OKAY who wants to hear about why i think nimona challenges amatonormativity? you do! 🫵
one of the main ways this is accomplished is through ballister and ambrosius’s relationship. it’s arguable that it doesn’t necessarily fit the traditional model of romance - not only are they a queer interracial couple, and not only is their relationship ambiguous in the book, but there are certain instances, especially in the movie, that subvert traditional ideas of romance and friendship.
one instance that really stands out to me is when the director asks ambrosius what’s on his mind and he goes on his imagined rant about how arm-chopping isn’t a love language - you know the one. when he mentions ballister, he refers to him as “the man i love, my best friend.” and not just one or the other, but both! the man i love, and my best friend. he places equal emphasis on both the romantic and platonic aspects of the relationship, valuing ballister in both a romantic context and a platonic context without treating either one as more important than the other.
and even moments such as the first “i love you” and the kiss manage to subvert tradition. both of these things are generally seen as a pretty big deal, especially in fiction - if the characters are kissing or saying “i love you,” it’s usually a moment in which everything changes. a line is drawn, dividing the story into after and now. sometimes it’s dramatic and climactic, with fireworks and a swell of music, but even when it isn’t it’s still seen as a turning point of sorts. now it’s official, now it’s real. but this isn’t the case in nimona. both moments are certainly significant - they do a good job of showcasing the character development and where ballister and ambrosius are on their respective journeys, and are certainly important in terms of representation - but neither one follows the path that most fictional romance does.
another way in which nimona challenges amatonormativity would be the emphasis on friendship! in the tavern scene (in the movie) when ambrosius suggests killing nimona, ballister disagrees and says “she’s my friend.” ambrosius replies with “aren’t i more than that?”, implying he’s more important than a friend - thus upholding amatonormative ideas. ballister becomes angry at that and leaves - challenging this idea and prioritizing his platonic relationship with nimona over his romantic one with ambrosius, as nimona is the one he wants to defend.
additionally, a big part of this scene is the way ballister deliberately rejects institute values while ambrosius unintentionally upholds them. and because the story challenges homophobia and transphobia (and other forms of bigotry) through the lens of the institute, it would make sense for it to challenge amatonormativity too! it’s something that’s become incredibly normalized, to the point that lots of people don’t even know it exists, and this is reminiscent of the institute brainwashing, especially when it comes to ambrosius - he’s been manipulated his whole life and probably genuinely doesn’t understand the level to which he’s internalized institute beliefs.
ballister prioritizes nimona many times, actually. when he tells ambrosius she’s “smart, kind, and quite sophisticated,” when he’s overjoyed to see her again at the end, when he refuses to kill her and saves her instead. over and over, he proves how much he cares about her, even when this involves directly going against what ambrosius wants - which, of course, is really what the institute wants. a core tenant of amatonormativity is the false notion that romantic relationships are more important or valuable than other types of relationships, but ballister actively goes against this!
to conclude, as a story that at its core is about identity and challenging societal beliefs, nimona defies expectations and traditional ideas of what it should or shouldn’t be. it’s possible that amatonormativity wasn’t what the creators had in mind, but the story still manages to challenge it with grace and elegance. just like its main character, nimona refuses to conform to what others want it to be.
933 notes
·
View notes
[chemistry] it's not a word that actors [use]. but you must endeavor a little bit to try and fall in love, in whatever that capacity is. and andrew is a very easy person to fall in love with. he's kind, generous, talented. we shot the film at the perfect junction in our friendship where there was a lot we didn't know about each other, but there was mutual admiration and respect. and a similar sense of humor. (...) yeah, it felt fizzy when we were acting. especially with that first scene at the door -- it's so well-written. you feel like you're dancing through the scene, you can go in loads of different ways, and if i went one way, andrew would go another. if that's what chemistry is, i was aware it was happening.
-- paul on chemistry and whether ‘they (andrew & paul) knew instantly that their onscreen relationship was working’ in all of us strangers, screendaily.com (1/31/24)
91 notes
·
View notes
JD is going to ugly baby cry when he finally finds Clay? Like the overflow of Relief and happiness Will literally turns him into a blabbering mess That only Floyd can understand Because Floyd is the sensitive one.
I haven’t fully decided how the moment would go, there’s a lot of directions but I did decide to kind of do a concept doodle of this scenario, sort of. I was gonna send it with this ask but I think it deserves its own post for how long it is XD but know you were the ask that spawned it. But yeah I have lots of ideas on what could possibly happen, the biggest aspect of it that is subject to change is whether or not Clay is there in what would be this aus version of the Branch Floyd reunion from the movie, and then like what goes with that you know?
I’m more along the idea that Clay would be there, as would most of them, due to the circumstances having changed so drastically that they wouldn’t be separated by a fight, but you never know. This is pretty close tho to some of like my first thoughts, also sorry for taking a literal month to answer again the concepts I made were meant to go with this but I was going through so many drafts I legit just exploded.
The concept doodle will probs be posted tomorrow tho ;D
55 notes
·
View notes
Just watched gomens 2 and going to watch Barbie today so. Some sloppy sketches of the husbands to cope with the s2 finale
Did I also maybe just want an excuse to draw Crowley in pink crop tops and stilettos and skirts? Ehhhhh ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
wow my hand is pretty rusty after so long huh
ps: this is going to be my last art post on this blog (not that it means much with how inactive I’ve been), I’m going to start using my art sideblog afterwards . Jsyk
170 notes
·
View notes
here's my theory based on the trailer: vanessa is a bold-faced liar. because look at this. this shot right here.
abby is stood well within lunging reach of foxy. she's right there. and sure, this could just be foxy getting distracted in the moment, but look at abby. she's not backed away. her hands aren't thrown up in defense, she doesn't even look scared.
if their goal was to "make her like them", they should be attacking her, right? at the very least, abby should be scared or something, but she's not.
my guess right now is that the animatronics and the kids inside are likely trying to protect abby from becoming like them. but vanessa can't let mike know that. she has to keep him distracted from the real person who's out to get abby --
the same one who got the original five.
259 notes
·
View notes
people actually went on about how game of thrones made it socially acceptable to be a fantasy nerd, as though the lord of the rings movies hadn't been released less than a decade earlier and left far greater cultural ripples and i am just
got may have made the adults feel better about liking fantasy, but lotr got into the kids' heads when they (we) were just young and impressionable enough to be absolutely transported and emotionally rewritten by don't you leave him, samwise gamgee and my brother, my captain, my king and and rohan will answer
lotr was rewriting entire generations' brain chemistry long before asoiaf and so obviously it's not fair to compare any post-lotr fantasy novel to it, and each book series was trying to do different things within their own spheres and so that also is not a fair comparison, but in terms of the cultural impact of the adaptations that came out within a decade of each other, saying that it was game of thrones that made fantasy mainstream is baffling
game of thrones could only run because the lord of the rings movies laid the path, and i will die on this hill
115 notes
·
View notes