For example, we have quiet scenes of Sebastian being haunted by the mistakes of his past, the dread of losing his memories, losing his ability to tell stories, and in the same breath we have Moore getting the shit kicked out of her, or Kate slicing her arm open, Ghosts of Mars style. These simply don’t work together, and the end result is an uneven feeling throughout the book where I’m not sure what I should be scared of, because anything goes. The other main issue was the horror element. The idea that the house was never evil, but people believing that it is made it haunted was just… unsatisfactory. How can rumors actually make a house haunted? And I don’t mean, oh because people think this place is bad, anything even remotely strange or distressing that happens in it is automatically prescribed to the location; no I mean somehow people’s notions that the house is haunted created or called a primordial, decaying evil that has a physical form, and can take on the shape of specific people enough to fool others that it is human, save people from dying, and also kill them in unrelated bus accidents? What? The ending was such a mess, because there are no rules to this creature! It can do absolutely anything, and there was no suspense left in the climax or the epilogue, because I knew exactly what would happen. Thomas just borrows tropes from other horror works, and does nothing to subvert them; he just let’s them play out with no critical eye, which is why we get such a dumb Bloomhouse ending, to what was otherwise a book that really seemed to respect the genre and it’s traditions. There were also major issues with the characters. Let’s start with the ones I had the least amount of problems with: Kate, Wainwright and Sebastian. Kate was boring as hell; she had no personality other than being southern and black. There is a line in the book about how her dad would hate that she’s sleeping with Wainwright not because he’s her boss but because he’s white, which is a can of worms I don’t want to touch with a 10 ft pole. There was an attempt to tie her to the history of the house, seeing as a freed slave woman who lived there was lynched, but we know nothing about Kate or her relationship with Wainwright, other than he is white and she is black. Wainwright at least had a lot of potential to be interesting. There are hints to his personality throughout the first half which never pan out; he has daddy issues, he feels inadequate and like a fraud, he has a temper that fires off when things don’t go his way, he is willing to do anything for clout. I thought the reveal was that he would rig the house for the interview Until Dawn style, or he’d trigger the haunting with something he does, but nothing of the sort happens. I thought maybe his temper and aggressive streak might make him abusive to Kate, but that also never happens. Sam hates and suspects him, but there is no reason for it; he’s just a rich boy who gets way in over his head and nothing beyond that. Sebastian was the character I liked the most, but he was wasted on this book. He is old, he has been closeted his whole life, he has lost the love of his life to cancer, and his father to dementia and is now aware that he too is slowly becoming forgetful. How interesting would it have been if Thomas actually grappled with his past, the wife he betrayed by using her as a beard, his fear of losing his memories of Richard, his desire to remain famous or at least remembered because he himself is starting to forget. How novel to actually have a queer protagonist in a Gothic novel where their sexuality isn’t punished by death of suffering. But no, he’s just barely in the book, and though I appreciate that at least Thomas didn’t have a third act twist where he suddenly became evil, it was clear Thomas had no idea what to do with him. Then we get to the characters I actively hated. Daniel I liked for most of the book; I hated the way his character was treated by the author however. I have never seen such little respect for a religious character in anything; I legitimately felt like I was watching God’s Not Dead, except Daniel was losing his faith instead of finding it. If I had to guess, I’d say Thomas doesn’t like religion, and doesn’t have any interest in actually exploring the complicated relationship characters who are religious have with themselves, their church, their families and God. Daniel is religious because he survived a spider attack as a child, and though he seems to be questioning his faith, we never really get to see why, or what drives him to be a Christian author at all. Every debate Daniel has with Moore is dumb, and the way he answers questions is purposefully written to have Moore come out on top, instead of presenting reasons as to why a person would believe certain things. It came off as fake and disingenuous, especially because the relationship Daniel has with his daughter was so good, and the scenes with him and his wife at the house were heartbreaking. But then, because Thomas needs a villain it’s just Daniel, for no reason other than… Thomas hates parents and/or religious people. I also didn’t appreciate how many fat jokes the other characters made at his expense of how everyone treated him like he was dumb just because he was excited to be around authors who were his peers and influences. Then we have Moore, who was probably the worst female character I’ve ever had the misfortune of reading; worse than Mara Jade, worse than Razorgirl. She deserves to be taught in class as an example of how not to write female characters; a complete caricature of feminism, and ambitious career driven women. She’s rude, abrasive, a massive inconsiderate asshole that is constantly constantly defensive, takes every single gesture in the absolute worst faith but also still has to be a) straight and b) hot. I actually wouldn’t have minded a female writer who started out as an indie erotica writer whose work became successful and her writing darker. I liked that she was clearly an Objectivist with an Ayn Rand level of strict work ethic, who is also rude and unpleasant. But the way she was written made absolutely no sense, and her fucking insulting backstory, about how she was severely abused by her ex, was just the icing on this shit cake. She oozed with ‘I’m not like other girls’ and ‘strong women as imagined by men’; she has an unnecessary and frankly unbelievable romance with Sam, is the only one who is described to write in the nude and is also the token woman in the male group, and if I can say one positive about her character is that it at least stayed consistently rude and disgusting to the very end. Sam was clearly the writer insert character and for the most part he was fine; at least he read like a real, flawed human, not a human-shaped robot. There were many moments where he describes other male characters as beautiful or comments on how attractive their eyes or faces are, so I got excited that maybe this book would explore his sexuality, but no; he is a boring, bland straight protagonist. I appreciated that he had depression and anxiety and was actually being treated for it, I liked that he explored toxic masculinity in his stories, but there was still the ridiculous ‘romance’ between him and Moore, and the reason why he refused to tell anyone what happened to his mother was… unclear. Like he’s clearly an adult and mature enough to know that therapy works, but still childish enough to cling to what his brother told him to protect him when he was 10? Ok? Also I didn’t like that he made no effort to make things better with Erin and he still got her back in the end. If I could recommend half of a book I would, because everything in this novel, up until the authors have their interview was great. Everything past that point kept becoming more and more convoluted, and what made the book interesting, the characters and the mystery of the house completely unraveled. I would be interested to see what else Thomas has written, because there is a good story in him; it just wasn’t this one.

goodreads