#but so many people have framed this as a SHOW vs BORING debate | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mittensmorgul · 5 years

Text

Plastic fantastic

I've put off doing this long enough, and spent the intervening days reading everyone else's interpretations, so there's gonna be a lot in here, but also a lot that I've probably not focused on too heavily because other folks have already said the things better than I could've. So this is just a recap of the things I personally feel are most significant and thematically cool going forward. It's... a lot... :'D

15.04 was infused with an element of surreality. Which I ended up referring to throughout this post as “plastic.” Hence the title. But this got super long, so here have a cut. :’D

Right from the THEN segment, we're reminded of Cas. Rowena's sacrifice, Cas's own suffering at Chuck's hands, and how this has affected Sam and Dean-- Sam miserable for having done what they had to do (right?) in sacrificing Rowena, and Dean PISSED but feeling like this was the only way to free them from what he sees as Chuck being a "fanboy" of them. It shifts directly into BECKY, who was described previously as a "fangirl" and involved in a supremely unhealthy relationship with both Chuck AND Sam (even if it was completely one-sided and creepy with Sam). And then shifts to Chuck being told-off by Amara in 15.02, in essentially a recap of all the best insults and condemnations she could fling at him... because he deserved it honestly, I mean HE LOCKED HER AWAY FROM THE DAWN OF CREATION TO SUFFER ALONE WHILE HE DID HIS THING TO MAKE HIMSELF FEEL BIG.

Okay, sorry, I just really hate that guy and his hypocrisy sometimes (read: all the time).

Right. Where were we. At the beginning.

Gunfight in the bunker, with the Danger Lights activated. I've been waiting for this scene since we got BTS photos of Jensen all battered and ragged with the beard. This... isn't real. It's not SPN universe real anyway. Since the SPPT promo came out, I have been eager to see this episode just for this scene. I guessed it was a vision Sam was having/receiving because of the Equalizer Wound, the beginning of his glimpses into "Chuck's writing process." Is this an AU that Chuck actively created? Is it just the sort of thing Chuck daydreams about? Or in the style of Supernatural episodes past, is this some sort of window into the ending Chuck wants/intends to write for them, which obviously would be something they absolutely could not let stand?

Like Dean’s nightmare he awoke from in 10.09 where he saw himself slaughtering a room full of people at the beginning of the episode, which became reality by the end of the episode? Is Chuck’s horrific ending that Becky hated what we actually saw play out in Sam’s nightmare? The show has invited us to consider that as at least a possibility. Or, to at least assume Chuck’s horrifying ending was at least that awful.

There's so much in this scene that doesn't match up with what any of us might imagine Sam would even consider a nightmare of his own mind's creation, you know? And yet it's SAM who is plagued by these incongruous nightmares that don't even really connect up with things that are relevant to the things currently on his mind, you know? After recent events, one would think the things that would plague Sam's nightmares would be the loss of Jack, or his role in Rowena's apparent death and his guilt/depression over it, or even the fight against the ghostpocalypse and the people who lost their lives as a result of that. Instead, he's having "nightmares" about having gone full Boy King of Hell demon blood addict, which hasn't been a pressing personal fear of his for more than a decade. He's even talked specifically about how he's made his peace with that entire time in his life, such as his talk with Magda in 12.04. NOT coincidentally also written by Davy Perez.

That's because... this is NOT Sam's "nightmare." Why would Sam "dream" about Dean's regular gun having the power to spark out demons? Why would he "dream" about BENNY being a human (and alive!) ally of Dean's that Sam had sent his own army of demons to destroy? Why would Sam dream that his demonic-self would hunt down and kill his loved ones (Bobby! Jody! and nobody else mentioned! as if this was some weird time-travelling situation combined with Benny's human presence!), and then in the end hunt down and murder Dean in cold blood? This wasn't Sam-As-Lucifer (though I believe we will be seeing that particular nightmare in next week's episode), but SAM. HIMSELF. Turned into the demon he always feared he was "destined" to become before they learned how to tear up the story and make their own choices about their destiny.

The problem now is that they actually believe that Chuck has gone, and they're on their own now. Sam believes that this must be his own nightmare, and therefore he's just stuck with it, as his own mind and memories and fears come back to torment him. He's lost his power to fight against it, like Dean's lost his power to fight against his current experience. It's as if the only power Chuck retains over them is in the fact that they BELIEVE he's gone, you know? Magic's power is in the belief of the caster, Rowena has recently reminded us with her own life. And I think that's exactly what's leaving Sam and Dean so completely vulnerable to manipulation by Chuck, in ways they've never before been vulnerable to it. Because they've both staked their entire futures on the fact that they so firmly believe they're free of Chuck's story.

Sam is just... so confused by this nightmare, he can't even make sense of it at all. And the sleep deprivation isn't probably helping.

I think we've all covered the Meat Man conversation already, as well as all the Dean vs Food stuff, so I'll only add that commentary in here if I think of something I haven't already said on the subject.

Dean calls out Sam's assertion that he's fine, directly telling him "No, you're not," and expressing his understanding of what he's going through.

And here come the cheerleaders. And doesn't this (as I believe many of us have already said over the last two weeks) just smack of Sam's "fake case" Gadreel had him trapped researching inside his own mind in 9,10? Crowley had to convince Sam that what he was trapped inside wasn't real, that he was possessed by an angel who was forcing him to experience these things. And obviously the God Wound isn't direct possession, and I don't doubt that this is a real case, but how much of this case might have been "arranged" by Chuck, or how much of Sam's perception right now may be clouded or colored because of the effects of that Wound?

Not only that, but Dean is also a participant in this entire odd case, and he doesn't even HAVE a wound connecting him directly to Chuck, you know? But his judgment seems to be equally clouded by something, as well... I'm gonna call it Intense Denial. Dean is basing his entire life right now on the presumption that Chuck has stopped interfering in their lives, when I think the exact opposite is true. I think Chuck is now focused on them more directly and more intensely than he ever has been before, and their obliviousness to that fact is only strengthening his hold on them, and amplifying his power over them.

But back to the current point in the episode:

Sam interviews the vice principal of the school, and the girl who was killed was in the drama club, debate team, cheerleading, campus ministry, you name it. That's... an awful lot of potential friends, so Sam asks about BEST friends, and we're directed to Veronica "and the girls." Veronica is singled out, which makes her speech to the empty room later even more interesting...

This episode relies on a lot of the elements of the case they're investigating to seem rather... plastic. And Veronica stood out as one of these elements. She could've just been "one of the girls," but she was identified specifically here, and it's like that designation itself somehow altered reality just a little bit. Heck I think I'm gonna need to put this line of thought on hold until we get to the speech scene. Remind me to come back to this.. >.>

The Whitmans interrupt (oh those crazy parents from 1.08, at it in a completely different role), seemingly uncaring of the dead girl and demanding their son's future not be ruined by postponing the lacrosse game. (OH THE IRONY) Sam rightly calls them out on framing it as "the end of the world" if he doesn't get into his first choice college. These parents have already been established to be Those Kinds of Parents who will do anything for precious little Billy to get whatever he wants in the world. They'd probaly strangle kittens on live TV if it would guarantee their son's future, you know? We haven't even seen the full extent of what they were willing to do for their son, and they already feel like cartoonish villain types.

I need to take another aside here to talk about the boy’s name. BILLY. Which, considering how we left things in 14.20, we’ve all been wondering about what Billie is up to in the Empty, right? This boy that will, by the end of this episode, become a literal stand-in for Jack on a cosmic scale? Is called Billy. Just... consider that.

I can already hear Becky critiquing Chuck's Monster of the Week here... and in turn parts of the fandom cynically saying that this is the complaint on MotW episodes forever-- that they're boring or unimportant or skippable because the monsters are predictable and boring, and just... NO. YOU HAVE OFFICIALLY MISSED THE POINT.

I think the general assumption is that the case we watch Sam and Dean solve is being directly affected by Chuck's simple act of typing it out. In exactly the same way we believed Metatron influenced the events of s9 by the simple act of typing it out. Could he control the thoughts of the people he wrote about? Not exactly. Could he manipulate the situation via the power of the angel tablet-- the direct word of God-- to influence the scenario and events in improbable ways? Yes, I absolutely think he can. And I'll continue discussing this as we go along.

But we return to Dean leaning against the car eating pretzels. I've already written about his constant eating and drinking in this episode, but PRETZELS?! That's a new one for Dean. It's usually jerky, or chips, or candy, or... all sorts of other things. Where did he even get the pretzels from?

He'd apparently been at the morgue examining the body, and found a vampire tooth. So this case that seemed NOTHING like a vampire case based on how the body was found, suddenly there's irrefutable evidence that it's a vampire instead. Almost as if the facts of the case have shifted somehow, rather improbably and inexplicably. Just as inexplicably as Dean finding the beaver mascot riding a scooter "awesome."

The second girl to be abducted calls out Veronica as being "so fake" in her grief over Susie's death. And yet, improbably, after a long cheer practice, she's the only one alone in the school parking lot late at night. Where's the rest of the cheer team? The coach? Anyone? How was she there all alone? Yet she was, because the case needed her to be.

It's plastic.

Like the little square of crime scene tape left unattended in the woods. Weird, right? That after the scene was cleared and the original investigators left, it was still left there around an empty patch of dirt. And Sam and Dean... are just... standing there at the edge of the woods, boxed in by yellow crime scene tape and orange cones while they have their conversation about the fact the police have no idea what could've done this, and Sam laments the fact that it's THEIR job. THEY deal with the truth and carry the weight, while everyone else gets to go back to their blissfully unaware lives.

Dean busts out the flask while the two of them stand there in their own personal crime scene box, like their lives are the crime here. They ARE the victims of a cosmic crime. And the corpse of what their lives could've been, of what Sam had always thought he'd want of his own life, to live in a little town like this and just be NORMAL, is what they'll find on the autopsy here. And Sam is just beginning to realize he can't identify with those sorts of people at all.

And then we jump right from Sam lamenting the lost white picket fence to Becky's house-- where the front railing is white pickets, where she's built a real life for herself. Yet even something about it seems... off... just a little bit. That older kid seems way older than 7, which I assume would be the oldest any of her kids could be based on when we last saw her in canon, before she began to recover from her obsession and begin building a true happy life for herself. Heck maybe I'm talking myself into a problem that doesn't exist, and he's supposed to be just a really big 6-year-old, but okay. Or maybe he's adopted, or the kid of her husband from a previous relationship. GAH This is so not relevant to anything, why can't I let it go... >.>

Regardless, she clearly loves her family, and is invested in her life with them. Her husband is a man who truly appreciates and loves her in return. I'm really happy for her. Her husband at one point says, "Where would I be without you," and she jokingly replies "Covered in puke." And it's the same sort of cute exchange we saw between Sam and Jess in the pilot, where he asked, "What would I do without you?" and she jokingly replied, "Crash and burn." And considering that Sam himself will mention Jessica at the end of the episode, it seems worth pointing out the thematic similarity they're trying to set up here.

I wonder how much Becky has told her husband about the reality of the Supernatural books she's built her business and hobbies around, or her own part in the events of the books? More than Sam ever told Jess about the reality of his life? At this point, I'm gonna be glad her husband didn't end up pinned to the ceiling on fire.

Becky waves goodbye to her family as they leave for a day of fun, and Chuck waves back at her. He's inserted himself into her life again, and it's freaking creepy.

Chuck says he "wanted" to see her, and corrects himself to "needed." And here we have the laying out of the classic “NEED VS WANT” conundrum we’ve been yelling about for literal years. Funny that Chuck has it all wrong himself, you know? Becky makes herself clear that she neither wants nor needs him. He's not welcome there at all, and yet he presses on, past her assertion that his problems aren't her problem. I've already written a little bit about what Chuck apparently wanted from Becky, and what he actually got from her, so I'll try not to repeat myself, but to say that Becky was far kinder to him than he deserved.

So we learn about the second cheerleader's kidnapping, Dean makes an uncharacteristically flippant comment in front of the Vice Principal (somebody has a fetish), and kinda... blinks in shock at himself before professionally affirming they'll look into it and turning and walking away. Like he can't quite believe he actually said that. Which is weird, right? Because this is the sort of thing Dean has made flippant and kinda gross comments on in the past, right? But even when he's made comments about which cheerleaders are legal (4.13), or suggestive comments about even college students, he's rarely done so this blatantly directly TO the school principal, you know? This was... odd... like everything is just slightly out of sync.

I'm fascinated by the tiny models of Supernatural things that Chuck is prodding at in Becky's house. The first thing we see is Lil Levi's gas station. The only time we have EVER seen this gas station was in 10.03, when Hannah and Cas stopped there for gas, and yet Becky has the Impala parked by the pump, and what looks like a yellow classic car of some sort on the other side, hidden by the pumps so it's impossible to really see it there.

(I swear I will replace these Mittens Quality Screencaps™ as soon as HotN properly caps the episode... apologies for the photos of my tv in the meantime)

It was Cas's pimpmobile we've actually seen at this location in canon. And this was the gas station where Cas was losing his grace, desperately trying to get to Dean in time to save him, and Hannah kept getting them lost. He calls her out over her feelings-- dangerous temptations-- clouding her judgment and getting in the way. They're attacked by Adina, and Crowley arrives just in time to save them both from her, stealing her grace and force-feeding it to Cas, enabling him to power up again and save Dean. Aah, callbacks! And I mean, it might just be a visual callback to the fact that Jensen also directed that episode (and that gas station was named after his nephew), but it's still a reference that brings an awful lot of baggage with it, regardless of what prompted its appearance in miniature in Becky's house. Not to mention, this reference happened LONG after Chuck had supposedly stopped writing about the Winchesters' lives. And yet... Becky seems to know this reference, which had nothing to do with Sam and Dean and everything to do with Cas.

The second model we see looks incredibly like (or at least should all be having us THINKING of) the Carver crypt from the first three episodes of s15. And that's... super creepy, right? What is this building? Why did Becky have a model of it at all? This happened DAYS ago in canon.

And the third is Singer Salvage yard, with the Impala parked out front. How long has it been since we've seen it? In an episode that opened on Sam's "nightmare" that involved him strung out on demon blood having just killed Bobby and Jody in Sioux Falls? Interesting that Chuck expressed fascination with that particular model in this episode, isn't it?

He asks if Becky is still obsessed with his work, and she corrects him. She's obsessed with HER work. She'd essentially dismissed Chuck as the creator of Supernatural, and relegated him to the role of Recorder Of Events, as a prophet. It wasn't actually HIS story. But what she's made of it, what she's made her life's work, IS HER OWN CREATION, based on the same reality she believed that Chuck had been nothing more than a conduit for. And OUCH for a guy like Chuck to not even get credit for any of it now, because of the lie he'd told to insert himself into his own creation. It's incredible to me. He wants nothing more than recognition as the creator, as the writer, and Becky's far more interested in her OWN stories about the same characters. She saw herself as more than Chuck’s equal as a writer, she saw herself as his superior. He just recorded, she CREATES. She dismissed everything Chuck was most interested in, and writes the characters all having achieved a measure of peace and happiness, the same as she has. And Chuck... hates it. :'D

Remember, this is the guy who invented monsters before he invented anything else. Leviathans were his first creation, even before the archangels. But they had a nasty habit of eating everything else he tried to create, so he grudgingly locked them in Purgatory, and moved on to the next thing. And he's had a lot of similar failures over the years... like the original hellhound that Lucifer stole away (and that Sam killed in 12.15). Seems like this has always been the story Chuck wanted to tell, because he's always only ever had his original drama with Amara as a source for his creation. He's... obsessed... with his version of events, no matter how many times he's confronted with reality, he weasels out of personal responsibility for everything. Like he does in this scene with Becky, letting her believe he's just a poor dude who wants to keep writing and lost his writing mojo because his prophet powers dried up.

This is probably the first Becky's heard Chuck had a sister, who Chuck only explains rejected him because she "sucks." And... Chuck... you're leaving out the horrific things you've done to her as an explanation of why she refused to help you. He's still hiding behind the “super cute” Chuck Facade. And nothing he says is an out and out lie, but it's entirely a manipulation, a complete reframing of the cosmic scale of what's happened into something he expects Becky to be able to offer him sympathy over. And she's just not having it. And again, good for her.

Chuck admitting that he's lost and hates himself at least engages Becky enough to try something to get him moving forward (again, still thinking he's just a guy who's lost everything). And tells him if writing makes him happy, then he should write.

Meanwhile Dean's incongruously eating a hot dog (WHERE IS HE GETTING ALL THIS FOOD?!) and interviewing a beaver. Sam questions why, and Dean's not only gotten information about the case (mascots have access to cheerleaders), but information about the kid inside the suit (he's a smart kid, got a full ride to IU). Dean's been unusually productive while chewing that hot dog, apparently. But he’s basically a caricature of himself during this case, like he’s trying to wear a suit he hasn’t worn in 15 years, and is finding it really ill-fitting. (it’s probably all the snacks he’s eating, honestly)

Veronica hands Billy a black wristband printed SUSIEFOREVER, which... is probably how Billy's feeling at the moment (hello, she was his girlfriend and he accidentally killed her... this is gonna haunt him forever). Veronica (who we've already been told by the latest girl to disappear is "so fake" in her grief over Susie's death) seems to be coming on to Billy, or at least making her interest in him known. And we DON'T know how all of this will resolve yet, but there's an awful lot going on in this scene. Did Veronica actually kill Susie? Is she the vampire and is that the reason for this OTT "so fake" grief on her part? Did Billy's "anything for my kid" mother who interrupts the scene actually kill her and Billy know something about it? Why is everyone acting so... weird?

Because we're back to the plasticity of this entire case again. What's actually killing cheerleaders? What's really going on here? If this entire case is Chuck's machination, because he wrote it down, and therefore subtly affected the situation, is that why everything seems just slightly off? Slightly malleable, as if Chuck is only working out the details of the case as he's writing it all down?

Billy leaves with his mom, and Veronica is left in a dimly lit gym filled with empty chairs and programs for the memorial service. She's practicing her speech to this huge empty room, speaking into a microphone. And as she talks, she edits her speech.

We've seen Chuck do this. in 4.18, he had Dean push the doorbell with determination, and then went back and edited it to read "with forceful determination." Just before the doorbell rang, and it was a forcefully determined Dean doing the ringing... So Veronica's self-edit here seems almost like a Chuck self-edit.

Remember how I mentioned way back toward the beginning of this mess how Sam asked the VP for a clarification on who Susie's "BEST" friends were, and Veronica was singled out among a group of her close friends? And now Veronica stands alone not only as the sole person in the room here talking to empty chairs, but as the one with apparent motive to kill Susie, who's been accused of expressing a lot of over-the-top melodramatic "so fake" grief. And... she edits her relationship with Susie on the fly:

Veronica: We are here to celebrate the life of my friend Susie. No. *clears throat* *takes a breath* We are here to celebrate the life of my best friend Susie. My best friend Susie who I miss like... *sigh* like she was a part of me. And in many ways she's still a part of me. She'll always be a part of all of us. Susie Martin was as rare as a ghost orchid and as unique as a snowflake. So beautiful inside and out. But as Robert Frost tells us, nothing gold can stay. And that's what Susie was. Pure gold.

And during this entire speech, to the empty room, the music in the background is ominous, looming, tense. The musical cue is telling us to doubt her performance here, with the high strings picking up the tension just as she comes to a close and Dean shows up with his slow clap. I mean, it was a pretty OTT speech, delivered with an intensity that literally does feel rehearsed. Stilted. Plastic. Everything in the case so far has pointed the arrow at her being the monster. The framing of the narrative would support it if it had been true, but the background of the entire case feels exactly as Becky has described it. What if THIS was the original ending to the case that Becky had voiced her complaints about, as if THIS is the story that Chuck would've written.

But that's such weaksauce. MotW episodes are nothing if not thematically consistent. Vampires are about revenge cases, and this case is a very specifically pointed bit of revenge, of Chuck against the Winchesters. They ruined the last story he tried to tell, and the fact this started out looking like something OTHER than a vampire case (possibly a ghoul, based on the parallel to 9.10, and a dismembered body), and then seemingly remolded itself INTO a vampire case halfway through... it feels like that first fang Dean found at the morgue was Chuck sinking his teeth into their lives.

And Veronica, no matter how the case had painted her to this point, was completely innocent. A bit plastic, because she's a victim of this reality bend as much as Sam and Dean are, because the real monster of this case is Chuck-- only Sam and Dean don't have any idea yet.

Dean calls her on her fake emotions, and they directly accuse her of killing her friend. And get the proof that she was innocent because she HAS BRACES, which she's apparently self-conscious about, but it proved she wasn't a vampire. *SIGH*

Plastic.

So Sam and Dean look for video evidence from surveillance cam footage, which the police had apparently already looked at and found nothing, but now they find a car driving past immediately after the second girl's abduction. Did the police not see it? Or is this another bit of plastic?

Meanwhile back at Billy's house, his parents refuse to even hear him say Susie's name, and suspicion immediately shifts to their entire family. Billy's father washes blood off his hands, and nobody seems to find this strange. Are they all monsters? Did one of them slip up? What the heckeroo is actually going on here? Whatever it is, it feels like they're all complicit, and Billy seems to be having reservations. Except they've also got the latest victim tied up and blindfolded in their storage room. So... they're definitely guilty of something. But we're only halfway through the episode at this point, so there's clearly more to the story.

Chuck tells Becky he can't see what Sam and Dean are doing anymore, as he conveniently scratches at his left shoulder where his wound connecting him to Sam is. Which is wild, right? Because what little we know about the Equalizer gun was that it fired INTENT. And that it affects the person shot and the shooter identically. So what was Sam's intent when he shot Chuck? Dean had just told Chuck to "Go to Hell," but Sam didn't say anything out loud when he shot Chuck. Was his intent "stop fucking with our lives" or more vaguely grief-filled "go to hell" or something more? Because whatever intention Sam shot at Chuck seems to have directly caused both Chuck's loss of power AND his inability to see directly into their lives now. And after having watched the Sam and Dean show for their entire lives, Chuck is PISSED about not being able to see what they're up to.

And I wonder, incidentally, if this will be the same factor that's causing problems for the Winchesters, too... that Sam may have inadvertently severed whatever protective force had made their lives as hunters as... implausibly unproblematic as they've always been, you know? I think we'll be seeing that develop more in the next episode, but we saw hints of it happening in this episode too (like with Dean's comment about the killer having a cheerleader fetish). But regardless, I think this is why Sam is suffering these grief-fueled nightmares, his inability to breathe, and his general current mental state. He’s suffering from the same intent he’d fired at Chuck. Only it hit Chuck with a case of writer’s block, while it hit Sam with something he’s been unable to truly define or explain. Yet.

Becky tells Chuck to write about the Winchesters if he loves their story so much, because that's what SHE does. Her stories don't have to be based in reality for her to enjoy them, but Chuck's only metaphorically a writer. He doesn't just want to make up tales, he wants to literally create reality. During Becky's entire pep talk, Chuck's holding a little figurine of Sam pointing a gun, and ain't that just on the nose? She plucks Sam out of Chuck’s hands and puts him back on the mantle (and I admit to at first thinking it was the Cas doll from 5.06, because Dean did the same thing with Cas, putting him up on the mantle like that), but Chuck still expresses doubt in his ability to actually write.

And here's where the most incongruous stuff in the entire episode begins happening-- the family dynamics of a killer family. It's still unclear who the monster is among them, but like Dean, we are leaning toward the father. The thing is, none of it's actually plausible. That's the beauty of this entire case. It's plastic.

How did this single kid out of this entire town get turned by a vampire, and his parents just... completely accepted what happened immediately without question? How did they KNOW what to do for their son in this circumstance? They went out and killed animals for their blood for him. Where did they learn to do this for him? And then how could they so casually just... kidnap a whole human being just to feed their son? Why not go back to feeding him animal blood like he'd done before? They didn't see anything wrong with any of this, either. DID THESE PEOPLE NOT HAVE QUESTIONS?!

And what of the vampire that made him? Did that vampire just... turn him and run? Did he give the kid a pamphlet explaining vampire life to him or something? It's just utterly baffling that this whole family just... incorporated this development into their lives as if it was all an entirely normal thing to accept about their kid. The dad KIDNAPPED A WHOLE ENTIRE HUMAN BEING for him on his own initiative, the mom was ready to shoot Sam and Dean for interfering in their plans. LIKE HOW IS ANY OF THIS NORMAL?!

And perhaps most bizarre of all, Sam and Dean didn't see anything wrong with it in reflection later that night. But I'll get to that when we get there. Heck this note-writing thing is really hard when I already know everything that's gonna happen. I have enough trouble staying on point without the benefit of foresight. :'D

So these parents are insistent that they're doing all of this, sacrificing all of this, just for him. And when he tells them he doesn't want them to, they just beg him to tell them what he wants from them. And he's just so frustrated because they aren't listening to him. Like they don't even care about him despite professing they're doing all of this so he can be happy. And he's just... profoundly not happy.

So the father, when Sam and Dean show up, still thinks they're going to ARREST him. Which is a weird thing for a suspected vampire to believe, and he's horrified when Dean pulls out a machete instead of handcuffs. This is a totally shocking development for him, and yet he STILL holds it together enough to bargain for his wife and son's lives. And the wife is profoundly confused by this, and our suspicions shift to her. But that's still... not quite right. She's prepared to literally shoot what she believes to be two FBI agents to save her son, again, as if all of this was entirely normal. As if this is what normal people are willing to do for their monster children.

I've already written a bunch about Becky's critique of Chuck's writing, and how poorly Chuck takes her notes. Chuck... is really out of touch with fanfic culture. Becky's reading this story as if it was fic, not reality. She kudos'ed and commented, and expected Chuck to just accept that and move on, because that's how fic culture works. But he demanded a beta read level critique, and Becky gave it. And he shouldn't have asked for it if he didn't actually want it.

And here comes the revenge that justifies the Vampire Plot. Chuck... is the vampire. he's the monster that doomed Billy for no reason. Who drove the parents to such extreme lengths to protect their child. Because that's how CHUCK saw what TFW had done to protect Jack. He saw it as just that outrageous and unfounded, even though it was in no way the same. We just witnessed Chuck's critique of TFW's actions in 14.20, and it was scathing, mocking, and vindictive.

Plastic.

But I also suspect that Becky wasn't reading ~this case~ exactly, because she complained that Sam and Dean were tied up (they were never once tied up in this episode), and she complained about the villain monologue being stale (Dean does most of the monologuing here, and it's Sam who figures out what's actually going on). Just one more bit of plastic.

But Chuck somehow managed (even if he couldn't see it) to put Jack's 14.20 realizations about himself into Billy's mouth. As if Chuck's story had already been written, and through some power of its own it was brought into reality via these previously innocent people. The story itself is more powerful than the author.

Like Jack, Billy has been trying to accept responsibility for his actions. He couldn't control himself, he didn't know it would happen, but he's dangerous and needs to be stopped. And Billy's speech isn't a "villain monologue," but a painful confession of everything he'd done. So what story was Becky reading?

Sam angrily judges the parents' actions, and Dean expresses his shock that the father would've just let him cut off his head to save his son. And is taken aback at the comment that he must not have kids, if he doesn't think he wouldn't have done the same for his own child.

And Dean's like... well, no I wouldn't have done the same for my own child. It's a super messed up situation that I'd really been trying not to think too hard about, thanks. It's been less than a week and here you go bringing up the worst day of our lives, so thanks for that... but they carry on. The mother says they just wanted him to have a normal life, and that's something Jack never would've had regardless because of what he was. But he had *a* life, with the Winchesters. If Jack had been a vampire, they wouldn't have gone out hunting and kidnapping teenage girls for him to eat, you know? But they were willing to raid heaven and shout down God for Jack. But context matters. And this hastily assembled vampire family ready to play revenge/victim for Chuck's story lacked all context. They were plastic.

It's Billy who ends up dictating how his parents are to handle everything, calm as can be. And his parents finally listen to him. And he sacrifices himself to the Winchesters. And they just... go along with it, take him out to the woods, and Dean kills the boy kneeling at his feet, accepting his fate as he's clearly crying, while Sam watches on. It's what Chuck had wanted in 14.20, and Dean had refused to give him. And now this entire situation has been Dean, manipulated into providing that demanded sacrifice, one way or another. And the most interesting bit of it? Chuck... couldn't even see it playing out. He missed the whole show that played out in Chuck Puppet Theater despite the fact. Like whatever he actually wrote was irrelevant, because his intent is somehow still connecting through to the Winchesters in pantomime.

And Sam and Dean's reactions to all of this are also just weirdly plastic.

I've already written about Chuck and Becky enough I think, but Chuck's moved on from "Writers lie," to "I can do anything, I'm a writer." With some of the worst villain monologue we've ever gotten, with "There, see, it's making you feel something! That's good, right?" While Becky is outraged and heartbroken over Chuck's ending. The only thing I need to say about whatever Chuck's planned ending is, is that if the series ends the way CHUCK wants it to, it'll go down as the biggest intentional betrayal of a fandom in the history of television. The show has stated to us in this episode that Chuck is the final boss big bad, and that he cannot be allowed to win. He can't have the final word in this story.

In *our* world, the current writers have officially called out a good number of sins of their past and exposed them via Chuck. They wrote the Leviathans being a personal favorite of Chuck's despite being pretty universally hated by fandom... well... they're looking for redemption for themselves in s15. THEY can't allow the story to end horribly. They've staked their current writing cred on it, as well as the entire history of 15 years of building TFW into the heroes. Sure, they've joked that not all fans will be happy with the ending, but in serious comments they've also promised a "real" ending and not some advanced level deus ex machina that wipes everything clean, either. That's a lot to deliver, and Chuck's suggested ending of the Winchesters horrifically dead doesn't deliver any of it.

So... back to the denouement of the episode. To the Impala! The least plastic thing in the entire episode. But it's pretty plastic.

Sam suggests that what Henry did for his son, was something they would've done for Jack, given the chance. And no, he's not talking about kidnapping teenage girls to feed him, he's talking about offering himself as a sacrifice in his son's place. Because Dean literally did do that. He was willing to sacrifice himself to kill Jack before he could kill again. It's what Chuck had presented as the ONLY way to stop Jack from destroying the world, with the examples of Jack having accidentally killed Mary, and then the whole of society crumbling because Jack told everyone to stop lying. But Sam? He wasn't willing to sacrifice both of them. And then he learned the truth from Chuck, about the manipulations that forced them all to this point, how Chuck probably did have the power to make everything right, restore Jack's soul, everything... but he didn't want to because it was more entertaining for him to watch them act out his plots instead. He WANTED that drama, that horrible sacrifice. He ENJOYED it.

But given the choice, I think Sam and Dean both would've traded places with Jack. We actually *saw* Cas literally exchange himself for Jack in 14.08. But Chuck wasn't satisfied with that trade. He wanted more from them, and they decided they were done playing on his stage.

There's a bit of incongruity in the speech Dean gives Sam about his current state, as well. He's usually so much better at reading Sam, yet he's comparing Sam's current mental state to his own back in the crypt, after Chuck. And just... no? This is not it at all? When he told Sam he's felt like cashing in, *we* think of 13.05, where he literally DID think of cashing in, you know? That feels far more similar to how Sam's feeling right now than to Dean's ANGER and "we need a plan!" bossiness from the crypt after Chuck. It's jarring as a comparison, because IT'S THE WRONG THING ENTIRELY.

But it's wrong, because it's the glaring omission of Cas that's already been lampshaded in the episode. That Dean's current blind spot here is shining a violently bright light on what SHOULD be said. Just like the end of 13.05 when we all yelled "HELLO, DEAN" at the television when Cas didn't say the line to him. We've been talking FOR YEARS about how this show uses narrative negative space like this, how it expects us to shout HEY WHAT ABOUT CAS?! at the screen, or to see that even this driving scene in the dark, in the car, is a perfect inverse mirror of that scene in 13.05, where Sam had spent that entire episode feeding his favorite junk food that he criticized Dean for in this episode, Dean and dragging him out on a case in the hopes of making him feel like himself again and... that's what Dean's telling Sam he wanted to work this case for now, to show Sam exactly what Sam had tried (and failed spectacularly) to show Dean in 13.05.

Dean even quotes some of Cas's last words to him before he left, that he should "move on."

But they needed to walk around the giant Cas-shaped hole in the narrative. And they needed to do it this incongruously. And that's exactly why it works.

And it's why Sam CAN'T move on. He doesn't feel free. I've already written a bit about this, and how it's directly tied to Sam's wound, and what it's probably doing to him. And what IS it doing to him? Chuck wobbles his head side to side, and the Sam and Dean bobbleheads on the desk beside him follow suit.

#spn 15.04 #spn s15 spoilers #i have no idea how long this is but it's so many long #the scheherazade of supernatural #this is The Author actively preventing shahryar from listening to the final story #we are all shahryar

159 notes · View notes

gronjon44 · 4 years

Text

Ok, so I'd like to update my take on the Ghostbusters 2016 vs Ghostbusters: Afterlife situation.

Last time I spoke with @veronica-rich , I'd like to point out that I hadn't fully realized the details of the 2016 film. I went and rewatched it, and I'd like to add more to my thoughts.

First, the film isnt as bad as some people would suggest. There were good moments I like the comedy that comes from Holtzman and Chris Hemsworths character (his name escapes me rn), there were some strong ideas present and it wss actually an ok film.

BUT

I would also like to point out the flaws of the film. And to clarify. None of these have anything to do with the fact that's it's a female version of the original, but I'll get to that in a moment.

The films as a whole is fine I don't hate it. But I have gripes. The first being the writing which, in all honesty, could have used some work. The pacing was slow compared to the original, despite having an almost parallel story format, with certain details shoved at random spots where they weren't needed or were necessary but not provided.

But there were small details I liked, like the bust of Egon in the background or Patty's uncle being one of the original Ghostbusters cast members. Bill Murray as a "antagonist" to rile iPhone of the main characters was, in my opinion, unneeded as a reference to the original film. The bust of Egon, Dan Akkroyd as the cabbie, and Ernie Hudson as the uncle were nice details. But Bill Murray and even Signorney Weaver were both just kinda unneeded. Personally, I think it wouldve been better to have say Rick Moranis somewhere in the film might've been funnier, whereas Ms. Weaver and Bill Murray I felt like were there for the popularity aspect.

And let's not forget Annie Potts as the receptionist in both films which, honestly was probably my favorite special guest from the original.

But now the plot.

Ima say it, it was predictable. The original film had an engaging plot that I always found fun to watch. And in the beginning the new film wss in fact, fun to watch. But when the villain killed himself on his device I think it just got predictable. Using himself as a sort of undead conduit to further his plan, him turning into the evil version of the logo, even Slimer driving the Ecto-1 into the vortex that wss predictable. It all just felt kinda simple and, yeah it's movie not a Shakespearean Play, but it can have a few more twists and turns to make it interesting.

Also I very much enjoyed the big goofy dance scene with the soldiers it reminded me of the big Cuban Pete scene from The Mask.

Now the ending however...

That was bad.

The final action scene was genuinly boring to watch I couldnt get into it, best part might've been when the green gargoyle thing got shredded. The squishing of everyone by the StayPuff Marshmellow man wss kinda funny but eh.

The confrontation with the antagonist was... ok. Now, I LOVE this idea of the final ghost being an evil riff of the Mascot, that was awesome and funny and I enjoyed that part. Everything else, not so much. The way they fought him was boring it just felt like a slow Kaiju fight to me. And the way they beat him is just... uncalled for. I can enjoy grossout humor or an occasional gross joke I live off crass humor the joke in the beginning with the fart coming from the front wss one of my favorites. But shooting him in the dick that just... I get it'll make most men weakened I get it but gah...

No other gripes with the plot honestly, other than too many gaps.

Now some smaller details I'd like to point out, I'm just gonna list em quick fire.

Too many references it felt lo like they're were just trying to shove as much Ghostbusters shit in the viewers face it was just kinda annoying after awhile.

Some grossout humor is fine but certain bits like the over the top puke scene actually made me feel uncomfortable and not in a funny way.

The way they used Slimer wss fine but trying to introduce a random Female Version wss just kinda weird.

Ima say it, the black chick wasnt as funny to me she had a few good jokes but she was eh.

The Zuul reference at the end just annoyed me for some reason. The entire plot was one big riff of the original with the person breaking the barrier, ghosts running rampant, the spooky ghost chick in the beginning, even something as simple as the scene in the train tunnel it was all frame for frame practically. If yoire gonna copy the whole plot just use Zuul and replace Stay Puff with the ghost Mascot.

Now, to adress the elephant in the room. Gender debate. This film is without hesitation, meant for the female and feminist audience. But to say it does not care about the other side of the demographic and is 100 percent against men isnt fully true. Like I said the ending it a litteral and figurative jab at men, and it shows throughout the film. Men are treated like a joke, the Major is am idiot with his female secretary doing most his job. Hell No Men Beyond this Point was nicer to men than this film was, and that showed Men as a LITTERAL MINORITY essentially.

And I won't be the first to admit that Chris Hemsworth is really funny as a dumb blonde I'll say it yeah, but making every other men an absolute tool was kinda unneeded. Even the cops and the people who ran the universities were basically made out to be self righteous alpha males, which can be excused as to further the plot, but it wouldve been better off just making the mayor and cops women, making the mayors secretary a man who believed in them, and even make the college professors women or at the very least make them semi understanding in their actions I get we're meant to hate them and you don't need to make them likeable, but at least make them a bit less alpha male.

I'm gonna say it one more time. I think this film is actually ok and it doesn't deserve as much hate as it gets, gender debate aside it litterally is just a female retelling of the original film.

Do I think it could've used some work? Yeah.

Do I think people should be a bit more understanding about it? Yeah.

Do I think it deserves a sequel? No not in the slightest.

This is ok yeah, but it by no means deserves a continuation. Take away the fact it's a reboot and take away the gender debate, and look at it as just some movie that exists and accept it normal flaws as a normal film.

And I personally think that it genuinely does not deserve a second film. It was ok but it was by no means sequel worthy. And honestly I am excited because the original two films earned a third film. And I'm happy to see a new film come from the son of the original director.

And that's all this film is, isnt it? A letter from a son to his father, saying "Hey I really enjoyed the story you told, and I'm sad you didnt get to finish it. Why don't I finish it for you? I'll treat it well dont worry."

I also will say this to those who plan on hating the new film just because they didnt make a sequel for the 2016 version, then by all means, grow up.

In the end it's all just a film so just learn to enjoy it. And stop hating films before they've even hit theaters. And that goes on both sides of the argument.

#ghostbusters 2020 #ghostbusters #ghostbustersedit #ghost #ghostbusters afterlife #ghostbusters 2016 #paranormal #paranormal activity #2020 movies #black widow 2020 #2020 #movies 2020 #cartoons #film reboots #reboot #opinion #gender debate #gender stuff

11 notes · View notes

wannabealexjenningscoffee · 6 years

Photo

From Alan Bennett to Unforgotten: how Alex Jennings became the most chilling man on TV

“Next time, spare us the Hannibal Lecter schtick.” So said DI Sunny Khan (Sanjeev Bhaskar) to killer GP Tim Finch (Alex Jennings) in Sunday night’s finale of the superior ITV whodunit Unforgotten.

It wasn’t just one of the most memorable lines of a mesmerising series but also an apt comparison. This was a doctor who had abused his position of trust; a manipulative multiple murderer who displayed the cold-blooded cruelty of a sociopath; who spooked viewers and on-screen adversaries alike as he sat in prison-issue clothes, calmly detailing his sickening crimes, a sly smile of satisfaction playing across his lips.

It’s testament to Jennings’ chillingly charismatic turn that he bore comparison to Anthony Hopkins' Oscar -winning big-screen bogeyman. And all the more impressive that Jennings conveyed Finch’s unsettling secrets without any scenery-chomping histrionics or even on-screen violence. This was a slow-burning performance of rare subtlety. One of a group of four old schoolmates who’d rented a country cottage for Millennium Eve, Finch initially seemed the least likely suspect to have murdered local teen Hayley Reid, then buried her body under the central reservation of the M1. Predatory TV presenter James Hollis (Kevin McNally), swindling salesman Pete Carr (Neil Morrissey) or homeless, bipolar artist Chris Lowe (James Fleet) all behaved more erratically and looked better bets.

As the six-part drama unfolded, though, Jennings’ sinister creation gradually moved front and centre. We heard how Finch had violently threatened an elderly patient. His traumatised first wife Derran (Siobhan Redmond) insisted he’d mentally, physically and sexually abused her, with the Polaroids to partially prove it.

His daughter Emma (Jo Herbert) began to realise her father wasn’t as even-tempered as he appeared. His meek, mousy second wife Carol (Amanda Root) was in denial yet knew deep down that something was badly amiss. Finch was arrested on suspicion of murder in the penultimate episode but Sunday’s finale delivered a queasy twist. The “trophies” found in his cellar - a pair of knickers, a scrunchie and a necklace - didn’t belong to Hayley Reid as detectives had assumed, but to another, earlier missing girl.

In hypnotically intense police interview scenes, Finch impassively confessed to more murders - on the gloriously prosaic proviso that he got a cup of tea first. By the time the credits rolled, we knew he was a serial killer who had claimed at least five adolescent female victims, probably many more. His horrifying lack of remorse even contributed to heroine DCI Cassie Stuart (Nicola Walker) taking a sabbatical from the force. From his self-contained body language to the unconvincing way he called people “mate”, from his rural leisurewear to his reptilian movements, at first Finch’s villainy was hard for viewers to put their finger on. He just felt... not quite right. With his 6ft 2in frame, dancing blue eyes and enigmatic smirk, Jennings eventually revealed the true monster beneath the Barbour jacket and false bonhomie. Showing Lecter-like levels of self-regard, Finch was quick to point out the difference between paedophilia and hebephilia. He took time out to discuss the nature vs nurture debate. “I’m pretty much a textbook psychopath,” he confessed, barely batting an eyelid. “Above average intelligence, superficially charming, zero empathy.” Brrrrr. Don’t have nightmares.

Unforgotten was Jennings’ second show-stealing TV performance so far this year. He had already attracted rave notices in the BBC’s hugely entertaining dramatisation of the Jeremy Thorpe affair, A Very English Scandal As Liberal MP Peter Bessell, confidante and right-hand man to Hugh Grant’s rakish Thorpe, Jennings had one eyebrow permanently raised in amusement at his leader’s antics. Jennings was wonderfully wry as the womaniser, chancer and closeted homosexual who ultimately testified against his friend at trial - only to be castigated for having already sold his story to The Sunday Telegraph.

Coincidentally enough, it was in Grant’s defining role that Jennings himself almost found film stardom. He was originally cast in the lead role of hapless Charles in Four Weddings And A Funeral, only for financing to fall through. By the time the production got back on track, the goalposts had moved. “Bugger,” as Charles would doubtless say. Before this breakout year, 61-year-old Jennings was best known for roles as real-life royals. He has played both Richard II and George III. Opposite Helen Mirren in 2006 film The Queen, he gave an unexpectedly empathetic portrayal of Prince Charles. More recently, he stole scenes as the side-burned, scheming Leopold I of Belgium in ITV’s lavish costume romp Victoria.

This arrived on our screens at the same time as his excellently oily, embittered turn as David, Duke of Windsor (formerly King Edward VIII) in hit Netflix epic The Crown . Like the rest of The Crown’s roles, Jennings’ part has now been recast with an older actor and admits he “won’t like” watching his replacement. “I was attracted to Unforgotten partly because it meant not playing a member of the royal family,” he cheerfully says. “And wearing modern clothes, which I never do. I had to de-posh myself. I’m not posh at all, actually, but I’ve sort of acquired this poshness as the years have gone on. And I have done a lot of posh.” Born in Essex and an alumnus of his local comprehensive in Hornchurch, Jennings is indeed no toff. Instead, he does actual acting. He mastered the Leeds accent to portray playwright Alan Bennett in 2015 film The Lady In The Van, opposite Maggie Smith in the title role. “I grew up revering Maggie and Alan,” he says. “I have to pinch myself that we’ve become friends.”

Three years earlier, he played the writer on-stage in Untold Stories, based on Bennett’s childhood. “Alan was on at me not to be too plaintive or cosy,” Jennings recalls. “He doesn’t want to be seen as the sort of Wind in the Willows, moley kind of person some people think he is. He wanted me to be tougher with it.” Lady In The Van director Nicholas Hytner, with whom Jennings has a longtime collaborative relationship, ranks Jennings among the pre-eminent actors of his generation and has hailed him as “a John Gielgud for the 21st century”.

With his greying curls, care-worn features and subversive twinkle, Jennings has a face that lends itself perfectly to period roles. He has also inhabited other real-life figures, including former US president George Bush Nazi architect Albert Speer, Dad’s Army actor John Le Mesurier and composer Benjamin Britten. He has said the key to playing such roles is to act, not impersonate becaue the characters “mustn’t become Spitting Image puppets”. Before the screen royals and rogues, Jennings enjoyed a stage career remarkable for both its versatility and success. A revered regular with both the RSC and the National Theatre, he’s a three-time Olivier Award winner for Too Clever By Half, Peer Gynt and My Fair Lady, making him the only actor to have won in the drama, musical and comedy categories.

Whether it’s on-stage or in supporting screen roles, Alex Jennings has spent more than three decades being consistently brilliant. He has earned this late-life flowering as one of our most compellingly creepy TV actors. Let’s hope that Unforgotten’s Doctor Death is just the latest in a long line of meaty parts to get his teeth into. And on that thought, we’re back to Hannibal Lecter again...

Credit: By Michael Hogan 2018 Telegraph.co.uk; London

#alex jennings #unforgotten s3 #unforgotten #interviews #uk actors #british actors

6 notes · View notes

crowbean · 6 years

Text

LOL. IM BLAMING YEW @sasusakusss for roping me into this (WELL it’s not like you can foresee my uppity dumbass of zero self-control would write a tangent like that. so, it was entirely my fault. but you’re the trigger.)

Respond to this post

http://sunagakurenosato.tumblr.com/post/178178386806/crowbean-sasusakusss-fineillsignup

@sunagakurenosato

Here, lets talk in my post. Because i feel bad enough for the OP for writing a tangent, when their post is about Yamato.

First Diclaimer : I’m not justifying child abuse with war (I know you didn’t accuse me of that. But just to be safe, tumblr is full of bored people who wants a villain)

Second Disclaimer : I just put it there for anyone who’s so frustrated about “HOW SUCH AN EVIL COULD GETAWAY WITH THIS= MUST BE BAD WRITING”. I put out that reference, to show that bad writing could accidentally be a reflection of our world hence a starting point for a story with real questions. I admit, it was my mistake to put it out there without framing what I meant and it could be misunderstood as me justifying something so inhuman.

1. To answer your first paragraph (and possibily the last parts??) :

I mean you did wrote “They were secretly given immunity. Secretly. Because it wasn’t right. Because the United States of America wanted to keep that information to themselves and prevent other countries (Soviet Union) from accessing this information.” So are you saying the “means” : that is letting someone who commit such atrocities go scot free. Is justified by the “end” : getting useful information?(which by the way, you really have no basis to say if the US, at that time, just took that information to safeguard it and not to use it to hurt more people for the sake of “fighting the reds”) *i digress, but this kinda show my point how it raises quite a question*

I put that part of reality there because it’s one of those things that makes you think if “justice” is only there out of the convenience for the powerful? I know it’s stupid of me to think about that kind question for a kids show. But I felt like audience grew up. We all grew up to realize 90% of what Naruto preached is a lie although with a golden heart. And I just want that ideal to be dissected and upgraded. Even though i currently don’t know how, but that’s why I put that reference there. So maybe a smarter, better writer out there could look at that part of reality and churn out some light of “how do we retain ourselves in such a world?” through this fiction that has a parallel scenario of that reference, which is orochimaru’s freedom.

+ I’m sorry that im not making it clear that I see the War crime immunity as a VERY VERY wrong thing. That threw me into an existential crisis when I watched the documentary, I felt hungered to concoct a “light” through the bad show that has been imprinted into my childhood.

2. About gaara and sunagakure :

My memory is hazy about gaara vs the two goons, but all I remember is he dramatically fight on air when every suna ninja is watching in awe, drooling, doing nothing, because their president is flying, only to fucking try to help gaara when he already fainted, with canons. Creating a useless dramatic firework scene as he was kidnapped.

Okay, fine. You favour the “Why” than the execution, fair enough. The scene’s stupid but it does “redempt” gaara in a way. I get it.

And also the talk no jutsu part… like I said, the message has its heart on the right place. But you have to admit that’s weak writing, especially in these times when we are surrounded by so many depressed people, who do lesser things than “gaara”, that cannot be “talked out” from their illness. But it does could be interpreted as “people who’s mentally ill needs friendship” and okay fine, i could stretch that.

I did wrote “Debatably shit since then” because that part that i deem “weak writing” is one of the part where Kishimoto’s writing is starting to wobble. a telling sign it could go worse in the end. which it did.

3. About Yamato :

Now.. the ending is the Tumble after that long long wobble Kishimoto has had since the end of part one. Well I don’t know what you can get out of that, maybe I could stretch it like into “people change->orochimaru dun wrong things to help people this time UWU”. + “yamato’s sense of duty”+other bullshit? It’s not the first time audience have stretch kishi’s weak writing into something meaningful. I’m not here to debate if you can or can’t justify that. but we know there’s a slew of people out there that would go to hell and back to justify why Orochimaru deserves redemption (Which, I don’t think he deserves, because.. in my standards, even Gaara redemption should be death, a 13 year old that considers murder as self-expression is just long gone (but no, he’s too hot for death, -popularity polls disapprove))

Look..I’m just tired of how people would go to such lengths to justify some characters, when the some other character they despise could also be justified if subjected into the same mental gymnastics.

I’m just tired of people still ranting about the ending when people with any senses all agreed that Kishimoto dun goofed. He goofed because the inhuman standards Shonen Jump put upon their mangakas, he goofed after drawing/writing/composing/world-building to produce every single week, he goofed after giving half of his life to the manga only to have time for a honeymoon after the series ended, he Goofed and the fandom just kept throwing salt into that wound.

I just put that reference there, in the hopes that people could just stop complaining about a HUMAN ERROR on Kishimoto’s part (a human error that SP danced with) and either just fucking Ignore it (in favour of better kids show out there) or just turn it into a story one would want to ponder (which I was, in a way, trying to do and share one of the reference I used)

“But there is no examination of things in that scenario, as far as I know (which could be wrong cuz I haven’t been updated), which I believe is important in effective story telling. The why is important. The story can be about wholly problematic things– but if the point it’s getting to is good, reasonable, logical, believable, the audience can be okay with that.”

I’m sorry, I don’t really understand this paragraph?? But I hope I already answered you on my point one

ALso im sorry if i misunderstood what you are saying. I’m sorry if i was digressing too much?? I felt what i wrote is relevant currently, but i often got it wrong :,). im also sorry if im being redundant. I double checked my writing, but there’s a possibility that i wrote something wrong.

3 notes · View notes

funkymbtifiction · 7 years

Text

High Ne and long term projects.

Hello, Charity. Being ENFP, how does it factor into running this blog? Did it in any way contribute to its inception?

In the sense that I took an interest in MBTI and started ‘talking about it’ while I was learning about it, yes; I thought typing characters would be a fun way to learn and like a lot of NP’s / intuitives in general, I started off long before I had a substantial knowledge base to work off of. It’s been a continual learning process that has slackened off in my interest in the last couple of years, since I’ve kind of exhausted most of the available resources -- although I am still interested in learning more / hearing about interaction between types, to expand my knowledge.

One of the reasons I started this blog and maintain it is out of the hope that it could educate in a fun way -- that by reading profiles of characters and why / how they think as they do, people might start recognizing patterns in them and come to find their own type in the process. =)

Seems to me you’ve been at this for years, and it occurred to me that you have to deal with answering tons of questions. That must require patience.

Yes, it does, sometimes more than I have to offer (patience is not my strong suit!). And as my interest wanes, my enthusiasm for answering them has also waned -- but sometimes I get a great question that demands a fun or deep answer and that usually fires me up to respond; especially if I feel re-framing something in a new way could help people understand a function better.

And it’s safe to assume you get a lot of similar questions, and about personal problems and such. Does it drain you?

I do, yes.

To be honest, the questions that could be answered by the user doing a simple SEARCH (you can find almost anything on this blog by typing it into Google along with “funkymbti” -- for example, “Stranger Things funkymbti” or “fe vs fi funkymbti or even by using this blog’s very own search engine) I find irritating for obvious reasons. I don’t mind questions because people are always learning and/or discovering the blog, so I do wind up answering some of the same things multiple times in different ways; but sometimes I just point them to a similar answered ask.

I receive a lot of questions about ‘are these two types romantically compatible,’ and I always answer that MBTI has nothing to do with that; two people of the same type are not the same, and unless you’re wondering how to communicate better due to Fe/Fi differences, I can’t answer that, because I don’t know the Enneagram type, the mental health levels, or traumas of the individuals involved. Hence why I urge people not to date or break up depending on MBTI type! (My parents have no functions in common, get along splendidly, and have been married 35+ years, because both are agreeable, mentally healthy people.) Pick someone who makes you a better person, regardless of type. ;)

Does it drain me? If it requires anything other than Ne (abstraction, etc), yes, it can be draining. Coming up with specific examples from my own life is hard -- but I prefer to use them instead of abstract hypothetical situations.

(You have high Fi, so, how do you empathize with issues that don’t resonate with yours?)

I do care very much about people, but I focus more on ‘fixing the problem’ and ‘offering solutions’ than trying to offer emotional reassurances beyond ‘I’m sorry you had to go through that,’ etc. Some people just want to know their type -- others have deep hurts. I’m not a psychologist, so anything I don’t know about, I simply say I don’t know... or I will point them to resources.

I actually do not really like typing people online, since you can get a ‘false’ image of them / may tend to rely on stereotypes a lot, so usually what I do when people ask for help on that front is to further illustrate functions for them / ask them to read different sources, and then will answer questions if they have them / tell them if I get a stronger sense of one function or another. I was mistyped by others online so much, I became rather insecure about it -- so I do not want to make that mistake with anyone else and/or ‘force’ a type onto them.

Does it bore you, or even irk you, perhaps?

Sometimes, yes. I do get tired of answering “what’s the difference between ENFP and INFP?” every couple of weeks. (I think I now have at least 3 pages of comparisons between the two in the enfp x infp tag!) But ... I can also understand how confusing cognition is, how hard it can be to tell the difference between functions, and how hard it can be to decide between two similar types, particularly if you are a shy person or have social anxiety, or an Enneagram type that makes you less risk-taking and/or more risk-taking than is usual for your type. (I go through a minor typing crisis of my own at least once a year, as I debate whether I’m an ENFP or an INFP... so believe me, I GET IT. And it frustrates me if I can’t help you figure out your type; I hate to leave people with as many questions as when they arrived, but people are COMPLICATED, and there are a MILLION factors that go into who you are and why you are the way you are and how your brain works! So there is no ‘quick’ method to MBTI.)

Sometimes, I run in circles with someone and feel like my brain has turned inside out and all the lines between the functions blur until I can’t distinguish them anymore -- and those are the days when I think, “Why the hell are you even doing this?”

What keeps you going?

The thought that out there somewhere may be a person for whom this blog can help, by allowing them to say, “AH, THAT’S WHY I THINK THIS WAY!” I really desperately want people to understand how to communicate with one another -- so even on my worst days, that keeps me from hitting the DELETE button; the idea that out there someone may discover one of these pages and go, “Oh, so that’s why I can’t make my best friend / boyfriend / girlfriend / parent / child understand me! And that’s why they think the way they do!”

Part of this is because I used to fight ALL THE TIME with my ISFJ friend, until we discovered MBTI -- and it explained everything about her, so that I was able to understand why she loves what she loves, and why I couldn’t seem to give her what she needed / wanted from me (Fi/Fe problems) -- and then... we have never had another fight since. Once we ‘got’ each other, that was it. Oh, we still annoy one another a little bit, but I don’t expect anything from her she cannot give and she doesn’t expect ultra-gush from me. I value that so much, the idea that I could help someone else find it, keeps me going.

And have you ever wanted to give it up?

Yep, about once a month at least.

Also, how does sticking to the one topic of MBTI keep your Ne satisfied?

It doesn’t. That’s why I dabble a little in Enneagram / Socionics from time to time, read lots of psychology books, and have a lot of side projects going on in my free time. Although... typing new characters is also kind of fun, especially as I wonder what kind of response they may generate (how popular will this one be? has anyone even SEEN this movie?! is someone of that type out there going to be super excited that their favorite character IS THEIR SAME TYPE??). I suppose I also have this secret desire to ensure everyone has tons of characters who share their type, hopefully COOL characters, so that they can realize that no type is more awesome than another, and can feel good about being an ____.

(This is why it annoys me there’s so many ‘evil’ NJ villains and not enough SFJ villains!)

Or is that very narrow minded of me to limit your Ne like that?

It’s not narrow at all; Ne needs newness all the time to stay interested -- but as I said, there will always be new movies / television shows to ponder. ;)

Thank you, Charity. Have a spectacular weekend.

You too. :)

- ENFP Mod

#question #enfp #mbti #personal #submission

55 notes · View notes

emeraldcolour · 4 years

Text

WHAT IS STOP MOTION ANIMATION — A BEGINNER’S GUIDE

Ever wonder how movies like Jurassic Park, King Kong, Toy Story, etc., feel and look so real? Well, it is all thanks to stop motion animation.

Are you looking to learn about stop motion animation? Then you have come to the right place. In this article, we are going to talk about stop motion animation, its techniques, and its origins.

So without further ado, let’s get into it.

WHAT IS STOP MOTION ANIMATION?

The technique of bringing static on-screen animated objects to life is called Stop Motion Animation. This highly detailed technique is possible by moving an object in increments when filming a specific frame.

For stop motion animation, an artist places objects that are to be animated in their initial positions. A picture of the objects in that particular position is captured on a memory card or film. The artist then moves on to hustle the objects in slightly varying positions, capturing another image. This entire process is repeated hundreds and thousands of times to shoot a single scene. Once all the frames are completed and played in sequence, the stop motion animation after effects give an illusion of the movement of the animated objects.

Some of the most popular objects used in stop motion animation are paper cut-outs, puppets, clay figurines, and miniatures. These objects are used because they are convenient and easy to manage and reposition.

An easy way to understand stop motion animations is to think of them as an elongated serious of still images and photographs. The objects included are moved, fixed, and filmed on a frame by frame basis to simulate movement.

An extremely popular movie that made heavy use of stop motion animation using puppets and other miniatures was the uber-famous Star Wars. Using the great technique, this movie successfully brought objects that cannot move by themselves to life.

The introduction of computer-generated graphics, images and videos has dimmed the light of stop motion animation. However, due to its unique impact and realistic texture, you can’t expect this great technique to die out anytime soon. Many stop motion animation studios are still popularly using these animations in TV advertisements, short films and even artistic films.

STOP-MOTION ANIMATION TECHNIQUES

Various techniques are used to create stop motion animation. Some techniques include clay, cut-out, puppet and object animations. The main difference amongst all these techniques is the kind of object that is used in the creation of an animation.

An extremely popular and widely used stop motion technique is object animation. This animation type entails the use of simple objects, such as children’s toys and dolls, to create an animation.

Animations that use more detailed and complex movable objects are referred to as puppet animations. Cut-out animations, as the name suggests, uses paper and cardboard cut-outs of objects and characters. An artist then adds life to these cut-outs using their artistic and creative skills. Stop action animations are also popularly used in various movies and films.

BENEFITS OF STOP MOTION ANIMATION

Here are a few advantages of stop motion animations.

INNOVATION

One of the biggest advantages of using stop motion animations is innovation. The modern revival of this kind of animation entails using some super-creative and fantastic props and methods for filming. Artists are now using plasticine models, moving them only few millimetres to deliver a more intense and realistic effect. This highly effective method enables animators to animate any object that can’t move by itself. All in all, stop motion offers an endless number of possibilities!

INFORMATIONAL VIDEOS

Stop motion videos are becoming more creative and imaginative. Its effective techniques are being used to create all forms of content, ranging from informational videos to uber-cute advertisements. Today, marketers are using stop motion animation due to its high versatility. If you want to deliver a message in a truly unique and creative way, incorporating stop motion animations in informational videos or your ads is the way to go!

The intricate techniques and detailing used in these animations engage your audience and ensure that they watch the entire video.

ENHANCES BRAND IMAGE

The use of stop motion animations in advertisements and commercials is trending these days. The creativity of these videos makes it easy for the audience to retain your brand message, helping you build a positive brand image while encouraging brand recall.

A great attribute of stop motion animations is that it is inspiring and thought-provoking. It helps create quality content that individuals not only remember for an extended period of time but are also motivated to share with those they know.

A wide number of businesses belonging to different industries are gradually recognizing the true potential of stop motion graphics. This has motivated them to incorporate these animations into their digital marketing content, which is then posted on social media and other video-sharing websites.

HIGHLY VERSATILE TOOL

The use of stop motion animations is not only limited to the filming or advertising industry. This highly versatile tool is very useful in education and business. Stop motion animation is an incredibly fun way of delivering information and boring concepts. It helps make topics more interesting, motivating and encouraging students and other individuals to engage more. Stop motion also helps explain topics in a slow yet more effective manner.

USED IN DEMONSTRATIONS

Stop motion animations are an effective tool that can be used for product and other demonstrations. You can arrange and set the time frames according to your liking to speed up the demonstration. Stop motion animations can also be incorporated in explainer videos to communicate pivotal messages in an engaging manner. Since these videos are extremely creative and unique, they help retain the audience’s attention for a longer period of time and ensure that your customers understand the message effectively.

MUSIC VIDEOS

Due to their versatility, stop motion animations can also be incorporated in music videos to make them more creative and imaginative. There are no limitations on what you can achieve using different props to convey a message in an innovative way. You can use these creative animations to deliver different emotions and inspire people along the way.

Many animation studios in London are adopting these techniques.

HISTORY OF STOP MOTION ANIMATION

Released in the year 1898, “The Humpty Dumpty Circus” is considered to be the first documented movie that used stop motion animations. Directed by Albert E. Smith and J. Stuart Blackton, this classic movie brought wooden toys to life.

A few years later, in 1907, another film by the name “The Haunted Hotel” used stop animation. Produced by J. Stuart Blackton, this movie was applauded for demonstrating moving furniture using object animation, a popular stop motion technique. The Haunted Hotel went on to become one of the biggest hits of its time due to its incredible effects.

By this point in time, many filmmakers were adopting the use of different stop motion techniques to tell their story. Wladyslaw Starewicz is considered as one of the global pioneers of stop motion animations. He was a renowned genius when it came to storytelling through the art of stop motion. The most common type of object that he used in his stop motion animated films was puppets. Two of his classic works included “Tale of the Fox” and “Along With the Mascot”.

Another milestone in the stop motion animation industry was when famous animator Willis O’Brien made his entry into the mainstream movie industry through his work “The Lost World” in 1925. This major hit entailed the use of dinosaur animations alongside live actors. Another great hit by Willis O’Brien was the popular King Kong movie in 1933. This brilliant film took stop motion animation to the next level.

“King Kong” turned out to be a massive hit as O’Brien perfected the 2d stop motion animal techniques that he had used in “The Lost World”. He incorporated more smooth motions and realistic expressions in the film, delivering an incredibly realistic experience to the audience. Because of this masterpiece, Willis O’Brien earned the title “Father of Modern Stop Motion Animation.”

O’Brien also volunteered to supervise the stop motion special effects of the 1949 popular movie, Mighty Joe Young. In 1950, this movie won him an Oscar for best visual effects.

Stop motion animations were taken to another level by O’Brien’s protégé, Harryhausen. He made various films from the 1950’s to the 1980’s, making use of new techniques in stop motion animation.

HOW IS STOP MOTION BETTER THAN CGI ANIMATION?

Only a few decades ago, a vast majority of animations were being created using the popular stop motion technique. However, the technological revolution offered the world a faster and much less technical technique to deliver animated effects, known as the Computer Generated Imagery (CGI).

This gave birth to one of the most popular debates — the Stop Motion vs. CGI debate.

Here are a few reasons why stop motion animations are better than CGI animations.

ARTISAN FILMMAKING

Computer Generated Imagery (CGI) can’t compete with the rich history of stop motion animations. Stop motion was used to deliver realistic experiences to the audience way before the first computer was even introduced to the world. Stop motion helped create live action filmmaking in a creative and innovative manner in the pre-1900 era. It encouraged filmmakers and artists to display their creativity and show their out-of-the-box thinking through animations.

EFFECTS

Stop motion animations paved the way for many CGI effects that are seen in movies today. It gave birth to special effects to deliver an incredible cinematic experience. It’s important to acknowledge that even the epic Star Wars Trilogy was brought to life using special stop motion animations and effects. Hence, it has a rich heritage that cannot be underappreciated at any cost.

QUALITY

Contrary to popular opinion, stop motion is a high quality medium, just like CGI. There are various films with incredible effects that never fail to make an impression on its audience. Moreover, CGI can be of low quality depending on the budget, which ultimately delivers a disappointing experience to the audience. Stop motion, on the other hand, never compromises on quality.

COST

A popular myth in the animation industry is that stop motion animations are way more costly than CGI. However, like we mentioned, it’s nothing but a myth. Like other animation techniques, the cost of a stop motion project depends on the time required to create the extensive artwork. Since you are paying for the precious time and experience of the animators, you will have to compensate likewise.

Similarly, high quality CGI can be super-expensive to create. Even though you can opt for cheaper CGI, at the end of the day, it will not be able to deliver the same impact and experience as high quality CGI.

Stop motion animations can be created according to varying budgets without compromising on the quality, even though it requires more effort.

CHARM

Stop motion animations stand out from CGI; they hold a unique charm that can’t possibly be replicated using computer-generated techniques. Beautifully handcrafted with minute details, stop motion delivers a whole new experience to the audience. Moreover, stop motion just seems like a more personalized technique that gives a sense of warmth to the audience as compared to computer manufacture images.

RENDERING

After an animated film or video is created, it often has to be rendered into a particular video file. The rendering process is extremely time-consuming, adding to the turnaround time considerably. Even if you add the best textures, effects, and lighting for an incredible experience, this can easily be dimmed down if you don’t have a great render system. CGI requires a considerably long time to render as compared to stop animation, which requires only a few basic touches and edits.

All in all, stop motion animation will forever remain an incredible technique that offers a great experience to the audience.

0 notes

youngonescast · 6 years

Text

Prez Would Save Us Part 2: Smiley vs Corndog

Last week we discussed how a more than 40 year old comic wound up being creepily prescient about modern politics. But that isn’t the half of the story, or perhaps exactly half depending on who you ask. In 2015 Prez v2 was released by DC and cancelled quickly thereafter, if you read the previous article you Know why. Written by Mark Russell, penciled by Ben Caldwell, inked by Mark Morales, and colored by Jeremy Lawson. A whirlwind tour-de-force of modern politics it managed to slam, lambaste, and eviscerate the state of modern politics based on one simple premise: In 2036 the government allows people to vote in elections via Twitter. If Prez v1 is any indication of the oracular power of the Prez brand just be ready for that to actually happen. Through the doing we get the President we need, Beth Ross, ambiguously brown teenager. But it isn’t that simple. It’s never that simple.

Prez opens with a political party in disarray, you might even recognize the type from 2016, who have lost their sitting President ‘The Pectsecutioner’ who has just posted a personal ad offering what seems to be BDSM services at name your price. They can’t find a good replacement candidate who doesn’t have too many old selfies or is closeted to fit the bill. Their choice is between someone who betrays core values of the party or someone completely boring. They settle on the dumbest of two choices. Sounds f a m i l i a r. It’s worth noting, of course, that this was before the most recent primaries. The election is held and due to a dark horse candidate championed by the hacktivist group Anonymous no one gets enough votes to win the election. Hacking has a big impact on this whole story in fact, just like hacking had a huge impact on the 2016 election only by the Russians.

Weird

This dark horse candidate is our protagonist, Beth, who has recently been rocketed by internet stardom to take Ohio as a write-in candidate: Corndog Girl. Her claim to fame is having her luxurious braid dipped in a deep-fryer. Beth is 19 and her father is dying of a virus that the failing health-care system refuses to fix so she has to run a SickStarter that isn’t making the four million dollars needed to save his life. Gosh, health-care anxiety, wonder what that’s like. She tries to go onto a game show where the challenges are life threatening. A contestant seeking to bring his family over the gigantic border wall is forced to shoot himself in the leg through a loaf of bread to win the money. That’s a damning indictment of game shows. She doesn’t make it onto the show because no one expected him to win. Her father dies.

So it is with the senate in a dead tie, with Beth getting one vote, that everything begins to crumble. Senators begin voting for Beth to convince the Presidential candidates to bribe them with favors. Whole NASAs are auctioned off, Senators are actually getting whipped by the majority whip, naval bases for landlocked states, shark aquariums, and in the end previous abstain vote from Delaware goes to Beth Ross and she becomes president. Chaos engulfs the Senate. And one aging 50+ year old Preston Rickard, whom no one has heard of, whose contributions were erased from the history books, yes, Prez himself, scoops up Beth in a helicopter and tells her the only way she’s going to survive is if she has a Vice-President that no one wants in office.

And during all of this there he stands, the great enemy, Boss. F-ing. Smiley. No longer content to be the only emoji-faced icon of greed and destruction he is the leader of a shadowy cabal of CEOs with names like Pharma-Duke(Great Dane), Grizzly Tobacco(Angry Bear), Sassy Pork(Pig), and Senor Corn(Corn and it’s Monsanto) and faces to go with. He’s also now the CEO of Amazon. It’s really explicit. Smiley is a shipping and distribution company that makes nothing themselves, nothing but time. This cabal seeks to extort the government, gets de-regulation passed through bribery. They withhold the vaccine for the virus that killed Beth’s father. In a move that echoes the present trouble we are having surrounding gene patenting, Boss Smiley makes a play at copywriting the genomes of all living things.

It’s more difficult to discuss Prez v2 than v1 because there is so much more going on. Far from decompressed every page bursts forth with content and Prez v1 wasn’t a slouch about that either. Ubiquitous holographic advertisement provides context to this fleshed out and well developed world. Debate style television programming is shown lampooning partisan TV again and again, skewering the traditionally conservative talking points of suggesting that the poor receiving benefits are using them improperly or how the deregulation of heavy industry is framed behind bills that seem to protect the consumer. While everything is over the top dystopian fare it all rings incredibly true to the American experience.

Such as the so called ‘Beanbag Warfare’ program, a system of drones that polices the globe killing thousands of people indiscriminately while the operators sit in their chairs with identifiable game controllers. The drone bombing we engage in presently spun out to it’s First Person Shooter logical extreme. That alone would be a harrowing bit of commentary but it doesn’t end there! The military industrial complex invents a new autonomous drone to replace the drone operators with AI and ‘lo and behold the War Beast drone gains sapience and becomes a born again Christian named Tina. It’s a wonderful look into the concepts of AI personhood. This series cannot be recommended enough.

Of course, cancelled halfway through its intended run we never get to see how Beth manages to turn the country around. There are tons of plot-threads left dangling, so much unresolved. It’s a damn shame. In this, one of the most politically volatile times in recent history, we could really use such scathing, bold, and heartfelt critique of the problems that lie festering in the soul of America, the horrors and complicity we as the electorate choose to turn our faces away from, the problems Beth Ross would confront head-on. This comic is all of the things described and so much more. Prez would save us, if only we let her.

Find out more about teen superheroes in our podcast Here.

Or at any of the places you may already listen to podcasts: Apple Podcasts Google Play Stitcher

Written by Everett Christensen, Young One’s Lead Editor

Cover art: Jules

Images: PREZ #1-6 W:Mark Russell, P:Ben Caldwell, I:Mark Morales, C:Jeremy Lawson, L: Travis Lanham

#Comics #prez #Teen Superheroes #podcast #Young Ones

1 note · View note

plusorminuscongress · 5 years

Text

New story in Politics from Time: Four Days. One Candidate. Welcome Aboard the Buttigieg Bus

Before he got on the big yellow-and-blue bus that bore his name, Pete Buttigieg ironed his shirt in his hotel room. His tour across Iowa this week comes at the beginning of the school year, and as kids around the country were boarding buses of their own, they must have felt a similar apprehension. As Buttigieg climbed aboard, everybody stared at the new kid as he tried to find the right place to sit.

From the beginning, Buttigieg’s rise in the Democratic presidential primary has been rooted in media exposure. So it was fitting that the South Bend, Ind., Mayor launched the latest phase of his campaign the same way he launched the first one: by courting the news media with a level of access unmatched by any other candidate.

The four-day, on-the-record bus tour with reporters, modeled off Senator John McCain’s “Straight Talk Express,” demonstrated his campaign’s understanding of a central rule of politics: the press are like hyenas, happiest when fed, and avoiding engagement with them can turn an already adversarial relationship into a hostile one. In a primary that will likely be decided by personality attributes as much as policy preferences, the bus tour was a chance to show the press (and, by extension, the voters) what kind of guy he was.

The bus was arranged like a living room, with leather seats and ice buckets filled with beer and lime-flavored spiked seltzer. The lights were surrounded with marbled glass sconces and the sinks were made of frosted glass. In the bathroom, a small bronze sign requested that guests avoid putting “solid waste” in the “commode.”

The venue played to Buttigieg’s strengths. Unlike Elizabeth Warren, who loves translating her policies into plain English, or Bernie Sanders, who has given different versions of the same rousing speech since 2016, or former Joe Biden, who is most at home riffing off old anecdotes, Buttigieg does best in conversation. As the bus hurtled past cornfields and wind turbines, Buttigieg was game and pleasant, answering answered questions about everything from the whistleblower complaint enveloping President Trump to the state of the race (one in five Iowans hadn’t made up their mind yet, he noted) to the leftward tilt of the party (“most voters want to know that you are a capitalist as well as a progressive”).

But on the day TIME joined the tour, the questions were often personal. He talked about his favorite road snacks (pickle bites), whether he and his husband plan to have kids (“Chasten’s ready to be a dad…I’m ready but not as ready as he is”), and what jobs he would do if he doesn’t get elected President of the United States. (One was a truck driver, because on long-haul drives he could “listen to a lot of content” and “learn languages and talk to people.”) He said if Al Gore had won the 2000 election, American politics would have gone on such a different trajectory that he would probably be “happily living as a literary critic at some university” instead of running for President.

The conversation became most revealing when Buttigieg—a man raised by English and Linguistics professors—started to offer his own definitions of the terms that have so far shaped the primary. Buttigieg has long been a student of political language: most of his old columns in the Harvard Crimson revolved around the need for Democrats to seize control of the words used to frame political debate. To that end, Buttigieg has sought to sidestep the left vs. center axis used to define the Democratic field, instead insisting on a political framework that is more about the future vs. the past. That’s caused many in the Democratic field to paint him as a centrist, an incrementalist, or a moderate, mostly in contrast to his rivals on the left.

Buttigieg rejected each of those labels.

“The one I find most problematic actually is centrist,” he says. “It’s actually a very ideological framing. It says you’re about being in the middle. And there are ideological centrists in this race, and I don’t view myself as part of that.”

“Incrementalist” isn’t right either, he argued. “What I’m proposing to do with Medicare for All Who Want it, for example, may not be the furthest left idea in the field, but also represents the most profound transformation in American healthcare since the implementation of Medicare.”

“Moderate,” he says, “is largely about tone. I’m definitely tonally more moderate. I don’t think waving my arms and hollering is gonna help, because there’s so much of that.” Populism, he says, is the most “slippery term of all,” because “It’s not as easy as finding the backroom where a lot of supervillians are pulling the strings.”

This is where Buttigieg is most comfortable: with a rigorous analysis of political terms and their contextual meanings. In fact, he has a different definition of “progressive” than most people.

“Progressive’ is a relatively new term in the Democratic Party, used by people who wanted to avoid calling themselves liberal,” he says. While other candidates and activists define “progressive” as a commitment to support a specific set of policies—like Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, or student debt relief—Buttigieg embraces a broader definition. “To me, it’s about insisting that we protect people and that we actually advance towards a more equitable society as we go.”

“I don’t think anybody gets to own the term,” he adds. “It’s certainly not the case that you have to be for free college for all to be a progressive…we say a policy is more progressive if it favors those on the lower income spectrum. Free college is the opposite of that.”

Buttigieg describes himself as a “democratic Capitalist.” But “the label I’m most comfortable wearing,” he says, “is that of a Democrat.”

By Charlotte Alter/Waterloo, Ia. on September 24, 2019 at 12:27PM

#Time #politics #PlusOrMinusCongress #±Congress #Indega±#IndegaPlusOrMinus #TimeMag #TimeMagazine

0 notes

siavahdainthemoon · 7 years

Text

'this is problematic’ culture vs ‘it’s just fiction’ culture

Look, here’s the thing. I know this site is super divided between ‘this content/your fave/that pairing is sUpeR ProBlemAtic’ and ‘sit up shut down let me enjoy the thing’, and it’s an argument that generally doesn’t go well, because on the one hand the people who cry ‘problematic!’ are often really black/white about it and waaaay too happy to abuse/attack/demonise people for mistakes, and on the other hand people who love their Things get understandably super defensive and protective of them when they’re attacked.

And there’s a whole lot of issues tangled up in there about puritan moralities and generational values and pre- and post-9/11 cultural ideology, and it’s all relevant and important, and if we’re going to have this conversation then it needs to be calm and rational and nobody doxxing or screaming abuse at anybody else.

Particularly at kids and teenagers, for Lilith’s fucking sake. Like any of us were perfect at twelve or sixteen or whatever. Like any of us are perfect now.

We are all human. That means we’re all flawed. We’re all complicated. When people fuck up, you point it out and give them a chance to do better. Equally, when you fuck up, swallow that defensiveness, own up, apologise, and do better next time. Fucking up doesn’t make you a bad person; you’re a bad person (or at least a fucking idiot) if you refuse to consider/admit that you might have been rude/done harm/hurt somebody and continue the behaviour.

That said.

A story is never just a story.

It doesn’t matter if you’re the creator or the consumer: it doesn’t matter if we’re talking about books or films or shows or video games. If a human created it, it contains biases and opinions, deliberately put in there or unconsciously. The fluffiest sweetest romance novel has things to say about sexuality and relationships and gender roles. The most self-indulgent action film with All Teh Explosions reinforces cultural ideals of masculinity and heroism.

This is a fact. You don’t get to debate about this.

It’s also not at all a bad thing, intrinsically. It’s just how the world works, how our minds work, how we tell stories. If nothing had any meaning, nothing would matter. Stories wouldn’t affect us the way they do, the way we need them to as human beings, if they didn’t speak to us this way, on a conscious or subconscious level.

The reason it becomes an issue, sometimes, is because what stories say affect us.

It doesn’t matter that you don’t ‘see’ the message, the bias, the opinions. It doesn’t matter that you’re just enjoying a fluff fic or a thriller, gods, stop making it political. You don’t have to take a book apart in English Lit for it to literally affect how your brain works. It just happens.

Don’t believe me? I have receipts: here’s a study proving reading Harry Potter reduces prejudice. Here’s an article about the neuroscience of how film clips create empathy (or a 5 minute video running through the same info and study, if you prefer). Here’s another on how the brain basically can’t differentiate between actions and senses read in a novel and real life ones, and, again, heightens empathy for others. Here’s a Ted Talk by neuroscientist Uri Hasson on how our brains sync up while communicating, and how a single sentence can make us think like other members of the group. Here’s an article that sources several different studies on how our brains confuse metaphors with reality and how it affects our behaviour. Here’s a video rundown of the neuroscience of empathy and mirror neurons, and here’s an article full of citations on how not only can fiction make you feel, but readers and writers both score higher on empathic tests than the general population. Here’s a brief Ted Talk linking cultural folklore to gender inequality; here’s an article about how facts don’t change our minds, and here’s another about how stories do. Here is a tumblr post (because it’s the best explanation I can find of the subject) about how our brains learn visual ‘shorthand’ that doesn’t differentiate between real-life experiences and what we see in film and tv, and why that makes the stories we tell sometimes dangerous and always important.

So, again, this is not something you get to debate. Stories, both fictional and not, affect our brain chemistry, our empathy, our prejudices, our beliefs, and our behaviour. Scientific fact, not up for discussion.

This is why it is, actually, fucking important to discuss problematic elements in our fiction. Because without conscious and deliberate critical thinking, the vast majority of us do just absorb the things we see and read. @fozmeadows, whose blog you should be following as a matter of course, said ‘depiction is not endorsement, but it is perpetuation’. When a story depicts a harmful idea or concept (I would like to add, in the wrong way, because it is absolutely possible to tackle or explore dark gritty topics in way where the narrative makes it clear that This Is Not Okay In Real Life Kids, even if you are dealing with messed up characters who think that it totally is; no one with any sense is demanding that All Fiction 5ever Must Be Only Cotton-Candy And Puppies, how boring that would be), it normalises that concept. Having every black guy (or the only black guy) in your film be a vicious criminal reinforces the cultural mythos far too many white people have that All Black Men Are Ebil. This does not just apply to racism. I will defend the obsessive loves of tween and teen girls to the death, but the romantic relationships in the Twilight series are objectively abusive and framing them as romantic is dangerous; not because young girls are stupid, but because if you absorb without critique a story that tells you your Love Interest taking the wheels off your car so you can’t visit someone he disapproves of is romantic, then why would you not believe the same behaviour is romantic in real life? That has become your definition of romance, and applied to real life, that is scary.

I think the important point here, though, is, if you absorb a story without critique. Everyone is allowed to like what they like; you don’t get to sneer or snarl at someone who likes Twilight just because there are problematic elements in it. What you should do, particularly if you’re talking to a young person, is check in that they know real-life romances shouldn’t work like that, and then move on once you’re sure they understand. You can ship unhealthy ships and you can guiltily or proudly enjoy any piece of media you want, as long as you acknowledge, within yourself, that there are pieces of this story you should not add to your Template For Real Life.

And content creators - you can also tell any story that you like. But don’t for one second pretend, ever, that your story is only entertainment. It isn’t. It never is. Do with that responsibility what you will - nobody can stop you - but be aware of it.

That’s it. Don’t scream at or doxx or abuse anyone who likes what you don’t like, even if it’s problematic. Don’t defend the problematic elements in what you like, just acknowledge them and continue on with your lives. Try and tell stories that are fun and epic and also make the world a little better.

As you were.

#stories have power #your fave is problematic #how to human #Science rocks #f: anthropology #storytelling #feminist storytelling #psychology #I am so sick of this argument #just be kind to one another #fanthropology

35 notes · View notes

theconservativebrief · 6 years

Link

It has not been a great year for television so far.

There have been plenty of treats, to be sure, and even some real treasures. But compared to the way 2017 seemed to haul out new classics with astonishing regularity (to the degree that I couldn’t rank them when it came time to make a list), 2018 has featured a lot of shows where my recommendation comes with a caveat, or where I love it but plenty of my critical comrades despise it, or something like that.

This is fine, in many ways. TV criticism was defined too long by the idea that there were a simple handful of good shows, and critics could mostly agree on them. It’s exciting to get away from that era in some way, to argue about if Westworld is magnificent or malarkey, to discuss whether The Handmaid’s Tale is incisive or exploitative.

But it also means lists like these require far more grains of salt than they might have in the past. So here, presented alphabetically, are 24 TV shows from the first half of 2018 that I gave four stars or more and that have stuck around in my memory in the time since they aired. I hope you like them! But maybe you won’t! And since the TV year typically features more good shows in its first half than its second (due to the Emmys falling in September), my year-end list will likely feature almost all of these shows.

(A few caveats: I typically use the summer to catch up on stuff I missed, so some shows that aren’t here almost certainly will be come December. And I’ve tried to limit this to shows that aired six or more episodes in 2018 so far, cutting out some other favorites. I’ve made a list of things that missed due to one or the other of these caveats at the bottom of this article.)

[embedded content]

One of the best final seasons I’ve ever seen, the last 10 episodes of The Americans circled back to what the spy drama had always been about — whether this unlikely marriage between two KGB spies pretending to be ordinary Americans could survive all of the things threatening to rip it apart. The series finale is a pitch-perfect cap to six years of bleak but beautiful television.

How to watch it: The Americans is available for digital purchase, or on FX’s streaming platforms. It will eventually be on Amazon Prime.

[embedded content]

The second installment of American Crime Story after 2016’s The People vs. O. J. Simpson was less immediately arresting. But its depiction of ’90s America is just as impressive, tracing the circuitous route of serial killer Andrew Cunanan backward from his most famous victim through a gay scene struggling not to be forced back in the closet. Darren Criss’s work as Cunanan is masterful.

How to watch it: American Crime Story is available for digital purchase, or on FX’s streaming platforms. It will eventually be on Netflix.

[embedded content]

Donald Glover’s laconically loopy trip through the titular city grew bolder and more confident in its second season, as the characters endlessly debated ideas of what it means to be “fake” versus “real.” The season’s standout was the darkly funny horror tale “Teddy Perkins,” about the legacies of child abuse, but every episode stands as a pitch-perfect, beautifully honed gem.

How to watch it: Atlanta is available for digital purchase, or on FX’s streaming platforms. It will eventually be on Hulu.

[embedded content]

So far, 2018 has been a year of uneasy comedies, of stories that are ostensibly funny but hide something dark and sad at their core. No “comedy” embraced this idea more than Barry, about a hitman who would be an actor, played by Bill Hader. The show is terrifically funny, especially in its depiction of the fringes of show business, but what sticks with you is Barry’s inability to change.

How to watch it: Barry is available for digital purchase, or on HBO’s streaming platforms.

[embedded content]

A riotous trip through the deleterious effects of income inequality, Billions had its best, most cutting season this year, as the show blew up its own premise (by burying the investigation that had always been at its center), then spent the rest of its season vamping for time by digging into the ways those with money and power seem utterly oblivious to those without those qualities in the 2010s.

How to watch it: Billions is available for digital purchase, or on Showtime’s streaming platforms.

[embedded content]

You like fish? This has so many fish!

How to watch it: Blue Planet II is available for digital purchase, or on BBC America’s streaming platforms. It will eventually be available on Netflix.

[embedded content]

A deeply funny dark comedy about the cost of working for a terrible company, Corporate is one of the most visually audacious shows of the year, turning the workplace comedy into an excuse to indulge in gray, chilly frames, in the style of David Fincher. Somehow, that only makes the jokes, about the dehumanization inherent in trying to hold down a corporate job, even funnier.

How to watch it: Corporate is available for digital purchase, or on Comedy Central’s streaming platforms.

[embedded content]

For whatever reason, 2018 has been full of terrific spy dramas, but this one seemed to get a bit lost in the shuffle. Starring Oscar winner J.K. Simmons, it tells the story of a world that split in two late in the Cold War, with the second universe, initially a copy of our own, slowly becoming more and more different. Forget just having one great J.K. Simmons performance. Counterpart had two.

How to watch it: Counterpart is available for digital purchase, or on Starz’s streaming platforms.

[embedded content]

This satirical comedy, set on the campus of a predominantly white college, but focusing primarily on the school’s black students, hit another level in its second season. The show crystallizes Trump-era racism — just a new face on a very old American horror — through its storytelling and especially its visuals. The eighth episode, structured as one long conversation, is a marvel.

How to watch it: Dear White People is available on Netflix.

[embedded content]

I include the “season one” here in hopes that it’s unnecessary. Netflix has made noise about following up this dark British comedy with a second season, but doing so would be self-defeating, as this first season tells its story so perfectly that to tack on more would feel wrong. So watch this gem of a miniseries about a teenage sociopath and the girl he can’t bring himself to kill before it gets all screwed up.

How to watch it: The End of the F***ing World is available on Netflix.

[embedded content]

The space-faring political drama tightened the screws and ratcheted up the tension in its third installment, which collapses a full novel and a half from the book series it’s based on into a single season of television. Complete with memorable guest arcs from David Strathairn and Elizabeth Mitchell, the series finally dug into the true nature of the mysterious alien presence in our solar system.

How to watch it: The Expanse is available for digital purchase, or on Syfy’s streaming platforms. It will eventually be available on Amazon Prime.

[embedded content]

The comedy about women wrestlers and the basic cable TV show that broadcast them to the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area has a bit more sprawl than it knew what to do with in its second season. But the show is so open-hearted and generous to its characters that it doesn’t matter. Its stories of women navigating men’s spaces and womanhood as a kind of performance make for riveting television.

How to watch it: GLOW is available on Netflix.

[embedded content]

Already brutal and bruising, The Handmaid’s Tale became even more so in its second season. It removed some of the cold comforts of the first season to examine how living in a totalitarian society inevitably means that you become complicit in at least some of its horrors, even as those horrors are being visited upon you. Elisabeth Moss and Yvonne Strahovski are fantastic as they navigate a society set up to oppress them.

How to watch it: The Handmaid’s Tale is available on Hulu.

[embedded content]

This stand-up set is a must-see, as Australian comedian Gadsby sets up a long series of punchlines that then resolve into a complete deconstruction of jokes and who gets to tell them in a society filled with fatal power imbalances. It’s funny, yes, but also filled with a scorching fury that finally resolves in a sense that to do better, we have to tear apart every assumption we have.

How to watch it: Hannah Gadsby: Nanette is available on Netflix.

[embedded content]

I’ve always enjoyed this rural noir about two best friends who solve strange mysteries in and around the American South. But the third season, which features the two of them taking on the Klan, felt like the show turning a corner into its examination of how much America is defined by its gruesome past and how little any of us are willing to pay attention to that. Naturally, Sundance canceled it after the season aired.

How to watch it: Hap and Leonard is available for digital purchase, or on Sundance’s streaming platforms. It will eventually be available on Netflix.

[embedded content]

The CW’s daffy and inventive telenovela has always been some of my favorite TV comfort food. But in its fourth season, it somehow became something even more, leaning into storylines that underlined the show’s themes of family, perseverance, and love. It’s rare for a TV show to do a “character might have cancer” arc that doesn’t feel like a cheat, but Jane more than pulled it off.

How to watch it: Jane the Virgin is available for digital purchase, or on Netflix. Some episodes are available on the CW’s website.

[embedded content]

Here’s another terrific spy drama, this one focused on a bored spy (Sandra Oh) who finds herself intrigued — and then maybe even more — by her new quarry, a mysterious assassin (Jodie Comer). Killing Eve takes tropes you’ve seen a million times and makes them feel new again, and it’s the first TV show in ages to remind me of my beloved, dearly departed Hannibal.

How to watch it: Killing Eve is available for digital purchase, or on BBC America’s streaming platforms.

[embedded content]

The Looming Tower is dry and occasionally impenetrable. But I ended up loving the way this miniseries about the build-up to 9/11 slowly but surely built its case for how US intelligence agencies failed to spot what was right in front of them, leading to one of the biggest tragedies to ever occur on American soil. It’s not an argument for more intelligence work; it’s an argument for smarter intelligence work that remains relevant to this day.

How to watch it: The Looming Tower is available on Hulu.

[embedded content]

The middle stretch of this season reeled off classic episodes, like the show was in a groove it was never going to leave. What’s more, those episodes are all so recognizable as episodes — from a magic-inflected hour of short stories to a musical — that it became hard not to get caught up in the inventiveness. And the series’s emotional core about sad 20-something magicians trying to bring back the thing that makes them sad (magic) remains rock solid.

How to watch it: The Magicians is available for digital purchase, or on Syfy’s streaming platforms. It will eventually be available on Netflix.

[embedded content]

The second season of the remake of the 1970s sitcom of the same name is perhaps the most joyful show of the year, as the Alvarez family at its center struggles through life in these United States with heart and hope. You’ll see few TV performances as terrific this year as the work of Justina Machado and Rita Moreno, as a mother and daughter who are never defined by their conflicts.

How to watch it: One Day at a Time is available on Netflix.

[embedded content]

Ryan Murphy’s final series for FX (before leaving for Netflix) is this delightful, warm ’80s period piece about drag ball culture of the era and the idea of found families among people all across the LGBT spectrum. In particular, the show tells stories about trans women like few TV shows ever have, allowing them to have full lives and desires beyond their transition narratives.

How to watch it: Pose is available for digital purchase, or on FX’s streaming platforms.

[embedded content]

My favorite workplace comedy had maybe its best season with its third run, which both deepens the show’s interest in social issues (including age discrimination, something few TV shows would even think to touch) and also serves as a master class in how to spin romantic and sexual tension across an entire season of a TV series. When all of its stories came together in the finale, it felt almost magical.

How to watch it: Superstore is available for digital purchase, on NBC’s site, or on Hulu.

[embedded content]

More than 100 men sail into the Arctic in the mid-1800s, sure they’ll win glory for the British crown by discovering the Northwest Passage. None of them return, and this miniseries (the first in a new anthology series under the banner of The Terror), based on a Dan Simmons novel, imagines what might have happened to them, utilizing both historical research and a mighty monster to tell its tale. It’s grim and unrelenting but also starkly beautiful.

How to watch it: The Terror is available for digital purchase, or on AMC’s streaming platforms.

[embedded content]

Two sisters return to their Los Angeles neighborhood in the wake of their mother’s death, then vow to keep the bar she ran open to preserve their neighborhood in the face of gentrification. This lively half-hour drama examines ideas of identity, sexuality, and class consciousness, but never in a way that feels didactic. Instead, it offers heart, humor, and a touch of magical realism.

How to watch it: Vida is available for digital purchase, or on Starz’s streaming platforms.

The Good Fight CBS All Access

12 Monkeys and Channel Zero are other Syfy treats I’ve highly recommended in the past, but I’ve been able to catch up with neither so far. The CW’s Crazy Ex-Girlfriend technically aired six episodes in 2018 (exactly six), but I really want to see where it’s going with its current story arc. CBS All Access’s The Good Fight is one I just haven’t caught up with yet, to the consternation of my friends. NBC’s The Good Place will surely be on my year-end list but only aired five episodes in 2018 so far. I loved HBO’s The Tale, a searing story about the aftermath of sexual abuse, but it already made our “best movies of 2018 so far” list. And someday I will finish Netflix’s Wild Wild Country, but I liked what I saw.

Original Source -> The 24 best TV shows of 2018 so far

via The Conservative Brief

#IFTTT #The Conservative Brief

0 notes