#alice kane icons | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

69ottersinatrenchcoat · 4 months

Text

Welcome to 69 Otters in a Trenchcoat!

What to expect

A lot of dissociative experiences posting; fun things and not, trigger warnings will be used where applicable

Writing and musings

Philosophy

Bookish things (including fan fiction), fandoms below

Half polished thoughts (and sometimes not even that)

Disabilities

Psychology content

Enneagram & MBTI

Poetry

A unhinged amount of s3x jokes, dunno, depends on who's posting. **nsfw content will be tagged mature.

Art

Disney & cartoons

If that sounds like a piece of you, feel free to hang around <3

Notes

"Endogenic systems" aren't supported here, however we are open to questioning systems :) Psychologically, systems cannot be formed without trauma. If you are experiencing amnesia, identity confusion etc, it is best to speak with a psychologist or another mental health professional.

Homophobia, transphobia, hate speech etc, on our blog will be cause for an instant block.

For our piece of mind: under 16s, please do not follow.

Most Common Posters Guide

Ash (they/them):🌿

Amber (she/they):🔥

Kyle (he/him): 💜

Lillia (she/her):🪻

Kaden (he/they): 🐚

Wild (they/he/she):🗡️

Our system is studying to become a psychologist. We're formally diagnosed with ADHD, ASD, PSTD and high level disassociation, with alters having been observed in clinical settings. And physically... Endometriosis, chronic pain, chronic fatigue, hEDS and POTS

Fandoms

'Fandom' is being used as a very loose term, some of these don't have active fan bases.

Shows and Movies (including some book adaptations)

Anne with an E

Arcane: League of Legends

Blues Clues

Bluey

Disney & Pixar

Divergent

Heartstopper

Inside Out

Monsters Inc

Narnia

Percy Jackson

Spongebob

The Hunger Games

The Owl House

Veggietales

Books (an incredibly small selection of our favs)

Alice Oseman: Heartstopper series & surrounding universe

Ana Huang: Twisted series

CS Lewis: The Chronicles of Narnia Series

Erin Hunter: Warrior Cats Series

Francesca Zappia: Eliza and her Monsters

George Orwell: Nineteen Eighty-Four

Jacqueline Wilson: Baby Love & Love Frankie

Jasper Fforde: Shades of Grey series (Shades of Grey & Red Side Story)

Laura Greenwood: Apprentice of Anubis series

Lucy Maud Montgomery: Anne of Green Gables series

Michael Morpurgo: Kaspar the Prince of Cats/Kaspar the Titanic Cat

Rick Riordan: Kane Chronicles Series & Percy Jackson

Roald Dahl: everything he has ever written

She-who-must-not-be-named: Harry Potter (we do not support J. K. Rowling's views on transgender rights)

Suzanne Collins: The Hunger Games series

Veronica Roth: Divergent Series

Yasmin Rahman: All The Things We Never Said

Video Games

The Legend of Zelda (botw & totk mostly)

Minecraft

Pokémon

Cattails & Cattails; Wildwood Story

Disney Dreamlight Valley

MCTY: HermitCraft

Musios

AViVA

Beth Crowley

Chxlortte

Icon for Hire

Nathan Wagner

Taylor Swift

UNSECRET

16 notes · View notes

random-movie-ideas · 7 months

Text

Batman Ally Movie Ideas, Part IV: Batwoman

Kate Kane AKA Batwoman has a . . . complicated history with Batman. The character was originated as Kathy Kane back in the 50s as a response to concerns that Batman and Robin were gay, giving both Batman and Robin a love interest in her and her own sidekick Betty Kane AKA Batgirl. Clearly, this flimsy reason for a character's existence did not last long and both were eventually shelved. However, in the early 2000s, the character was revived, this time as a cousin of Batman on his mother's side, discovering his activities as Batman during a period when Batman was presumed dead and took up the mantle in his stead. She also quickly became a lesbian icon, possibly to make up for the icky bits of her original origin.

Origin Movie: It would certainly be hard to do a Batman-specific origin that would also do the legwork to establish his cousin, have her learn his identity, and then take up the mantle in his stead. However, it would be interesting to do a reimagining of Bruce's origins, where Kate is an actual major part of it, growing up alongside him in the wake of his parents' and her mother's death, both growing to be strong fighters and both taking up the Bat mantle as a duo. That would be interesting to see how it would turn out.

Sequel Movie: That's not impossible. Batman starting his journey in his origin, and then have the sequel where his cousin comes back from the military, works out what he's doing on her own, and making her own suit to join him.

Finale Movie: Given the Batman death angle of her main origin, that is a plot that finale's like to favor. Have some threat, like Bane, take Batman out for a while, and have Kate established earlier in the series, investigating when he goes missing, and taking up his mantle to find and save him.

Standalone Movie: Generally the best way to do her standard origin, probably using Alice or some other villain as her main antagonist. Maybe even do the Court of Owls with her father involved.

Overall, here are my rankings of them:

Standalone Movie: The best way to do it.

Origin Movie: That would be interesting. I don't know how that would turn out.

Finale Movie: The best way to do her origin, with it still being a Batman movie.

Sequel Movie: Still a possibility.

#batman #batman movie #bruce wayne #batwoman #batgirl #kate kane #bette kane #Despite the complicated production of the CW show #I think she could be done well #Like that animated movie that came out around the same time

2 notes · View notes

greymount · 8 months

Text

#greymount. a multimuse blog featuring canon and original characters. private and selective. extremely low activity. weaved by leaf (25+, she/they, uk). triggering themes present. rules and muse list below cut.

rules.

rules are incredibly simple: don't be a dick, don't take control of my characters, don't create drama. we're here to have fun. 21+ only. this is a low activity blog so expect limited formatting and no icons. i'm too lazy to make a gdocs/carrd so all information can be found on this blog. duplicate friendly.

muse list.

a song of ice and fire.

aegon targaryen. young griff. bisexual. avan jogia. book canon.

alicent hightower. queen of the seven kingdoms. lesbian. nur fettahoğlu. book canon.

renly baratheon. lord of storm's end. pretender to the iron throne. gay. david corenswet. book canon.

dragon age.

brilwyn lavellan. herald of andraste. bisexual. emilia clarke. inquisitor. original character. info.

edmund grey. lord of portsmouth and dragonmount. gay. nicholas galitzine. companion. original character. info.

rosemund grey. lady of portsmouth and dragonmount. lesbian. ella hunt. companion. original character. info.

fandomless.

stígandr ragnvaldrson. úlfhéðnar. bisexual. leo suter. original character. info.

how to train your dragon.

hiccup horrendous haddock iii. chief of berk. bisexual. jack kane. canon.

lord of the rings.

arwen undómiel. the evenstar. bisexual. beren saat. canon.

marvel.

peter parker. spider-man. bisexual. andrew garfield. earth-616 canon.

red, white, and royal blue.

alexander claremont-diaz. first son. bisexual. taylor zakhar perez. canon.

henry fox-mountchristen-windsor. prince of england. gay. nicholas galitzine. canon.

star wars.

kanan jarrus. spectre one. bisexual. ekin koç. canon (not bad batch compliant).

#pinned.

2 notes · View notes

kylesvariouslistsandstuff · 1 year

Text

Pete Docter Talks TOY STORY 5, LIGHTYEAR, and More...

Pete Docter, Chief Creative Officer of Pixar and director of MONSTERS, INC., UP, INSIDE OUT, and SOUL, spoke with The Wrap recently...

On his way to receiving the Windsor McKay Award at the Annies this year, he talked about his new book, where Pixar is at now, what's up with TOY STORY 5, if he'll direct a feature ever again, his colleagues - such as Andrew Stanton and Brad Bird - going off to pursue other interests, and some reflection on the box office failure of LIGHTYEAR...

I want to talk about his comments on LIGHTYEAR, and what little he could say about TOY STORY 5...

“We’ve done a lot of soul-searching about that because we all love the movie. We love the characters and the premise. I think probably what we’ve ended on in terms of what went wrong is that we asked too much of the audience. When they hear Buzz, they’re like, great, where’s Mr. Potato Head and Woody and Rex? And then we drop them into this science fiction film that they’re like, What?” "Even if they’ve read the material in press, it was just a little too distant, both in concept, and I think in the way that characters were drawn, that they were portrayed. It was much more of a science fiction. And Angus [MacLane], to his credit, took it very seriously and genuinely and wanted to represent those characters as real characters. But the characters in TOY STORY are much broader, and so I think there was a disconnect between what people wanted/expected and what we were giving to them.”

Docter's assessment of LIGHTYEAR is not dissimilar to how Walt Disney perceived the completed ALICE IN WONDERLAND after it had bombed so hard on its initial release in 1951.

ALICE IN WONDERLAND was the first major flop for the studio, not counting the package features, since BAMBI in 1942. After the runaway success of the more familiar CINDERELLA in 1950, this came as a shocking blow. I feel that Walt and his crew knew that PINOCCHIO, FANTASIA, and BAMBI were either impacted by World War II, or the films themselves being ahead of their time (especially FANTASIA, aaaand how!)... With ALICE IN WONDERLAND, already a quite troubled production that spanned a few iterations, it seemed like the consensus was... "The war has been long over... We messed up." Walt made a remark about Alice herself not having heart, and that that wasn't what did it for audiences back when it was released. It seemed like it was too weird for American audiences not familiar with Lewis Carroll's stories, and too much of a bastardization of the original books to British audiences. It seemed like Walt won nobody with that film, and took the failure on the chin.

While Walt withheld most of his animated films from being shown on television, he made an exception for ALICE IN WONDERLAND. The film, in an abridged form, aired as the second-ever episode of the DISNEYLAND anthology program in 1954. No theatrical re-release was in the cards. Walt didn't live to see ALICE IN WONDERLAND enjoy its new life. He had passed away in December 1966, a time when psychedelia and hippie culture and other such things were becoming a thing in America. "Go ask Alice when she's ten feet tall." By the end of the 1960s, prints of ALICE IN WONDERLAND were heavily requested by colleges. FANTASIA had finally turned a profit during its 1969 re-release, and Disney finally gave ALICE IN WONDERLAND a theatrical re-release in 1974, which reportedly got the film into the black after some twenty-three years of existing. It was also one of the first Disney animated features to be given a home video release, too.

Maybe Walt Disney was right, but also wrong about ALICE IN WONDERLAND... Time makes a difference... Just ask other films like... THE WIZARD OF OZ, CITIZEN KANE, BLADE RUNNER, etc. ALICE IN WONDERLAND is now considered one of *the* iconic Disney animated films, it's a favorite of many, its presence in and around the company and the parks and everything else, can't be understated. Much like PINOCCHIO, FANTASIA, BAMBI, and SLEEPING BEAUTY, its strengths helped the film stand the test of time.

I feel similarly about Pete Docter's assessment of LIGHTYEAR, though he does stand by the movie, saying "we all love the movie." I don't think director Angus MacLane nor the writers really "asked too much of" the audience, they made a nerdy hyper-specific movie that was viewed by some as too much of a deviation from the character, especially those who were familiar with the TV series BUZZ LIGHTYEAR OF STAR COMMAND. When the movie was first announced during the Disney Investor Day event in December 2020, Docter made it very clear what that movie was: It was a show-within-a-show movie that Andy loved, and why he wanted the Buzz Lightyear toy for his birthday. They even have that information as a title card in the actual movie... But so many people seemed very, *very* confused on what the movie was. Perhaps the marketing campaign didn't communicate that very well, nor did a weird mishap from Chris Evans when he described Buzz Lightyear as a "real" astronaut that lives in Andy's universe. He's a fictional character in the TOY STORY universe, much like Woody and pals in the WOODY'S ROUNDUP TV show.

So, I wouldn't blame the movie so much, sometimes films just don't catch on with audiences. It's not necessarily the fault of the movie, nor even the audience. Some things just don't appeal, some things come out at the wrong time, the theaters game is ruthless anyways: Make your first impression on opening weekend, right out of the gates, or else the press will be all over your "failure" like vultures. Heck, Brad Bird himself made this gem of a tweet once: "Movies are dreams. The way Wall Street talks about them are nightmares." These ludicrous box office (and even critical reception) narratives are, to me, non-conducive to movies. It's not like LIGHTYEAR was a critical bomb, it had plenty of positive and passing-grade reviews. But this overall narrative of "it was a bomb!" or "it was a big disappointment" overshadows the nuances of these movies, and the elements that DO resonate with those that like them. I was actually quite fond of LIGHTYEAR, even if I didn't think that it was truly spectacular or anything of the sort. And yet, the stuff I love about it? That's all that matters, I own the movie on disc, I'll be repeat-viewing the movie from here on out. I still got *something* out of it. It's not Guillermo del Toro's PINOCCHIO or PUSS IN BOOTS: THE LAST WISH in my eyes, but hey, I still dug it.

Like, why do you think so many movies made in - say - the 1990s and early 2000s that got negative reception are beloved today by those who grew up on them? And those who appreciated them from the very start? Because times change, tastes change, things get re-evaluated, etc. etc. etc. I feel like with a lot of commentary, exacerbated by Twitter and message board forums and whatnot, basically spells death sentences for movies that don't necessarily hit every beat or live up to certain expectations... LIGHTYEAR worked for some, didn't work for others, but it'll likely hold tight over the next decade or so... And eventually have retrospectives highlighting its strengths, how it was a Pixar film that dared to be a science-fiction space action-adventure, a genre that Western animation often has trouble with. *cough*TITAN A.E./ATLANTIS/TREASURE PLANET/STRANGE WORLD*cough**cough*

So, in a way, I get Docter's humbleness... But it's really not anyone's fault, really. The time just wasn't right for it. Maybe if it was made in 2004, it would've been a blockbuster. Maybe if made far into the future, in maybe the year 2038, it would be a blockbuster. Maybe 2022 wasn't the right year, the right time for it. For what it's worth, it seemed to have a second life on Disney+. Ditto Disney Animation's STRANGE WORLD.

Regarding TOY STORY 5, Docter said:

“Look, it’s great to go back and explore these worlds and these characters, but you want to have a reason, some kind of compelling reason, that you’re making the movie."

"The thing we’ve been really trying to do, and this has been the case for a while, is we’ve been looking at them a little bit like, okay, we’re not planning for the future. When we made the first TOY STORY, we had no idea there would be a TOY STORY 2. We’re just trying to make this movie. But that in making the movie, it takes you places, unexpected places, which is what I love about the creative process. If I knew exactly what I was doing when I started making a movie, there’d kind of be no point in making it. I discover so much along the way.”

"I think it’ll be surprising. It’s got some really cool stuff that you haven’t seen before."

These comments imply that TOY STORY 5 is actually pretty... Well, not far along, but it's been in development for quite some time, and not something hastily cooked up on the heels of LIGHTYEAR's box office failure. I mean, after all, when Disney had announced in a March 2014 investor's call that a third CARS movie was being made, that thing had been in development since 2011 - right after CARS 2 came to theaters. Michael Wallis, the voice of the Sheriff in those movies, confirmed its existence on a podcast in August 2013 and said it would be about Route 99. (Which the movie ended up not being about, but it was indeed the plan early on in development.) If we are to believe Bo Peep's voice, Annie Potts, TOY STORY 4 was on the boards when TOY STORY 3 was being made... Contrary to various Pixar filmmakers saying that they weren't planning on making a fourth film when TOY STORY 3 debuted theatrically in 2010.

"Surprising", "some really cool stuff you haven't seen before"... I made a few posts on here previously that expressed cautious curiosity of TOY STORY 5. If this brings a new voice and new ideas to the table, I'm there. I can take the film or leave it, honestly, but it exists. I remember really not digging the idea of a fourth TOY STORY, until I learned more about it and actually saw the film... So, maybe I'll be seated, maybe June 2026, in the theater and then come out saying "Holy shit, they really ***did*** do it again??" I'd like to see what they've got, at the very least.

Docter also confirmed that next year's INSIDE OUT 2 was pitched to him by its director, Kelsey Mann. That makes me more curious, Docter could very well say "no" to an idea, not so much an INSIDE OUT sequel... So it seems like Docter approves the INSIDE OUT sequel that he is not directing, and how it's going back to ideas that were ditched from the original, namely there being more emotions in your brain than just five...

He also mentioned that Aphton Corbin, director of the SparkShort entry TWENTY-SOMETHING (one of my favorites in the series), might direct a feature. It was previously announced that she had something lined up, but it's not so clear-cut now. "She's playing around and we'll see."

I'll say briefly that I quite like Pete Docter's Pixar. I think his predecessor, John Lasseter, quite frankly needed to go. His mistreatment of women employees a big reason, but also because he was a little too controlling. There isn't a single Pixar film that I dislike (yes, even the dreaded CARS 2), but a lot of the films they made from around 2012-2017 feel like the needle getting stuck. Like them falling back on "legacy", the pictures feeling very Lasseter-approved. So many director firings, too. That hasn't happened under Pete Docter. Lasseter did greenlight ONWARD, LUCA, TURNING RED, and LIGHTYEAR yes, but under Docter, the directors got to make the films that they wanted to make. There's *no way* the TURNING RED we got would've been that very film if Lasseter was still in charge.

Under Docter, it feels like there's a variety in vision and story... LUCA was a very "characters exist" sort of tale that didn't need to be some extravagant adventure or some "meaning of life" kind of thing, it was 90 minutes of two kids in a seaside Italian town who wanted to get a Vespa. You know, sort-of random kid desires. Under Lasseter, there likely would've been some major plot complications mandated along with that cliche "Pixar moment" where the audience has to have their collective hearts slam-banged by a speeding freight train. TURNING RED is about a teen girl who wants to see a boy band and has to deal with a strange problem, and it works perfectly as just that. They feel very character-and-vibes first, and work outward from there. LIGHTYEAR, again, really dug it. Classic old-school style adventure, sci-fi, ego, the inevitability of time, etc. ELEMENTAL looks to be a romantic comedy, less an adventure. Will that too be a vibes-kinda movie? These all feel pretty distinct from one another, and I'm here for it.

So yes, I'm excited to see what's next. ELEMENTAL, ELIO, INSIDE OUT 2, TOY STORY 5... All. Of It.

#toy story #toy story 5 #lightyear #pixar #animation news #unorganized thoughts

6 notes · View notes

linkleap · 9 months

Text

Through the Lens: A Visual Prop Review

In the world of visual storytelling, props play a vital role in shaping the narrative and enhancing the overall cinematic experience. From the smallest, seemingly insignificant objects to grand, awe-inspiring artifacts, props bring depth, authenticity, and visual appeal to the screen. In this visual prop review, we will explore the significance of props in filmmaking, their visual impact on storytelling, and highlight some iconic examples that have left a lasting impression on audiences.

The Visual Power of Props

Props are the tangible extensions of a film's characters and setting, providing essential visual cues that aid in understanding the story. Whether it's a detective's magnifying glass or a character's cherished family heirloom, each prop communicates specific information about the characters, their motivations, and the world they inhabit.

In visual storytelling, props serve as powerful tools to immerse the audience in the story's universe. They help build a sense of time and place, enhance the atmosphere, and elicit emotional responses from the viewers. A well-chosen prop can even become a character in its own right, leaving an indelible mark on the audience's memory.

The Art of Prop Selection and Design

Selecting and designing the right props is a collaborative effort that involves the director, production designer, art director, and prop master. Each prop is carefully chosen to align with the film's aesthetic, time period, and the characters' personalities. Whether it's a historical drama, a science-fiction epic, or a modern-day romantic comedy, the props must seamlessly blend with the overall visual style of the film.

Props can be sourced, bought, modified, or even custom-made to suit the filmmaker's vision. Attention to detail is paramount, as even the smallest prop can significantly impact the audience's perception of the story. A futuristic gadget or an ancient artifact must look and feel authentic to suspend the audience's disbelief and transport them into the world of the film.

Iconic Film Props

Rosebud (Citizen Kane): This enigmatic prop, the last word uttered by Charles Foster Kane, becomes the subject of the film's investigation, symbolizing the elusive nature of the human psyche.

The Lightsaber (Star Wars Saga): An iconic weapon wielded by Jedi and Sith warriors, the lightsaber is a visual representation of the Force and serves as a symbol of heroism and villainy.

The Ark of the Covenant (Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark): This biblical artifact becomes the object of pursuit in a thrilling adventure, its visual allure capturing the imagination of the audience.

The Golden Snitch (Harry Potter Series): The small, winged ball serves as a central element in the wizarding game of Quidditch, adding an element of excitement and magic to the films.

The Ring (The Lord of the Rings Trilogy): This alluring, malevolent ring drives the narrative, compelling characters to seek power and embark on an epic quest.

The Maltese Falcon (The Maltese Falcon): A coveted and visually striking statuette becomes the driving force in a gripping film noir mystery.

The White Rabbit's Pocket Watch (Alice in Wonderland): The visually distinct pocket watch prop punctuates the urgency of time, guiding Alice through her fantastical journey.

The Visual Language of Props

In the visual language of filmmaking, props communicate without words. They provide insights into characters' backgrounds, desires, and struggles. A simple item, such as a photograph or a letter, can evoke nostalgia or reveal a character's emotional vulnerability.

Moreover, props can also serve as plot devices, driving the story forward. They may be essential elements that characters must obtain or protect, or they could be clues that help solve a mystery or resolve a conflict.

Conclusion

Through the lens of visual storytelling, props enrich the cinematic experience, leaving a lasting impact on audiences. They contribute to the creation of immersive worlds and unforgettable characters, adding depth and authenticity to the storytelling process. Whether it's a mythical artifact or an everyday object with symbolic meaning, props hold the power to transport viewers into the heart of the narrative, making them essential components of the magic that unfolds on the silver screen.

0 notes