#it's funny to see some people criticize the movie for the same stuff they were praising in the Avengers Captain America and Thor movies

[wenellyb]

I get why some people didn't like the Marvels since it didn't center around male characters, but that could never be me I absolutely loved it.

#it's funny to see some people criticize the movie for the same stuff they were praising in the Avengers Captain America and Thor movies #the marvels #kamala khan #monica rambeau #carol danvers #the marvels spoilers #brie larson

[tocomplainfriend]

Responding to your post about fiction affecting reality: very well-written post and that’s something I agree with wholeheartedly!

Full disclosure: I am a Vivz supporter and don’t really interact with the critique community because of negative past experience (hence the anon), but I really liked your post as it was well-researched and brought up a lot of points that I did agree on. Mostly that, as you evidenced, “it’s just fiction” isn’t a great argument for poorly portraying a serious concept when there can be tangible consequences for that portrayal. And you gave some really striking examples.

In terms of Hazbin, it is not that I believe that Val’s portrayal as an abuser (and consequently Angel’s as a victim) lacks any impact, but instead that it adds a positive one. This isn’t something I’ve researched so the evidence I have of this is personal experience, but as you said in your post that media can affect real life I felt inspired to add to that conversation with how it personally affected me.

So I was aware rationally that a common result of abuse/SA is hypersexuality, like I’d seen that on psychology blogs and such but never really understood it. I’m ashamed to say I thought it was a little weird and very rare. Hazbin was what finally challenged that notion with me. Being able to see how abuse looks and attribute those events to Angel’s actions step-by-step made something click in my head. I even remember that shortly after seeing that episode, I apologized to one of my friends (a survivor themselves) over some judgmental comments I’d recently made over hypersexuality. Said friend also watched Hazbin with me and it’s the reason they talk more openly to me now and we’re a lot closer. Val’s “stupid” behavior in the show and mentioned in Vivz’s comments did not lessen the impact that episode had on me, or make it unbelievable to me that Val could be manipulative. If anything I understand more now that abusers don’t always appear as psychopathic masterminds. And I know my friend finds comments like the Mean Girls one funny and they tell me it’s empowering to make fun of Val’s incompetence.

That’s not the only positive influence Hazbin’s had on me, but the most relevant to your post, I believe. It’s the reason I’m often a skeptic on most criticisms, because my lived experience tends to go against them. You said the negative impact of Val was that people are drawing fetish art of him, but the only time I ever see that art is within critic’s posts. It never shows up in my regular feed, so it looks to me like he’s equally as fetishized as every other character; the unfortunate inevitability of the internet. I can’t say I’ve seen anyone post about stories like mine about learning to understand survivors, but I have heard positive stories from survivors themselves in person and online which lead me to believe that the positive impact outweighs the negative.

Fiction has real impact, very true. But consider that might be a good thing in this case.

Thanks for being respectful!

TW: Rape, SA

I'm a victim of SA myself and that's why I wrote all of this post. If you got something positive out of this piece of media, that's great. Same with victims that saw potion and were okay with it- that valid as much as the people that didn't like it at all. I recommend watching many others shows yourself (or movies, books, whatever) will help you out with sorts of topics in bigger ways. I understand you feel like you got something good out if (and I'm glad) but I do need to say, this is minimal in comparison to other media you could consume regarding the topic!

I personally suffer with Hypersexuality, and the treatment in the show (and merch and otherwise) I found completely wrong. Even if you got to a good understatement of the topic, please put research into it (also outside Tumblr for that matter! There are better places to find stuff about!). Thank you also for admitting your faults over your treatment of hypersexuality and apologizing for it. Many people will never let themselves grasp this concept, so thank you.

If you took Valentino's comparison to Mean Girls or Powerpuff Girl as a way of making fun of him, that's you. I found it, personally, terrible. Specially cause many comments regarding that (that I put on the post) were people actively disregarding the topic at hand. Saying that Valentino is just a karen, or He is Bubbles coded, feels so out of the realm of everything (the last one didn't feel like making fun of him). I don't like the comparison of an active sexual predator to a mean high school girl or a kinder garden girl that's regarded as bubblely or dumb. Feel like you should reach into his actions over It feels diminishing to me and other people (who also complained about this themselves).

People should be extremely careful of what they portray about this topic in media. Other stuff written in Hazbin or Helluva Boss regarding R-pe jokes also is extremely disgusting to me. Never forget that if you think this portrayal is ok, one episode apart it's a gang r-pe jokes towards Sir Pen... and an r-pe joke towards Moxxie in Spring Brakers. Which I find extremely disrespectful to do and adds to r-pe culture as much as any other r-pe jokes (general or towards men) in media. Especially when they want to portray it in a serious way with Angel, where was that energy then? (Don't say Viv didn't write that, she liked a tweet about the Sir pen joke, and the spring braker is written by Viv and Brandon.)

Also, about manipulation:

The tweet right below says that "He isn't manipulating them" because he is too stupid to do so. Responding "The Vees are just meangirls" it's crazy to me.

About "You said the negative impact of Val was that people are drawing fetish art of him, but the only time I ever see that art is within critic’s posts. It never shows up in my regular feed"

Val has being fetishized by the crew itself! The person (who is not an SA/r-pe victim said by themselves, who has being open of shipping ValxAngel and being into r-pe porn) is the one that produce the whole poison part of the episode (also based on his previously non canon ValxAngel comic). You could also go throught the people Viv's responds and likes and it's mutuals with, and they also do the same thing as this crew-member (Raph). Congrats that it doesn't appear in your timeline, tho. If this art appears in a critic post, it is because it's being criticized or brought up to make a point.

[It's not on my blog yet, but I don't like receiving double ask in the inbox, specially of anons! Sorry. I don't know if it's the same person or not, and I don't want to end up receiving 5 asks in my inbox again.]

#vivziepop critical #hazbin hotel critical #vivziepop critique #helluva boss critical #helluva boss criticism #vivziepop criticism #hazbin hotel criticism #helluva boss critique

[batterygarden]

Hello thank you for being so kind! Please take your time for it, I would like to ask for a similar prompt with aki and a f! reader that is very shy but kind as well, the prompt is the same as the one I liked! If you ever need to change some stuff, please feel free to do so! Take your time for it and I can’t wait to read it~~ 💕💕

aki x shy reader hcs

prev aki hcs & m.list

cw: gn!reader, implied they’re shorter than him, sfw but no minors on my page pls

The first time you asked him to order for you at a restaurant, Aki was baffled. Wondering how the hell you ever got anything done on your own if you couldn’t even talk to a waiter. 

But then you grabbed his hand and whispered please, Aki, it’d just be so much easier, with this pleading smile that gave him heart palpitations. He ordered for you then and every time afterwards, no questions asked.

You’re used to worrying about people’s perception of you but you never have to worry about it around Aki. You know he always sees your intentions behind your actions and doesn’t look at you critically. 

The thing is he always correctly assumes the intentions behind your actions—no matter how obscure. It’s kinda freaky.

You like making a game out of it, occasionally saying your random thoughts aloud without context to see what he assumes you mean—you’re always left in awe when he’s able to put together what you were thinking. 

(both of you sitting in silence, reading) “Gaaah this is so embarrassing!” “If you’re still thinking about forgetting that girl's name yesterday, it really wasn’t that bad.” 

“How’d you know that’s what I was worried about?” “Could tell from the way your eyebrows were sitting” “???” 

Some people will misinterpret your relationship and clarify that they asked you a question and not Aki, saying he shouldn’t speak for you. But then your burning cheek is smushed into his chest and you’re mumbling “no no what he said was right. He knows how I feel.” 

Aki feels like… relief to you. The sound of his keys fumbling with the lock when he gets home, the feel of his hand on your back or shoulder—it’s always somewhere on your person when you’re together, his soft breathing on your skin when you wake up at night. It’s all a soothing balm for your burning anxiety. 

In public, you’re holding onto him 100% the time. He’s like a stuffed animal or stress toy. Aki’s not opposed, it makes him feel comforted, too, to always have your arms wrapped around one of his, or even just a light grip on his shirt sleeve.

He thinks it’s funny the looks he sometimes gets though, this massive 6’4”, intimidating looking man marching into cute stores you asked him to take you to, someone like you hooked to his side.

People immediately think that he’s the cold, stoic one in the relationship and you’re the sweet, shy one—and they’re on par with the shy thing, but they never guess that the sweeter one between the two of you is Aki. 

He is the most considerate man you’ve ever met, always checking up on you and taking your feelings into account when he does anything. 

“I already lined up a possible excuse if you end up not wanting to go to my work thing, I know you don’t love big parties like that so we could just stay in and watch movies…” 

Aki is not opposed to leaving things as early as you want, he prefers one on one time with you over most social gatherings anyways, all you have to do is give the signal.

You two have a good routine for it; you simply make eye contact with Aki and give him that look, the one that says you ran out of social battery, and he has it under control—swiftly gathering both of your things and announcing that you must regrettably leave early, adding a made-up excuse. 

Then you’re both giggling on the walk to his car, patting yourselves on the back for making such a clean getaway. You may even stop at the store to buy snacks before going home and getting cozy in pajamas. 

Aki isn’t shy like you—his anxiety and your anxiety are completely different ball games, but he does share an introverted nature. He can only take so much social interaction in a day before he’s ready for some peaceful alone time—well, alone time from everyone except you. 

He can never get bored or tired of your presence, it’s only ever comforting. He likes it even when you’re focused on different things—maybe you’re painting your nails while he reads the newspaper, or maybe he’s typing some work report while you nap beside him on the bed, your feet touching his. You feel like family to him when you’re in these situations. 

He likes how you both always manage to be touching, no matter how different your activities are. Like your hands gently playing with his hair while you watch tv and he crochets with his head in your lap. Or your arms brushing constantly while you work on different things in the kitchen. Or you answering emails on the couch with Aki on the floor in front of you, his head between your legs while he files his taxes—that’s Aki’s favorite position to lounge in. 

He loves the weight of your thighs around his head, squeezing him subconsciously when you get distracted.  

When you get really overwhelmed or anxious, Aki can immediately tell and he is to the rescue.

Squeezing your hands between his bigger ones, looking into your eyes and reminding  you that he’s here, guiding you through deep breaths. He’s not scared to excuse you both from any situation under the guise of a smoke break, then just holding you close when you're alone and pointing out how good you’re doing. Pointing out that later today you’ll both get to chill in bed watching cartoons or something. It’ll be okay! Aki always makes sure of that.      

Thanks so much for request! <3

#aki x reader #csm x reader #aki fluff #aki hayakawa fluff #aki headcanons #aki hcs #aki hayakawa x reader #aki hayakawa x you #aki hayakawa headcanon #aki x shy reader

[tanadrin]

went back and listened to the episodes on david bokovoy's personal experience with religion, and man, it's funny just how different the stuff that people twig on in their experience of faith is--for bokovoy, even as a scholar of biblical criticism, it really isn't the truth claims of the LDS church that were ever a problem for him. like his academic career definitely primed him to move from a more orthodox, small-c conservative theology to a more expansive one (and he remains a pretty spiritual guy in general from the sound of it), but the thing that really started to fuck him up was the church's insistence on beating the anti-gay-marriage drum, starting with proposition 8, and culminating in the 2015 declaration about the children of gay parents not being welcome in the church unless they denounced them.

and it's a little infuriating to listen to him talk about how he feels about the LDS church after all of that--this whole "the leadership are good people deep down, i just disagree with them on this." like, come on, dude. i get that you're a straight guy whose experiences with mormonism have been generally very positive, but you are also self-aware enough to talk with compassion about LGBT people, about the experience of having a gay daughter, about the way in which people raised in Mormonism who are gay or even just a little bit nonconformist in some aspect of their life can have a really brutal time of it, and yet you cling to this idea of the organization as having some noble core, some inherently good quality that is only failing in its ultimate expression. he even talks about the experience of watching a movie that dramatizes the way different faith leaders came together during the civil rights movement, and having a moment of acute discomfort remembering that at the same time the leadership of the LDS church was still racist as hell in its teachings and policy

like, you should not be afraid to admit that the LDS church fucking sucks! it's always fucking sucked! most organized religion fucking sucks, and the organized religion that doesn't fucking suck has mostly gotten there by virtue of progressives splintering off and forming organizations that retain only a general flavor of the awful bullshit they grew up with and none of the core dogmas. i don't know of a human organization from the beginning of time that rigidly patrols boundaries of identity politics and creates structures of authority based on spirituality that didn't rapidly collapse into tyranny, a grift, or both, except the ones that were already that from the beginning.

and this, i suppose, is my disappointment with even the very open-minded progressives that John Dehlin interviews, which is that they want to redeem an organization that i think is fundamentally unredeemable. no particular shade to mormonism here--I think the Catholic church is also fundamentally unredeemable. hell, if i knew more about tibetan buddhism, i'd probably think that whole hierarchy was fundamentally unredeemable as well. the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints cannot become progressive on LGBT issues and honestly pursue truth and cease to misrepresent its history and spend its money on helping the poor and needy instead of conservative political campaigns and exploiting eighteen year olds to do morally questionable missionary work in third world countries without ceasing to be the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and its leadership knows this. for the exact same reason the Roman Catholic church can't go "lol you know what, our bad, this Pope guy isn't all that he's cracked up to be" and remain the Roman Catholic church.

i mean ultimately bokovoy doesn't go to church anymore; he says that the 2015 declaration was kind of the straw that broke the camel's back, and even if it was revoked tomorrow, it's not like he'd start going back. i assume he's not tithing anymore either. and he seems like a generally very gentle soul who wants to see the best in people, and i don't want to get on his case too much about that, because i admire that. but man, i think it's kind of disappointing to watch someone as apparently smart and compassionate as he is work himself into knots to excuse the behavior of the leadership of an organization like that when the simplest explanation is just that these people are assholes on a fundamental level and always have been.

#there is a very funny moment he describes #where he and his wife came out of a movie where one of the previews beforehand was brokeback mountain #and his wife said something very generically of the form “it's awful when people who love each other can't be together” #and he recalls being viscerally upset that hollywood's gay agenda had gotten to her #like christ how do you go from thinking the gay agenda is a real thing that exists in the world #to being a socially progressive staunch lgbt ally #and can we bottle this and disperse it via airplane over the rest of utah

[amrv-5]

dashing off blog post on break between readings, not sure if coherent or even making a point so much as expressing a vague but recurrent disappointment as a late night looks like it's going to become an early morning... cw for pejorative mention of food/eating habits in relation to film portrayal, and a discussion of film portrayal of sexual violence post the cut:

Watched Sedmikrásky (Daisies) (1966) for a class today and personally found it funny, really wonderful, playful, confrontational and brilliant... had an incredible time watching it, deeply moved, found a greater appreciation for the experimental techniques it used... we've not had many female directors in this course series, and the few New Wave women we're getting have been such a personal revelation for me as a film watcher. Got excited to talk about the movie post-screening with my (male. all male) program friends (basically no female graduate students in the optional portion of the history series) but of course the first things these guys do immediately post-screening is trash the film, and not on formal grounds... Just complained about how "disgusting" and "offputting" the movie was, how it made one guy "not want to eat for the rest of the day" and "feel nauseated" and "wish he could have slept through more of it."

And what's so disgusting that a group of cis dudes who regularly watch sexploitation films and other grindhouse fare couldn't bear to watch it? Fucking. Movie where 2 conventionally attractive women: eat frequently and with a focus on enjoying food without performing delicateness for men (one woman boldly states 'I love food! I love eating!' and laughs at the disgust of the older man she and her friend are scamming for free dinner), including having a food fight; laugh and lean into physicality / bodily play (moving in funny ways for their own amusement, dancing, overapplying makeup, making unflattering faces, remapping their bodies in an extended joke sequence w/scissors; satirize stereotypes of women and expectations of behavior in patriarchal society. Etc.

Man! Point of all this being how frustrating it is to continually run up against unexamined misogyny again and again even in spaces that are supposed to be self-critical of these things. Literally what was so unbearably disgusting and threatening about watching a pretty lady on the movie screen say "I like eating cake" and then eating cake and having a food fight. How are you as a film academic more disgusted by playful feminist challenges (FROM NINETEEN FUCKING SIXTY SIX) to expectations of women's behavior than watching Bad Girls Go to Hell. Not saying that to be like There Is A Genre Of Film Which Is Morally Bad I've found thinking about some grindhouse stuff interesting/generative/whatever just it feels fucking nuts to me that a person would be comfortable sitting through scenes of explicit portrayed sexual violence against women and then go "ewww icky they had a lot of scenes where they were eating" and not see that you have a fundamental problem with misogyny in your worldview.

WAUGH! But the real problem now being is that these men are my friends, people I spend a lot of time with and thought very well of and do genuinely believe to be really decent, and even these guys who I trust and like had such a fundamentally awful response to the bare minimum of disrupting the idea that Maybe Women Aren't Just For You To Enjoy Looking At...?

I cannot overemphasize how fucking completely tame the "disgusting" parts of this movie are. This is the 'worst' scene in the whole film by these guys' criteria, and it's literally just 2 women eating cake and throwing it at each other and laughing and then doing a dance on a table.

Well anyway. IDK ! Not sure how to or if I even should try to bring it up again. I don't want to be responsible for being the Feminist to grown male colleagues who should know better but at the same time I was so offput by their reactions to the movie I almost feel like I can't let it go without at least gently asking at a later date if the dudes can elaborate on their "disgust" -- they made it explicitly clear it was about the eating, though, already, which seems like a lost cause. It's just women eating. Grow up. You'll live.

#cw ed #sort of? touches those themes in complaint about film reception #more in my feelings about this than i thought lmao whoops sorry for the paragraphs #just. jesus christ #it was a brilliant film and i cannot believe the fucking reception. #guy even tried to claim it “failed at being funny” fuck offfffff #now belatedly wondering if living with a slovakian for 4 years primed me to better appreciate humor in czechoslovakian film (1966 remember) #but mostly i just think these guys had a disgust reaction to a feminist text they completely failed to examine. awesome #well i'll deal just frustrated and tired right now. maybe 2 more hours of work to go though so onwards and back to it? #ugh. #film #silly wizard job #Youtube

[anhed-nia]

I have way too much shit to do over the next few days starting tonight, so yesterday I decided to stay on the couch and have cramps and vegetate and watch all the lady movies I've been sleeping on.

EILEEN is pretty much what I expected, it's good but not great and a little pretentious, but the character study with Thomasin McKenzie is really cool. Or maybe I just thought that because she reminded me so much of a close friend of mine that I just decided the movie was about my friend and it was more fun that way.

THE ASSISTANT was also about what I expected, good but not great and sort of predictable--although I like how it plays like a thriller even though what's happening is sadly mundane and unsurprising. That approach works pretty well for this movie.

THE SOUVENIR is not a masterpiece but very strong, and disturbing. One critic called it a type of horror film. Years ago I was in a version of the awful relationship at the heart of this movie, and although that guy didn't have the excuse of [SPOILER REDACTED], all of his behavior and its effects on me were basically the same. It could have literally been him on the screen. My viewing experience was pretty tainted by unpleasant, shameful flashbacks and although I'm confident in saying it's a good movie, it's hard for me to imagine what it's like to watch it if you don't connect it directly to your own biography. I'll just never know what it's like as a pure work of art.

The funny thing about THE SOUVENIR is that it has this weird Rotten Tomatoes ratio were the audience score is really low, I wonder what that's about. Maybe it's just one of those things where general audiences are more resistant to being Very Bummed Out than film critics and aficionados. Or maybe it's that dumb thing where audiences find the choices of the victimized protagonist too hard to relate to because of the media they've been trained on. I often notice this in discussions about horror movies where the characters are motivated by fear, hysteria, dissociation, incomprehension, and other totally normal responses to extreme experience, and shallow unimaginative viewers go "UGH why did she do THAT, THAT'S not what I WOULD DO," and not only is it exactly what they would do in an incomprehensible situation, but their basis of comparison is not even "rational behavior"; their basis of comparison is the behavior you see in THE BOURNE IDENTITY or something where the hero does everything perfectly all the time and because certain viewers are strongly pursuaded by inhuman perfection, they think that's the standard everyone should be meeting, that's what they think is "realistic". It's stupid and ignorant and egotistical, and it's actually part of my secret criteria for who I can and cannot be friends with.

But anyway that's kind of what THE SOUVENIR PART II is about, which has high ratings for both critics and audience. It is a better movie, to some degree, but it was extra fascinating to me because as the protagonist uses her senior film school project to do a post mortem on her awful relationship, she is confronted with the fact that nobody quite gets what the story is about because none of her cast or crew have been in her shoes and they find the whole thing unconvincing. They don't get why the heroine subjects herself to abuse, or how to humanize the guy who seems like a total monster. You know, why is she so weak, he's "obviously" bad, what is the logic of this situation? All this black and white, judgmental thinking from people who are lucky enough not to have had to live through such a thing. The truth is that the abusive relationships are sort of absurdist in nature, they don't play by the normal rules, even the laws of time and space bend around this black hole you're being sucked into, which the heroine finds out as she's trying to put scenes in order. Strong stuff.

THE SOUVENIR PART II reminded me of this great rant Joe Bob Briggs has about "strong female protagonists" that basically amounts to the idea that characters should be whoever they need to be to serve the story. They're not exemplars of some ideal state of existence for us all to emulate--I mean unless they are, but that's under fairly specific conditions. His example is always Laurie Strode, who is typically upheld as a Strong Female Protagonist even though she doesn't become that thing until years down the road; in the meantime, she is a completely normal person with anxieties and phobias and insecurities and perfectly rational responses to Michael Myers. And that's what makes her so relatable, not her perfection, but her humanity.

[EDIT: Pardon me if the tone of this is a little alien to this blog. I don't even know if it definitely is, or if anyone cares, but I couldn't figure out where to put this post because I don't post much autobiographical material here anymore and I try to make the content of this blog reasonably appropriate for colleagues to see in both tone and content (like this feels both too intimate and too casual to me). But, I also try to keep all my movie information over here, so this is what I picked. I'm sure this doesn't bother anyone but me, but I have to justify my own rule-breaking to myself in order to feel better, so there.]

[gothicprep]

so, wife and i finally got around to seeing barbie. and neither of us were particularly big fans of it.

stuff i liked. i'll get that out of the way first. i like that it's a huge box office success when theaters have really needed that post-covid. the set design and costumes were just my kind of garish. the opening scene was funny, and you can always count on ryan gosling to give it his all whenever he's cast in anything. and the "patriarchy is when men and horses rule the world" joke made me giggle a bit. the horses in general were an amusing running gag.

and. uh. that's about it really.

i've complained about this before, not with barbie, but i'm not a fan of the "movies that are for children, but not really" thing. usually they're aimed at critics instead, and this is *sort of* that. but also not really. i'm actually not sure who this is for, other than mattel, i guess.

this reminded me a lot of another movie, actually – disney's enchanted. and you could make the argument that the similar premise is responding to the same thing enchanted was. 00s pop feminism that criticized disney princesses usually included barbie in the mix too. and since people liked the meta aspect of enchanted back in '07, we've ended up with the live action movies that exist to reassure parents in my age group that the rodent empire has heard your cries, and they're aware, so it's fine to bring your kids to this. they've changed and grown as a person if you're going off the mitt romney definition of that word at least. they've changed their stories to reflect that. kinda. the princesses are girlbosses and they don't need a man. please clap.

the problem with applying this formula to barbie is that, unlike characters from an existing story canon – many of which, to be honest, were read very uncharitably during that blip in the culture – barbie is more of a concept. the movie winks at how barbie the idea is basically just whatever people want to project onto it, but it kind of falls into the trap of pointing things out in lieu of making a point. and while i do think that gerwig did the best with this that she realistically could, movies like this aren't in a position where they can thread the needle. after all, they're giving you this IP for a reason.

my wife also pointed out that it muddied the waters a bit to try and grapple with this all in a comedy where all the funniest lines end up going to ryan gosling, simu liu, michael cera, and will ferrell. my counterpoint is that kate mackinnon and hari nef had some great moments, but she's onto something here.

it's really difficult for me to watch something like barbie and really look at it in a vacuum. even though it has a different look than the other IP projects we've begrudgingly come to expect, i feel like i can't separate it from this broader picture of, like, integrity laundering. i went into it with an open mind, but left frustrated with it. you can make an argument for a remake. i guess. but this really shamelessly felt like a commercial.

on the bright side, this mostly negative review won't take away from the fact that this has been a much needed boost for theater attendance. in the end, that's what matters the most to me right now, i think.

[theliterarywolf]

Honestly, i see a lot of the "critical of mainstream media" people who complain about Disney and big studio movies and stuff... continue to not watch anything more indie or small, just hype up stuff by other big studios as ultra counterculture stuff.

Like when the Mario movie was coming out and people were saying stuff on twitter like: "oh, the critics are being harsh because it's japanese and smaller than Pixar, boohoo." (Even ignoring how it's a NINTENDO adaptation, Illumination is pretty much the second highest grossing animated studio in the USA i think. People forget how much money those Minions movies made!) Or people presenting the Barbie movie as something ultra counterculture against disney instead of a just a big brand movie that will be funny and sassy but probably not be the deepest thing ever.

I'm not even presenting myself as a person that is all that better than them, i love cartoons and anime but haven't watched in full a lot of stuff that isn't very popular, but i also don't complain about all mainstream media in social media every day

AND THAT'S THE FUCKING THING!!!

Do these people really think that studios would get someone who worked on fucking Thor: Love and Thunder (or whatever the fuck that shit was called, I haven't watched an MCU movie since the original Thor) if people didn't keep fucking WATCHING that shit?!

NO!

Do these people think we would live in a world where fucking Velma exists if people didn't keep falling for 'fake, low-effort socially-aware satire that couldn't satirize its way out of a paper bag'?

NO!

Do these people think that (and this example is more for animation but it still relates) Disney would have gone into that streak of same-faced female main-character designs if people didn't keep buying into it and shirking away from any deviation?

NO!

I'm sorry to say this but while, yes, Nepotism is a thing in certain occasions, at what point do consumers of all this shite realize that they are just as much of the problem as the studios who keep pumping it out? When do people realize the toxic, God damn Ouroborus of the mainstream media cycle can only be broken when the fucking snake decides to stop chewing at the rotted remains of its own tail?!

If you want to change the schism in mainstream media, start celebrating the portions that do what you want. Start talking about the Cabinet of Curiosities', the A24 productions, the Kizazi Moto: Generation Fire's... Stop watching and hate-watching all of these shitty remakes of things.

Because, I hate to say it! Especially on a site like this one! But money! Talks! And you're already in the deficit with so many studios catering to foreign markets, so if you're just the type to say 'well, shit already sucks; why bother' Then please do not talk to me! Because I am so God damn sick of reading some of your guys' bad takes on matters of quality and diversity in mainstream media.

[probablypossesedbysatan]

The differences between the cultures of tiktok and Tumblr are so different and it just absolutely bewilders me.

If no one knew there's this new thing popping up on tiktok about a 1980s movie called zepotha. It's a made up film and it's much like when people on tumblr did this with goncharov. We made up a movie and made lore about it. Except on tiktok people, got over it in about one day.

I decided to have some fun as everyone else was doing the same and comment on someone's video "omg you look just like this one character from zepotha" as a little joke. I thought the reactions to the zepotha thing that was going on would have been much like what went on with goncharov until I saw in the recommended search something along the lines of 'zepitha hate' and I just thought "oh it's gonna be made up stories of how people didn't like the movie". I was unpleasantly welcomed with masses of videos just saying things like 'can people stop now, everyone knows zepotha isn't real' and 'its embarrassing when people act like the zepotha thing is so funny'.

Things like this show me how people on tiktok can be so unpleasant and cruel to people who just want to have fun because all those people who say stuff about everyone knowing doesn't understand how that's the joy of the joke. It doesn't have to be a big secret. Everyone or no one could know. It doesn't matter as long as people are having fun.

If you remember the entire goncharov phase, mostly everyone knew what was going on and that it wasn't an actual movie, at least mostly everyone on Tumblr. There were some people outside of tumblr who didn't understand that goncharov wasn't real and that was the true joy of it. For such a wide community to be a part of something where there were no arguments on it because it just was and there was no actual divide because basically everyone had collectively decided to just go along with it. From the people who wrote detailed reviews about it to the people who said they hated the movie and didn't think they could ever like it because it was too long, I didn't see a person criticize anyone who dared to post about it. And this went on for a good amount of time and I have fond memories of going onto Tumblr to collect more news and lore about goncharov.

With tiktok however, barely a day had gone by until people already criticised the people who dared to have fun and enjoy their time on the app in their own little way. This all happened after I went onto tiktok for the first time in a while and I was deep in the Tumblr mindset so I thought the best of the situation. I should've seen it coming however, because as with many things on tiktok, whether it's people or just a silly joke, it always seems as if there is a divide on the app.

#zepotha #goncharov #tiktok #tiktok v tumbr #disappointed

[sideburndanny]

Okay, I’ve been keeping this in long enough: fuck CinemaSins and fuck what they've done to film criticism.

Now, this is a trend I've seen far too often: whenever CinemaSins gets criticized for the warped, intellectually dishonest method of criticism they've popularized, some of their well-meaning and non-toxic fans will defend them with "but CinemaSins are clearly satire and only a complete idiot would take them at their word!" And good for them for understanding that!

The problem, however, is that a not-insignificant number of CS fans are complete idiots and do take them at their word! Take, for example, this comment on a video criticizing what CS does:

Dude… like… how the fuck did you miss the numerous time the CS guys admitted that their videos aren't meant to be taken seriously? All the times they admitted to actually liking some of the stuff they bash? All the times they admitted that most of the time they're just nitpicking or getting stuff wrong on purpose to be funny? Fucking hell, they started their "Everything Wrong With CinemaSins" video by admitting to not being real reviewers and that most of their "sins" are things no one else would care enough about to notice!

Then again, I can't say I'm all that surprised that many CS fans don't see their videos as satirical when the CS crew themselves no longer seem to. As many have pointed out, the guys behind CinemaSins only ever pull out the "it's satire" defense when others criticize them for getting things wrong or generally acting like opinionated douchebags. The rest of the time, they do absolutely nothing to deter their more rabid fans from treating them as a serious authority on how to think about movies.

I'm sure at the beginning that the CinemaSins guys were telling the truth when they claimed to be satirical; again, they admitted to genuinely liking The Amazing Spider-Man, the first movie they ripped to shreds on their channel! Unfortunately, as time went on, the same thing happened to them as all online personalities who play characters in review shows: the writers started putting so much of themselves into the script and using the once-satirical main character as a mouthpiece for their honest opinions that it's now impossible to tell where the character ends and the creators begin.

I'm not entirely unconvinced that CS' more toxic fans aren't at least partly to blame for the channel's shift from "genuine satire" to "satire-except-when-it's-not." To explain what I mean, I'll break down the timeline into three clear points.

CinemaSins debuts and makes videos that satirize overly nitpicky movie review shows.

They gain a huge following of young, impressionable people who are unfamiliar with both the movies being riffed and proper film theory as a whole. Because of that, they fail to recognize the satire and take CS' reviews at face value

After a few years of CS fans parroting the show's criticisms, copying their review techniques in earnest, and loudly praising CS in online echo chambers as the unsung heroes exposing the dark truth about Big Bad Hollywood, the guys behind CS start to believe their own hype and restructure the show to incorporate honest attempts at critical analysis without getting rid of the hyperbolic "accentuate the negative" format that made them famous.

That may sound like a stretch, but it's the only explanation I can think of for how these people went from honestly enjoying the movies they nitpicked to posting out-of-character videos in which they rant at length about how we as a society are all stupid and evil and destroying ourselves as evidenced by… [checks notes] a Winnie the Pooh movie being made.

Yes. That really happened.

Unfortunately, the crew behind CS don't seem to realize this problem and, instead, keep doubling down by trying to have it both ways. They want to be seen as satire so they can dodge criticism for their behavior (ignoring, of course, that satire can still be criticized for not being funny), but they still want to be treated like serious reviewers because of what I assume to be ego. Yeah, as much as CS Stans like the one I showed earlier like to play the "you're just jealous" card in response to all criticism, the CS writers carry themselves with a sense of both self-assuredness of their own creative accomplishments and a genuine hatred for those of others; that in mind, I can't help but feel the show's continuing existence is less motivated by a desire to entertain and more as a way for the creators to prove themselves smarter than both the original filmmakers and other people in general.

The problem here is that… no. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that your videos are meant to satirize bad movie critics and then complain that Hollywood isn't taking your criticisms seriously. I said before that CS' videos are a double-edged sword for them, and I stand by that.

On the one hand, these videos fail as serious movie criticism because the writers make no distinction between genuine flaws, minor nitpicks, things that they dislike because of personal biases, things that only look like flaws because they've been taken out of context, and things they just made up so they'll have something to complain about.

On the other hand, the videos also fail as satire because, much like the Babylon Bee, they only have one joke ("General observation made in a judgmental tone of voice!" DING.)

When you try for both, you'll succeed at neither.

And, as much as the CS guys nihilistically rant in their cars about art and culture being doomed because nobody is listening to their criticisms, the opposite is true: while cinema is general is still as good as it's always been (there really aren't more bad films now than there were in the "good old days"; it's just that the bad old movies were forgotten because only the good ones were worth remembering,) the major problem with mainstream entertainment these days is one that only exists because people are listening to CS and people like them.

Allow me to share my hypothesis: CinemaSins and others like them are responsible for the overuse of snarky, ironic meta-jokes in modern media.

This is a serious charge, and here is my explanation for it: review shows like CS, Honest Trailers, Your Movie Sucks, I Hate Everything, etc. popularized a style of reviewing that hinged on making the reviewed material look as bad as possible: labeling everything that's been done before a "cliche," overemphasizing minor nitpicks the average filmgoer (and, let's face it, most real critics) would be unlikely to notice, being unable to suspend disbelief and acting like fiction has to be "realistic" to he good, and criticizing the characters as "stupid" because, instead of being perfectly logical and rational at all times, they instead act like real, flawed, imperfect people who either don't know the same things the audience does or otherwise have no reason to act like they're characters in a movie because they don't know they are.

This is a very warped, dishonest, and unprofessional way of thinking about fiction — especially if you, for instance, tell deliberate lies about what you're reviewing — but it proved entertaining for huge amounts of people who watched these videos and came away thinking this is the proper way to review movies. Like most entitled fanboy controversies, this fever-pitch of pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-populist pessimism became vocal enough to be noticed by the people actually working in film and TV, who then felt the need to "course-correct" out of fear of losing their audiences.

This, I believe, is why so many movies and shows these days have characters grind the story to a halt to point out the story archetypes and narrative tropes as they happen while discussing how real people would behave in the fictional scenarios they're caught up in. It's all a panicked effort to make these stories — as one MCU writer put it — "as Honest Trailer-proof as possible."

The problems with this are twofold: first, since these writers are trying to fix what wasn't broken, stories and dialogue that rely so heavily on meta-commentary come across as cynical and lifeless; the characters start feeling like lifeless mouthpieces instead of actual people who happen to be fictional, and the creators come across as lacking confidence and, in the words of Crow T. Robot, "afraid to feel anything real." The other problem is that, if this is an attempt to preempt snarky critics by beating them to the punch, then any attempt to shut them up was an effort in futility because, as Max Gillardi once said, "You should never underestimate a bully's ability to find material to work with." When snarky CinemaSins-type reviewers come across self-deprecating meta humor in whatever they're reviewing, they just make a quick joke about "hey, stop doing my job for me" before going back to nitpicking as usual.

But hey, that's just a theory. Maybe I'm wrong and something else is responsible for modern media's over-reliance on snarky meta-humor. Even if I am wrong about that, however, it's still impossible to deny that CinemaSins has had a negative impact on how people think about fiction, and I'm not just talking about how they misrepresent specific movies so people who haven't seen them before will think they're worse than they actually are.

I'm referring to how many people think that mindless negativity and looking for things to complain about is the best, smartest way to talk about fiction. Even if this mindset didn't become a common justification for harassment and hate campaigns against the creators and fans of whatever is being bashed because "they deserve it for making/liking something bad" — and it has led to that; CinemaSins sucked at crawling so Lily Orchard could suck at walking — it's just a shallow, insincere way to review things; it's mindless anti-conformity as a substitute for good critical thinking skills, anti-intellectualism disguised as no-nonsense telling-it-like-it-is. It misses the point of fiction and art as a whole. Vinnie Mancuso of Collider referred to this as "the I-must-be-smarter-than-the-movie criticism that's ruining the way we talk about movies." As he put it in this article:

It's almost designed to miss the point. It's the film-as-riddle mindset that first formed alongside the birth of the internet, but really crystalized into something insidious somewhere between the mid-point of Lost and the exact moment Inception cut to black. [It's] the idea [that] films and television shows are something to be solved instead of felt; that stories are static objects made of ones-and-zeroes and to remove the flawed piece of data sends the whole thing crumbling. (Thus making you The Internet's Smartest Boi that day.) But movies are, in Roger Ebert's words, "machines that generate empathy"; whether it's a quiet character study or a globe-trotting adventure, the joy comes from living another life for a few hours.

In summation, if you use CinemaSins as a role model for how to think about fiction, then in the words of Patton Oswalt, YOU'RE GONNA MISS EVERYTHING COOL AND DIE ANGRY.

#sorry for the rant #fuck cinemasins

[dappercritter]

On the Knuckles series announcement:

Okay first of all, obviously I'm happy to see that hat return.

And more Maddie ofc.

But I'm worried about the plot. Not because of how much game lore we'll get referenced or how well they'll pull of the premise of "Iconic Character trains Comic Relief Character That Was Okay I Guess in the ways of the warrior, hijinx ensue" but because I'm worried I'm getting bored of the Sonic Cinematic Universe.

This is an entirely subjective criticism, so just know this is more of a vent than a real criticism post.

That said, as much as I liked the first movies for what they were able to do right, I feel like these movies are being held back by their attempts to mesh the creator's passion for the games with the studios' need to make it a basic funny animal movie series.

It's not offensively bad as the Peter Rabbit movies which had the charm of the source material gutted to make a James Corden vehicle, but it feels like it's got the same symptoms. The feeling like somebody feels it would be more marketable to focus on Sonic characters interacting with our world than fully indulging in Sonic's world. Something that I'm more willing to blame on Paramount execs than anybody onboard the creative team for the record.

I do think that part of this disappointment is me and some folks hoping that Knuckles was going to get a dedicated character study like Peacemaker or The Mandalorian (but with a red echidna), but without drawing unfair comparisons... Sonic Prime is doing it better?

Maybe not as a Knuckles show, but Sonic Prime while definitely made more for the fans and rushed because of the binge model curse is unapologetic about being about Sonic. The story is about Sonic, the characters of Sonic's world, and Sonic's world itself. It's written by people who love the games and want to make stories about the world of the games!

It doesn't feel the need to dress it up as a mid cgi animal buddy comedy thinking this will somehow make it more approachable to non-fans, or to hold back the stuff the fans came for with run-of-the-mill human characters.

(Alright, I'm going to just come out and say it: the Watchowski's are really nice in theory, but in execution they're a pretty average family.)

Well now that I've probably gone below the belt, now's the part where I remind everyone that you're welcome to enjoy what you like, and the show isn't even out yet so any real attempts to critique it are moot.

...

That and I don't have Paramount+ yet and I don't want it, so. Yeah. That's bit of a turn off, too.

#well this turned out longer than I expected it #at least I didn't try to squeeze my mixed feelings about the hat in too! #knuckles the echidna #sonic the hedgehog #knuckles #movie knuckles #knuckles show #sonic cinematic universe #sonic movies #knuckles the series #ramblings of the critter

[mortallyclearwonderland]

Reasons not to watch Peter Pan and Wendy

1. It's another Disney ''live-action'' reboot. ''Live-action'' in air quotes because you just know a terrible CGI will show up eventually.

''It's not even out yet. Why are you hating it already? You HAVE to watch it first!''

No, I don't! Every single one of those remakes ranged from meh to terrible pieces of shit! The only ones I liked were the 101 Dalmatians movies from the 90s and early 2000s, before the dark times. All those remakes encouraged me to do is get myself physical copies of the original movies before the Chinese puppet censures them all.

''Stop comparing them to the originals! They're their own think.''

No, they're not! If they're supposed to be their own thing why do they go almost exactly the same as the original plot, why do they use the iconic imagery and music instead of creating their own (Why not change Belle's dress from golden to blue?)?

Just the idea of turning these beloved classics into live-action is an insult to animation and creativity. Imagine in place of every lazy remake there was an original animated movie. Not all of them would've been good. But people wouldn't hate them just for existing.

''But what about kids now? They deserve to see those classic stories.''

Yes, they do! So show them the originals, they still hold up! Are you worried about outdated stuff like language, stereotypes, smoking, etc? Then maybe explain this stuff. Or watch other live-action or animated versions. Disney isn't the only company that makes movies.

2. It looks like shit!

Disney remakes are notorious for being ugly and dark.

I don't mean dark as in dark themes, stories, and moments. They try but usually, they fall flat on their faces. Making awe-inspiring and funny moments creepy and ugly, and moments that are supposed to be scary and dramatic end up being funny. Mufasa's death original vs reboot, anyone?

When I say they're dark, as soon as a scene is at night or in a cave you can't see shit!

3. Race swaps.

''So, you're a racist !?!''

No! Shut up! To hell with this argument! I'm sick and tired of giving valid and logical criticism and Disney defenders brushing it off as people just being racist.

Don't you think people deserve their own characters instead of getting sloppy seconds?

''But there is so little representation! I just take what they give at this point. I don't care about the story as long as there are POCs on screen! - Insert iconic white character- is Black now, die mad about it racists!''

I'm sorry but you're part of the problem! If you're fine with race swaps of the white characters then companies have no reason to create original ones. If you will watch anything with anyone of the same race as you in it, producers will just put them in, without carrying about the story. That's how we end up with pointless token characters and bad stories.

There is not enough representation? Just google a movie, a show, a book, a comic, etc.

People aren't mad at the Black fairies and mermaids. They're mad because Disney's Tinkerbell is a white blond and Ariel is a white redhead. If they changed Tinkerbell into a redhead and Ariel into a blond people would still be mad. 

If someone race-swapped them or changed really anything about these characters in a way that fans don't like there would've been a backlash.

There are plenty of stories from all over the world! It's the 21st century! Just use the internet! Or make something up! But then it wouldn't have a brand recognition and making original scripts is hard and long work and Disney needs to make 10 movies and shows in a year!

People are trained like dogs at this point!

Disney puts out a trailer for their remake with all the race and sex changes front and center.

Some people love it. Some people hate it.

Controversy ensues!

The trailer is dunked on.

''Give it a chance!'' people start to defend the movie.

The movie comes out and is just as bad as every other remake. And it would've been bad with or without those pointless changes.

4. Lost boys are not all boys.

Some idiot tried to argue that because there are women in the x-men team there is no reason to be upset over the lost boys having girls in them.

First of all, ‘’men’’ can be used as a synonym for people, humankind.

The x-men had female characters from the beginning.

Peter Pan already has female representation! You have Tiger Lily, Wendy, and Tinkerbell.

There is a bunch of stories with all-female groups or at least one girl in a group but as soon as there is an all-male thing Twitter screams.

The explanation as to why all the lost boys were lost in the first plays is because they were stupid and hyperactive and fell off their prams.

Nice going Disney, all those diverse characters were morons as babies. And it's true, everybody can be stupid, especially when they're just babies. But I can guarantee they will never show them being immature and childlike like in the original.  

Also, the lost boys were inspired by real boys. And I can guarantee when people learn about their tragic backstories there will be a lot of angry people. Just like after they turned Peter Pan into a villain and everybody learned about the backstory of his voice actor.  

Let the shitstorm begin! I'll be watching from the sideline.  

#peter pan and wendy #fuck disney #disney remakes

[pixies-and-poets]

Ok! Time for some SPOILER FREE Mario movie impressions!! I'll post plenty of more detailed thoughts later, of course, but these are general thoughts about its quality. Of course this is still very long because I always get carried away, lol

So, I had a great time, but I can definitely see where some of the criticisms come from. Let's get the less good stuff out of the way first. The plot is nothing to speak of, it's basically a video game plot which... whatever, there are actual Mario games out there that have better story and dialogue and themes than this, but at the same time I don't see a problem with this approach? I've seen people bringing up Super Paper Mario (which as you may know is my favorite Mario game) as evidence that Mario can have a good story around him but at the same time, like. This is an origin story, and they wanted to tell a fairly basic story that resembles the incredibly basic plot of the VAST MAJORITY of Mario games and that's fine, they didn't need to pull an epic story about ancient prophecies and mystical macguffins and doomed lovers out of their ass. It's fine y'all. They can save epic RPG plots for sequels.

The dialogue is serviceable. I know it's a kids' movie and whatever (which is almost always a poor excuse for whatever it's defending) but there were plenty of moments where the characters basically hit you over the head with the themes or state exposition so bluntly I thought it was leading into a joke. That made the moments where certain characters started to gel with each other and have naturalistic and endearing dialogue stand out all the more, and yet those charismatic moments are over almost as soon as you realize they're happening.

Overall I think the movie's rapid-fire pace is what hurts it the most. We are given very little time to sit with these charming character interactions, or scenes where a sense of wonder is evoked, before it's on to the next colorful and action-packed setpiece. On the one hand it's nice to have a movie with such a pared down runtime, but I think a little bit of extra space and breathing room in there could have done wonders in getting people who only know Mario as the funny Wahoo man who lives in the Nintendo to buy into the appeal of these characters and their world. I guess they thought kids couldn't pay attention in quiet moments or something, but again, give kids a little credit.

All that aside, the movie's strengths are many, in my opinion: outstanding animation and design, attention to lush visual detail, creating a Mushroom Kingdom that maintains a sense of magical bizarreness while actually seeming like a real place that people live in, and a sense of sincerity to the whole enterprise with a minimum of irony and self-distancing snark. It's also a very good, fun and refreshing take on some of the characters and their relationships - although, again, I just wish there was more screentime for it. I'll go into more detail when I talk spoilers later.

I've seen some snippets of criticism which I will say I disagree with, which is... People are justifiably cynical and tired of the Space Jam 2s and Ready Player Ones of the world where the creators are like "Look at all these nerdy references!! Look at all the IP we got access to, PLEASE POINT AND CLAP" and saying this movie is the same type of thing, but... Idk in my opinion there's a huge difference between a massive crossover of shallow nerdy references, and a movie based on one single franchise making a bunch of deep cuts that fans will recognize. Like yes there are references to other Nintendo properties but those are all subtle background things and sensibly contained to the Brooklyn portions of the movie.

Listen, I know Nintendo isn't my friend, they are out to make money and in a very real sense we ARE being advertised to... the Kart portions felt especially like "Hey did you ever buy Mario Kart 8 Deluxe yet??" Still, I think between the outstanding musical score and all the deep-cut references, this movie was obviously made by people with a deep love and care for the Mario franchise who were excited to work on this project. So in a sense it's kind of an ad for Nintendo's games rather than some pure work of art free from ulterior motives, but one that comes from a place of sincerity and care. If you want to be maximum cynical you could view that as even more insidious, but idk... relax and have some fun, go play some Mario Party.

It's not an advertisement for those of us who are already bought in. And maybe that's the major disconnect with some critics, which isn't to write them off as elitist, but just an attempt at explaining the difference in fan reception vs critical reception. Some people feel like they're being advertised to while others feel like they're being treated and the video game world they love is being respected. The idea that there are people, adults, who take video game IP this seriously, so much that we've pretty much already played all the games being referenced, is either hard to believe, or seen as even more cringey than being into Marvel movies or something. But there are plenty of us, and we know what we're getting into and are excited to see it.

Some of us are even Donkey Kong fans in particular and this is the best/most content we've gotten in years so LET'S GO TEAM KONG

#mario movie #bramble ramble #fan analysis #super mario

[izzyspussy]

saw bros. once again I am right the critics are wrong. it was genuinely very funny, very romantic, beautiful and effective visually, with an engaging score and thematic soundtrack. it hit all the requisite rom com plot beats.

both MCs were equally flawed with equally explored reasons for being so. both of them fucked up quite majorly AND they both got a chance to be angry AND they both apologized AND they both made grand gestures AND prioritized both their personal dreams and their relationship. so it has everything that makes a rom com good, and it solved or neatly avoided most of the things that make rom coms not so great - without simply relying on the gender switch to magically make them not apply.

on that point: both MCs were given plot/character beats typically emblematic of either character archetype in a hetero romance. they also both had well rounded lives outside of the relationship. they got their happy ending but without it waving away all of their problems.

there was dark humor, sarcasm, more straightforward (ha) jokes, body humor, and secondhand embarrassment humor. so a nice wide range of Things That Are Funny.

the MCs had incredible chemistry, the narrative shorthand for them falling in love was well done and fully followed through on, the sex scenes between the pair were both sexy/romantic and realistic.

through storytelling, it touched on how people with different experiences feel affirmed and are uplifted by different things - i.e. someone who has been closeted all their life or who is closeted might feel pretty good seeing rainbow flags at target or a milquetoast same sex hallmark movie, whereas to someone who has been out or potentially never even had the option to be closeted that stuff is almost insulting. this wasn't really explored directly, but it was one of the main sources of tension in the relationship. it also did this kind of thing in reference to queer infighting, and how we don't all get along or have the same priorities or interests.

there were some exaggerations I found a little distasteful, but I think in pretty much all cases their purpose in the narrative was to be distasteful so that really just means they were effective doesn't it. one of them was even, as later acknowledged, a character purposefully trying to make himself distasteful out of pettiness because he'd assumed he'd be found distasteful regardless. I think there might have been a but of satire there to, in that it portrayed something kind of ludicrous that straight people are afraid of (think RHPS).

the happy ending was also both very romantic and realistic in that they don't necessarily expect this relationship to be forever but they agree they are both invested and want to make it work (think The Proposal).

there was also a significant and imo clearly genuine spotlight put on our history and heroes, especially those that tend to be ignored or overshadowed. everyone in it was clearly making something they liked and believed in.

it's absolutely not a talking point or a shallow cash-grab attempt at representation either. each character is unique. the entire main cast (minus cameos) is queer irl, afaik including the straight characters & i also recognized some queer performers in background roles as well. the cast is otherwise diverse with many different races, genders and gender presentations, body types, and ages.

there were some parts I did genuinely laugh out loud at, there were some parts that made me deeply uncomfortable, there were some parts that turned me on, and there were some parts that got me choked up.

and of course there was a single climactic musical number, as God and John Hughes intended.

I could probably keep going but. overall 10/10 romantic comedy.

oh and also Billy Eichner I am free on Thursday please text me on Thursday when I am free. thank you.

#jack facts #reading process #bros #bros (2022)

[disappointingyet]

Rye Lane

Director Raine Allen-Miller Stars Vivian Oparah, David Jonsson UK 2023 Language English 1hr 22mins Colour

Top-notch romcom that strolls the streets of SE15 and SW9

The test I (probably unfairly) apply to anything filmed somewhere I know well is: does the geography make sense? If, for instance, the characters buy takeaway food and then the next time you see them, they are in the park, is that park somewhere you would logically walk to from the market you were just in?

The Ritzy, innit?

Rye Lane passes that test again and again. For anyone who has spent a lot of time in Peckham and Brixton, there are bountiful moments of familiarity, generally unpunctured by the thought ‘Hang on…’

But we’re here to figure whether this works as a film, not just whether it appeases pedantic locals. The huge pleasing news is yes: it’s extremely funny and fantastically likeable.

It all starts in the non-gendered toilets of a Peckham art gallery, where Dom (David Jonsson) is sobbing and Yas (Vivian Oparah) is trying to have a piss. A few minutes later, they formally meet – he’s a friend of Nathan (Simon Manyonda – getting maximum value from limited screen time), the photographer exhibiting, she’s a mate of Cass, Nathan’s girlfriend (Poppy Allen-Quarmby). Dom and Yas leave at the same time, and at some point, they go from walking in vaguely the same direction to deliberately walking together, and this turns to into a long, and eventually incident-packed day together.

Although much of is shot in real places, the filming style is not realistic. There’s frequent use of fisheye lenses, and there are things such as Dom giving his account of something that happened at a cinema, that being reconstructed for us on screen, and then when we get back to them talking, Yas has a box of movie popcorn in her hand. 

The film has a distinctive look, with lots of bright colours in the costumes and around the place.

Some things I think it’s worth saying about Rye Lane. The first is that this film isn’t here to dismantle the rules of the romcom. It stays within genre lines – but manages to make most of that stuff feel fresh again.

The second is that this is a film with a black director and predominantly black cast that mostly takes place in Peckham and Brixton, two of the flashpoints of the gentrification debate. That’s not a debate this film gets itself involved in. There are absurd white Peckham hipsters on show, but there are also absurd black hipsters too. This is not, repeat not, a criticism of Rye Lane – just a clarification of what it is and what it isn’t. (If that’s the film you are after, try this.) Instead, we get a mixture of young folk having fun with occasional warmly affectionate portraits of family life.

Thirdly, the film is not straining to be a snapshot of the culture right now. It’s not dense with this month’s slang, and the two songs and one album-on-vinyl that get key moments in the film are from the late 1980s and early’90s – ie before the characters were born and thus safely timeless.

I think Rye Lane gets the crucial things right: it’s properly funny, the characters make sense, the sense of place is terrific. It’s good enough to do the transport-related romcom ending without making me too grumpy. I love movies with two people walking around chatting, and this is the best I’ve seen in a long time.  (PS: not sure how it's doing elsewhere, but it's still seems to be in most South London cinemas a month after its release, so the locals are loving it.)

#rye lane #south london films

[dizzydizney]

I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again. I am not ignorant to the problems this franchise has. I can hate the bad parts while still loving the good parts. I can say “this isn’t right” and “here’s how it could’ve been better” at the same time. I can love Uma and Mal, honestly. I’m a grown fucking woman, I contain multitudes :P

I know this series has a horrible double standard when it comes to race. Colorblind casting, female driven stories - great! Casting nearly every antagonist as a black girl, obviously not great. They really didn’t think about the optics of what they were doing and it came off in a terrible way.

I wish Uma and Audrey were treated better. And believe it or not, I have lots of problems with the way Mal was written. The movies kind of fell apart and failed to deliver on a satisfying story over all. Each movie has its high points, and they obviously all have their low points too. I mostly wish the movies were written with a lot more (read: ANY) thought and care. That any character felt like they had a satisfying arc in the end. But, that’s something we’ll never get!

You wouldn’t know it these days but fandom is not politics. Liking a “bad” character does not make you a bad person. Liking a movie or a show with shitty writing doesn’t make you a shitty person. You can say “Yes I recognize the issues with [character/movie/show] but I still choose to engage with it bcoz...” whatever! It has bad writing but you like the songs, the characters, one particular relationship, etc. 

Liking something with faults doesn’t magically make you ignorant to said thing’s faults!!

If you get an inkling of things like, in this case, the racist optics and double standards, pay attention to that! You need to be able to spot these things. Bcoz there is absolutely no such thing as pure, perfect, unproblematic media. Any and everything you can consume has SOME issue with it. Just be smart, listen to what people (especially POC, especially here) say about it. You can learn, be aware, be critical, be smart, consume, enjoy, have fun, praise the good parts, scorn the bad parts. You can do it all at once!

And I mean it’s easy to see the issues in Descendants. And it’s also easy to not want to engage in the constant negativity surrounding it. Especially in this case, and I’m sorry, when a lot of the times the argument seems to just be “If you like this character then you’re racist” end of story. It’s not accurate, and it doesn’t paint a good picture of the whole fandom when there’s no room for nuance. 

Yet again the only reason I started the whole “poor little meow meow Mal did nothing wrong” in the first place is bcoz I was fed up of all the negative takes on her. Calling her a killer ?? pretending that she’d done all sorts of evil and fucked up stuff like it was canon when there was NO evidence to suggest it. And I’m tired of that. Sure the story was unfair and she got off easy, but people are basically just writing fanfic about all her made up misdeeds so they can have MORE reasons to hate her and MORE reasons to get angry at this fictional little Disney child that doesn’t really exist! CHILL

And I’m sorry but choosing ONLY to focus your anger on Mal and saying it’s because of double standards in the story, and then turning around and excusing other characters for the same shit that Mal does... That’s funny. 

Anyway long story short to answer your question Nonny. I don’t think H is singling me out but I’m sure I’m lumped in there with everyone else. Like it’s not even funny anymore. But nothing anyone says is going to change anyone’s minds so. Everyone feels how they feel and we’re all just screaming into the blue void of tumblr

#descendants #disney descendants #mal #mal bertha #mal descendants #dizzy speaks #qna #anonymous #i screenshot this bcoz i dont want anyone finding it when they look up H haha #also obviously but no shade to H #she seems like a cool person and is obviously a great content creator #its just the fandom in general