#it's just not the same when one is a flop mainstream take and another one is seen as borderline simping for hitler or whatever | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

shihalyfie · 3 years

Note

Hi :) If it's not too much trouble, could you please share your take on why they'd continue the Adventure brand after tri. was such a flop? (and a tangent: what does "dark history" even mean?). We got Kizuna, the reboot, and a 02 movie. Logically, it doesn't really make sense they'd keep investing in it.

This is a thorny topic, and I'd like to reiterate that although I've ended up making more posts related to this series and the discourse surrounding it recently (probably because it's even more on the mind now that another movie is on the horizon and a lot of people are apprehensive for various reasons), I do not want this blog to be making a brand out of being critical of this series. I’m writing this here and in public because I figured that there is a certain degree I need to clarify what I mean about audience reception/climate and how it might impact current or future works, and I’m admittedly also more than a little upset that I occasionally see Western fanbase criticisms of the series getting dismissed by people claiming that the only people mad about it are dramamongering or ignorant Westerners (which could not be further from the truth). However, this is mainly to address this and to answer your question, and is not intended to try and change anyone's existing opinion or impression of the series as much as it's me trying to explain (from my own personal reading of the situation) what practically went down with critical reception in real life; no more, no less.

The short summary of the matter is:

The series was a moderate financial success (albeit with some caveats; see the long version for details) and definitely outstripped a lot of prior attempts to revive the franchise;

However, the overall Japanese fanbase-side critical backlash from tri. was extremely and viciously negative to the point where even acknowledging the series too much could easily result in controversy;

Kizuna’s production and the PR surrounding it very obviously have this in mind with a lot of apparent “damage control” elements.

The long version is below.

Note that while I try to be diligent about citing my sources so people understand that I’m not just making things up wholesale, I’m deliberately refraining from linking certain things here this time, both because some of the things mentioned have some pretty crude things written there -- it’s not something I feel comfortable directing people to regardless of what language it’s in -- and because I don’t want to recklessly link things on social media and cause anyone to go after or harass the people involved. For the links that have been provided, please still be warned that some of them don’t really link to particularly pleasant things.

I am not writing the following information to suggest that anyone should agree or disagree with the sentiments being described. I know people tend to take "a lot of people like/hate this" as a signal of implication "it is correct to like/hate this" when it's not (and I especially dislike the idea of implying that Japanese fanbase opinions are the only correct ones). There's a reason I focus on "critical reception being this way" (because it influences marketing decisions and future direction) rather than how much this should impact one's personal feelings; this is coming from myself as someone who is shamelessly proud of liking many things that had bad critical reception, were financial failures, or are disliked by many. As I point out near the end, the situation also does seem to be changing for the better in more recent years as well.

Also, to be clear, I'm a single person who's observing everything best I can from my end, I have no affiliations with staff nor do I claim to, and as much as I'm capable of reading Japanese and thus reading a lot of people's impressions, I'm ultimately still another “outsider” looking in. These are my impressions from my observation of fan communal spaces, following artists and reading comments on social media and art posting websites, and results from social media searches. In the end, I know as much as anyone else about what happened, so this is just my two cents based on all of my personal observations.

A fanbase is a fanbase regardless of what part of the world you're from. There are people who love it and are shameless about saying so. There are people who have mixed feelings or at least aren't on extreme ends of the spectrum (as always, the loudest ones are always the most visible, but it's not always easy to claim they're the predominant percentage of the fanbase). That happens everywhere, and I still find that on every end I've seen. However, if I'm talking about my impressions and everything I’ve encountered, I will say that the overall Japanese reaction to tri. comes off as significantly more violently negative on average than the Western one, which is unusual because often it's the other way around. (I personally feel less so because the opinions are that fundamentally different and more so because we're honestly kind of loud and in-your-face people; otherwise, humans are mostly the same everywhere, and more often than not people feel roughly the same about everything if they’re given the same information to work with.)

This is not something I can say lightly, and thus would not say if I didn’t really get this impression, but...we're talking "casually looking up movie reviews for Kizuna have an overwhelming amount of people casually citing any acknowledgment of tri. elements as a negative element", or the fact that even communal wikis for "general" fandoms like Pixiv and Aniwota don't tend to hold back in being vicious about it (as of this writing, Pixiv's wiki refuses to consider it in the same timeline as Adventure, accusing it of being "a series that claims to be a sequel set three years after 02 but is in fact something different"). Again, there are people who openly enjoy it and actively advocate for it (and Pixiv even warns people to not lord over others about it condescendingly because of the fact that such people do exist), and this is also more of a reflection of “the hardcore fanbase on the Internet” and not necessarily the mainstream (after all, there are quite a few other Digimon works where the critical reception varies very heavily between the two). Nevertheless, the take-home is that the reputation is overall negative among the Internet fanbase to the point that this is the kind of sentiment you run into without trying all that hard.

I think, generally speaking, if we're just talking about why a lot of people resent the series, the reasons aren't that different from those on the Western side. However, that issue of "dark history" (黒歴史): there's a certain degree of demand from the more violently negative side of the fanbase that's, in a sense, asking official to treat it as a disgrace and never acknowledge it ever again, hence why Kizuna doing so much as borrowing things from it rather than rejecting it outright is still sometimes treated like it’s committing a sin. So it's somewhat close in spirit to a retcon movement, which is unusual because no other Digimon series gets this (not even 02; that was definitely a thing on the Western end, but while I'm sure there are people who hate it that much on their end too, I've never really seen it gain enough momentum for anyone to take it seriously). If anyone ever tells you that Japanese fanbases are nice to everything, either they don't know Japanese, are being willfully ignorant, or are lying to you, because there is such thing as drama in those areas, and in my experience, I've seen things get really nasty when things are sufficiently pushed over the edge, and if a fanbase wants to have drama, it will have drama. This happens to be one of those times.

(If you think this is extreme, please know that I also think so too, so I hope you really understand that me describing this sentiment does not mean I am personally endorsing it. Also, let me reiterate that the loudest section of the fanbase is not necessarily the predominant one; after all, as someone who’s been watching reactions to 02 over the years, I myself can attest that its hatedom has historically made it sound more despised than it actually is in practice.)

My impression is that the primary core sentiment behind why the series so much as existing and being validated is considered such an offense (rather than, say, just saying "wow, that writing was bad" and moving on) is heavily tied to the release circumstances the series came out in during 2015-2018, and the idea that "this series disrespected Adventure, and also disrespected the fanbase.” (I mean, really, regardless of what part of the world you’re from, sequels and adaptations tend to be held to a higher bar of expectation than standalone works, because they’re expected to do them justice.) A list of complaints I’ve come across a lot while reading through the above:

The Japanese fanbase is pretty good at recordkeeping when it comes to Adventure universe lore, partially because they got a lot of extra materials that weren’t localized, but also partially because adherence to it seems to generally be more Serious Business to them than it is elsewhere. For instance, “according to Adventure episode 45, ‘the one who wishes for stability’ (Homeostasis) only started choosing children in 1995, and therefore there can be no Chosen Children before 1995” is taken with such gravity that this, not anything to do with evolutions or timeline issues, is the main reason Hurricane Touchdown’s canonicity was disputed in that arena (because Wallace implies that he met his partners before 1995). It’s a huge reason the question of Kizuna also potentially not complying to lore came to the forefront, because tri. so flagrantly contradicts it so much that this issue became very high on the evaluation checklist. In practice, Kizuna actually goes against Adventure/02 very little, so the reason tri. in particular comes under fire for this is that it does it so blatantly there were theories as early as Part 1 that this series must take place in a parallel universe or something, and as soon as it became clear it didn’t, the resulting sentiment was “wow, you seriously thought nobody would notice?” (thus “disrespecting the audience”).

A lot of the characterization incongruity is extremely obvious when you’re following only the Japanese version, partially because it didn’t have certain localization-induced characterization changes (you are significantly less likely to notice a disparity with Mimi if you’re working off the American English dub where they actually did make her likely to step on others’ toes and be condescending, whereas in Japanese the disparity is jarring and hard to miss) and partially due to some things lost in translation (Mimi improperly using rough language on elders is much easier to spot as incongruity if you’re familiar with the language). Because it’s so difficult to miss, and honestly feels like a lot of strange writing decisions you’d make only if you really had no concept of what on earth happened in the original series, it only contributes to the idea that they were handling Adventure carelessly and disrespectfully without paying attention to what the series was even about (that, or worse, they didn’t care).

02 is generally well-liked there! It’s controversial no matter where you go, but as I said earlier, there was no way a retcon movement would have ever been taken seriously, and the predominant sentiment is that, even if you’re not a huge fan of it, its place in canon (even the epilogue) should be respected. So not only flagrantly going against 02-introduced lore but also doing that to a certain quartet is seen as malicious, and you don’t have as much of the converse discourse celebrating murdering the 02 quartet (yeah, that’s a thing that happened here) or accusing people with complaints of “just being salty because they like 02″ as nearly as much of a factor; I did see it happen, or at least dismissals akin to “well it’s Adventure targeted anyway,” but they were much less frequent. The issue with the 02 quartet is usually the first major one brought up, and there’s a lot of complaints even among those who don’t care for 02 as much that the way they went about it was inhumane and hypocritical, especially when killing Imperialdramon is fine but killing Meicoomon is a sin. Also, again, “you seriously think nobody will see a problem with how this doesn’t make sense?”

I think even those who are fans of the series generally agree with this, but part of the reason the actual real-life time this series went on is an important factor is that the PR campaign for this series was godawful. Nine months of clicking on an egg on a website pretending like audience participation meant something when in actuality it was blatantly obvious it was just a smokescreen to reveal info whenever they were ready? This resulted in a chain effect where even more innocuous/defensible things were viewed in a suspicious or negative light (for instance, "the scam of selling the fake Kaiser's goggles knowing Ken fans would buy it only to reveal that it's not him anyway"), and a bunch of progressively out-of-touch-with-the-fanbase statements and poor choices led to more sentiment “yeah, you’re just insulting the fanbase at this point,” and a general erosion of trust in official overall.

On top of that, the choice of release format to have it spread out as six movies over three years seems to have exacerbated the backlash to get much worse than it would have been otherwise, especially since one of the major grievances with the series is that how it basically strung people along, building up more and more unanswered questions before it became apparent it was never going to answer them anyway. So when you’re getting that frustrated feeling over three whole years, it feels like three years of prolonged torture, and it becomes much harder to forgive for the fallout than if you’d just marathoned the entire thing at once.

For those who are really into the Digimon (i.e. species) lore and null canon, while I’m not particularly well-versed in that side of the fanbase, it seems tri. fell afoul of them too for having inaccurately portrayed (at one point, mislabeled) special attacks and poorly done battle choreography, along with the treatment of Digimon in general (infantilized Digimon characterization, general lack of Digimon characters in general, very flippant treatment of the Digital World in Parts 3-5). If you say you’re going to “reboot” the Digital World and not address the entire can of worms that comes with basically damaging an entire civilization of Digimon, as you can imagine, a lot of people who actually really care about that are going to be pissed, and the emerging sentiment is “you’re billing this as a Digimon work, but you don’t even care about the monsters that make up this franchise.”

The director does not have a very positive reputation among those who know his work (beyond just Digimon), and in general there was a lot of suspicion around the fact they decided to get a guy whose career has primarily been built on harem and fanservice anime to direct a sequel to a children’s series. Add to that a ton of increasingly unnerving statements about how he intended to make the series “mature” in comparison to its predecessor (basically, an implication that Adventure and 02 were happy happy joy series where nothing bad ever happened) and descriptions of Adventure that implied a very, very poor grasp of anything that happened in it: inaccurate descriptions of their characters, poor awareness of 02′s place in the narrative, outright saying in Febri that he saw the Digimon as like perpetual kindergartners even after evolving, and generally such a flippant attitude that it drove home the idea that the director of an Adventure sequel had no respect for Adventure, made this series just to maliciously dunk on it for supposedly being immature, and has such a poor grasp of what it even was that it’s possible he may not have seen it in the first place (or if he did, clearly skimmed it to the extent he understood it poorly to pretty disturbing levels). As of this writing, Aniwota Wiki directly cites him as a major reason for the backlash.

In general, consensus seems to be that the most positively received aspect of the series (story-wise) was Part 3 (mostly its ending, but some are more amenable to the Takeru and Patamon drama), and the worst vitriol goes towards Parts 2 (for the blatantly contradictory portrayal of Mimi and Jou and the hypocritical killing of Imperialdramon) and 4 (basically the “point of no return” where even more optimistic people started getting really turned off). This is also what I suspect is behind the numbers on the infamous DigiPoll (although the percentage difference is admittedly low enough to fall within margin of error). However, there was suspicion about the series even from Part 1, with one prominent fanartist openly stating that it felt more like meeting a ton of new people than it did reuniting with anyone they knew.

So with all of that on the table: how did this affect official? The thing is that when I say “violently negative”, I mean that also entailed spamming official with said violently negative social media comments. While this is speculation, I am fairly certain that official must have realized how bad this was getting as early as between Parts 4 and 5, because that’s where a lot of really suspicious things started happening behind the scenes; while I imagine the anime series itself was now too far in to really do anything about it, one of the most visible producers suddenly vanished from the producer lineup and was replaced by Kinoshita Yousuke, who ended up being the only member of tri. staff shared with Kizuna (and, in general, the fact that not a single member of staff otherwise was retained kind of says a lot). Once the series ended in 2018 and the franchise slowly moved into Kizuna-related things, you might notice that tri.-branded merch production almost entirely screeched to a halt and official has been very touchy about acknowledging it too deeply; it’s not that they don’t, but it’s kind of an awfully low amount for what you’d think would be warranted for a series that’s supposed to be a full entry in the big-name Adventure brand.

The reason is, simply, that if they do acknowledge it too much, people will get pissed at them. That’s presumably why the tri. stage play (made during that interim period between Parts 4 and 5 and even branded with the title itself) and Kizuna are really hesitant to be too aggressive about tri. references; it’s not necessarily that official wants to blot it out of history like the most extreme opinions would like them to, but even being too enthusiastic about affirming it will also get them backlash, especially if the things they affirm are contradictory to Adventure or 02. And considering even the small references they did put in still got them criticism for “affirming” tri. too much, you can easily see that the backlash would have been much harder if they’d attempted more than that; staying as close as possible to Adventure and 02 and trying to deal with tri. elements only when they’re comparatively inoffensive was pretty much the “safe” thing to do in this scenario (especially since fully denying tri. would most certainly upset the people who did like the series, and if you have to ask me, I personally think this would have been a pretty crude thing to have done right after the series had just finished). Even interviews taken after the fact often involve quickly disclaiming involvement with the series, or, if they have to bring up something about it, discussing the less controversial aspects like the art (while the character designs were still controversial, it’s at least at the point where some fanartists will still be willing to make use of them even if they dislike the series, albeit often with prominent disclaimers) or the more well-received parts of Part 3; Kizuna was very conspicuously marketed as a standalone movie, even if it shared the point of “the Adventure kids, but older” that tri. had.

(Incidentally, the tri. stage play has generally been met with a good reputation and was received well even among people who were upset with the anime, so it was well-understood that they had no relation. In fact, said stage play is probably even better received than Kizuna, although that’s not too surprising given the controversial territory Kizuna goes into, making the stage play feel very play-it-safe in comparison.)

So, if we’re going to talk about Kizuna in particular: tri. was, to some degree, a moderate financial success, in the sense that it made quite a bit of money and did a lot to raise awareness of the Digimon brand still continuing...however, if you actually look at the sales figures for tri., they go down every movie; part of it was probably because of the progressively higher “hurdle” to get into a series midway, but consider that Gundam Unicorn (a movie series which tri.’s format was often compared to) had its sales go up per movie thanks to word of mouth and hype. So while tri. does seem to have gotten enough money to help sustain the franchise at first, the trade-off was an extremely livid fanbase that had shattered faith in the brand and in official, and so while continuing the Adventure brand might still be profitable, there was no way they were going to get away with continuing to do this lest everything eventually crash and burn.

Hence, if you look at the way Kizuna was produced and advertised, you can see a lot of it is blatantly geared at addressing a lot of the woes aimed at tri.: instead of the staff that had virtually no affiliation with Toei, the main members of staff announced were either from the original series (Seki and Yamatoya) or openly childhood fans, the 02 quartet was made into a huge advertising point as a dramatic DigiFes reveal (and character profies that tie into the 02 epilogue careers prominently part of the advertising from day one), and they even seemed to acknowledge the burnout on the original Adventure group by advertising it so heavily as “the last adventure of Taichi and his friends”, so you can see that there’s a huge sentiment of “damage control” with it. How successful that was...is debatable, since opinions have been all over the board; quite a few people were naturally so livid at what happened with tri. that Kizuna was just opening more of the wound, but there were also people who liked it much better and were willing to acknowledge it (with varying levels of enthusiasm, some simply saying “it was thankfully okay,” and some outright loving it), and there was a general sentiment even among those who disliked both that they at least understood what Kizuna was going for and that it didn’t feel as inherently disrespectful. (Of course, there are people who loved tri. and hated Kizuna, and there are people who loved both, too.)

Moreover, Kizuna actually has a slightly different target audience from tri.; there’s a pretty big difference between an OVA and a theatrical movie, and, quite simply, Kizuna was made under the assumption that a lot of people watching it may not have even seen tri. in the first place. An average of 11% of the country watched Adventure and 02, but the number of people who watched tri. is much smaller, in part due to the fact that its “theater” screenings were only very limited screenings compared to Kizuna being shown in theaters in Japan and worldwide, and in part due to the fact that watching six parts over three years is a pretty huge commitment for someone who may barely remember Digimon as anything beyond a show they watched as a kid, and may be liable to just fall off partway through because they simply just forgot. (Which also probably wasn’t helped by the infamously negative reputation, something that definitely wouldn’t encourage someone already on the fence.) And that’s yet another reason Kizuna couldn’t make too many concrete tri. references; being a theatrical movie, it needs to have as wide appeal as possible, and couldn’t risk locking out an audience that had a very high likelihood of not having seen it, much less to the end -- it may have somewhat been informed by tri.’s moderate financial success and precedent, but it ultimately was made for the original Adventure and 02 audience more than anything else.

I would say that, generally, while Kizuna is “controversial” for sure, reception towards the movie seems to be more positive than negative, it won over a large chunk of people who were burned out by tri., and it clearly seems to have been received well enough that it’s still being cashed in on a year after its release. The sheer existence of the upcoming 02-based movie is also probably a sign of Kizuna’s financial and critical success; Kinoshita confirmed at DigiFes 2020 that nothing was in production at the time, and stated shortly after the movie’s announcement that work on it had just started. So the decision to make it seems to have been made after eyeing Kizuna’s reception, and, moreover, the movie was initially advertised from the get-go with Kizuna’s director and writer (Taguchi and Yamatoya), meaning those two have curried enough goodwill from the fanbase that this can be used to promote the movie. (If not, you would think that having and advertising Seki would be the bigger priority.) While this is my own sentiment, I am personally doubtful official would have even considered 02 something remotely profitable enough on its own to cash in on if it weren’t for this entire sequence of events of 02′s snubbing in tri. revealing how much of a fanbase it had (especially with the sheer degree of “suspicious overcompensation” Kizuna had with its copious use of the 02 quartet and it tagging a remix of the first 02 ED on the Hanareteitemo single, followed by the drama CD and character songs), followed by Kizuna having success in advertising with them so heavily. Given all of the events between 2015 and now, it’s a bit ironic to see that 02 has now become basically the last resort to be able to continue anything in the original Adventure universe without getting too many people upset at them about it.

The bright side coming out of all of this is that, while it’s still a bit early to tell, now that we’re three years out from tri. finishing up and with Kizuna in the game, it seems there’s a possibility for things improving around tri.’s reception as well. Since a lot of the worst heated points of backlash against it have a very “you had to have been there” element (related to the PR, release schedule, and staff comments), those coming in “late” don’t have as much reason to be as pissed at it; I’ve seen at least one case of a fanartist getting back into the franchise because of Kizuna hype, watching tri. to catch up, casually criticizing it on Twitter, and moving on with their life, presumably because marathoning the whole thing being generally aware of what’ll happen in it and knowing Kizuna is coming after anyway gives you a lot less reason to be angry to the point of holding an outright grudge. Basically, even if you don’t like it, it’s much easier to actually go “yeah, didn’t like that,” not worry too much about it, and move on. Likewise, I personally get the impression that official has been starting to get a little more confident about digging up elements related to it. Unfortunately, a fairly recent tweet promoting the series getting put on streaming services still got quite a few angry comments implying that they should be deleting the scourge from the Internet instead, so there’s still a long way to go, but hopefully the following years will see things improve further...

In regards to the reboot, I -- and I think a lot of people will agree with me -- have a bit of a hard time reading what exact audience it’s trying to appeal to; we have a few hints from official that they want parents to watch it with their children, and that it may have been a necessary ploy in order to secure their original timeslot. So basically, the Adventure branding gets parents who grew up with the original series to be interested in it and to show it to their kids, and convinces Fuji TV that it might be profitable. But as most people have figured by now, the series has a completely different philosophy and writing style -- I mean, the interview itself functionally admits it’s here to be more action-oriented and to have its own identity -- and the target audience is more the kids than anything else. As for the Internet fanbase of veterans, most people have been critical of its character writing and pacing, but other than a few stragglers who are still really pissed, it hasn’t attracted all that much vitriol, probably because in the end it’s an alternate universe, it doesn’t have any obligation to adhere to anything from the original even if it uses the branding, and it’s clearly still doing its job of being a kids’ show for kids who never saw the original series nor 02, so an attempt to call it “disrespectful” to the original doesn’t have much to stand on. A good number of people who are bored of it decided it wasn’t interesting to them and dropped it without incident, while other people are generally just enjoying it for being fun, and the huge amount of Digimon franchise fanservice with underrepresented Digimon and high fidelity to null canon lore is really pleasing the side of the fanbase that’s into that (I mean, Digimon World Golemon is really deep in), so at the very least, there’s not a lot to be super-upset about.

#tri negativity #shiha's ask box #springcrafter

52 notes · View notes

life-rewritten · 3 years

Text

Giants of Thai BL AKA The MOST ANTICIPATED THAI BL SHOWS FOR 2021

It's weird to think that the year 2020 has ended. This has been a journey in the past year, on the surface everywhere you looked it looked like there was no place to be happy and excited because of all the things that happened. It was suffocating at times, tiring at best, and it was just astonishing how many things could go wrong in only one year. That being said, one genre/demographic that grew even stronger this year, took some time to impress and improve on its tropes, its ideas and concepts and that's BL. Which also took some of us by surprise, for the ones who've been watching BL since the first oldies, to the new people who joined and also became in love with the genre and have stayed since then. BL has been an incredible, interesting journey, and I am so happy to say that it looks like 2021 isn't letting go of that energy. So to celebrate entering 2021, a year hopefully for a release from all the worries in 2020, a year to restart, refresh and keep getting better, here are the Giants of Thai Bl making their way in 2021. We have so many insane ones, from more mafia dramas to new unique non-university storylines, to og actors, and new powerful ones, to interesting pairings and new channels producing shows for 2021 to many many more countries joining the fight to be the top of our affections and energy. Thai BL is not going anywhere, and you know what that's perfectly fine with me.

GMMTV

I already did a whole squeal about the shows upcoming from GMMTV here: But after careful consideration here is my top 3 most anticipated: Enchante, Not Me, Bad Buddy. I know Enchante beat out ATOTS, but for me, I'm obsessed with the way the writer plans secrets and meta to unveil, and I keep repeating it's by Theory of Love director and production team. I'm so excited. I just hope they put in the same energy and effort they used in theory of love for this you have so many potential incredible actors that can take over this genre if you give them a good script and hard work. Hopefully, GMMTV intends to do so for not just their royal couple shows but also for rookie actors because Book and Force in this trailer? Looks fantastic.

Studio Wabi-sabi

When I hear about Studio Wabi-Sabi, you see two juxtaposed reactions from me, one you see anticipation and excitement from seeing my most loved actors off-screen; however, you also hear a groan from me. I'm sorry I didn't use to be this way, I used to be so ready to embrace every show directed and created by New Siwaj; in 2020, New was one of the directors I kept having headaches about because of all his shows in 2020? What exactly happened? Why did they flop so hard? Why was he so slow? I'm hoping that it's because he had too many projects to handle at the same time since fair enough LBC was filmed same time as GMMTV My gear and your gown and maybe that was too much to handle? But the reason why I like News choices usually are because they're emotional, impressive with their plot lines and have good character arcs and couples we end up falling in love with. He could be an iconic director because he has so much talent in his company, so I'm hoping he uses his lessons and grows and becomes better in 2021. But Let's get to the shows announced so far for 2021 because they both have the potential to take over 2021. I said what I said.

Between Us

Genre: Friends with benefits, Romance, Comedy, PTSD, Angst,

Ahh, this is incredible. I'm so happy. Win and Team are from a great tv show already with Until We Meet Again and not going to lie, but seeing Buon as Win and Prem as Team? Perfection. Like guys I actually fell so hard for this couple despite their low screen time. Buon stole the scene each time he appeared, with his little smirks, and mischief, with flirty bad-boy energy and their relationship, was precisely what I live for passionate and full of chemistry. They're great, which is why it's so exciting to see that Between Us is getting its own show, the show based on these two love story in a parallel timeline to Until we meet again. I screamed. The book sounds interesting; we're getting some conversations about PTSD, some healing relationships, and angst and more passion. I'm so excited about this since I first saw BuonPrem. I knew they were going to get known enough to bring their own show. And they deserve it, let's hope we get an interesting script that keeps us invested, enough opportunities for these two to have softer and profound moments whilst still holding on to their passion, and let the drama not be stale but addicting. Please New, don't let this show also be slow-paced, I'll lose it if another show is ruined by directing from you.

Ratings: 4/5: BuonPrem, they leap off the screen, their chemistry is that great. From hearing about the plot I'm also excited to a more in-depth look into Team's insomnia and his past and psychological scars, and I'm hoping to see a deeper reason for why these two should be together.

Love Mechanics 2

Genre: Romance, Comedy, Angst, Drama, Friends with benefits, Unrequited love,

That's the thing about Wabi-Sabi; they have amazing actors that steal our hearts away. This shows cast is no different, it's YinWar and it's a collab with Channel 3. Like What? It's everything. YinWar from Love Mechanics trended with millions of people obsessed and wanting the show to be extended and actually appropriately done. In came Channel 3 and we have this gem coming on April. No words. YinWar on screen is thrilling; War is just outstanding as Mark, his nuances, his glares, his looks of pain and longing, man I was absorbed into it. Although LM's writing is toxic and really left me feeling confused and uncomfortable with the details pushed aside, it was hard to ship VeeMark when Yin's character made terrible decisions and was awful even in the book. I'm the queen of analysing damaged flawed characters, and I don't run away from toxicity as long as there is a growth and change later on, as long as there's a good reason we needed to see that. For Vee's character, his actions were unnecessary for us to know about his character; they were just messy and upsetting. That's why I think seeing more depth for his actions and seeing Mark regress and also make mistakes like him will even out their relationship and make me feel more understanding about how these two flawed characters came to be and why they should be together. Let's hope with funds from Channel 3, more effort and energy put into the show, it'll be great because with actors like War this show can be just as big as it was when it had errors. Maybe even better.

Ratings 3.5/5 Love mechanics messy storyline makes me worried about this, but I think I might have a great time watching and analysing Mark's revenge after being heartbroken. The angst and drama of it all just sound interesting.

Channel 3

2020 brought a new surprise with Channel 3 deciding to invest in BLS. BLs have always been not on mainstream channels, so seeing Channel 3 in Thailand decide to make their own shows, a collab with other companies, and bring some directors and writers and actors known in the BL world already, shows they are serious. This may be because of the success of 2gether and other breakthroughs in 2019 taking over the scene. But I can see that Channel 3 did not come here to play, they are researching, looking for ways to make a great BL with the information provided on the past BLs and they want to make it big. And you know what with shows like GEN Y showing up last year, I want to believe that Channel 3 is a competition for GMMTV and others. They invest in funds and have longer minutes for their episodes, and they also pay attention to international fans by streaming on new places like Iquiyi and others. It's exciting. Channel 3 has already dipped their toes with Love Mechanics, and in 2021 they have even more shows to give us:

Teddy Bear Miracle

Genre: Romance, Comedy, Supernatural, Drama, Friends to Lovers, Fantasy, Mystery, Lakorn

What a weird title for a show. What an odd premise. What a bizarre book. But you know what I'm so excited about this; this is meant to be a lakorn series that is BL. Like wow, it has a good cast, known faces in the Thai acting scene and a director/screenwriter who has won awards for his own script. That's even more exciting. But the best thing about this is that it's a fantasy and has supernatural themes, yep it's weird we're dealing with a magic system where teddy bears come to life, and other inanimate objects talk? But I'm so excited to see what this brings; we have a man transformed from a teddy bear with amnesia who's searching for his past and how he ended up as one and his owner who's not yet ready to let his comfort go. It's so interesting, with family history and drama and of course, a romance that will probably touch my heart. I'm excited for this zany, wacky and dramatic show. Normally, I shy away from the crazy because I don't like crack humour, and it just means a bunch of many irritating sound effects and editing choices. But I want to trust the whole team from Channel 3, from the behind the scenes the show looks great, the couple has chemistry, and I'm excited to delve into the mystery at play and see what this story is meant to become. So excited honestly.

Ratings: 4.1/5 The wacky magic system scares me not going to lie, but I have faith for some reason in Channel 3, so I think this might shock us all. I think we'll get good acting, and perhaps good directing too. The mystery might also make me want to analyse. We shall see.

Lovely Writer

Genre: Romance, Comedy, Angst, Drama, Acting/Writing Industry, Haters to Lovers,

Did you say Kao and Up and P'Tee the director of TharnType the series? Sign me up I'm there; I've been screaming a bit since I heard about this series. From the first time, it was announced that Channel 3 was turning the book into a show, I was like this sounds unique again? And it has an interesting plot, I guess, and it's also going to have drama. I'm hopeful then. When I heard about the whole team and watched the trailer, I got into it even more. Lovely Writer sounds right up my alley, to be honest, we have this introverted writer who is determined to write a masterpiece and stop his company from making him produce BLs for the hype only for his next project to be a BL show which leads him to his new sneaky, sly, wolf in sheep's clothing roommate. Kao played his roommate from Until we meet again who won my heart as Korn and made me cry buckets. So, of course, I'm excited, Nubsib (Kao) may have some tricks up his sleeve to get next to Gene, but I think things will be more complicated than he thought, I'm ready to explore the world of the film industry and dating scandals that Gene and Sib will fall into the more they fall for each other. The angst and drama. Can't wait. Also, TharnType is one of my favourite series, and one of the reasons is because of Tee so... That's even more reason to see Gene and Sip's love story develop. Will it be as angsty, passionate and filled with plot twists? From what I hear maybe.

Ratings: 4/5 I just think this is an excellent team for a BL backed by Channel 3 and also has an exciting plot filled with ups and downs. I'm excited to see what happens and from the behind the scenes they released in the new year I think it'll be right up my alley.

NADAO

It had to be mentioned that I'm still in shock that Nadao is investing more into BL's. I don't know why, it just feels too good to be true, after giving me show after show that's perfection and quality I'm starting to have high expectations and hope for more, despite my weary heart not wanting to trust that this is real. I'm dramatic, I know. Anyways Nadao has gifted me twice with two shows that have shocked me and made my jaw fall in awe. I'm just like wow, they really did that. Every single piece of work that comes from them is art. Every single script is exceptionally written. Every single show is acted beautifully, and every single director and producer makes me inspired by the way they create. This is when focusing on their BLs because Great Man Academy and I told sunset about you are masterpieces in their own way, they deserve to be praised and never forgotten. It's just incredible that with a company like Nadao, everything falls into place, even when we think it won't because of past experiences. Nadao has shown up and decided to create unique pieces each thoughtful. Deep and breathtaking. Why won't I be over the moon when 2021 announces that we're getting another part from them with I told sunset about you getting a sequel. You bet I haven't stopped screaming and looking at the time to hurry up, so we get to March 11. I'm serious.

ITSAY PART 2

Genre: Romance, Angst, Drama, University, Coming of age

And that's because of what ITSAY was to us in 2020. It was something that can't be explained concisely. It was everything. To hear that we're getting the second part of the story of Oh and Teh, I feel like I am already preparing my heart and mind for another invasion, last time I was a mess because of this show, I was all over the place because of this show, and I was incredibly happy for a moment because of this show. To relive that again would be everything. It's slightly worrying that Teh and Oh finally getting together and fighting through the odds to stay together will run into more obstacles. Are you kidding me? After all, we went through to see them together?? It makes me worried, I have this real distrust for sequels of BLs, and it hasn't changed despite 2020 producing some okay follow-ups. Sequels never meet the expectation set; sequels are always reduced in quality because the focus is now on popularity and fame, sequels lose their integrity of the characters we've come to know and love and sequels hurt. They make me sometimes give up on a show that is my love, and it hurts. It's a painful realisation that I can't take away or forget the sequel events, so these characters are now ruined infinitely for me—looking at Together with me next chapter. It's scary. But Nadao hasn't failed yet, I mean it when I say their scripts are like works of art, I mean it when I say you can tell they put blood, sweat and tears to create their shows, why would ITSAY part 2 be any different? These two shows I mentioned before are coming together because the director of GMA is joining the team of ITSAY to produce whilst Boss becomes the producer. As long as he's there, I'm fine, as long as we still get hard work, energy, effort and thought put into it. I'm fine. Because it translates on screen, I'll try to lower my expectations, but I can't wait to see BilkinPP as TehOh again. I can't wait to fall in love with the show all over again. Let's hope we all end up satisfied.

Ratings: 4.5/5 The being a sequel is what's deducting the 0.5. I can't come here and be a fool; I must guard my heart against disappointment somewhat, despite failing already to do so.

Other Affiliates

We have our other shows. These were a pleasant surprise. With all the growth of new BLs, it's starting to get crowded and saturated, but as much as it's hard to see which shows stand out above all the noise, some make you see it. These shows are the ones that stand out for me out of the rest in 2021. I don't know what companies they're from, all I know is the information given to me and past experiences.

KinnPorsche

Genre: Romance, Mafia, Angst, Drama, Friends to Lovers, Haters to Lovers, Bodyguard trope

AHHH. Can you hear me AHH. Okay, I'll calm down. But no really, KinnPorsche is finally preparing for filming and the cast has been set and I'm screaming. KinnPorsche was the book in 2020 that was announced as the most coveted; I remember so many fandoms wanted their actors to be chosen as the main cast. The reason? Because this is meant to be the first Mafia/Crime BL. Yes, you heard us, no more universities and engineers we're doing bodyguards and spoilt gangsters. I'm... But just knowing this, you just know that the show will also have angst, angst angstttt for days, drama, and a romance that probably involves haters to lovers, passion, and character development. We're coming in with guns blazing, with many side couples that look just as good and interesting, and many actors that look perfect for their roles. I cannot wait for KinnPorsche, especially when one of my favourite actors is going to be in it as a second lead Jeff Satur! Have you seen the posters, the character introduction, who they're casting for the rest of the show? This looks amazing, it seems well put together, and the whole team looks determined and ready to give us a great show. I'm honestly so excited, but I've also heard things about the book that I will have to wait for the show to be a judge of before saying. All I can say is quality of a show also includes the themes in the script, we're trying to evolve past the toxic plots and ideas in BL, so I'm hoping if there is any we cut it real quick and change that part. It's the producers and directors' choice to keep parts in that could be edited or removed. I haven't read the book, so I'm going to be wary about it for now, but from the whole cast, teasers, and posters I really think this show could be a favourite if appropriately handled.

Ratings: 4?/5 The question mark is for the rumours I've heard about the book. I can't lie that I want this show to be great and become one of my all-time favourites but with angst and violent personalities and passion comes leeways to toxicity and more and that's just not cute or needed.

My Engineer Season 2

Genre: Romance, Comedy, Angst, Drama, Friends to Lovers, Haters to Lovers, Unrequited love, University,

Okay, this is it, folks. My Engineer came in 2020 and knocked our socks off; it's the most underrated great show in 2020 (apart from why r u) in my opinion. It was brilliantly constructed with enough screen time and plot for every couple of the show. My Engineer is a great show; it didn't make it to my favourites because I had issues with the main couple, but it was my most enjoyed when it came to the side couples. Because we had KingRam, TharaFong, and MekBoss. (Sorry to BohnDuen Fans). These were some of the most exciting, heartfelt, loving couples in 2020, KingRam was just chef kiss. And to hear that we're getting a sequel based on them? Well you know what I did, I screamed. I loved both KingRam and TharaFrong they were done so well, acted so well, and they made me laugh and laugh and then squeal and blush. They were too cute. The ending of my engineer left both these couples on a cliff hanger; we had a depressing bro zone with TharaFong as Fong came to realise his feelings, we had a wait what moment with Ram telling King he wasn't drunk when the kiss happened which is essentially a 'we need to deal with this new situation' text. And it's got me so excited to see what happens next. The first part of this was excitement. The second part is sigh, sequels. I told you didn't sequels are just urgh. I couldn't stop my excitement about KingRam, and I went to read the novel, and I usually don't mind it, but I don't think if the sequel is based on their story that I'd like them in season 2. And that's ridiculous because they're finally the main couple of season 2, and TalayPerth is impressive to see on screen. Sigh. I wasn't happy when reading the book; there are specific actions and choices made that just shifts the dynamic of the first season into the opposite. And I'm not particularly excited to relive those moments. Let's just say I still have high hopes for My engineer mostly cause I don't know what's happening to the other couples; I really hope there's a change in the script, maybe more information, more reasons for the characters to act the way they do, more depth? Because I want to like this show, I want it successful, but I'm not a clown I can't pretend it will be if it's based on the books. We'll see if I'm proved wrong. I hope I am.

Ratings: 3.5- Why did I read the book why?? I should have come into it blind I would have given it a 5/5 just for KingRam. Sigh

Love Stage

Genre: Romance, Comedy, Gender Bender, Friends to Lovers, Childhood friends,

This was a shock. Thailand has started to remake mangas from Japan, and it's all the most loved ones. In 2021 we already have Antique Bakery being remade by GMMTV (Read my GMMTV Giants of 2021) and now we have Love Stage which is also getting a Japanese Movie remake out in 2021. It's a great manga, anime and it's going to be a fun show. I enjoyed the characters, and I liked the storyline. But what I'm the most excited about when it comes to this is Kaownah and Turbo finally, after years of waiting have a new series. YES. Kaownah plays Long in TharnType our villain, and he was incredible in that. I heard he and Turbo were meant to be in the show My Umbrella, but it was cancelled and forgotten which was disappointing. These two are so cute, they're known for their fanservice and their chemistry and friendship. And I like them a lot. I can't wait to see Love Stage. I think they'll kill it. Can't wait to hear more about it let's hope this time it sticks and comes through on our screens.

Ratings: 4/5 It's a fun storyline, and it has an excellent acting couple. I'm excited.

If 2021 already sounded brilliant because of GMMTV 2021, 2021 sounds even more exciting with these new shows; there's so many coming out, so many breaking stereotypes, so many unique plotlines, and so many great actors showing up. It's going to be a great year. I'm just glad BLs are growing, things are changing slowly, things are starting to have meaning and improve, international fans are being listened to, LGBT voices is also being listened to, we are getting there, not yet there but closer, every single time someone makes a choice to create a great plot and story that is more than just two guys making out, a show filled with heart, messages and essential representation with the good actors that also want the shows to mean something or are willing to put their all in it, every time someone chooses to make a good BL, you're paving the way for change and for the meaning of BL to change as well, for it just to be seen as something more in media. And that's needed for so many people who want shows like this to be respected and created for voices that need to be heard and displayed. Let’s see more with excellent quality in 2021.

#thai bl #bl series #bl drama #gmmtv 2021 #between us #love mechanics #itsay #i told sunset about you #my engineer #lovely writer #wrpup #2021

117 notes · View notes

mel-at-dusk · 4 years

Photo

SEX, LIES AND CHEAP COLOGNE: AN ORAL HISTORY OF ABERCROMBIE & FITCH’S SOFTCORE PORN MAG

The story of how an oversexed, strangely intellectual magazine by a polo shirt brand completed the improbable task of changing the course of sexuality in America’s malls, homes and moose-print boxers

Abercrombie & Fitch CEO Mike Jeffries was a shrewd businessman, but he didn’t always make the best decisions. Between the blatantly racist T-shirts he signed off on, the child thongs he called “cute” and the series of public statements he made admitting that his brand intentionally excluded anyone who wasn’t “cool” and “good-looking” with “great attitudes and a lot of friends,” it’s no wonder that he spent the majority of his reign at Abercrombie in hot water. (For the uninitiated, Abercrombie made what fashion writer Natasha Stagg calls “sexy versions of the clothes kids already wore to school: T-shirts and jeans, stuff you could toss a football in or throw on the grass if everyone decided to go skinny-dipping.” More importantly, as she writes in her book Sleeveless, it was “for those who were casually peaking in high school.” It, meanwhile, peaked in the 1990s.)

An exception to Jeffries’ questionable CEO-ing would be A&F Quarterly, the glorious, controversial and questionably pornographic “magalog” he created at the height of the brand’s popularity in 1997 in order to connect “youth and sex” to its image. Woven in amongst surprisingly thoughtful interviews with A-list humans like Spike Lee, Bret Easton Ellis, Rudy Guiliani and Lil’ Kim was a cascade of naked photos from photographer Bruce Weber which showed nubile youngs in various states of undress. They were frolicking, they were caressing and they were deep in the throes of experimenting with types of sex that — at the time — had never been portrayed by mainstream brands.

With issue titles such as “XXX,” “The Pleasure Principle” and “Naughty and Nice,” the Quarterly dove headfirst into the risque. During its 25-issue run between 1997 and 2003, it printed interviews with porn star Jenna Jameson, offered sex advice on how to “go down” in public and suggested — on multiple occasions — that its readers dabble in group sex. One issue published an article on how to be a “Web exhibitionist,” another featured a Slovenian philosopher barking orders to “learn sex” at school and big-dick Ron Jeremy even stopped by to talk about performing oral sex on himself and using a cast made from his own penis.

The actual Abercrombie clothing being modeled in the magalog was an afterthought, appearing in Weber’s photos as more of an impediment to nudity than an actual, purchasable item. The whole thing was, as journalist Harris Sockel put it in an Human Parts essay, “20 percent merch, 20 percent talk and 100 percent soft-core aspirational porn.”

None of this would have been vexing had a more adult-oriented brand been the ones hawking it, but Abercrombie & Fitch was — and still is — marketed toward suspiciously toned teenage field hockey players named Brett. Though he might have looked like a man in his big salmon-pink polo, Brett was but a child. Abercrombie was fond of saying its clothing was for college-aged clientele, but we all knew where its real haute runway took place — inside the crowded halls of every middle school in Ohio.

The Quarterly, too, was intended for college kids, and to prove it, Abercrombie shrink-wrapped it in plastic and sold only to those over 18 for $6 a pop. You could buy it as a subscription, of course, but it was more commonly found in-store, nestled alongside A&F’s cargo shorts and “thongs for 10-year-olds,” a questionable placement that prompted concerned parents, conservatives and Christians to accuse Abercrombie of sullying their children’s minds with impure thoughts.

As such, the Quarterly became the subject of a mounting number of boycotts, protests and controversies that some believe were responsible for its eventual demise. By the time circulation peaked at 1.2 million in 2003, it had been denounced by organizations like the National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the American Decency Association, Focus on the Family, the National Organization for Women and, of course, the Catholic League.

Yet the outrage against the Quarterly was matched — if not exceeded — by its cult following, who found its frank portrayal of sexuality to be transcendent. Journalists, artists and the teens whose hands it fell into adored the magazine, and its rarity — plus its utter absurdity — makes it a sought-after collector’s item to this day.

At the same time, few people know about the Quarterly and even fewer realize what it meant to the generations of young people discovering themselves and their sexualities through the unlikely lens of branded content. As journalist Emily Lever puts it, “There’s no weirder way to learn about sex than to pick up a magazine by Abercrombie & Fitch — a brand for hot, mean mostly white kids who shoved you into lockers — but, I guess I’ll take it?”

This is the story of how an oversexed and strangely intellectual magazine by a polo shirt brand completed the improbable task of changing the course of sexuality in America’s malls, homes and moose-print boxers.

AND IN THE BEGINNING, THERE WAS ASS

The first issue A&F Quarterly debuted in June 1997. With 70-ish pages of full-color hard bodies, it was relatively tame compared to later editions, but it quickly became popular when Abercrombie’s nubile clientele realized it was a paper-backed portal into an adult world of sex, nudity and the kind of unbridled sensory hedonism their parents warned them about. As rumors of its legend began to spread, people began to wonder: What the hell is A&F Quarterly, and why is it printing ass for teens?

Emily Lever, journalist and chronicler of the Quarterly’s absurdist philosophical leanings: A&F Quarterly was an in-house magazine put together by Abercrombie & Fitch that published a who’s who of literati to accompany their images of young adult and teen bodies in order to hawk expensive distressed jeans and polo shirts to kids who would shove you inside a locker.

Alissa Quart, author of Branded: The Buying and Selling of Teenagers and director of the Economic Hardship Reporting Project: From what I recall, it had a Bruce Weber-y vibe — gorgeous young men and teens unapologetically objectified, a leering retro pin-up element, also sort of like the highly stylized, sexed-up, nostalgic 1980s and 1990s black-and-white Guess ads. Men — boys, really — were photographed without their shirts, elaborately muscled abs, sometimes naked.

Harris Sockel, in his Human Parts essay: [It was] Playboy crossed with Fratmen.com and a bit of Field & Stream. The Quarterly made my hormones do a kick line across my frontal lobe. I wanted to nibble the soy ink for snack until sunrise. To absorb it so deeply I sweat grey drops onto my pillow. To rip a page from that issue and fold it into a paper flower and stick it all the way up my ass until it came out my mouth.

Lever: Yeah, it was hot. But it was also extraordinarily literary. It featured big-time thinkers, writers and philosophers — stuff that was supposedly intended to expand your mind. It was way too high-brow for the average Abercrombie teen, and its existence made almost no sense given what the brand represented.

Savas Abadsidis, editor-in-chief, 1997-2003: There was nothing else like it. We were the first mainstream brand to combine playful, irreverent, intellectual content with sex and youth in this beautiful, high-art magazine format. Was it controversial? Sure. But it made the entire country take notice.

What they didn’t necessarily see, however, was what was going on behind the scenes. Not only were we the first brand to do this kind of advertising, we were also the first big brand to normalize gay culture for a mainstream audience, expose America’s youth to some of the era’s most progressive thinkers and use our platform to address sexuality in a useful, hands-on way. And you wouldn’t necessarily expect that from Abercrombie. That’s what made it so cool.

It all began in 1996. I was 22 and working at a temp job for a prominent New York architect who happened to be friends with Sam Shahid, a big-time creative director for Calvin Klein, Banana Republic and later, Abercrombie & Fitch. He was looking for an assistant. I had taken a deferment to go to law school and was looking for a job for that interim year, so I applied. I got in.

It was a horrible gig at first. Just awful, Devil Wears Prada-type stuff. I left crying many nights. But I had two things going for me. The first was that Abercrombie had a really small office in the West Village. Mike Jeffries, the president and CEO of Abercrombie, used to come in. He wore flip flops, had a desk made out of a surfboard and began each sentence with the word “Dude.”

Mike Jeffries, ex-CEO of Abercrombie & Fitch, speaking to Salon in 2006: Dude, I’m not an old fart who wears his jeans up at his shoulders.

Abadsidis: I didn’t know it at the time, but Mike was gay (I wouldn’t find out until much later). I think that was part of the reason why he and Sam — who was also gay — took me under their wing. They actually didn’t realize that I was, too — it’s not like we all sat around a bonfire at Fire Island and talked about how us gay guys were infiltrating Abercrombie — but that dynamic dovetailed nicely with Bruce’s photography for both the brand and the Quarterly, and it certainly set the tone for what was to come. I was grateful to get what amounted to an unofficial apprenticeship from both Mike and Sam, and eventually, they had me doing much more involved tasks than I was hired to do.

One of them was sitting in on important meetings. At the time, Mike was inviting all these different editors from magazines like Interview, Men’s Journal and Rolling Stone to come in and brainstorm ideas for what the Quarterly could be, but their ideas were flat. They felt like ideas coming from 45-year-olds writing for college kids, and I could tell Mike was getting frustrated by how little they seemed to grasp what he wanted.

One day in a meeting, one of the magazine editors threw out an idea. Without even acknowledging him, Mike turned to me. “Savas,” he asked. “What do you think about that?”

My mind raced — I could tell he was testing me. If I flubbed the answer, I’d be done. I briefly considered censoring myself, but then I thought better. What did I have to lose? I was young. Surely, I’d find another summer job. “I don’t think it’s a great idea,” I told him.

Apparently, that was the right answer. Mike practically threw the guy out of the room.

After that, I started to think more about what I’d want to see out of a magazine. I was just out of college as a French comparative literature major at Vassar, and I was super into that sort of 1950s-style Esquire journalism with the dapper closing essay. I was deep into The New Yorker, Interview Magazine, 1990s-era Details, MAD Magazine and 1980s pop star mags like Tiger Beat, too — those were all an influence. I also loved philosophy, social theory and comics. And graphic novels. You know — college stuff. Then it hit me: If the magazine was for people like me, why not get actual college kids — not 50-year-olds — to create our content?

I suspected my ideas were what they were looking for and knew they’d look fresh compared to what other editors were throwing out, so I decided to take a risk. I got up at 2 a.m. and typed out a 20-page proposal for what I thought the Quarterly should be. The next morning, I faxed a copy to Mike. I left another on Sam’s desk.

About a (very anxious) week later, Sam called me into his office and told me to pick up his phone. Mike was on the other line. As I reached for the receiver, he leaned over to me and said, “Who the fuck do you think you are?”

I didn’t even have time to comprehend what that meant before Mike’s voice was in my ear. “Congratulations, kid,” he told me. “You get one shot.”

Shortly thereafter, I was promoted from Sam’s assistant to the completely green, 23-year-old editor-in-chief of the Quarterly. It was a Jerry Maguire moment. I was thrilled and terrified at the same time.

They gave me a month to put together a staff and get the first issue out. Bruce Weber was named as its exclusive photographer — he’d already been shooting ads and campaigns for Abercrombie — and Sam was the creative director. As for me, I knew I’d need an editorial staff, and stat.

HOLY SHIT, THERE ARE NO LIMITS

Abadsidis quickly throws together a team composed of two college buddies, Patrick Carone and Gary Kon, who he describes as “pretty funny and stuff.” Carone became the only straight guy on the editorial side. Kon is Jewish and gay. The three of them vow to stay as true to the idealized college experience as possible with their content — even if it means chasing white whales.

Abadsidis: I can’t remember the exact starting budget, but it was upwards of a few million, probably much larger than most magazines get for their first issue! But our budget was also Bruce’s budget. He was getting advertising money, so we were well taken care of in that regard.

We weren’t really expected to turn a profit, though. That was never the point. Come to think of it, I don’t even think we tracked how much the magazine impacted clothing sales, although from what I can remember, clothing sales bumped up double digits every quarter after we launched (for a while, at least). [This statement is unverified.] But that didn’t matter: Our mission was just to set the brand image and make people aware of us. That was our version of success. We were also our only advertiser for a while, so we could get away with a lot of stuff that other publications couldn’t.

Gary Kon, managing editor, 1997-2003: When Savas offered me the job, I jumped at the opportunity. I’d already interned for Sam, and I’d have to scan hundreds of Bruce Weber images that he shot for Abercrombie as part of the job. And I fell in love with his work. It was the visual connection that seduced me. Weber’s photos were like a new Greek mythology; the men and women depicted in the photos were both idealized and sexualized. As a gay kid, who was pretty comfortable by that time in my own skin, I had no problem recognizing the eroticism in his work.

Abadsidis: Me, Gary and Patrick was definitely something special. I don’t think I’ll ever have an opportunity to create anything like that again. I was a huge comic book fan. If I had to describe it, it’s the closest thing I’ll ever come to Stan Lee’s Marvel comics bullpen. Pretty much everyone I hired was super unique. We weren’t all gay (maybe half of us were) but few of us really adhered to the Abercrombie image.

I think Sean came on in 2001.

Sean T. Collins, managing editor, 2001-2003: I was a little skittish about it at first because Abercrombie & Fitch represented everything I was not. They marketed, almost exclusively, to the lacrosse players that called me names I cannot repeat. It was very preppy, and that was not me at all.

I was alternative, maaan. I was a big fan of Nine Inch Nails. I wore a lot of black. A&F was everything I wasn’t, and in a way, everything that had tormented me as a kid. The irony of me working for them was palpable, but what I learned very quickly was that at the Quarterly, you could do anything that you wanted.

One of my first articles was an interview with Clive Barker, the writer and director of Hellraiser (he also wrote Candyman). Now, if you’ve seen Hellraiser, you can imagine just how far of a departure a sadomasochistic horror film was from Abercrombie & Fitch, but getting him to sign on was easy. He’s gay, and at the time, he was super ripped. I think he appreciated the extravagant gayness of the Weber stuff in particular. He was also a photographer, and his husband was, too. I think he recognized what was going on with the photography.

We had an unlimited expense budget, so I took him out for drinks at the Four Seasons. I talked to him for hours, and then he invited me to go back to his house and hang out and see his art studio. He had three mansions in a row on Sunset in Los Angeles, up in the hills. One for his office, one for his actual domicile and one that was a painting studio. I got to see that. I was just a 23-year-old kid. This was my first job out of college, and I felt like Cameron Crowe from Almost Famous. After that, I was like, “Holy shit, there are no limits.”

Kon: I have to credit Savas with pushing us to work without limitations. We were very lucky. At some point during my tenure, I realized that as long as we worked within our (sizable) budget, we had almost full autonomy. We could plan trips to Hollywood to shoot our favorite actors. We could travel to Thailand to reenact our version of The Beach. We could tag along to London or Rome or wherever Bruce was shooting the catalog. We could stroll into the office at 11 a.m. and work until 11 p.m.

Collins: If I wanted to talk to Bettie Page, the pinup model from the 1950s, they’d be like, “Okay, sure.” If I wanted to feature Underworld, my favorite electronic music band, it was, “Sure, go ahead.” It was total editorial freedom, which was so strange knowing how specific of a person the “Abercrombie type was.” I’ve been writing for two decades now, and I’ve never experienced anything like it since.

Abadsidis: Everyone wanted to be in it, too. At first, it was just indie musicians. But then, in the second issue, we snagged Lil’ Kim. That’s when I knew we’d made it big. She was into it — she loved everything about the Quarterly. A lot of people did. The whole high-brow/low-brow thing was really appealing, and the idea of going to college, reading good books, getting drunk and having sex felt uniquely nostalgic and fresh in the context of America back then. Clinton was getting impeached for getting a blow job. It was just a weird, puritanical time, and the Quarterly gave people a national platform to let their freak flag fly.

We had Rudy Guiliani, early Britney Spears, Paula Abdul. There was the New York issue where we talked about the Harlem Renaissance. Spike Lee — one of my idols — asked me if he could be in it. He’d done advertising, you know? I remember him being like, “Yo, this is the deal. I’ve got to give you mad props. This is the dopest thing out right now, advertising-wise.”

We had big-time philosophers and literary figures, too. They were great. We wanted to mimic the experience of being in college and having your mind expanded, so we got writers like Bret Easton Ellis and Michael Cunningham on board. There was a whole Sex Ed issue plastered with musings from Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek, a friend of a professor’s from college. I believe Jonathan Franzen was in there, too.

Jonathan Franzen, award-winning novelist and essayist: I gave hundreds of interviews between 1997 and 2003, almost all of them at the request of various publishers. One of them must have thought it was a good idea to talk to A&F. The fact that I apparently did (I don’t remember it) signifies nothing except that I felt grateful to my publishers.

Collins: We got a lot of weirdos, too. John Edward, the guy who talked to dead people. Chuck Palahniuk, who wrote Fight Club. At the time, it didn’t have the meathead reputation that it does now. It was legitimately looked at as this piece of anti-corporate, anti-capitalist art, the irony of which was just delightful given that we were a capitalist brand trying to sell polo shirts and $90 ripped jeans.

Abadsidis: The only guy who refused an interview was Donald Trump! I have a feeling his 90-year-old secretary had something to do with it. Though we were technically a magalog and did belong to the brand, our stuff was just really visionary. David Keeps, who was the editor of Details at the time, always defended the Quarterly as a real magazine and publicly said that we were doing more innovative stories than most “real” magazines at a time.

ASPIRATIONAL HOMOEROTICS

It’s no secret that the photography and creative direction of Weber and Shahid contained homoerotic undertones. Irreverent, minimal and moody, it was suggestive without being literal, spinning entire storylines into a single frame. At the same time, it was too idealized to be “real.” The queerness that their photos showed was, as Collins puts it, “aspirational,” meaning that like the mostly white, ab-riddled models instructed to sell cargo shorts by taking them off, they didn’t necessarily represent the full reality of what queerness actually was.

Still, the photos that the Quarterly published during its seven-year run did more to normalize and represent queerness and non-monogamy than any other mainstream brand at the time — weird, considering that Abercrombie’s target market was hegemonic suburbanites whose parents bred genetically pure golden retrievers and had cabins in Vail. Without these photos, the Quarterly might have read more as a minor-league Esquire or Ivy League MAD Magazine, but with them, it became one of the least-discussed, most under-appreciated items queer history.

Collins: Our editorial content — which almost functioned as a parody of so-called “Abercrombie people” — was always accompanied by this extremely beautiful photography that was also extremely queer. But it was never explicitly so. It was all this nudge, nudge, wink, wink stuff. I don’t know how you could miss it, though. The homoeroticism was so overt.

Abadsidis: You’d have had to have been blind not to consider the imagery homoerotic (though, it was really in the eye of the beholder). We had the Carlson twins posing on the cover and riding a motorcycle. We had a drag queen named Candis Cayne. There was a lesbian couple kissing at a wedding.

Kon: David Sedaris, Gus Van Sant, Gregg Araki, Avenue Q, Stan Lee, Peaches, Fischerspooner… you could teach a queer theory class with everyone we featured.

Abadsidis: At the same time, we never labeled anything as “gay” or “lesbian” or “queer.” We never came out and said, “Welcome to our gay magazine!” and we never had a meeting where we were like, “Okay, guys, let’s figure out how to make this thing gay.” It was more nonchalant. The imagery implied it without saying it.

Hampton Carney, A&F Quarterly spokesperson, 1999-2003: The message we were sending was clear: “You do you, whatever that is. Have fun!”

Abadsidis: That was a very 1990s thing.

Collins: There was a specific brand of Abercrombie gayness that got shown, though. The word that they always used to describe Abercrombie as a brand was “aspirational.” They didn’t want to make it like an everyday, normal-people brand. They wanted it to be associated with money, glamour and that WASP-y aesthetic. So all the gay raunch of it was presented within the context of what appeared to be a very square, nuclear family: white, wealthy and secure.

At the same time, that was really when same-sex marriage was kicking off as a political issue. I think you can see a commonality in how Abercrombie was essentially making an argument that you could be a normie and also be gay. That was a newish thing at the time (though I’m barely an expert as I’m not gay myself). Still, I can’t help but see a resonance between coming up with this clandestine content that normalized being gay at the same time this big political fight that was brewing.

Maybe being more forward about it would have come across as “too political.”

Abadsidis: Part of me wishes we’d gone a little further with being more outwardly queer, but I don’t think the time was right. Maybe with a braver CEO — no one at the time was brave enough to take on queerness or gay rights as a mainstream brand, including us — and that’s why few people remember the Quarterly as the sort of transcendent queer thing that it was.

Kon: It’s never been credited as such, but the Quarterly is really an item of gay history. I don’t think we were pushing a “gay” or “metrosexual” lifestyle on people as much as we were showing that it already existed, even out in Middle America. Perhaps that’s what made people uncomfortable. We took that thread of counterculture and taboo that ran through the imagery and continued it into the editorial content. We dealt with topics like drinking, drugs, religion, politics and sex. Again, these are issues young people dealt with daily, but were rarely editorialized.

At Vassar, there was a yearly party called The Homo Hop. It was one of the biggest parties of the year and leaned on Vassar’s history as a women’s college. I bring this up because, on the night of my freshman Homo Hop, I was instructed that each student had to do something sexually that they had never done, and one drug that they had never done. It wasn’t that you had to be gay, but you had to experience something that was new and different. I think that translated well into the Quarterly. Yes, there were a bunch of gay guys writing and shooting and drawing images. But we were simply trying to expose Cargo Short Brett to ideas, images, artists, books, writers and directors that he may have never heard of before. Our shared experiences would become his.

Collins: It was culture jamming, really.

Abadsidis: It was also very “college” to be fluid or experimental without labeling it. I think it’s safe to say that college is one of the gayest places there is in life, maybe not sexually, but definitely in terms of having your mind expanded about different types of people.

Carney: I was in a frat. I’d see fraternity brothers streaking across campus together. It was never a big deal. There are a lot more people in the middle of either extreme of sexuality than people talk about. We’re not one and 10 — we’re one through 10, if you will. That kind of stuff has always happened on college campuses, and that’s the kind of mentality we had around sex. We just happened to editorialize it really beautifully.

Collins: There’s a Barbara Kruger print that reminds me of the mood we were trying to capture: It reads: “You construct intricate rituals which allow you to touch the skin of other men.” That’s basically what Abercrombie & Fitch was. It was an intricate ritual that allowed sunkissed lacrosse players to metaphorically touch the skin of other men.

Carney: You know what’s funny, though? It was never the gay stuff people had a problem with. It was everything else.

LET THE CONTROVERSIES BEGIN

For almost every moment of its seven-year life, The Quarterly was a controversial publication. Parents, politicians and conservative-types didn’t appreciate its no-holds-barred approach to rampant fucking, and they could not, for the life of them, understand how such an adult magazine was making its way into the hands of their precious teens (who were probably jacking off to dad’s Playboys long before the Quarterly came along, but I digress). There was approximately one year — 1997 — where the amount of people it pissed off stayed below a critical mass, but after a certain somebody published a story that vaguely suggested underage kids drink, it was off to the races.

Abadsidis: We got in our fair share of trouble with Christian groups and concerned parents right off the bat. Let’s take one of the earlier issues — I believe it was Summer of 1998. It was my story. Basically, I suggested that people could do better than beer and that they should “indulge in some creative drinking.” There was one drink I made up called the “Brain Hemorrhage” and a few others you could play a drinking game with. We also included a spinner insert people could cut out.

None of it had anything to do with driving, of course, but the issue was called “On the Road.” It was a sort of beat-focused, Jack Kerouac thing, so some people interpreted that as us promoting drunk driving (though we did nothing of the sort). Also, the kid on the cover was underage. He was 16, if I remember correctly. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) didn’t like that.

Karolyn Nunnallee, vice president of public policy for MADD: We had been really focused on underage drinking and had been instrumental in getting the country’s legal drinking age raised to 21. Then Abercrombie & Fitch comes out with this weird magazine that basically said, “Don’t go back to college drinking the usual beer. We’re going to show you a new way to drink.”

Not only did they have this drinking game, but they had recipes for these mixed drinks for young people to partake in. I was like, “Abercrombie & Fitch? Aren’t they in the clothing business?” What in the world were they doing? I mean, they were a high-end brand, not Walmart. Why would they take their focus off of clothing and put it toward alcohol? Were their clothes not good enough that year or something?

Needless to say, we weren’t happy with them. Curse words were handed out. We sent a letter to them and started a whole media campaign about it. We went on as many news media outlets as we possibly could with the story of how incensed we were.

Abadsidis: I was sure I was going to get fired over that. We had to remove the page with the spinner out of every single issue across the country. We apologized, of course, but it ended up backfiring against the protesters — that incident gave us so much publicity. It put us on the map. It also made us a target for conservative types. They hated us. After MADD, boycotts of Abercrombie started flaring up all over the place. That’s around the time we hired Hampton to do PR.

Carney: It was my job, at the time, to defend the brand. I’d go on talk shows like Entertainment Tonight or Today Show and explain away our latest controversy (there were a lot). It wasn’t hard, actually; each time, I’d give them what was more or less my go-to response: “It’s a beautiful publication intended for college-aged kids.” And that was the truth! It was way ahead of its time and was absolutely meant for people 18 and up.

Though not everyone saw it that way. The sex and nudity really got to people. A lot of them definitely thought we were making porn. That was the constant complaint: We were deliberately putting porn in the hands of young kids.

Lever: The Quarterly featured about the same level of nudity as a European yogurt commercial. Which is to say, a lot. It was a “clothing catalog” with almost no clothing. Of course [American] people thought it was pornographic!

Carney: Okay, sure — there were photos of like, six girls in bed with one guy and more than a few spreads that enthusiastically suggested naked non-monogamy — but it wasn’t porn. It was tasteful. And let me tell you — nothing we had in there was surprising to kids.

Abadsidis: The models ranged from 16 to 20. It was erotic. It was art. I don’t think there’s anything pornographic about the Quarterly unless you think that nudity, in and of itself, is pornographic.

Illinois Lieutenant Governor Corinne Wood did, apparently. In 1999, she called for a boycott of Abercrombie & Fitch because its “Naughty or Nice” holiday issue “contained nudity” and “even an interview with a porn star.” That porn star was none other than Jenna Jameson, who at the time was well on her way to becoming a household name. A so-called “child prodigy” occupied the neighboring page, sparking accusations that the Quarterly somehow intended to connect children to porn.

A cartoon of Mr. and Mrs. Claus experimenting with S&M across from the statement “Sometimes it’s good to be bad” didn’t help, nor did the “sexpert” who offered advice on “sex for three” and told readers that going down on each other in a movie theater was acceptable “just so long as you do not disturb those around you.”

The Illinois Coalition of Sexual Assault joined Wood’s boycott. Later that year, Michigan attorney general (and eventual governor) Jennifer Granholm sent a letter to Abercrombie complaining that the “Naughty or Nice” issue contained sexual material that couldn’t be distributed to minors under state law.

Carney: There were four states that tried to ban us after that. I remember Granholm. She was my arch-nemesis at the time — we really got into it. I respected where she was coming from, of course, but our whole thing was that we weren’t showing anything that wasn’t actually happening on college campuses. And I’d already made it pretty clear to the press that the magazine wasn’t for minors.

Also, it’s not like we were the only magazine talking about or showing sex. You could find all the exact same stuff in Cosmo or Playboy — it’s just that we were a clothing brand, and one whose major customer base just so happened to be teens and young adults. No one expected that from us. Brands weren’t “supposed” to be talking about sex period, let alone to teens and young adults. But we took it upon ourselves to pioneer a more open, honest view of it. That’s the wrinkle that made it so interesting.

We did come to an agreement with Granholm. We decided to wrap the magazine in plastic and make it available for purchase only to those over 18, that way, it’d be even more clear that we weren’t “selling porn to the underage.”

Kon: I believe it was one of the few times the company acquiesced.

Collins: Other than that, don’t remember getting any instruction from Savas, Mike or Sam to tone it down. It was kind of mutually assumed that we weren’t going to apologize for the sexual nature of our content. We knew we had to keep things sexy, as it were — that was our whole thing.

We weren’t deliberately trying to piss off people, but we were trying to push the envelope, and there was definitely an element of deliberate trolling of conservatives and Christian groups. It was a good thing if we pissed them off. It created the controversy that made the brand seem edgy and dangerous, which is what you want if you’re trying to appeal to young people.

Carney: We were also just showing real things that happened at college. And as anyone who’s been to college knows, it’s not just about reading and writing papers. It’s also about sex. Not only that, of course, but we’re sexual beings. We respond to images that are sexual. We were trying to take the stigma away from that and acknowledge that it’s not a bad thing to do.

But no matter how clear we made it, our stance on sex polarized people more and more. I could tell, because almost as soon as I started speaking on behalf of the magazine, strange things started to happen to me. I got stalkers. People left me messages saying I was going to hell and I’d have no afterlife. I got hate mail to my house. One person left a package containing their dirty, stained underwear at the front door of my apartment with a note saying they’d be “coming by later” to “talk to me about it.” I had to call the police on that one.

I was the face of the publication, so I got the vast majority of the harassment. But I didn’t mind. It was my job to take the fall, and I heard and respected every single person’s complaint and talked to them about it. Plus, for every message I got banishing me to hell, I got another from a journalist or a fan begging me to save a copy for them. People collected them. They really loved it, precisely because it was so sexual.

Abadsidis: Mike didn’t flinch about any of this stuff. He wanted to defend it because he could see it was working. We weren’t about to tone anything down (at the time).

Flash-forward to June 2001. The Twin Towers are still standing tall, tips are being frosted and Apple has just unleashed iTunes onto an unsuspecting populace. A&F Quarterly, now in its fourth year, is in hot water once again. Having survived a number of boycotts, lawsuits and controversies since its inception, it’s now in the midst of weathering another minor national conniption over its use of nudity.

Jeannine Stein, describing the Summer 2001 issue in an excerpt from a Los Angeles Times article called “Nudity? A&F Quarterly Has It Covered”: [It’s] explicit in ways that most catalogs and fashion magazines are not, and its use of male nudity is uncommon among general-interest publications. It features 280 pages of young, attractive men and women alone and together, in serious, romantic, sexual and party modes, wearing lots of A&F clothes, some A&F clothes and sometimes no clothes at all. Among the coffee-table book-ish photos by Bruce Weber is a man, covered only by a towel, surrounded by five women; a woman at the beach reclining body-to-body with three men; a back view of a naked man getting into a helicopter (we haven’t quite figured that one out yet); and a few topless females.

There are many naked butts and breasts.

Abadsidis: We also had photos of nude women in a fountain — which were inspired by Katharine Hepburn skinny-dipping at Bryn Mawr College — and a whole set dedicated to the Berkeley student that spent a day naked in class. It was par for the course for us, but even though we’d done the whole shrink-wrap and over-18 thing, people still felt it was too sexual for branded content.

In response, an unexpected alliance formed between cultural conservatives and anti-porn feminists to boycott Abercrombie & Fitch over the Summer 2001 issue of A&F Quarterly. According to Wikipedia, the offending issue included “photographs of naked or near-naked young people frolicking on the beach,” “top-naked young women and rear-naked young men on top of each other” and an “interview with porn star Ron Jeremy, who discussed performing oral sex on himself and using a dildo cast from his own penis.” Once again, Wood was at the helm.

David Crary, journalist, excerpt from a 2001 Associated Press article: Illinois Lt. Gov. Corinne Wood — a Republican who has been sparring with A&F since 1999 — announced the boycott campaign last week in Chicago. She has recruited a diverse mix of supporters more familiar with facing off against each other than with working together.

Wood, writing on her website in 2001: A&F is glamorizing indiscriminate sexual behavior that unsophisticated teenagers are not possibly equipped to weigh against the dangers of date rape, unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease.

Michelle Dewlen, president of the Chicago chapter of the National Organization for Women, speaking at one of Woods’ press conferences in 2001: It’s not a catalog. It’s a soft porn magazine.

Rev. Bob Vanden Bosch, head of Concerned Christian Americans, as quoted by the AP: It’s very important for people to get involved. The exploitation of sex and young people in A&F’s catalog isn’t only atrocious but also a psychological molestation of their teenage customers.

Quart: It was predatory in a few ways, really. One was that it confused the corporate identity of Abercrombie and the advertising with the editorial. It preyed on young consumers not understanding the difference between editorial content and sales content. Back then it led, I saw, to a way that girls were objectifying themselves and commodifying themselves. It ultimately led to boys also objectifying themselves and commodifying themselves — not to the same extent, but far more than they were when I started reporting Branded a little more than two decades ago.

I have the stats on the male body image dysmorphia at the time in Branded (which has only worsened). Then, male body shaming and “manorexia” was on the rise, for the first time on a mass scale. It couldn’t help for the most popular brand at the time to have a dedicated giant glossy magazine filled with pictures of male teenagers with zero body fat half undressed.

Abadsidis: I mean, sure, as much as any advertising does. It wasn’t like we were leading that charge. Any effect on self-image was certainly unintentional, but I do think it did make people want to be athletic. You definitely saw a lot of guys trying to look like that during that period, especially as time went on. If you look at the first few issues, the guys aren’t that built. Ashton Kutcher was actually in the second one — that was his first big break — and they get increasingly more cut from there. That whole era is when men’s body issues started to come out.

Lever: I’d also submit that all this was controversial because it was pre-internet. The internet mainstreamed sexual content in a way that makes A&F or other “scandalous” ad campaigns (like the 2003 Gucci ad with the model’s pubes shaved into the shape of a G) seem quaint, even obsolete. Like, do you remember that Eckhaus Latta ad a few years ago that scandalized people for five minutes because it showed people having real (albeit pixelated) sex? Neither does anyone else.

SLAVOJ ŽIŽEK TEACHES SEX ED

Always filled with philosophy, social theory and intellectually minded topics that likely soared over the heads of most Abercrombie consumers, the Quarterly outdid itself in the Fall of 2003 with its penultimate issue. A gorgeous romp of summer-spirited abandon accompanied by some delightfully incoherent, Dada-like musings from Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek, it connected a “back-to-school” theme with a pretty clear directive to fuck. Yet, the information it presented was actually rather safe and tame, a reality which confused and irritated Quarterly staff. Their content was legit, so why was everyone up in arms?

Abadsidis: The “Sex Ed” issue was the second to last one that we did. It got some of the most criticism, and was supposedly the reason everything was finished. I literally had stuff in there cited straight from the University of Michigan’s freshman student handbook on sexual conduct, and it still pissed people off! Then, of course, there was Žižek.

Lever: Žižek identifies as a radical leftist. He’s very famous for his work on cultural theory and critical theory. He analyzes all kinds of topics in his signature, impenetrable — but also approachable — style. And when I think of him, I think of his very distinctive manner of speaking, that some people have described as being on cocaine constantly. But he’s definitely kind of a cult figure, a favorite of people who consider themselves highbrow, but also fun.

He’s really touted as the greatest anti-capitalist of our time, and yet, here he was, “sexually educating” the mean girls and boys of your high school, in a brand catalog whose entire goal was to ensnare young people for the purpose of selling them distressed jeans.

According to the magazine’s foreword, the editor wrote to Žižek and said this: “Dear Slavoj, enclosed please find the images for our back to school issue. We’ve never had a philosopher write the text for our images before, so write what you like. We’re looking for that Karl Marx meets Groucho Marx thing you do so well. Thanks, Savas.”

Abadsidis: I love Slavoj. He was friends with one of my professors from school. He only had 24 hours to write this, so we actually sent someone to London where he was to drop off the images we wanted him to write text for. They hung out for a day and then flew back with what he’d written.

Lever: It was basically a series of insane, absurdist ramblings pasted over really hot naked people.

Žižek, excerpt from A&F Quarterly’s 2003 Sex Ed issue: Back to school thus means forget the stupid spontaneous pleasures of summer sports, of reading books, watching movies and listening to music. Pull yourself together and learn sex.

Lever: I mean, that’s like the first episode of every teen TV show, where these three nerdy boys start high school and they’re like, “Okay, we’re going to be cool this year guys. We’re going to lose our virginities.” It’s very formulaic. But there’s more.

Žižek: The only successful sexual relationship occurs when the fantasies of the two partners overlap. If the man fantasizes that making love is like riding a bike and the woman wants to be penetrated by a stud, then what truly goes on while they make love is that a horse is riding a bike… with a fantasy like that, who needs a personality?

Lever: The “go learn sex at school” part really struck a nerve with conservatives. But I don’t think it was that transgressive. Fourteen-year-olds are receiving messages to have sex all the time — what did it matter if some Eastern European anti-capitalist was hitting them over the head with it through the pages of a polo shirt advert?

Abadsidis: Fox News got involved, if I remember correctly. That was one of the few times I actually got pissed off about how an issue was being covered. I mean, the information in there was handed out to students by an actual university. Half the issue was quotes from this really influential philosopher. But for some reason, people really took offense to the language of it. That whole year [2003] was just a bad one for us.

THE LAST HORNY CHRISTMAS

For its final trick, the Quarterly released a holiday issue featuring 280 pages of “moose, ice hockey, chivalry, group sex and more.” It had oral sex, group sex, sex in a river, Christmas sex and pretty much every other type of sex you could think of, all which followed an earnest letter from Abadsidis which read: “We don’t want much this year, but in keeping with the spirit, we’d like to ask forgiveness from some of the people we’ve offended over the years. If you’d be so kind, please offer our apologies to the following: the Catholic League, former Lt. Governor Corrine Wood of Illinois, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Stanford University Asian American Association, N.O.W.”

But the issue didn’t really hit. By fall 2003, Abercrombie was involved in a number of lawsuits and protests related to exclusion and discrimination, which left people cold despite the inviting warmth of a crackling, fireside circle jerk (a Weber offering which, I’m told, can be found on page 88 of the final issue).

Cole Kazdin, journalist, writing in a 2003 Slate article called “Have Yourself a Horny Little Christmas”: The challenge for me, when masturbating with my friends to the nubile nudies in the Abercrombie & Fitch catalog, is trying not to think about serious things like racial diversity; it tends to kill the mood. But because most of the models in the catalog are white and because a lawsuit has been filed against the clothing retailer for allegedly discriminating against a Black woman who applied for a job at the store, it’s hard for the issue not to rear its nonsexy head. [In 2004, Abercrombie also agreed to pay $40 million to settle a lawsuit that accused the company of promoting whites over Latino, Black, Asian-American and female applicants.]

Collins: As a brand, Abercrombie did a lot of things that were quite gross. I’m sure you remember when they came out with these T-shirts with these racist stereotype characters on them. You would just see it in the catalog and just be like, “Jesus Christ.” It was awful and stupid and self-defeating, just tone deaf. And we just couldn’t figure out how no one at the company saw the problem with it.

Stagg, excerpt from Sleeveless: Kids in my high school wore shirts that read, “Wok-n-Bowl” and “Wong Brothers Laundry Service: Two Wongs Can Make It White,” accompanied by cross-eyed propaganda-style cartoons. If you weren’t part of the in-crowd (and white), A&F was oppressive. Non-jocks made their own anti-A&F T-shirts, using the brand as a catchall for exclusionary, competitive behavior and old-fashioned bullying.

Carney: That stuff was indefensible, really. Those were the darkest days of my job — listening to calls and reading letters about how offensive those shirts were. Even though the Quarterly was quite separate from the brand and we had no influence over what they did or what clothes they designed, we did still have to print their stuff at the back of the magazine. It was pretty uncomfortable.

Stagg: By 2006, Mike Jeffries’ most controversial public statement on sex appeal was really just saying what we were all thinking: “Are we exclusionary? Absolutely.” Those remarks were followed by lawsuit after lawsuit, mostly involving staffing discrimination. An announcement about the store refusing to carry anything over a size 10 reportedly marked a noticeable decrease in sales.

Abadsidis: There were a lot of underlying problems at the company. The amount of negative press Abercrombie was getting was getting silly. No matter what we did, we’d end up in the news, especially if it was related to the Quarterly. After so many bad news incidents, it just felt done, like its moment had passed. It was bound to crash at some point.

Gina Piccalo, excerpt from the Los Angeles Times: Clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch has pulled its controversial in-store catalogs after outraged parents, conservative Christian groups and child advocates threatened a boycott over material they said was pornographic. However, a company spokesman said the move had nothing to do with the public outcry. The catalogs were pulled to make room near cash registers for a new Abercrombie & Fitch fragrance.

Abadsidis: People like to think that the boycotts and Christian protests had something to do with it, but that wasn’t the case at all. By 2003, Abercrombie’s stock was low — something to do with ordering too much denim. The store was having negative sales for the first time. There was the line in the New York Times, who covered our demise, that Mike was “bored” with it.

Collins: We had no warning. We were all there one day, and the next, we were gone.

Lever: The Quarterly was a relic of a different time. I feel like it could never have been made after 2008 for so many reasons — economic, and cultural and political. It would just never fly. It was made before feminism pervaded everything, at a time where you could be completely flagrant about gross patriarchal shit and still get away with it.

It was kind of like this last gasp of a certain conception of what’s desirable — a very hegemonic coolness exemplified by white Ivy League frat kids who got fucked up the night before their philosophy class. That doesn’t have much currency anymore. Abercrombie kept that image on life support until its last gasp.

Now, 20 years later, what’s cool is not that. What’s cool is to have depression and ADD. The ideal is out. The real is in. And the Quarterly, having always existed in the liminal space between, is neither here nor there.

EPILOGUE

In 2008, Abercrombie resurrected the Quarterly in the U.K. for a limited-run special edition to celebrate the success of its European stores. The original team was reunited — Abadsidis, Shahid and Weber — with the hopes that Britain’s more “open-minded approach to culture and creativity” would provide a welcoming substrate on which to re-grow their original ideas of sexual liberation. The issue, “Return to Paradise,” was “more mature” than its American cousin. It was well-received — aside from the usual protests about sex and nudity — but it wasn’t continued.

Two years later, in 2010, the Quarterly was revived again, this time as a promotional element for Abercrombie’s Back-to-School 2010 marketing campaign, which bore the unfortunate title of “Screen Test.” The lead story Abercrombie put out on its website sounded like a cross between American Idol and a gay porn shot: “The staff of A&F Studios opens up to editorial to explain the steps the division takes to find new, young, hot boys. The cattle-call approach to herd young talent ends with the best of the beefcake earning a screen test that ‘could be the flint to spark the trip to the star.’”

Bruce Weber would be shooting, of course. This would become especially ominous after he was accused of a series of casting-couch style sexual assaults by 15 male models beginning in 2017. According to the accusations, he subjected them to sexually manipulative “breathing exercises” and inappropriate touching, insinuating that he could help their careers if they complied.

Arick Fudali, a lawyer at the Bloom Firm, which represents five of Weber’s alleged victims, declined to confirm or deny whether any of the alleged assaults happened on a Quarterly shoot. If they did, they’re not prosecutable as sexual assaults in New York. Because the states’s statute of limitations on reporting rape is only three years, anything that happened during the Quarterly’s run wouldn’t count toward a sexual assault charge (unless a minor was involved, which Fudali also declined to confirm).

No one I spoke with for this story remembers seeing, hearing or experiencing anything like what the allegations against Weber describe, but some expressed concern over how they might affect the legacy the Quarterly leaves behind. “The accusations are pretty grim,” Collins told me. “You feel for the people who are put in that position. People had power over them. It just makes you think, ‘Was any of this worth it?’ Not really, if people were getting hurt.”

As such, it’s difficult to conclude with definitive sign-off about the Quarterly’s legacy. Either it was a bastion of progressive and transversive sexuality that simultaneously trolled and nourished the very audience it sought to mine, or it was the product of darkness and pain. Either way, Sockel sums it up just right: “The Quarterly was discontinued in 2003, after the American Decency Association boycotted photos of doe-eyed bare-assed jocks in prairies and glens,” he wrote in his recollection. “It was nice while it lasted.”

41 notes · View notes

australian-desi · 4 years

Text

Rest In Peace ~ Sushant Singh Rajput

Hey guys, I was going into a spiral thinking about SSR and everything he went through and I needed somewhere to write my feelings down. There’s so much noise about this on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, I didn’t want to add to the noise, bashing and overall negativity, so found this to be the best place. I’m sorry in advance if I offend anyone. This is going to be very long.

Sushant Singh Rajput the Actor and Human:

I’m not going to lie, I wasn’t his biggest fan, not by a long shot. I watched him in Pavitra Rishta every now and then because my mum was obsessed with that show and I used to be confused as to why everyone was obsessed with Manav and Archana - I was 12 years old when the show started and just felt it was another saas-bahu serial. However, to this day it amazes me how Manav and Archana were able to capture their audience for three consecutive years when their story was another saas-bahu serial. It was obviously the actors portraying them, and it takes a lot to grab someone’s attention and keep it on yourself. SSR had that energy. I remember then he came onto Jhalak Dikhlaa Jaa, I watched that show quite religiously because of my love for dance, and was bowled over by how good of a dancer he was. He had perfect lines, and his posture was amazing, I was in awe every time he danced. I remember that in that show he proposed to his then-gf in the cutest way possible, a proposal that is etched into my mind till this day.

He then left his daily soap, for a career in Bollywood, it was a very risky, bold move because it is a well known fact - Tellywood actors, are rarely able to make good careers in Bollywood. Most of them become irrelevant after their first or second movie. But man was everyone wrong about Sushant. I didn’t watch Kai Po Che, but I remember the buzz around it at the time, everyone was talking about it, and it was one of the biggest movies of that year. He then did Shuddh Desi Romance - a movie I was inclined to watch because he was in it, I was slowly turning into a fan, but I didn’t get the chance to watch it. Then came PK. When PK’s trailer was launched, SSR’s cameo was kept a secret, I remember I was in the theatre and he came onto the screen and absolutely owned it. His performance as Sarfaraz won me over, and a smile still comes to my face when I remember him in the song “chaar kadam”. SSR had an amazing screen presence, he knew how to keep the audience’s attention on himself and a lot of the time you would forget this Sushant Singh Rajput, in fact you would only think of him as his character. The brilliance in his craft was the ability to become his characters completely, to the point you think of them as a real person. The next movie I watched of his was MS Dhoni - a movie that became a sensation. Everyone who went to the movie as Dhoni fans, came back as Sushant’s fan. He deserved that and more. You could see his hardwork, his passion and his dedication in everything he did. I remember when the trailer for Raabta dropped, I was super excited two of my favourite actors - Sushant and Kriti had come together. At that point I started watching more interviews of him and got to know him a little from what he portrayed as a person. Raabta flopped at the box office, however, personally I enjoyed it and I was amazed at the chemistry he had with Kriti Sanon. In Kedarnath, I was so excited that Sara Ali Khan was doing her debut with him, and man both did not disappoint. Kedarnath was an amazing movie and Sushant portrayed his character with utmost conviction. Chichore was the last movie I watched of his and I absolutely loved the movie and him in it. The themes and overall message of that movie hit deep, and it was intelligently made, with comedy mixed with the darker themes, but not taking away from the main message they were trying to convey. Overall, even though I wasn’t a fan of him at the start of his career, he had won me over.

I also started adoring him as a person. His love for physics and astronomy; his eyes full of curiosity and enthusiasm towards the great unknowns. He didn’t finish his engineering degree, but the childlike wonder he had towards science made me excited as a scientist myself. He showed everyone that he had a brilliant mind and I’ve said this before and I’ll said it again, actors who are educated and well-spoken make me respect them more, they have a different way of thinking, they are eloquent and they show how much education can do for a person. SSR had all of these qualities. I could hear him speak for hours at a time. His instagram posts were always so deep and meaningful, it would make me thing differently, and his 50 things bucket list inspired me to no end. Especially how much he wanted to do for other people and how much he wanted to grow as a person. He also had an infectious smile, his smile used to make his fans smile and it takes a big person to do that.

SSR’s Death:

I was doing an assignment when one of my friend’s had sent me the news. I thought it was a hoax at first, but then I googled him, and it was true - Sushant Singh Rajput had committed suicide. Honestly, I’ve been distraught since then, I cried multiple times, and I can’t stop thinking about him, the pain he must’ve felt in order to take this decision, and whenever I saw his sisters or dad I cried even more, the sadness and despair I felt would be nothing compared to theirs, especially because his death was preventable. I’ve never been depressed, I’ve had my fair share of panic attacks and anxiety but I don’t know what depression is. I only know what I’ve studied, that people who are depressed have physiologically different brains to people who are not, they have decreased levels of oxytocin and serotonin, and that they have less grey matter. I’ve also been told that this causes them to not be able to function, they sleep too much, become unable to socialise, and their brain starts to turn them against themselves. However, I believe that there is always an underlying cause of depression. There are triggers for depression, a person doesn’t become depressed over nothing. I know everyone wants to know the trigger; why did he take such a drastic step, but he didn’t leave a note. He left with silence. I know it is difficult, but I feel that we should respect that, however, we should not let him die in vain.

But I’m going to be real here IT IS NOT OUR PLACE AS THE GENERAL PUBLIC/AUDIENCE OR FANS TO GO ONTO OTHER CELEBRITIES TWITTERS/FB/IG AND CALL THEM MURDERERS. How dare we think that we can blame other people for someone’s death. I don’t care how these people treated him while he was alive, let them mourn him in peace. His death has taught me one thing, not one person is toxic, not one industry is toxic, all of us are. The person who is now checking up on every single person that they usually would not care for because of guilt, the girl shouting all over my timeline that Karan Johar, Deepika Padukone and Alia Bhatt murdered SSR, the boy screaming that x person didn’t post about his death they wouldn’t be affected by this or they don’t care. Every single person. Everyone needs to stop with raging on social media. They need to take a step back and breathe, and mourn and let others mourn.

My take on Nepotism and Bollywood:

Here’s the crux of the issue. Bollywood. I’m your average desi girl, I’ve grown up watching bollywood, being obsessed with it. To the point that at a certain time I only watched Bollywood. Then the whole nepotism scandal hit. I remember thinking to myself then, what’s the big deal? Also did people really not think about this until an actress had to come speak about it on national television? Did no one realise that Bollywood has been preferring starkids over other talents for decades? I used to think that yeah, Bollywood has nepotism, but where does nepotism not exist. The truth is nepotism exists everywhere. A doctor’s child becomes a doctor. A business man’s child becomes a businessman etc. But here’s the thing, the doctor’s child has to work towards becoming a doctor, he/she has to go through the same steps that other non-doctor children have to do. The only advantage they get is, that their parents might be able to help prepare them for what’s coming, and it’s not like every doctor has doctor parents, both people get equal opportunity. The child of a doctor just has more insight. However, in Bollywood, there is no equal ground, it isn’t as if a starkid only has it easy to get their first movie. Nope, they sign their second or third movie before their first one releases. Take Sara Ali Khan for example, she had already signed Simmba, before Kedarnath had released. Now take Anushka Sharma, she didn’t get her second movie two years after the release of her first one. Nepotism does exist, it will exist, but in other industries, the people who aren’t a product of it are still able to get promoted, to do good work and receive equal opportunity. However, in Bollywood this is not the case. It has never been the case. This needs to change. This needs to desperately change. Especially because nepotism didn’t use to be as bad, as the products of nepotism were still talented, but now, they are not, and SSR’s death can bring this change, because Bollywood is losing it’s credibility, and as I consider Bollywood my own, my home, I want it to do better. Actors who come from non-film backgrounds and television deserve to share space in mainstream cinema with those who do come from film backgrounds.

Where From Here

In the past couple of years, we’ve become a horrible society. We pretend to like people when we meet them, and then bitch about them behind their back. We also think that whatever comes to our heads we can say to whatever celebrity the way we want because them being public figures is an open invitation for us to say hurtful things to them which normally we would not say if we meet them in person. We are the people who cry about nepotism, and then when a movie doesn’t have a big star in it we go “we’ll watch it at home, if we have time, why waste money going to the cinema”. We are the same people who cry about mental health issues and to raise awareness, when we think its absolutely fine to give a celebrity death threats because of a comment they made. We are also those people who cry about how SSR was treated unfairly, when we had a chance to go see his movies but didn’t. Who gave us this authority to be able to judge? Who gave us the right? If we won’t talk to other people with such disrespect in real life, why can we over the internet? WE. NEED. TO. DO. BETTER. AS. A. SOCIETY.

We need to stop shaming people, we need to support artists that aren’t star kids, but also support star kids. They don’t deserve the hate they get either. It isn’t completely their fault that they are given more opportunity. It’s our fault too. We are the ones who make them successful. Directors know that they could sell more tickets with Ranbir Kapoor on the poster than Sushant Singh Rajput, even if Sushant Singh Rajput is a better artist. We need to support both talents. We need to show filmmakers as an audience, that both artists should be given equal opportunity. That the only thing nepotism should do for a starkid is just give them insight on what a life of an actor is like. That is all. They should also go to auditions, they should also be accepted or rejected based on talent. And for the love of god, we need to stop getting celebrities to judge other celebrities based on acting skills and sex appeal. it’s 2020, we can do better.

Also to anyone who’s having any sort of dark thoughts. Please, I beg of you talk to someone. There is someone who loves you; your parents, siblings, teachers, friends, family, that brown guy in your dms. And if you truly don’t know anyone that you can talk to, talk to a therapist on a free hotline. My inbox is also always open if you want to chat.

To Sushant Singh Rajput - I will miss seeing you at the movies, your smile and your interviews, and how much of an inspiration you were to me. I hope you are at peace now, and finally found happiness.

For anyone who read this - thank you for reading my absolute ramble and I hope I made sense

Here’s a dumb joke to make you hopefully smile a little, or at least roll your eyes: What do you call bacteria found in Agra? Agraculture - does this even make sense. IDK. All I want to say is, that I’ve been an absolute dukhi aatma for the past couple of days, and now its time to smile, and look at some positives.

#Sushant Singh Rajput #TLDR #Nepotism #Bollywood #I tried my best to write less but pent up feelings came and became this mess #Live and let live #Be kind

88 notes · View notes

michaelfoote2000 · 3 years

Text

David Lynch & Surrealism: When the Non-Traditional Becomes Traditional

Often described as “one of the most unique visionaries working in cinema today,” it is not hard to see why director David Lynch and his unusual catalogue of work have garnered a lot of attention since the 80s (ScreenRant). Looking at his career holistically, it is evident how little his style has actually changed. Meanwhile, public perception of him and his productions has fluctuated quite a bit from decade to decade. After a somewhat uncertain start in the 1970s, he eventually rose to become arguably one of the most popular directors in the 21st century, which brought about strong implications for the world of independent cinema. The rise in popularity of David Lynch’s small but strong category of films brought about a wider acceptance of surrealist storytelling, as more audiences embraced the non-traditional storytelling so often associated with independent projects, further blurring the lines between industries and individuals.

David Lynch’s directorial debut, Eraserhead, actually serves as a perfect microcosm of his cinematic style and approach. First and foremost, it is utterly and proudly surreal. The entire film takes place in an ambiguous and unsettling interpretation of America – as many of his projects do – operating within a world that manages to both feel very familiar and very foreign at the same time. The film’s plot, focusing on a man and his grotesque, barely human child, is incredibly vague; Lynch keeps the purpose of the story open to interpretation, simply leaving the viewer with the shock and confusion at what they just watched. Eraserhead does not hold back: like many of Lynch’s films that follow it, it is gruesome, graphic, and sexual (ScreenRant). In other words, it had many of the characteristics that defined a number of flicks as independent cinema. Taking the risk of making such an off-putting movie did not come without its consequences, though.

Released to limited audiences in 1977, the film initially received a good amount of backlash. Variety denounced it as “unwatchable” due to the vagueness and brutality of its content, and since Lynch is notorious for refusing to give any clarification on most of his projects, interviewing him about the project provided no satisfying answers (Variety). It has since become something of a cult classic, embraced by fans of such dramatic and stupefying cinema (Chion 3). But it is easy to see why Lynch did not fit in with mainstream cinema at first. He made it clear that the kind of work he wanted to make did not have accessibility or comfort in mind. If Lynch wanted to be a surrealist director, it seemed he would have to accept that he would inevitably fail to capture the hearts of the average American viewers.

youtube

And yet, despite such a baffling first project, Lynch managed to break into Hollywood rather quickly. He found himself directing an adaptation of the science fiction novel Dune only seven years later in the mid-1980s. Much unlike his first work, Dune turned out to be very slow and boring. Its story is far more concrete, given it is drawing from a popular source text in a genre proven to have reliable appeal. The appeal did not transfer over, though; Dune was a commercial and critical flop (Hollywood Reporter). Lynch was not happy with it either; famously, there were a multitude of clashes and complications with the studio that led to the final release of the film differing greatly from his original four-hour vision. The disconnect is not only felt by Lynch, as Dune does stand out like a sore thumb amongst the rest of his filmography. It is considerably less obtuse and unusual than everything that came before and after, and yet still audiences refused to embrace it. The mainstream had rejected Lynch once again, who refused to be deterred.

Lynch stuck with his comfort zone and returned to writing and directing projects that outright ignored the mold in favor of the atypical (as independent filmmakers are known to do) (Nochimson 11). For instance, Blue Velvet was another clear example of Lynch’s untethered approach to storytelling, a late-80s suburban tale that was much more in line with his personal stylings than that of the mainstream movie circuit (Nerdist). Blue Velvet was a success, much more so than Dune or Eraserhead, but still did not become a Hollywood-level hit (Far Out Magazine). At this time, independent cinema had not quite reached the heights of popularity that it would soar to by the turn of the century. Audiences were not used to his level of surrealism…that is, until the arrival of a certain TV phenomenon. David Lynch’s first major foray into television was the mystery series Twin Peaks, premiering in 1990 on the ABC network. The opening episode was actually shot as a movie in case the show did not get picked up – and was even released as one outside of America with a more ‘concrete’ ending (well, concrete by Lynch’s standards). This premiere is arguably the most important work of David Lynch’s entire career, as it kickstarted what was his first project to really achieve true mainstream success. Its original run only lasted two years before a swift cancellation, but it made a huge impression on the audiences it did reach, especially after it took a hard turn into supernatural elements and had a massively ambiguous ending. Audiences were enthralled and intrigued after being hooked with the more mainstream premise of a teenage girl’s murder; Lynch had finally found a way to hook more viewers on to one of his non-standard projects (Nerdist). Thus, the attention achieved from the original finale of Twin Peaks (the only episodes he directed outside of the opening few of the first season) naturally had a very tangible impact on Lynch’s career.

youtube

After writing and directing another mind-bending independent film that came in the form of 1997’s Lost Highway, David Lynch signed on to direct the G-rated Disney romp The Straight Story (Filmmaker Magazine). This 1999 film is easily David Lynch’s most mainstream work. However, miniscule touches of his style are still prominent throughout the film. While it is the kind of saccharine story one would expect from Disney, it has a colorful cast of side characters (reminiscent of the residents of Twin Peaks) and its camerawork shares some broad similarities with Blue Velvet (Variety). All of this makes sense, given that The Straight Story was the first feature film that David Lynch directed while having no hand in the writing. Still, Lynch’s involvement in the project proved that Hollywood was finally recognizing his talents and seeking his unique style.

Ever since then, David Lynch has remained in the peripheral vision of mainstream audiences. While not quite a household name, his works have propelled him to being one of the more well-known American directors of the past half century or so. People retroactively began to look back on his older works and find renewed interest, turning Eraserhead and Blue Velvet into strong cult classics among film nerds alongside Twin Peaks. Concurrently, Lynch worked on a number of short films and shows across the 2000s, 2010s, and even into the 2020s. One of his most intriguing and baffling productions was a short, 60-second commercial he made for a Sony video game console, dubbed simply PlayStation 2: The Third Place. It is no more nonsensical than the rest of Lynch’s work, but it stands out because of its role as a promo for what would go on to be one of the best-selling video game consoles of all time. Even though it would be misguided to credit that all to Lynch’s advertisement, it nevertheless left a sizeable impact on a widespread audience, remaining in the memories of gaming communities for decades to come. In part thanks to the opportunity to reach wider audiences due to advancements made in the internet age, surrealist art was touching more people than ever and finding new audiences. Along with the rising popularity of independent film around the turn of the century, where non-traditional storytelling almost became its own miniature fad in Hollywood, David Lynch’s style was on its way to becoming mainstream.

youtube

What really cemented David Lynch in the hearts of cinephiles was his 2001 film Mulholland Drive. It felt like a perfect companion piece or spiritual successor to Twin Peaks with its interweaving plotlines, otherworldly side characters, and unclear lines of reality. The ending of Mulholland Drive is perhaps one of the most debated story moments of Lynch’s career because of just how surreal and non-linear it was. The film was quickly labeled one of the best films of the decade and has remained on many such lists in the following two decades (Nerdist). Since its release, Lynch has shifted his attention to television and other short-form content. He has continued to make surrealist short films like What Would Jack Do? that ended up on Netflix among other originals that became some of the most popular mainstream media of the decade. Meanwhile, he has used his YouTube channel to produce loads of short videos colored with his signature oddities, which consistently draw in thousands of viewers (Far Out Magazine). But the ultimate evidence of cultural power that Lynch managed to achieve – despite his rejection of mainstream filmic practices – was the story behind the Twin Peaks revival season that aired in 2017, known simply as The Return. A season that almost did not happen when executive and budget limitations stopped him from making the project, Showtime gave David Lynch completely free reign to make the 18-episode story he desired. It was slow, raw, abstract, uncomfortable – everything his works have come to be known for (Nerdist). And it was a massive success. Fans tuned in every week for to watch some of the most bizarre, dream-like television ever produced, proving that Showtime’s permission of creative liberties paid off.

Although Lynch may permanently shift mediums going forward, his surrealist style of storytelling will likely never dissipate. Not only is it essential to building the character of his works, it has become widely embraced across the nation as the appeal of his films (Creed 2). Lynchian surrealism brought him from the world of independent cinema to mainstream eyes, demonstrating how non-traditional storytelling has found popularity and widespread success with film audiences in recent years.

Want to learn more? My sources:

David Lynch by Michel Chion

The Passion of David Lynch: Wild at Heart in Hollywood by Martha P. Nochimson

The Untamed Eye and the Dark Side of Surrealism: Hitchcock, Lynch and Cronenberg by Barbara Creed

ScreenRant: https://screenrant.com/david-lynch-eraserhead-established-director-style/

Nerdist: https://nerdist.com/article/david-lynch-filmography-streaming/

Far Out Magazine: https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/david-lynch-career-eccentric-master-cinematic-surrealism/

Hollywood Reporter: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/dune-review-1984-movie-953878/

Variety (1): https://variety.com/1999/film/reviews/the-straight-story-1117499811/

Variety (2): https://variety.com/1976/film/reviews/eraserhead-1200424018/

Filmmaker Magazine: https://filmmakermagazine.com/110889-theres-so-much-darkness-so-much-room-to-dream-david-lynch-on-lost-highway/#.YJK4JrVKiM9

4 notes · View notes

aion-rsa · 3 years

Text

Cruella: Does Every Villain Need a Sympathetic Origin Story?

https://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Clearly this isn’t your parents’ Cruella De Vil. This isn’t even your Cruella De Vil. However, there is something fiendishly charming about seeing Emma Stone charge into a ballroom and light her black and white dress on fire, revealing a chic red number beneath that would do Scarlett O’Hara proud. If fashion is a statement, Cruella is here to say the villain has just arrived!

Yet one can’t help but shake the certainty that by the time we actually learn the plot of Disney’s Cruella reimagining, Cruella will be in anything but black and white, or fiery red. Rather Cruella is obviously posturing to take a sideways approach to an old classic. But then again, that increasingly feels like the only direction these Hollywood redos know: the sympathetic origin story for an iconic villain.

To be clear, we’ve only gotten a glimpse of Stone as the new Cruella, and she looks absolutely fabulous in a black leather coat and cane, purring, “I’m only getting started, darling.” There’s a wildness about this interpretation befitting our current era where Harley Quinn is the hero of her own story, and Wade Wilson now leads a Disney franchise. Nevertheless, when I watch Cruella on the edge of tears in the trailer, barking defiantly that she is CRUELLA—and seemingly embracing an unfair reputation that other characters may be placing on her—a nagging question persists in the back of my head: Do we really need a sympathetic Cruella De Vil?

The trend of supervillains getting intellectual property-expanding sob stories is nothing new, be it at Disney or anywhere else in Hollywood. Maybe 25 years ago when folks liked their villains big and outlandish—think Glenn Close in Disney’s previous live-action remake of 101 Dalmatians—it was novel to see the antagonist become a tragic protagonist. But like everything else with modern blockbusters, that all changed a long, long time ago with something called Star Wars.

Back in 1977 when the original Star Wars movie was released, many audience members left the theater giddy about the world George Lucas created. In a galaxy far, far away, every pop fantasy of the mid-20th century—Wizards! Knights! Princesses! Samurai! World War II ace pilots!—was thrown into a massive cauldron that seamlessly blended these elements.

Luke Skywalker’s galaxy felt like a real place of exotic, lived-in locales, all of which captured that dirt-under-the-fingertips, tactile quality so rarely seen in fantasy stories. Sure the characters might be archetypes, but they came with histories which gave their fantasy space battles human density. Old Ben Kenobi fought in the Clone Wars with Luke’s father Anakin, who was “a gifted pilot.” But what exactly was a clone war? And why was there more than one of them? Also, what did a Jedi’s “more civilized age” look like for Luke’s papa?

For more than 20 years, no one knew the answer to those questions, which made them all the more intriguing, and the “lore” of this fantasy evermore mythic. Then came Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace, the first modern blockbuster prequel devoted to filling in the gaps left by a beloved classic’s mysteries. That movie’s problems are numerous, but at its core the most persistent, lingering issue may still be the reveal that Darth Vader was once a blonde haired little boy with the emotional range of Beaver Cleaver. Of course everyone knew in the abstract sense Vader was once a child… but did they ever really want to see it?

Additionally, did anyone really want to learn Anakin Skywalker’s reason for turning to the Dark Side is because of a bratty streak that followed him into adulthood? Probably not.

Nonetheless, all three Star Wars prequels made massive amounts of money and rather than becoming cautionary tales of what happens when you attempt to explain away all the mysteries of a beloved character, they were the first steps toward a modern staple of media regurgitation where seemingly every mug, pug, and thug would get their own sympathetic redo.

Since then, we’ve learned on screen that Spider-Man’s arch-nemesis Venom, is really a well-intentioned bloke caught in a bad romance (with his alien space buddy), Batman’s arch-nemesis the Joker is really just a Travis Bickle clone with mommy issues, and Maleficent, the reigning empress of badassery in the Disney Villain canon, was really just a woman scorned by Sleeping Beauty’s toxic father. Even Hannibal Lecter became a victim in Hannibal Rising, and the Wicked Witch of the West starred in the most popular Broadway musical of all time… where it turns out she was the hero in a conspiracy with the Scarecrow to pull one over on Dorothy.

To be clear, some of these spinoffs and reimaginings work quite well. Even if I personally am a bit chagrined at Todd Phillips’ Joker being nominated for Best Picture, Joaquin Phoenix’s sad sack killer clown created the space for a riveting performance that reminded mainstream audiences that movies can still be for adults. In another comic book movie, Magneto’s heartbreaking backstory in the Holocaust was expanded in 2011’s X-Men: First Class, which made an already relatively complex supervillain just that much more compelling in Michael Fassbender’s hands.

Overall, however, this approach has left something to be desired. And to get back to Cruella, her remix as a misunderstood tragic heroine appears to owe most of all to Maleficent. In 2014, Disney made a killing when they cast movie star Angelina Jolie as their very best big bad, a character so evil in 1959’s Sleeping Beauty that she was willing to knockoff a princess simply because no one sent her a party invite. That’s cold. And it’s wickedly entertaining. Hence why Maleficent scared and captivated generations of children.

Some characters are just too good at being bad.

The marketing of Maleficent leaned into this with a melancholic cover of Sleeping Beauty’s Tchaikovsky-inspired theme song, “Once Upon a Dream.” Now in a minor key, the new version sung by Lana Del Rey promised a scarier, more menacing version of the story, which was then confirmed by Jolie’s wonderfully devilish laugh. The big bad was finally going to have her day at the ball.

But when the movie actually came out, we learned that Maleficent was an enchanted fairy who’d been wronged. In the end, she didn’t hate Elle Fanning’s Princess Aurora. In fact, she loved the little royal and tried to save her from the curse she herself cast in a fit of justified anger. Ultimately, the sorceress adopts Aurora as the daughter she never had after disposing of her now abusive father. That’s certainly an interpretation. I guess.

It also proved massively successful in the short term, opening at a staggering $175.5 million in its opening weekend worldwide, and grossing $758 million total. Those numbers also exclude merchandising and home video revenues. If you want to know why we’re getting the punk rock Cruella, look no further.

However, did a lot of folks really like Maleficent? It made all the money in the world based on that devious marketing campaign that promised a shocking tell-all about Disney’s closest approximation to Lucifer, but by the time a sequel limped into theater five years later, relatively few seemed to still care about the misunderstood, freedom fighting warrior fairy Jolie played. Maleficent: Mistress of Evil ostensibly continued the good fight but flopped at the box office with a cume of $491.7 million, barely more than half of what its predecessor made. (Don’t cry for Disney though, as Avengers: Endgame, Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, and remakes of Aladdin and The Lion King in the same year made Maleficent 2 look like a clerical error.)

What this whole sputtering franchise reminds us though is that some characters are better left bad, and the mystique of the unknown is an end unto itself. While I enjoyed Phoenix’s take on the Joker, there is little argument the character was even scarier with a PG-13 rating when he manifested out of thin air, like Beelzebub, in The Dark Knight. Or to take a step away from just villains, was Han Solo really any cooler when you learned how he got his name in Solo: A Star Wars Story? Or could you have gone your whole life without knowing thanks to The Hobbit movies that Gandalf and Galadriel were kind of, sort of, just maybe friends with benefits?

The allure of Cruella De Vil is right there in her name: She’s a cruel devil. How could she not be when her entire ambition in Disney’s classic 101 Dalmatians is to skin puppies for their fur coats? Finding out she used to fight the power before hoarding it may make a lot of money, but it doesn’t make her necessarily more compelling.

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

The post Cruella: Does Every Villain Need a Sympathetic Origin Story? appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3dpItie

#aion-rsa #Den of Geek

6 notes · View notes

youngboy-oldmind · 3 years

Text

ALBUM REVIEW- Madvilliany

“Stopped for a year/ Come back with thumb tacks, pop full of beer/ We're hip hop sharecroppers/ Used to wear flip flops, now rare gear coppers/ He's in it for the quiche/ You might as well not ask him for no free shit, capiche?/ Oh, my aching hands/ From raking in grands and breaking in mic stands”

Madvillainy is an experience.

Madvillainy utilizes concepts, composition techniques, and writing styles to a unreplicable level. MF DOOM and Madlib are a match made in hip hop heaven. From MF DOOM’s one of a kind delivery and flow, to Madlib’s insane use of samples and instruments, Madvillainy is the hip hop love child of two of the most unique artists to ever hit the industry.

The best of the best records all have something in common: They’re more than a list of songs. There are intermissions, excerpts, skits, poems, etc. Something to unify the songs outside of the fact they share the same album space. Madvillainy elevates itself from simply a track list into a dimensions of jazz-rap heaven. In the outro track, the listener can visualize MF DOOM performing in front of an audience. Performing and being applauded, spitting another verse because he’s unsatisfied with the first. Throughout the album, intermittent instrumental compositions are scattered to break and transition betweens songs. However, the instrumentals are more than just beats; it feels like an actual jazz band recording with a Madlib at the DJ spinners to interpolate a sample. Madlib and DOOM create an experience that had me upset after 46 minutes cause I didn’t want it to end.

Also, this project does something else interesting: no choruses. Not one chorus in the 22 tracks. This benefits the project. Instead of bloating the runtime with choruses that take up 30-45 seconds 2-3 times in the song, the listener gets straight raw lyrics and rap the entire time. And when MF DOOM isn’t spitting, we get full instrumental breaks. This constructs a listening experience that isn’t overwhelming nor makes the album feel packed too tight with songs.

Because of the lack of choruses, only a 2 tracks surpass the 3 min mark: “America’s Most Blunted” and the outro “Rhinestone Cowboy”. This creates a very unsettling listening experience because Madvillain doesn’t allow you to get comfortable with a song too long. Right when you start bobbing your head and getting into the groove, the next track starts. This works to both of their benefit; MF DOOM can demonstrate his lyrical versatility over a variety of beats and tempos, and Madlib can demonstrate his production versatility. It’s much better to listen to a condensely constructed 2:30 long track than a bloated 4:30 long track.

MF DOOM’s is famous for his unique flow. There’s nothing new I can add to his legacy of delivery. Instead of the very predictable and consistent flow an artist like Drake usually utilizes, MF DOOM’s off-syncopation, free floating lines allow him to use more complex rhymes and create more unique rhyme schemes. This creates a feeling like I feel I’m watching spoken word poetry at a small jazz club rather than listening to a mainstream artist perform a perfectly rehearsed, overly polished verse in a recording booth.

This project reminds me of Kendrick Lamar’s To Pimp A Butterfly. Although better than Madvillainy, (which to be fair, almost nothing is as good as To Pimp A Butterfly) it employs a similar sound. I wouldn’t be surprised if Kendrick stated Madvillainy was a source of inspiration. If you like the sound of To Pimp A Butterfly, you’ll most likely find this album enjoyable as well.

There are no problems with this album. I’m struggling to specify songs that standout, but I liked/loved almost every track. It started off above average, and everything from the 8th track “Curls” to the final track was brilliant. If I had to pick a favorite, it would be “Rhynestone Cowboy”. But each song uses the aspects I like about one track. So I could name easily ten other tracks that are my favorite.

Due to the underground nature and audience of MF DOOM, this album doesn’t have much as mainstream appeal and fame as other classic records from the early 2000s like The Blueprint or The College Dropout. But, I think it deserves to be up there. With no flaws, one-of-a-kind production and lyrical strength, and a listening experience that transcends everyday music, Madvillainy is one for the hip-hop record books.

Top 3 Tracks:

1) Rhynestone Cowboy

2) All Caps

3) Money Folder

Overall Grade: A+

Happy Birthday MF Doom. Rest in Peace

#music review #album review #hip hop review #hip hop #mf doom

2 notes · View notes

hellzyeahwebwielingessays · 4 years

Text

The Not-So-Amazing Mary Jane Part 13: MJ is complicit in several crimes (including identity theft)*

Previous Part

Next Part

Master Post

In this post we tackle why MJ going along with Beck is utterly unethical and makes her complicit in his crimes.

As detailed in prior instalments, MJ (through osmosis, common sense or basic research) should be able to deduce Beck hasn’t been legally released from prison. And she simply knows there are current super villains within the film crew.

By not blowing the whistle or trying to bring him to justice at all makes her complicit in enabling his continued evasion of the law (and arguably all crimes he committed to escape). This also applies to all the current super villains among the crew and arguably the former felons. I don’t know the specifics of law in Hollywood but I do know in some situations if you have criminal record it is illegal (or against a company’s policy) for you to have certain jobs. MJ has no way of knowing if every former felon is working there legally beyond Beck’s word, and she knows he systemically lies and deceives.

She is also complicit in Beck’s crimes of conning people out of their money and gambling it on a risky movie. For all she knows because of Mysterio they’d have unjustifiably lost millions of dollars and people might lose their careers. That’s the nature of the movie business normally of course but usually the people in charge gamble having a fair idea of the odds of success/failure.

Above all else though MJ is complicit in Beck’s continued identity theft of Cage McKnight.

Regardless of how harshly the letter of the law punishes this crime, ethically it is very serious. It can prove to be incredibly damaging to an individual on a mental, emotional, social and professional level.

Cage McKnight could return to America and find his friendships and work contacts in tatters because Beck neglected them. He could find that his professional reputation in disrepair because a controversial movie with his name on it flopped at the box office. Even were it to succeed and he was now known as ‘the Mysterio guy’, he never consented to making that movie nor to the risk of having that reputation follow him. What if Beck as McKnight uses his reputation to get into some compromising situations (like assaulting a crew member for example…) and McKnight now has to face legal ramifications for a crime he never committed. Even if he is publically cleared mud can often stick meaning he’d have to live with an unwarranted stigma surrounding him.

In fact such a thing applies to anything Beck might do with his identity. He’s an indie director, he’s not got the professional clout or huge fanbase that’d enable him to weather bad publicity like that. Look at Bryan Singer. He’s a mainstream Hollywood director who’s been accused of paedophilia. And yet in spite of that he still made ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ and it was still a successful movie. If he was a small time indie director and a similar controversy hit him that could potentially wreck his career forever. Especially if it was somehow connected to his first big scale Hollywood production.

No matter how many times anyone explains the truth many people will not bother with the nuances of the situation. And even if they did he’d look at least foolish for pointlessly playing with penguins for a whole year whilst someone else pretended to be him. It’d also be humiliating and potentially harm his career if the truth came out and movie was a box office smash. Can you imagine how he’d be regarded by the public, film buffs, or Hollywood? “Lol the guy pretending to be Cage McKnight made a better movie than he ever did!”

As for the mental and emotional damage, whilst not strictly speaking physical, the mere act of someone deliberately taking your property is hurtful, and that’s when it’s an inanimate object. In McKnight’s case it’s his literal name, appearance and reputation. Mysterio is leeching off all of that for clearly selfish reasons. He might believe it to be for a more morally superior purpose. MJ might even believe Beck believes that.

But MJ still knows Beck is trying to do something good before he dies whilst exploiting another innocent person in a way they never consented to. Not only would that be grounds for mistrust but it would be grounds to shut things down. Being a bad person and seeking to do good should not, and cannot, come at the expense of an innocent person. But Beck never cared about that, Cage is just the latest in a long line of people Beck has used for his own selfish ends. And remember among those people was MJ’s life partner and a teenaged girl…that Beck sexually violated…

What makes this especially nonsensical is that Mary Jane’s loved ones have been direct victims of the exact crime Beck is perpetrating against Cage McKnight .

The love of Mary Jane’s life has frequently been framed for crimes he didn’t commit by people who’ve appropriated his identity; both in and out of the moniker of Spider-Man.

Her acquaintance J. Jonah Jameson had weeks of his life stolen and his social life messed with when the Chameleon impersonated him for an extended period of time. (see part 7).

MJ was a first hand witness to the emotional upheaval caused to May, Peter and herself when an actress impersonated Aunt May and died in her place.

Mary Jane and her lover suffered immensely when Peter was tricked into believing he was a clone. He had a full on mental breakdown, he tried to murder Ben Reilly in a furious rage, he accidentally hit MJ herself in that same incident. Hell, he was vulnerable enough that he briefly joined forces with a super villain (the Jackal). Even after his recovery he was mentally and emotionally vulnerable and struggled a lot to come to terms with his lost sense of self. Beck isn’t committing a crime like that here, but it nevertheless proves that MJ would be aware of the damage messing with someone’s identity on any level could cause.

She was caught up in the turmoil of Otto Octavius pretending to be Peter Parker, a time period that involved him nearly raping her. Remember, Mysterio had a teenaged girl sexually violated as part of a scheme. So can MJ really afford to presume Beck won’t use the identity of a respected (and seemingly attractive) indie film director for similarly nefarious ends? In Hollywood no less!

Also, given her study of psychology and acting (a craft that can risk damage to someone’s psyche) you’d think MJ would have some knowledge about how important identity is to the human mind and the potential damage that can be wrought by toying with it.

Mary Jane would never stand for such a crime and yet here she’s merely concerned for Cage’s physical wellbeing and beyond that content to allow Beck to continue using it without McKnight’s consent.

*I will admit to not actually knowing for sure what the legal definition of Beck stealing Cage McKnight’s identity is. In lieu of that knowledge I am using the term ‘identity theft’.

P.S. It’s also worth bearing in mind MJ understands the pain from press slander. Not only has Peter in and out of costume been subjected to it, but she herself has endured it to. In ASM #521-522 a paparazzi peddled a story about her having an affair with Tony Stark. The experience ruined her joy over her stage debut and generally upset her. The art in these issues heavily imply she was brought to tears.

According to AMJ though, I guess she doesn’t care when it’s someone else’s reputation.

Previous Part

Next Part

Master Post

#Leah Williams #Amazing Mary Jane #mjwatsonedit #Mysterio #Quentin Beck #MJ Watson #mary jane watson #Mary Jane Watson Parker #Spider-Man #Peter Parker

11 notes · View notes

golderstar · 3 years

Text

how to dress well !!

Ask anyone what the most overlooked element of a man’s wardrobe is and they probably won’t even think to mention shoelaces. What does that tell you?

Yes, the bits of string that stop your shoes from falling off (unless you’re a 13-year-old skateboarder from 2002) may not be the most exciting part of your outfit, but you wouldn’t get very far without them. Literally. What’s more, if you know the right tricks, you can harness them as another subtle way to add a new style dimension to your look.

Because as nerdy as this surely is, how you lace your shoes should depend on which type of shoes you’re actually lacing in the first place. How you tie your smart shoes can be very different to how you lace your Vans.

Learn the different lacing methods below and find out which one is best for your favourite shoes.

5 Ways To Lace Your Shoes 👟

According to mathematics that are impossible to understand, renowned shoelace publication New Scientist claims there are a dizzying 400-million possible ways to lace up the average seven-eyelet stomper. Thankfully, we’re not going to be looking at all of them today, but here are a few of the key lacing methods it’s well worth filling your boots with.

Cross-Lacing

Look down at your trainers. The reason they’re not falling off right now is probably that they’re held in place using this type of lacing.

The most common way of fastening shoes, cross-lacing involves threading the lace through the bottom eyelets, leaving an equal length each side, and gradually crisscrossing up to each additional eyelet, one side at a time, until you reach the top.

Steps

Both lace ends should be inserted downwards through the bottom two eyelets, leaving equal length on both.

Take the left lace and place it downwards through the top of the second eyelet on the right. It should now be crossing over the tongue.

Do exactly the same to the other lace and insert it downwards through the top of the next eyelet on the left.

Continue lacing in this way, one side at a time and remember to put each lace down through the top of each eyelet.

European Straight Lacing

If you’ve ever worn a pair of closed-lace dress shoes, this is most likely how they were fastened. It’s a method well-suited to Oxford shoes and other smart styles as it looks clean and neat from the top

The laces run straight from eyelet to eyelet across the top of the shoe, while a zig-zag pattern underneath allows them to be tightened with ease.

Steps

Insert both lace ends downwards into each of the bottom holes.

Take the left lace and insert it up and through the next free right eyelet.

Take the right lace and place it up and through the third eyelet on the left, skipping out the second. There should now be an empty hole on the left hand side.

Insert what is now the right lace downward into this free eyelet, which should be directly opposite it.

Follow this process until completion, repeating the steps above for each lace.

Over-Under Lacing

Great for trainers or for adding a dash of personality to dress shoes, over-under lacing pretty much does exactly what it says on the tin.

Start off the same as you would when making a cross lace, but instead of going up to the next set of eyelets and over the top, go under. After that, go over the top up to the next set of eyelets and keep alternating in this pattern until you get to the top.Steps

Insert both lace ends downwards into each of the bottom holes.

Put the left lace up and through the next free right hand eyelet.

Do the same with the other lace – insert it up and through the first free left hand eyelet.

Take what is now the right lace and place it downward through the next available left side eyelet.

Do the same with the other lace and repeat this over and under technique until completion.

Straight Bar Lacing

If you like your laces neat, tidy and uncluttered then this may be the lacing method you’ve been looking for.

The laces run straight from eyelet to eyelet, horizontally across the top of the shoe. All the excess runs up and under the lace guard on each side, allowing the shoe to be tightened at the top just like normal.

Steps

Insert both lace ends downwards through the bottom two holes, leaving equal length on both the left and right laces.

Looking down on the shoe, insert the left lace up and through the next right hand hole, with its end pointing to the ceiling.

Now put the right lace up and through the third eyelet on the left, skipping out the second. There should now be an empty hole on the left hand side.

Take what is now the right lace and cross it over, inserting it downward through the empty eyelet on the left. This should create another straight bar, mirroring the first.

Do exactly the same with the left hand lace and cross it over, inserting it downward through the empty eyelet opposite it. You should now have three bars.

Keep lacing in this way, crossing each lace over to its opposite side to make new bars until you reach the top.

Commando Lacing

If not wearing any underpants is no longer giving you the thrill you crave then why not go even more commando by adopting this military-inspired lacing technique next time you put your boots on?

Great for fastening boots swiftly, one end of the lace is permanently anchored at the bottom eyelet, running in a linked ‘S’ shape pattern up the front of the boot and the other end is used for tying off in a slip-knot at the top.

Steps

Tie a stopper-knot on one end of the lace, before placing the un-knotted end up and through the bottom right eyelet until the knot is taught under the vamp.

Take the un-knotted end and run it straight through the opposite bottom eyelet.

Now place it up and through the eyelet directly above it before crossing over again down and through the opposite eyelet.

Repeat this step across each eyelet until you reach the top. Now tie another stopper-knot to tie it off.

Considerations When Re-lacing Shoes

Nothing’s ever simple, is it? And now you can add finding new laces for your shoes to the list. It doesn’t have to be difficult, though. Just follow these pointers and you can’t really put a foot wrong.

When re-lacing your shoes “it really depends on the type of shoe,” says Robbie Evans, men’s own-brand buying manager at Kurt Geiger. “If it’s formal then ideally you’d use a self-colour round lace or you could be braver and contrast a tan leather shoe with a navy or burgundy for example.

“Sports shoes give you a bit more of a licence to be creative – you can be braver with the different types of sizes and colours to create different looks.”

Length Of Lace

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. That means those shoes you dropped next month’s rent on might be fancy but they’re still going to look naff if they’ve got a set of dangly, rabbit ear-looking laces flopping about every time you take a step.

To make sure you get it right, measure your old laces before you buy a new pair to make sure they’re going to be a good fit for the shoe.

Width Of Lace

Fat laces might have been cool when you were in year seven with the names of your favourite bands scribbled in biro all over your pencil case. But as a fully grown man? Not so much.

As a general rule, don’t go for anything over 1cm and you should be able to avoid looking too ridiculous.

Colour

It should go without saying, but neon shoelaces aren’t exactly the most style-savvy move you can make as a man. Or woman. Or child. Or beast. Or…you get the idea.

In general, aim for laces that either match or complement the colour of your shoes. Brown shoes = brown laces, white shoes with blue accents = white or blue laces. And so on and so forth.

Materials

You’ve probably never even thought about the composition of your shoelaces before but we are living in the future and as such, you can get laces made from some pretty special stuff.

For your winter boots, you might want to consider waxed or even Kevlar laces, while for most other situations, cotton, cord or nylon will do the trick just fine.

How To Lace Different Types Of Shoe

Not all shoes should be laced the same. Allow us to walk you through some of the most popular styles and how to lace each and every one like a pro.

Vans

When it comes to casual footwear, Vans is one of the most popular brands around. Made famous by Californian skateboarders in the 1970s, the legendary footwear brand soon stomped its way into the mainstream and became a household name.

The most popular models of Vans shoes are the Sk8-Hi, the Era, the Old Skool and the Authentic. The best method for fastening all of these is probably cross-lacing.

Flat laces should be your first port of call and white will work for most colours. However, it’s very important to buy the right length for your shoe as all of these popular models vary widely in the number of eyelets they have.

Converse

The Chuck Taylor All Star is probably the most famous sneaker of all time. In fact, it’s nothing short of iconic.

The type of laces you pick to tie your converse will be dependant on two factors: whether your shoes are low top or high top, and what colour they are.

Always opt for flat laces when it comes to Converse and white should work the best in most cases, unless your shoes are completely black. Then it’s just a case of lacing them up, which is usually done using cross-lacing, but a straight bar lace can look good too.

Oxford

Your Oxford dress shoes differ from most of the other shoes in your wardrobe in that they use what’s known as ‘closed lacing’. This means the vamp of the shoe is stitched over the bottom of the lace guards, which gives a slightly less flexible fit but offers a much more formal look.

When it comes to picking laces, you’ll want them to be thin, round and the same colour as your shoes – a black-tie event is no time for risky style experiments.

To fasten them, use either a straight bar lace or a European straight lace. Both will work nicely as they leave a clean, uncluttered pattern on the top of the shoe while allowing for easy adjustment.

Sneakers

Bar maybe your slippers, your best sneakers are probably the most comfortable shoes in your collection and the ones that get the most wear. Because of this, it’s important to make sure they’re laced up to perfection.

Whether you opt for flat or round laces will depend entirely on the type of sneaker and on your own personal preference, but for the likes of most light coloured models, flat, white laces will do the trick.

As far as lacing methods go it’s pretty much anything goes, but cross-lacing is definitely the most popular option and always gives a clean, classic look.

Derby

The Derby is the shoe of choice for office workers and business folk all across the world. This is due in no small part to its unique blend of comfort and smart looks – a mix that no other footwear can match.

Unlike its dressier cousin, the Oxford, the Derby features an open lacing system which makes them a tad more flexible and more forgiving when worn for extended periods of time. However, it can still be laced in much the same way.

Use a thin, round lace, the same colour as the shoe and fasten using either the straight bar lacing method or the European straight method. Both will give a neat look while making adjustments nice and easy.

Desert Boots

Aside from a pair of white trainers, footwear doesn’t come much more versatile than a pair of desert boots. These adaptable all-rounders are notable for the fact they only tend to have four eyelets in total, which means lacing them up couldn’t be simpler.

The main point to take away with you is that the laces shouldn’t be too long as they’re not going to need to stretch very far, so try to pick something pretty short.

Go for a thin, flat lace in exactly the same colour as the shoe, ensuring its short enough not to leave you with metres of excess. Then use the cross-lacing technique to fix them in place.

Hiking Boots

Whether you’re using them to scale the north face of the Matterhorn, or just for nipping out to grab a winter coffee, hiking boots are the trusty old mate who will always have your back. Return the favour and make sure they’re laced up properly to say thanks.

Both flat and round laces will work nicely here and there’s even scope to experiment with colour. A yellow, red or even a tasteful two-tone or multicoloured lace can work as long as a bit of thought has been put into it. You’ll also want to make sure the laces are long enough to reach right to the top.

Cross-lacing is the only way to get the job done here, so thread the lace through the lowest set of eyelets and do exactly what you’d do with a pair of trainers.

by om narkhede

Golden web

@THEOMNARKHEDE

A video for you

youtube

#fashion #googleserch #original art #instagram

1 note · View note

saintlaurentproblems · 4 years

Text

exposingSMG recap: demi / jonas brothers

*DISCLAIMER: please take all of this w/ a grain of salt! This of course is just speculation, but I thought it would be fun to do a recap. All in the name of pop culture fun and games, which we desperately need in quarantine timez*

writer starts with key factors of their fallout:

sharing the same manager (2008-2018), wilmer, package deals that later turned into hell.

Demi / Joe started dating in the beginning of filming camp rock

was a real relationship, that also had benefit of being marketed since they played love interests in their movie

producers would've marketed them anyways even if they weren't dating

Demi / Joe broke up in June 2010 after 2 years together

2010 was the beginning of the downfall of the Jonas Brother's relevancy in the industry due to Justin Bieber now on the scene (and later in 2011, also one direction)

Demi left camp rock tour due to addiction, mental health, and an eating disorder and entered treatment until January 2011

with the release from treatment, Demi was now becoming the bigger star with the success of Skyscrapper and GYHAB (starting the switch of fame levels which plays a crucial part in their future fallout)

jumps ahead to 2012: Demi is now an X-Factor judge, and invites Nick to join her on the show mentoring her contestants

this was their first time seeing each other since 2010

they didn't really reunite again until 2014 after Nick starts getting traction as a solo artist

jumps to 2013, begins discussing Wilmer and his relationship w/ Demi

2013 was a really difficult year for Demi (body issues, mental health, addiction)

Wilmer worsened these issues x10

Demi wasn't her thinnest at this time, and Wilmer let her know it

brings up how you never seen photographs of Wilmer publicly w/ Wemi in 2013, but when she became very thin 2014-2016 he was photographed w/ her nearly daily

Demi doesn't and hasn't ever spoken about 2013 and the hardships she endured

jumps to 2014: Phil decides to market Demi to bring more relevancy & fame to Nick and the start of his solo act, while ultimately using her to arrange JoBro reunion in future

little by little Demi became more involved w/ Nick & Joe

Demi performed avalanche w/ Nick, and brought out Joe on tour to perform their camp rock duet

Demi / Nick quickly became BFF again, unofficial PR package by Phil

compares this to Camilla and Shawn's friendship which was also used for PR

states this is no drag, as it's a business tactic often used - uses another example, this time Scooter w/ his (at the time) most successful client Justin, bringing Ariana to open his 2013 tour (like JoBro & Demi 2008), and booking tori an awards show main stage performance

jumps to 2015: Joe debuts w/ DNCE and Demi starts getting close to Joe again

Demi then introduces Nick & Joe to Wilmer - this is how they became friends, though he is closer to joe

in December 2015, Demi went on vacation w/ Wilmer, Joe, AND NICK

calls Demi out for stupidity bringing her ex on vacation w/ her man

Joe / Nick knew of all the abuse from Wilmer. They knew he was drugged up, they knew about the partying and cheating, they knew how this contributed to her 2013 breakdown which led her continuously running back to drugs.

jumps to late 2015/early 2016 - Confident era was a very successful era for Demi and her highest debut since HWGA

this was a great time for Phil to make Demi tour w/ Nick (actually dropping Adam Lambert as opening act for Nick instead - this wasn't mentioned, but important info) to expose Nick to a mainstream audience again when he releases his solo album June 2016.

Future Now joint tour was depending solely on Demi to sell the tickets, and to help bring Nick's name out there

Nick's album LYWC was released June 10th 2016, Future Now tour began June 29th

albums aren't normally released so close to tour start dates

Demi & Nick are now doing everything together - joint interviews, that sexy Billboard magazine cover, attending events together

They became a PR package deal thanks to Phil, not just Nick but DNCE as well (mentions DNCE did have different manager at the time, but still w/ ties to Phill)

DNCE debut flops - Phil sticks Joe w/ Demi to find relevancy

Confident era was basically Demi just reviving Nick/Joe's solo career

DNCE having troubles getting another hit after Cake By The Ocean, Phil invites them to Future Now tour - they actually performed twice, July & September

everyone knew DNCE wouldn't last, it was a build up for future Jonas Brothers reunion

Demi / DNCE were now doing interviews together, attending events together and go on to perform Toothbrush together

even during Demi's big grammy night with nomination, she was hanging w/ DNCE

Demi was very supportive of DNCE, often promoting them

during this time, Joe continues to maintain really close friendship w/ Wilmer

DNCE / Demi appearances continue up until 2017

2017 is where the little PR package between the 3 ends, up until now they were still good friends often seen together

September 2017 Demi releases Tell Me You Love Me

Only time Nick is brought up is when she's questioned about her song Ruin The Friendship

On Ellen she was asked about the romance rumours between her and Nick and the song. Demi tells Ellen she never reveals who her lyrics are about, Ellen replies "So it's Nick?" and Demi just laughs

the reason people believe the song is about Nick is because the song literally spells out "Nick Demi" in the lyrics

She's asked about it in another interview - "People think it's about Nick" where Demi awkwardly replies "Oh.."

writer states none of sources were actually able to confirm or deny the rumoured romance, and that she doesn't know what happened between them or if they hooked up or not - Demi never spoke about it.

states that based off what she does know, she believes they at the very least hooked up and that Demi ended up falling.. hard

she again states Nick is a genuinely good guy, and she can't remember the last time Demi actually had that

jumps ahead to 2018 - Nick and Priyanka.

Nick & Priyanka are in, what is known in Hollywood, a marriage PR. She says to expect a pregnancy reveal, as Priyanka really wants it while Nick is still eh on the idea

she says they aren't actually really getting alone

When Demi heard about the news of them, she wasn't happy at all

She looked down upon Nick for stooping that low getting himself into a PR marriage

Demi actually called Nick out on it, and that is likely a big reason she wasn't invited to the wedding

She goes on to say Priyanka is both very controlling and attention seeking, and also likely didn't want the headlines of Demi at their wedding stealing the show away from her

she says as we've likely all seen, Demi doesn't care about her image at all.

Demi has had multiple opportunities for PR relationships to further her career, but always said no and that her career is about her life and her story.

Adds that if Demi was actually on board with the Niall Horan romance staged by Simon in 2012, she may have had a better outcome in the industry today

Jumps to 2018 - Demi's overdose, their fallout

As fast as Demi welcomed back the brothers into her life and bringing them back into mainstream, they dropped her even faster after her OD

Demi never forgot how they helped her on her debut, taking her on their tour, any of it - she repaid them w/o starting any problems within their management team by welcoming them into her career while she was the bigger star

says the second Nick got arranged w/ Priyanka in 2018 and Joe ran to Sophie Turner, continuing becoming besties w/ Wilmer (who emotionally abused to her the point she believed she was worthless) - she ran to drugs and alcohol.

says she doesn't believe Demi is mad at them for being friends w/ Wilmer, but instead hurt that they chose him over her despite knowing him to be a big contribution to her downfall

Begins discussing Phil, her former manager.

Demi was used by Phil as a marketing mule for the two acts he always chose to book better slots for, just using Demi as a ladder to get there.

Phil never did anything smart for Demi's career, instead convinced her she was a weak little puppy who needed his help - just to further his management career while throwing her away at the end of it.

He never supported her decisions, tried to force Tell Me You Love Me as the lead single from same titled album despite Demi begging for Sorry Not Sorry

Demi had to go to Jay-Z to get his help and back her up for SNS being the right choice (which was top 10 hit, 5x platinum, & biggest hit to date.)

3 notes · View notes

yourfanvivitran · 4 years

Photo

It should come as no surprise that John Carpenter and Dan O’Bannon were students in the same film class, that they created Dark Star together, and that they both had a great affinity for 1951’s The Thing From Another World. If you put Ridley Scott’s Alien, which O’Bannon wrote, next to Carpenter’s The Thing, the parallels cannot be contended. A group of people, bound together almost exclusively by their careers, are isolated and trapped in their own environment with a murderous monster. One by one, they are picked off by this alien beast and are forced to pull out all the stops just to survive. The tension in both movies is suffocating. The suspense stays well after the credits roll.

So, why did Alien excel and why did The Thing fail?

Alien was heralded as a science fiction-horror masterpiece, raking in over $200 million at the box office. The Thing, although now recognized as one of Carpenter’s best films to rival even the likes of Halloween, barely exceeded its $15 million budget by $4 million. What’s more is that critics panned The Thing almost unanimously after its 1982 release. And to what point?

When you compare the 2 movies, it objectively doesn’t make much sense. When you sit down and watch The Thing, without even thinking of its much more popular predecessor, it still doesn’t quite add up. There is not much I can say about The Thing that hasn’t already been said before. It’s well-known, now - the writing, the acting, the practical effects, the cinematography? Masterfully done. No arguments. So what went wrong?

The most popularly accepted explanation was that it just wasn’t the right year for it. In 1982, The Thing had to contend with the Summer of Spielberg, being critiqued alongside horror giant Poltergeist and science fiction treasure E.T. How could a stark and grim story of distrust and gore stand alongside such beloved classics?

But in tandem with these films and also calling back to the success of Alien, Carpenter cites reception from various focus groups: they hated the ending.

It should be assumed at this point that if you have not yet seen The Thing, you are sorely missing out. All the same, however, be wary of spoilers.

The end of The Thing is bitter, to put it lightly. Childs (Keith David) trudges through Antarctic snow, lit by the burning wreckage of Outpost 31, towards R.J. MacReady (Kurt Russel) who sits alone, already half buried. They observe their inevitable deaths, and drink to the supposed demise of their shapeshifting predator.

A lot is left out to die in the snow.

According to Carpenter, this ending was seen by test audiences as too dismal. And rightfully so, when you take into consideration the other popular releases of 1982. Carol Anne is ultimately saved, along with the rest of her family, at the end of Poltergeist. Elliot embraces E.T. before he finally returns home. And going further back, even Ripley is able to escape the xenomorph by the skin of her teeth and secure herself the title as one of the greatest “Final Girls” ever put to the silver screen.

And what of MacReady and Childs?

Well, that’s up to your imagination, Carpenter told a test audience member who asked who the final host was at the end of the movie.

“Oh, god. I hate that,” they responded.

As a writer, this loose ends style of concluding a story is almost expected from a lot of modern works. It’s written this way in order to haunt the reader, to linger and adhere itself to the real world in the most sardonic of ways. Think Joyce Carol Oates’s “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?” or Flannery O’Connor’s “A Good Man Is Hard to Find.” This almost anticlimactic close of the curtain arrived in the literary world long before it found its place in film, but it’s a big point of contention in mainstream criticism.

Dark or incomplete conclusions have been met with the most scathing of responses. Beware the black cutaway of Sopranos fame. Or the near-universal outcry against the third Mass Effect game that grew so much, the developers created a morsel of DLC content that maybe kind of confirmed a more optimistic fate for our dear Shepard.

But even for the horror genre, The Thing seemed unprecedented. The only fate darker to fall upon a mainstream protagonist was Ben’s untimely death in Night of the Living Dead. The tragedy of both movies is palpable - all this trouble to survive against inhuman killers, all this trouble to outlive something gruesome and maybe even make the world a better place, and what was left to show for it?

In short, Carpenter’s science fiction terror was too much of a bummer.

I personally did not take much of a liking to horror until much later in life. My parents didn’t filter the media I consumed as much as they probably should have, and I was scarred early on by movies as cheesy and entertaining as The Lost Boys and Blade. It wasn’t until late adolescence and into college that I set out to catch up.

My roommate at the time of this resolution had been a fan of horror her whole life, her favorites being Halloween, Candyman, and The Thing. Having already known a good deal about the former two, I decided to strap in for The Thing for the first time ever.

These days, I always have several soap boxes on retainer, just waiting for the next unwitting recipient of my usually-beer-induced rants. Brian Jones was killed, Jaws single handedly endangered sharks, banning books is a stupid practice, representation in media is important, etc. Predictably, one of these soap boxes is the general lack of appreciation of The Thing, both at the time of its release and today (it does not even make the top 100 on Rotten Tomatoes’s highest rated horror movies).

And yet, at the same time, if The Thing had achieved the credit it deserved upon release, I may not like it as much as I do today.

I make a point to not read too much about movies I am feverishly anticipating, and revel in the feeling of going into a well-known movie knowing as little as possible. Most of the time, it makes for the best viewing experience, but I’m sure I don’t even have to point this out.

This was my experience seeing The Thing for the first time. I was on winter break, staying at my parents’ house for the holidays. Everyone else had gone to bed, and I stayed up late in the living room, curled up under layers of blankets, content in perfect darkness save for the television.

I had no idea what to expect, as I had not been spoiled by any TV show making any blatant references and had not done any prior reading into the film itself. And I was absolutely delighted from beginning to end.

What stays with me the most is the special effects. It’s true what they say - that practical effects hold up better than CGI alone. And the production team didn’t cut any corners in this department. Stan Winston and his team, who were later responsible for the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, helped construct one of the best animatronics in the movie. Rob Bottin, who brought this constantly-morphing creature to life from conception to every last slimy detail, went on to be hailed as a genius in his special effects career. And there is definitely something to be said for the work of cinematographer Dean Cundey whose masterful control of lighting and framing is best seen in Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

The extent of my knowledge of the titular creature was that it was an alien. That it was an alien who could consume multiple life forms and take on their shapes was both exciting and terrifying. There’s creative genius in this premise that thrills the science fiction lover in me, and also fascinates the bookworm in me. I had been a fan of Agatha Christie novels as a teenager, and to see a new and outrageous take on the And Then There Were None structure was incredibly novel to me.

The appeal wasn��t just that there was something out there, lying in wait to torturously pick off it’s victims one-by-one. It was that it could have been anyone.

At its core, horror as we know it has deep roots in whodunnit style murder mystery. With the rise of the giallo and the sensation of the slasher, horror movies of this nature are far from uncommon and can be seen as late as 1996 with the Scream franchise. Carpenter himself spurned a new kind of fear with his breakout success with Halloween by refusing to give a bodily face to its main antagonist. Here, with The Thing, he takes the eponymous killer character to the next level by giving it the genetically inherent function of deceiving its prey. Not knowing the true face of your murderer has proven to be inherently bone-chilling.

Even now, hundreds of horror movies under my belt later and still constantly learning, I keep coming back to The Thing. I really cannot think of another movie in my wide array of favorites that I love more than The Thing, and I truly believe it has everything to do with me not knowing anything about it upon my first viewing. Every other movie I can name on my (similar to the subject) constantly changing top 10 list of most beloved horror flicks was, at some point, spoiled for me in some capacity.

Think of how often the twins in The Shining are referenced in cartoons, of all the head spinning jokes made in reference to The Exorcist. Anthony Hopkins’s portrayal of Hannibal Lector in Silence of the Lambs has become so infamous, that I knew his dialogue (and Buffalo Bill’s) long before I ever saw the movie in full.

I don’t blame these references for ruining these movies. As a super fan, I understand that compulsion to pay tribute. It’s no one’s fault and to their credit that these films take lives of their own. But the repercussions don’t age well in terms of initial viewing experiences.

All that being said, I truly cherish how much I was not exposed to this movie. The unpredictability of the creature and the quiet, looming despair that comes with it create a horror unlike any other.

Although it was a box office flop, The Thing is now a welcome and praised name in both science fiction and horror. Even Quentin Tarantino made it known that The Hateful Eight was primarily inspired on several fronts by Carpenter’s underrated work. However, it has not pervaded pop culture like so many other horror classics have left their indelible mark on film vernacular. And to that end, I hope it remains in that slight shadow of anonymity for all future enthusiasts.

#john carpenter #the thing #alien #horror #horror movie #horror film #horror genre

4 notes · View notes

bigskydreaming · 4 years

Note

1) Hi! It’s a strange question, I know, but I’m curious: how much do you take what happens behind the scenes into account in your analysis of a character or a storyline? To make an example, the push and pull of Dick’s filial status in the narrative is a consistent and frustrating thread in the comics, but has probably roots in the fact that Dick’s arrangement made sense in the 40s in a way that it didn’t anymore by the 80s.

Its a good question, without a good answer. Best I can say is it varies and I kinda take things on a case by case basis. Sometimes behind the scenes stuff doesn’t really change much about what’s on the page one way or another, and sometimes its extremely relevant.

For instance, your example of Dick’s status as ward vs adopted...I think its very much something where real world context and factors have a ton to do with it. I’d definitely agree that Dick as Bruce’s ward made total sense in the writers’ eyes and didn’t need changing or addressing until the 80s, which culturally is when adoption and blended families became a lot more....it feels weird to say mainstream in regards to that, but it kinda fits because the concept as a whole became more popularized and normalized and likely to have a presence in media in the 80s in ways it never really had before.

Personally, I don’t think there’s really any issue with Dick not being adopted before then, and think it has more to do with the zeitgeist of those times rather than in character choices about Bruce not wanting to adopt Dick for whatever reason. So my own approach to this particular matter is for me, it only became an issue when an additional variable was added...Jason and his adoption....as especially once Dick himself was written asking Bruce why he never adopted him...even though the most relevant answer up until that point was likely just that it had never been a culturally significant issue for their characters to have until now......once writers DID introduce Dick’s own view/question on the matter into the canon, THAT’S when I personally view it was being more of an issue that Bruce waited so long after THAT point before actually adopting Dick.

So for my own take...whether in meta and discussions of canon or my own fic stuff....I don’t really put much emphasis or even focus any real attention on Bruce not adopting Dick before that point in canon stories OR the concurrent position in the timeline....by that I mean, the approximate age I think Dick was when he first asked Bruce about that, eighteen or nineteen. I think there are certainly stories that can be written that involve Bruce adopting Dick or raising the matter for discussion earlier in Dick’s life like when he was fourteen or fifteen....but I don’t personally feel much of an urge to write things with a negative slant towards Bruce not adopting Dick earlier than that because I AM aware that in terms of canon, it wasn’t really an option before that point due to the writers’ own cultural norms informing their character choices.

But once the writing introduced that angle and element...it became fair game in my opinion to question why Bruce would wait so long before acting on Dick’s pretty clearly expressed desire there...and yeah, I think its fair to have a bit of a judgmental eye towards Bruce character wise for still waiting so long when it could have changed so much for the better between them and spared Dick at least a few years of angsting and uncertainty about it.

All that said, when talking about fanfic deviations specifically, I think its entirely fair to consider character choices within the context of the fanfic as much as the original canon. So if a fic is already making significant departures from the canon events of Dick’s early years in order to write the author’s own take on Dick and Bruce’s early relationship....then in THAT context, specifically, regardless of what canon had to say about it and the behind the scenes reasons for that, its still valid IMO for characters or readers to wonder why in light of how much our cultural norms have shifted by now, why a fic about that time but written in the context of the modern day....like, IMO there Bruce doesn’t really have the same justification canon has for him not touching on Dick’s status as ward vs son earlier in Dick’s life.

If that makes sense?

Similarly in terms of recent years and canon, I think a TON of flip flopping and uncertainty in regards to how the Batboys’ relationships to Bruce are described or referenced is because DC or the various writers and editors just don’t like committing to the idea of Bruce Wayne: father of five (or six, depending on how one views Duke’s positioning in the family).

Like, I’ve long had the sense that a lot of the powers that be over at DC just flat out don’t LIKE Dick, Jason, Tim and Cassandra’s legal adopted status and wish none of them had ever happened as they for whatever reason think it takes something away from Bruce’s character or premise and they’d rather Damian be the sole actual son and heir. Hence having not only Damian emphasize the blood son thing but also having the other kids like, when talking to Damian refer to Bruce as YOUR father (which is a little thing that bugs the SHIT out of me, lmao)....as well as being as vague and ambivalent as possible when having Dick, Jason, Tim and Cass reference Bruce to others or address him and put as little focus on them using an actual label for their relationships to him as possible. And its not just New 52 I mean here, I think this was an issue still well before Flashpoint.

I’m almost certain if some of DC’s editors and writers had their way, those other adoptions would never have happened and their official status would just be wards/foster kids/proteges. Which is annoying not just because I’m a fan of the family being a FAMILY, like, purely on a personal fannish level....but also just in terms of narrative....I think its fucking stupid to try and play fast and loose with those relationships when everyone knows damn well that each of those kids being Bruce’s KIDS has nevertheless very much been a thing that happened and exists in most fans’ minds. Like, that’s not a genie you can ever put back in the bottle. There’s no realistic chance of getting readers to just en masse forget that any of those characters were ever officially and legally Bruce’s children at some point. Like, you did that, or at least writers before you did that, just accept it and USE IT instead of pointlessly muddying the waters to obscure relationships most of us view as father/child regardless of what canon has to say about it now.

So for example, in THAT case, I fully believe the confusion about the kids’ various legal status and their view of Bruce and his view of them...like, I honestly believe the ambiguity of that at various times in canon is deliberate. And also, dumb. Thus I don’t feel any need to take canon’s current vagueness into account because I feel there the behind the scenes motivations are extremely relevant...and thus I’m completely content to just ignore them and keep them all as Bruce’s children in legality and heart, via whatever story context makes the most sense for my purposes.

Another example of when I personally feel behind the scenes motivations are hugely relevant and should be kept in perspective...is Jason’s death. Because I’ve read a ton of stories and meta that sometimes victim blames Jason and treats it like his fault he died, sometimes makes it Dick’s fault for not being closer with him and someone Jason feasibly could have turned to instead of going to Ethiopia on his own, and sometimes Bruce’s fault for the division his judgment after the Garzonas case had forged between him and Jason and with that basically driving Jason to go to Ethiopia in the first place.

And like, I personally hate each and every one of those takes because I think its never going to lead anywhere good, upholding Jason himself or either of his immediate family members as being in any way at FAULT for his death and everything he went through after it....but also I don’t like emphasizing narrative or character blame on any or multiple of those characters because IMO it disregards the MOST crucial factor in Jason’s death: editorial mandate.

Like, they held a freaking phone poll for whether he should live or die. Jason’s fate was decided by call-in votes, NOT by ANY character’s actual choices or actions or even lack thereof. There was no way any of those characters could have been written making different choices that avoided Jason dying, because they were deliberately written making choices that smoothed the way to Jason dying because it was going to happen not because it was where the STORY inevitably led, or any of their choices inevitably led there....but because the editors WANTED it led there and to end up where it ultimately ended up.

IMO its pointless to point fingers at character choices when we KNOW for a FACT, like oftentimes we have to guess at writer motivations in order to have an opinion on that variable at all, but this is one of the rare occasions where we inarguably KNOW....it was going to happen one way or another because editorial decreed it had to happen. So I think its pretty pointless even in terms of meta analysis of the story and character motivations to ultimately point a finger at any of the character choices and assign blame for Jason’s death...when there was literally no chance of them ever being written making choices that allowed Jason to avoid dying.

Especially when you consider that literally the only narrative change that even needed to be made to avoid Jason dying, regardless of everything that led up to that point...is simply not having him die in the explosion. Come up with literally any explanation for a last minute save, escape or rescue. Like so many comics have managed so many other times.

Like, there are no rules with fanfic so obviously you can write fic of Jason’s death in any way, and make it the end result of any character choices you want and make it some character’s fault or not according to your own preferences and narrative choices....but in terms of canon events and choices, I think that’s one of the very rare stories where its both impossible and pointless to examine it on any level, without taking the behind the scenes context into consideration as well.

So like I said, it really just varies from story to story, depending on how much or how little writer or editor motivation, decisions or bias were likely to be a factor in any given story. *Shrugs* Thus for me, I don’t really see any way to go about that other than taking each story on a case by case basis.

11 notes · View notes