#'yeah this is such a great feminist show/movie!'

[heartbellamy]

you ever think about how most of clarke’s ‘friends/family’ just really didn’t give a shit about her? how even when she attempted/threatened to take her own life in front of some of them they didn’t particularly even care? i’ll forever be bitter about how this so-called ~feminist show~ hated its own female lead so much it cared more about her torment and isolation than it ever once did about her well-being or god forbid her happiness

#clarke griffin #anti the 100 #2 1/2 years in and i'm still so upset over this #sometimes i can't even stand to look at certain characters bc of this #this was literally so horrendous #and also the reason whenever somebody is like #'yeah this is such a great feminist show/movie!' #i literally am just 👀😒 #because of how fucked this show was to women but especially to clarke

[olderthannetfic]

I know about the origins of the Bechdel Test, but I do think it's inaccurate to say it's not meant as a criticism of movies that don't do that. I think that when people stop thinking in binary terms of "is this feminist?" or "is this anti-feminist?" and instead look at things more holistically, that you can recognize both that a character like Mako Mori is great, a step in the right direction for female characters in action movies and especially WOC, go forth and stan her and write all the fanfic you want.... but yeah, it is also a valid criticism of the movie (and many others like it) that she doesn't talk to or have relationships with any other woman in the film.

I think one thing to help people realize just HOW much of women's lives are being left out of media representation when we never talk to other named women about something other than a man in movies, is to just think about your own life. I talk to my mom every day, and if we are not talking about my stepdad or my brother-in-law (and I don't think we've ever had a conversation that wasn't at least IN PART not about them or another man), then it passes the test. I'm a professor and when I talk to a female student about her homework or project (which is, again, something that happens pretty much every day I teach), that's passing the test. If I order food from a female cashier and she has a name tag, that's passing the Bechdel Test! It's literally just constant for the vast majority of women on the planet, and that's what's being left out of our stories.

Like, I like the takes I've seen about how part of the joke in Dykes to Watch Out For is that this is *particularly* alienating to lesbians - as a lesbian myself I agree - but I also think it should be frustrating to straight and bi and ace women as well, because like unless you are like exclusively interacting with your husband or male relatives every single day + you work in a workplace where you are literally the only woman, you are almost certainly passing the test constantly. That's a pretty big part of women's lives that Hollywood is leaving out!

But I think it's important to view it as just one piece of the discussion about feminism and women's representation in film, not the final judge on if a film is feminist or not. Which it wasn't intended to be - as you said, it was mostly a joke on the extreme maleness of 80s action movies. Honestly, I do not miss those days on Tumblr where people were obsessed with declaring certain movies/TV shows/other fandoms they liked as "feminist" or "anti-feminist" and the really bizarre granular discussions people would have between two works that BOTH had a long way to go in terms of representing women. I remember people in the Fullmetal Alchemist fandom would use this to argue about if the original anime or Brotherhood/the manga was better - when both have some fantastic female supporting characters, but are ultimately male-centered stories where even a lot of those women's lives and stories are centered around their male love interests and family members. It's better than a lot of shounen, but if that's your bar for feminism - either version - you have a long way to go (and need to watch WAY more anime because there's sooooo much of it that is female-centric). I also remember people coming up with other tests that were blatantly silly: like I thought the Mako Mori test about "if a woman has a motivation/story that isn't centered on a man" was fair because it did point out a legitimate criticism, but there was that ridiculous "Tauriel Test" where it was "a woman who is good at her job." And it was entirely about someone just disliking that movie critics and feminist commentators alike were down on the Hobbit movie trilogy, which a) were bad movies, sorry you have bad taste, b) are absolutely not where you should focus your attention if you're so concerned about women's representation in film, Tolkein has always been a sausage fest! And her big thing was being mad that people thought Judi Dench's M in Skyfall was a better female character, and so she arbitrarily decided she was "bad at her job" and Tauriel was "good at her job" even though that's completely subjective and can be challenged in both cases.... but also, once again, why are you looking to the fucking JAMES BOND franchise for movie feminism! There's nothing like comparing the relative "feminism levels" of JAMES BOND and LOTR to make it obvious that this is 100% about validating your subjective taste preferences by giving it a "progressive" excuse, not actually about feminism and not actually caring about women's representation beyond how it makes you look good. And yet SO many people took that transparently stupid post seriously. I'd see professional articles mention the Tauriel Test as "one of the new tests" like there was anything serious about it.

And then on the flip side, over-reliance on the Bechdel Test alone led to some clueless conclusions especially in anime fandom, given that anime has an abundance of shows that exclusively feature female characters in school clubs being cute, where those characters are nonetheless two-dimensional archetypes designed for the male gaze. Someone like fandomsandfeminism did a presentation at an anime con that called one of those types of shows "feminist" and some Japanese user eviscerated it, but that just led to the equally shallow fandom analysis of "everything a Japanese person says about anime is automatically more valid" and "any Westerner who wants to criticize anime on feminist/progressive grounds is culturally appropriating and ultimately coming from a place of ignorance, even if they literally have a degree in Asian studies."

Wow, this turned into a rant about the history of bad "feminist media criticism" on this website. Sorry about that, I think I had a point in here somewhere. I guess that the Bechdel Test is indeed a joke and those origins should be understood, but also, I don't think it's wrong to say that it identifies a real problem and one that people could probably take MORE seriously than they do - but as just one part of the conversation, not the Feminism Litmus Test, and certainly not as a dick-measuring contest about whose fandom gets them more progressive brownie points.

--

I think as long as we grasp that the joke is "The bar is so far under the ground that we might as well go home and eat popcorn there", it's fine.

The real issue with the test is that people started thinking a pass was meaningful.

If you say something like "X% of 2020s movies can't even manage this weaksauce level of women existing", that's a meaningful statistic. Even if you got a couple of data points wrong, you're not factually wrong enough for it to matter because X is going to be some massive, massive percentage, and the overall trend is so clear.

But a pass is nothing to celebrate, and that's where we went wrong.

Like you say, litigating which of two big franchises that barely do anything with women wins on tumblr points is idiocy.

I think people are so unaware of what media that genuinely centers women even looks like that it's hard for them to even begin having a discussion.

I personally have been a massive fujoshi type from adolescence, and media that centers female characters isn't actually what I typically want. (Though media that is by and for women and that doesn't give a fuck what men think of this is.) I am also not much of a fan of slice of life in general...

But when I was coming out and figuring my shit out, being able to go buy collections of Dykes to Watch Out For was incredibly valuable to me.

Ditto the other lesbian comic books that were just sitting there in the bookstore. I'm sure if I went back and reread them all now, I could find things to nitpick or ways they were more for lesbians and less for me as a bi girl, but the really distinctive thing they did was let me exist in a world where media isn't all 80s sausagefest action movies where women are not people.

In fact, they were a world where men don't matter terribly much—not because they're dramatically rejecting men in some facile and reactionary way but because... who cares? They just had other priorities... and this was normal.

It feels like people who've never taken a vacation from really mainstream media just have no concept of what it would feel like to exist in some other space.

And I think that's a pity even if, like me, they later choose to go read mostly BL later instead of focusing on female characters or they genuinely love trash 80s action movies despite everything wrong with them. It's not just sexist media that's the issue: it's that feeling like the fish can't see the water it's swimming in.

[xoyalanztov]

Just watched barbie and I am going through so many emotions right now.

SPOILERS AHEAD:

Okay so. This movie is a lot more than I thought it would be? like yeah I definitly expected the feminist subtext but they brought out the P word? saying the word Patriarchy out loud is like putting your hand on the stove, but I'm so happy they included it. Because this movie reflects a point where a lot of us are at in our lives. We are growing up, watching the people around us getting radicalised and its such a difference from what we used to be. How kind we used to be.

And Barbie is great at reminding us of that. Greta is so clever of never falling into the trap of saying: people are selfish, or all men suck. She knows what people will say about the movie, so she already added her rebutalls in, which is really clever.

The patrirachy affects everyone. This is a fact. Women live as a walking contradiction, cognizant of themselves and others at all times (with "an undertone of violence"), and we are so scared. All the time. It's exhausting be here, especially if you're an immigrant in a first world country, because you are constantly being reminded of how much better you have it. What people don't understand is that it's not enough. We deserve more. When the Barbies were getting their Nobel Prizes they were so confident, so assured in their right for recognization of the amazing work they've done, and just. I want that. So bad. I want to look at something and say I earned that.

And the Ken's were just this backdrop charecter, and it was achingly similar to how women are often presented in media. When Ken went into the real world he saw that he could be respected, could be loved, so of course he wanted that. This just shows that unbalanced societies will find ways to even themselves out, and those ways won't be great for everyone. But it does pose a great question for all "alpha" men: Who are you without the grind mindset, your podcast and your minifridge stocked with beer? Who are you? What is your life's purpose? What have you done with your life so far? You can do anything, and you are free to do anything. You don't have to work 80 hour weeks. You don't have to work yourself to the bone. Ask for help. Ask for compassion. Its ok.

And the way the movie makes fun of Mattel?? Aboslutely hilarious. Yes Barbie started out as a woman that could do anything, but she was perverted into this shell of herself, so that all that mattered was how much she would sell. This subtle dig at capitlisim is great, and the showcasing of performative activisim is top tier.

I think that at the heart of it this movie is about the thing that most great works of art are: human connection. The connection between mother and daughter, how it may wane, but if it is fostered and treated with respect it will flourish. Gloria loves her daughter. She gives her the speace she needs, lets her daughter grow. And her daughter understands that she needs that space, but also jumps to her mothers defence. Ken just wants to be loved, just wants someone to be there for him. Barbie helps him through that, and in the end, where Ken almost throws himself off the roof, Simu's Ken helps in persuading him not to, despite their bitter rivalry. Because love has many forms, and shouldn't just come from one person. Because we are more than a forgotten kiss.

Don't even get me started on the montages. I am so happy to be human. I am so in love with everything and everyone.

#barbie #barbenheimer #greta gerwig #margot barbie #margot robbie #ryan gosling #ken #america ferrera #chaotic academia #desiblr #desi #desi academia #school #everything is poetry if you write it truthfully enough #poetryblr

[knightotoc]

Just finished IWTV book, so now I can say the differences between the book, movie, and show. The movie is quite accurate to the book, while the show is more original. I love them all quite a lot, but I think the show is my favorite since it's the most romantic. Long post with spoilers below the cut.

book:

The depth of Louis' interiority, especially his thoughts about religion, can only be found in the book. I am also ex-Catholic so this is high-key my shit. Especially knowing Anne Rice went back and forth later in life. I can relate. Louis wants to talk about his feelings with other vampires, but Lestat and Claudia aren't interested, which is the main reason Louis is attracted to Armand. Where is the Brideshead Revisited crossover?? Louis get in a bisexual love triangle with the Flytes for me🙏

I learned in the Matt Baume video on Anne Rice that she wrote IWTV while grieving her daughter, who died of leukemia just before her sixth birthday. This feeling of grief, reflected so clearly in Claudia, is the most moving and unique aspect of the book, far more than anything between the adult characters.

One reason this feeling is watered-down in both adaptations is that in the book, Claudia is only 5/6, the age of Anne's real daughter. In the movie she is 10 and in the show 14. Of course it would be impossible to find a 6 year old actress who could act with the maturity of an 80-year-old woman. But the character is even more pitiful and bizarre as a little child than as one nearing puberty.

In the book, Lestat is shown to have survived the murder attempt pretty early on, and he keeps jump-scaring Louis and Claudia on their adventures. I prefer the movie's version where they hold off on this reveal. Though of course I always love to see him, lol

In the book, I got the impression that Lestat and Louis are both bi, but Lestat prefers men and Louis prefers women. Still, their motivations aren't driven by sexuality in a straightforward way. For example, Lestat's ideal prey is a young man, because he loves to destroy their potential. Louis feels something like love for a few women characters, because he feels empathy for their misfortunes.

The adaptations soften/change Louis' status as a slave-owner; in the movie, he frees his slaves, and in the book he just flees. As much as Louis is a soft-hearted quasi-feminist, defined by his guilt and regret, he is still racist and close-minded in most ways. This seems realistic to me.

I did think it was interesting and cool that the enslaved people can tell Louis and Lestat aren't human, while the other plantation owners and even Lestat's dad have no idea. But we don't get their perspective, just Louis' racist assumptions.

Yeah in the book Lestat has a dad! It is rather confusing since Lestat explains nothing, but it creates some great melodrama. I guess I have to read the next one and hope for a backstory reveal.

Fun spooky detour into Eastern Europe! I hope the show goes there in season 2.

Louis and Armand's discussions are really cool. I especially loved Louis' monologues after Claudia's death. There wasn't room for these discussions in the movie, but I feel like it'll be a main focus in season 2 of the show.

movie:

Like I said, the movie is impressively accurate, and a beautiful work of art on its own. The best innovation is holding off on the Lestat reveal until almost the very end. This makes it look like their murder attempt really did a number on him, and it took decades and decades of rat-eating to even drag himself out of the swamp. I like that.

The movie also has a more exciting and ridiculous ending, in which Lestat attacks the reporter in his car and drives away to Guns N' Roses. The book ends with the reporter hurrying off to find Lestat himself. It's funnier and more awesome if Lestat is the one driving the plot and the car. Pleased to meet you :D

"How avant-garde." Best line in the movie, and it's not from the book!

Since the movie cut out most of the minor characters, there isn't as much evidence for Louis' bisexuality. Louis seems more like, gay but closeted. And Lestat seems more like, gay but misogynist, so he'll prey on women just for sport lol.

I'm a Fight Club guy so I love that this is, like, a reverse companion movie (this time, Brad Pitt is the pushover in a dangerous gay duo)

show:

This is the only version that is clearly gay. But this dynamic is the same: Louis wants to talk about things, and Lestat does not. In this case, the focus of these discussions is not vampirism or religion but their relationship. Louis points out that he is gay and Lestat is bi. Perhaps it's just because I saw this version first, but this is my favorite version of their sexualities. The show simply spends more time with this dynamic, and how it affects everything, including their interracial relationship and openness in society.

In the book, Lestat is a talented but soulless musician. He can play anything, but without heart. In the show, music is Lestat's one genuine connection to humanity (even if this connection just leads him to kill musicians who don't impress him). I believe later books go more into Lestat as a musician, so I'll have more thoughts on this later.

Since the reporter is cynical, old, and dying, this creates a much more compelling conversation within the framing device. He holds Louis to task with a forcefulness that rivals Lestat. It is a clever way of modernizing the story, since Daniel references their last interview in the 70s (when the book was published), and you are meant to wonder which version is more truthful.

Since Claudia is 14, she can pass as an adult, and she is able to go on her own rather disastrous adventure. It is exciting, terrifying, and sad, and a welcome addition for this character, though it is much different than the book's helpless, heartless Claudia.

The Catholicism in the show is flashier, but not as interesting as the book. For example, in the book, Louis is haunted not just by Paul's death, but Louis' failure to meet Paul's faith-driven monetary demands. In the show, Paul's ideas seem like more of an annoyance. Maybe there will be more religious doubt in season 2, but I don't really expect it.

In the book, it seems like Louis and Claudia throw Lestat in the swamp since it's faster and more thorough than fire. In the show, the oven they use is a major plot point, and Louis can't bear to put Lestat's body in it because he still loves him. Instead they throw Lestat in the trash, which is one of my favorite tropes (see: Maul in The Clone Wars, Soldier 1998). This is just one of the many ways the show complicates and deepens Louis and Lestat's bond.

I feel like the show is more believable and has more deepness in general, since it's a smart retrospective on an old franchise and a response to decades of vampire fun in pop culture. For example, in the show Louis has volunteer humans to feast upon, and it's very "safe, sane, and consensual," versus the universally predatory relationships in the book and movie. Because we all know now that if vampires were real, and they were hot and rich, they could get all the blood they want without hurting anyone. An ethical vampire like Louis isn't impossible anymore. Compared to other billionaires, he's a pretty decent guy.

So, I'd say the book has the most profound perspective on grief, the movie has better structure, and the show has the most complex romance.

#interview with the vampire #iwtv #iwtv 1976 #iwtv 1994 #iwtv 2022

[sleepytoycollection]

opinion on Barbie movie: mixed bag. Had a lot of great moments, but also a lot of moments that were a bit too ham fisted or on the nose.

Very much a white feminism movie. Thought it was a bit off putting most of the Kens of color were essentially props.

Even if he doesn't look the part I'll grant Michael Sera was a very funny Allen, but I'm sad Midge didn't even have more than one line.

They show Christie and Theresa in the credits despite them not actually having a presence in the movie, and considering the lack of intersectionality it's kind of a slap in the face to dangle them in the credits like that. "Oh yeah and here's two characters we could've put in the movie and it def could've added something but we didn't."

Idk it was still a fun ride but it really fell short of being the big feminist statement piece it's trying really hard to make you think it is.

#Barbie movie spoilers

[fancylala4]

Why Rapunzel should have cut her own hair in Tangled

Though out the movie Tangled, Rapunzel has been shown to be out of control of her own life as Gothel has been in control of everything in rapunzel’s life. One of the many aspects of her life that were out of her control was her hair. As the movie tells us, Rapunzel needed to keep her hair long because of the magical power within the hair. Once the hair is cut, the power is gone forever. We also have been shown that rapunzel views this as a gift that should always be protected, and also a burden because everyone wants to abuse it (or so she has been told). It would have been great if the writers had her cut off her own hair because she found out the truth about gothel’s intentions and shown that rapunzel had broken free of her control. Even though she relied on her hair for many years to be able to do things, rapunzel realized that it was for her own good, and she would finally be free. Instead of this, we have Flynn making the decision for her!

Flynn cutting her hair WITHOUT her consent was counterproductive to her own story. “Gothel deciding what was best for her without her consent was wrong, but Flynn doing it was ok because he actually loved her!” Yeah, that’s bs. Even if that wasn’t the writer’s intention to make it seem like that, it does come off like that. Also, the fact that he basically tricked her, so he can cut her hair, was wrong and sends a bad message to kids. Plus Rapunzel relied on her hair for many things, and it was all taken away from her without her consent. This implication could have been avoided if Rapunzel had cut her own hair. It also would have been a better end to her own story as she finally had a say into something that defined her own life.

It ruined rapunzel’s character arc in favor of Flynn’s. Flynn cut her hair off without her consent because it shows he changed, and he’s willing to die for rapunzel because he fell in love her in 3 days. How many times have we seen in a movie where a girl character gets their own arc in the story ruined because the writers needed to focus on the boy’s character arc instead? This is supposed to be rapunzel movie, but the writers made Flynn the protagonist instead because of some sexist marketing reasons. Even the climax of the movie heavily focused on Flynn and gothel. It should have focused on rapunzel and gothel as this is what the movie is about, the abusive relationship. But they reduced rapunzel to a damsel just to prop up Flynn. Hell, the people that defend Flynn cutting her hair without the consent focuses on his story arc, not rapunzel! “HE thought Rapunzel shouldn’t be defined by her hair!”, “HE loved her for her and not the hair.”, and “HE needed to complete his story arc!” As you can see from these comments, they make her seem like a damsel that couldn’t save herself. It just proves my point about this whole issue. This is supposed to be rapunzel’s movie. It’s also supposed to be a feminist take on the fairy tale. However, the movie sacrifices rapunzel’s character and choices just so Flynn can be the hero. Maybe in the live action Disney can fix it. But I won’t hold my breath.

#mine #anti tangled #tangled criticism #tangled critical #long post #anti disney #disney criticism #disney critical

[cybermeep]

just finished frankenhooker…. god, what a watch! a truly sleazy & goopy movie. i love sleazy & goopy movies. it was one of the more schlockier films ive seen… and it gives it life! it has crude settings and even cruder characters, its the epitome of sex and blood, and it knows that.

as someone else said too, its very… hm, how do i say this? simultaneously misogynistic yet feminist. its hard to really decipher what it is. its an amalgamation of many different things; whether that be blatant references and alluding to the sex scene back in the 90s, or the rampant drug use and poverty in city streets… it has commentary yet simultaneously is very surface level. its very.. blunt in what it tries to state. literal. i enjoy it

i also enjoy the music in this movie, heavily. its fucking phenomenal. the visuals, well…. ah, they’re bad. i can say that and nobody who has seen it is surprised. they’re bad bad, you can tell very obviously when a person switches to a fake model in their death, etc etc. a wig was very obviously glued to a fake face for the fiancée’s decapitated head in scenes before the stitched together body parts came to be. yet, even with some of the shitty visuals— and i haven’t even discussed how truly awful the effects in some scenes are— the movie has wit. it has character, and it definitely stands out. you don’t just simply forget a movie like frankenhooker. to me, anyway.

but yeah, i mean, when you make the thing that kills the women a substance called super crack, you know it isn’t going for anything subtle. it doesn’t. it shows gratuitous amounts of nudity, and barely tries to hide it. a comically obvious ‘boing’ sound effect is added when a woman in the movie lowers her corset and her tits fall out & certain lines are very obviously ADR’d in during post.

..despite all this, i love it. truly an odd gem. the ending is… great. i too am unable to use any kind of words or syllables in my brain to describe the last few minutes of the movie besides batshit insane and absolutely genius.

hell, even in this i don’t mention anything— i wrote on a piece of paper most of the stuff i saw. first movie i wrote about on paper since 2001: a space odyssey from a few months ago. i haven’t even mentioned the silly specs protagonist wears during a good 20-30 minutes of the movie and the silly suit outfit nor have i mentioned the drill he subsequently sticks in his head for ideas; something the movie shows us casually. theres many things i’ve failed to mention which i believe are worth it to see yourself if you find this interesting

overall, i.. loved it. yeah. i did. it made me laugh and was honestly really fun to watch. should specify though, fun to watch ALONE. i would be physically unable to watch this movie with a friend because of how sleazy & gratuitous it is. still, i recommend it heavily. if you can handle sleazy things..

#cybers tangents #frankenhooker

[coraphoenix]

ik everybody was like "oml simping for rooster/bob/hangman/coyote/insert man here" but like... can we give big ups to monica barbaro for clearly playing someone who is definitely different to herself in very key ways, most noticeably in physicality? the way phoenix walks and sits and holds herself feels very specific to phoenix/natasha trace, and that is so cool! of! her!

(also apparently she was a badass in the backseat and never got too nauseous, which, also cool)

YES! YES! YES! Anon, I hope you're ready for me to ramble a bit. I first watched TGM in early June, and Phoenix was one of the first characters that stayed with me after I had left the cinema. I wasn't sure what it was at first, but as someone in the writing industry, I took that as my excuse to go back and rewatch the movie and analyze it. That's another path I won't go down for now.

But Phoenix as a character, from my perspective as an audience member, was great! When I first began to really think on why I liked her, I realized that she wasn't annoying. "What do you mean by that, Raven?" you ask. Well, a lot of films and TV series try so hard to be "empowering" and "feminist" that they often end up doing the exact opposite by absolutely annoying the audience and making the female character way too arrogant and flashy. Phoenix was as much a part of the group as all the others. In that bar scene, which is impeccable from a writing point of view by the way because of how it introduces 7 people in a couple of minutes, the positioning of the characters and their dialogue immediately makes us pick up on certain things subconsciously. For instance, Phoenix walks in with Fanboy and Payback walking ever so slightly behind her. It's a quiet nod to her as the "leader" of their little friend group and also tells us more about Payback and Fanboy. When Hangman baits her within a second of seeing her, she's annoyed yes, but also a little amused, which makes us think, "Oh, she's confident. She's got her shit together even in the face of someone as cocky as Hangman." She's smart and doesn't underestimate Maverick, which Monica speaks about in this interview. Phoenix establishes herself as capable in our minds, and when she tells Rooster, "I'm going on this mission," we're not thinking pfft. Right! Instead, we're accepting it as a very probable outcome because she's shown that she's fit for the mission. Her immediate appraisal of Bob at the bar is another great indicator of her character, going back to her not underestimating anyone. While everyone is amused by his callsign and maybe making fun of him for it a little, she finds a way to include him while also challenging him, almost like she's saying Do you have what it takes? Show me.

Now onto Monica, I will never shut up about what a great job she did with Phoenix! As you said anon, one of the most noticeable things is the physicality. The way Phoenix walks and stands (which @autumntouched has also mentioned) serve to further characterize her and make our minds subconsciously form a certain opinion of her. Again I could talk about this for hours, but I don't want to bore you all. I've watched so many interviews that had me in awe of Monica tbh. All of the cast and some of the people who have worked with them on the film have attested to how well she handled the G's. Glen often mentions how she was practically surpassing them all with the flight stuff and that he had trouble keeping up with her. Honestly, I'm in awe of her even as a ballet dancer because that takes so much effort and practice. So yeah, I'm in absolute awe of Monica, and I can't imagine anyone else better suited for the role of Phoenix. Her dedication to the role and understanding of its impact is so beautiful, and I think that is a big part of why a lot of us love Phoenix. Monica also mentions how Phoenix is a pilot that happens to be female, and that's why she's playing her. There aren't things that set her apart in terms of skills etc. in the film!

Okay, that's it for now!

#raven rambles #anon asks #natasha phoenix trace #natasha trace #monica barbaro

[katnissgirlsmakedo]

alright let’s get into it about king arthur 2004. first of all yes it was bad of course it was bad, it’s a “historical” retelling of arthurian legend and it makes arthur roman and the other knights are supposedly eastern european except that none of those men are eastern european and then also guinevere and merlin were whatever scottish people were in the 5th century but again keira knightly is not scottish. basically it’s very dense on the lore for a movie that didn’t really seem to care about accuracy to the lore. there’s like. there’s words on the screen in the beginning and then there’s also more expositional narration and then there’s also more exposition in the form of bad dialogue and genuinely it does feel like a good 40 minutes of this movie is exposition all for a nothing plot because it’s so reliant on the action scenes you kind of get nothing out of it. however EYE got something out of it because early in the movie arthur is praying that his knights make it back from their last mission so they can live to become free men, and lancelot walks in and says “why do you always talk to god and not to me?” and it made me insane for the rest of the two hour runtime. those men were gay as hell your honor. lancelot dies in the climactic battle and arthur and guinevere both kneel over his body and cry and scream it’s great. i think it was brave of them to kill lancelot before he got to steal arthur’s wife. julian murphy should’ve taken notes wtf.

also i liked that the other knights were like, fleshed out characters. maybe not gawain who didn’t talk very much or hugh dancy who i don’t remember who he was supposed to be. but like tristan was cool i liked his falcon rest in peace buddy. and the other guy with the 11 kids oh my god do i know anyone’s name from this movie. who the hell was that guy. hold on. oh ok bors. was he lancelot’s cousin in this movie i wasn’t paying attention. and hugh dancy was galahad. sorry i didn’t remember that in my defense he had like two minutes of screentime. and dagonet was cool although i think it’s wild that this movie was pulling out niche knights and not like. kay. or bedivere. sorry i’m attached to those guys because of alex that’s not my fault. anyway i liked them they were cool to hang with

ALSO i think it was surprisingly feminist for a movie that came out in 2004 about men. or maybe not feminist exactly but like. not misogynistic. there’s a moment where you think it might be with the one guy’s not-wife (she’s the mother of his 11 children but they’re not married) but it’s not misogyny they’re just toxic hets and i support them <3 and then guinevere is just such a slay but what else did you expect from keira knightly… like yeah i think it’s weird that keira was like 18 making this movie with a hoard of adult men and she’s the object of both male protagonist’s lust but at the end of the day she seems like she made it through that weird phase of her career fine so i’ll let it go for the sake of not going insane. anyway i think it was really feminist of her to want to fuck that gay man so bad. real. but no really i just liked that her character was well done and got to do things. she killed a bunch of guys it was hot what who said that i mean like it was great. and she’s the one that convinced arthur to abandon rome and fight for something he actually believed in, where rome was a lie he believed for convenience.

which brings me to my man <3 you know no critique of a king arthur movie from me is complete without me rambling for a little about how well i think they characterized my special little guy… and i think this movie did pretty good! he’s a good man who cares about people and his most defining enduring belief for the entire story is of freedom which i thought was slay even though um. he’s english. cannot imagine he’d be happy to see what his country came to yikes!! but also i think it was good to show that he also had flaws that tied directly into his strengths and his goodness. how he fought so hard for rome in the beginning because his idea of rome was this ideal society that believed in equality and freedom, and he didn’t realize that that was a fantasy because he didn’t want to realize it so he could hold on to something while he fought their wars. like i think willful ignorance is such a great king arthur flaw that not enough media wants to depict. he’s an idealist at heart and i adore him for it but it means he has a tendency to ignore reality… and then also he had a little red cape which you KNOW i am always a fan of. i LOVE it when they put this guy in a red cape!! seriously! it’s sooo stupid <33 um yeah and then also i think he could have been hotter but i’ll allow mediocrity just this once because he was gay about it. also they killed his celibacy swag which i thought was fucked up but again i’ll allow it just this once because he did think he was going to die the next morning. and they also made literally every word out of this man’s mouth the most intense thing anyone has ever said, which i think was a great choice. he’s literally just like that like he’s literally just. like that. drama queen!!

also i liked that bit of narration at the end when dead lancelot says that none of them who died really died because they live on in stories and legend passed down through generations <3 and finally here is the joke i wasted my letterboxd review on

#going to look for. a gifset to reblog. #which me luck out there. searching the movie that has hannibal and will in it on the fucking. hannibal and will website. #beth.txt #king arthur 2004

[thelittlehansy]

Opinion about The little mermaid remake

I enjoy it because I really really love the story one of my fav Disney movies. I found Ariel as endearing that in the animated and her relationship with Eric is amazing show. Adorable and I like how they really succeed to show the eric from the cartoon rebellious and a genuine kind and benevolent soul. When I was watching the movie I was like yes they got his personality right. that’s him. Now for the bad the world under the sea 🥲 I found it unbelievable and unrealistic I had a very difficult time with the world under the sea.

The big point I would like to talk about is….

SPOILERS

Eric dont kill Ursula. I saw that coming talk about it on my blog 😅

To me it was very very important that Eric is the one that kill Ursula at the end and no just because that make him freaking badass

Reason one : save Ariel.

The whole plot of the movie is that Ariel saved his life. without Ariel , Eric would have been dead. so him saving the life of Ariel at the end by killing Ursula is powerful. I don’t see any bad thing in it. To me Ariel already show the feminist aspect of her personality she is the one taking actions she is the one that made the badass epic choice to save Eric during a murderous Storm and give him Back to his people. So it’s really symbolic imo that at the end of the movie he is the one killing Ursula.

Reasons 2 : Ursula herself

Ursula is in her little bubble at least Triton a knowledge the human world but not Ursula e everything is about her And the sea world Plotting to take Triton powers by using Ariel. Eric is a random humain he is tool that she used to gain what she wants. and at the end of the movie she is been killed by the one she had never paid attention by the one she never considered to be a treated at all for her. so it is at the end a great lesson for the sea witch.

Reason 3 : Triton

Triton hate the humain and think they are all evil and then there is Eric a kind and benevolent human that save him and the whole ocean by his love for her daughter by killing the sea witch who was treathening them. Eric could have stay in his land after his wedding and let Ariel alone but he did not do that and challenge the sea witch. A scene between triton and Eric after he said goodbye to Ariel would have been so great.

Conclusion not disappointed because I read really awful review enjoy it but yeah the world undersea not a fan.

#the little mermaid #Ariel #prince eric #Ursula #disney #disney movies #the little mermaid remake

[queer-ragnelle]

My episode 3 thoughts are you won't believe how fucking gay I am for Morgan. She can do unethical magic on me anyday. Holy shit. I adore her. And I like this interpretation of Vivian! Very interesting. Excited to see more :)

Happy wedding day, Jennie! Hopefully nothing Bad happens in it

The women in this show in general are all very good. I'm very used to being let down by shows like these when it comes to the women dslkfjdf but they're handling all of them very well! Each has a very distinct personality (except for Ms. Ector, RIP queen you will never be forgotten), and they all have desires. They all have wants. It's honestly fascinating to watch their arcs progress, I'm so excited about it. And, of course, I'm so very gay for all of them.

The building of Camelot as the place of legend we know today, literally from ruin and dust, is FASCINATING. The people flock there desperately wanting to get help, Arthur barely knows how to handle them all, the gates are open for everyone... And they all stay INSIDE the castle walls still, there isn't a town forming around them. They barely have enough resources to rebuild everything, but they all hope so much for things to be better than they were. It's quite sweet.

Squints at whatever that scene with Merlin and Morgan was. I could find the deeper meaning in that for sure if I looked but I'm not going to look.

GAWAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MY BOY!!! WHAT A WRECK!

"...Lot's dead." Yeah.

I love this interpretation of Arthur, because they I can see the clear arc they're making with his character and I'm so excited for it, but also... You buffoon. You clown. You fool. And GODDAMN this show is horny, I was not expecting this lol

Sorry I have loving Gawain disease and it's terminal. Please return my books to the library if I don't get the chance by the time I finish this show because it will kill me.

Oh Jennie, my love, what a mess you've found yourself in. Don't worry. According to the 20 minutes of that last episode I watched by accident I know all will end well.

....I got distracted halfway through and started watching warrior cats maps and Darktail is basically Mordred but as a cat? sfjdskfl I haven't read up to that point but if what I've gathered from fandom is accurate then uh. Lmfao.

I'm sorry these are so long I just. Need to share my thoughts as I watch things with other people. It will happen again, until the end of the series. 7 more to go. Thank you again for the wonderful recommendation

i would absolutely believe how gay you are for morgan bc i am gay for her. eva green is my favorite ever. she was great in penny dreadful also. yeah i have to agree, kay's mom notwithstanding, everyone else feels fully realized. the point i try to make when discussing arthuriana is that having a female protag in a retelling does not automatically denote feminist, the story can still be incredibly misogynistic. but i don't get that from starz camelot, it truly stands apart in my eyes. it treats igraine, morgan, guinevere, etc with respect (regardless of morality, which is key, as morgan could easily be narratively abused to make a point about "evil" women while the men do whatever they want without consequence). each lady has equal narrative weight to merlin, arthur, kay, etc. its so refreshing. love the way they just piled everyone in without any long term plans. another thing i like about the writing here is it shows arthur is inexperienced without making him obnoxiously obtuse. he has no idea what he's doing but offers his good will to the people, yet they haven't got the infrastructure to see his vision realized. its naïve, not stupidity. which is important to keep us invested in him as a character! he is making mistakes, but they're not horror movie protag bad, so we stay engaged. he remains sympathetic. GAWAIN TIME!!!!! it only gets better.....he is so......unwell<3 every arthurian character is extremely varied so it's impossible to know whether darktail is reminiscent of mordred. its like "which mordred?" there are a million of that guy. he and gawain exist on a wild spectrum. there is a version of them for everyone. so darktail both is and isnt mordred. its beautiful really. don't apologize for long messages! you're talking to someone writing an arthurian epic bc a trilogy wasn't enough words for me. thank you for sharing your viewing experience. now everyone go watch this show.

#starz camelot #ask #arqueervist

[doomedlvr]

2 for the book ask, please?

Top 5 books of all time, yipppee!

The Graveyard Book. Literally the book of all time and shaped my standards for books forever. I’m not gonna go into detail here since I left a bunch of info in this ask but pls give it a read I’ll kiss you on the lips

The original Percy Jackson series. Sprouted my love for both mythology and camping <3

Yeah I’m basic. Fight Club. I’m sorry though I like the boon so much better then the movie. Which sucks cause even the author likes the movie better. Man. Anyway I liked the way the protagonists mental break was portrayed and while the movie kind of just lets go of you at the end, the book will make you severely depressed and rethink everything.

Of Mice and Men. Yeah I was that annoying kid in English class that got really into whatever we where reading. Honestly, the faint hope all the characters have and the soul crushing ending really stuck with me. I can never look at rabbits the same.

The Dead Girls of Hysteria Hall. Okay I’ll admit now that this is no where near on the same writing level as anything else on this list, but I’ve reread this book so many times from when I was in early high school that the covers falling off. It’s about this teen girl who inherits her late great-aunts home that used to be an asylum for troubled girls. She gets into a fight with her younger sister and later dies mysteriously in the house, being trapped there as a ghost for years until her sister returns. Basically since the house is haunted by the evil energy of the old owners it tries to keep young girls there that show any sort of “hysteria” which is literally just defiance and normal teenage stuff. It works really good this way as a feminist book, however its pretty low down here since it does fall into the unfortunate “YA book curse” of the “not like other girls” trope and a love interest for no fucking reason. I kind of just focus on how the female characters empower each other by the end, and the really good ghost horror of not really being sure of how time is moving and the dread of the protagonist being dead for most of the story. And the fact you have no idea she’s gonna die, it comes out of nowhere in the first few chapters but it’s a really good route for the book.

#asks ✨ #sorry for the rambley ending I never get to talk about that book LOL

[g4rchomp]

sorry for being the billionth person making a post abt barbie. also sorry this post is sooo long I have a lot to say. disclaimer: I am saying words recreationally, don't take any of this too seriously pls!!

a strongly anticapitalist feminist friend invited me to see the movie in a theatre. I was intrigued as to why she would suggest that so I accepted. she said she invited me bc she wanted to see how I would react and what I would think, which I find funny lol

good movie to discuss with friends and people you know in real life around a drink etc. but NOT on the internet. (this is perhaps the most important point I really want to stress that)

any criticism of mattel by mattel (who pockets revenues from the movie) has no value to me

great movie to practice your hater skills. the balance of good stuff and bad stuff is amazing to keep your haterism skills sharp lol

my biggest gripes with the movie

I don't like how Sasha's character (pre-teen who hates barbie and seems to dislike her mom but gets closer to her during the movie) was handled.

First, her very factual and true concerns over capitalism and self-image related to barbie are never explored or taken into actual consideration. throughout the movie she's urged to understand her mother more but her efforts are not reciprocated.

Second, I am sooo deeply tired of teens being depicted as angry for no reasons. like wooow you're growing up and now you hate me, your super cool and understanding mother :((( it's always deeper than this if your kid dislikes you. this stuff always get an eye roll from me sorry

overall the feminism sucked so just quickly: patriarchy is presented as an individual force rather than a systemic one, no mention of race/age/class/sexual orientation etc. etc. etc. only misogyny but the world doesn't work like that

on that topic btw I didn't like how weird barbie (virtually the only gnc barbie) is only here to repair other barbies and make them whole again and doesn't exist outside of that. how fitting lollll

also seeing sasha go from 'I hate barbie and societal expectations' to 'barbie is my friend I'm wearing pink now' was kinda sad. gnc girls and girls who aren't girls I love you. in itself this trajectory isn't necessarily bad but on a personal level it just felt wrong.

it is an ok point of entry/conversation starters for feminist concerns if you're really on ground 0

forever my biggest gripe with the movie is how marketed it was and how it's made to sell me products. any feminism that attempts to grab my wallet isn't feminism I'm interested in

three really distasteful moments that stood out to me:

indigenous catching smallpox joke -> just shut the fuck up incredibly inappropriate and violent.

'to show how our character becomes human, we show she's going to the obgyn hihi' not funny didn't laugh it felt bioessentialist and to have it be the closing scene of the movie was just a bad move (to me at least but more on that later lol)

'margot robbie might not be the best person to deliver a message about how women shouldn't feel pressure to feel beautiful hihi' yeah she's not. congrats on making money by centering a beautiful skinny white woman and telling the audience you did it on purpose

lighthearted stuff

the music was fun I like how they used it throughout the movie

the costumes looked good, the film was pretty and I liked the acting it looked like they had fun filming

it was a real 'oh I get it now' moment when I saw 2ft margot robbie on the screen. she is attractive I can see it now

not related but it was kinda like straight people camp lol

the final scene (aka my other biggest gripe with the movie but it gets a section to itself)

women go to the obgyn hihihihi. ok first of all cool welcome to one of the most central sphere to violence against women. second going to the obgyn isn't a universal experience for women for many, many reasons. third ig it was a joke that fits the humorous tone of the movie but it didn't land for me.

ALSO. they already had the perfect ending (imo) with the pink birkenstocks!! early in the movie she has to make a choice between pretty pink heels and ugly brown sandals. we see her at the end wearing pink sandals. having her picking her new shoes would show she journey she's been on much better than the obgyn joke imo!!!

Anyways here are my thoughts. I'd be interested to know what you think abt these points or if you felt this way when watching the movie too, although honestly I feel like online settings are less than ideals to talk abt that. I wouldn't say I hated the movie (despite what the post might suggest lol) I don't regret seeing it. at least the movie made me want to talk about it and clarify some feelings I have after watching it, which is always something even if I disliked many things abt it!

#didn't think I'd have so much to say BUT I am a hater and a lover which makes me talkative. sorry #also worth saying if you are not following me pleaaaaase don't engage with this post that would be super appreciated!!

[twopoppies]

Matt Damon is grossly exaggerating for effect. No, they don’t take 50%. Just do the math with any movie. Grab any random movie, and you’ll see no movie in the world would be profitable if that were the case. Except maybe Marvel and Avatar. Movie theaters make most of their revenue through the concession store, and owning movie theaters is becoming less and less profitable even for big chains. That wouldn’t be the case if they got to keep 50% of profits from all the movies they show.

It’s simple logic, which industry is bigger? Hollywood or owning movie theaters? Does it seem realistic to you that the former would agree to split profits 50/50 with the latter? What studio would greenlight any project that needs to make 200, 300, 400 million dollars to break even?

Perhaps Matt Damon meant indie movies (as in, not backed by a studio, not necessarily low budget), that’s a whooooole other can of worms and I don’t have that much experience with those. But if a big studio is involved movie theaters are NOT getting 50% of the profit.

In terms of the script writing, Olivia didn’t co-write it, that was all Katie (though I wouldn’t be surprised if Olivia was involved without being it on paper). When I say her role was praised I mean the praise in terms of the shots and the scenery and all the moving parts. Even the most scalding reviews I read said it LOOKED great. And that sort of thing is primarily thanks to the director, then to the cinematographer, then to all the other moving parts involved. And when the moving parts work, it’s generally regarded as something to praise the director for, since directors put the teams together. Ideally, the directors would be blamed for the bad script and poor editing, but generally, since screenwriter/scrip adapters are somewhat high profile, the director tends to get a pass. Katie is a name in Hollywood spaces so I think her reputation is well and truly ruined, she had some other duds before. I wouldn’t be surprised if the leech cut all ties with Katie as soon as the press stops looking (it wouldn’t look good for the super white feminist to sever ties with a female screenwriter now would it?)

Olivia’s reputation for the audience is ruined and that’s enough for me, I wish I could believe that her career will be affected as well, but I have too much knowledge of the industry I’ve worked in all my life to believe that. I’m sorry if my information disappoints anyone, I truly don’t mean to, but I know people will be shocked when she actually keeps directing like nothing happened and I personally would rather know

I think there were early reports that both Olivia and Katie were reworking the Van Dyke brothers’ script. But yeah, it does seem that only Katie is credited. Olivia got lucky there.

I think the only think Olivia did well was hire talented people (Katie maybe notwithstanding). There are rumors from set that she left most of the actual “directing” to the DP, Libatique, but of course that would never be said publicly or confirmed in any way. Given how she talked about this film during promo, I just have very little faith that she actually had any real vision beyond the way the film looked. Which honestly doesn’t surprise me given what a shallow person she seems to be.

As for the theater cut, yeah. What you say does make sense. And maybe he was talking about more indie films like those he started with at the beginning of his career (which was the point of the conversation he was having).

In reference to this and this

#dwd box office

[simptasia]

May I request buffy for the dashboard osmosis if you haven't seen it? Or if you have then steven universe

i'll do buffy

isabel, i like and respect you. but i hear about buffy a lot on tvtropes (in fact tvtropes started as a buffy fansite??) and almost everything i hear sounds... bad. it sounds like a cringe show. i'm sorry

i haven't seen it at all so thats not fair of me. but. yeah

or maybe the show isn't cringe but the fandom is. or both. hmm

buffy the vampire slayer was a 90s supernatural show made by joss whedon at his peak LOOK IM A FEMINIST fuckery

it stars sarah michelle gellar (who i know primarily as daphne in the live action scooby doo movies, and that bitch from cruel intentions) as buffy summers. and she's The Slayer. slayers are like chosen ones, and its a title thats passed on for i dunno hundreds of years

slayers... slay vampires, i presume

she talks in a specific manner hence the trope Buffy Speak. it's basically like a weird simple talky thingy (that was buffy speak)

one of the characters is willow rosenberg played by allison hannigan. and as a bi activist engrossed with fiction, i have certainly heard of this character. basically, she's the poster child for The 90s Being Weird About Bisexuality. as she was into dudes and then she's into a girl and the show is weird about it and she's Suddenly Lesbian. and like, yes, lesbians discovering themselves after dating dudes is totally a thing but thats not the logic being used here, it's just awkward biphobia. oh yes. i've heard much about willow and tara

tho, willow/tara is a case of Fair For It's Day

seth green played oz, a sardonic werewolf of little words. he was the dude willow was into before her bisexuality activated

david borealis and james marsters are angel and spike, they're two vampires that buffy is super into and i get the vibe that their love triangle is like a Big Thing in this show and/or the fandom. angel is the "good" one, spike is the bad one. i read that buffy and spike raped each other (with the buffy raping spike being played for laughs because life is a fucking nightmare). so that's fucked

angel got his own spin off called angel and one time angel became a muppet in it. i approve

angel is one of those brooding "i can never be good, theres no hope for me" types of vampires. the kinda guy tailored for certain women to be like "ohhh i can fix him" or whatever. it's kinda funny. on the flipside i assume spike is for the "mmm i don't wanna fix him" types

this is before this type of thing was subject to parody

there's some blando guy named xander, i think he's a nerd and meant to be an audience self insert. i've seen ppl say he has nice guy syndrome but i dunno how true that is. dunno who plays him

anthony head plays rupert giles, he's the exposition and mentor dude. makes dry remarks and spouts encouragement, i think

charmed, a show i love, apparently stole buffy's vibes a lot

buffy is the first show where somebody used google as a verb. as in "googled"

theres a musical episode wherein dancer and singer hilton battle Absolutely Fucks. oh and everybody has musical numbers, including one that ends with tara levitating from cunnilingus. this was noteworthy because sapphic characters being sexual was actually rare in mainstream media in the 90s. again, fair for it's day

oh, this is a monster of the week show where some overarching story each season. doug jones made a few appearances

i get the impression that buffy is one of those shows that has good actors and concepts but fucky writing. it happens, i feel you

is buffy a cheerleader or did i imagine that. i might be thinking of heroes (which also suffered from great acting, fucky writing)

anyways thank you for your time

#i've actually absorbed a decent amount of buffy. because i exist in internet fandom circles #this was stream of conconious writing #whenever i remembered something i wrote it down #Please Don't Be Upset With Me Isabel #im sure you love watching it. and indeed probably dunk on it yourself #i am not attacking anybody's right to enjoy buffy

[horizon-verizon]

How can people say hotd is a good adaptation, while spitting on The Witcher and The Rings of Powers, when we're on the exact same kind of shit? (At least almost) It's a mediocre adaptation covered in makeup to make it look good. I mean, they literally changed the basic functioning of dragons? Also the age of the characters. They touched the bases of the universe? It cries scandal for other fantasy series but not for this one? What ? Pardon ? I think the worst is those who assume it's edited, and it's not the truth of the book BUT it's great fanfiction. The joke. No. It is not. Also, those who claim that the series reveals the truth are atrociously stupid. And I'm not even talking about who says that in this series, at least the female characters are well written. SORRY ?! Women are victims in this series. I agree that denaturing Yennefer and Galadriel in the series adaptations is not a good thing. But... the same can be said the other way around? I still find it revealing that when the change consists of amplifying the strong aspects of the female characters, the men complain BUT when it consists of lowering / taking away the power that the women had in the basic work to lessen it in the adaptation... This change does not disturb and it is well done. Yes. Of course. Quite revealing all that.

I only watched the first 2 seasons of the show and two-story playthroughs of the videogames (videogames aren't my thing): The Witcher 3: The Wild Hunt (2015) and The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt – Blood and Wine (2016). Never watched Rings of Power, and I have no interest bc LotR never really sparked much of one even though I watched all the movies, including the Hobbit trilogy. Never read any of the books from these franchises except The Hobbit.

However, esp this part:

I agree that denaturing Yennefer and Galadriel in the series adaptations is not a good thing. But... the same can be said the other way around? I still find it revealing that when the change consists of amplifying the strong aspects of the female characters, the men complain BUT when it consists of lowering / taking away the power that the women had in the basic work to lessen it in the adaptation... This change does not disturb and it is well done. Yes. Of course. Quite revealing all that.

is interesting bc now we're talking about how fans and casual watchers judge how women are written versus rewritten for adaptation, how fans define an adaptation or justify the adaptations' reconstruction of the original story.

People think they know what feminism is and entails without actually knowing its historical development and its internal debates. And then we have people dismiss feminism as "angry, psycho women" who attack men for "no" or "not good enough" reasons, for "discriminating" and trying to subordinate men out of malice. Even definitions of things like "male gaze" get patriarchi-lized in lieu. (Another post explaining male gaze itself.) So yeah, if people don't care to look at things from a feminist angle, they will have skewed views of how women are written and have double standards.

#asoiaf asks to me #media comparison #rings of power #the witcher #fandom commentary #fandom misogyny