#btw these are all based on actors from a post that flopped

[tutuandscoot]

The Falling Angel

Analysing MR series

This is one of my most favourite pieces of chore they ever did (I was so bummed they had to change it) this is based on chore from the ballet Manon and specifically the final pdd where she is dying (I’ve already done two posts about it and there’s also this in where DW confirms that was the inspiration for Satine’s death scene).

I love the way it moved across the ice, really the whole scene from the curve lift to him sitting her on his lap, then the falling angel and into the last lift is just so exquisite. I’ve heard the comparisons between skating and ballet (in general) and where skaters argue you don’t get the flow of movement, the speed in ballet, I would say skaters don’t have the same ethereal weightlessness and freedom of movement that dancers do. EXCEPT OF COURSE VM..

Let’s break it down.

The quality of movement and story telling:

The way Tessa moves is unmatched in her sport in general. I legitimately believe she is dying- she makes me believe it. What she does here is she has this amazing ability to completely abandon all her limbs yet remain so strong in her core. She has the most exquisite port de bras (arm carriage) in that she doesn’t just let her arms flop, she doesn’t do anything to exaggerate the movement, it’s like she is slowly letting her limbs weaken and not simply loose control of them. I believe she is in kind of a dazed trance and I believe that she actually thinks she is as well-like she’s good enough of an actor to let herself feel that daze, that look in her eyes where there is still emotion coming out but it’s past the point of recognising the pain she’s in. It’s not like she drops and pops back to life again after each fall. This whole sequence is like she’s slowly leaving the world, but in the faintest, softest way is still communicating with him. The first arabesque as she looks up, it’s like she’s telling him she wants to go that way, or there’s something over there he needs to see, but she’s slipping in and out of consciousness.

This whole scene is all about her but it would not be what it’s is without Scott being the best, most talented, most intelligent and stunning dancer himself. The way he matches her gaze as she looks up. He (both him and his character) are listening to everything she’s still saying, he doesn’t react to her falling until she’s actually fallen- he doesn’t know she’s beginning to die until then. He gives equal value to saving her from falling and what she is trying to tell him. I can feel from him each time he catches her a little ‘gasp’ or softly exclaiming ‘no!’ It’s not like he’s saying it but it’s through his breath (esp that one in the 4th gif from HPC). He acts it like he instinctually knows where and how to catch her- like how you would actually be trying to save the love of your life- he prioritises catching her head and not allowing her neck to break (bend) back hard (which btw, obviously this is choreographed but I don’t even think they would have to tell him how to actually catch her coz it’s the exact same way he holds and cradles her in general even when they’re happy).

Partnering:

As mentioned above, Tessa’s iron core is what makes this movement possible. But it’s what Scott does though out all of this that makes it magical and never ceases to amaze me. Both the instances of them practicing/performing it on the floor; watch how he matches her arabesques as her leg goes up. There is absolutely no reason for him to do that when practicing it on the floor because it can’t be done/isn’t what he does when skating it. This is a prime, obvious example of just how good they are, what a phenomenal partner he is and specifically his attentiveness to her and her movement. He even matches her when it’s not necessary. It also just for me in my little ballerina feels a *clutches heart* moment because that’s exactly what male partners do with their women when performing any classical pdd. I don’t know the extent of their ballet training (in regards to skating, together, both of them) but it’s very very obvious he was paying close attention to all the little things in ballet class as it relates to partnering especially, but also the importance of finishing his own lines- turn out, pointed feet (LOOK HOW POINTED HIS FEET ALWAYS ARE). I just know that every day they were at the barre he was matching her lines down to the millimetre. No excuses for being a boy and not being/needing to be as flexible or not needing high legs- it’s obvious in all their programs just how flexible he is and the importance of being both completely aware of himself and of her. Like he wouldn’t (need to) look in the mirror to check is own lines- Tessa was his mirror so as long as he matched her he was doing it right. That he knows intuitively to match her arabesque lines off ice, then when skating where his foot work is completely different, still complements her in all the other ways is just………I’m in love with the guy I think that’s obvious at this point.

Another thing about their partnering in general which I think I’ve figured out how to word after making this post, is that balance they have between doing every lift-kind of movement together- feeling as though she’s lifting herself so its not on him to get her anywhere, and how they let it appear as though he is a actually guiding her through every movement- leading her, not letting her dictate the musicality or where anything goes. A time he does ‘lift’ her it’s so light and there is never any struggle. It’s that their cores are (one step removed from literally) connected to each other’s. And it comes from them connecting their breathing (as soft and lovely as the hug™️ is, this is the actual physical result and purpose of doing it). You can see it (it’s very subtle) in the way he goes with her as she falls. He doesn’t resist his movement against her’s as to counter her body falling. Look in any of the gifs above (on/off ice) how far off-centre she goes before he even makes contact with her. Off ice it’s starts with him matching her arabesque, on ice it’s matching her gaze, loosing her out of his line of vision for a brief moment, her (choreographically) trusting he will catch her which allows her to go so far off balance but from a character perspective she doesn’t know what will happen, she just falls cause her body is weakening. The first time he doesn’t know she’s going to fall, then you can see on the second side he stays closer to her and actually checks her body to know if happens again where he needs to be to save her. As she falls he moves with her, and they use their breath to create that circular motion, that flow to get her back on her feet. It feels so light for both of them, just to watch it, I don’t feel like she’s heavy and he has to heave her to get her to stand up again. They’re able to do this both when she’s further away from him (the first fall) and when has her so much closer to him the second time.

Detail:

I use to try so see if I could figure out whether when she falls if he actually helps her off her skate by nudging her a bit off balance, or whether it’s just her letting her weight fall to the outside edge of her blade and turning in a bit to loose her own balance. It’s kinda hard to tell- in all of these instances it differs. I think more than likely it’s just her controlling her tipping point but I also think it’s interesting, like with the matching arabesque lines, how on the floor she will go to a full or half relevé and (in the studio- mural version) and fall over her demi pointe, in the rehearsal version she stays flat until the last second then rises up. The difference with this is one is more of a ‘performance’ and the other they aren’t going ‘full out’ so I don’t want to get too specific. The main point of this (which there’s not really a point to but I thought I’d explain it anyway) from a dancers POV is the way she falls off balance in her skates is the ‘correct’ way you’d be doing it as a dancer if on the floor. To get into and out of the floor with these kinda off-balance things is to go off the side of the ankle and roll down through the calf muscle- you never go over the arch of the foot as she kinda does in the last one. I just think it’s interesting coz she uses the correct (dancer’s) technique to get off her skates as we would on the floor, but on the floor she does more of a ballet version of it which you would only be doing in pointe shoes- falling forward off the block. The over the ankle (the skating version) can be quite tricky and dangerous for people that aren’t used to it coz you essentially have to deliberately roll your ankle. It’s much safer for her, given the huge differences in ankle/foot pliability skaters have compared to dancers, for her to go to demi pointe- obviously knowing she doesn’t actually have to fall to the ground.

Lastly, the way they make sense of this scene for themselves and how they want to play it. They literally talk through what is happening in the story and transfer that into their bodies. This is all normal stuff for dancers of their standard, it doesn’t surprise me, but I just love listening to it because I speak their language and I know exactly what that feels like- to transfer an idea, a verbal queue into the way you move your body, and in their case who they move together to tell us what is happening:

The way he looks at her as he talks through how to play it. T really doesn’t lie when she says how he just feels so much and just has this huge heart and puts everything into what they do together. Always thinking about how he can make her look better and play to her. So she knows when he’s gonna come in to catch her. It’s so beautiful to watch them move together like this- watching them figuring it out, how they physically just know how to respond to each other instinctually.

#fd: moulin rouge #part of a long series of breaking down everything thi k about this magical piece of art

[phoebe-delia]

please give me a rant on Cats ily btw

Hi nonnie! Omg ily too, thank you! And thank you for this ask, because ooohh boy do I have feelings about this adaptation.

First of all, I have a few disclaimers to make:

1. I love the actual musical. Yes, I know the show is very controversial--either you love it or you hate it--but I grew up on "Cats." I loved it, and the book of poems it's based on. So for those looking for a rant about the lack of plot or criticizing the show itself, this post isn't for you.

2. I'm not even going to address the CGI other than to say....that was a choice. I think the critics and social media have done plenty to criticize it, and I won't say more about that fever dream on 'shrooms.

3. There were two aspects of the movie I enjoyed: Jennifer Hudson singing "Memory" and Taylor Swift's appearance; though even the presence of my favorite artist of all time was not enough to redeem this movie.

And for you, nonnie, I rewatched both the trailer and The Rum Tum Tugger song. I will be sending you the bill for my therapy <3 ;)

Now, onto the good stuff.

I'll start with the casting. Something that a ton of movie musical adaptations do is stunt-cast big names to draw audiences because they're afraid that people won't want to see a movie musical. This happened in the "Les Miserables" movie, and while big-name choices like Anne Hathaway, Helena Bonham Carter, Sacha Baron-Cohen, and even Hugh Jackman had varying degrees of success, Russell Crowe as Javert was an obvious flop.

People like Jackman, Meryl Streep, and more recently James Corden have been cast in all these movie musicals because they're famous enough to get the average person into the theater. But, God, at what cost? I mean honestly, the only instance in which I think stunt casting truly worked was in the "Chicago" movie, which I firmly believe is the best movie musical adaptation ever made. (But that's another post.)

But please for the love of God can we start casting people with singing talent in musicals? Please? I'm begging.

Anyway, I digress. My point is: casting big names--even distinguished, incredible actors like Sir Ian McKellen and Idris Elba and Dame Judi Dench--will not save a movie musical from being shitty.

But here's probably my biggest problem: the acting itself.

Almost every single character was just the actor's personality projected into it. With the exception of the two previously unknown actors, it just felt like the characters were simply the actors dressed in costume and being a weird, exaggerated version of themselves. Little attention seemed to be paid to the actual characterization of the cats.

I think what hurt the most for me, personally, was Jason Derulo as Rum Tum Tugger. Oh, ouch, this one was painful because growing up I was a huge fan of the character. To be fair to Derulo, it is nearly impossible to follow in the footsteps of Terrence Mann. I mean, he played both Tugger and Javert in the original Broadway casts of Cats and Les Mis respectively--he's a musical theater giant.

But with Derulo, Tugger became...weaker and kinda one-dimensional. Rum Tum Tugger is flamboyant and funny, sort of like Elvis or Mick Jagger. He's larger than life, and Derulo just made him kinda sleazy without the high energy. I will say--his take on the iconic ending riff was good; he hit the right notes while still making it his own. Derulo is clearly talented, but I don't think he was well cast in this role.

Honestly, I think "Cats" should never have been adapted. Even if it pleased every die-hard fan of the show and did everything perfectly, it's so controversial and polarizing among theater fans that there's little chance that a non-theater fan is going to even see it--let alone enjoy it. The musical itself is kind of insane; it's an acquired taste, and it's not for everyone.

The moral of the story is, in my humble opinion, if you can't use the film genre and tools to enhance the story (or at least match the quality) then do a professional shot of it on stage, and either way, hire talented, diverse, unknown theater actors who can sing.

*sigh.* Alright, end of rant. Honestly, thank you nonnie this was cathartic. I think we can call it even on the therapy bill ;)

Send me an ask about Harry Potter, broadway/musicals, The West Wing, and/or Taylor Swift! Or just about life in general :).

Also, I have a playlist of my 99 most listened-to songs of the year so far. Pick a number 1--99 and send me an ask and I'll write you a fic based on it!

#cats the musical #jellicle cats #musicals #broadway #movie musicals #musical theater #ask #ask me anything #ask me questions #ama

[hellzyeahwebwielingessays]

The Not-So-Amazing Mary Jane Part 7: MJ blindly trusts Beck (even though she wouldn’t!)

Previous Part

Next Part

Master Post

This post will be the first of maaaaaaany where I’ll be unpacking the problems prevalent in the status quo presented to us in at the end of AMJ #1.

My intent is to thoroughly explore these problems in this and consequent posts before moving onto issue #2. By doing this I (and others so inclined) can try to bear them in mind as prevailing problems with every issue until such as a time as they are addressed.

In future posts like this (at least until we get to AMJ #2) I will try to dispense with the preamble and get right down to business.

But for now I should start by clearly defining what exactly the premise presented in AMJ #1 even is.

The premise as I see it is as follows:

Mary Jane, out of sympathy for him and interest in the project, is making a movie with Mysterio. A Mysterio who has disguised himself as a respected film director and hired former felons and current super villains as part of his crew. He and MJ maintain Beck’s secret from everyone (which includes Peter but we’ll get there in another post).

In this instalment I will be addressing why MJ’s trust of Beck and failure to verify his claims is nonsensical.

As touched on in our coverage of AMJ #1, Mary Jane believes Beck’s sob story and ultimately agrees to work with him in spite of his crimes and the presence of active villains. Williams writes her genuinely sympathetic and interested in the film project, buying what Beck is saying and lacking any suspicion beyond that.

The most we get is MJ (arguably) noticing Beck’s abuse of one his staff and presumably bearing it in mind for future dealings with him.

Now, MJ is great at reading people and is very aware she possesses that skill. Between her upbringing moving around the country, her profession in acting and modelling (which puts many people, in particular young women, in potentially vulnerable positions) and her experience dating and living with a superhero, it’s an essential skill and one she’s honed. You could call it her personal brand of spider-sense.

If MJ’s Spidey sense were registering honesty from someone then it’d be crucial in her decision to ultimately believe them and judge their threat level.

These pages though get muddy because Beck is mixing the truth and deception. Technically everything he is saying is  true so MJ would likely be picking that up. But he didn’t actually need   MJ to be in the movie so he was lying about that and more poignantly he is omitting the fact this movie plays into Kindred’s wider schemes.

Is MJ’s failure to register deception from Beck a mistake? Is Williams dropping the ball here?

Actually no.

Mary Jane is a good read of people, but she is absolutely not flawless in this regard. There have been times she’s misread Peter and indeed been fooled by other people. Five key examples come to mind and we’re going to be starting with the most debatable ones.

Firstly there was Jason Jerome a fellow actor who offered friendship and support when MJ began working on the soap opera Secret Hospital. Jason was a harassing creep intent upon seducing Mary Jane, regarding her marital status as challenge that’d make his ‘conquest’ all the sweeter. I go into much more detail about Jason’s encounters with MJ in this post.

I will concede that it can definitely be argued that MJ was out of character or emotionally vulnerable during the course of this subplot so it doesn’t necessarily prove anything. Nevertheless, in MJ’s canonical history she was fooled by a fellow (and more experienced) actor than herself.

Secondly there was Aunt May’s death in ASM #400. Aunt May was impersonated by a dying actress who’d been genetically altered to look like and register as her. For around a year everyone (including MJ) believed their beloved May to be dead once more proving how MJ’s ability to read people isn’t flawless. Again though there is a lot of stuff that can be contested with this example, the most significant being that as originally written the intent was that this was the actual Aunt May, not an imposter.

However even accepting the retcon one could argue that due to her pregnancy, May’s miraculous recovery from a coma and the general stress of the Clone Saga up until that point Mary Jane’s ‘Spidey sense’ was not going to be working properly. However, canonically this is once again an example of a fellow (and likely more experienced) actress deceiving MJ.

My other examples don’t have nearly as much leeway.

Perhaps the most significant is Jonathan Caesar, the Parkers’ landlord who was obsessed with ‘owning’ Mary Jane. You can imagine what that  would’ve entailed. He abducted MJ and held her prisoner for a little while. The thing is initially MJ found the guy charming and the idea he was a threat never crossed her mind.

Unlike the above two examples there weren’t any obvious extenuating circumstances that I can recall to excuse MJ’s faux pas. She was just genuinely fooled by him.

Then we have her friend Lorraine whom you might recall from part 4 of this essay series. As mentioned there, Lorraine was an old friend of MJ’s who’d developed a cocaine problem. MJ sought to help her and Lorraine seemed willing to be helped. But when MJ left her alone for a little while Lorraine almost immediately snuck out to find her next hit.

Models are not actresses strictly speaking. But to my limited knowledge their profession must involve some degree of adopting a false persona. Even if we were to say otherwise, Lorraine was clearly capable of duping Mary Jane.

Finally, for an extended period of time the Chameleon fooled MJ and most everyone else when he impersonated J. Jonah Jameson in Web #52.

Like Beck, Chameleon made a whole career out of fooling people and Beck could be argued to be even better at it than Chammy.

So the idea that someone could fool MJ is definitely possible in a lot of stories.

But we shouldn’t take MJ’s trust as a sign that she is in the right. It’s so often tempting to side with the protagonist’s POV precisely because they are the protagonist. If MJ trusts Mysterio she must feel he isn’t dangerous and isn’t that bad really right?

But the possibility that she can be wrong is on the table based upon her history and (whilst I personally doubt Williams intended it this way) that is what is happening here big time.

Now I am not suggesting that MJ should second-guess every read of people she makes nor that the above examples should be sore spots in her mind. But collectively they would enshrine to Mary Jane herself that she shouldn’t just presume her immediate reads of people are accurate, and that would go even more so for professional actors.

In this issue MJ hasn’t got any extenuating circumstances to compromise her judgement. She isn’t in the midst of an emotionally turbulent time in her life. She isn’t being blinded my friendship, loneliness or familial love. She also hasn’t had much time to observe or get to know Beck up close and personal, this exchange being the longest amount of time they’ve ever spoken to one another.

But as I spent far too much time pointing out in parts 3-5, MJ is very aware of Mysterio’s skills, his typical tactics and the horrible things he has done. She knows he is a career criminal and a dangerous/nasty one at that. And she knows that he is an incredibly accomplished and experienced manipulator/deceiver/actor, almost definitely more experienced than her self. And this is to say nothing of the times he’s personally hurt her or the people she cares about.

Realistically upon learning of Beck’s involvement she should somehow start to work against  him and most definitely not trust him!

Even exempting the personal pain he’s been complicit in visiting upon Mary Jane and/or her loved ones, she knows enough about him to be suspicious.

In knowing his skillset and M.O. Mary Jane should either not trust him at all or at the very least not simply not take everything he says at face value. She would  be savvy enough to recognize whatever her ‘radar’ is reading. At best the odds are 50/50 that her radar is off. And those odds exist precisely because making you believe things that aren’t real is the entire conceit of Beck’s alter ego.

But wait, there’s more!

Beck basically admitted to:

Stealing a man’s identity

Wasting over a year of his life working on a project that doesn’t actually exist (in a location notorious for unaccounted for landmines btw)

Using that to con people into giving him their money

Using that money to make a movie which means he’s gambling with their money without their consent and potentially gambling with the public image of the film studio, the crew and the man he’s impersonating if the film gets a bad reception or financially flops

He’s doing all this off the back of what an extremely risky movie to make in the first place. Imagine if an empathetic and unapologetic movie about the life of George Zimmerman came out?

Said movie is a vanity project explicitly about himself

He’s using current super villains on the crew. If you are a current super villain then by definition you are not out on parole, you aren’t reformed and you are still wanted by the law.

And Mary Jane…goes along with this. Lampshading the fact that it’s insane for her to do that doesn’t excuse the extreme mischaracterization of doing that in the first place.

At the very least she should run a check online or with her various contacts in the super hero community to see if he’s actually  dying. Remember from MJ’s POV Beck has full on faked his own death at least twice.  She has no hard evidence for this whatsoever beyond the word of a man who is notoriously duplicitous.

Now to play Devil’s advocate we could argue that MJ believes Beck is out of jail legally. He might’ve served his time, been let out early for good behaviour or precisely because he is dying.  Or perhaps he had legal help that weaselled him out of being locked up.

However this angle of interpretation just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

For starters given his very long history of very serious crimes (even excluding the ones MJ is unaware of) it’d be common sense to presume that Beck would be serving time barring extenuating circumstances. Common sense would then lead anybody to try and confirm if any extenuating circumstances exist. This could prove impossible because how accessible records on costumed criminals are to the public is unclear. But anyone with a phone or internet access could at least try.

MJ has far more than mere common sense and she’s got far more than a phone and internet access. And yet there isn’t even a hint that she makes even a lazy attempt at confirming Beck’s story.

Now let’s pretend MJ forgot every single encounter with Mysterio she knows about before Nick Spencer’s run. No faking Aunt May’s death. No helping Doc Ock in ‘Ends of the Earth’. Nothing from ‘Guardian Devil’. None of the stuff we covered in parts 3-5.

Mary Jane would still realistically be fully aware Beck committed a HUGE crime mere months ago that involved the Avengers (plus other heroes) that was also the inciting incident that reconciled her with the love of her life.

This alone  should be enough for her to not so quickly or blindly trust Beck! Even if she was unaware of the legal fallout of that event it was still an event that endangered lots of innocent people and heroes. Chiefly it endangered the love of her life! MJ trusts the guy whose actions nearly killed the man she loves most in the world!

Speaking of Peter by the way, he’s a super hero who’s regularly tangled with this guy.*

She has also worked for, is an acquaintance of or personal friends with:

Tony Stark/Iron Man

Riri Williams/Ironheart

The main roster of the Fantastic Four

Several big name members of the Avengers (including Captain America and Jessica Drew)

The Avengers faithful butler Jarvis

Members of a support group comprised of the loved ones of super heroes (see ASM v5 #8-10)

Carlie Cooper, a forensics scientist who has worked for the police

She has also encountered shape shifters, impersonators, clones and body swaps in the last 10 years of her life, so a certain degree of safety precautions would be requisite for her.

Collectively this means MJ would not simply presume Beck is walking free legally and more importantly could and would  check up on that. It wouldn’t be hard. She wouldn’t even have to tell Peter if for some reason she was worried about him knowing; we’ll dive a lot more into this in a much later instalment.

Her research would then naturally turn up the fact that Beck clearly escaped from prison. Even if the details of Beck’s trial or consequent legal proceedings (like being paroled or cutting a deal) weren’t public knowledge Mary Jane’s contacts would be able to inform her of what would’ve happened. Thus she’d know  Beck was legally declared insane and sent to Ravencroft but not legally released. 

Similarly even if the details of Mysterio’s ‘death’ in Ravencroft weren’t publically known MJ would have the means of learning that and thus confirm that Beck had faked his death once again; (see ASM v5 #24-25). This would then open up the possibility to MJ that the body the authorities have belongs to someone else. 

From MJ’s point of view, at best that’s macabre and unethical. At worst it could mean Beck caused someone’s death. MJ is clearly aware that Mysterio might be capable of such a thing because she is almost immediately concerned Beck has done something bad to the real Cage McKnight!

Now I’m not saying MJ is going along with Beck even knowing he probably killed his psychiatrist. But what I am saying is that it’s utterly out of character for MJ (or pretty much any character) to not check this stuff!

Maybe  Williams will address all this, but reading AMJ #1 it seems far more likely she’s not bothered to consider the implications of the direction she has taken. Or worse, she has but is ignoring them because she wants to tell the story she wants no matter what.

The point is moot though because MJ wouldn’t give Beck the benefit of the doubt in the first place.

There is more to be said regarding MJ’s trust issues in the story, but I think I’ll save that for next time.

*And typically won through a highly unique danger sense that MJ lacks, a sense that mitigates Beck’s abilities.

Previous Part

Next Part

Master Post

#Amazing Mary Jane #mjwatsonedit #Mary Jane Watson Parker #mary jane watson #MJ Watson #Mysterio #Quentin Beck #Peter Parker #spider-man #Leah Williams

[emubop]

Adding on to my post from yesterday, I’m just gonna list all the issues I have with Disco (a separate list of the things I love soon to come!)

Under a cut for length and for spoilers. Seriously. Major spoilers ahead. And tw for discussions of character death, if that bothers you.

With that in mind, let’s get to it! (This is in no particular order, btw.)

Starting with the last two episodes, since they’re pretty fresh in my mind - they felt very rushed. I’ve seen some people say that the season should have ended right when they got back from the mirrorverse, and I completely agree. The final arc felt like it needed at least two more episodes to be fleshed out. I wanted to see more of the characters actually dealing with what happened in the mirrorverse, and having time for development; and while we got a little bit of that between Michael and Ash, it wasn’t very much. And like, I get why. When you’ve only got two episodes to get the plot where you need it to go, of course character development is going to be sacrificed for time. Which is why I think they should have either a) added more episodes to the end of season one, or b) ended the season with the mirror arc, so that they’d have more time to explore the Klingon war thing at the beginning of season 2. Disco has some very wonderful characters who are very deserving of development and growth, and it’s unfortunate that they didn’t get it.

Culber’s death... This is the main point where I’m like “yeah, I don’t blame you for not liking the show anymore,” because I came very close to that too. In the end, I do still think I like the rest of the show overall, but this part... I just about stopped watching. In short - the way the show treated Dr. Culber was absolutely shitty. Sure, I’m like 99% certain they’ll end up bringing him back in season 2, but in the meantime, he’s still very much dead. And NOT ONLY did they use the “bury your gays” trope, but out of only TWO gay characters, they buried the man of color. Like... that’s just... what the fuck.

I’m expanding this into multiple points, bc it’s the biggest point I have. Culber’s death is legitimately the worst thing Disco has done. Not only just the fact that they killed him, but how they did it. His death was violent, sudden, and meaningless. The main characters barely even get to react to it before moving on. His killer doesn’t face trial or repercussions. (Note - I personally see Voq as being entirely the murderer and not Tyler, since Tyler had no agency in the killing and was if anything just a tool, but either way, no justice is served.) And then we, the audience, have to see the brutal killing scene AGAIN in the “previously on” section of the next episode or two, which makes it seem like they’re using this horrific event as mere shock value. I literally felt sick to my stomach watching it. What happened was disgusting, and I can’t blame anyone for not wanting to watch the show anymore because of it.

I trust Wilson Cruz. I trust Anthony Rapp. I trust them when they say that there’s a plan, that Culber will come back, that this will work out at some point. Their reassurances do help me personally to make some measure of peace with the situation. I don’t want to think that two openly gay actors would sign onto the script if this is how it ends between their characters. But right now, Culber is still dead, for no good reason that I can see, and it still stings. This is justifiably upsetting. And until I see him come back with my own two eyes, yeah, I’m not gonna be happy about it.

Aaaaand speaking of death, let’s talk about Georgiou. I just... that’s not a good way to start your show off, ngl. You take a very strong and deep character, played by Michelle Yeoh no less, and then just kill her? It’s bad writing. They could have easily had Michael transferred off the Shenzhou and arrested and kept Captain Georgiou alive. They could have even kept the whole “tragic backstory” thing in play, with Michael and Philippa no longer on speaking terms, and Michael mourning the loss of what was once such a close relationship. (I do appreciate that they brought her back as her mirror counterpart - and boy howdy the Emperor is a good character - so that does take a little bit of the sting out, but still. Not the best way to open the show.)

And then Landry dies in both universes?? I can accept mirror!Landry dying because of the whole “Lorca’s second hand” thing, but like... god, this show has got to stop killing off poc. Especially woc. I can understand that they’re trying to do a “raceblind” thing, and I understand their reasoning - the whole “it’s a utopian future and everyone is treated the same!” thing - but it doesn’t really work like that irl for the audience. Unless someone is actually literally colorblind and sees everything in greyscale, no one has any business saying they “don’t see color.” And no one should be casting with that mindset. The situation could certainly be a lot worse - they’ve got Michael, at least, and she’s fucking amazing - but it could also be better.

And yeah, it’s a warzone, and people are going to die. I get that. But just... do some critical thinking about who you’re killing, why, and if it can be avoided. If for no other reason, it makes the story a lot stronger in the long run.

It’s the year of our lord twenty-gayteen, can we stop having the makeup on white people playing Kingons being so hmmm questionable maybe?

(With regards to several of the above points, I’m white, so please let me know if I’m overstepping my bounds here. And like the point about Culber - I wouldn’t blame anyone for disliking/not supporting the show because of these reasons, and I’m not ever going to try to convince anyone that these things are okay. Because they aren’t. Just because I like certain elements enough to give the show a second chance with season two, doesn’t mean that anyone else will or should do the same. Continuing.)

Why the fuck is this show so obsessed with eating people? Stop it. Get some help.

The only explicitly bisexual/pansexual person we see is the Emperor, who sleeps with both a man and a woman and seems very satisfied with both parties afterwards. Which, okay, cool, except she was also trying to get information out of them, so whether or not she was even attracted to either one is debatable. I personally think she was - thanks to Michelle Yeoh’s acting, which is a goddamn gift - but that still leaves us with the only representation of bi/pan people being a murderous emperor from the mirror universe. And the “relationship” is entirely sex-based, as well as being with multiple people at once, which only furthers the stereotype of bi/pan being promiscuous, being only bi for a threesome, being untrustworthy. And to be clear, there’s nothing wrong with one night stands or poly relationships! Those things are perfectly fine! But when that’s all that bi/pan people are shown as, it can play into really damaging stereotypes - and as a bi/pan person, I’m frankly getting a little fucking sick of it.

(I mean, it’s better than DS9′s “mirrorverse=gay/bi/pan” thing, I’ll give it that, but I’m not going to give any show brownie points for reinforcing harmful stereotypes. You’ve improved slightly, Trek, but not nearly as much as you should have.)

I’m just making another point here for Dr. Culber’s death because seriously. Fucking seriously. What the fuck.

I would’ve liked to have seen more one-off episodes, like “Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad.” That was a fucking awesome episode. It’s fun! It’s got character development! I wanna see more of that!

The portrayal of Klingon culture is a bit inconsistent. And okay, to be entirely truthful, I’m really not that into Klingons in general? So having a plot centered around them wouldn’t be my first choice anyway. But if you’re going to do it, please do it right. It felt like the writers sometimes “forgot” important elements of Klingon culture for the sake of the plot, and just... come on. The Klingons are brutal warriors, yes. They’ve killed innocent civilians in the course of battle, sure. But they have a whole honor code, and going out of their way to murder thousands of helpless, defenseless people? Correct me if I’m wrong, but it just doesn’t quite seem to fit.

I really, really wanna see more of the bridge crew! I wanna get to know them! They seem so cool who are they please Disco I’m begging you

This is a very dumb, very tiny thing, but I was kinda hoping I’d see some Cardassian makeup in the crowd while we were in the Seedy Black Market on Qo’noS. Did appreciate the Trill lady tho!

I dunno, the ending almost felt... too neat? If that makes sense? I would have liked things more ambiguous, a few more loose ends. It felt like they threw in a happy ending out of nowhere; it didn’t really match the tone of the rest of the show.

Speaking of tone - it felt to me like Disco was trying to mix the upbeat, thoughtful, philosophical tone of classic Trek with the grittier, more critical, more heavy tone of DS9. I love both classic Trek and DS9, but they don’t exactly mix very well. Disco’s tone felt a bit confused and convoluted. And like, here’s the thing - classic Trek doesn’t preclude heavy subjects (”Conscience of the King” from TOS is a great example), and shows like DS9 don’t preclude fun and optimism (there’s episodes like “Explorers” that are uplifting, and “Take Me Out to the Holosuite” is a fucking delight). Star Trek at its best should always tackle difficult issues, should always have determination, should always have hope. DS9 had a more morally gray outlook, yes, and certainly questioned the idea that the Federation is utopian, but it was still underpinned by the main characters wanting to do good. Wanting to improve the world around them. It managed to do a very good job of adapting Trek’s message to its darker tone - whereas Disco feels like it’s flip-flopping between having a darker tone and trying to be like TOS. Like, buddy, just pick one. You just gotta pick one.

The more times Sarek shows up in Disco, the more he looks like a complete dick to Spock in TOS. This isn’t necessarily a complaint, because Sarek being a dick is certainly in character for him, but I’d like to see that disparity in how he treats his children addressed. By his wife. Specifically by his wife. Amanda is a national treasure and I need her to call her husband out.

idk I think there’s more but like, I’ve been working on this for hours - WAIT HANG ON

This has been bugging me since the beginning of the show, because while Michael’s mutiny was certainly a bad idea, she technically... didn’t really do much of anything before being taken to the brig? She almost has the ship fire on a Klingon vessel, but Georgiou shows up and stops her. Helm locked phasers on the vessel on Michael’s orders, yes, but earlier they locked phase cannons on the vessel for a short time, which Georgiou agreed to. Her actions during the mutiny didn’t really change their situation at all. So why does everyone blame her for starting the war?

“But she killed that Klingon during her spacewalk!” Yeah, she did, because he came charging at her with a bat’leth with the intention to kill. In that scenario, her actions were self-defense. She attempted to talk to him, he then proceeded to try to kill her, so she fought back to save her own life and ended up killing him in the process. And all this happened while she was investigating a foreign object in Federation territory. So while I can see why she was charged with mutiny and assaulting a fellow officer, I don’t think it’s fair to say that she started the war. The Klingons on the ship of the dead were planning to start shit before anyone even got there.

I can understand why Starfleet would have thought Michael started it, at least at first, because unlike the audience, they couldn’t see the Klingons planning beforehand. That’s fair. But then Ash Tyler shows up, and he’s revealed to be Voq - who was there! he knows what happened on that ship! - and eventually, he loses Voq’s consciousness but retains the guy’s memories. So Ash knows how the war started. Ash knows, or should know, that the Klingons on that ship were the instigators. Why wouldn’t he tell Starfleet before fucking off with L’Rell? He says he loves Michael, so why wouldn’t he want to set the record straight? And most importantly, why wasn’t Michael told any of this?! She’s been blaming herself for this whole war, she’s been suffering needlessly for it, let her fucking rest! Yeah, she was exonerated and accepted back into Starfleet, which is great, but it came across as “welp you basically cleaned up the mess of a war you started and saved Earth from annihilation, so I guess we’ll clear the slate for you.” It should have been more like “well given what we know now, we can say that you’re innocent of starting interstellar war; and as for the rest, stopping the destruction of Earth is a hell of a community service, so you know what? Welcome back.”

My point is, Michael Burnham has done nothing wrong, ever, in her life

Alright, at this point I think that about sums it up, and I’m tired of looking at this anyways because it’s been hours now, so uh, yeah. Thanks for coming to my ted talk

#star trek disco #star trek discovery #caps lock #death mention #violence mention #star trek discovery spoilers #star trek disco spoilers #long post #(like. really fucking long. this is not a drill) #anyway welcome to 'i love star trek - now let me tell you how i hate it' #a novel by me #star trek #i mean i guess this counts as #star trek discourse #sort of? idk man its more of a ramble than anything else #but i needed a place to put my complaints so here it is

[theragamuffininitiative]

Christian Films and Misc Rambling Thoughts on the Subject that Might or Might Not be Actually Connected

@cogentranting​ At some point, years from now, when all else is turned to dust and the sun has set for the last time, a post for this reply, stating I will reply in a longer fashion later (which would actually be now) shall appear. I will likely delete it out of pure spite. Stupid mobile app uploads.

I haven’t seen God’s Not Dead. Or God’s Not Dead 2. I should. Not because I just want to, or because It Is The Inspired Word Of Our Lord™ (hahahah it’s not guys, ok), but because of my overall interest an involvement in the world of film. I should be informed.

Also, I appreciate the sarcasm. XD I hope that was sarcasm or now I look really stupid but you’re going to get an earful either way, so it works out.

So let’s get to it:

I hate the Christian Film Industry™

Whew. There. I said it. Pray for my salvation.

Why? So, soooo many reasons.

1. The Sacrifice of Art in the Name of ‘Message.’

I, for one, want to know why the Christian church is constantly smashing down on the creative outputs of their members for not being enough about God, or published by Thomas Nelson, or advocated by Willie Roberts. Why. We would rather squelch the heartfelt, beautiful, God-given art produced by our brothers and sisters for not showing a clear Conversion Experience rather than be amazed at the ability God has allowed us to have to make such fantastic, whimsical, thought-provoking, emotionally-resonant things.

This is point number one because it. is. my. biggest. issue.

“Message films are rarely exciting. So by their very nature, most Christian films aren’t going to be very good because they have to fall within certain message-based parameters. And because the Christian audience is so glad to get a “safe, redeeming, faith-based message,” even at the expense of great art, they don’t demand higher artistic standards.” ~ Dallas Jenkins, movie reviewer and director of The Resurrection of Gavin Stone??? (Imma have to check back with you later on this, but the quote still stands on its own.)

“We have the makings of a movement that can change this culture. I honestly believe this. But I also believe the first step toward establishing the groundwork for a vibrant, relevant cultural movement based on scriptural thought is to stop producing “Christian films” or “Christian music” or “Christian art” and simply have Christ-followers who create great Art.” ~ Scott Nehring, in his book You Are What You See: Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens.

“If we are trying to evangelize, the fact that most Christian-themed movies are torn to shreds by non-Christian critics becomes an issue. If, however, we just really want to see our fantasies validated on screen, then we will write-off these poor reviews as “persecution.”” ~ Andrew Barber, in his article “The Problem with Christian Films.”

On a similar note, I want to know what the Mormon church is doing that the Christian church is not. Every time I turn around, I discover that another of my favorite artists, whether it be in film or elsewhere, is a professing Mormon:

musicians Imagine Dragons, the Killers, and Lindsey Stirling

authors Brandon Sanderson, Shannon Hale, Heather Dixon, and Brandon Mull

animator Don Bluth

actress Amy Adams and actor Will Swenson (both formerly)

etc, the list goes on

Hi, my Mormon friends. What is your secret. What ways of encouraging art and artists do you employ that my Baptist upbringing, and the Conservative Christian community in general, is so sorely lacking in?

2. The Christian Culture’s Subsequent Villainization of Hollywood.

This past Christmas, my sister gifted me a book titled Behind the Screen, “Hollywood Insiders on Faith, Film, and Culture.”

I sat down after all the gift-giving was done and read the first three sections before the holiday meal was served. But let me quote from the introduction which had me “Amen!”-ing and punching my fist to the sky every third word:

“We obsess about “the culture” endlessly; we analyze and criticize. But we can’t figure out anything to do but point an accusatory finger at Hollywood... Blaming Hollywood for our cultural woes has become a habit... Casting Hollywood as the enemy has only pushed Hollywood farther away. And the farther Hollywood is from us, the less influence we have on our culture. We’ve left the business of defining human experience via the mass media to people with a secular worldview.... In pushing away secular Hollywood, haven’t we turned our backs on the very people Christ called us to minister to - the searching and the desperate, those without the gospel’s saving grace and truth?”

Btw, if this subject is something you are interested in, I highly recommend this book. Written by creatives and executives in the film world (including one of the writers from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, the producer of Home Improvement, and even the multi-credited Ralph Winters, among others), it’s a frank, beautiful, and challenging read for artists, Christians, and film buffs.

The point here is that the church culture says if it doesn’t come from Sherwood, or have Kirk Cameron or Ducky Dynasty in it, or have a conversion sequence, it isn’t Christian and therefore Christians should not view or encourage it in any way. This. Is. Crap. Pardon my French.

Beauty can come from imperfection.  Even unregenerate hearts still bear the image of the Divine and are capable of producing so much worthwhile and significant art. Which leads to...

3. Guess What? Secular Film Companies Make Quality Faith Films Too??!

Idk what I should even say here, but I’m just going to go with the one shining example I always think of: Dreamworks’ Prince of Egypt. It is purely a work of art from any standard, and that is the epitome of what Christians should be looking for in their endeavors to create good film. PoE is gorgeously animated, seamlessly directed, well-scripted, morally driven, more Biblically and historically accurate than you would believe (and where it falls down on direct representation, it remains true to theme and character), etc. etc. etc.

I could go on for ages about how much I adore this film. (Joseph, King of Dreams, is also noteworthy, but nearly up to par with the craftsmanship of its predecessor.

I mean

just look at

the art

4. I Do Like Some Films Made By ‘Christian’ Companies

Idk, I might step on people’s toes or surprise you by which of these I actually approve of, but here we go:

I like Fireproof. I have many issues with it, but overall it is a fairly well-made, Hallmark-style emotional flick. The acting leaves much to be desired, but it’s a decent bit of showmanship, story, and truth.

I do not like Facing the Giants. Give me Blind Side any day of the week, except don’t because... sports.

However, both Courageous (some actual real life dialogue and not a completely happily ever after, whaaaat???! Oh, but token conversion experience, of course), and the early-and-forgotten Flywheel (which, although low in camera quality and acting, is actually an enjoyable story), come in as films I would sit down and watch at least a second time.

Risen is well-made and acted and has some establishment of genuine Craft. However, as far as story plots go, a lot was sacrificed. The mountain-top encounter with Christ was, while perhaps the most generally cliche piece of story, to me the most heartfelt and provocative. After that...the film kind of ended in mediocrity. Like...what did the characters do after the credits rolled.

I actually really enjoy Mom’s Night Out. The manic theme almost kills me, but the quiet and the reveal at the end is worth sitting through to see.

And I appreciate Luther. I don’t watch it often, because I personally can’t stomach the more violent aspects (the reason I haven’t/don’t watch The Passion or End of the Spear.) But Luther is a great biographical film, and I would encourage anyone studying Catholic and/or Protestant history, especially Martin Luther, to watch it. This is a Film in both art, message, and class.

Tbh, I’ve been avoiding most of the other Christian films, which is why I won’t talk about them there.

5. You Don’t Have To Slap A Jesus Fish Bumper Sticker On It To Be Christ-Honoring

Walden Media is a prime example, I believe, of what Christians in the film industry should be doing. I mean, they’re not perfect at all, but they are not sacrificing art for message - or vice versa for that matter. While not strictly a Christian Film group, Walden is founded and run by a majority of Christian Conservatives who are actively seeking to make quality and wholesome films for people of all diversities. They’ve had a few flops and several more that just didn’t quite live up to their potential, but they also brought us

The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, as well as

Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium, and the one I will never stop talking about:

Amazing Grace.

Well-crafted films, put out by *gasp* an assortment of believers and non-believers. Art. Good films. Not Messages dressed up in makeup with a classy Instagram filter and a 30-day challange booklet to get your revival outfit on.

In looking through this stuff, I just found this article, which is a superb read and really gets at the heart of what I feel, and am very badly trying to communicate:

Why Faith-Based Films Hurt Religion

So.

When Christian Films start being an actual representation of creative community and the artistic talents God has given to us as personal and spiritual gifts, rather than a cheap way to try to force morality on Hollywood and on our neighbors without ever leaving the confines of our Bible Boxes in case we might get soiled, I may start appreciating the Christian Film Industry™. Until then??? I’ll stand behind my fellow creatives and my fellow believers and hope and work for the best.

Lastly, two things:

Christians Can Enjoy Secular Film Productions.

I would even argue that they should. We were created by a Creator God, who takes pride and joy in making beautiful things, in making each of us. And we are made in His image. We are creators as well, we make art all the time. Scripture tells us to worship God in everything we do. The movement of making “Christian Films for Christian Audiences because of Christian Reasons” is missing the point entirely. We as creatives are not here to make God Art, we are here to make art that glorifies God

Christ Does Not Need Hollywood. However, Hollywood Does Need Christ.

“While many missionaries travel to remote villages in Africa or South America to spread Christianity, [Karen] Covell believes her calling—her mission field, if you will—is right here in Los Angeles, in an industry that many of her fellow Christians find immoral or even downright sinful, both for its on-screen depictions of sex and drugs and the real-life sex, drugs, and other temptations that exist behind the scenes. Covell, who was a film producer in the early 1980s, says "the church did not get how I could justify being a Christian in Hollywood, and Hollywood did not get how I would follow God. It was a divide." It was nearly impossible to meet other Christians working in the industry, let alone ones who would express their faith openly. "I said, 'The church hates Hollywood, Hollywood hates the church. There's got to be some way to bridge that divide.'" - in an article by Jennifer Swan.

As I said in my original little “about me” tag response, I have felt called to ministry in this world. Whether it be film or live theater, that world is calling to me, both in its creative endeavors, and in its desperate need for the hope, truth, life, and light of Christ. Actors and directors in Hollywood and on Broadway are in as much need of the grace of our Lord as the starving orphans in the unreached people groups on the other side of the planet - same as your next door neighbor.

If Christians continue to tie themselves down, and group themselves together, cutting themselves off from the culture and the culture off from them, then we are doing absolutely no heavenly or earthly good to anyone.

So, you see, it’s not just the artistry (or, so often, lack thereof) in the Christian Film Industry™ that gets to me.

It’s the fact that the film media culture is a people group that the church as a whole is ignoring. We are ignoring the impact Hollywood has on the world around us and still trying to be relevant to that world, which is counter-productive and just plain silly.

It’s the fact that I see actors, actresses, producers, writers, who are obviously searching for the Something that will fill the void in their souls, and their primary exposure to Christianity and Christ - the only One who can satisfy them - is the Christian Film Industry™, which is largely full of broad and meaningless substance because heaven help us we should talk about something real, and then just plain bad art.

I believe God has called us to higher things than this.

Higher art, loving to create as he lovingly created us.

High impact, going deeper into the issues of our culture and our nature to address and satisfy problems and needs felt be every human, not just the church-goers who will show up for Sherwood’s next big thing.

So, yes, my pet peeve cracked from its proverbial nutshell:

I have issues with the Christian Film Industry

#end rant #i used the trademark symbol way too many times #long post #rags has opinions #christian films #movie making #i feel like i did not even touch on so many things #this is such a ramble #ragamusings #for certain