So I know I’m extremely late to the party, but I FINALLY got around to watching Wish now that it’s up on Disney+ and…I genuinely don’t understand why it got so much hate?? Sure, maybe it wasn’t on par with things like The Lion King or Frozen in terms of the lasting effect it’ll have on pop culture but it was still a good, fun film with original characters and plot and catchy songs. While I can see where some of the complaints are coming from, I feel like ultimately most of them blow the issues out of proportion. As for my personal thoughts on the film…

- The songs were good overall. Maybe not as memorable as some of my favorite ‘90s Disney jams, but topping Phil Collins and Elton John is admittedly hard to do. Ariana DeBose and Chris Pine were great, though. I honestly had no idea Chris Pine could sing so well. “At All Costs” was by far my favorite song of the entire film. I would have loved to see it as a love duet rather than singing to the wishes but regardless, it’s beautiful. “This is the Thanks I Get” got a lot of flak, but honestly, I thought it was catchy and fun—rather reminiscent of Gaston’s pub song about himself.

- Speaking of Magnifico… More backstory, please! I would love for a sequel to do what they did with Frozen and explain all the things that were not fully developed in the first film. I want to know details on what happened to Magnifico’s family… But man, oh man… Was I EVER happy to get a “real villain” again with more of a classic Disney feel—dramatic, over the top, a little unhinged…and just FUN. I think the reason so many people seem to be having a problem with him is that they don’t quite know how to categorize him, though, before his ultimate downward spiral after being possessed by the book. (I think after that point, no one would argue about him being a villain.) But before…while he’s definitely narcissistic and has a temper…he’s not straight-up evil. There’s a big difference in being a bit of a jerk and being someone who makes you legitimately fear for your life. In fact, we have several heroic characters in the Disney canon who at least start out their story in a similar vein. Prince Naveen, Peter Pan, and Emperor Kuzco, for example, are all full of themselves and entitled…but they ultimately choose to do the right thing when it comes down to people they care about. That is to say, Magnifico’s less than ideal character traits we see early on in the film shouldn’t automatically qualify him as a villain. He could frankly go either way. And then when he does “go dark” it’s ONE stupid decision on his part (going for the book) that ruins any chance he had of being like the aforementioned characters. Personally, I like the complexity…and the tragedy of what it means for Queen Amaya. Which reminds me…

- Yes, a villain power couple would have been fun. But honestly, I think I like this better. Partly because of the angst potential here. For all his faults, Amaya DOES genuinely love him, and watching him slowly lose his mind and himself to the power-hungry monster he becomes has to be absolutely heartbreaking for her. Also…maybe it’s just because I identify with Amaya here. I have been in a bad relationship where I did truly love the other person and thought they loved me…but ultimately, they seemed to love themselves more. And I made excuse after excuse for his behavior for a long time because I couldn’t see what he was doing to me…didn’t want to see it…because I loved him. People say Amaya had to have known sooner that something rotten was going on but I don’t know that she ever allowed herself to think anything other than the best of him. Amaya has a good heart…and sometimes those people see the best in others even when it isn’t there. What I really would have loved is to have Amaya and Magnifico sing a short reprise of “At All Costs” in which Amaya is asking, “Really? You’ll hoard all these wishes for your own selfish reasons even at the cost of losing your people’s love? Of losing me?” And Magnifico is just…stoically resolute. That would have hurt but it would have been so good!

- Similarly, I don’t get the complaint about Star. I wouldn’t mind seeing Star Boy like he was in the concept art and having a romance with Asha. But also…Star is ADORABLE, okay?? He may not speak but he has so much personality. Makes me think of like…Pascal in Tangled or even Tinkerbell.

- I know a lot of people complained about there being too many references to other Disney films but this just seems like a silly argument to me. Disney has always liked to leave little Easter eggs in their films and have some fun with crossovers. I am thinking of the Genie imitating Pinocchio and pulling Sebastian out of nowhere in Aladdin. Hidden characters in the background of other films like Flynn and Rapunzel showing up in Arendelle. Hidden Mickeys. And of course shows that were all about a Disney multi-verse that sort of pokes fun at itself like Once Upon a Time, House of Mouse, and even Ralph Breaks the Internet. With this being a special anniversary film, of course we ought to expect more nods to other films and Disney animation history. I thought it was cute. Especially Magnifico’s jab at Asha’s little moving drawing. (“Is that a talent?”) Made me literally laugh out loud.

- I think the one complaint I do agree with at least in part is the, “But Magnifico was right, though??” Some dreams shouldn’t come true. Especially if it’s a wish you’re making when you’re 18. There are definitely things I wished for at 18 that I am glad I did not get in hindsight. Sometimes what we wish for isn’t what’s best for us or others. And while Asha’s wishes are selfless and for others…she seems to assume that everyone else will also have equally harmless, selfless wishes. It’s sweet but perhaps a bit naive. Also…Asha has good intentions but it is rather funny and frustrating as the adult to watch this teenager come in and try to upset the whole system thinking she knows better than the person who has been running the kingdom for years. That said… Asha isn’t totally wrong either. The wishes do ultimately belong to the people who made them and it’s better even if it’s painful to have a dream in your heart than to be lacking purpose. It may be easier to forget the wishes entirely but certainly not healthier. Ironically, if only these two could have worked together, they actually would have made a great team.

Overall, I liked the film. And I think if I was still a child myself, I would have enjoyed it even more.

Here’s the thing about WatcherTV,

Let’s talk about what’s being offered —

Let’s talk the financial —

Let’s talk the unanswered —

Let’s talk the solution —

Cumulatively since they began — trailers included — Watcher has 377 videos available for view. Netflix has 17,000 titles. Episodes, movies, and most recently games. If the minimum price of Netflix at $6.99/month provides that, how can one justify $6/month for WatcherTV? 2.2% of Netflix’s size is what Watcher is offering — all of which are currently free on YouTube.

The closer similarity, of course, would not be Netflix but Dropout. The prices of their subscriptions are equivalent, but again, what isn’t, is the amount of content. There is already a significant backlog of videos that can be consumed for new subscribers AND three different shows which post weekly. Had the company come forward with a backlog of new media at the ready to be watched, people would have been far more receptive to this proposal.

I understand that, as a creative, you have certain aspirations for making the best version of your idea. You want what you put out in the world to be as close to the image in your head as possible. Sometimes there are constraints due to time, due to money, due to manpower — so on and so forth. I recognize that. I, myself, have worked professionally, academically, and privately in film/media production. I Understand.

What I do not understand is the decision to ostracize a larger portion of your audience. Not everyone can afford a new streaming service — especially one that offers such little in return for the cost. But beyond the American-centric perspective of it. This platform isolates the majority of foreign fans, especially those who are subject to exchange rates. What I have seen some refer to as “the price of a single coffee,” for others is a week’s worth of food.

This community was beautiful and passionate and diverse as a result of its ability to be easily and freely consumed. That will be lost without change.

Furthermore, we see issue derived from the lack of transparency as to what is being offered. We are being promised “bigger and better,” new things, and the return of collapsed things. However, there is a significant lack of clarity and it is felt. Beyond Travel Season and its upcoming May time release, there is no clarity as to what (beyond the old content) people are getting. Yes, there is the vague promise of future seasons of the fan favorites, but there is no clear time as to when. If people subscribe now, how long will they be waiting for content that isn’t already free?

How can this be fixed? Frankly, good fucking question. Perusing through the comments, it’s pretty clear that a majority of fans feel blindsided and lied to. Watcher has consistently denounced capitalism and condemned corporate greed, and to what extent this behavior falls into it definitely raises some questions. I think it is worth acknowledging, they are a company that has grown to put out content. That means they are responsible for 27 (I believe) paychecks, beyond their own. But that is not the only explanation for why they’re doing this. Or their most prominent one — I’ve already acknowledged their bigger and better mindset, but their other reasoning was that they are at the mercy of advertisements. And that this will stop those.

Well, what if it didn’t? The most obvious compromise, in my mind, would be something like Peacock’s cheapest streaming option of roughly $1/month which includes ads to make up the subscription cost disparity from their ad free option. That is far more manageable for most, even with exchange rates, than $6. It would still be a luxury beyond free, but most people would be able to justify a 1 USD splurge especially while waiting for content backlogs to actually come out.

I don’t hate the Watcher company after this, but I am frustrated and disappointed by their announcement. I am sure it was not done without thought, but it does not feel like it given what they have to actually show for this decision. I have been a consumer of their content for 10yrs, and it is what helps me during troubling times — Just as Shane acknowledged caring about. I would hate to lose the connection to this wonderful community because of a narrow minded perspective on the future. I urge @wearewatcher to consider this moving forward.

okay i was thinking about this meme earlier and it really ground my gears bc its like... not true?

like first of all ik this is a little hyperbole and Not Exact but i still wanna talk about it a lil.

so like first of all the concept art i think this is based off is very early when elsa was the villain and looked a lot different to anna and anna looked the same but her silhouette was different

and it does look cool and i do love it but this doesn't fit the direction the film went it so they changed it.

and you wanna know what much later concept art looked like?

kinda exactly like the film. bc the concept art changes. and its the same for other disney films.

here's some tarzan early concept art vs the later ones

the beast looks like a completely different species here than the completely different species he is in the later ones.

and like ik the frozen one is more dramatic of a change but the point is they all change for reasons and so does the plot and the actors and the script and everything changes.

but also like idk if Frozen is the film you wanna go for when you're talking about boring character design. so lets go through elsa and anna's journeys (just frozen 1 bc its 3am and im tired i just can't sleep until i finish this rant).

so the first time we see elsa and anna are at 7 and 5 years old respectively. as you can see, they both wear clothes simmilar to clothes theyre gonna wear later in the film. elsas clothes, hair, and colour scheme are very similar to what she transforms into at the end of let it go: hair braided and a very simple light blue dress. anna's look reflects her at elsa's coronation: a green dress with her hair tied back.

if we look at elsa at her coronation, it's very different from what she wears from the rest of the film. it's still got shades of blue, but they're all much darker and it contains 2 colours she will never wear again in the enterity of the franchise, let alone the film: black and purple. it's also the only time that she wears something that covers her from neck to toe. in addition, her hair is pinned up. to me this represents her repression of her power at the fear that she can't use them or she'll hurt someone or worse: anna.

lets move on to what anna wears at the coronation. its like a final evolution of the same dress she's been wearing the whole time. this shows that she hasn't really had to repress and can continue being her true self at the coronation. im gonna move on quickly because theres something more exciting that happens to anna's look very quickly

SHE'S WEARING A MORE CORMFORTABLE AND SLIGHTLY BLUER VERSION OF ELSA'S CORONATION DRESS! AHHH I LOVE THIS DESIGN SO MUCH EVEN HER HAIR IS DOWN HOW CAN ANYONE HATE THIS FILM'S CHARACTER DESIGN.

okay lemme calm down

its like a tactic when you're finding someone to ask yourself "what what they do?" you put yourself in their shoes and try and see things from their point of view. anyways anna is doing that with her clothes and its might be my favourite costume from the films? she wants to find elsa and help her and isn't scared of elsa even so much that she wants to be her. it's just so good. anyways moving on

THIS iconic masterpiece. what the discourse is all about. like obviously it's less extravagant than the concept art but first of all the details? the snowflakes coming up from the dress? my girl just learned how to make dresses and already made a masterpiece with ICE! but then also this is representing her being someone who she couldn't have been since she was 7! imagine that! having to repress who you are, not being able to explore yourself and your abilities because you're scared it could hurt someone. and if elsa wasn't taught to be scared of her powers she wouldnt have tried to push anna way and freezing her heart and i just went far off topic.

but anyways this is like kinda why i hate this discourse bc yeah the original wouldve looked cooler but cooler doesnt mean better for the film and i also might have a small special interest in frozen who knows

idk if i posted about this but yeah, this is me bringing up the mcu again. but it's the guardians of the g/alaxy, or more specifically rocket (the raccoon).

i would say rocket is like catra but done right. rocket starts out as an asshole that laughs at others' misery or weaknesses. he wasn't a good friend to groot, though idk if that would count as abuse, because it's not like rocket sadistically hurt groot the way catra hurt adora (but you can disagree if you've watched the movies, it's been a while since i saw them). but as the first film goes on, rocket starts caring about the team and he's very distraught when groot sacrifices himself (for reasons we'll see soon). rocket becomes a sort of parental figure to baby groot following this.

in the second movie, rocket is still a dick, but we see more behind his motivations, and he clearly regrets being such an asshole. even if he doesn't explicitly apologize to quill at the end, rocket is very remorseful during the funeral of yondu, and he implies his apology (talking about yondu but in the end applying it to himself), and quill understands. in fact, rocket was the one who arranged the entire ceremony, which shows that he cares despite his sarcastic and mean personality.

and then the third movie actually deeply details rocket's backstory. he was a raccoon taken from earth and experimented on since he was a baby. he was raised by the high evolutionary, who praised him, but still abused him and scared him. rocket could be some sort of "golden child" since the high evolutionary was obsessed with his intelligence, and he couldn't care less about rocket's friends, other animals who were also experimented on. rocket eventually tries to break everyone free, but the high evolutionary (and the other guards) kills his friends. rocket breaks free all on his own. he also claws his abuser's face.

and all that explains why rocket is so afraid of getting close to ppl, or of being vulnerable. he lost his loved ones bc of that. he was mocked for mourning his dead friend. rocket's behavior is explained by these events, but they're not excused. and later he finds a family that accepts those feelings. when he mourns groot in the first film, drax silently relates to him and comforts him (drax also lost his wife and his daughter).

rocket actually grows as a character. in the end, not only does he accept who he is, he becomes the leader of a new group of heroes once the guardians disband in the third movie.

i also like that we see how rocket cared about his first friends, who welcomed him. they had a special bond. the movie SHOWS us that. they liked to dance and to daydream how the world outside the cages would be like. while i watched the third film, it reminded me of how catra and adora could've bonded with the horde trio.

obviously, again, spop is a whole other kind of media, while the gotg trilogy is aimed at older audiences (if a kid watched the third movie, though... they would be traumatized). but still, rocket reminds me a lot of catra, and what she could've been. an asshole but not an abuser. a criminal (i think he was a bounty hunter in the first movie) but not someone who massively kills people. it's not like he ever committed genocide/omnicide.

("ooooh but you hate flawed women and you just like rocket bc he's a man" literally i love gamora and nebula. those two are my favorite characters in gotg, besides rocket and groot. in fact they have a sisterly bond quite similar to adora and catra's, but that's another post)

Hi! I want to ask what you like about Martha Dracula.

Personally, I hate how she had no purpose other than die to make Drac sad. We didnt see any of her personality so her death feels far less impactful than say, Bambis mom, and I hate the concept of zing/love at first sight trope" because the idea you will immediately know who you are supposed to be with forever based on immediate attraction sends a harmful message to kids and erases aromatic and polyamorous people and ppl who break off romantic relationships but are happier off that way.

I do wish we got to know more about Martha beyond the tragedy of her death and her book about Mavis finding her own zing, but I can kinda understand it as...the story's more about Drac, Johnny and Mavis and there were alot of other things to focus on. We do have SOME window into her personality and relationship with Drac: Mavis is implied to be similar to her and be the peice of Martha he has left, part of the reason he's so protective of her (With all the talk of Ericka being Martha's reincarnation - basically this universe's Mina to compare to other Dracula adaptations, I kind of think MAVIS is actually closer to that role. At least symbolically, although there are other similarities after having read Dracula Daily.) We hear that Martha is clearly the more bold of the two (similarly to Johnny and Mavis.) There's the legend of her and Drac's love story and family in the "Lady Lubov" legend, Drac's been clearly sitting Shiva for over a century, Her book about zings and how they met when she was Mavis' age, And it's implied Drac and Martha loved making music together as Drac mentions he hasn't sung in public since Martha passed. But as much as I do love the things we got, I wish we'd gotten to see more of Martha, seen her and Drac together and their (Less amorous) Gomez and Morticia type dynamic. Now, there IS a deleted scene on the HT bluray that shows Drac and Martha meeting, their courtship, and them having Mavis which gives more of a glimpse at Drac and Martha together which you may be interested in seeing if you haven't already. Matter of fact, Martha's reveal of her pregnant belly as a bat CLEARLY got reused in HT2 in Mavis' reveal of her own pregnancy.

As for the whole zing business...Yes, like all "Love at first sight" and Soulmate stuff, it does spread some harmful ideas, particularly for aro and ace people (like myself!) My mother had similar issues with it herself when we first watched it (though I don't think she knew about aro identities) Though I can kind of understand why it exists. Social interaction, particularly dating, can be a confusing, difficult, and potentially painful process. And I guess it's nice to imagine that you COULD just know the person you're meant to be with without having to go through all the mess. In the case of the HT films, it's also supposed to be a gothic fairytale Romeo and Juliet kind of story, which Love at first sight and soulmates are common tropes in that. Not to mention the trying to juggle a love story plot, a buddy film, family antics, gags, worldbuilding, (and in HT3, the whole "Monster Genocide" business) doesn't exactly lend itself to slow burns. The zing is a sweet idea, even if it doesn't necessarily work that way in real life.

This got long as I have some feelings about anatonormativity + HT , so here's a read more:

To a certain extent, that's part of what I like about HT3: It challenges the "A Zing only happens once in your life" idea by having Drac find love again. And having him DEAL WITH the "You only zing once" being wrong. Alot of people hated that. Some seek to think him falling for Ericka lessens what he had with Martha or means that he's forgotten about her. That he's cheating on Martha somehow. Some dunked on Ericka saying she was "weird" and "ugly", saying Martha was prettier. Some tried to find explanations like Ericka being Martha's reincarnation. But to me...I mean, we tend to think of love as being "The One," yet people fall in love again and remarry all the time. There doesn't HAVE to be a reason Drac zinged twice. And it resolves an issue the first movie had ABOUT "If a zing only happens once, what about people who fall in love and remarry?" Making it at least a BIT less amatonormative in my opinion. Of course, I'm something of an expert at bending rules and finding less amatonormative interpretations, and they never explicitly state EVERYONE has a zing.

Honestly in some ways the HT films are both amatonormative and anti-amatonormative. You have the whole zing/soulmate business, Drac teasing Dennis about Winnie, the guys setting Drac up on dates despite him saying he's not interested, and the whole "late bloomer" conversion therapy business. Most characters in the show have a partner except the mummy (who's shown dating), Vlad (who's showing off for the witches and talks about Nefrititi) and Blobby (who's more comic relief.)

On the OTHER hand, You not only have a 3 generational Non-nuclear family (with a stepmom, yet!) Living together in the same building in close proximity to eachother, but also a bunch of friends that are basically considered family, and at no point in the franchise does the romantic relationship get put higher than the familial or platonic ones. Heck, half the franchise I'd about the familial relationships. And even in the ones about romance, the familial relationships are a big part of those too. (There's also quite a bit if gray-rose coding with Drac himself looking back at the series - including the fact the man only experienced confirmed romantic attraction TWICE that we know of despite how much of a charmer he's shown to be. He can flirt until he's actually interested, then he can't function around them. There's also possible internalized aphobia that does get touched on, particularly in HT2 with him trying to make Dennis a vampire but then turning around and saving him from Vlad's "scare the fangs" plan and ultimately coming to accept Dennis as he is - which there's parallels between Dennis and his younger self drawn there.) I'll also point out that despite the "love and family over racism, we're all basically the same" message, love isn't treated as what makes one "human" in the series. If ANYTHING, it's bravery and willingness to take risk. Particularly to have fun OR protect others.

So yeah, kind of mixed feelings there as an aroace fan.

PS: I'll warn you about the HT3 junior novelization, there's a scene of VH dismissing Love as if it means nothing to him which...more aphobic than the scene in the film was. Particularly since Van Helsing gives off aroace vibes himself.

Let That Be a Lesson For You, Part II

Way back in 2009, I wrote about a case in the Netherlands where an Arab NGO was prosecuted for hate speech after publishing an article insinuating the Holocaust was exaggerated. The thing was, the NGO did not actually think the Holocaust was exaggerated -- rather, it was trying to draw attention a claimed double-standard after Dutch authorities had dropped hate speech charges against right-wing Dutch filmmaker Geert Wilders for a film critics claimed insulted Muhammad. 

Drawing on entry #45 of advice for evil overlords ("I will make sure I have a clear understanding of who is responsible for what in my organization. For example, if my general screws up I will not draw my weapon, point it at him, say 'And here is the price for failure,' then suddenly turn and kill some random underling."), I observed that when a non-Jewish far-right extremist engages in hateful speech towards Muslims, the proper response -- even if one believes in tit-for-tat -- is not to turn and attack some random other minority group (here, Jews).

In the files of "all that's old is new again", a similar situation appears to be brewing in Sweden, where a Egyptian writer has postponed (but not cancelled) a planned "protest" of burning a Torah scroll in front of the Israeli embassy. Why is he burning a Torah scroll in front of the Israeli embassy? Because a far-right Danish journalist and politician (who is not Jewish) recently burned a Koran in front of the Turkish embassy. A hateful and despicable act, to be sure -- but why is the response to awful behavior by a right-wing, non-Jewish Dane to attack the Jewish community in front of the Israeli embassy? Burning a Christian Bible in front of the Danish embassy would not be justified, but at least it would have symmetry. But for some reason Jews are always the random bystander executed in situations like this.

I also want to emphasize that local Jewish community leaders credit the prevention of the Torah burning to Muslim leaders in Sweden speaking out against it. This "protester" is a hateful schmuck whose hate happens to illustrate a particular form of pathology I wanted to highlight. Fortunately, he's a hateful schmuck in the course of being repudiated, and that's a good thing.

via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/4tMbfG0

So, I rewatched Joel Schumacher's 'Phantom of the Opera', a movie I was obsessed with as a teenager and new adult.

And I had THOUGHTS.

Being in a committed relationship has given me (someone who doesn't always do much rewatching) the chance to revisit and reappraise art from my childhood and adolescence.

And I'm working on being kind to my younger self.

There was a time when I was obsessed with this movie, if you had asked me as a 15 to 18 years old to name my favorite movies this would have been one of them. Now I'm a few years shy of thirty, I've studied film at the Masters level, I've studied and written on musical theater and opera. Importantly I've seen Phantom live and I've seen the Royal Albert Hall recording. All this to say that I'm very aware of this films shortcomings as an adaptation, as a musical, and even as a film.

But I think it's still a 'good' film.

Because, despite this films shortcomings, understanding why I liked it at a teenager helped me appreciate it.

I don't know if this is a hot take, but in the original show, the Phantom is not only the antagonist but his relationship with Christine is creepy. He is older than her by enough that she at first thinks he is the ghost of her father and his more sexual feelings toward her coincide with the increasing body count and other factors that reveal him as an increasingly malevolent force. It's one of the things that makes the show so good.

The film makes the Phantom's position as antagonist much more complicated by aging him down. Gerard Butler plays the phantom as a young man and the rewrites make his and Christina's ages closer. The idea of him as the spirit of her father is downplayed, and the sexual tension between Christina and Phantom is played up.

It's important to note that while this is an adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical that he is producing made by his production company, Joel Schumacher not only directs the film but is credited as the co-writer.

So I will credit him with the changes between the stage show and the film.

This makes sense when you look at Schumacher's body of work. Sexual tension (be it heterosexual or homosexual), physical beauty, and young people discovering themselves and the world are ideas that appear in his work again and again. Film phantom is a Schumacher protagonist, an alienated young person trying to figure out where he fits in the world. A man who understands love as something good that he wants but is clumsy about how to actual go about pursuing it. A man of restrained passions and feelings he can't express. In the song 'No One Would Listen' (a film original song that didn't make it into the film beyond the credits) the phantom sings about how his love of Christine and his love of music both came about from feeling profoundly lonely following his escape from the carnival and being drawn to something beautiful.

Webber's phantom is a predatory man, Schumacher's phantom is a lonely boy.

And this profoundly changes the work, it's a subtle change that flew over the heads of most critics, both professional or pop culture (looking at the Lindsey Ellis squad) but it's a changes that fundamentally changes the work. It becomes a work of art meant for lonely young men who feel hated by the world for reasons beyond their understanding. And for those men and boys it shows them how destructive their actions have the potentially to really be when they lash out from their loneliness.

"The tears I shed for your sad fate, grow cold and turn to tears of hate."

It's a messy work, but one that has value as a work of transitional adolescent media. Similar to the first Twilight where it gives adolescents a space to feel certain emotions and should be given some grace for that good.

To be honest, I have a problem with the characters and pacing of the Fnaf film as well. Nothing against the actors and actresses in the film, they all did a phenomenal job (especially Piper Rubio), but I have that the film needed to be at least another hour and 50 minutes to fully flesh out characters.

For example, Maxine has a lot more hidden depths than what the film somewhat implies. The novelization confirms that she feels guilt for being associated with Jane and betraying Mike's trust. She can see Mike is a better guardian than Jane but feels pressured by Jane and her brother Jeff. Her actress has also confirmed that Max feels envious of Mike's loving relationship with Abby, wishing that she and Jeff could be as close as Mike was with Abby. One thing that the film deleted was her looking through the Parts and Services room, trying to find the ghost kid and reassuring him she wouldn't hurt him, even saying "It's okay, sweetie, I'm not here to hurt you". That's what makes what happened to her hit harder: you can tell she genuinely hates being involved with Jane and didn't deserve the fate she got.

Something about the vandals is that originally, in the script, Doug and Carl were father and son. Doug even says "My boy...." when seeing the Cupcake attacking Carl's face. This would've humanized them to some level: yes, they're vandals but that's also a father seeing his son being attacked by something unimaginable.

I also feel that outside of Cassidy (the blonde-haired boy), the other four kids were greatly underutilized aside from Fritz slashing Mike's arm: they could've added more to the plot, such as when Abby started talking to them (it's implied that Abby started seeing the ghost children long before Freddy's) and even Susie could've been the one to talk to Abby like how Cassidy spoke with Mike in the dreams.

Now, with pacing, I'd say it went by way too fast for my liking. Seeing the camera pan around the pizzeria at the beginning while the night guard screams in the background was perfect, but the pacing needed to be a bit more slower, just so it fully hits the audience that for the first time in 8 years, Freddy Fazbear's is finally here. There needed to be a perfect blend of the right pacing to build up the Fnaf cinematic universe and also allow characters to have the right amount of character development.

After reading the novel I was left with a similar feeling: Maxine was a let down in the movie. You can add up other characters in this list as well, but I think Maxine is more remarkable (you know, her death scene?) You see, she's made a lot more "human", in the sense that it feels like she's actually a character and not a talking plot device.

The missing kids are not really much of a surprise to me. Cassidy gets the special treatment (for obvious reasons) while the others are ... there, I guess. The group is essentially Cassidy + the other kids.

Definitely agree with the pacing; it went too fast in a world that needed more development (both in-universe and in our own universe.) This is the first part of a 3-deal series. Scott needs to be more assertive in that regard.

Regarding Jane from the ask you've sent after this one:

I get the sentiment (especially because the published novel is based on an earlier version of the script), though it'd be interesting to see what else Jane could offer. The main reason for why Mike went after Freddy's in the first place has to do with her (come to think of it, did Mike ever learn that Jane ordered the break-in?) I was kind of ... underwhelmed with how quickly they "solved" her character. There's room for more, as usual.

Thanks again for your time and consideration in your questions!

So, today I went to watch Film Red at the cinema and it was amazing and I loved it and here is why I loved it! Yes, I read some reviews, some that liked it, some that hated it, and I was going in expecting it not to be as good as it was in the end.

1. Uta (and Shanks)

Some people don't like her. I get it. What I read before watching the movie made me dislike her too but I didn't want to have an opinion without watching the movie. People say it doesn't make sense that Uta exist. Why? Because Shanks had her on his ship and wouldn't take Luffy. I also read that people thought she was childish and a brat.

Honestly, of course she is a "brat". She mentally wasn't able to grow up. Not at all. She basically witnessed the death of a whole kingdom. People were probably still screaming from being burned alive as she ran to get to Shanks. Add the trauma of being abandoned and the feelings of betrayal... She only had Gordon after that and having only one person to grow up with doesn't really give place to mature and grow as a person especially as traumatized as she was. Also, Shanks would never take Luffy because Luffy is Garps grandson. What do you think would have happened if Shanks had taken Luffy with him? He would have gotten the Marine on his back to the extreme. And from that one filmstill of Shanks seeing Rayleighs and Gol D. Rogers we see we can assume that Shanks was found himself just like Uta and Shanks in a way wanted to give back by taking on a child himself.

Uta never had the chance to see the world, meet other peopele and from what we know she barely recognized the tenryuubito. Yeah, she did in the end, but she didn't care, because she was so detached from reality. And what is someone who never grows up? Naive. So of course her behaviour screams out naivete.

2. Klabautermann

I honestly believe what we saw of Merry and what we saw in Film Red isn't the rest of what Oda has planned regarding Klabautermänner. Especially after seeing this incredibly cute personification of the Sunny.

3. Utas heritage (Manga spoiler ahead)

Who is up-to-date with the Manga or at least has seen the end of the Wano arc knows about Lunarians. What I think? After seeing Utas design with the wings? Utas half white hair? Why she was able to sing the runes? Why she is so powerful? (Because honestly she could take over the world.) Uta is half Lunarian. We know Oda was more involved in this movie than the others. And as a designer/artist myself and knowing Oda designed her himself it's safe to assume he didn't do anything without reason. He delibirately designed Uta the way he did. Maybe I'm wrong but it's a theory I can confidently believe in.

4. Tot Musica

Probably an ancient weapon (or an attempt of one, a prototype maybe?). In the newest chapter we saw something in regards to the ancient civilization that ruled during the Void Century. When the Strawhats and the others were in the library as Robin read what was written on the ceiling the guardians that popped up to fight and protect looked very similar to what we saw at the end of the newest chapter. And Uta *sang the ancient runes.* What's up with that?

5. Utas death

She consciously chose death. She didn't want to live feeling the heavy, heavy guilt of what she's done. I honestly don't think I could have lived like this too. Because she is responsible for the death of a whole nation and of trapping so many people in her dream world. What she did came out of a place of desperation to be happy. She is an incredibly tragic character. Shanks understood that hence his smile. He could have yelled at her but he didn't. Because he us an incredibly empathetic man who didn't deserve to watch his child die. But he did. He stayed with her through it all. God, what a Chad. I fell in love all over again with him and overall with One Piece.

But somehow I'm glad she died by saving them, even if she was the initial cause.

So, yeah... My thoughts on Film Red.

Frosty Ruins The Yearling

This is a movie where there isn't much to say because it's such a simple movie. However I like the simple charm of it, anything like this in the settler/pioneer time period is going to be interesting at least a little. On the other hand I'm not as much a fan of the setting as I am for some other similar stories. The marshy swampland homestead doesn't speak to me the same way as a little house on the prairie or a winter cabin in the woods.

That being said when a story is simple and wholesome it can also be boring at times. However there is one rather exciting but pretty brutal part. There is a scene where a pack of dogs fight off a bear…and there were no camera tricks, no special effects…they just literally filmed dogs fighting a bear. At first I thought maybe the animals were trained really well and none of them were actually trying to hurt each other…then I watched the bear practically suplex one of the dogs and I realized…no this is just from an era where you could just make animals fight and hurt each other on camera for the sake of the movie. Now I'm no PETAfag, I'll gladly kill and eat a bear but I don't see any sense in being needlessly cruel to animals and abusing them for entertainment in a film doesn't qualify as a legitimate reason to harm an animal. Especially when it's called the Yearling and centers around a boy taking care of an animal. So that didn't sit right with me but not in a way where it would ruin the whole movie.

I also think the anachronistic acting is kind of funny because you have an actor who is clearly not a southener saying words like Tabacci with clear dignified enunciation, and not even really attempting to speak like someone who actually had that accent..but he says the words like as though he did have the accent. It's ridiculous but again it can be looked past because most of the acting from this era was pretty bad by todays standard.

I also kind of hate the music, all these old movies from this era had that same super high pitched ambient wailing/singing where you can't hear a word of it. Part of the reason is the tinny sound quality being awful but even if it was perfect with modern audio I can't see enjoying it.

One of the problems I had plotwise is their explanation for why the mom is so cunty, I didn't buy at all. "I lost a child so I'm mean to the one I have now"…what kind of sense does that make. The man buys her a gift and she yells at him for being stupid for wasting money. Like I get the point is that it's a hard life and even minor luxuries we would view as neccessities were rare and ill advised given how close to the edge they lived…however you can make that point graciously. You can insist something is too much and that you don't need expensive gifts…and also accept them graciously instead of yelling till everyone clears the room and only admitting to yourself you appreciated it in private.

Also spoiler alert if you plan to see this now ancient movie and haven't yet. I also don't get the ending, making the kid kill his pet himself, him running away almost getting himself killed. I really didn't understand any of the characters in this, maybe it's that the characters are supposed to be that way, maybe it's that it's a story from another time and place, but I just thought all the main characters behaved kind of ridiculously. And I didn't like the message of the movie either and the obvious comparisons between the deer growing and the boy growing up. The whole message is life sucks and now you know how badly its gonna fuck you. On the one hand part of the reason it sucks is because you forced the boy to kill his own pet for no reason and then let him nearly die in the woods, that's not a life thing that's a you fucked up thing. There could have been a message about how life is difficult and part of growing up is realizing that without presenting such a bleak and tragic view of the world.

In the end I don't think this movie was for me, because by the end I was wondering why they hadn't already eaten the fucking deer, personally I think they tolerated it nearly ruining them for way too long. Just don't make the boy do it himself. Kill it take it to your neighbours and trade the meat with them so you don't kill the animal for nothing and so the boy doesn't have to eat his own pet. Trade the venison for some pork. There were so many common sense ways this could have worked out better that to blame it on life in general, even considering that theirs was a harder life...doesn't make sense.

Overall wasn't terrible C-

Why do you hate TLM 2? I always thought it was alright. I never cared much for TLM 3.

There are soooo many reasons. Also, want to preface with I understand there's a sizeable TLM 2 fandom that's developed in recent years and def am not looking to ruffle any feathers! Everyone can like with they like and dislike what they dislike and have their own opinion...but I'm going to start with listing what I admired about the film, before I go into why I really can't stand it.

Jodi Benson's voice acting! I didn't like her performance at all in the third film, but in this movie, her singing was laced with a beacon of motherly light that was so incredible. From the ethereal humming in the first scene, where she's in the shadowed room and gently singing her devotion to her small child, there was something special in the air. Her unreal harmonies in For a Moment are some of the best vocals of all time.

Kenneth Mars reprising his role felt so in character and he was such a delight. Sebastian's voice was too but Kenneth just had this regal strength to him and he had all the weight and emotional impact of Triton from the original film, but with this underbelly of softness that was exposed and he was so tender and loving...his character seemed to be the most in line with what would've organically transpired from the first film. Everyone else is wildly out of character (aside from maybe Sebastian and Scuttle and Flounder, but that was because the writers just made them do exactly what they did in the first movie down to giving Sebastian the same plot device lol)

Flounder was cute. Not much to go into here but he did make me giggle lol

Ariel getting her feet wet was such a powerful moment. Taking off her heels and immersing a part of her back into that world where gravity was different and she was young and things felt almost weightless is such a vibe. I also admired her transition back to a mermaid for similar reasons- releasing her from that mom bun and that terrible dress, her being able to plunge back into the sea, being able to re-connect with her roots.

Okay, so the reasons why I can't stand it and, overall, dislike it:

I came to this movie as an Ariel fan and...we were done dirty tbh? They totally changed her temperament, her personality, her motives- in a way that wasn't just "oh she grew up and developed" but like...that's not her and this movie's cheap writing tried to make her into someone she wasn't so that the story could go down the way that it did. Most of the people who love this movie love it because of Melody, which is fine, but like...as someone who came for Ariel, the fact that she wasn't a main character was lowkey disrespectful? It think it also contributes to this idea that once you "grow up" or just age or have children, you can no longer be the main character and you have to be delegated the background so that the next generation can have their moment. More on this in another bullet. But yeah, nothing of the original Ariel was here- none of her passion and spirit and love. None of her quirks and hobbies and interests. It was just "protect Melody!"

The walrus and the penguin...I'm not a fan of Timon and Pumba type of characters and the fact that they took up so much of the runtime genuinely made this unwatchable to me. Like, we couldn't get more of Ariel, but they could be forced down our throats???

Morgana was uncompelling to me. I don't really like her design or her sidekick or her backstory. Just...eh.

The absence of Howard Ashman was really felt. Now, growing up, I have to admit I don't think too much about him and would frankly get irritated when people kept bringing him up over, and over, and over again as the sole credit to The Little Mermaid's success. I felt it discounted the director's talents, those of Glen Keane and Andreas Deja's, as well as Jodi and Pat's, and just the other members of the creative team without which this franchise never would've found legs. BUT in recent years, I was beginning to ask myself why I feel Ariel so rarely retains that original energy about her from the first film. For instance, there's none of Ariel in this sequel movie to me and even less of her in the third, and I wondered why that was. For the original three princesses, the reason the characterizations are flawed in the sequels and spin-offs is due to the lack of input and involvement from Adriana, Ilene, and Mary- but since Jodi was involved in everything Ariel had anything to do in, why did the character not always live up to who she was in the original? And I honestly think the missing piece was Howard. Regardless of anyone's personal politics or beliefs are, The Little Mermaid is THE LGBTQIA+ fairytale. It was written by a gay man and adapted by another gay man (Howard Ashman) and so much of the character of the original mermaid and Ariel carries the experience of a closeted gay person. This simply can't be adapted by a straight person and still have its artistic integrity intact (which is why I'm admittedly uncomfortable about the live action remake...there isn't a single person involved that is anything but straight, from what I've seen, and the lack of diversity in the cast with Eric, Ursula, and even Triton being white is another red flag for me considering they said they wanted to set this film in the Caribbean but the film features a majority white cast). They took Ariel from who she was in the original movie, written and adapted by a gay man with that characterization and created in the 1980s, and they essentially made her into like a WASPy suburban mother and I just...that's not my Ariel.

Overall, it's uninspired. It's literally just a next generation story with no creativity to it in my opinion. Also, as I mentioned, the characters themselves have so many places to go without needing to give birth to a kid who just relives the original movie all over again but with younger characters.

The animation wasn't expressive. I understand it's going to be a downgrade but...yikes. They went from Glen Keane's iconic animation (I honestly think his work on The Little Mermaid is solely what launched him into being a legend; like yes, his other work is great and deserves its flowers, but the fact that he did the Part of Your World sequence was probably the highlight of his career) to something that felt Rugrats level.

I was just so frustrated with the stealing of a trident and ugh in general the plotpoints annoy me and not in a way that's suspenseful but just in a "I hate that this is happening"

In the original film, what made Ariel and King Triton's relationship so potent was that it mirrored that of a homophobic, intolerant parent and a gay teen. Also, before anyone contradicts me, as I've mentioned before, it's meant to be queer-coded...someone once reblogged my post, disagreeing, and saying that while Ariel and Eric's love was forbidden and even considered illegal and they were from different species, they were still different sexes and thus could never be queer-coded and I think this person is missing the "coded" part of that definition lol but anyway, Ariel and Triton's dynamic had layers and was so raw and real. Ariel and Melody's relationship is literally just a "don't worry, I felt different too at your age, sweetie! It's not easy for anyone to be a teenager" and the entire plot of the film is centered around timing. Where Ariel left Atlantica after Triton destroyed her collection, invaded her personal space, attacked her, and essentially told her he'd never accept her, the plot of this sequel is only propelled by Ariel not catching Melody to tell her in time about her mermaid heritage. Literally, if she came into Melody's room a few minutes earlier, that entire thing never would've happened lol and that's the other part of it- throughout the film, Ariel is willing to talk to Melody multiple times??? So like...whereas Ariel had no resources, but still showed love for Triton, Melody didn't really have that. Look at the difference between how apologetic Ariel was when Triton appeared near the end of the film and how she attacked Ursula for taking the trident. Melody ignored Ariel when she tried to talk to her and handed the trident over to Morgana lol

The entire thing is aged/watered down. The original was a theatrical release, where the mandate was to write from 8 to 80 as a demographic. The direct to video release had a Pre-K to 12 audience and...yeah

The setting being weird and cold and icy did nothing for me. Like the original film made the underwater scenes look like that- apart from Under the Sea which purposely was bright and colorful and vibrant- because they wanted us to understand why Ariel, a mermaid that had always been in the dark, cold ocean, would be so infatuated by the warm kingdom of Prince Eric. To go back to the sea but make the entire thing grey and icy with a bland sky didn't make me want to go to the ocean lol

"There's a certain orientalist/imperialist perspective here in which the international fandom, particularly Army, tends to put BTS on a pedestal through a Western gaze in order to other the rest of K-Pop, as being lesser and incapable of reaching the accolades set by Western standards. But that's a discussion for another time and not here."

No please can we have this conversation? I think it's something the average army doesn't understand they're doing.

From what I recall, I wrote that during the talks around fashion and Dior. It's something that I probably touched upon in the past, but I'll expand a bit more here. There's also another reason why this orientalist perspective was fresh in my mind because at that time, I had just watched Cronenberg's M. Butterfly. I'm not going into details, but in the film, the main character, a French diplomat, falls in love and starts a relationship with a Chinese spy who was a man pretending to be a woman. And they have sex, there's talk about a pregnancy while all this time, the diplomat still "believes" it's a woman. Now, that is of course a metaphor on the fact that the East becomes this fantasy place for the West. The spy can easily invoke ancient Chinese customs as reasons for things that the French man believes easily. He's so focused on his fantasy, of having his own tragic affair with an Asian woman, that he rejects the reality.

That's but one example of orientalism, but the process is something that I can see taking place within the international fandom as well, specifically coming from those in the West (what we understand as North America and the Western part of Europe).

Let's take the Grammy situation. It's one of the few instances (and the only one I can recall right now) in which I-Army uses the group's Asianness. They take it and weaponize it because they are the ones on the social media platforms calling out racism and xenophobia. (Not that K-Army are silent about the racism, but I'm talking here about the very loud voices of international fans). While, at the same time, they want that Western validation. It's sort of a love-hate relationship with this award show and if BTS had won one, Army would be more accepting of it because they do see it as the pillar in music industry. It's an American award, but similar to the Oscars, it has its reach worldwide. Army wants the validation from Western institutions because it helps in distancing BTS from their Korean peers. For them, BTS is bigger that K-Pop, they are global, and only become glocal or local again when the fandom thinks the West is rejecting the group (be it award losses, articles and so called shady journalists).

And we have to remember that Army does have the savior complex, which only furthers the orientalist perspective. They want the distancing between BTS and a lot of aspects of the K-Pop industry and entertainment. How does that happen? By still using the underdog narrative (for what is now currently the biggest group of this 21st century), believing that their company is different than other K-Pop companies (they are not), that BTS as men are not like the others (their Korean masculinity gets twisted over and over again) and so on. In order for all these narratives to survive, Army needs to turn BTS in a victim constantly while everyone else in the industry is either some villain (from other groups, other fandoms, people in the entertainment sector) or their own work and success is less worthy than what BTS does. This allows them to write a history in which BTS is taken out of the context of K-Pop, of what came before and how that influenced the group, of how BTS influenced the industry as well (they did pave the way for the Hybe groups at least).

BTS's place is not just on the global scene. Ignoring or using their Asianness only when it's convenient is one of the most harmful things I-Army can do for the actual group they stan. They ignore it when it comes to their customs, their inter-personal relationships, their masculinity, them being part of a specific patriarchal system. All these aspects get to be replaced with the fantasy version of BTS through the Westernized gaze.

what are your reasonings for liking chick hick describe in vivid detail

Oh boy where do I even start.

Okay so...

Chick isn't the first character like him that I've gotten attached to. The other one is Guzma, from gen 7 of Pokémon.

They're very similar in a lot of ways. They're the big scary antagonist with anger issues and they cause a lot of destruction which may or may not harm people (or cars?) around them. A lot of people might only see that about them.

But if you go looking, there's a lot more depth to them. Daddy issues, for one. We find that out in the Cars comics. Chick's father was abusive, no two ways about that. Nothing was ever good enough for him except first place. He got angry with Chick for stopping to help one of the other racers, claiming that he should be doing everything in his power to win, not wasting his time on others (I'm paraphrasing, that might not be exactly what was said).

The fact Chick stopped to help shows us that he wasn't always bad. He was a good kid, and I firmly believe that. It was his father who told him over and over again that he must "win at all costs" that did the damage. When you spend your whole life trying desperately to please someone who cannot be pleased, that's bound to end up reflected in who you become.

I believe that he's violent on the track because that's what he thinks he needs to do to win. Just like his dad told him. And he's insufferable off the track because of an inferiority complex: He's never won. He has a rival that always beats him, and the entire racing fanbase (millions of people) dislikes him for how reckless and destructive he is. That, of course, only gets much, much worse after the end of the first film.

Now those millions of people all hate him. He let his anger get the best of him. He wanted to beat his rival one last time before Strip retired. We know at the point he crashed Strip that he knew he couldn't win. Lightning was miles ahead. He didn't crash Strip to try and win. He specifically said, "I am not coming in behind you again." That's the inferiority complex coming through. When you go your entire career and never get more than second place because of one specific man, yeah. You're gonna be bitter about it.

Then, when Lightning stopped, that meant Chick won. He wasn't expecting to win, but he did. He won, and as a result, his dad would be proud of him. Right? Well, we can't know for sure, but I don't think so. Not because he crashed Strip, no. But because Lightning LET him win. So despite everything, despite being universally hated by millions of people, he still couldn't make that one man proud of him, which is what he's been trying to do his entire life.

Then we get to Cars 3. At this point, Chick has had YEARS of being hated by the entire racing community. He's probably incredibly depressed, clutching to the one cup he has like a lifeline and living purely out of spite. He made a TV show so people couldn't just put him out of their minds. He made it a good show, so even if they hated him, they would still watch it. They made his life miserable, so he's not going to let them forget about him. I think he leans into the hate because otherwise it would smother him. How could it not? Everyone expects him to act like a dick, so he does. He's even worse than he used to be. At this point, it's his entire identity.

Under all that, though, I think he's probably hurting and lonely. I don't think Strip's crash was supposed to be as bad as it was. I think all he wanted was to cause him to spin out into the infield. Harmless. But it went wrong, and he leaned into it to save his already fragile ego. It was easier to admit he was brutal than it was to admit he made a mistake. Especially when his dad was watching.

But you know, most of that is just speculation and some headcanons to fill in the gaps. It's why I love him so much, though. I thought about the effects of his actions and what impact that might have on him, but I also tried to figure out why he did those things to begin with. That's important for understanding a character; the why. This is where I ended up.

Thank you for asking, though, because I can not gush about this guy enough. I have so many Thoughts(tm) about him.

Super first world problem rant:

I am almost out of my favorite anti-perspirant/deodorant. I use Lume after a shower but I also use anti-perspirant on subsequent days, before the gym, etc, because I don’t like to feel sweaty. The Lume is great when I’m not doing things to sweat and helps cut back on bad smells, really great for non-armpit areas especially, but it’s also expensive. So yeah, Lume after showers + additional antiperspirants as needed has been my go-to for a while now.

I’ve tried a lot of deodorants previously. I am, apparently, picky, and I rarely use up whole deodorants because I a) don’t use them super often with the Lume, and b) won’t use them regularly if I don’t like them. Spray deodorants make me sneeze and I hate how they feel going on. I tried them once and never again plan to use them. Solids are traditional and what I always used growing up, but they seem to get a film or something on that’s similar to hard pan on makeup. A lot of these also make me feel sick for some reason. It’s the smell- I’m not sure why but the smell just feels off, too strong, or somehow just gross most of the time. The most recent offender is also the worst: the Secret Sweet Nectarine solid tube. I want to vomit every time I use it, so of course I don’t use it unless I can’t find any other one, and even when I do use it, the “hard pan” film makes it pretty much useless anyway. 0/10, will never repurchase.

I recently-ish tried a clear gel (twists up like a solid but gel comes out of holes), more specifically the Secret one in a berry scent. I’ve had it for a while- probably was on sale or something tbh. I LOVE it, and I’m out. Like, I have to use that awful solid sweet nectarine that makes me feel horribly nauseous every time I smell it. This was particularly annoying because I ran out while traveling for that overstimulating wedding.

I placed a Walmart+ order last night for delivery today because in addition to needing more deodorant, I also needed conditioner and drink mix stuff (since water is gross, I said what I said). I try to avoid going in because Walmart is the further store away from us and I always get overstimulated just driving there. Can I do it? Yes. Do I ever want to? Fuck no.

Anyway, I was really excited because the secret gel deodorant has some kind of $4 back on 2 thing going on, which is a decent deal for something I wanted anyway. They have multiple scents- coconut, cocoa butter, water Lily, rose (ew), berry, vanilla, ocean breeze, lavender (also Ew). I was going to get the berry, waterlily, coconut, and vanilla, but with everything else it felt like a lot of money all at once (especially given how it can take me over a year to finish a tube), so I just got the berry and waterlily.

Walmart shopper couldn’t find the berry one for some reason and I had to approve a substitution. Wanna know what they wanted to sub it with?

Sweet. Fucking. Nectarine.

I had two option: decline the substitution, being left with just one tube and I wouldn’t get the sale deal, or I could accept it. I couldn’t see any place to request literally any other scent, like the coconut or vanilla. If I denied it, I would likely end up where I am now again- out of my preferred one and have to either smell awful to everybody else and feel gross or smell nauseating to myself.

The $4 back is good enough to almost cover another tube later on so I just accepted the substitution but i was pretty upset. I see where they were thinking- trading a fruit scent for a fruit, makes sense, especially as I wasn’t able to like, add in a secondary scent preference or whatever. So I’m not mad at the Walmart shopper. Just the situation anyway, because now the likelihood that 1 of my deodorants will be nauseating and maybe unusable is higher. I already gambled on the waterlily since I usually don’t like florals and just wanted to try it, so it’s like swapping out my safe scent for something also potentially disastrous.

They just delivered my order, and not only is there the sweet nectarine one, but the waterlily deodorant is a mf solid. Because I, like the exhausted dumbass I am, didn’t double check the listing when I added it to my cart.

So basically I just bought like 1-2 years of deodorant that I don’t like 🙃 since I’m never “going that way” and returns in general stress me out, I don’t feel empowered enough to make a return and get what I really want. If I complain to my husband, he won’t understand why I can’t return it and will get annoyed I’m complaining. If I ask for new ones, he’ll raise his eyebrows and say why when we just bought new deodorant?? Which means I’ll have to tell him I don’t like what I got and feel like I can’t return it which would then further cause an argument. I could probably get new ones near Christmas without it being weird to him. But I still feel relegated to using deodorants I hate for the next several months.

Is it a first world problem, and am I privileged to be able to afford and access deodorant in general? Yes. Am I especially privileged that I can access a wide variety of them? Of course. Am I still entitled to be annoyed with this situation? I think so.

Hello!

A. Why does Cuddle's teeth get bigger every time I see her

B. Her eyes also are getting bigger I think

C. Will we ever get a cuddles and raph fusion and the other duo? I think it would be fun for cuddles and raph's fusion to be a complete plush toy body with plush spikes yet the scars are like hard and burnt fabric that has similar texture to Raph's skin, like how some plushes have pure hard thread for details like noses and small scars!

D. I understand your stance on proship is a full no, and I respect that 100%, proshippers can die in a pit. But I'm curious, why do you depict minors in such abusive relationships? I mean, I understand that this is your au and creative liberties know no bounds however concept wise I am fascinated! These are late teens, 15 - 17 last I saw on the ref sheets, yet they are put into extremely gorey and torturous situations and abusive to others, including family. My question is what inspired you to make such a dark ass au? The concept and designs are beautiful, but what inspired you to make it go so dark for minor aged characters? Logically speaking I don't think I could ever see these characters behave this way before seeing your au, and I don't mean to sound rude at all! I do adore your au and characters and writing style, I'm just so curious how you decided to put these young characters in such terrible life positions. It's similar to the torture extent of Like Father Like Son, putting child/teenaged characters into situations that you would see in someone's deepest fears or in a rated R film. Why did you choose to do that? And again, I'm genuinely asking, because even as a horror fanatic, I can't see anyone putting characters to such harmful extremes. /genq

Hi!

A/B: I am inconsistent and don't put effort into drawing her cus I Do Not Like Drawing Her 💃💃💃💃 (I have a design for her the works that I like a lot more that hopefully WILL be more consistent lol, I am so sorry to any miss cuddles enjoyers)

C. Yes!!!! There are gonna be Donnida and Rizu (Raph+Chizu) fusions, then after that I was hopefully planning to do some other combos!!! But omg YES that would be so cute IWHIWJF Raph with little button eyes, ill take 10 please

D. Yes, absolutely completely against proship, I fucking hate proshippers, they all need to choke on forks, yes.

As for your actual question, a few different reasons.

One, I just. Didn't really care to change their ages very much from actual canon. I'm a minor as well (16) so I tend to have characters that are around my age LOL. It's just never crossed my mind that. The minor characters being involved in dark things would like. Add to the horror, I guess? Maybe cus I'm one of said minors IAHWIEBF I have no idea.

Two, I just. Like dark topics LOL. Always have. My interests involve bondage, taxidermy, body horror, etc etc. I just put a lot of that into my work, I love drawing gore and making art w/ dark themes (even bigger bonus if it means I also get to contrast it w/ bright visuals) addams family as a concept is honestly quite dark when you look closer at some of the jokes and situations, I'm just not very good at comedy so that kinda got lost which is a 'my bad' moment

Three, i didn't want to make light of specific topics so I keep and present them dark (for example, Leo stalking Usagi. I'm not gonna make light of stalking and abuse to keep a more lighthearted tone. I'm just not. So. Yeah). I think it's in bad taste to present certain things like that more comically, and I'll take the L of diverting from the source material a lot for it.

I wouldn't compare it to LFLS really! Lfls is a wonderful fanfic made by a wonderful person, but I think. What we try to achieve and the points/ideas we present are very very different, ya know? Hers is angst with a point, I'm just here to get groovy/j

I like the dark topics and I like presenting them as such, ISHDIFBFJ. Maybe it's just my low-empathy talking, but I like what I've done and I'm gonna keep improving it! I just. Idk, I enjoy it. About as simple as that!

I did at least try to go for some difference then other 'dark turtle' AUs I've seen! No hate to any of them, they get all the hearts and flowers from me, I just wanted something different and hopefully. Achieved that! Yay! :D

((Submission)) Theory(idk if someone said it or it’s a fact but)

Why was Thomas’s ghost white at the final scenes of the movie? Well as we know all other ghosts and spirits have been portrayed as black, whispy, disturbing entities, like Edith’s mother, or they are broken, horrifying creatures made out of the red clay underneath the house. But in the final scenes of the film we see that Thomas ghost is actually white, unlike any we’ve seen so far. So why is this? Well I think it’s because Thomas has no attachment to anything or anyone. The other ghost/spirits all have a reason to haunt over the house and the people living there, Thomas and Lucilles mother; she was brutally killed by Lucile, Thomas’s past wives; also met the same end ergo Lucile and Thomas.

But when Thomas dies , he has no attachment. He told Edith that he did truly love her, he confronted Lucile and he was ready to leave his past behind.

Thomas had no reason to be a revenge seeking ghost. And that’s why he was a white ghost in the ending

Tell me what you think, just a theory (again idk if it has been said but I just thought it was cool)  -End of Submitted post- -Blog Holders Response-

Sorry for the late reply to this submission. Holidays make things so busy. I actually posted a theory similar, no idea if it was one you may have come across or not. I looked for the said post and it was actually a reblog that I commented on {X} The original response I made to a gif of Edith being embraced by her mother’s ghost 7 years ago in that link was as follows:

~ All she wanted was a hug and to love and cherish her little Edith and keep her safe. It takes so much to come back just to warn her and hold her. We don’t know how strong a ghost has to be to be solid enough to be seen and interact with things. It has to take so much will power and emotions to do it. Others just appear faintly in photos. But the strongest of emotions makes them solid and seen. Her love was what was so strong to bring her back to her daughter and warn her. Not just once, but twice! Not even her father pulled that off. We never saw him again. It’s the raw pure emotion that brings her to her daughter. The same with Lucille. Her love and hate and rage all together has her formed in Allerdale Hall. Two woman with two different forms of Love bringing them back from death. All the wives were full of fear and sorrow. Want to for freedom and stained as the clay of which they were surrounded by. Sorrow took over they’re after lives, forming them and giving them shape. Thomas was peace, happiness, and pure love. Each forming a different color to show what it meant. It appears Black is a strong emotional love and want, if not a rage with it. The person dying and having that emotion giving them strength to the point of returning. For Edith’s mother being taken so soon from her daughter and unable to hold and see her before her death. Lucille her rage and love fueling her beyond the grave. Red, sorrow and pain, along with the very color of the clay around them if not stained by it and the blood they shed in death upon their murders. The wives and baby buried in the clay of the mines and Lady Sharpe her own bloody bath, if not tainted with the red clay upon filling. White, a happy, pure love and acceptance if not peace. Some still lost don’t even appear. Just stay as shadows, unseen but in the shadows of a form. Or only in images, if not shadows in that as well. ~

It has been a theory of mine that the wives are Red greatly due to the clay they were buried in. Their ghosts appearing to change with the decay of their bodies hidden away. We don’t see this with Lady Sharpe though (Thomas and Lucille’s Mother). She is red, but only appears with the wounds inflicted upon her death by her daughter’s hands. It’s never said or shown where her body is laid after her death either. But we do know it was discovered by the police through the newspaper article that is shown. That gave me thoughts and theories to a connection to colors and emotions and manners of their deaths.  The wives were not a peace, they as well as Lady Sharpe are most likely full of rage, but the wives not as much. The appear to know they’re bodies are decaying away and what they look like. Hoping perhaps in passing one of the siblings will see them and instill fear or show what they have done. Perhaps also using the form as a warning to Edith of what cruel things Lucille has done. Thomas ever appears close to seeing the ghosts himself.  The way he speaks to Edith of ghosts through out the movie, in the book and the deleted scene where he appears to feel them around him. Even in the book he seems to feel them or glance them faintly.  Some ghosts take on more of their living selves as likely how they see themselves or wish to be seen. Some it is likely they have not the strength, skill, or both to appear and keep a form that is pleasing. I believe I have tweeted at the director in the past, but never got a reply in what the colors of the ghosts mean sadly. Something I would love to hear the story behind.