#for context: i was watching a critique of it because. If You Know About This Show You Know

[gible-love-nibles]

I can't believe the thing that gave me the basis to start solidifying a Layton S/I was. Fucking H.igh G.uardian S.pice 💀

#🐉🎮.txt #for context: i was watching a critique of it because. If You Know About This Show You Know #and everyone's named after herbs and flowers 'n' stuff right? so i started looking up those plants and meanings #and snapdragons just. fit perfectly for what i wanted for my s/i #so maybe not *directly* responsible but. yeah. still funny #thank you h.igh g.uardian s.pice for reminding me plants exist

[inkskinned]

most writing advice is good as long as you know why it is good, at which point it is also bad. the hardest thing (and most precious thing) about being an artist is that you gotta learn how to take critique. i don't mean "just shut up and accept that people hate your work," i mean you need to learn what the critique is saying and then figure out if it actually helps.

i usually tell people reading my work: "i'm collecting data, so everything is useful." i ask them where they put the book down, even though it's too long for most people to read in 1 sitting. i ask them what they thought of certain characters. i let them tell me it was really good but i like it more when they look a little stunned and say i forgot i was reading your book, which means they forgot i exist, which is very good news.

sometimes people i didn't ask will read my work and tell me i don't like it. and that is okay, you don't have to like it. but i look at the thing that they don't like and try to figure out if i care. i don't like that you don't capitalize. this one is common, and i have already thought about it. i do not care, it's because of chronic pain and frankly i like the little shape of small letters. you use teeth and ribs in all your work. actually that is very true. i don't know what's up with that. next time i will work to figure out a different word, thank you. you're whiny, go outside. someone said that to me recently and it made me laugh. i am on the whine-about-it website as an internet poet. you are in my native habitat, watching me perform a natural enrichment behavior. but i like the dip of whiny, how the word itself does "whine" (up/down, the sound out your nose on the y), but i don't know if i want to feel whiny. maybe next time i will work on it being melancholy, like what you would call a male writer's poetry.

repeated "good" advice clangs in a bell and doesn't hold a real shape, dilutes in the water. like sometimes you will hear "don't use said." you turn that around in your head and it bounces off the edges of your brain like it is a dvd screensaver. it isn't bad advice, but it feels wrong somehow, like saying easy choices are illegal! sometimes i will only use "said." sometimes i will just kick dialogue tags out to the trash. sometimes i make little love poems where the fact that i do not say "said" is very bad, and makes you feel bad in your body, because someone didn't say something. i am a contrary little shitbird, i guess.

but it is also good advice, actually. it is trying to say that "said" sometimes is clutter. it makes new writers think about the very-small words and very-small choices, because actually your work matters and wordchoice matters. "i know," you said. "i know," you sighed. "i know." we both know but neither of us use a dialogue tag, because we are in a contemporary lit piece.

it is too-small to say don't use said. but it is a big command, so it gets your attention. what are you relying on? what easy choices do you make? when you edit, do you choose the same thing? can you make a different choice? sometimes we need the blankness of said, how it slides into the background. sometimes we don't.

i usually say best advice is to read, but i also mean read books you don't like, because that will make you angry enough to write your own book. i also mean read good books, which will break your heart and remind you that you are a very small person and your voice is a seashell. i also mean you need to eat books because reading a book is a writer's version of studying.

my creative writing teacher in the 7th grade had a big red list of no! words and on it was SUNSET. RAZORS. LOVE. GALAXY. DEATH. BLOOD. PAIN. I liked that razor and love were tucked next to each other like birds, and found it funny that he believed we were too young to know the weight of razor in the context of pain. i hated him and his Grateful Dead belt, where the colored teddy bears held up his appraisal of us. i hated his no list. it is very good/bad advice. i wasn't old enough yet to know that when you are writing about death you are also writing about sunsets and when you write about love you are tucking yourself into a napkin that never stops folding.

back then my poetry was all bloody, dripped with agony when you picked it up. i didn't know there is nothing beautiful about a razor, nothing exciting about pain. i just understood sharpness, which he took to mean i understood nothing. i wrote the razor down and it wasn't easy, but it was necessary. that's what i'm saying - sometimes it's good advice, because it's not always necessary. and sometimes it is very bad advice, because writing about it is lifesaving.

hang on my dog was just having a nightmare. i heard that it is a rule not to write about dogs - in my creative writing mfa, my teacher rolled her eyes and said everyone writes a dead dog. the literature streets are littered in canine bodies. i watched the rise and fall of his ribs (there is that word again) and had to reach out and stop the bad dream. when he woke up he didn't recognize me, and he was afraid.

it is good/bad advice to say that poems and writing have to mean something. it is bad/good advice to say they're big feelings in small packages. it is better advice to say that when my dog saw where he was, he relaxed immediately, rubbed his face against me. someone on instagram would make fun of that moment by writing their "internet poetry" as a sentence that tumbles across a white page: outside it is sunset and my dog is still in a gutter, bleeding a galaxy out of his left paw. or maybe it would be: i woke the dog up/the dog forgot i loved him/and i saw the shape of a senseless/and impossible pain.

the dog is alive in this one, and he is happy. when i tell you i love you, i know what i said. write what you need to write, be gentle to yourself about it. the advice is only as good as far as it helps. the rest is just fencing. take stock of the boundaries, and then break them. there's always somewhere else you could be growing.

i love you, keep going.

#warm up #writeblr

[sparrowlucero]

Even if a creator is a bad person it's still okay to like their work. People need to mind their own business.

Honestly it's not really that sort of situation. I'll actively defend Steven Moffat here.

There was a huge hate movement for him back in the early 2010s - which, in retrospect, formed largely because he was running 2 of the superwholock shows at once, one of which went through extremely long hiatuses* and the other of which was functionally an adaptation of an already well regarded show**, making him subject to a sort of double ire in the eyes of a lot of fandom people. Notably, his co-showrunner, Mark Gatiss, is rarely mentioned and much of his work is still attributed to Moffat (and yes, this includes that Hbomberguy video. Several of "Steven Moffat's bad writing choices" were not actually written by him, they were Gatiss.)

People caricatured the dude into a sort of malicious, arrogant figure who hated women and was deliberately mismanaging these shows to spite fans, to the point where people who never watched them believe this via cultural osmosis. It became very common to take quotes from him out of context to make them look bad***, to cite him as an example of a showrunner who hated his fans, someone who sabotaged his own work just to get at said fans, someone who was too arrogant to take criticism, despite all of this being basically a collective "headcanon" formed on tumblr. Some if it got especially terrible, like lying about sexual assault (I don't mean people accused him of sexual assault and I think they're making it up, I mean people would say things like "many of his actresses have accused him of sexual assault on set" when no such accusations exist in the first place. This gets passed around en masse and is, in my opinion, absolutely rancid.)

On top of that a ton of the criticism directed at the shows themselves is, personally, just terrible media criticism. So much of it came from assuming a very hostile intent from the writer and just refusing to engage with the text at all past that.

Like some really common threads you see with critique of this writer's work, especially in regards to Doctor Who since that's the one I'm most familiar with:

A general belief that his lead characters were meant to be ever perfect self inserts, and so therefore when they act shitty or arrogant or flawed in any way, that's both reflective of the author and meant to be viewed as positive or aspirational.

An overarching thesis that his characters are "too important" in the narrative due to the writer's arrogance and self obsession

A lot of focus on the writer personally "attacking" the fans or making choices primarily out of spite.

A tendency to treat the show being different to what it's adapting as inherently bad and hostile towards the original

Just generally very little consideration of the themes, intent, etc.

This one's a little more nebulous and doesn't apply to all critique but a lot of it, especially recently, is clearly by people who haven't seen the show in like 10 years and their opinion is largely formed secondhand through like, "discourse nostalgia". Which. you know. bad.

I think these are just weird and nonsensical ways to engage with a work of fiction. I also think it's really sad to see the show boiled down to this because that era of who is, in my opinion, very thematically rich and unique among similar shows, and I hate that it's often dismissed in such a paltry way.

This isn't to say people aren't allowed to critique Steven Moffat or anything, but the context in which he basically became The Devil™ to a large portion of fandom and is still remembered in a poor light is very tied to this perfect storm of fan culture and I just don't agree with a ton of it.

* I'm sure most people have seen the way long running shows and hiatuses will cause people to fall out with a show, with some former fans turning around and joining a sort of "anti fandom" for it while it's still airing. That happened with both these shows. ** Doctor Who will change it's entire writing staff, crew, and cast every few years, and with that comes a change in style, tone, theme - the old show basically ends and is replaced by a new show under the same title. As Steven Moffat's era was the first of these handovers for the majority of audiences, you can imagine this wasn't a well loved move for many fans. *** I know for a fact most people have not sought out the sources for a lot of these quotes to check that they read the same in context because 1) most of them were deleted years ago and are very difficult to find now and 2) many of them do actually make sense in the context of their respective interviews

#and yeah i think the hbomberguy video is kind of bad #I can pull up examples but a lot of what he's saying is very rooted in this sort of critique #maybe most egregiously he sometimes just explains something very poorly or outright incorrectly to make it seem worse or more nonsensical #ex. saying a scene in doctor who 'steals a huge chunk of the plot' when it's less than 30 seconds long #saying two characters randomly start hanging out again while not mentioning the episode entirely dedicated to this #or the way her decision to keep hanging out with him is the emotional turning point of the entire season #etc etc etc.

[paper-mario-wiki]

one of the things that appeals to me the most about the idea of a reaction video is the chance it allows me to break out from the opinions of not only people who are already aware of something i like, but also from people who might already have a significant amount of context for the thing they're engaging with. when watching a lets play of someone playing the new final fantasy, i will not be as entertained by their reactions because, to some extent, they already know what to expect broadly from the game. beyond that, even if it's a streamer who HASN'T played final fantasy, but is nonetheless connected to the greater sphere of gaming knowledge that would have passively instilled in them basic knowledge of things like chocobos and sephiroth and the buster sword and whatnot, there is still diminished impact in their opinions, because their opinions had at some point already been tempered by foreknowledge of some kind.

i have been enjoying the fallout show a great deal. i think that the quality of it is undeniable (pirate it, by the way), which means that the people watching the show are getting an accurate sampling of not just the setting and atmosphere of the games, but also the writing, the depth of the world design which has been built up over decades, and even to some extent the GAMEPLAY, as the story of the show matches the pace of a main story in the games in their sidetrackability (the golden rule of the wasteland "thou shall get sidetracked by bullshit every time"). that quality (and the positive reviews that come with it) leads to a much broader spectrum of reaction videos coming from it.

what i mean to say with all of this is that i find it incredibly enjoyable to watch, like, some 40 year old piano teacher (this is a random description, i havent actually seen any musician-type reactors watching fallout) who doesn't play video games form sincere and thorough theories about what vault-tec is up to, and critiquing the guiding principles of the brotherhood of steel, and commenting on the nature of discrimination against mutants, is VERY enjoyable to me. i think that observations which are not based in preconceived notions of what you already may know about the media can be so much richer to take in.

#text #random thought #fallout show

[theconstantsidekick]

i'm here as a hater.

i watched red white and royal blue and i'm here to be a hater.

i was having such a great time on tumblr, looking over people's posts and then i went to letterboxd to leave a review and my fucking god. why are there so many people bashing this film for being a bad adaptation. worse yet, why are they queer?

i understand, trust me, i completely understand loving a piece of media and waiting impatiently with bated breath to watch the adaptation of it into another recognisable medium. i'm a mortal instruments girlie, i'm a last of us girlie, i'm a fault in our stars girlie, i'm a watchmen girlie. i get it. i do. sometimes maybe good, sometimes maybe shit.

but bruv, i am also a person who works in the film industry and you have no fucking clue the amount of effort it takes to make a film let alone a film that's an adaptation of a pre-existing, utterly loved piece of fiction that is revered by so many. and this movie goes one step further. this is a cheesy, cutesy rom-com about a queer couple. how many of those do we even have? no. really. how many hopeful, easy-going, cheesy queer rom-coms have you watched? can you count them on one hand? do you need a google search to remind yourself of them?

this film is a rare commodity and fine, maybe that's not a good enough reason for you to be 'lenient' to it... but it kinda is. no adaptation will be perfect, not really, not for everyone. every piece of media has it's flaws but adaptations most of all. but this film does something that you cannot dismiss simply because your favourite scene wasn't in it. personally i so miss alex's speech before the election results are announced. i miss ellen's powerful and amazing speech when she does win. i miss june, i miss raphael and i miss leo, and the powerpoint presentations and i miss cornbread knowing alex's sins.

but none of that will ever take away from the beauty of being able to sit in front of my laptop and watch the most intimate queer love scene i have ever laid my eyes on. it just won't.

anyway.... i'm rambling. the point that i was trying to make before i got lost in all this, was that you are obviously allowed to hate on the movie but like... be kinder about it? don't hate it because it's not a straight up remake of the book. don't hate it because it's cheesy. idk man, just hate kindly, if possible.

this is a huge step for us.

i don't want the response to this film to seem negative in a way that gives the (already reluctant) studious more reason to not make queer media for queer people, you know?

there will come a time in this life where we can hate and critique queer media without worrying about all this context but we're not there yet?

so i guess, like henry, i'm also asking for y'all patience.

however, whoever fucking said that nick and taylor don't have chemistry can suck my huge ugly metaphorical dick. fuck you. they made me week in the knees.

#rwrb spoilers #rwrb movie #rwrb #rwrb film #red white and royal blue movie #red white and royal blue #red white and royal blue spoilers #first prince #alex claremont diaz #henry prince of wales

[sampsonstorm-critical]

So. I DID watch Hazbin Hotel. And oh boy. So I'm going to give my critique on the show.

"antagonists and supporting" Characters- A bit better than Helluva. Studio oversight curbed some stuff. The characters somewhat had their own personalities in their dialogue. Some characters I thought could be cut out. I'm sorry but Sir Pentious is one of them. He's too cartoony even for this universe. He's annoying on the level jar jar binx was in star wars. Same with Mimzy. I think they could've done much better with Adam, but they just made him a dude bro? I did like the Seraphim sisters. Lute was just a bitchy, cynical, anime antagonist. Nifty was a bit aggravating too on the same level as Sir Pentious. I liked Husk as a character. Lucifer being a crushed dreamer fallen angel was actually interesting however his take on his people that he rules? Now if he was actively choosing to punish them himself using hells tools, it would be one thing? But he just has depression??? I guess? After thousands of years? Instead of trying to reconnect with his daughter, he just Mopes??? Like a sad boy??? No. Sorry. You lost me. Cherry Bomb? Meh. She's pretty shallowly written.

Now!

Main Characters -

Charlie- I hate her. I hate how fucking useless she is. She's the main protagonist for fucks sake. Now if she started like this and actually got better as the story went along in season 1, then alright. But she just gets her ass kicked and daddy has to save her skin. Way to take away her independence as a character.

Vaggie- I like Vaggies premise, but I hate the way her arc is executed. And the fact that she lets Lute live??? I'm sorry? WHAT THE FUCK WAS THAT?! No way. No how. Someone like her from a military background, or hells backdrop would let someone as callous as Lute live.

Alastor - he's my favorite character but, it's not his show. And it feels like it is. I love Alastor, he's the only entertainment I get from this show for the most part.

Angel - he's a characature. He is a walking stereotype. I know many people like him including the hypersexuality. Angel dust unless written for plot specific purposes only, is a very selfish unredeemable person. I'm sorry. He's being raped, and he still sexually harasses other people, knowing how it makes him feel? Now this would be great if we weren't supposed to feel bad for him right away, because it would show how abused can become abusers even if they don't mean too. And that could've been part of his arc to becoming a better person. But no.

The Vs - I like Vox. He's written to be genuinely manipulative, charismatic, and intimidating. I like Velvet too. I wish we knew anything about her. Valentino is written to be a villain, but some of his more childish moments are a bit of a movie mood killer.

On to the show as a whole.

So the most hated part of HH. Episode 4s infamous sexual assault scene. - I actually think it was very raw. It was done in an artistic taste. And I DEFINITELY think that if it wasn't taken from a SA fetishizer, it would've sat with me better. I understand what they were portraying and as someone who's had friends, gay men from the aids crisis era who have been SA, I see it but it's not done well. The only instance it's done well is when Angel is shown in the studio with Valentino especially when he tells Charlie to leave.

The build up and pay off issue - the music for the most part was good. OUT OF CONTEXT. I. Context it pays off without building up the conflict. It just resolves immediately. And these aren't Saturday morning cartoon conflicts. These are deep seeded emotional traumas between people. They don't resolve within one episode. These types of conflicts should resolve in 3 part episodes to 1 season. Yet again the Helluva problem shows up. Setting up too many character arcs and plotlines that cannot be properly resolved in the time span.

The finally- it was. Hot. Garbage. What the fuck was Charlie wearing to fight???? What the fuck???? Seriously???? And Angel???? In his booty shorts??? And we're supposed to take the extermination seriously??? HA! No. I do like in the episodes leading up to the finally, where Charlie and Emily rise against Heaven. I think they should have kept going with that moment in the song "If hell is forever, then Heaven must be a lie". It was very powerful and undermined immediately with "the big reveal!" Yuck. And don't even get me started on how NIFTY is the one who killed ADAM! SERIOUSLY? I think it was actually cool to see Alastor get HIS shit kicked in and see him crack under the pressure for once. I DO NOT like how Charlie's daddy had to come and fight her battles especially seeling as how he could do it the whole fucking time for thousands of years????!

#helluva critical #helluva criticism #helluva critique #helluva rewrite #hazbin hotel critical #hazbin hotel criticism #anti hazbin hotel #hazbin hotel critique #anti spindlehorse #anti helluva boss #anti vivziepop

[periprose]

maybe a controversial opinion, but I didn't really like Barbie. It's not because I didn't get what it was going for, it just felt very selling-a-message while being just shocking enough to keep people talking about it. I do like the stuff about barbie as an idea (feminist vs not, what it means to be a woman, gender roles, etc) but that doesn't really make it a good movie with a cohesive plot that I'm interested in watching again. it felt like I was getting preached at, and I'm sure tumblr adores analyzing everything about it but it just wasn't for me. The ending also just feels like they didn't know how to end it.

Side note, I think greta gerwig is a terrible director who's getting way too much acclaim for being contemporary and having strong feminist themes, when everything feels super on the nose. It doesn't feel like good directing to me, it never feels like I'm watching a movie I can truly get lost in. I also didn't like her version of little women because again the themes were so on the nose, nothing felt organic about it, and she added a lot of modern feminism to what should've been very tied to the historical context of the source material. It was very jarring. I also hated the ending and what she did to Jo- Jo is her own character and is not Louisa May Alcott, and just because you do a bunch of on-the-nose critique of the book in the movie, doesn't make it suddenly a good, thematically strong scene to watch.

I think she just benefits from actors giving great performances in her movies and that's why the ratings are always so high, because if an actor can sell it, if it's well shot, more people will like it. It could also just not be for me but idk.

And there are good ideas, again, I would just prefer if there was a stronger plot and more cohesion between ideas. Feels like everything was written for a bunch of people online to talk about how deep it was. I support that, I support the feminist takes, but where is the meat of the movie? Where are Barbie's sisters? Where is the feeling that I'm watching a story rather than a bunch of ideas?

I also have a million thoughts about how Greta made barbie x ken a somehow bad thing but I will save that for another post.

#barbie #anti greta gerwig #little women #little women 2019 #anti little women 2019 #anti barbie #anti barbie movie

[gffa]

Hi Lumi. This year I’ve watched The Clone Wars, Rebels, Mandalorian, Book of Boba Fett, and Tales of the Jedi and I’m watching Ahsoka as episodes are released. But I feel like I’m missing some context as to why people are wary of Filoni. What things should I know so I’m caught up, so to speak, in the fandom discussions?

Hi! That's a lot of Star Wars to watch in a year, I hope you're having fun with it all! And I will gently remind everyone that Filoni is not the be-all-end-all of Star Wars creators--Henry Gilroy was there for TCW and Rebels, too. George Lucas was holding writers' meetings years after the show started (at least into 2010!). The Mandalorian and The Book of Boba Fett are far more Jon Favreau's shows. The Bad Batch is Brad Rau and Jennifer Corbett. Resistance was developed by him, but was run by other producers. It's just that Filoni tends to get the most camera time and has become the face of Star Wars creators. That said, the issue with Filoni is kind of two-pronged, though, they overlap. 1. He's done a lot of interviews where he's said a lot of anti-Jedi things that have drifted from reasonable critiques in the beginning to eventually "Qui-Gon Jinn was the only true Jedi. [blatantly wrong citations]" This has put a lot of people off him as a creator, because we love the Jedi Order that Lucas talks about and established, which Filoni has actively contradicted over the years, despite being promoted as someone who follows Lucas' themes. And it's hard not to be aware of his interviews when watching his shows and it's hard to enjoy shows that do your faves dirty, you know? 2. His writing has become weaker over the years for a lot of us--Rebels is a show most of us love and found to be incredible. Many of us really love The Clone Wars, which he was heavily involved in/was probably the central voice after Lucas started phasing out. But his biggest story told over the course of those series--basically, the story of Mandalore's history and fall to the Empire--has been extremely thin for a lot of us. And a lot of us get frustrated at his inability to be objective when it comes to Ahsoka's character, that we love her as a character very much, but it hasn't felt like Filoni really knows what to do with her character arc and yet almost everything he writes is centered around her. His final season of The Clone Wars? Gave her the walkabout arc and the Siege of Mandalore arc, both of which often did not hold up well under scrutiny. His episode of The Book of Boba Fett? I actually really loved it, but it absolutely just stopped the pacing of that show to focus a lot on her. More on Luke, but he couldn't resist putting her in there, either. Tales of the Jedi was half devoted to Ahsoka and so much of it wasn't even about her time as a Jedi! We're frustrated because he doesn't set things up well anymore--Morgan Elsbeth is a Nightsister?? Why wasn't that established in The Mandalorian instead of pulling out randomly in Ahsoka? Why does Sabine Wren suddenly so badly want Jedi training, when they barely even had a conversation in Rebels?? There's a lot of good that Filoni has given to Star Wars, I think he genuinely cares about the Force and what it means--he's very consistent on how it's not easy and how it takes discipline and control, that he has been consistent on how anger and fear are paths to the dark side, even his episode of TBOBF had Ahsoka saying, yeah, attachment is a path to the dark side, because the Jedi mean "attachment" in a more Buddhist-aligned way. A lot of his writing for the character of Ahsoka is actually pretty good, like I've been enjoying her being a prickly, traumatized hot mess in the show! It's just that I kind of hate all the interviews he gives and I think he's a lot less objective than a lot of fans and media coverage that would hold him up as a perfect writer/interviewee about all things Star Wars, and it all comes together to make him kind of a hot-button topic.

So, a lot of people LOVE Filoni's work, a lot of people are frustrated by it, a lot of people are casually fine about it, a lot of people HATE Filoni's work and it can be a fun mix of any of the above or even other issues that come up. (And that's all fine! I have my views on Filoni's work, but it's fine if others hate it more than I do or love it more than I do, there's room for us all, all of it is valid.)

But I think if you want to understand some of the roots of this corner of fandom's frustration, two (admittedly long as heck) homework assignment reads would be:

- My own rebuttal to Dave's behind the scenes Mandalorian Gallery talk (this is jokingly referred to as "Davegate" because I refused to take it too seriously) - @david-talks-sw's collection of comparisons between Lucas' commentary on the Jedi and Filoni's commentary on the Jedi

This response itself is more focused on laying out the problems a lot of people have with Filoni's writing, but also honestly I still have my giant collection of Jedi source material citations that quotes his commentary, I still bring up Filoni's quotes in current meta a lot, I still talk positively about the things I enjoy from his shows, so overall there's equal amounts of both praise and criticism here. So, as short as I can make it (which isn't very, shut up, I know! XD), that's basically what people mean when they say they're wary of Filoni.

#star wars #dave filoni #meta

[celluloidbroomcloset]

sorry about this, it's been on my mind for a while, relating to your celebrity discourse post.

You're right in pointing out TW has been treated unfairly. He puts his foot in his mouth sometimes (there are times I just wish he wouldn't say anything or at least think it through). HOWEVER, since last year it's become extremely common to take things he says out of context and use them for rage bait clicks. And often when he does get 'criticism' its often for something he either didn't say at all or something that, while not great, has been twisted and overblown to look much worse.

What frustrates me is a lot of people seem to be doing this on purpose. It's like they're watching and waiting for him to step a toe out of line so they can rile people up on Twitter.

I don't think I need to point out a lot of white celebrities have done exactly the same or worse things than him, and don't recieve the same level of backlash.

I dont think you have to be a TW stan or even fan to acknowledge that while he's made mistakes-like literally every human- he's also being treated with more vitriol than is fair.

I'll start out by saying that I'm a veteran of Film Twitter, and I've seen some of the weirdest takes known to God or humankind, from people who purport to both critique and report on film and artists in cinema (I am no longer on Twitter). I'd trace the very weird hatred of Taika Waititi to around Jojo Rabbit, when a cadre of people very loudly proclaimed it to somehow be pro-fascist (it is not, and I'm saying that as someone who has fucking studied propaganda and Nazi-era filmmaking).

There have been other things blown out of proportion in his personal life, about which I do not believe anyone should interfere or discuss in any way because it's none of our fucking business.

My observation of him as a filmmaker and writer is that he's very intelligent, tries to be thoughtful, and also, as you say, often speaks without thinking. He has said things that I do not agree with, and will not try to defend. But many of the things he has said that gained traction on Twitter have either been taken out of context, deliberately misconstrued, or oversimplified. The biggest and least problematic example are his comments about how "no one knows who directed Casablanca," which was made in the context of how he doesn't care or expect his name to be remembered, because the art is the thing (and, TBH, I agree - I know who directed Casablanca, but a lot of people who know the film will have no fucking idea, and why should they?). I am not kidding when I say that this provoked several days of argument on Film Twitter. His most recent comments have been taken entirely out of context (no, I'm not going to start fighting about them, that's not the point). If someone disagrees with him, they should at the very least disagree about what he said, not what they pretend that he said.

Some of this is just the nature of Twitter itself, and celebrity culture. There's just not much nuance and there is an awful lot of - excuse me - dingbats who don't understand media half as well as they think they do. The other element is that there is indeed a rather nasty desire to scrutinize things that are said by...pretty much everyone who is not a straight white cisgender man, and use them as cudgels to beat those people "back into their place."

I do not know Taika Waititi. I do not pretend to know what he thinks, nor do I particularly care. I do know what I see in his art, and I appreciate a lot of it. But, yes, he is being scrutinized and jumped on in a way that a fuck lot of particularly white male filmmakers are not.

#reply #ofmd #taika waititi #i will not be fighting about this because this is not about defending him #trust me i have fought these fights and they are exhausting and i don't have the time for it

[handweavers]

this shit makes me so angry because i deal with assholes like this all the time in ASIA where i live as an ASIAN (not a US AMERICAN!!) who treat their maids and domestic workers like absolute garbage, the amount of abuse that happens is insane and you think you're somehow exempt from fucked up class relations and being clueless about how poor people in your own country are treated because you're not a Yankee? are you seriously stupid? i despise people like you more than anything, people who should know better and don't because you have Zero class awareness and you think that you know everything simply due to your nationality when you know damn well you are not treated the same as others in your own country let alone elsewhere in the world due to your economic status.

I've seen Indian women Related to me abuse their Indonesian maids in Malaysia as though it was their God given right and lost my shit at them, reported them to local orgs that help abused maids find safer work, told everyone what I saw, cut them out of my life, made clear to them that they are absolute scum of the earth and that the only thing separating them from their maid is the Money they have. You are probably no better than those women, treating human beings like property and thinking yourself the most oppressed person alive simply because you're from the global majority and that any critique of your Lifestyle is simply because the person Doesn't Get It because they're American. "This is US centric I am an expat when I am a Malaysian and live in Dubai" I'm from your country and I know exactly the context of this Lifestyle and I am telling you that you are a cunt. Your Class status shields you from the greatest harm the global south faces, you will never face the danger those labelled "migrant workers" face but you parade yourself online like you are the expert because you hold an Asian passport and you have travelled everywhere. all that money and no brain or compassion and a biggest victim complex. and you will continue to play victim because the westerners are watching but i see you and I know your heart is rotten. fuck all of you for real

#i hope your maid steals all your money fuck you #evil evil evil

[drdemonprince]

Just chiming in to agree that that person is not a selfish bitch. I'm also really put off by moralistic performances of emotion, and I know in my case it's because it was part of a pattern of abusive behaviour that my mother did.

Anytime you expressed to her that there was a problem with her behaviour, she seemed to genuinely believe that if she put enough effort into weeping and crying on her children's shoulders, and verbally denigrating herself for being an inherently bad an immoral person, and stressing so much that she developed physical illnesses from it, then she could follow that up by asking for forgiveness - as if it would be cruel for us to continue her suffering by denying her that forgiveness. Except that to her, "forgiveness" meant "it's all swept under the rug, I have Atoned By Suffering Guilt, so now it doesn't matter and I can keep doing it again." (I really wonder how much the religious background of her parents' generation came into the formation of this worldview.) And at the same time, she refuses to read news that's "too upsetting" and never engages with literature or media about dark themes "because there's enough of that in real life."

It might be cynical of me to read this pattern into the way people talk online about genocide. But I keep seeing parallels. My perspective is that a) if you're not regulating your emotions well enough to function, then you have less capacity to offer practical help; and b) people who are actually trying to survive genocide want unnecessary human suffering to END, so you're not aligning yourself with that hope by engaging in rumination etc that compounds suffering with not practical benefit to anyone.

But also, watching my mother's behaviour has led me to add perspective c) that a lot of people (in Christian cultures?) haven't developed enough understanding of the complexity of the world and how to relate to it, and genuinely believe that an overblown emotionally affected reaction, followed by helplessness and thereby inaction, is the only possible way for them to respond when they're confronted with upsetting information that demands action from them. Being raised to think in a black-and-white "good vs evil" dichotomy, and thinking about people as "either morally good or morally bad" rather than thinking about people as neutral and behaviours as either ethically helpful or harmful... it doesn't give them a conceptual framework to integrate upsetting information and then carry on getting things done, it's like their moral anxiety gets them stuck and that keeps the emotions escalating.

I see people discussing this pattern in the context of religious trauma, and in the context of the cultural construct of "whiteness" - the discovery of something morally bad has to be followed by an extreme emotional reaction that basically amounts to protesting your own innocence and helplessness to deny responsibility for your direct behaviours (in my mother's case) or complicity in a corrupt system (in the case of overwhelmed average people learning about genocide).

Maybe I'm rambling more than I'm analysing here, but the comparison stands out a lot to me and it's troubling to watch.

yo anon no this is gold, thank you for sharing. This is remarkably astute.

I will add the quick caveat that hyperempathic people who are debilitated by their sensitivity exist, of course, and have very real struggles and none of this is intended to denigrate them. In practice, their behavior can have the impact of silencing criticism or distracting from the issue at hand but being wired that way certainly does not doom a person to behaving in a counterproductive, manipulative manner.

This critique is more about performative over the top empathy as a tactic (conscious or not) of offloading responsibility, and as a pseudo-religious ideology that makes predominately white western cultures particularly ill-equipped to deal with the consequences of their global plundering. almost certainly by design. Most moral teachings that we encounter in the west promote this tactic and ideology, and it gets very deeply ingrained in most us if we don't devote a ton of attention to uprooting it.

thanks for this great response.

[cock-holliday]

I know we are begging for scraps and the context is not…quite the same but I cannot express how fucking cool it is that Gen V has a bigender character and that that word has been said multiple times aloud.

For those who don’t watch, Gen V is a spinoff from The Boys, one of those big-critiques-on-superheroes shows. It’s set in an American college and the characters are very heavy metaphors for a bunch of the pressures pushed on that demographic: football/legacy athletes, grooming young adults for specific industries, parents who have kids with the intent of them being a cash cow for them, eating disorders, self harm, kids from rough backgrounds being exploited as a sob story or pushed to be a weapon. It comes with like a million potentially triggering situations and a wild amount of gore so look into the warnings more, but I would really recommend the show.

On the show one of the characters has a few different powers, and one of them is the ability to gender-swap and is then played by two different actors. They most frequently go by they/them, the show refers to them a few times as bigender, and while it could be another time we grasp for straws in characters like robots or aliens or what have you, the show actually does get into bigender-related issues!

It deals with parental expectations, it deals with the struggle of expressing attraction and wondering which side of you the person wants (because it can’t be both, can it?), and it goes into an unexpected territory of: if the switch was a choice, does that still make it authentic?

I’ve heard so much about how being gay or queer or trans isn’t a choice for people, and that’s fine if it isn’t, but the assumption that everyone feels that way reinforces the idea we are prisoners to our identity and given the choice we would not choose to be this way. But I would. Many would.

They do.

I’ve joked for a long time about how trans folks love shapeshifter powers, but this is the first I’ve ever seen shapeshifting as a plot device BE about queerness, not as a distant headcanon by fans, or even a quiet ‘yeah it can be queer if you want it to be’ by creators, but as a textual actual bigender character.

That kicks ass!

#gen v #jordan li #lgbt characters #bigender #nonbinary character

[megaderping]

Adachi is such an interesting character because I think a lot of his worst kinds of fans are the type who like... see themselves in him and thinks that's a good thing and who talk about how he was right, but that absolutely doesn't sum up every person who likes him, and I think that's something that people forget in the greater fan discourse. Adachi is meant to represent a lot of things to Persona 4's narrative. He is a byproduct of many toxic aspects of Japanese work culture. The idea that hard work will get you a stable life with a good job and a steady future. Adachi internalized this, and yet he got sent to this hick town with nothing to do over one escape. His refusal to form meaningful connections with others in favor of nihilism and a desire to just watch the world burn is meant to be a cautionary tale. If you see yourself in Adachi, the game asks you to reflect and consider that there are still things worth living for. It's also a lesson he ultimately gets. He is the one who urges the Investigation Team to pursue the real truth, and his arc in Ultimax is great because while he's still not a great person, he also has grown enough that even if he's still mean as shit, he entrusts the future to Yu and the Investigation. He just wants to go back to jail, play by the rules, and face justice, whatever form it takes, and instead he's dragged into more supernatural bullshit and has to deal with Sho. He's forced to confront who he was in the past, and he hates what he sees, and he hates that Sho is assuming the exact same kinda mindset that got his ass kicked in the end. And all of this is fantastic, but then I look at the kinda fans who talk up Adachi as if he's this great person and use him as a means to shit on fans of, say, Akechi without even trying to understand the cultural context or distinctly different role he plays in his narrative. It's not good to strawman Adachi or Akechi fans and the weird beef between the audiences of both characters annoys the shit out of me because they both have their own meanings and critiques of Japanese culture. And, y'know, people can like different characters for different reasons. I feel like a lot of this could be resolved if people were just polite and more open to discussion instead of making assumptions about why people like certain characters. Because Adachi's misogyny is definitely reflected in a lot of the kinds of fans who will actively shit on the female characters and female Persona fans, but I've met some genuinely kind fans of the character who just find him compelling for the disaster that he is and the interesting role he works as a foil to the Investigation Team. You never know why a character is someone's fav until you talk to them, and aggression doesn't help facilitate good discussions. Idk. Just a random thought, I guess.

#persona 4 #tohru adachi #persona 4 spoilers

[lurkingshan]

Kinou nani tabeta/What Did You Eat Yesterday?

You should know that I attempted to start this write up about half a dozen times before I managed to get a single word down. Every time I tried I just ended up staring at the wall. I don’t think I’ve been this emotionally stunned by a show since I Told Sunset About You, and I don’t say that lightly!

So, is this a good show? My god, YES. What an understatement. Let me tell you, as my MDL can attest, I’ve watched nearly 300 dramas. I’m sure I’ve watched even more Western shows since I had a 30 year head start on those. And I can say confidently that I’ve never seen anything quite like this gem.

Kinou nani tabeta, or What Did You Eat Yesterday?, is a drama about two middle aged gay men living their everyday lives, making and sharing food, reckoning with their identities and expectations, and figuring out how to be together in a long term relationship. That’s it, that’s the show. If that sounds boring to you, I gotta tell you: YOU ARE WRONG.

We meet Shiro and Kenji when they’re in their mid 40s and already a couple years into living together. Over the course of the show, we learn more about their relationship - how they got together, how they differ, where they struggle, where they shine, what they are still figuring out - and we see them work through it all, together. We see them at work, with friends, with their families, out in public, and in the privacy of their own home - we get a full and complete picture of their lives. And we are invited in to experience it with them and get up close and personal with their relationship in a way that feels both cozy and thrilling.

Now, I am not going to go into detail about everything that happens in this show, or attempt to provide deep analysis about its story, its characters, or the various cultures it depicts. This show was released in 2019, the manga began its run many years before that, and there are folks on this website - like @isaksbestpillow and @bengiyo - who have been at this a hell of a long time and thus have a broader context and lived experience from which to critically examine the show and its messages as they relate to Japanese familial values, life as a queer man from an older generation, and building community while living in a culture that is actively hostile to who you are. I implore you to go read their thoughts and learn from their wisdom. But what I will do is mention a couple (3… no 4, okay 5!) things that really made it stand out to me, a lifelong romance reader, avid media consumer, and drama enjoyer (I’m going to keep plot stuff vague because I hope if you’re reading this, you will be watching very soon!):

Let me repeat: this is a drama about a middle aged couple in a long term relationship, and the ongoing growth and deepening of their relationship is the main plot. Do I have to tell you how unique that is? The romance genre is rarely interested in what happens after the couple gets together, and even in other dramas featuring a couple in a LTR, the plot is usually about something else with the relationship in the background. And I’m fairly sure this is the only show of this nature in the entire bl genre (@absolutebl please fact check me if I’m wrong). In this show, the relationship is the point. It’s a rare look at what it actually takes to learn to deal with your baggage and share your life with someone, and I found it deeply moving.

My god these actors. With all due respect to the many fine actors in the bl industry, these two are on another level. We just never get to see seasoned actors of this caliber headlining ql dramas. If I have one tiny critique of this show, it’s that I found the moments when they let us listen in on the characters’ internal monologues mostly unnecessary - every emotional beat played out in their faces and body language. There’s this one scene I can’t stop thinking about, where the main pair are fighting, and one of them says something he doesn’t mean, and you see the regret on his face instantly, followed by a quick aborted movement as if to take it back, but his partner has already turned away and doesn’t see it. Just perfection. And the acting was so good in the finale (@waitmyturtles informed me my absolute fav moment was improvised for fucks sake) that it actually laid me out for like an hour, I was just sitting there in a crying daze.

The writing is so fucking smart. What’s absolutely brilliant about this show is that it’s structured like an episodic slice of life drama, but there is a deeper long term emotional arc at play and the writers forget nothing. Just like in life, in each episode something will happen, it won’t really get fully resolved, and the characters will move on. But on this show, it always comes back around, usually when your guard is down and they can inflict maximum damage by sucker punching you right in the solar plexus. I can hardly believe how many times this show managed to sneak attack me with emotional realness (official Shan cry count: 8/12 episodes caused me to burst into tears, sometimes more than once).

This show will take you through every possible destination on the spectrum of human emotion. I was so emotional while watching this show, in every sense. Crying both happy and sad tears. Swinging wildly between giddy delight, deep sadness, low key anger, and belly laughing. Sometimes the switch happens literally one scene to the next! And yet, there is an evenness to the tone and assuredness to the filmmaking that makes it all feel smooth. You never feel jerked around by the narrative. This is a credit to the writing, acting, and editing all coming together with perfect precision. The people who made this show are masters of their crafts.

OBVIOUSLY I MUST MENTION THE FOOD. Every episode of this show features at least one instance of a character making Japanese food that looks like the best thing you’ve never gotten the chance to eat. I do not recommended watching this without feeding yourself first, because it will have you salivating. And they don’t just show you the characters making the food (even narrating the recipes for you!), they always show you the characters actually eating and enjoying it. Some real foodies were involved in this production and as someone who loves to eat and absolutely was raised to view feeding people as a love language, I loved it.

So now that you are obviously dying to watch it, you must be wondering: where can I find this show? Let me point you to this post on @kinounaniresource, where the amazing Siiri has compiled all the video files and English subs you need. If you’re not familiar with how to use these, you’ll find instructions on her blog (if you get confused come ask me, please don’t bug her about it). I know sometimes shows being a little hard to access is a big deterrent to watching them, but please trust me that this is absolutely worth your time and effort, you will not regret it.

#kinou nani tabeta #what did you eat yesterday? #japanese bl #jdrama #man i am on such a good run with the classics lately #shan recommends #shan shouts into the void

[wings-of-fire-confessions]

I have been in the wof fandom for a while, since at least 2016, and I absolutely adore the creators in the fandom. I love getting to see how people view the books and making good critiques of the book series.

However, it annoys me how some people try to make claims that either don’t hold up or may have some validity at first, but falls apart when you put it in context of story of the books, or the world, or when you even just think a bit further about the point.

One of the things I have seen include Tui using Native American stereotypes in a tumblr post and using the fact that the characters (specifically the humans during the scorching) used feathers as accessories and were people of color. At face value, it seems like a valid claim, until you realize that all of the human characters are people of color and their societies don’t try to resemble that of Native American people in the books. Or the fact that the humans were the ones that stole dragon eggs and tried to use them as weapons of war. In total, I think there was one white person ever mentioned in the books (Axolotl).

Additionally, if you are going to talk about an issue in the fandom on a YouTube video, make it an actual video! By that, I mean if you intend to make a point about something, you don’t make a video that has no relevance to the topic at hand and then put the discourse in the description!

If you know the video I am referring to, the creator made a PMV for the fandom then put in their description why they aren’t making wof content anymore and that people should stop reading the books because of “Tui’s dangerous and bigoted writing.” I’m not saying that the person shouldn’t talk about issues in the fandom, but at least if you are going to do that make it its own video so people can actually SEE IT. Not everyone who clicks on a video will read the description, and when people go to read the comments, they are bound to get confused! (For context, the biggest thing being fought over was the freaking Glorybringer ship and how it is/isn’t pedophilia with op arguing it is).

I also watched the video they added in the link that was critiquing the “complacency in fantasy” (but mostly talking about wof) and it had some good points, until it went into saying that the Nightwings mirrored the Nazis and represented Jewish stereotypes at the same time and how it was “trauma porn.”

As I said before, some good points in the critique such as the treatment of Winter and the false DoD, and I get some of the points that the person was trying to make with how some subjects should be handled with more care such as arc 3’s slavery and the racism between tribes in wof, but other things such as comparing the Sandwings to Arab stereotypes without ya know, acknowledging how people that read the series treat the characters outside the books and how the books themselves handle their own characters (Such as Qibli and the whole Deserter winglet) is frustrating.

TLDR; if you are going to make a statement on fandom discourse or want to make an in depth critique about the series and want to make your point known, don’t relegate it to what basically equates to an optional footnote. And if you are going to make claims that relate to the real world, please back it up with evidence of both the in-text and information about the real-world facts (plus acknowledge at least some of the context around a series such as arc 1 and the fact that Tui is flawed but doesn’t mean that it can’t be enjoyed).

Sorry for the rant/long post, the way that some people handle criticizing the books and try to paint them like the worst thing ever just infuriates me because there is good and bad things about this series as all series are bound to have. Crafting a perfect story is hard to do and there will always be shortcomings in some authors stories, but that doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy them or be inspired to create something that may improve or even tackle the issues within the books with more care.

I definitely understand what you are saying. As a Jew (Bar Mitzvah'd so I am connected to my community), the comparison to NightWings is pretty far-fetched and actually pretty offensive.

It's just like how people called Tigerstar a cat Nazi back in the day, when he was more like a racial purist, and even then he somehow was pro-race blending.

#wings of fire confessions #wof confessions #wof #wings of fire #racism #antisemetism

[decepti-thots]

That post about aileron reminded me of how I think of nautica trying to erase skids from her memory like she just doesn’t know how to cope with death and loss cause she was removed from the wild ass war! It’s a weird beat in the comic but it speaks loudly to me

Ohhh yeah. These two are definitely a couple different perspectives on a theme, as it were.

While I have critiques of Nautica's arc in execution there (it's… got a LOT of flaws and IMO does not stick the landing at all, to put it pretty mildly; hence why I find exRiD overall better at exploring these ideas), I think it's a real shame that unlike so many other arcs in MTMTE/LL with issues or incomplete resolutions or whatever, there doesn't seem to be a lot of interest in taking the core emotional idea and running with it in fandom spaces? It feels like a really toothy emotional hook to latch onto that a lot could be done with as a part of the canon that is definitely a font of massive missed potential and lingering threads. (God, it really kills me ever since it was first pointed out to me how Nautica and Brainstorm's relationship might change because he's watching her do what Chromedome kept doing.) Nautica gets stuck in a kind of Cheerful Generic Girl Best Friend mode in fandom that skips past uhhh. A lot of her actual canon presence, when you really look at it!

It's especially interesting to think about because as a species their feelings about death are very different, right? Which IDW1 does address, and MTMTE specifically mentions this, with Cyclonus talking about how there's one version of the Guiding Hand myth that states Cybertronians are "immortal" because they killed Mortilus. Like. They don't have a lot of context for death as a regular, natural part of life that everyone comes into contact with in the day to day. Caminus isn't just full of civilians in the way you or I might be a civilian during peacetime; if you're a civilian for these folks, death is an abnormality period, a freak accident or whatever at most. (And even then: you're so hard to kill, it can't be common.) Cybertronians in the war are the weird ones for being used to it as a regular occurrence, and for both Aileron and Nautica it's not just that their friends experience traumatic and violent deaths, but that they die at all. It's got to be existentially destabilising in a way so many of the characters on that ship just can't relate to. (Tailgate likely could, but he's uhhhh, he's got other stuff going on at that point, so we will forgive him being too busy, lmao.)

Hell, I mentioned Brainstorm. He's an MTO. MTOs are the first of the currently living generations of their species to grow up with no memory of a society in which people do not regularly die; even once peacetime sets in, we see that they have reached the point in their species' lifespan where death by old age is becoming increasingly common and thus part of their cultural landscape. Those are a lot of Nautica's friends, who maybe want to help but have no easy way to really understand why she's reacting so strongly, you know?

Ohhh I love Nautica so much. Can you tell. Someone hug that poor woman good lord.