New to the phandom but why do we think sleepless night with phil was a lie?
okay i tried to find a post explaining this bc there Is at least one comprehensive post about this out there but thanks to tumblr's search function sucking i couldn't. so im gonna relay the info from memory for now and if anyone has the post im talking about handy please send it bc im sure it's better than whatever im about to write. anyway. hi anon question answered to the best of my ability under the cut lets go
okay so i'm referring specifically to 'A HUNGRY sleepless night with Phil' rather than the whole series. so the main and original reason this is believed to be fake is this moment:
phil says it's 1:40 a.m and he's downloading dream daddy for them to play on the gaming channel, but as you can see on his laptop...it started downloading at half past eight in the evening. which. not only does does phil not act like he's been downloading it for this long but rather just started, that would be a LONG long download time.
also, from our position of living in the future, we know for certain that the "bedroom" phil is filming this in is, as was long suspected, a set that he had specifically for filming, like the rest of that apartment. they confirmed it themselves in 'Dan and Phil finally tell the truth'. (i will add that phil has since said he DID sometimes sleep there, and honestly yeah maybe he did, so do with that what you will).
as for WHY he faked the sleepless night, not long before this video was uploaded he posted this series of tweets, known as 'the centipede incident':
which, as was noted by snoops (and just people with eyes) everywhere that is...not the floor of what at the time we were supposed to believe was phil's bedroom. the floor it DID match was what was known as 'the moon room'. at this point dan had stopped filming videos in his bedroom but he did lives from an otherwise unseen bedroom with a moon decal sometimes.
conclusion: dan and phil share a bedroom
context: dan and phil were not out yet (and would still not reveal that they shared a bedroom today, never mind then)
result: damage control, formally known as "A HUNGRY sleepless night with Phil"
105 notes
·
View notes
Hi Rae - I have a question for you about I hate it here - I saw this TikTok (actually was sent it… which personal sigh) about the 1830’s line and how it was indicative of white feminism and how because of the line majorly simplifying things that were happening back all using what’s happening with the Arizona abortion ban as an example of why this line is ‘incredibly harmful and problematic’. Which, like of course I don’t want to police anyone who does feel certain things about the line, because not my place but I guess… I feel like people keep taking that line out of context when I think she even shames herself for thinking that way, but they just want to focus on that part of it. I feel very seen by this song and I dont want to appear that I’m being attacked by it. How you would talk about all of it without discrediting the issues people have with this line?
Here’s the video for clearer understanding: https://www.instagram.com/p/C6FqiJZLWV9/
i admit i didn't watch the whole video, but i get the gist. my take on it is the same as yours, personally. i love the song, it's one of my favorites on the album!
i think the point of that line is to note how the past can't be romanticized as simpler, better, etc. because... it wasn't. the past still sucked, and taylor is acknowledging that even in a "palace," she would still be unhappy. it draws a parallel between the past and present: they're not so dissimilar, the same problems exist in different forms.
some people will think it's bad taste - my note from my first listen was "this is annoying." i do think that game has always been more fun for white people! my little friends played it when i was a kid and i'd always be like, "well, i'd love to live in x time period, but i'd have to go back as a white guy..." - PLUS, a lot of people simply do not want to hear this from taylor. which is fine! feel however you want!
but i think we should all just become more comfortable with saying "yeah, i didn't like that," rather than endlessly moralizing it. maybe it's not sophisticated or funny to some people, but i think that line does address the exact thing people are criticizing about it.
19 notes
·
View notes
Welcome to another Drunk Skunk™ rant!
So.
I've had some time to sit and stew on the Fallout show, and I think I've finally figured out exactly what I want to say. Because kids? I got Opinions™ about this fucking series. I sincerely wish I didn't have all these Opinions™, because that would almost certainly cause me significantly less stress.
But here we are.
The Fallout show annoys me, but not for the reasons you think.
Let's get the good out of the way first. And by "good" I mean "damning with faint praise."
The Fallout show, as a piece of entertainment and experienced in a vacuum with no prior knowledge or context of the rest of the series or any of the other video games, is... fine. It's an entertaining television show. It's not great, but it's not terrible. It's okay.
The best part of the show is, unquestionably, Walton Goggins. Which is probably the coldest take here, everyone agrees that he's fantastic in this. And it's true! Granted, he doesn't look nearly as gnarly as he should, as the makeup is really giving Ryan Reynolds Deadpool Hugo Weaving Red Skull vibes, but I can honestly give that a pass. He steals every single scene he's in. He has all the best lines. Plus, all the pre-war flashbacks with him are excellent. That first scene when the bombs drop is fucking harrowing.
SPEAKING OF THE BOMBS!
The big reveal that Vault Tec were the ones to kickstart the apocalypse. My initial gut reaction to that was... Not Great. I didn't like it. In fact, I kinda hated it. I thought it was an answer to a question that nobody asked, because nobody cared, because it was never supposed to matter who shot first. The original point was that the end of the world was the inevitable outcome after so many years of war, so many years of stockpiling nuclear weapons, and so many bad decisions from everyone in positions of power on all sides of the conflict.
But the more I think about Vault Tec being the ones to destroy the world... I dunno, the more I... kinda like it? In a fashion. Sort of. As you can see by the remaining length of this fucking rant, I have Complicated Feelings about this!
See, Fallout has never exactly been subtle with its themes, but the show drops all pretense, and openly embraces a staunchly (and honestly, extremely surprising) anti-capitalist narrative.
The Fallout show pulls a Garth Marenghi unironically, and it honestly... kinda works?
Vault Tec were the ones to drop the bombs because they wanted to recreate the world in their image of a capitalist "paradise" free of any and all government regulation. The inevitable end result of the "great game" of capitalism is the literal end of the world, and the capitalists will do everything they can to destroy any attempts to rebuild any civilization not explicitly under their direct control. Because that's what capitalists do: they pursue an ultimately self-destructive goal that is not, and never was, sustainable, and will destroy everything else in their pursuit of endless, infinite, exponential growth, forever. Nothing else matters except Make Number Line Go Up.
Side note: it is extremely funny to me that Bethesda - a hollow shell of greed and excess who have been releasing the same game with different wallpapers over and over again since Oblivion - and Amazon - which is fucking Amazon - bankrolled a show where the villains are greedy capitalists who explicitly destroyed the world because of fiduciary duty to the shareholders. Like... guys, you do realize you two are Vault Tec in this scenario, right?
Ah well. That's capitalist realism for ya.
Anyway, the more I think about it, the more sense it makes that Vault Tec were the ones to drop the bombs.
HOWEVER.
Maybe this is just me being a cynical, drunken asshole here, but... it feels like this was a decision that was made, not because it was the best way to take the narrative, but instead as a means of enforcing the Status Quo of Bethesda Fallout.
See, the thing I liked about the west coast Fallout games was that it showed a world ravaged by the apocalypse, but it also showed that world beginning to heal. 200 years after The End, and civilization was returning. It was a natural evolution of things, emphasizing the post part of "post-apocalypse." It showed us a world that really sucked a lot of the time... but also gave us a small sliver of hope that, no matter what nightmares existed after The End, things could - and would - get better, so long as we put in the work to make it better. It was a world that showed us that nothing was ever so broken that it couldn't be repaired. We just had to fucking EARN that happy ending.
Bethesda Fallout, on the other hand, is just Wacky Wasteland Adventure Time. They are not interested in showing a world evolving or changing or growing, they just want a blasted hellscape that looks like it was freshly nuked yesterday. Why? Because that's the surface-level Aesthetic of Fallout. That is what is recognizable. And Aesthetic is all they know how to do. That's the mother fucking Brand.
Doing something different would risk changing the Brand, and if that kind of change happens, then it's no longer easily marketable. So they just keep with what's familiar: freshly irradiated hellscapes, caps as currency, makeshift weapons, psychotic raiders with no purpose or goals beyond Fuck You, and more of the fucking Brotherhood of Steel. It's all the stuff we remember, so we can point at the screen and go "I recognize that!" instead of allowing the setting to evolve and creating something new.
And that's what annoys me the most. Because even though Vault Tec destroying the world in 2077 makes a certain amount of sense, it also feels like it only exists as a means of artificially enforcing the status quo of the setting. Which means that nothing will ever matter in Fallout ever again. It doesn't matter what happens, or what changes in the future, or who wins the next ideological conflict between the same factions that keep reappearing over and over again like radroaches. Because whenever something strays too far from the established setting, Vault Tec (or, more accurately, Bethesda) is just going to nuke it again, like what happened to Shady Sands.
And, y'know, Shady Sands getting nuked like that really does rankle. Not because I ever had any attachment to the NCR, but because destroying it in the way that they did just felt so fucking lazy. If they wanted to get rid of the NCR, there were easily half a dozen other things they could've done that would've made far more sense. The NCR was a fantastically corrupt government, making the same mistakes as the same governments that (up until the show) were responsible for destroying the world. California was running out of food and clean drinking water because of gross negligence and mismanagement, public unrest was high because of excessive taxation and the "stop tolls" of corrupt border guards shaking down people, and both the military and bureaucracy of the NCR was spread fucking paper-thin, due to their policies of violent imperialist expansionism trying to take far more territory than they could reasonably hold, far more quickly than they could ever manage.
And did any of that matter? No. Not at all. Pursuing any of those plot threads would've required the writers to actually come up with some new ideas. So, instead, it was destroyed because of a cryogenically frozen Vault Tec middle manager with family problems. It was such a fucking lazy solution to a problem that should never have existed in the first place. It felt like the Fallout equivalent of "Somehow, Palpatine has returned."
That's why this show annoys me so much. Because this show that exists without subtlety or subtext, is telling us, to our face:
Don't hope for a better future, because it will never come. The world of Fallout is a destroyed, irradiated hellscape, entirely devoid of hope, and it will never, ever change, ever again.
Because that's the Fallout Brand, and that's what fucking sells.
18 notes
·
View notes
…so I watched this musical called nerdy prudes must die and apprarently I have thoughts about it, so I’m just going to compile these thoughts into one post.
(there are spoilers)
people have pointed out how cruel it is that Ruth is mocked for her really sincere performance on stage before dying, and it’s even sadder if you remember that in the one(1) positive interaction she had with Max before his death, he acknowledged and complimented her performance as the skele’un? and that it might have been the first time in years that someone appreciated her as a performer in any way?
but also, Ruth is the only victim of Max’s who dies on stage(for Richie, the lights go out before we can actually see him die, but not for her), so in this very twisted meta way she’s once again honored as a performer when she dies? in-universe she dies alone, but the audience is with her, and she remains the center of our attention until the end.
the last Ruth thing I have is that she says she used to tap dance (I think she’s not acting anymore for the last few lines of Just For Once?) and so does Pete, so… were they in tap class together? if so, that’s cute
also, speaking of meta things, the fourth wall breaks in the actual songs? like the townspeople in Hatchet Town acknowledging that by singing they’re giving the killer more time to kill again, but they can’t stop, or Max calling out the audience in Literal Monster and pointing out that it doesn’t matter if you’re judging him because you’ll still keep watching his show. this isn’t a groundbreaking take or anything, but I like these
the “bean school? :O …excellent! :D” line from Bully The Bully gets me every time, it’s just the “we did it, gang! we got to something that sounds like half a coherent thought!” energy. truly THE teen experience
Max references religion and specifically Christianity a lot, but in Literal Monster he does the wrong gesture for “cross your heart”, so… he’s probably not a practicing Christian, or he would know the correct way to cross himself? which makes the constant use of religious imagery in his lines even more interesting, since I’m pretty sure he’s the only one who makes these references other than Grace (alternatively, his “cross your heart” might not be in the “prayer” sense, but in the literal “crossing someone out” sense? but it’s still a cool detail)
44 notes
·
View notes