#nothing to do with valid critique of the show | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

kelseytheballerina · 9 months

Text

Reflections on building a better me

Exercise is not optional. Mental satisfaction from completing yet another workout cannot be overstated. Physical satisfaction from feeling good and enjoying your body in clothes, the mirror, and photos cannot be overstated. Stop messing around, stop info hoarding, go exercise. And tomorrow. And the next day. And the next day. And the next day.

Looking your best depending on circumstances (ie, casual, dressy, bedtime, etc) is not optional. External confidence from taking care of your appearance top to bottom and loving what you see in the mirror is highly valuable.

You feel better when you eat better. You’re proud of yourself when you eat better.

Hobbies, hobbies, hobbies. Do you feel embarrassed when someone asks what you do all day and you can’t come up with an honest answer that doesn’t make you sound like a loser with no life? You need hobbies. Some that are outdoors, some that are indoors. Some that are taxing, some that are relaxing. You will enjoy life more, become a more well-rounded individual, and have positive ways to spend your time rather than racking up more hours on your phone. Get some hobbies. Plural.

Procrastination and laziness should disgust you. You shouldn’t be able to relate. You should strive to be above that. You like yourself better when you complete your tasks and get things done in a timely manner. You’re proud of yourself when you’re on a roll and have a productive streak. You’re impressed by productive people and no one likes a lazy bum.

Decide what you want from life and pursue it ruthlessly. Don’t take advice from people who don’t have the life you want, unless they were once on your desired path and fell off. Even then, you listen to them when they say what NOT to do (learning from their mistakes) but clearly they don’t know what TO do bc they didn’t make it to the finish line. Take “do this” advice from people who crossed the finish line and have what you want. You’ll find that the amount of input that is actually valuable to you has suddenly dwindled. Good. Less chatter in your ears.

Get yourself in order before you go around critiquing everyone else. Get YOUR face in order. Get YOUR body right. Get YOUR money up. Get YOUR style in order. Get YOUR relationship together.

Stop coming to everyone for validation like a toddler. Validate yourself. Do you like it? Okay then. Are you over it? Okay then. Stop being so weak. Stand tall, lead yourself. Stop being such a follower.

Be a good person. Help your family, lend a hand to strangers, give back, say sorry, do things for loved ones just because, show affection, work things out, watch your mouth, speak respectfully, remember that the world owes you nothing. Stop being an insufferable freak.

You can’t change anyone but yourself. Get yourself in order and be a good role model. That’s all you can do. Give people advice when they want it and then go about your business. Get yourself in order. Get yourself in order.

Outrage content is the lowest form of entertainment. Engage in things that make you happy or educate you. Doom scrolling only leads to doom. Don’t like this person? Don’t click on their articles or videos. Unfollow and block. Don’t like these people? Leave their spaces. You don’t have to be outraged every day.

Always keep your word to yourself. Make a plan, stick to the plan, always deliver. If you can’t be reliable for yourself then who can you be reliable for?

#yours truly ♡

7K notes · View notes

wisellamawerewolf · 1 month

Text

Heaven has a point and it's ruining the show's entire premise

*rant under the cut*

It has probably been said before by other people who can articulate their thoughts better, but considering the way VivziePop chose to tell her story, Hazbin Hotel's premise just doesn't work.

At first the show's main idea was presumably about how it's never too late to become a better person. The themes of Hotel and providing redemption to damned souls if they CHOSE to become better was fitting for that concept and it could've worked well without much involvement from Heaven. Yearly extermination (although arguably not necessary) added stakes and a sense of emergency, but making Heaven fully involved in the situation was a very questionable choice. Now the main theme of the show is less about "self-improvement" and more about "Heaven is hypocritical", and it just doesn't work well for one (main) reason: every single sinner we have encountered are absolutely horrible.

I already sense some that people might bring up the "They're in Hell" argument, but here's the thing: it would've worked fine with the initial premise, but you can't say "Heaven is bad for exterminating souls" when these souls a.) killed, hurt and ruined people's lives when they were alive; and b.) kept killing, hurting and ruining people's lives in the afterlife. Is there a better solution than just killing these people? Probably. But that doesn't make Heaven seem hypocritical and unjustified. At worst it makes them look stupid, because if they knew most people would find extermination of souls abhorrent, they could've just send someone to rearrange hell and completely isolate the most vile sinners from others in order to prevent them from hurting people, instead of just letting them continue doing their shit but in a slightly worse place.

Another argument that comes in mind probably sounds something like "well obviously not EVERYONE is irredeemably bad in this place, and Heaven is surely unjustifiably sends people Hell for stupid reasons if it's overpopulated". And if this statement is true, I have a couple of questions:

Why then literally none of these people are in the Hotel? Surely Charlie could've find at least some of such people and convince them to participate in her experiment. This is probably better to live under the protection of one of the strongest beings in hell than being potentially killed in the streets, so what do they have to lose? If none of these people believe in Charlie's idea, why every time we meet a non-resident, they are always murderous assholes, with almost no exceptions? If Hell is full of wrongfully condemned souls, why doesn't Charlie address them in the seventh episode, instead of going to the cannibal town to ask for help?

I think I've said it somewhere before, but VivziePop wants to criticize religion for scaring people with eternal punishment for doing arbitrary and harmless stuff, but also wants to treat said punishment as a playground for her edgy OCs most of whom are the exact people who by all logic should be in hell.

She wants her story to be about redemption but then turns around and says "actually, my homicidal OC's did nothing wrong, the SOCIETY that condems them is a true villain. Please ignore corpses my faves piled up in the corner". Viv wants to have her cake and eat it too, which results in a sloppy writing.

The most frustrating thing about this that it could theoretically work if handled more carefully: Charlie is already naive and Vaggie is a freshly exiled angel so just make them believe that all sinners have a legitimate reason to be in hell and need to be "fixed". Let them run into Angel Dust and try to make him improve, only to later learn that better people were turned down in heaven and send to hell because of the arbitrary reasons.

It could've both drived the message of "you can always chose to be better" and provide a valid critique to the religion in regards to what counts as a "sin" and wether it deserves such a hursh punishment or not, but ut VivziePop just can't decide what she wants to do and talk about so she just throws in everything at the same time.

#hazbin hotel critical #hazbin hotel critique #thanks tumblr for posting my half-baked post again because of “bad connection”. geez.#i was full of tequila yesterday and my Spotify decided to “bless” me with “You didn't know”#and the lyrics were so stupid I made another rant. So enjoy i guess?

246 notes · View notes

isildur-apologist · 1 year

Text

You don’t hate Amazon you hate the Silmarillion: a genuine review of Rings of Power

It’s no secret that overall I liked RoP. I watched it with my roommate who gets very hyped about stuff like that and it made for a really exciting viewing experience, instead of the more bitter perspective I might have taken if I watched it alone. But, I also know there are some real faults with the show, I never thought it was perfect and know it’s not on par with the the LOTR movies and I never expected it to be. But, the fault for that is not on Amazon.

(I want to note that I am not defending Amazon. I hate Amazon. Jeff Bezos can catch this guillotine. I am, however, defending the creative team behind the show, which is how I will refer to them from here on out, I only called it Amazon to grab your attention. )

Here’s my point though, almost every (valid) critique I see of this show isn’t a problem with decisions the creative team made, it’s an inherent problem in any adaptation of the Silmarillion (and associated works but I’m just going to refer to the Silmarillion for brevity’s sake).

The Silmarillion, as full and detailed as it is, is a shit story. The events of the second age do not fit neatly into a clean story structure the way LOTR does because it’s not supposed to. The Silmarillion isn’t a story, it’s a history, and history is never narratively satisfying. Tolkien (Jirt, not talking about Christopher here) didn’t publish the Silmarillion in his lifetime, he only even published LOTR and the hobbit, everything else attributed to him was published after his death. He had no intent of making the other works anything other than a comprehensive history of the world he made for documentation’s sake, never with intent to publish. He didn’t even compile all the writings, Christopher did.

Because if this, the Silmarillion is really hard to adapt for a number of reasons:

1. Elves aren’t good main characters.

Elves aren’t supposed to be relatable characters, they’re aloof and static and inherently non-relatable (There are exceptions but they’re usually not regular elves. Elrond is half elven, Legolas is very young). Humans and hobbits are the relatable characters through which we view the world, because they can have human flaws and conflicts, which makes for a very human story. To make elves the main characters you need to make them interesting characters, and elves aren’t supposed to have human flaws, and so you either stay faithful and they don’t feel relatably human, or you change their to be more human and it feels disingenuous to what we know elves to be like. It’s a lose lose.

2. Middle earth is not supposed to be pretty.

A huge part of LOTR is realizing every place they visit is either the ruins of a past, much larger civilization, or a city that is a fraction of what it used to be (Gondor in lotr is NOTHING compared to what it was in the early 3rd age, or Arnor and definitely not Númenor, Rivendell is a pebble compared to Lindon and Eregion, we only ever see Khazad-dûm as a decrepit tomb instead of the most prosperous mine in all of middle earth is once was). This juxtaposition is integral to the main themes of lotr and is imperative to the story jirt was trying to tell. A story set in the 2nd age cannot have these ruins because IT IS THE RUINS. It cannot “feel like lotr” because it is what will make lotr lotr.

3. Characters (individuals) are of little importance in the Silmarillion.

As important as Elendil and Isildur (and even Anárion) are to the plot of literally the entire 3rd age, we know little about their own narratives. They are names for the people that did these important actions and that’s it. Again, the Silmarillion is a history, it’s not going to say what Elendil and Isildur’s relationship was like in excruciating detail or what Isildur wanted to do with his life before sailing to middle-earth and becoming a king. You have to write these characters a good story if you’re adapting the Silmarillion and sometimes there isn’t space to write a compelling journey in the space Tolkien left. Because they don’t have a character, any character you give them will seem “out of character” to many people.

Basically my point is that before you go and say “well this is weird or I didn’t like this choice” think about what the creative team had to create to make an interesting show out of a story not designed to be told. Sometimes they didn’t make the perfect decision, but if you were tasked with adapting something unadaptable do you think you would do it perfectly?

#rings of power #the rings of power #rings of power review #lotr #tolkien #silmarillion #galadriel #elrond #gil galad #celebrimbor #arondir #numenor #elendilf #oops I meant #elendil #isildur #durin iv #lord of the rings #lotr rop

534 notes · View notes

flanaganfilm · 1 year

Note

Good morning/ evening! My name’s Sam and I’m currently a film student hoping to get into freelance writing. I’ve got a couple questions if you don’t mind (hoping you haven’t already answered them and I just missed them).

When you first starting making your own films, did you have already have thick skin for any critics/ bad reviews? Or is that something you grew over time?

Also, for your production company, do you hire interns and PAs or do you prefer filmmakers with more experience?

Thank you!

To your first question, I do not have a thick skin in that area AT ALL and never have. I don't know many people who do.

I'm often approached by fans who will talk about what a project of mine means to them, or I find a review or think piece online where the author really connected with my work. I want to let that feedback in, because it's validating. But letting it in means letting ALL of it in, even the negative. I don't really get to pick and choose. Once I decided to let myself react emotionally to other people's feedback, those gates are open I've got to accept whatever comes through.

I take my work very seriously, and tend to pour my heart and soul into it. We make these things because we love them. It can literally take years of daily work to do. When people love it, it feels great. When people don't, it hurts. There's really no way around that.

Film criticism has, like a lot of things, devolved over time. I was a massive fan of Robert Ebert, who was thoughtful and sophisticated in his critiques (most of the time), and tried to approach each movie he watched on the film's own terms - from the perspective of "how successful was this at achieving what it set out to do?" I see a lot of criticisms today that don't do this, and instead are lamenting what a movie is or isn't, saying things like "I wish this was more..." or "This isn't good because I wanted it to be something else."

"I wanted a ________ and what I got instead was ______ so it sucks."

The other issue is that loud, sensationalized vitriol gets more clicks. Negative reviews, especially brutal and callous ones, get more attention than positive ones. I've gotten to know and befriend some professional critics over the years, who have all told me that the positive reviews don't generate the audience reaction quite like the negative ones. People enjoy watching things get beat up. We reward the wrong kind of discourse, and that isn't unique to film criticism - it's everywhere. That's just a symptom of our culture.

One of my great frustrations is how we assert our opinion as objective truth. There's nothing more dangerous than tweeting "I liked ______ movie!" The comments flood in about how you're wrong, how it sucks, blah blah blah. People think their own taste is somehow factual. If someone says "I had a fantastic steak dinner last night and I loved it," we don't say "you're wrong, steak sucks". We understand the concept of taste when it comes to other things we consume, but when it comes to entertainment each one of us thinks we're the ultimate authority.

For myself, my producer and my wife have long discouraged me from reading reviews. I still can't help it. It's not healthy though. I can scroll past a dozen positive ones, and they evaporate in my mind, but I read one scathing thing and it sticks with me for days. There is one particular review of MIDNIGHT MASS that is one of the most baffling and frustrating things I've ever read, as the author appears to have misunderstood just about every aspect of the series, and drawn the angriest, most misguided, most erroneous conclusions. I read it with my jaw on the ground... "but they're objectively wrong. That isn't what happens, and that isn't what the show is even about." But what can I do? Who am I to say their experience of the show is invalid? They feel how they feel, and that's fine. That's okay. It has to be.

So your skin doesn't get thicker, it is a bizarre emotional experience to put something personal out there into the world and see the gamut of reactions. But at a certain point you have to remind yourself that it's impossible to please everyone, and that these projects don't belong to the filmmaker - they belong to the audience, and each and every one of those experiences is unique and valid. Perhaps there are lessons to be learned, and perhaps the critique can help you grow as a filmmaker.

I have similar feelings when I see someone trashing someone else's work I happen to love - for example, I remain baffled by people who didn't like EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE, but that doesn't mean anything. It didn't work for them, that's all. Nothing works for everyone.

I have found over the years that I respect and appreciate analyses and criticisms that take this more personal point of view, and talk about their own interaction with the work as opposed to just dismissing it outright. When someone says "this movie didn't work for me," or "I didn't connect with it," or "It just wasn't my cup of tea," I have a much easier time taking it seriously. It's changed how I talk about my own reactions to movies or shows that I didn't respond to. And I found that it's made it much easier for me to enjoy things even if they aren't quite for me. Instead of being reactive and saying "it sucks" or "I hate this," I've gotten better at realizing it's not a binary experience - I can look at what DOES work for me, and I can appreciate it, even while other elements might not.

It makes for a much more nuanced discussion, and helps me grow. Sometimes, though, it's just the wrong thing to watch on the wrong day, and that's fine too. Maybe that makes it a little easier. If I step out of something and just really don't enjoy it, it helps remind me that it's not personal. Clearly, other people DO enjoy these things, sometimes I'm very much in the minority. And when that happens, I can say "oh, it's not so bad if someone hates a movie I made, or a show, or whatever. Life's too short."

But I long ago decided I'd never say anything negative about someone else's work in public. I know too much about what it takes to make a movie, and I'm not a critic. I'm a filmmaker. This town is too small, and there is zero upside in dragging another filmmaker's efforts. On the rare occasions when I do see another filmmaker indulge in that behavior, it is always a terrible look. And it can have real-world consequences - there are a few filmmakers who I've seen publicly slag off other people's work, and I quietly decided never to hire them. Like I said, it's a small town... and most of us read what people say about our work.

We should get back to that work, remember how lucky we all are to do this for a living, and leave that kind of thing to the critics.

#filmmaking #criticism #boy do I miss Roger Ebert

308 notes · View notes

bloodsbane · 4 months

Text

man. yeah. i really try not to talk about the SU crit shit too much these days, because it's been ages and most people have moved on and (hopefully) grown up. but finally getting some idea of what these 'SU is garbage' youtube videos were actually SAYING is just reminding me of how fucking weird the level of hate and vitriol directed at this show really was. i honestly, truly believe that the SU Crit scene that sprang up in mid-to-late era of the show had almost nothing to do with people actually caring about the show/fans/criticising art. imo it mostly had everything to do with the fact that SU had peaked in terms of popularity, which meant the Inevitable Backlash was due, but because of how CN mishandled the show, this severely exacerbated some of its issues (pacing, ability to tell the story as intended due to cancellation, etc).

like, to me, SU crit was always a movement of people who didn't actually give a shit about the show or making good points in critiquing it. surely some of them did make some worthy arguments, probably, somewhere, but anything relevant was always going to be lost in the deluge of petty cinemasins DING level gripes about shit that either didn't matter or a child with even the most basic level of media literacy could understand. the truth of the matter is that SU simply became The Show To Shit On. i wouldn't even argue that it was an easy target, but that it was the most popular one, which meant a huge group who could circlejerk about all the petty reasons they didn't like the show

i could go on but i wont lol, i need to be working, but man hearing these dumbass arguments interspersed with such blindingly obvious bigotry and knowing that millions of people unironically watched and AGREED with it just because someone was validating their hatred of this cartoon is like... kind of depressing ;lsdkjf;ljlkfj could yall not have been normal. anyways this is why i don't fucking respect people who 100% genuinely think SU is a bad show

#banebabbles #you can dislike su. you can even HATE su i don't care #but if you genuinely in your heart and with your whole chest think that NOTHING about it is good or worthy of respecting #i just don't trust like that. this is like #yknow that thing where its' like 'if a guy says his favorite media is xyz you gotta run'?#this is that for me. lol.

50 notes · View notes

grendelsmilf · 9 months

Text

i enjoy the afterparty for its conceit of framing each episode from the perspective of a different character in an entirely different genre (or even medium, in zoe’s case), i like a lot of the actors in it (especially sam richardson and ben schwartz), and i think the comedy and character building is enjoyable and smart. but it’s also perfect example of the reactionary assumptions of its genre by its very nature, as a “whodunnit”/murder mystery.

it showcases every ideological flaw with this genre to the point that it almost seems like self-parody (but alas, it isn’t). the detective on the case is a brilliant underdog who demonstrates the necessity of the police despite the unfortunate existence of “bad cops” who act in opposition to the work of “good cops.” the murderer is figured out by this heroic cop who doesn’t play by the rules and “brought to justice,” where they will rot in prison for doing violence to a member of the elite whose murder is high profile due to his status.

as the plot unfolds, we are given more and more reasons to despise the murder victim to the point where knowing that someone will be convicted and punished for killing him makes us far sadder for the killer than the victim, and yet of course our conclusion remains as it always does: solving the case is more important than the humanity of those involved, and the brilliant detective who condemned someone to an inhumane carceral system, who will surely be further mistreated for killing a member of the elite, is viewed as a hero for being good at her job of enforcing state violence.

ironically, in the flashback episode, we see the police framed as enacting state violence against a black teenager at the behest of the future murder victim, who is shielded from the same punishment due to being the son of a wealthy capitalist. surely, the show would not give us this scene, this entire episode, if we were not meant to critique the foundational violence upon which this genre is built? and yet the season still ends with the good cop prevailing, and the killer arrested.

i watched gosford park the other day, and it is a perfect satire of the whodunnit genre, challenging every assumption that the afterparty fails to even question. the murder is not the inciting incident; in fact, in happens over halfway through the movie. once it does, nothing really changes, everyone is just now slightly hassled by the presence of police, who fail to solve the case in a shocking turn to anyone remotely familiar with the genre. we, as the audience, know who the murderer is, at least somewhat, and we do not, nor any of the characters, have any desire to see him punished for it.

like in the afterparty, the murder victim is a member of the elite who benefits from inherited wealth, although the exploitation he commits as a capitalist and a misogynist who does not value the lives of his workers, his staff, or the lives of his bastard children born from his exploited female workers, is far more direct and harmful. his son happened to have a personal motivation in wanting him dead, but any of his workers could have poisoned or stabbed him and their resentment would have been understandable. the inept detective claims that there is no need in interviewing his staff, as only those (upstairs) who actually knew him are valid suspects.

in the final scene of the movie, the old matriarch played by maggie smith says to her maid that she hopes that she doesn’t have to testify in court, because it would be awful for someone to be imprisoned over something you said. it’s perhaps the only considerate, empathetic thing she says the entire movie.

while marketed as a murder mystery and lambasted by some for not being effective in its execution of the genre, the movie only really uses the whodunnit aspect as a vehicle for its larger commentary on exploitation and violence (against women, against the colonized, and foremost against workers). while the elites who profit off the imperialist violence of the british empire and exploit their servants who wait on them hand and foot (sometimes sexually) are only vaguely affected by individual violence occurring to them (in the form of retribution for their sins), they effect mass violence and glibly discuss it over a seven course dinner.

gosford park not only subverts the genre in obvious ways such as portraying the detective as incompetent and obtuse who fails to catch the culprit, but by directly interrogating the fundamental pillars of the genre, foundations which go unquestioned as the basic scaffolding of the mystery genre, but are in fact rotten to the core.

#o #the afterparty #(please keep in mind ive only seen s1 so far)#gosford park #the more i think about this movie the more i appreciate it #also you don’t have to have seen either to read this post #please read this post actually #it’s quite steam of consciousness but also. im proud of it?

88 notes · View notes

not-poignant · 3 months

Text

@morbidlizard replied to your post “Can I ask, why do you love BL romance better than...”:

I mean it's unfortunate but asian BL is just hands down better than western for so many reasons <: / I've been reading asian BL for literal decades now (AHHH) and I can maybe count on one hand the western series I've enjoyed that had some sort of queer romance that had all I wanted or at least a part of the tropes I like...And even then, it's usually F/F relationships 9_9 (and when I say asian, I mean japanese, korean, chinese, some indonesian too! etc etc...)

Actually yeah this is also really where it's at

I think a lot about how we're still getting extremely like... milquetoast wholesome queer narratives (most of the time) in western m/m romance media (I have nothing against Heartstopper, but it's extremely 'all queer people are pure wholesome need-to-be-protected jellybeans' and like, cool, but I want more than that as well - like give me 20 shows that are 'all queer people' in 20 different genres, thanks. BL will give me that - BL will pay people to give me that.

The only way I can get that from western media is fanfiction, and sometimes - kind of - from published m/m, when it's not paint-by-numbers rapid release that isn't about telling stories from the heart and it's about telling stories from the bank account instead (which is a valid reason to write, it's just not what I'm looking for as a reader - most readers who end up loving and writing fanfiction aren't looking for this imho)).

Thomas Baudinette is actually doing incredible work in this area of Media Studies, where it's literally a known thing that BL - particularly in countries like Korea, Thailand and Taiwan - is actually taking huge strides ahead in the genre, comparatively, especially when up against western BL.

It almost feels like we're on a giant lag, buffering behind them, and about the only place we aren't is in fanfiction, which makes sense, because the cross-pollination between fandom and south-east Asian BL is incredible (literally, they got omegaverse and guide-verse from western fanfiction and western fandom, and imho are doing a lot more with it for money than we are, see: Pit Babe).

I've been reading up pretty heavily into Baudinette's work, and also a lot of the recent and up-to-date work in BL Studies (a thing), and like, it's just kind of fascinating the different interrogations of BL we have going on in different cultures and subcultures, and how different senses of place and culture and ethnicity and minority and belonging can influence our tales, along with many different manifestations of capitalisation, economy, influence etc.

And that isn't to say there aren't huge problematic areas for BL in all countries, not just western, I can critique western BL so easily because I am western, and it's been really interesting reading critiques of BL from academics who live within other countries from their perspectives too. But I do think if I want really great BL romances, turning to fanfiction and then turning to other cultures and what they're doing is often the first thing I do. I just don't have to search as hard to find what I'm looking for. And like, I'm lazy, lol, I don't want to search through 100 published works to find like 1-5 stories I might reread but not over my favourite manhwa or like fanfiction or whatever.

This has been my area of like... personal study for a few months now (literally reading Regimes of Desire: Young Gay Men, Media and Masculinity in Tokyo by Baudinette atm) and I have a lot of thoughts of which this is just a very generalised ramble and not actually anything of great meaning but like sadkljfas TL;DR yeah

#morbidlizard #idk how to categorise this but #pia on media studies #i do think it's really incredible that we get Pit Babe in part because #western fanfiction exists #what korea and thailand and other countries are doing with omegaverse #i just think hollywood and indie movie studios in the west are fucking cowards #run largely by puritanical evangelistic supremacists #and that other countries are seeing that actually omegaverse could spin them a LOT of money #in the mass media #already #absolutely wild

43 notes · View notes

azquine · 11 months

Text

Can I get something on the JoanFK tag that ISN'T just complaining? It is ok to be feeling shit that things went badly in the show, but do you have to tag that negativity on the ship? The negativity is all that there is to see whenever I try to interact with the show and it's making me feel horrible.

I've been in far worse fandoms, and they didn't make me feel this bad.

It all feels so puritanical, like you have forgotten what a teen drama parody entails. Did you forget that they were ALL assholes in the first season who backstabbed and did shitty things to eachother for their own selfish gain? You are applying pretty strict rules of morality onto characters who intrinsically must break those rules to allow the narratives of their genre to move.

This was a short kiss, the result of feelings that JFK and Harriet had actively been trying to avoid for the sake of Joan. This could have been resolved by open communication, but that's not how either drama shows OR stupid hormonal teens work. After making this mistake, they did the most responsible and moral thing they could have and confessed it literally within the same episode as soon as Joan would not, you know, DIE as a result.

All things considered, it wasn't a secret relationship, it wasn't sex, it wasn't a long term secret held until it accidentally spills out and ruins everything. It could have been SO much worse, it was none of my worst fears, and I'm honestly relieved a kiss was where it stopped. And I am also really glad they confessed to quickly because I HATE liar revealed plots more than ANYTHING and I probably would have stopped watching. If they were going to do this plotline it was the best case scenario for me.

And do you know what is even better? What should be the bare minimum but is actually pretty rare in dramas from my experience? Neither of them tried to mitigate Joan's reaction, to say she was overreacting or to dance around the issue to make it sound better beyond a truthful 'we felt nothing'. Joan was allowed the space to fully process the information and her emotions, even if through a montage. And damn I wish I saw that more often.

As for those saying JFK would need a redemption for what he has done- does being open and honest about his wrongdoings not do that pretty succinctly? Beyond having not done it at all what else do you want? Pretty puritanical to want him to suffer before he can be forgiven.

And granted, Harriet got plenty of unjustified hate before she had even done anything, but post-kiss most of the discussion and anger I have seen has been directed solely at JFK. Harriet was part of that kiss too, knowingly going against her friend. Why is the romantic relationship deemed worse to betray? Both of them did a stupid thing together, and fixed it together.

And I'm not saying Joan putting all the consequence on Abe is justified, he didn't do shit wrong either, he tried to keep his friend alive in a tricky situation.

All of your feelings are valid, and I do see why the dominant opinion is what it is. Cheating is an awful thing to do and you should not be with someone you do not trust, I cannot refute that.

Yet at the same time, I felt it was important to put forward some differing points that I had been having. This show will not be enjoyable if we hold a position of being negative and moralistic. To some extent there has to be an acceptance that this is a fiction and moral failings are often part of a narrative structure.

(And while many of you have legitimate critiques on the execution of the show, it feels like some of you are taking the 'thing done badly because I don't like it' route)

I really hope nobody takes this as me trying to enforce cheating or to say that JFK and Harriet kissing was ok. It was shitty of them to do in the first place, but they are not morally irredeemable. Teen do stupid bad thing is not new. I'm also not interested in having an argument over this, I get caught up far too easily in that so I won't be answering any replies or asks. It is fine if you disagree, I'm here to propose a counterpoint.

Sorry if this was repetitive or lengthy. It just felt like I had to get it out there despite it being the early hours of the morning.

#clone high #joanfk #clone high jfk #clone high joan #rant #ramble

110 notes · View notes

ofbreathandflame · 9 months

Text

I feel like the reason there's such a disconnect between a lot of pro/anti accs has to do with how people go about their critique of the work. There is a difference between a critique against a character (i.e., how we chose to justify that character given the explanation/information given in world) and a critique against the choices that are made during the writing process (i.e. introspection into the problems that are caused via the writing). When we critique a character because of decisions the character makes we a crafting a analytical profile about why we surmise a character does something. When we critique the characterization, then we are critiquing the decision the writer is making.

So - a critique against the logical set up of a scene or dynamic is a testament of a writer's skill. Like - when we critique the logic of Rhysand's dynamic with Amarantha that has nothing to do with Rhysand's in world characterization. I think the entire premise of the beginning of WAR is also a plot point that is less a testament of Feyre's character and more a statement on SJM's skill as a writer.

Of course, there are issues that occupy both of these spaces - where the writer's bias operates in a way that is inseparable from the issue in world. In this - its more about how the author interjects information that is contradictory or addling to the narrative of the story. These are moments where the telling conflicts with the showing - and the only way the narrative (the character's in world) distinguishes what information we should extract from the events is by a character straight up telling us how we should feel or what we should take away. The Illyrian/CoN/SC situation starts off as a technical problem but becomes a character problem (the character's consistently begin to parrot actual justifications for why these issues are still ongoing or the story wants us to take away something that conflicts with what we're shown). Rhys's dynamic UTM starts off as just a technical issues (issue of skill) and becomes a character problem for the reason I said above. It's like when you're in lab and you make up data and then write a narrative to justify your false results. Or when you try to cheat your numbers to justify a hypothesis. And a lot of the problems in TAR onwards start as just technical issues that you ignore and they become character issues for the exact reason above. Like - Tamlin's abuse and the hypocritical elements is easy enough to ignore in MAF and maybe even WAR, but it becomes a real problem in SF when the story is trying to sustain a storylines that literally contradicts and justifies behavior it spent the last three books reiterating is bad. It becomes a character issue when the characters enable and justify that behavior (consistently - as it does w/ rhys). And bc ACoTAR is a series that has a hard time removing itself from SJM's honest to God ideologies a lot of issues that we could have brushed off as technical issues often become character issues.

I'm saying this all to say that often, when we make critiques about the writing (meaning - our framework for analysis exists outside of the explanation/information we are given in the story. We understand the reasoning given we just don't think its a valid reason) we get these response that tries to mix the in-world justifications (that we're already said we don't agree with) with cherry-picked irl justifications. Like - if I say I don't believe in God, and then someone says 'God is real - just look at these passage in the holy book' - that's not an actual response to my question, especially if I've already establish that I have issues with the canon.

And the pro debates are often running in circles bc they justify behavior bc the story tells them too, and they only apply real-world standards where its comfortable. It's easy to see Tamlin as abusive bc there's literally a big red sign that says ABUSE every time he's on the page. But its harder for many to acknowledge those same traits when its in a character they actually like. So then its easier to fall back on the book's explanation and not the real world one.

This is the same case with the intervention scene, where the beloved characters actions are abusive and illegal by our standards (tough love interventions have been proven to be oftentime uneffective and often results in relapse) - and even by the book's standard (Feyre literally acknowledges the HoW as a place unequipped for her sister's healing). So the only solace those fans have is to use the justification the book immediately gives, but also ignore the other books bc even they don't support it. It's just selective reading. 'Real world' justification can only go so far with that side - and its not on their side most times, but it is for antis. So it devolves into these semantic arguments. That's why when the criticism is valid they say these books are 'fairy porn that we shouldn't care about,' buuuuut when they want to make a point it becomes 'important,' 'relevant,' and 'problematic if you say xyz' Chose a framework and stick with it.

I'm just so tired of having these conversations and then someone throwing the book at my hand to "justify" why my critique is 'wrong' when the ENTIRE premise of the critique is that I think the writing decision is wrong.

#anti sjm #anti rhysand #anti feyre #anti acomaf #anti feysand #anti acotar #i have to say these bc often we literally just having two different conversations #and then the *real* conversation gets boggles down by these differing frameworks #or the goal post is moved

90 notes · View notes

nicolos · 9 months

Text

rocky aur rani thoughts

it wasn't at all what i expected actually? like I'm not sure what I expected but it wasn't that

rani chatterjee let me raid your wardrobe

they really just promoted tum kya mile and jhumka because there were like no other really memorable songs--

I sound a bit mean but I had a blast, I laughed a lot, did tear up at least once, and didn't want to pull up 2048 at any time during the film

(spoilers under the cut)

the film had some real 2011 style feminism moments mixed in with more genuine things? the interview at the start made me want to die but there were some almost - ALMOST - coherent points in there

bollywood is not the place to make statements about fat shaming etc etc but there was almost smth valid in seeing any jokes about what whatshername ate clearly coming from ...people were not supposed to like?

rocky and rani were actually quite sweet, despite the ...extraness

i think the film kind of rolled over this as rocky was supposed to be wealthy, but there's a great deal of elitism in the sort of attitude Rani and her family have towards Rocky. It makes me wonder what this film would be if he didn't ... colour coordinate his cars to his clothes and live in a replica whitehouse. like on one hand it's arguably his wealth that makes him able to be the way he is, but on the other hand, the traditional/modern divide that they were showing is typically also a class divide. there's no reason for rockys english to not be good as he is now - and nothing apart from personal taste and "traditionalism" for them to critique, even though rocky isn't actually that traditional in comparison to his family, and even if he was, they - esp at the start - didn't know that

on the other hand I don't know a lot of Bengali people or a lot of Punjabi people so it may just be like a culture shock thing they're going for. idk. i understand it, i just think it's a little bit of a miss for a genuine criticism on their laughing at him

the grandparents element was funny lmao. like what's going on THERE. but it was almost kind of sweet, too, the way they just ...liked spending time together I guess

keh diya na... bas keh diya

^ half the cinema actually echoed this line with her. icons only

the film did pretty often pit men against men and women against women. this worked! when alia or her mom were yelling at men... this worked a little bit less? idk. i think sometimes it ends up feeling a bit mouthpiecey, and some of it was weirdly phrased and ...strongly delivered, to say the least. i understand that they're both from an environment in which they feel safe voicing their opinion, but I was nonetheless going - would someone actually say that? so openly? so maybe that's on me

everything about the alias dad storyline was just chefs kiss

i do think rockys relationship w his mom and sister needed a bit of work for the big fight scene to work. it sounds weird to say since so much of the film was abt the randhawas but ranveers mom's dynamics w everyone were a bit underdone

the guy playing young granddad was so hot. hotter than the real actor actually was back then tbh

all I could think during the ranveer dance routine was how much time did it take him to learn that dbdndndjdjf but that was excellent

idk. i think in some senses the scale of the movie interfered with its effectiveness, but I don't want it to be any smaller in the ayushmann khurana sense, if that...makes sense? idk. it did feel very kjo production, and I like that about it

tum kya mileeeee,,,, tum kya mileeeee,,,, hum na rahe hummmmm,,,, tum kya mileeeeee

ranis "i am speaking" was hot though the whole of that non-confrontation made me want to yell, though maybe because it was happening in public

SPEAKING OF when she crashes her car into his in the middle of a four lane road and then they just fucking stand there and talk and kiss for 10 minutes and all the other cars just go around....lmaoooooooo

still think the more obvious solution was for them both to move out of their family homes but ok

#jui speaks #rocky aur rani ki prem kahani #bollywood

113 notes · View notes

codexty · 7 months

Text

Rook Headcannons: Family, life, etc.

Just cause I find him so funny

Edit: This got long! I wont apologize

You can pry the Bird Beastman Headcannon out of my cold dead hands.

I saw the idea that his siblings were named after chess peices, and I do love that but hear me out: Robin, Raven, Rook, Rosella, Ruff, Wren (hes the odd one)

Middle child energy- Rook may be a bit more extreme than his siblings, especially the older ones, but I feel like the whole family is on the same wavelength

The random mansions around the world with goverment approved portals? They are 100% black market associated. Probably animal trade or sell useful byproducts as potion ingredients. Scavengers, like the birds they are

Not ruling out some highly illegal/Immoral trades. But yeah.

Rook and each of his family may seem unassuming on their own, but when all of them are together? People can't get out of their way fast enough.

Uncanny Valley the whole lot of em. Give everyone goosebumps.

The Addams Family 100%

Probably also why you wouldn't hardly see them all together

Each sibling probably has/had a nanny and probably aren't too close with one another

Definitely "let kids roam" parents, as long as a kid showed up sometime, probably didn't care what they were up to

Rook 100% walked out of the house at 10yo with his bow and said he was off to hunt down a bear and parent Hunts were like "ok have fun! we'll taxidermy it when you get back"

One of the younger ones definitely does taxidermy

Rooks older sister knows every natural poison and even which ones can potentially be poisons when mixed with common household items!

Rook has been stabbed/trapped/poisoned by his siblings before

Hunt Parents are very much like morticia and gomez but worse parents in that they are less involved

Probably Not a lot of physical affection in the house

Dunno why, Rook just seems a bit touch starved

Probably also didn't hear much praise as a kid.

As such; Love language to give is words of affection, to receive is physical touch

Rook prior to Pomefiore smelled like blood. Just slightly mettalic tinge clingling to him constantly

Beastman in Savannaclaw gave him a WIDE berth.

Currently, smells like nothing, he doesn't wear the perfumes or scented products vil reccomends, much to vils dismay

Love the idea that vil gave him strong scented perfumes as a way to "bell the cat". Vil is mad it didn't work and is slowly getting less subtle about it, trying more and more obvious ways. Including changing the laundry detergent in the dorm to a strong scented one.

Rook is aware and finds it funny

Vil may say he tolerates Rook, but I think they were both lonely kids in a big new school and rely on each other.

Vil and Rook will probably be longtime friends if not lifelong friends. Vil heavily values having someone beside him who is unafraid to give him true, valid, critique and Vil has shown how much he values Rooks input. Rook admires Vils tenacity more than anything and will probably never leave him willingly.

They definitely fight though. Rook is a bit too callous when Vil needs a little soft and Vil is a bit too cutting when Rook could use a gentle hand and they get hurt. Will always make up, even if neither of them are good at apologizing

Or maybe one day years from now someone takes it a bit too far (probably rook) and they go a few years without talking

I can't imagine Rook in a profession besides whatever it is his parents do. Black market deals and trade probably. If someone asks he'll just say he is in Business

Rook will be a Parton of the Arts his whole life. sponsoring artists, probably from backgrounds like Neige. Will definitely be a very sketchy backer. No one will know what he does, but hes always throwing money around and who ever he finds, they will probably be the next big thing.

#disney twst #twisted wonderland #twst #twst wonderland #rook hunt #twst rook #vil schoenheit #rook hunt headcanons

39 notes · View notes

mwolf0epsilon · 4 months

Text

"Star Wars isn't dead y'all are just haters" "Disney saved Star Wars" "It's the Woke Agenda that ruined Star Wars"

My mans, Disney single-handedly destroyed the Sequel Trilogy despite the Force Awakens being the gateway to something potentially fantastic; MCU'd the Mandalorian (a story which originally had nothing to do with the Prequel and OG Trilogy aside from sharing a universe and exploring a sect of a completely different culture/ideology); ego-boosted both Filoni and Favreau to the point where their OC Verse is not only canon but openly disregarding the Star Wars Universe Bible/Lore; gave us a snippet of what an extremely misunderstood indigenous culture is actually like (instead of portraying them as the savages one of the white leads mislabeled as animals that deserved to be slaughtered) only to then wipe out the tribe we got to know for no reason other than shock value thus alienating indigenous/poc viewers in the most disrespectful way possible; completely threw away the entire message of TCW (that being a clone does not make you incapable of being your own person who has their own thoughts, ideals, moral compass and overall identity) by making TBB (a show that does have it's strong points in set design, soundtrack orchestration and overall sound design, but is extremely weak on both characterization and storytelling because they either make the meaningful plot points stretch too thin or focus on the wrong character completely) their go to show marketed for kids instead of the actual kids programming that people shit on for being for, surprise, kids; constantly disregards valid critique from their consumers (to the point where infighting in the Fandom has gotten extremely ugly) that people either give up on interacting completely or simply vanish and take all their things with them (because no one seems to understand where these critiques come from, or how being unable to admit your special little show is imperfect is actually not a good thing for both you and others).

This isn't even accounting for the fact the Fandom seems to have doubled in it's overall toxicity since Disney took over. Which is par for the course when a mega corporation takes hold of something that started out extremely political in nature anyway. The Cash Cow machine needs feeding after all...

#Eps Talks About:#Funny enough this started as an argument between my sisters #One of which isn't a Star Wars fan and the other who is an OJ and Prequels fan #My mom (who was the one to introduce us to star wars mind you) and I watched from the sidelines #Mom didn't care because she doesn't like Modern Star Wars stuff but I ended up putting an end to the argument #My younger sister is right that Disney put too much emphasis on SELLING Star Wars to newer generations to a detrimental degree #but that doesn't mean they invalidate what came prior to their shitshow or the message SW was created to uphold #in fact Andor and SW Visions S2 made a point of being the best homages to the OJ trilogy thus far by being very political in their messages #But my older sister is also right that the state of Fandoms these days is very much a US vs THEM situation in terms of how people make #themselves heard and how meeting in the middle is virtually impossible which is very much a product of social media and how people conduct #their personal image via either genuinely expressing their feelings on certain topics or simply using them for clout #It is a case of locking yourself in a room with an 'adversary' and trying to see who can scream the loudest until someone loses their voice #I love star wars but that doesn't mean I'm blind to the fact star wars also kinda sucks lmao but oh well these are just my thoughts that #I'm letting loose because I'm already pissed off from something else going wrong today and have no patience for some of the rancid shit #that keeps cropping up in either tags or posts I find in and out of Tumblr Dot Com

20 notes · View notes

crooked-wasteland · 7 months

Note

What's the point of making Ozzie a demon if he's not going to be evil, dangerous and deadly like demons are supposed to be? Vivziepop sucks at making demon characters.not only do her characters look nothing like demons and now they don't act like ones??? Hazbin Hotel is doomed,might as well make Hazbin a preschool show at this point.its also embarrassing that the king of hell (Lucifer) is just Stolas 2.0 from reading the leaked scripts.Id like to add more but im far too tired because this is getting absurdly painful.

I think there is valid criticism in this critique, but I also feel that, in a way, it is rather exaggerated outrage.

When it comes to demons behaving any specific way, that mainly comes down to poor world building. Spindlehorse has done very little to actually dictate how this world of hers works, and many times, it appears she actively contradicts values previously assumed.

Are there vastly different laws and social expectations between rings?

Loo Loo Land, and once again in Oops, Greed is shown to have an extremely lax approach to crimes of violence.

However, in Harvest Moon, having previously killed people results in Millie being banned from participating in the episode.

Stolas being in public with Blitz gets no notice or response of attention in Harvest Moon and again later in Ozzie's. But then the internal logic contradicts that same episode with Walley acting like it is actually a huge deal. And then for a third time the series presents an about face with Beelzebub dating Tex as if there is nothing special going on there.

Stolas cheats, but he is not wrong for that, which makes it not a flaw.

Then, the world building tries to reinforce the idea that this relationship would be a problem by trying to highlight a demon racial and status divide in Western Energy. Only for Queen Bee and Oops to backtrack again and make it extremely normalized with Beelzebub dating a common Hell Hound and Asmodeus' conflict not being about who he is dating, but the act of dating in the first place.

Going into the idea of "good" and "evil," I don't really think that is a good argument to make. There has to be some sense of conflict for a story to maintain interest, and if the idea of "evil" is the norm was played to a logical conclusion, it would feel more like a joke than anything else. Like in Good Omens, where Hell is dictated by doing the worst thing possible and anything that produces a moral positive is bad. It would completely isolate the audience from the values of the cast, which is why Crowley is depicted as having a personality and values more aligned to humans. As such, it doesn't feel like a good faith platform to stand on when criticizing the show.

What I will say is fair, however, is that Medrano has achieved an Olympic medal in trying to make her characters entirely flawless. There is no consistent character flaw that any of her cast maintains out of what is deemed necessary by the plot or depicted as not a flaw by context.

Asmodeus is quite literally perfect for Vivienne's standards. His whole life revolves around his partner, and he is willing to do whatever it takes for that partner, including murder. But that is good, actually.

Blitz is inconsistently too insecure in his relationships. He's insecure when it comes to FizzaRolli and Stolas, resulting in him burning down his own family home and violently rejecting Stolas after the night at Ozzie's. But he's so secure in other relationships that: (1) despite knowing Barbie doesn't want to see him, he tracks her down, (2) he is overbearing of Loona despite feeling like she hates him, (3) abuses Moxxie, despite having issues with losing people.

And I think that's what this criticism is actually addressing. A lack of understanding the stakes and values the world plays on while simultaneously being handed characters who are so volatile in their own values every time we see them that it is pretty much impossible to defer those values passively.

#helluva boss critical #helluva boss criticism #helluva boss critique #vivienne medrano #vivziepop #helluva boss #vivziepop critical #spindlehorse critical #spindlehorse criticism #world building #inconsistency #bad writing

36 notes · View notes

absolutebl · 1 year

Text

BL & Critical Analysis

Pop culture critique & a how to do it... or something

This meaty question came from the lovely @huachengeye Thank you!

Codicil: I do not get paid for pop culture critique (although I once wrote book reviews professionally, long story). So I’m entirely a dilettante.

The Question!

Q1: Can you can shed some light on your process (of critical analysis)

This is a little like training your eye to edit a document (I bet you can tell that's not one my strong points). Or training your mind to look at data and data collection in terms of the results it may yield and what the initial survey says about the questioner's bias (or can bias results).

First, I have to ask...

Do you really want to train your eye to critique?

Because it will become a lot harder to immerse yourself in a piece of media if you constantly feel obligated to step back mentally and think about it from various perspectives.

In other words, you may enjoy BL, or all live action dramas, LESS if you try to think about them critically.

I have an intimate who is a pretty well known writer. She mostly writes humorous fiction. She's open about the fact that this means every time she laughs, she stops and thinks about why that happened and whether is could be used in her prose. She never gets to be fully absorbed by narrative ever anymore because her critical eye is always turned on, especially for the written word.

What you may sacrifice for critique, is a certain level of childish wonder.

I’m not sure i would necessarily advise doing this.

My Process

My process is essentially now visible in this blog. As I watch a show I take a few notes on it (which show up in the weeklies) and then at the end I go through those notes, consolidate, try to be witty about it, and write up a review.

The review usually has something about:

characters, tropes, plot

narrative & story structure & pace

how this BL fits in with the greater BL genre & history

any thoughts I have on the quality of the production, acting, and/or directing

my own personal feelings about the show

Thus my reviews tend to take into account several criteria.

For #1-2 I have a background in lit crit as an undergrad (and, like I said, I did once review books for a living) so these are kinda ingrained in me. I’m working on seeing the influence of soap operas, fan fic, and non-western story structures as critically valid, so these are the things I’m actively learning more about the most these days.

For #3: How does this fit into the history of BL? Since I’ve made it point to watch pretty much all BLs, I feel like I’m set up to think and talk about this. AKA the spreadsheet made me do it. But since I also have anthropology in my academic history, I’m very interested in how a BL represents for its country’s BL oeuvre. I try to judge KBLs against other KBLs (and Kdramas) and look for patterns and trends in how that country’s interpretation of what it “means to be BL” shift over time.

For #4: my IRL job is tangential to the entertainment industry so that’s accidentally trained my eye for film. I don’t know that I like this part about myself, but it’s happened whether I like it or not. And I don’t have a proper background in film critique.

Final #5: will discuss further in a bit.

Suggestion? Establish A Rating System

Come up with your own personal 10 star (or 5 star) rating system.

Write it down. Don’t be afraid to modify or adjust it. It’s yours, your tastes change, nothing is set in stone.

Pick one ideal example BL for each category that you’re very familiar with for your reference point. Then you can ask yourself, after you’ve watched a new one, whether you liked it more, less, or about the same as that show. (relative rating, similar to grading on a curve)

I change my examples regularly as my taste changes and as new BLs are added. The bar gets shifted, so to speak.

My Rating System

Your reasoning for rating a BL will be different from mine, but here’s mine as an example.

(Also I never feel bound by this, sometimes I give a show a 8/10 just because it feels like that’s what it deserves.)

10/10 - HIGHLY RECOMMENDED - my favorite precious squee!, faithful to tropes, happy ending, good chemistry, few flaws, high rewatch potential, makes me happy, examples: Semantic Error, Until We Meet Again

9/10 ABSOLUTELY RECOMMENDED - loved it and good rewatch potential but probably a few pacing issues or one big flaw, still made me feel good/comforted, examples: Cherry Magic, Bad Buddy

8/10 - RECOMMENDED - some concerns around tropes (like dub con) or story structure/filming but still satisfies as BL, moved me emotionally, rewatchable in parts or not rewatchable but important, examples: Love By Chance, Between Us

7/10 - RECOMMENDED WITH RESERVATIONS - i.e. isn’t quite BL, convoluted, not strictly HEA, too short/long, and/or chemistry issues, may have impact on other BL fans but not me (or on me but not others) examples: Make it Right, KinnPorsche

6/10 - WORTH WATCHING BUT FLAWED - probably around the ending or in narrative structure/cohesion or censorship, disappointed expectations, unlikely to rewatch, examples: My Gear and Your Gown, Love Mechanics

5/10 - WATCH IF YOU HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO - but don’t expect much, it’s a total hot mess interesting only because it's BL and I'm probubly pretty conflicted about it, examples: Advance Bravely, Even Sun

4/10 - FATALLY FLAWED - but still basically BL, however... do we want to support this kind of behaviour? examples: Precise Shot, Work from Heart

3/10 - I DON'T KNOW WHAT I AM WATCHING AND NEITHER DOES IT, just seriously why did this get made? examples: Blue of Winter, Physical Therapy

2/10 - IT'S DEPRESSING - they killed/tortured/etc the gay, save yourself, examples: The Effect, HIStory 3: Make Our Days Count

1/10 - IT'S AWFUL, I WATCHED IT SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO, has all the flaws of 4-3 plus something even more egregious, personally triggering, example: My Bromance series, Round Trip to Love

dnf - self explanatory, but usually I drop because I feel like the narrative is already a #3 and/or headed for a #2 or #1 and then I’m told later that is went there, example: My Tempo

I hand out the fewest 1s & 10s. The most 8s and 7s. Everything else is pretty much on the bell curve you’d expect.

Q2: What resources do you use to build your reviews?

I listen to a lot of pop culture review critiques in podcast form, often about stuff I'd never watch. But I like the way professionals talk about these things, even if they aren't MY things or don't jive with my personal opinions.

Mark Kermode is my favorite film critic and we like the opposite stuff, but the way he talks about film is very interesting to me. His podcast mini series on the "business of film" is probably one of my must listens. For his main podcast (Kermode & May’s Take), I always skip over all the interviews, people talking about their own films bore me to death (especially if they are actors on the promo junket, save me please). His rants are some of my favorites of all time (try Pirates 3 or Iron Man 2). Someone else’s list.

I also like Pop Culture Happy Hour from NPR because it brings in multiple perspectives and varied cast of critics who often disagree and the "things making me happy" is a grab bag of fun.

The Bechdel Cast is a feminist critique podcast from Hollywood insiders and they do recaps as well as critique, and it's always fascinating to me to hear what people latch onto in a narrative. However, I only listen if I am already familiar with the film they are discussing.

My background is in anthropology and I've lived all over the world so that helps train me to think in terms on culture's impact on narrative as well as linguistics and so forth. As a personality I’m also quite reserved and deadpan, grumpy, stiff, strict, and kinda cold. I think I gravitate to being an observer and an outsider which helps if you want to analysis stuff. Which is not a claim to objectivity, I don't think there can be objective analysis of pop culture.

But it does make me pause to think, "that made me FEEEL something" why? What am I feeling? How did the actor do that? The script? The direction?

These shows are meant to entertain, whether they are successful or not, for me (and what "successful entertainment" means to me) and how they are doing it is the first question I always ask myself.

Q3: What are the things you look out for when watching a BL?

I ask myself a lot of things I would when looking at any piece of art. Or even when shopping for clothing or a new car or reading a book.

Did I like it? Why did I like it?

Did it move me? Why did it move me?

Did I react? How did I react? To which bits? Why?

What tropes and narrative beats was it using to manipulate me and my expectations? Did it meet those expectations? The promises it set up at the start? Did it fulfill the watcher-contract during the course of the narrative?

Did the filming successfully telegraphy the journey I was meant to take? Did the actors?

But also... would I rewatch it? Am I tempted to do so the moment it ends? For which bits?

The statistician in me wants to point out that these questions say a lot more about me and my relationship to art than it does about the art itself.

For example

Did I like it? Means... I'm motivated by pure taste and personal preference and complete subjectivity. This is in part formed by a person's background, life state, whole experience with culture and pop culture and society, family, friends. Taste is also just "that" bit. You know, that bit? Likes lemon deserts over chocolate ones, gravities to spicy food, favorite color is green, decorates with potted plants. Just my taste is my taste. I like what I like.

Yes I have some criteria that subconsciously come into play: I look for clever story structure, subversion or manipulation of tropes, parody, not hitting any of my dislikes (like dub con). But also I have other biases impacting whether I like it (like physical appearance) which I can try to check but usually can't fix. (For example GMMTV's Gawin/Fluke looks so much like an ex of mine I really struggle with his screen presence.)

Did I like it?

The fact that this is the first question I ask myself also should tell you I'm motivated by the emotion these narratives engender. I want them to transport me and move me. I my case I want to feel comforted and satisfied and happy. The ones the make me feel discomfort, especially for too long in the narrative, I am simply going to like less. Sometimes less than I feel like I should (see my struggles with masterworks like ITSAY, YNEH, or The 8th Sense). The very BLs that most professional critics would tout as the best examples of the genre for a wider audience often turn out to be the ones I struggle with the most. (They are also, fortunately for me, the least representative of the bulk of the genre.)

In other words there is ALSO a part of me that genuinely likes and enjoys the trashy stuff. Even the trash I trash watch.

So I would advise you to come up with your own questions. Ask yourself what you want from these shows when you watch them.

What motivates you?

Why are you watching them at all?

What brings you joy from an art or entertainment experience?

What do you want them to do for you? To you?

You are going to experience them (and therefore analyze them) from this perspective whether you like it or not. So understand yourself is paramount. It's about your relationship to the art, not the art itself.

If I were to give you an assignment I would say start with one BL you really enjoyed, perhaps not your favorite but one level down. And then do one you really did not enjoy. And think about why...

Happy analyzing!

(source)

114 notes · View notes