I was listening to this cast by The Weeb Crew, with SteveM as a guest, going through some other Evangelion video and dissecting the mythical memetic tropes it buys into. Which was a lot of fun, I recommend the cast, and the video they are critiquing is a bit of a grad-bag of zombie memes about Evangelion from the 2000's, which yeah have aged poorly.

One of the ones they get into is the idea that Evangelion's TV ending was "intensely unpopular", and Anno & crew were getting like bombarded with death threats and stuff. Which happened at some level sure, but certainly wasn't the median response. The video actually sites the "emails" shown on screen in End of Evangelion as evidence:

And like, bro those emails are fake! The staff wrote them for the movie, they didn't use real death threats or fan mail, that would be a huge legal liability. Not saying they are analytically useless or anything but, you know, you need to know that.

Anyway, SteveM mentions that of course there was pushback against Eva's ending, but actually the big wave wasn't interior to the fandom - instead it was sparked by Eva "going mainstream" discourse-wise. In particular a review essay by social critic Eiji Otuska (who is also a former lolicon creator ding ding ding) that was published after the finale aired sparked a widespread discussion in the media by other critics. He links to the essay in their discussion....except he doesn't. He thinks he did, and then when they look, its just someone else mentioning it in an article in 2003:

Bitter disputes broke out on online bulletin boards, with some critical of the producers for failing to provide a clear-cut end to the story, and others who praised the finish for being "typically Evangelion-like." But when commentator Eiji Otsuka sent a letter to the Yomiuri Shimbun, complaining about the end of the Evangelion series, the debate went nationwide. "The debate that erupted over the ending went way beyond our calculations," Gainax's Sato chuckles. "Anno probably knew what was going on. He realized that media other than anime had taken notice of Evangelion."

Which triggered in me the thought - why doesn't he have it? He references it in his own work after all. As you can guess, after some searching I am pretty sure I know why; no one has it. Its never been scanned or reprinted in an accessible format! It definitely is important in the history of Evangelion - I have seen this claim in other contexts, the essay that sparked a discourse, and you can find many works about Evangelion citing Otsuki (generally later works, like an article published in September of 1996 which you can buy) But what the article article said is only discernable via the clues dropped from second-hand accounts.

So can we find it?

First of all I need to figure out what is even being referenced. Searching through contemporary Japanese sources, I dug up an extremely handy find:

A somehow-still-existing 1997 fan page by a Japanese otaku (I'm giving you this stuff auto-translated btw, what would you do with a wall of kanji?) who extensively catalogued every media mention of Evangelion. I am sure they missed some, but they didn't miss a big one like the Otsuki letter - which we know from the above interview appeared in gigantic newspaper Yoimiuri Shimbun:

This gives us three candidates; given that we know it was written after the finale aired, and that was March 27th, 1996, our most likely candidate is the April 1st essay; I was able to find a secondary source mentioning the review was "immediately" after the finale, so I think that nails it.

Which alas does not bring up anything! Try as I might I cannot find any extant blog post, or scanned image, or long quoted form. But after trying the usual methods I did realize something - unlike my average document hunt, this is Yoimiuri Shimbum, a newspaper, a big newspaper. Which means they probably have their own archive, which I might be able to access. and low and behold, they do! And my university research services actually have an account!!

Incredibly blessed by this stroke of luck, I went digging for everything containing "Evangelion" and "Eiji Otsuka" in 1996, and found it:

And it's fucking blank. If the article is scanned or anything it will have that "Japanese Text" you see on the first result, or "Scanned Image" tag or something. I swear its like the only ones not scanned, all the random ads and list of best sellers are all there, but the entire cultural essays section is just an archival void. Shot in the skull right at the finish line.

Alas I am out of ideas of this one - its a newspaper, no one is selling this on Yahoo Auctions. Though hey, at least now we know the title:

"オウム」を超えるはずが... / It should surpass Aum...", 876 characters long.

"Aum" by the way is Aum Shinrikyo, the cult terrorist group that conducted the 1995 Tokyo subway sarin gas attack. Which you can imagine really took the chattering classes by storm; it was the culmination of a series of "extremist" actions that began in the 1980's that built up a narrative of societal decay and alarm. It really isn't surprising that Otsuka linked Evangelion to Aum Shinrikyo; the apocalyptic connections were obvious, there was even an episode of the show that had to be changed due to the attacks as the production team thought the events were too similar. And additionally, if this essay was gonna spark a "societal backlash", it has to say something controversial right? I have definitely seen other critics like Hiroki Azuma discussing Eva in relation to Aum as a "social phenomenon" - I am betting Otsuka is the source of that comparison being so ubiquitous.

From other sources like people on twitter and other articles, I can pick up a few other details on what it contained; apparently he referred to Evangelion's finale as a "self-help seminar" for otaku and lambasted the idea of airing one of those on TV. And from his other writings I think you can certainly piece it together - essentially seeing Evangelion's self-involvement and hyper-introspection as a product of the same societal malaise that birthed Aum Shinrikyo, while failing to deliver a solution that could "go beyond" that. Which, the shit you said about media in the 90's, I want a hit of what he's having! But while today its quite obvious that groups like Aum were, sure, saying something about society but turned out overwhelmingly to be fringe weirdos as opposed to canaries in the mental institute coal mine, at the time this was very much the zeitgeist.

Still, I don't really care all that much what it says - its an important artifact! It started the "Eva discourse boom" that broke out of otaku circles and launched Evangelion into a cross-societal phenomenon! We should have a record of it, it should be preserved. I will ruminate on it, and see if any other ideas pop up. And meanwhile if anyone out there happens to see what I missed definitely let me know.

how do you think levi dealt with erwin's death? was he distant for awhile from others, trying to deal with his feelings by himself? was he feeling guilty of not killing the beast titan?

i also saw a post which said that "isayama said levi had become weaker after erwin's death" which was actually without any sources or whatsoever.. anyways, what are your thoughts?

i want to cover that "fact" first.

lol it depends on your perspective whether levi in fact got “weaker”, but that has ultimately nothing to do with isayama's comment on levi's state after his death, because that's a gross mistranslation.

that quote is from an interview done with isayama in 2017 and has to do with the impact of erwin's death and dreams. specifically relevant to that statement, isayama doesn't say that levi is weak now, but that he's like a balloon dangling in the air, in limbo, or aimless. partly because levi felt that they'd completed their role when they reached the sea (confirmed by ch136), and partly because levi needs to kill the beast titan, but he can't at that point, and not out of a lack of trying.

i can't say "aimless" is a relative to "weaker" when both reasons for that are simply out of levi's control.

levi can contend with weakness from grief at this point in his life. the pain he feels from losing erwin is extremely powerful, but what is more powerful is the conviction he feels to keep fighting as a result of both it and the context of his death.

so do i think levi is weaker after his death? yes and no. levi's state is just way more complex than the wider fandom seems to give isayama credit for writing (and everything in general tbh).

canonically, levi retrieved erwin's remains after everything was said and done, and he got a special memorial/funeral. so it's not like he was in denial at least, or it was an event that he refused to acknowledge.

1: i definitely see him distancing himself emotionally from the others. not once in season 4 does levi even use erwin's name while thinking of him until chapter 136 while reconciling the scouts' dream, and not choosing erwin back then.

he doesn't open up about erwin in a significant way to anyone, although hange and levi sometimes talk about him, such as when (in marley w/ the 104th passed out drunk) hange says that erwin was the type of person who would've tried feeding carrots to the cars and levi agrees.

2: i think there's certainly grief levi stuffed down in the moment like a dam that's been waiting to burst since the day it happened, with the wall keeping it at bay being (1) zeke's still being alive, and (2) the meaning of everyone's sacrifices, especially on that day, being unaccounted for. the biggest reason he could get along like this is by compartmentalizing imo

3: feeling guilty implies feeling regret, so no not in the immediate fallout. as a result of his grief, he has more strength, and as a result of the poor outcome of his choice, he has more conviction to carry his goals out.

erwin says this in the anime adaptation of acwnr, and levi says it in his special side-monologue story: having regrets allows others around you to make your choices for you, will make you hesitate, make you fall victim to your emotions, and get killed. this is exactly what happened to levi when his 30 comrades were titanized in the forest by zeke, only because of his ackerman blood, he didn't die.

that's more of a tangent than anything, but point is, it weighed on him more over time.

4: naturally, his nightmares got worse. sleeping was even harder. he was certainly depressed. also, i strongly feel that levi coped realllyy poorly with his failure to kill zeke by over-exercising, to the point where (probably) hange had to step in and force him to do other duties.

Do you think Eddie was flagging in the show?

If this approaches discourse, I'll understand if you choose not to respond.

This is kind of a multi-layered question, but I think it’s worth talking about in the context of broader approaches to fandom.

I haven’t seen these terms used for a while, but fans used to talk about “Watsonian” and “Doylist” explanations as a good shorthand for “in-universe logic/rationale” and “out-of-universe motivations.” For example, the Watsonian (as in what John Watson might think) explanation for a villain monologue might be that the character wanted to prolong his moment of victory because he wasn’t ready to let the feud go. The Doylist (as in what Arthur Conan Doyle might think) explanation might be that the author needed to pad out the wordcount. 

The important part is that neither of those lenses is wrong. They’re just different ways of looking at a text. 

Word of God (i.e. what the creators say about a work in interviews etc.) is not the same as canon, and canon is not sacred. It’s just what’s on the screen or page.

I’m going to be a little self-indulgent here and bring in some Death of the Author by Roland Barthes, because I literally have a page of quotes stored on my tumblr. Admittedly, the translation I have is a little dense, but I think I’ve pulled out the key points. (Also, caveat that this is not the only valid way to do lit crit, but I think it can be very helpful in fandom.)

“The text is a tissue of citations, resulting from the thousand sources of culture.” 

I think about this all the time in regard to fandom, because it reminds me that texts don’t spring fully-formed from some ethereal plane. The cultural and literary references you grew up with, as well as the ones you continue to consume, feed directly into whatever you produce as a creator. That’s why my number one tip for young creatives who want to improve is to be intentional about the media they consume*. That’s where inspiration comes from: just tip more material into the slurry of your subconscious, and see what alchemized new thing bubbles to the surface. 

That also means that as critical readers, we can always try to see connections and patterns, regardless of Word of God. However, it’s important to remember that those connections and patterns are not necessarily lodged within the text itself…and that brings me to my next quote.

“The unity of a text is not in its origin, it is in its destination.” 

It’s rarely useful or interesting, in the context of fandom, to treat a text as an artifact to be excavated. It’s much more relevant and functional to ask what you as an individual get from the text—what your own relationship is to the themes, motifs, ideas, messages you’ve gleaned from your experience of reading/watching. Every reader has a different relationship to the text, because every reader is a different person with a different history. 

The difference between fandom and Extended Universe-type stuff isn’t just licensing. Frankly, I personally would find that a pretty boring fandom experience, if absolutely everything were strictly canon-compliant and cross-referenced. Fandom is transformative, which means it interprets and reinterprets texts as a form of consumption/creation, and that necessarily means a willingness to discard anything that doesn’t suit whatever story we’re trying to tell. 

In other words, Eddie doesn’t have a canon sexuality. Hell, very few characters in general do. As I mentioned in the first footnote to my last reply, it’s useful to think about sexuality as behavior + identity + desire; we often see behavior on screen, but we rarely see the other two in an explicit way. We can read him as flirting with Steve, we can read him as flirting with Chrissy, or both, or neither. That’s how fandom works. 

So, do I think Eddie was flagging in the show?

Let’s break that question down into a few different aspects.

Doylist: do I personally believe that the various people involved in the show deliberately intended Eddie to flag as a(n implicitly MSM) sado top? 

No. I don’t. Honestly, I simply don’t trust them that much. I don’t think they had queerness explicitly in mind when they created Eddie, but that doesn’t change the fact that he is queer-coded, much like a Disney villain. He represents anxieties about nonconformity and morality—of course he’s going to resonate with queer people. 

Ultimately, though, I don't really care about this particular creative team's intent. It's not interesting to me. There are so many shows that I enjoy more than ST for their artistic choices, and I'm interested in hearing the intent behind those, but specifically what I personally enjoy about ST is the stories its components let other people tell.

Watsonian (1): do I personally believe it’s within Eddie’s canon characterization to be flagging? 

It’s not impossible. It’s also not impossible that he’s just aping more generic metal accessories. Personally, I think it’s somewhat unlikely that at 19-20, living in the middle of nowhere and with the various plates he’s spinning, Eddie’s had enough exposure to kink to be really confident and knowledgeable about flagging. But I’ve also heard some pretty wild stories about small town gays back in the day, so I’m willing to be convinced either way.

Watsonian (2): do I personally believe it’s within Eddie’s canon characterization to be a sado top?

This is venturing into some even trickier waters, but my answer’s very similar to the last question—it’s not impossible. You don’t need to be a particular kind of person to be a top/bottom/dom/sub, no matter what the old fandom flamewars may have claimed. (Being in my early teens and witnessing the SasuNaru vs NaruSasu discourse was not a good way to learn about this.) Different parts of the same experience can resonate with people for different reasons, and there’s more than enough wiggle room to interpret literally any character in any way. 

(I will say that people who actively seek out DMing tend to enjoy controlling a scene to evoke particular emotional responses from players, and that's the angle I find most plausible for Eddie.)

I am personally agnostic on the matter of Eddie’s sexual preferences. As a reader, it’s most important to me that those preferences are coherent with the rest of the characterization within the fic. As a writer, I tend to characterize him as pretty switchy for the same reason I tend to characterize him as gay and into mythology: I am just projecting onto a blorbo.

That’s all any of this really is. 

*On a practical level: I often suggest to young creatives that they make a habit of identifying at least one thing they like AND at least one thing they don’t like about art, whatever form that art comes in. It builds critical faculties by making sure you actually digest the art you're consuming, and it’s also a good reminder that even the worst piece of dreck (probably) has something worth learning from—and even the most sublime masterpiece has flaws.

people are taking matthews quote from a recent interview out of context abt tomgreg (he said he didnt play it as romantic but thinks it's fun that the fans see it that way) and claiming it means tomgreg is dead and he hates it... i'm so frustrated with this goddamn fandom smh...

It's interesting that he said that (I haven't seen the interview) considering how he acted Tom, but also people gotta realise

1. It's shipping... You can ship things whether actors ship it themselves or not. Hell, William Shatner has said time and time again that Jim Kirk is heterosexual, and yet you can watch TOS and see how Jim interacts with Spock and like... I really don't need to explain, I'm sorry sksnsk. So I look at Tomgreg the same way if it's really true MattMac doesn't ship it (again, idk what he said, but if he did say that these are my thoughts on shipping even when an actor doesn't). I have very close friendships and I don't behave in the way Tom does with Greg, but that's just me 🤷‍♀️. To summarise I'd say, it's like death of the author actor, because the performance itself transcends the actor's comments on it after the fact.

2. Actors aren't solely responsible for the character and the characters relationships W others, therefore they can't really take full credit of the character. Yes they embody and bring them to life, but there's also the script (multiple writers), the showrunner, as well as editing and direction as all the other massive contenders as to who creates the characters and the relationships on screen. As a writer myself, I do find it really um,, like very irritating¿ that people keep anointing actors as the sole creator of a character. They interpret script and bring it to life with direction but they didn't write the character and so they didn't create it. Kieran Culkin's acting practice is that he doesn't like to know where his character is heading, so he lives in the present and episode to episode when acting Roman. What I mean by this, is regardless of Kieran, there was ALWAYS a set path for Roman as to where he was headed in each season, and it didn't matter what Kieran was up to, his plotline still existed despite not knowing it. Does that make sense? My point is, whether an actor knows it or not, things are written in by writers, and I consider Tomgreg VERY MUCH a part of the text and subtext of the show.

So to summarise, if MattMac really said he didn't play Tomgreg as romantic and doesn't see them that way he basically achieves Death of The Actor because his performance speaks louder to me than his comments about his approach to acting Tom. Tom looks at Greg with such adoration that I've never seen him look at another character, he speaks to him in tones that he doesn't speak to other characters in, so again, his acting transcends his post comments. And SECONDLY, MattMac's comments still aren't a ship killer to me because he didn't actually create Tom alone. He interpreted the character, brought him to life, and definitely would have had say + freedom in his performance considering what we know of Succ's production, but he didn't CREATE Tom. That credit is owed to the writers who literally wrote Tom, and wrote Tomgreg's scenes how they did. The credit is also owed massively to editors in how they edited all the many hours of footage to portray Tom and Greg's relationship as we saw it.

We all know Succession is an incredible show. There's so many undercurrents happening all at once that surface at various times in forms of parallels and callbacks. I think it's funny to think that despite the pedigree of Succession, something as massive as Tomgreg was some sort of shared hallucination. It wasn't. Tomgreg is part of the sauce, and they're an intentional ingredient.

hiiii, how are you?💕

for the fic ask: 8-12-27-48-50-76

Hi! I’m good! Just working through writers block and Vet School interviews for the time being! Thank you for asking 💕

8. Post an out of context spoiler from a WIP. So this is from my Modern College AU fic that was kind of inspired by another fic (FOG), my most recent Gilmore Girls re-watch, and Taylor Swift’s Midnights album.

12. Do you outline your fics? If yes, how detailed are the outlines? How far do you stray from them?

So, it depends on the fic. Usually I’ll have an idea that I want to write about, sometimes song lyrics help me out, other times, it’s more so history inspired, and even then I might end up with some works that are mildly canon divergent depending on what I want to write about. Then, I end up outlining. So far, two of my longer chaptered fics have outlines of where I want them to go, one is canon compliant, the other is the college fic I mentioned. They’re pretty detailed in terms of how I want some scenes to play out, but if I have to change it and kind of Frankenstein the outline to get to a reading flow that makes more sense, I’m not afraid to do that. The scenes I tend to have in depth in the outline are the angst scenes, where there’s arguing, fighting, injuries, sad experiences (like crying scenes), and near death experiences. I tend to keep in line with the outlines, unless I think of something that I like for the plot better. One of my fanfics that I wrote in 2016 had a major character death, and I’ve decided that I don’t always enjoy writing those. I have a few newer ones with character death, but as of right now, they’re only the historical based fics.

27. What area of writing do you feel strongest in?

Description of a background setting for sure, but I feel pretty confident with dialogue and internal struggles that the characters are having, too. Sometimes I feel like my writing isn’t great, and that occasionally stops me from publishing fics, but I might start having beta readers for a few fics that I’m working on.

48. Who is your favorite character to write for? How has this changed since you’ve started writing for that fandom?

Will Byers hands down. I love writing from Will’s perspective, because there’s such a range to his character that we see on screen, but I want someone to allow him to actually get angry for once. He’s good at hiding his true emotions at times, and it’s fun for me to try and work different angles from his perspective. He doesn’t think he’s the heart of the party, but Will is the person that keeps the Party together and united. Mike is also the hearts, but in the sense that he’s able to inspire others (when he’s not plagiarizing others speeches.) I think I enjoy writing from Will’s perspective so much, because I feel like my personality is similar to his character in a lot of ways. Will is always going to do the selfless thing even when he wants to be selfish. I’m also similar to Mike and Nancy, and I think, being able to see why they might react the way that they are throughout the seasons, and trying to better understand them as characters, has definitely helped me in my writing.

50. How would you describe your writing style?

Aside from very ADHD —> if I don’t set deadlines I don’t get it done…? Umm…

I tend to write fics in a more informal manner, but if its one of my original books, there’s more of a formal tone about it. I’m just glad I don’t have to write fanfics in Chicago style or the way we write (and cite) biology papers.

76. How do you deal with writing pressure, whether internal or external?

When I’m told to write for an assignment or a project, I will 100% procrastinate almost up until the last minute. It’s bad. Sometimes, I’ll make an outline, and gather quotes that I want to use, so I’m a little more prepared. But if there is external pressure or deadlines for me to submit something, it sometimes kicks in 2 days before the assignment or draft is due, and then I write the best paper I’ve ever written. I wrote a solid 10 pages of a History term paper off of a rough outline and a compilation of quotes that backed my argument. 4 hours later, I had 10 pages on Medieval Queens and how they contributed to warfare during the Crusader era. Basically if I’m asked to write, I’ll do it, but it can be a bit tricky to get commit to getting it done.

As for internal pressure, if I’m feeling upset or there’s something I need to get off of my chest, it usually comes up in a vent fic. I kind of write when I want to between school and work.

Thank you so much for the ask @rebellius! I was so excited when I saw that I had one! 💛

cordisbbygrl/status/1583541133636145152 - He never said this. nottheribbons/status/1583492382221553665 - Also a lie, I know V is a well-known anti but it has plenty of likes and replies agreeing. Someone keeps replying to Jensen positive tweets with a misleading quote. I can't find the tweet from V that started it but there are others out there. They are using a woman's tragic death to score petty fandom points, sorry that's worse imo. Maybe I'm being too harsh but I'm very angry about this.

There is no excuse for wishing death on someone (which all sides of fandom have done at some point) but I think this is especially heinous. It would still be horrible but not as bad if they had done this at any other time but on the anniversry of that terrible event which should be about remembering Halyna and thinking about her husband and son it makes what they are doing 10x worse. I'm sorry but that's the way I feel, everyone else is entitled to feel differently.

***************************************

Yeah, those examples are pretty much a grosser version of throwing histrionic fits about Jensen and Misha joking about Jared being at the pool during Jibcon. In that case it was very obvious from the context Jensen was joking. It's a similar line of obtusely stupid misrepresentation as hellers insisting Jared is homophobic for 'comparing incest to gay lurve' for his answer at Denvercon. In that case it was very obvious he was just trying to give a variety of examples of different types of love.

In this case, aside from again, their being butthurt over the 'never keep fighting' joke? It's pretty damn obvious from the context in the police video and from the IOU interview they're quoting that Jensen was talking particularly about only his own personal feelings about his own personal circumstances in specific situations (the shooting, quarantine lockdown) not making some general pronouncement. Especially as he has said otherwise in terms of general cases - IIRC, even within the police interview video itself.

I'm not telling you not to be angry or that you can't find it worse. Personally, I will always find taking it to the actors directly worse than pretty much anything that stays within the fandom. As you say, obviously mileage can and does vary. Also for me, at the end of the day? I don't actually care much about who is objectively worse, because awful is awful.

Doctor Who: Perfect 10? How Fandom Forgets the Dark Side of David Tennant’s Doctor

https://ift.tt/2URb21b

As recently as September 2020 David Tennant topped a Radio Times poll of favourite Doctors. He beat Tom Baker in a 2006 Doctor Who Magazine poll, and was voted the best TV character of the 21st Century by the readers of Digital Spy. He was the Doctor during one of Doctor Who‘s critical and commercial peaks, bringing in consistently high ratings and a Christmas day audience of 13.31 million for ‘Voyage of the Damned’, and 12.27 million for his final episode, ‘The End of Time – Part Two’. He is the only other Doctor who challenges Tom Baker in terms of associated iconography, even being part of the Christmas idents on BBC One as his final episodes were broadcast. Put simply, the Tenth Doctor is ‘My Doctor’ for a huge swathe of people and David Tennant in a brown coat will be the image they think of when Doctor Who is mentioned.

In articles to accompany these fan polls, Tennant’s Doctor is described as ‘amiable’ in contrast to his predecessor Christopher Eccleston’s dark take on the character. Ten is ‘down-to-earth’, ‘romantic’, ‘sweeter’, ‘more light-hearted’ and the Doctor you’d most want to invite you on board the TARDIS. That’s interesting in some respects, because the Tenth Doctor is very much a Jekyll and Hyde character. He’s handsome, he’s charismatic, and travelling with him can be addictively fun, but he is also casually cruel, harshly dismissive, and lacking in self-awareness. His ego wants feeding, and once fed, can have destructive results.

That tension in the character isn’t due to bad writing or acting. Quite the contrary. Most Doctors have an element of unpleasantness to their behaviour. Ever since the First Doctor kidnapped Ian and Barbara, the character has been moving away from the entitled snob we met him as, but can never escape it completely.

Six and Twelve were both written to be especially abrasive, then soften as time went on (with Colin Baker having to do this through Big Finish audio plays rather than on telly). A significant difference between Twelve and Ten, though, is that Twelve questions himself more. Ten, to the very end, seems to believe his own hype.

The Tenth Doctor’s duality is apparent from his first full appearance in 2005’s ‘The Christmas Invasion’. Having quoted The Lion King and fearlessly ambled through the Sycorax ship in a dressing gown, he seems the picture of bonhomie, that lighter and amiable character shining through. Then he kills their leader. True, it was in self-defence, but it was lethal force that may not have been necessary. Then he immediately topples the British Prime Minister for a not dissimilar act of aggression. Immediately we see the Tenth Doctor’s potential for violence and moral grey areas. He’s still the same man who considered braining someone with a rock in ‘An Unearthly Child’. 

Teamed with Rose Tyler, a companion of similar status to Tennant’s Doctor, they blazed their way through time and space with a level of confidence that bordered on entitlement, and a love that manifested itself negatively on the people surrounding them. The most obvious example in Series 2 is ‘Tooth and Claw’, where Russell T. Davies has them react to horror and carnage in the manner of excited tourists who’ve just seen a celebrity. This aloof detachment results in Queen Victoria establishing the Torchwood institute that will eventually split them apart. We see their blinkers on again in ‘Rise of the Cybermen’, when they take Mickey for granted. Rose and the Doctor skip along the dividing line between romance and hubris.

Then, in a Christmassy romp where the Doctor is grieving the loss of Rose, he commits genocide and Donna Noble sucker punches him with ‘I think you need somebody to stop you’. Well-meaning as this statement is, the Doctor treats it as a reason to reduce his next companion to a function rather than a person. Martha Jones is there to stop the Doctor, as far as he’s concerned. She’s a rebound companion. Martha is in love with him, and though he respects her, she’s also something of a prop.

This is the series in which the Doctor becomes human in order to escape the Family of Blood (adapted from a book in which he becomes human in order to understand his companion’s grief, not realising anyone is after him), and is culpable for all the death that follows in his wake. Martha puts up with a position as a servant and with regular racist abuse on her travels with this man, before finally realising at the end of the series that she needs to get out of the relationship. For a rebound companion, Martha withstands a hell of a lot, mostly caused by the Doctor’s failings. 

Read more

TV

Why David Tennant Lost Hannibal Role According to Bryan Fuller

By Kirsten Howard

TV

Staged: BBC Comedy Confirms Sheen & Tennant’s Double-Act Greatness

By Louisa Mellor

Series 4 develops the Doctor further, putting the Tenth’s Doctor’s flaws in the foreground more clearly. Donna is now travelling with him, and simply calls him out on his behaviour more than Rose or Martha did. Nonetheless the Doctor ploughs on, and in ‘Midnight’ we see him reduced to desperate and ugly pleas about how clever he is when he’s put in a situation he can’t talk himself out of.

Rose has also become more Doctor-like while trapped in another reality, and brutally tells Donna that she’s going to have to die in order to return to the original timeline (just as the Doctor tells Donna she’s going to have to lose her memories of travelling with him in order to live her previous life, even as she clearly asks him not to – and how long did the Doctor know he would have to do this for? It’s not like he’s surprised when Donna starts glitching). Tied into this is the Doctor’s belief in his own legend. In ‘The Doctor’s Daughter’ he holds a gun to Cobb’s head, then withdraws it and asks that they start a society based on the morals of his actions. You know, like a well-adjusted person does.

What’s interesting here is that despite presenting himself as ‘a man who never would’, the Doctor is a man who absolutely would. We’ve seen him do it. Even the Tenth Doctor, so keen to live up to the absolute moral ideals he espouses, killed the Sycorax leader and the Krillitanes, drove the Cybermen to die of despair, brought the Family of Blood to a quiet village and then disposed of them personally. But Tennant doesn’t play this as a useful lie, he plays it as something the Doctor absolutely believes in that moment, that he is a man who would not kill even as his daughter lies dead. It’s why his picking up a gun in ‘The End of Time’ has such impact. And it makes some sense that the Tenth Doctor would reject violence following a predecessor who regenerated after refusing to commit another double-genocide.

In the series finale ‘Journey’s End‘, Davros accuses the Doctor of turning his friends into weapons. This is because the Doctor’s friends have used weapons against the Daleks who – and I can’t stress this enough – are about to kill everyone in the entire universe. Fighting back against them seems pretty rational. Also – and again I can’t stress this enough – the Daleks are bad. Like, really bad. You won’t believe just how mindbogglingly bad they are. The Doctor has tried to destroy them several times by this point. Here, there isn’t the complication of double-genocide, and instead the very real threat of absolutely everyone in the universe dying. This accusation, that the Doctor turns people into weapons, should absolutely not land.

And yet, with the Tenth Doctor, it does. This is a huge distinction between him and the First Doctor, who had to persuade pacifists to fight for him in ‘The Daleks’.

In ‘The Sontaran Strategem’ Martha compares the Doctor to fire. It’s so blunt it almost seems not worth saying, but it’s the perfect analogy (especially for a show where fire is a huge part of the very first story). Yes, fire shines in dark places, yes it can be a beacon, but despite it being very much fire’s entire deal, people can forget that it burns. And fire has that mythical connection of being stolen from the gods and brought to humanity. The Time Lord Victorious concept fits the Tenth Doctor so well. Of all the Doctors, he’s the most ready to believe in himself as a semi-mythic figure.

Even when regenerating there’s a balance between hero and legend: the Tenth Doctor does ultimately save Wilfred Mott, but only after pointing out passionately how big a sacrifice he’s making. And then he goes to get his reward by meeting all his friends, only to glare at them from a distance. His last words are ‘I don’t want to go’, which works well as clearly being a poignant moment for the actor as well, but in the context of Doctor Who as a whole it renders Ten anomalous: no one else went this unwillingly. And yet, in interviews Russell T. Davies said it was important to end the story with ‘the Doctor as people have loved him: funny, the bright spark, the hero, the enthusiast’.

It’s fascinating then, that this is the Doctor who has been taken to heart by so many viewers because there’s such an extreme contrast between his good-natured front, his stated beliefs, and his actions. He clearly loves Rose and Donna, but leaves them with a compromised version of happiness. They go on extraordinary journeys only to end up somewhere that leaves them less than who they want to be, with Russell T. Davies being more brutally honest than Steven Moffat, who nearly always goes the romance route. Davies once said to Mark Lawson that he liked writing happy endings ‘because in the real world they don’t exist’, but his endings tend towards the bittersweet: Mickey and Martha end up together but this feels like they’re leftovers from the Doctor and Rose’s relationship. The Tenth Doctor doesn’t, as Nine does, go with a smile, but holding back tears.

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

It’s a testament to how well written the Tenth Doctor is that the character has this light and shade, and with David Tennant’s immense likeability he can appeal to a wider audience as a result. It’s not surprise he wins all these polls, but I can’t help but feel that if the Doctor arrived and invited me on board the TARDIS, I’d want it to be anyone but Ten.

The post Doctor Who: Perfect 10? How Fandom Forgets the Dark Side of David Tennant’s Doctor appeared first on Den of Geek.

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

Are you familar with an idea that is going around fandom that Obi Wan and Yoda didn't actually want Luke to kill his father, just to face him and be prepared to kill him (in self defense) if he had to. It doesn't add up to me, considering the way Obi Wan responded when Luke said he could not do it. He didn't say "I hope you don't have to unless its absolutely necessary". Also, it implies that Obi Wan and Yoda believed Vader could be reasoned with, and just talked out of the Dark Side, or even knew Luke would redeem him. Allegedly there is an interview with Lucas in which he suggested the above (just for Luke to be prepared to kill) but I thought it seemed like he was being asked leading questions anyway. What are your thoughts on this?

Yeah, i’ve heard that ‘theory’ a few times but it’s hard to take it seriously when we have 6 movies and countless comics, books and books that point in the exact opposite direction. I mean, what does it mean when a fan says a character didn’t want Luke to kill Vader when said character actually says - out loud – ‘hey Luke, go kill Vader’?

Obi-Wan: You cannot escape your destiny. You must face Darth Vader again. Luke: I can't kill my own father. Obi-Wan: Then the Emperor has already won. You were our only hope.

If they don’t want Vader (and the Emperor) dead then why train Luke because he was the only one powerful enough to face him? It doesn’t add up.

As for the alleged evidence, my approach is hard, tangible evidence or death! LOL I’m kidding :P But I’ve been around long enough to learn to ask for the receipts when someone says you’re wrong because I’ve seen a book/comic/interview that proves I’m right but I don’t remember when I saw it, the original source, the context or know how to find it again -___-

And even if George had actually said that, it would have no influence over the actual events put on screen. The truth is, people are very *very* selective about what George quotes they want to use. People only agree with what he says when it’s convenient for their own views. There’s a legion of fans out there who work very hard to ignore everything George has said about Anakin, the Jedi Order and the politics of the prequels. But the same fans go on a frenzy when he says they accept.

George is an interesting source of context. Understanding where he was coming from helps understand why things work the way they do and what lessons he was trying to insert into his story. But to use George’s word as the ultimate judge of a character’s actions, even when it contradicts the movies is a bit too convenient for my taste.

George Lucas as a source of ‘canon’ is very unreliable. Personally, I find him a very useful source of context even he’s not the best provider of facts. Here’s an example: ROTS makes it canon that Padmé died of a broken heart in Polis Massa. But if you look hard enough you’ll find an interview of him explain Padmé’s journey to Alderaan and her subsequent death on the planet. It’s the whole who shot first issue. George, as a source of *facts*, is unreliable because he famously contradicts himself all the time.

The movies and the entire lore make very clear that Anakin and Padmé’s marriage was forbidden, but once a kid wrote a letter to George so he said marriage was no longer forbidden. Does that mean we should change everything about how we perceive Anakin and Padmé’s characters arc? Or does it mean we should just, you know, use some critical thinking and maybe a dose of common sense when interpreting these issues?

Besides, like so many new fans love to point out, George Lucas is no longer canon. So it’s kind of interesting how the same fans who dismiss countless source of information simply because they existed prior to Disney cling so desperately over something George *might* have said over 20 years ago.

What’s the issue with zutara?

with the ship? nothing, beyond it being a tired ship archetype i’m tired of seeing, and it’s just not my personal taste, and i think they have a stronger bond as (narratively reinforced) surrogate siblings.

the rabid zk shippers? everything.

the way they demonize aang and the buddhist principles he upholds in ways that eerily reflect how ozai - head fire nation imperialist - sees them

they way they scream about thematic graces (zuko is fire and katara is water!!) and yet completely ignore how themes work in aang’s arc bc it dismantles a good chunk of their critique at him

ignorance of the fact the ZK fandom has spent the past 15+ years bashing aang for every little thing they could get their hands on (i have legit seen anti KA, pro ZK metas claim that bc aang doesn’t carry katara’s basket in 1x04 he’d never help her with chores... even though in 1x03 he started the campfire all on his own... smells like bullshit)

they think aang is an abusive manchild

favouring the loss of katara’s mother at the hands of the fire nation so hard over the loss of her culture because zuko can only relate to the first and aang can relate to both, but they can’t let that happen now can they

The horrific quantity of transphobia and hate they aimed at Mai. 

Death threats being sent to Maiko shippers to the point where someone who moved on to the Marvel fandom still considers Zutara the worse experience and 

i was a finn fan in the star wars fandom for 3+ years and flat out left the fandom because of how racist the reylo fandom was, and i actually think ZK stans are worse than Reylo shippers, too

the ehasz conspiracy they crafted that consists of 3 batshit beliefs: 1) bryke and aaron ehasz - head writer of atla - had a secret feud bc they disagreed on ships 2) bryke wanted KA & ehasz wanted ZK, 3) ZK was supposed to be canon but was foiled at the last minute by evil bryke

this got to the point where ehasz himself in the past couple of years had to debunk ZK interviews or information he apparently gave as false rumours

why the conspiracy is bullshit

taking quotes out of context of both lore and conflict in order to paint them as romantic

how unbearable and dominating they’ve been in the atla fandom, particularly on tumblr, until very recently. this comic is not an exaggeration. 

claiming that aang assaulted katara by kissing her in “the ember island players” even if she’s reciprocated twice in the past, katara easily and immediately pulls away, tells him to back off, and aang does and berates himself

think that zuko using katara’s necklace against her is peak romantic foreshadowing bc it turns out her necklace is a betrothal one, but anything along those lines with aang - who weaved her a new one, gave it to her, and retrieved her old one from zuko, and got a kiss on the cheek from katara for it - is just reading too much into it / gets completely ignored

claiming that KA was only canon bc it’s “hero gets the girl” while ignoring canon ZK would have been that but in the most stereotypical way possible

the way they treat katara like a shallow teenage girl

claiming that mai is abusive and toxic, which is untrue, and ignoring all of zuko’s faults in their relationship (like extreme & physical jealousy and anger issues) because “zuko is a uwu good boy who deserves better”

ignore zuko’s entitled behaviour towards katara while demonizing aang for privately getting jealous two (2) times and then once he removes himself from the situation that’s upsetting him aang assumes that katara doesn’t have feelings for him and presents that to her as a valid option

the hyper focus on ZK parallels while ignoring that aang has all those same parallels with them too. Z and K both lost their moms? aang lost his parental figure too and also has a necklace to remember gyatso by. ZK both have alter egos!! yeah the blue spirit robs ppl and helps the avatar. aang’s kuzon and katara’s painted lady happen back to back and are both created to help the fire nation citizens who are suffering under their own government!! katara and aang even help each other do so!! you get the gist

a more objective reading of the scene they claim shows a profound understanding

how the stan ZK fandom operates with a cult like mentality

i could go on and talk about how they straight up ignore or misremember canon events (ie. “aang didn’t let go of katara in s2” except that he literally did, because had to let her go to access the avatar state, did so, and then was shot with lightning in the avatar state... it happened and is kind of a major plot point), harass other shippers and cast members and have for years, cross tag, etc. but i think you get the point

it truly is a case of “i didn’t even know this ship existed” to “huh okay not my cup of tea but i get the appeal” to “if i ever see this ship and the rhetoric that follows it ever again in my entire life it’ll be too soon”

fic writer interview

Tagged by @skogrr Thank you very much! It's a while since I've done one of these, and I've missed them.

Name: Tru/"Oi you" Fandoms (that I write for): Dragon Age, mostly. Still the fandom of my heart. Mass Effect, Deus Ex... uh, accidentally GreedFall? I don't know how or when that happened. Two-shot: Hmm... The actual last two-shot I wrote was Terms & Conditions, a very silly Dorian/Inquisitor modern AU where Gal is the guy Dorian hires to stop his late father's house falling apart. Recently? I suspect that's going to be Driftwood, which can stand on its own as a sort of weird post-canon first-meeting AU, but is trying to tempt me to continue it. (Vasco ends up going looking for Tír Fradí, which has disappeared - and finds it. He also finds De Sardet as a highly avoidant tree god of the island, post-Bad Ending, who transformed against her will. And he ends up falling in love with her anyway.) Weird tree gods! Pining by literal pine! An eventual happy ending! More grumpy commentary by Vasco!

Most popular multi-chapter: Either An Unquenchable Flame or Distraction, probably - both juggernaut pairings, the former close to the game's release and the latter with some fancy forbidden romance, so not so surprising. But surprisingly, Prague, 10:42 PM has done really well, considering it's for a small fandom (Deus Ex) and a rarepair age/rank-difference pairing that I thought would be a one-off experiment? I get it, guys. I like sad repressed stoics too.

Actual worst part of writing: Editing - which can be fun, but that "over and over" stage when you're about to post, especially in a longfic if you fear you've lost the spirit of the thing and the character voices and you can't see the wood for the trees. And when I have to remove a whole scene which Jenga-unbalances the fic, and then I have to redux from the top. Basically, most things to do with pacing. How you choose your titles: I like double-meanings and one word titles. If that fails: quote from a song. If that fails: quote from poetry, but very rarely. Do you outline: Only a little. A bulletpointed list of events or noted-down major lines of dialogue, that's usually it.

Ideas I probably won’t get around to but wouldn’t it be nice: Uh... oh god. I blame so many people for some of these.

Post-Destroy ending where John is attempting to build a shed on Rannoch because that's the kind of thing retired people do, right? and Tali is far better at it than him, and it's just... disgusting fluff.

Actually, just reduxing the early John/Tali stuff with a bit more nuance and a stronger style.

Eva and Kaidan, and their mutually wary first meeting. ("Wow, that's a lot of pomade." "Wow, that's a lot of death-glare.")

AU where Gal and Dorian never met in DAI, and after everything went down, Gal tried to fade into the shadows and leave. He ended up working in Tevinter as an occasional informant/odd-jobs guy the way he was pre-Inquisition. He ends up being a gardener for a bitter, wry magister who seems to hate the entire Magisterium, has recently lost his father to political scheming and murder, and wants to take down the entirety of the remaining Venatori with one staff and maybe his teeth if he has to (hi, Dorian). But first, Dorian's going to drink his own body weight in whiskey and be a recluse for a while and start thinking about time magic again. Gal is trying to keep his head down and should definitely not be falling in love with said magister. Who's someday going to end up at one of the more southerly ports, come across a statue of the great Inquisitor, and go, Oh.

Stuff on Jensen's PT and rebuilding himself post-augs. More of Proprioception, basically.

Mer-AU where Marie De Sardet is still a diplomat attempting to make new connections, just not a human one, and it's a disaster. An awkward disaster. Highlights include her being framed as the beast trying to drown their best captain; her attempting to wobble about on brand-new legs and Vasco's coat while everyone assumes the dear captain has had a few too many; her asking Vasco if his "fascinating markings" glow; them getting into a duel, and her (fondly) getting punted off the side of the ship going "Woo-hoo." OK, I wrote a bit of that, but only a 1k doodle I'll probably never return to.

Non-Naut court AU where Marie gets promised to Bastien D'Arcy, because he's a bit of a layabout but he's also rich, popular at court, and amenable to bribe - [cough] suggestion, and the D'Arcys have prominent trading links with the Alliance. Instead she falls for his far less of a social butterfly, tired, worried-numbers-guy brother Léandre, who's pretty damn uncomfortable around Nauts because he's well aware he nearly got sold to them and he is not the favourite.

Straight-up role-reversal AU (another thing where I've put down 1k that I'll probably never return to), where Marie's Naut name is Paz, and she's a fed-up second-mate who's tired of noble idiots and feels a little strange and conflicted about her mark (and has context for it, because they make frequent crossings to Tír Fradí). Also a little more jaded, without the love of her mother, and not nearly as much of a tryhard as Vasco in canon; she ended up here because she had nowhere else to go and the Nauts were like "Ooh, free kid," and she's well aware. She gets stuck escorting the D'Arcy brothers to Tír Fradí for their new venture and is not looking forward to it. Except one of them is intensely bright and wry and keeps asking questions about the ship and noticing shit he is definitely not meant to notice, and they keep ending up in strange conversations, even if he seems really, really wary and uncomfortable about Nauts.

Some vague stuff about Vasco's thoughts on Jonas and that whole side quest, considering he's also a sea-given and implies sea-given take some shit in the Nauts, and also how damn difficult it must be watching a sea-given's parents endeavour to get their kid back when he knows full well his didn't do that for him.

Actually, just more Vasco POV in general, even though he's damn hard to nail down. I've written much pining for him from Marie's perspective, and I'd like to try things from the opposite. This guy's idea of wooing someone perfectly normally is to panic and then recite Baroque poetry. You know he's sappy as hell in the privacy of his own head, even if he's trying not to be.

Jean and Síora having the "I'm a sad healer who just lost my mother and I'm trying so hard not to crumble under the weight of assisting the leader" mutual talk way too late at night around the campfire and maybe him crying on her shoulder a little, with mutual kindness and the beginnings of attraction, and her finally getting past his jokey-smug facade to understand him.

More stuff about Jean's past in general, and how he wanted to be a doctor before he was dragged away from it by looking after Constantin and being nobility.

Síora and Eseld and the ways they changed over the years; something like an exploration of grief and growing her own will and the ways they very differently view the renaigse. Also maybe more about the en ol menawi magic, if I can worldbuild well enough?

I'd also love to do a GreedFall soulmark AU - it's generally not my kind of trope, I'm not into biological determinism type tropes - just because names and aliases and assumed identities are such a mess in GreedFall and it's a repeated plot point. That said, I feel like it's been done so beautifully in this fandom before that I wouldn't have much to add.

Callouts @ me: So. Many. Commas. So much over-explaining everything. If they get out of the car, your readers do not need a five-page manual of "and then he undid his seatbelt and leaned over to grasp the door handle, and then pulled it, and then stepped a foot out before he almost thought better of it - but no, he was going to get out of this car. The other foot joined the first, and he nearly banged his head on the doorframe."

Best writing traits: People say I have a head for finding small-but-important moments. I'm also told I write likeable protags. People have more than once said my writing makes them feel safe or makes them smile, and I really couldn't ask for more than that. I'll take those.

Spicy tangential opinion: I don't think I have any, really? Oh god, that makes me sound so very boring. Oh! Um. There should be more tree body horror in fandom. And body horror in general. *thumbsup*

No pressure tagging: @artemis-crimson, @eridanidreams,@rainypixel, @aphreal42.

thoughts on AO3 from a content moderation researcher

A few days ago I tweeted some thoughts about current conversations around content moderation and racism on AO3. I thought I’d reproduce here:

OK I'm going to weigh in on the tagging/content moderation conversation happening right now regarding Archive of Our Own. To be clear, this is me as a content moderation researcher who has also studied the design of AO3, NOT me as a member of the OTW legal committee.

To clarify the issue for folks: Racism is a problem in fandom. In addition to other philosophical and structural things regarding OTW, there have been suggestions for adding required content warnings or other mechanisms to deal with racism in stories posted to the archive.

Here's a description of the content warning system from a paper I published about the design of AO3, in which I used this as an example of designing to mitigate the value tension of inclusivity versus safety:

“Knowing that this tension would exist, and wanting to protect users from being triggered or stumbling across content they did not want to see, AO3 added required warnings for stories. These include graphic violence, major character death, rape, and underage sex. These warnings were chosen based on conventions at the time, what fan fiction writers already tended to warn for when posting stories elsewhere. Warnings are not only required, but are part of a visual display that shows up in search results. One early concern was that requiring these warnings might necessitate spoilers—for example, telling the reader ahead of time that there was a major character death. Therefore, AO3 added an additional warning tag: ‘Choose not to use archive warnings.’ Seeing this tag in search results essentially means ‘read at your own risk.’ Most interviewees found this to be a solution that did a good job at taking into account different kinds of needs."

The idea is certain kinds of objectionable content is allowed to be there as long as it's properly labeled. Content will not be removed for having X, but it can be removed for not being tagged properly for having X. This allows users to not have to see content labeled with X.

My students and I have studied content moderation systems in a number of contexts, including on Reddit and Discord, and I actually think that this system is kind of elegant and other platforms can learn from it. That said, it relies on strong social norms to work.

One of the big problems with content moderation is that not everyone has the same definition of what constitutes a rule violation. Like... folks on a feminist hashtag almost certainly have a different definition of what constitutes "harassment" than on the gg hashtag.

A few years ago we analyzed harassment policies on a bunch of different platforms and usually it's just like "don't harass people" but okay what does that mean? I guarantee you there are people on twitter who think rape threats aren't harassment.

So a nice thing about communities moderating themselves--like on subreddits--is that they can create their own rules and have a shared understanding of what they mean (here’s a paper about rules on Reddit). So you can have a rule about harassment and within your community know what that means.

I've talked for a long time about the strong social norms in fandom and how this has allowed in particular for really effective self regulation around copyright. In fact I wrote about this really recently based on interviews conducted in 2014. HOWEVER -

Generally, I think social norms are not as strong in fandom as they used to be, in part because it's just gotten bigger and there are more people and also some generational differences and we're more spread out. (My PhD advisee) Brianna & I wrote about this for TWC.

So the point here is that without those very strong shared norms, definitions differ - across sub-fandoms, across platforms, across people. Whether that thing we're defining is commercialism, harassment, or racism.

This isn't to say that there *shouldn't* be a required content warning for racism in fics, but I think it's important to be aware how wrought enforcement will be because no matter how it is defined, a subset of fandom will not agree with that definition.

That said, design decisions like this are statements. When AO3 chose the required warnings, it was a statement about what types of content it is important to protect the community from. I would personally support a values-based decision that racism falls into that category.

Design also *influences* values. An example of this was AO3's decision to include the "inspired by" tag which directly signaled (through design) that remixing fics without explicit permission was okay. Another quote from the paper:

“Similarly, Naomi described a policy decision of AO3 that was a deliberate attempt to influence a value. Prior work understanding fandom norms towards re-use of content has shown something of a disconnect, with different standards for different types of work [15,16]. Surprisingly, although fan authors themselves are building on others’ work, some don’t want people to remix their remixes. In Naomi’s original blog post, there is some argument between fans about what AO3 should do about this, with suggestions for providing a mechanism for fan writers to give permission for remixing. Naomi described their ultimate design, and feels that in the time that has followed the creation of AO3, the values of the community have actually shifted to be more accepting of this practice:

‘We had baked in right from the beginning that you could post a work to the archive that was a remix, or sequel, or translation, or a podfic or whatever, based on another work, another fannish work. As long as you gave credit, you didn’t need permission. In fact, we built a system into the archive where it notifies [the original author]. That was because we were coming from a philosophy where what we’re doing is fair use. It’s legal. We are making transformative work. We don’t need permission from the original copyright holder. That’s why fanfic is legitimate. But what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander… So, I think that’s an example, actually, where archive and OTW almost got a little bit ahead of the curve, got a little bit ahead of the broader community’s internal values. That was a deliberate concerted decision on our part.’”

A design change to AO3 that forces consideration of whether there is racism in a story you're posting could have an impact on the overall values of the community by signaling that this consideration is necessary AND that you should be thinking of a community definition of racism.

Also important: content moderation has the potential to be abused. And I know that this happens in fandom, even around something as innocuous as copyright, since I've heard stories of harassment-based DMCA takedown campaigns.

There's a LOT of tension in fandom around public shaming as a norm enforcement mechanism, and I would want to see this feature used as a "gentle reminder" and not a way to drum people out of fandom. (See more about that in this paper.)

That said, I think these reminders are needed. There will be a LOT of "uh I didn't know that was racist" and that requires some education. Which is important but also an additional burden on volunteer moderators who may be grappling with this themselves.

This is more a thread of cautions than solutions, unfortunately. Because before there can be solutions, we need: (1) an answer to a very hard question, which is "what is racism in fanfiction/fandom?" and this answer needs to come from a diverse group of stakeholders, and (2) a solution for enforcement/moderation that both makes sure that folks directly impacted by racism are involved AND that we're not asking for burdensome labor from already marginalized groups.

All of this comes down to: Content moderation is HARD for so many reasons, both on huge platforms and in communities. AO3 is kind of a unique case with its own problems but I am optimistic about solutions because so many people care about the values in fandom.

I’m still thinking about this and welcome others’ thoughts!

Lets Talk about Gavin Troy

Barnaby: One of us had to say it Troy

tw: In this post I talk about homophobia and quote dialogue from the show where a character is directly homophobic 

Special thanks to @mlletony​ for cheering me on as I wrote this!

So let’s talk about Gavin Troy. I feel like we as a fandom acknowledge Troy’s homophobia, but we don’t really talk about it? I love Troy! Which is why I wanna start a discussion about not only his homophobia but his bigotry as a whole.

If you compare his entire time on the show, season one has the most moments of Troy being homophobic. In episode one Troy is very clearly hostile toward Dennis Rainbird, In ‘Death of a Hollow Man’ he gets visibly very uncomfortable at the bookshop when he realizes that Avery is gay, in ‘Faithful Unto Death’ when Barnaby and Troy break into Sarah Lawton’s house and see the pictures of Simone and Her, he calls them both “Dykes.”

But I can’t mention these moments without talking about something else. In all of these moments his homophobia is never not commented on by other characters. Whether it’s the bookstore owner in ‘Death Of A Hollow Man’ clearly knowing that him just being gay is making Troy deeply uncomfortable and playing it up to mess with him!, Dennis Rainbird responding to Troy’s hostility by calling him a ‘cuntstable,’ and even Tom Barnaby who never not chastises his Sergeant when ever he says something rude ‘You are about as politically correct as a Nuremberg rally.”

There’s a scene in ‘Blue Herrings’ where Tom and Troy have this following conversation about 50 minutes in. For some context in the previous scene Troy had questioned the elderly residents of a nursing home.

Troy: —Jumpy, Ill at ease, he seemed scared

Barnaby: What’s his name?

T: Prewitt, Arthur Prewitt, retired schoolteacher, poofter

B: Oh for… 

T: Well that’s what he is, a right cream puff

B: It was a crime when he was young to be gay. Maybe that’s why he was ill at ease. Bad memories. People like you.

Then we get a shot of Troy who scoffs into his coffee and does everything short of rolling his eyes.

In this moment, Tom calls out Troy and gives him a good reason why Arthur Prewitt would be nervous around him. But Troy’s reaction is the thing I want to focus on, because it’s a very interesting one. Does Troy ever listen to Tom when he gets called out? No he doesn’t. It goes in one ear and out the other. In fact this happens every time Tom calls him out. 

 In the episode “Ring Out Your Dead” Troy makes this off hand comment at about 50 minutes in: For context Tom and Troy are having lunch in a tea shop and are talking about the case and who the killer could be.

Troy: I still think it’s a women 

Barnaby: You said you thought it was Marcus?

Troy: Well, I include him in that category 

This line kind of shocked me when I first heard it. He says it so nonchalantly about this guy who is shy, nervous, slightly neurotic (also very very obsessed with Emma but that’s besides the point) and isn’t as traditionally masculine as Greg is. I think this toxic masculinity also ties into his homophobia. In ‘The Killings of Badger's Drift’ he judges Dennis Rainbird on his appearance and his feminine mannerisms. As soon as Dennis starts talking, Troy starts scowling while looking him up and down in thinly disguised disgust. If someone is gay (whether coded or outright stated) or not traditionally masculine, they are therefore the enemy.   

Troy does go through something of a character arc. If you watch a season 1 episode then afterwards watch a season 6 (or even a season 5) episode, you’ll see that he not only becomes a better detective, but less outright rude. I do believe the show tones down his homophobia after the first couple seasons. (Or if you want an alternate perspective) Troy just becomes better at hiding his direct disdain, and we instead get sly comments (like the one I mention above about in “Ring Out Your Dead’) that hint toward a skewed worldview instead of youthful ignorance about people who are different than him. 

In season 5 and 6 you see a Troy who’s a better detective and much more respectful when interacting with victims and suspects. I’m fully convinced that if season 6 Barnaby and Troy had to work the ‘Killings of Badger's drift’ case and the first scene with Dennis Rainbird happened the same way, He’d keep a straight face until Dennis left and THEN would say something rude. To go back and expand on something I mentioned above about ‘Blue Herrings’ That Troy has a tendency to brush off whenever Tom calls him out on his bigotry. It’s important because I think it ties into his character development. In his later seasons he’s more friendly and professional with the people he interviews but will turn around and be a bigot behind their backs.   

The thing about Gavin Troy is that we don’t love him despite his terrible flaws. We love him because of them. He’s a classic morally ambiguous character (along with like every other character who has ever been on the show.) He’s a character the show wants you to laugh at, not with, and that’s important to remember. 

 Tldr; Gavin Troy is problematic, but we love him anyway. 

It’s Time to Talk about a Bespectacled Elephant in the Room

I’ve been in the Beatles fandom for 8 and a half years. I have had a Beatles blog for the entirety of those 8 and a half years, and I have watched as discourse about these four men evolve. The discourse inside and outside the fandom has become so toxic that I don’t think I can engage with it in the same way that I could before. Let me explain. 

When I entered this fandom 8 and a half years ago, it was in 2012, quite an infamous year in tumblr history. That was the pique of “”cringey”” fandom culture. The Beatles fandom was as steeped in fandom culture as any other fandom. I know this because I was part of two of the top of fandoms at the time, Doctor Who and Sherlock. Believe me, I have seen cringe. 

The fandom at the time was totally aware of the John, Paul, George, and Ringo’s flaws as individuals, but most fans tended to simply enjoy Beatles fandom as if it were the 60s. Some might call it ignorant bliss. If you asked me at the time, I’d have said it was self-aware ignorant bliss--if that even makes sense. At the time, there wasn’t a person with a Beatles icon who hadn’t heard the line “John Lennon beat his wife.” Everyone knew it, but everyone also knew the real story, and so everyone just made peace with it. As a result, people didn’t think about every bad thing the Beatles ever did on a daily basis. It was more like a once-a-month kind of thing. Otherwise, fandom discourse was quite fun and relaxed. There were no shipping wars, no one fought over who was the best Beatle, everyone gushed over the Beatles wives, and we all just had fun with fics and fan art. 

Of course, in this period, people engaged in conversations about one bespectacled Beatles problematic behavior. These conversations usually came from outside of the fandom. It was usually randos coming into the tags or into someone’s ask box and ranting about John Lennon’s violent behavior. Some of it came from within the fandom. Some people really didn’t like John and gave others shit if they listed John as their favorite Beatle. A lot of the discourse boiled down to: ‘hey, I see you like John Lennon. You should know that he beat his wife. And now that you know that, you should feel bad about ever liking him in the first place.’ And the response was often, ‘Actually, John Lennon didn’t beat his wife. They weren’t even married at the time. And also he didn’t beat her, he slapped her once in the face, and then never did it again.’ No one’s minds were changed. The fans had made their peace, and the antis came off as cynical and pretentious. 

When Dashcon happened, and Tumblr took a hard look at its cringey fandom culture, the Beatles fandom evolved as well. The fandom became, frankly, less fun. It no longer felt like a group of people who found the Beatles decades after the 60s and were fangirling like it was 1965. There was still some of that left, but a lot of it kind of faded. So, most fandom interactions were reblogging pictures of the Beatles from the 60s and various interview clips and quotes. But the barrage of antis never really went away, and the response didn’t evolve. 

Then, the advent of cancel culture came on. I always waited for the Beatles to get, like, officially canceled, but I also felt they were uncancel-able at the same time. Let me explain. I have been a Beatles fan primarily in an online space, rarely engaging with fans in real life. But I have met fans who are life-long Beatles fans, people who are a lot older than us and who’s fandom isn’t tied to the internet. They don’t give a shit about any of our discourse. They may or may not have heard it before, but they seem totally indifferent to all of it. I’m sure most of them have never heard ‘Mclennon’ before. These are the people that flock to see Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr in concert (and pay astronomical prices for it). These are the people who go to record shops and buy vinyl. These are the people I run into at flea markets who buy up all the Beatles merch before I can even arrive (true story). So, the Beatles will never be canceled because there will always be people who love the Beatles and don’t engage with online discourse. Rarely said, but thank god for Gen-X. 

As cancel culture took over the internet, fandoms changed. It’s not as noticeable in fandoms without problematic favs. For instance, I’m also steeped in the Tom Holland fandom, and that boy is a little angel who has done no wrong. No one has discourse about the unproblematic boy who plays an equally unproblematic character. But in fandoms with ‘problematic favs’ the mood has shifted. I’m also in the Taron Egerton fandom. Taron Egerton, for those who only follow me for my Beatles stuff, is a genuinely sweet and kind person who has had zero scandals in his six year career. There were some rumblings when he was cast as Elton John, and some people took issue with the fact that he’s a straight man playing a gay man. This discourse seemed to die quickly as a whole lot of straight people played gay people in that same year (Olivia Coleman as queer Queen Anne, Emma Stone as her queer lover, Rami Malek as Freddie Mercury). Why jump on this boy who at the time was still technically on the rise. He’s not exactly the same target as someone like Scarlett Johansson who has her pick of roles. Taron doesn’t have quite that some power in Hollywood, and I think most people made peace with the fact that this was a big role for him, and it’s not really fair to take that away from him. So, all in all, the closest thing to a scandal was something that died pretty much on arrival. 

That was until this summer when everything changed. When George Floyd was murdered, celebrities flocked to social media to mourn his loss. Taron’s social media account was silent. For weeks, Taron said nothing about Black Lives Matter or Floyd’s death. This caused outrage in the fandom. Many raced to defend him, starting a hashtage #IstandwithTaron. Others sought to tear him down and anyone who supported him. The kind of mania this one incident caused tore through an otherwise peaceful fandom. What I saw was two sides in a total panic. The antis were people who once had faith that Taron was a good person and were now questioning that. Andthe defenders were people who desperately wanted him to be a good person and were afraid that he wasn’t. In essence, both sides could feel Taron about to get canceled. The defenders wanted to stop it, the antis wanted to ride that wave. 

What this long drawn out Taron example is meant to convey: is that cancel culture has put fandoms on edge. One’s fav has to be perfect, otherwise it can jeopardize the existence of the entire fandom. I’ll admit, I was afraid that I’d be some kind of pariah for standing by Taron through all of this. My actions were to basically reason with the antis but still defend Taron. I defend him mostly because I felt that his silence was the result of a needed social media absence and that trying to shame him back onto social media was an invasion of privacy. But I was genuinely afraid that he would get canceled, and the fun of the Taron fandom would be lost. 

In the Beatles fandom, it often feels like the Beatles, mainly John, have already been canceled. I see this coming from two different sources: antis from outside of the fandom and antis within the fandom. The outside antis are just the same as the ones from 2012. These are people who like to drop in that John Lennon beat his wife, posting this in the tag (which violates an ancient tumblr real by the way--no hate in the tags). 

The antis outside the fandom speak to a larger anti-John Lennon sentiment online. I see references to John Lennon ‘beating his wife’  on Tiktok and twitter. The tone of anti-John Lennon posts has shifted. Before, it felt like the antis were being smug but also argumentative. They wanted to have a conversation about this bit of info they read on Reddit with no context. Now, “John Lennon beating his wife” is practically a meme. It’s a running joke online that John Lennon was a wife beater. I can’t look on my instagram explore page because every so often a John Lennon beats his wife meme will pop up amongst the other, normal, memes.

This change in discourse suggests that the internet has just accepted this as fact now. I should note that back in 2012, it seemed as if few people knew this fact. The fandom knew it, and these random antis knew it, but few others did. Now, because of how common these memes are, it seems to be widespread knowledge.

Consequently, the Beatles fandom, who used to ward off attacks from antis, seems to have given in. I recently saw a post from a Beatles blog (had the URL and icon and everything) that confessed they felt guilty for listening to the Beatles, and I’ve seen similar sentiments expressed in the fandom. People tend to put disclaimers in posts about John or even all four that John is an ‘awful man.’ It seems like the self-aware ignorant bliss has completely gone away. Occasionally, I still see posts joyously talking about Mclennon or reblogs of old photos from the 60s. But the culture has shifted. 

Online, it no longer feels comfortable to be a Beatles fan. It feels like you have to own up to 8 decades of mistakes by four men you’ve never met. And, I should note, this is kind of how it feels to be a fan of anything right now. Taron is not canceled today, but he could be tomorrow. It’s this pervasive feeling of guilt that the person you’re supporting may or definitely has or is doing something wrong.

I’ll admit this uncomfortable feeling has expanded into other parts of my fandom life. I listen to their music, and I feel elated--the way I always have. Then, I get these intrusive thoughts which sound like all the worst parts of Twitter combined. It wasn’t always like this. Back in 2012, when I knew almost nothing about them, I saw them as four young men who were full of happiness, love for another, and talent. Back then, listening to their music was exciting and joyous. Sometimes, I fear that I can never feel that way again. Next year, when I finally go to Liverpool, will I be filled with excitement or guilt? 

I say all this for a few reasons. One, I love John Lennon. I appreciate all the good he did for the world not just as a musician and an artist but also his advocacy and charity work. I love him, and a part of me will always love him, but observing the change in discourse has enlightened me as a historian. Part of my job is to observe people’s legacies, and John’s is perhaps the most interesting legacy I’ve ever observed. When he died, he was hailed as a saint. But tall poppy syndrome set in, and the antis started. This culture grew and grew to the point where it seems to, at least among the younger generation, taken over the sainthood. 

But as a historian and a fan, I have never seen the saint or the devil. I’ve only seen the man, the incredibly flawed man. The thing that these antis never understand is that John Lennon was painfully aware of his own flaws to the point where it made him all the more self-destructive. In essence, his past mistakes caused him to make additional mistakes. But John, aware of his own flaws, always tried to change and was often successful. I’ve talked about this before, but John demonstrated that he was capable of being a good person, like properly so, again and again. After he struck Cynthia, he never hit her again. His shortcomings as a father to Julian weren’t repeated with Sean. He worked on his drinking, his drug addiction, and his anger, trying to overcome those demons till the day he died. By all accounts, the John Lennon that died in 1980 is not the John Lennon who struck Cynthia Powell at school. That John Lennon was living a cleaner, healthier life. He was a better father to both his sons by that point, and was trying to repair his relationship with Julian. He was a good husband to Yoko and saw himself living a long and happy life. 

John Lennon cannot and should not be boiled down to just his flaws. It’s one thing as a fan to acknowledge that John is a flawed human being (news flash: they all are), but he is also much bigger than that. 

So once again, why am I writing this long, rambling post, once again talking about John Lennon’s virtues? Because if I can’t engage with healthy discourse about the Beatles and John Lennon, then I can’t engage with discourse on the topic at all. So, I probably will post less Beatles stuff because I find it hard to go through the tags or even my dash (well, I can’t really go through my dash anymore for other reasons I’m not going to get into right now). If any of my followers have noticed a lot of Taron posts lately, it’s not just because I love Taron, it’s because Taron’s  tag is pretty much the only location on tumblr I feel 100% comfortable in. Any foray into John or the Beatles tags becomes uncomfortable and guilt-ridden quickly. 

So, I probably will post less about the Beatles until I can find a blog or a tag that doesn’t give me bad vibes. My fandom will likely outgrow tumblr and the internet. I have a ton of Beatles books; maybe I’ll rely on those. I am doing official scholarly research on them now. Maybe that will be my outlet. I’m sorry if I post less about them now, but it’s really for my own well-being. 

I joined the Queen fandom after watching the film, and ngl, from reading what people have said about Brian, I was also very wary of him at first. But luckily I have a friend who’s been a Queen fan for years and directed me to actual sources where I can get to know the real Brian without anyone else’s biased input. I still believe that he’s served as a fandom punching bag these recent years and his words are often misconstrued; sometimes it is his responsibility for how he words things and other times it comes from other people. I stg people either have this strange agenda against him or are so chronically online (since they are kids) that they have formed this impression of Brian entirely based on their own perception of him, a few quotes from him taken out of context and stupid fandom stereotypes and myths - and this impression in the end isn’t even the real person. Unfortunately that’s who I thought he was in the beginning but now I know better. He’s not some jealous, conniving bandmate wanting to cash in on his friend’s death, or to besmirch Freddie’s reputation, or whatever some people like to think he is. Also your point about people (especially young people) who think they care about Freddie more than his friends do - I find it funny that they think they even know more about Freddie or know what Freddie would think or how he would feel today about certain things, over his close friends of over 20 years. Like sure Kevin, you TOTALLY know Freddie would hate Adam Lambert because you have a direct hotline to heaven. But at this point I’ve given up trying to convince them otherwise - some people are just terminally stupid - they’ve made up their minds and nothing that I say will change their point of view.

It’s honestly kind of sad that people can get the wrong impression of Brian so easily due to bloggers and twitter stans. He’s absolutely the fandom punching bag, and I have some thoughts as to why, but sometimes I’m still so puzzled. He’s not conniving or jealous of Freddie at all, quite the opposite. He literally said Freddie was a genius yesterday, and that’s on top of him constantly singing his praises. Brian can put his foot in his mouth and be impulsive sometimes, but as I read interviews with him more and more, I realized he’s a guy who tries to be a good person and can be a sweetheart, he’s just...kind of strange sometimes lmao. He’s a Lot. He’s an oddball. But after seeing everything else, I think it can be kind of charming. But back to your point, yeah, people misconstrue his words all the time, and I don’t get the purpose. What do people gain out of pretending one of Freddie’s band mates hates him?

Lmao yeah, it’s ridiculous when people act like they know for sure Freddie would hate Adam. What’s even more ridiculous is that everyone knows it’s a moot point—if Freddie were around today, there would be no Q+AL, because as Brian said yesterday, Freddie would still be with Queen. Also, we don’t know him, but I feel safe to say Freddie would hate the vitriol directed at Brian. He loved him and wrote “Soul Brother” about him, for fuck’s sake, but everyone ignores that. It’s honestly worse when these terminally online people are adults, not teenagers. That’s when it’s pitiful tbh.

James Ronan's Top 5 Jurassic Park 3 Film Moments

The third article in this series counting down my Top 5 film moments looks at the 2001 Jurassic film Jurassic Park 3. Considered by many fans to be the black sheep of the Jurassic Park film series. (Thanks to the Jurassic Vault for the great images)

Jurassic Park 3 had a very troubled development. Directed by Joe Johnston (the first time for the franchise to have another director other than Spielberg) the film never had a final draft of the script before shooting. It released with mixed reviews and only made $368 million on a $93 million budget. It remains the lowest grossing Jurassic Park film and one of the most controversial in terms of canon consistency within the franchise. I decided to take the opportunity to now go over some of my Top 5 film moments from JP3 as the film celebrated its 19th anniversary back in late July. Strangely Universal seems to have a problem remembering the dates of theatrical release for the Jurassic films. Jurassic Park 3 according to the Jurassic World Twitter account released on July 17th, 2001 but in fact it actually released on July 18th, 2001 theatrically. Jurassic Outpost recently conducted a very interesting interview with Shelly Johnson the Cinematographer on JP3, it is well worth checking out for some in-depth film insight on the production and development of the film.

Before I get into my Top 5 moments, I want to just mention a few of the reasons why JP3 remains a controversial instalment in the Jurassic Park series among the fandom. Jurassic Park 3 again takes place on the island of Isla Sorna, the same island that was seen in The Lost World: Jurassic Park. Sorna in JP3 looks radically different in terms of flora compared with what was seen in The Lost World with lush tropical forests compared to the redwoods seen throughout most of the previous film. Many fans speculate that Sorna has a diverse flora on the island with different biomes being separated by the different sides of the island. It was an interesting choice to change the vegetation from what was seen in The Lost World for the third film and remains a debated topic within the fandom.

We are also introduced once again to some new Velociraptors in Jurassic Park 3. These Raptors are more intelligent than the previous Raptors we have seen throughout the series. Behaviour of the Raptors is a big plot point of the film with Dr. Alan Grant and Dr. Ellie Sattler discussing their intelligence, before we get a scene of Billy showcasing a 3D model of a Velociraptor resonating chamber. The Male Raptors are shown with quills on the backs of their head and neck, a palaeontology characteristic introduced to make the Raptors a bit more accurate and to appease fans who wanted to see feathers on display in the film. Speaking of Dr. Alan Grant and Dr. Ellie Sattler both Sam Neill and Laura Dern return to Jurassic Park 3 with Sam Neill again in a major role, despite both actors missing from the previous instalment in the franchise. Whilst Sam Neill and Laura Dern’s return to the franchise was most welcome, many fans had and continue to take issue with how their relationship changes from Jurassic Park to Jurassic Park 3. With Ellie now married to Mark Deggler (who works for the US State Department) who she has two children with. Alan is very much on his own and still working on dinosaurs helping palaeontology students like Billy Brennan. Whilst I am very much excited for Sam Neill and Laura Dern’s re-appearance in Jurassic World: Dominion, I am really hoping they keep the dynamic they had as friends from JP3 and don’t break up the family Ellie had in the third film. Just leave it be, as Jurassic World: Dominion has enough to cover as it is following on from Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. Another issue JP3 brought up is around the Pteranodons being shown free at the end of TLW and another species of Pteranodon being caged up and finally getting free during the events of the third film.  Whilst these issues may seem trivial to some, Jurassic Park 3 does not really address any of them, which is why they remain hotly debated topics within the fandom.

Unlike the previous films John Williams does not return to score the film. Don Davis takes on the composer role with a soundtrack that is quite different from the past Jurassic films but still retains some of the classic Jurassic themes. Jurassic Park 3 is my least favourite film in the franchise, but the film does have some great sequences and character moments that are worth looking at so let’s break down what moments really impacted me shall we?

5. Billy Stop! (The Pteranodon Attack Sequence)

The Pteranodon attack sequence is up as my 5th Top moment from the film. Many fans including me love the Pteranodon Aviary design, the layout, and the amount of mist throughout the sequence which really set the scene as a completely strange and unknown part of Isla Sorna. The Pteranodons themselves showcase behaviour which can be related to the original Jurassic Park novel. The Aviary sequence in the original novel is very different, but it was nice to see that JP3 took that sequence as inspiration and made its own thing whilst still referring to the original novel with Alan, Lex, and Tim. We knew Billy would end up using the parachute further on in the movie as when they first discover it, after the Spinosaurus attack sequence Grant asks Billy “if he can fly one of those?” Overall, the sequence is well done and when Billy gets attacked by the Pteranodons in the water, the attack is brutal.

The music by Don Davis in this scene also amps up the horror of Billy being tortured in the water as he goes down stream whilst another Pteranodon turns and looks at both Dr. Grant and Paul Kirby. It is surprisingly quite a dark scene for JP3 which overall has the lightest tone of any Jurassic film. Ultimately Billy survives the attack sequence, which for me really negates the impact of the attack in the first place. If anything, it would have been more appropriate for Dr. Grant to have found Billy’s body later on washed up on a riverbank, with Billy holding Dr. Grant's hat. Not only would have it been a poignant moment, but it would have aided Grant’s development further to have lost a student on such an expedition that ultimately shouldn’t have occurred in the first place.

4. What’s a bad idea? (The Spinosaurus Plane Attack)

I think many JP3 fans might be surprised that this is 4th on my list in terms of Top moments in JP3. But my main complaints in this scene relate to the behaviour of the Spinosaurus aegyptiacus itself which as a plot device, seems to have a knack for following the main group around the island. The death of Cooper is so well done and is in my opinion the best death in JP3 period. The setup for the Spinosaurus from Coopers death is so well done that the aeroplane attack sequence just doesn’t live up to the awesome death we just saw moments before. We also don’t see any remorse or loss from Udesky or any of the group that Cooper and Nash have just died after the plane attack and it is just odd to say the least in the context of the film.

I do have issues with how the plane attack sequence takes place. The fact that the Spinosaurus can track down the plane after it crashes rather quickly without anyone hearing it approach until it breaks open the plane is a major problem I have. Whilst this type of issue can also be compared to the Tyrannosaurus Rex appearance in the Visitor Centre at the end of Jurassic Park, how this scene takes place in JP3 with the Spinosaurus is very different. We assume that the Spinosaurus is a fairly intelligent animal to have tracked the group down and to destroy the plane the way it does, but later on in the film when it finds the group at the fence and also attacks the boat on the river we see that the animal doesn’t have much behaviour at all. Unfortunately, the animal is only used in servicing the plot and we don’t see anything more to it then to just act as a B movie monster. I really like the Spinosaurus design for what it was/is and the animatronic as well as the CGI still look really good on screen, despite the animatronic being stiff in some sequences.

I do like the scene when the plane falls out of the tree and the group are all screaming as we get a cool shot of the plane just crunching up as it hits the ground under its immense weight. It is also the first and only sequence throughout the films where an aeroplane comes under attack from a dinosaur. It makes my 4th spot though for setting up the Spinosaurus for what it ultimately is, a movie monster with little character. It is a shame that the Spinosaurus is showcased this way because it was the first Spinosaurid to be featured in a Jurassic Park film. Ultimately a lot of this comes down to the filmmakers deciding that a bigger and scary dinosaur needed to take down the T.Rex and become the focal point for the film. But the Spinosaurus lacks animalistic behaviour, something we saw more from the other dinosaurs throughout the previous two films. We never see it drink; we never see it sleep. We don’t see it hunt other dinosaurs (apart from the T.Rex kill) or fish despite spooking them in the river. It is just there to chase the group around the island and in its final scene, it runs away from fire and is never seen again.

3. Brachiosaurus on the Bank

Third on my list takes place after one of my favourite JP discussions throughout the films. I must quote it below because not only is it so poignant in the context of the film but is one of those moments in JP3 that was needed a bit more throughout.

Dr. Grant: I have a theory that there are two kinds of boys. There are those that want to be astronomers, and those that want to be astronauts. The astronomer, or the palaeontologist, gets to study these amazing things from a place of complete safety.

Erik: But then you never get to go into space.

Dr. Grant: Exactly. That's the difference between imagining and seeing: to be able to touch them. And that's... that's all that Billy wanted.

This discussion between Alan and Eric was another plot point that made me want to pursue palaeontology as a career. My dream career after seeing Jurassic Park was palaeontology but this discussion in JP3 also hit me and has stuck with me ever since I saw the film back in 2001. However, whilst this discussion has resonated with me a lot over the years, I want to discuss the scene after, where we see most of the herbivores of Isla Sorna along the river whilst the classic Jurassic theme is played. Probably one of the mot awe-inspiring moments in the film, echoing the Brachiosaurus scene in Jurassic Park.

We see four Brachiosaurs alongside two Ankylosaurs, a herd of Stegosaurs and a few Parasaurolophus in the background. All the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park 3 are depicted with the most colourful designs we have seen throughout the first three films. The Brachiosaurs in particular display a very distinct patterning with a red skull and orange eyes. As someone who likes the improvements in colour design that the dinosaurs display in JP3 the Brachiosaur colour design is bizarre to say the least especially the skull where the redness is quite patchy. The eyes are also orange which contrasts too much with the red and the rest of the colour pattern. Regardless of the dinosaur designs the scene itself is set up and executed very well. The boat just casually glides down the river as the dinosaurs watch on. You really feel the size of the dinosaurs in this scene and it brings back that sense of wonder and awe of these creatures which we didn’t get in TLW apart from seeing the Stegosaurus herd for the first time. Whilst the river scene in JP3 is very brief it goes a long way to allowing the film some breathing room just taking in the dinosaurs in their island environment.

2. This is how you play God. (The INGEN compound)

Down to the final two now! My second on my list of Top moments must be the INGEN compound and its exploration by the group of the genetics laboratory/Embryonics Administration. There are two key things that make this scene outstanding. The first is the set design which is incredible, especially with the sunlight coming in through the windows. I love the grittiness, dirtiness, and rawness of how the genetics laboratory looks, as it was left after releasing the dinosaurs into the wild. We get a real sense of the experiments INGEN was doing on the dinosaurs with the green tanks as well as how they were looked after with the incubators. The second thing I love about this scene is the score that plays alongside it, called the Raptor Room. Again, this score is very reminiscent of the Hatching Baby Raptor theme from Jurassic Park and fits so incredibly well with the group walking through looking at what INGEN was doing. The theme captures that wonder of creation which we first saw in Jurassic Park with the hatchling baby Raptor but applies it in different circumstances whilst looking at experimental dinosaurs and hatched eggshells.

The INGEN compound is also a huge plot point in terms of INGENs operations on Sorna which was discussed in TLW where Hammond mentioned “Site B being the factory floor” for the dinosaurs. Here we truly get to see the factory floor in all its glory and for me it is one of the most interesting scenes in Jurassic Park 3. As someone who loves both the original novels, knowing that the INGEN genetics lab/compound is a huge part of the second book, I was thrilled when it was shown on Sorna within the film. The way this whole scene is shot remains for me one of my favourite scenes in JP3 and it adds some really interesting backstory to INGEN as a company, how they operated and how things were left when they released the dinosaurs on Sorna and left the island.

1.  Dr. Alan Grant Palaeontology Lecture

Going full circle my Top favourite film moment within Jurassic Park 3 belongs to the man himself Dr. Alan Grant in his palaeontology presentation on Raptors. One of the earliest film scenes taking place only seven minutes in, the way this scene is presented shows what many palaeontologists do at some point in their lives, giving presentations/lectures to the public.  I really love the scene because it takes place like a proper lecture. It gives backstory to the viewer as to Alan's life as well as the current discussion going on regarding Raptor intelligence at the time, something of which is brought up throughout and becomes a focal point of the film's story. We see Raptor claws on display as Alan talks about the theories surrounding Raptor intelligence and behaviour.

Unlike Jurassic Park where palaeontology is seen in the field it is great to see JP3 embrace palaeontology talks to the public as it shows engagement with the wider audience and in this case the cinema audience. Obviously by now everyone in the lecture room knows about INGEN, Nublar and Sorna after the events of TLW due to the San Diego incident, and others like Ian Malcolm breaking NDA speaking out about what INGEN was doing and the deaths as a result. Alan calls INGEN out for “creating nothing more than theme park monsters, nothing more and nothing less” in the lecture room. This view changes again later in the film when Alan says to Billy on the plane “he forgotten”, referring to forgetting what it’s like to see a dinosaur for the first time. I enjoy the way the lecture talk plays out with Alan refusing to take questions relating to Jurassic Park and the San Diego incident. The fact that the Islands are such a present focus suggests that Alan just can’t get away from being linked to Jurassic Park and the events he was unfortunately involved in. What can be clearly seen is that Alan is tired of it all, he never wants to go back to the islands. He ultimately has a love hate relationship with the INGEN dinosaurs and what Jurassic Park was all about.

 Many fans like myself take issue with Grant going so easily to Sorna with the Kirby’s due to money and most fans agree that it is such a 180-character change after saying “no force on earth or heaven could get him there”. Ultimately though, Alan is very much impacted by past film events and it is shown throughout. It is just a shame that by the end of the film these changes throughout his character are just left, nothing is done with them at all. After surviving another close call of death on another dinosaur island Alan isn’t too worried about the creatures getting off or the Pteranodons leaving Sorna for new nesting grounds.

This contrasts greatly to Ian Malcolm’s view of the world and the destruction caused by the genetic power INGEN unleashed as he sees it. This is an underlying theme in TLW from Malcolm due to his involvement on the island and his injury but is seen much more bluntly in Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. It will be interesting to see how these different views of INGENs dinosaurs will be shown when both Ian and Alan are shown on screen together in Jurassic World: Dominion. I would say Alan falls somewhere in the middle whilst Ian seems to be vehemently against genetic power being out in the world. Regardless of the changes to Grant's character throughout JP3 the palaeontology lecture is a great piece of exposition, backstory and set up for Raptor intelligence. As well as Alan's life in the spotlight and what many palaeontologists enjoy doing, giving thrilling lectures on dinosaurs to the public. Because it is filmed so well and so enjoyable to watch it makes my number one spot as my favourite film moment from Jurassic Park 3.

Written by: James Ronan

I don't understand, jack is back but dean is fine with him but he will be at odds with cas because he blames him for his mom's death? I'm trying to make sense of this, after all jack was the killer

Hi there! I’m assuming (since sdcc was like a month ago) that you’re referring to one of the garbage clickbait articles going around in the last few weeks pretending to be new “interviews.” I’ve seen a couple of them, not linking here because I refuse to drive traffic to any of those sites. That’s what those sites exist for-- to post clickbaity articles that will get people worked up enough to talk about incessantly and profiting off ad revenue.

They’re a mishmosh of out of context quotes slightly reworked from other journalists’ SDCC Roundtable Q&A sessions. So not only are the quotes worthless out of context, they’re also nearly a month old. It’s stale news, even for the bits that actually come out sounding even remotely accurate.

This particular comment was made by Robert Singer at sdcc... but for CONTEXT, please have SEVERAL different tables (and remember these interviews run about 5 minutes per table, with multiple reporters at each table who are all basically asking the same questions that these guys literally are not allowed to answer honestly...) enjoy this bit of tap dancing:

1. In this video, the question is posed about how the season starts (at approximately 2:05), and at about 2:45 he mentions that there’s “a bit of housekeeping” to be done in Dean and Cas’s relationship. He doesn’t say the CAUSE, which is not “Mary’s Death,” but the actual fallout of 14.20 where DEAN WAS LITERALLY ABOUT TO MURDER JACK, and Cas had LITERALLY PUT HIMSELF BETWEEN DEAN AND JACK TO STOP HIM. They’re not still stuck back in 14.18 here...

2. In this video, he’s asked about the relationship between Sam, Dean, and Cas in the final episodes of s14, (at approximately 5.10), with the reporter asking about how their relationship “became fractured because of Jack,” asking about how CAS felt betrayed that Dean could’ve killed Jack... and you can see in the video (sorry for the angle in this one, you can’t really see the confusion on Singer’s face here...), and then he starts freaking waffling like mad...

“Well, conflict makes drama,” and “it’s gonna take a while for that rift to heal,” and “they will come together.” Mentioning it’s one of the goals of the first part of the season.

(reminder that earlier in these videos, he mentioned they only had the first six scripts at this point, so “a while” to him happens at some point during those episodes).

Let’s also be clear here, that the out of context articles have taken his quotes out of context, that in these interviews he’s SPECIFICALLY referring to the rift caused in 14.20 (which I might remind everyone they ended literally standing back to back, i.e. UNITED TOGETHER with zero evidence of any sort of “rift.”) And yet... when journalists repeatedly ask him about this... part of the job of PR is to... shuffle and answer with SOMETHING. If the audience thinks there’s emotional drama, as he said, Conflict Makes Drama. 

*HEAVY SIGHING*

This is like 9 things I hate all mixed up in a big pot: 

PR is not Showrunning. 

these interviews are FUN but they’re in no way SPOILERS for the season.

if you listen to all six roundtable interviews (well, there’s video of five for Singer specifically), you can hear him answering half a dozen similar questions in ways that he attempts to make sound slightly different without changing the underlying meaning of what he said. That’s how this weird form of PR works, and it’s a really interesting exercise in understanding what is actually the concrete truth IN CONTEXT.

here go try it for yourselves have a complete list of interviews from sdcc... https://mittensmorgul.tumblr.com/post/186598314405/sdcc-2019-spn-roundtables

oh right, people don’t actually watch them all because it would literally take HOURS (something just shy of five hours total, I believe? delivered in 5-10 minute snippets for each of the 9 participants being interviewed across six different tables) and it gets BORING watching the same people answer the same questions over and over again...

spoiler alert: I watched them all, which is how I knew these new “interviews” being published this week were garbage clickbait because they read like someone put all these videos in a blender.

When you remove the CONTEXT for a reply (i.e. the question asked, and often the question asked BEFORE the question that led to it, and often the FOLLOW UP) you can make it sound like the people being interviewed said ANYTHING THAT SUITS YOUR AGENDA!

the agenda of these clickbait sites IS TO GET YOUR CLICK! to get you worked up enough to talk about their article enough to link back to it and drive OTHER people to click their link. That’s the point of clickbait. They don’t care if what they’re presenting is HONEST, just that you CLICK. That’s how they get PAID.

Go back and read the actual articles written by the actual journalists who conducted these interviews in the first place immediately after SDCC, and you can see ACTUAL CONTEXT!

Wow I think that’s at least 10 things that irk me about this situation.

As a fandom can we PLEASE stop falling for this BS? Have we already forgotten s14 canon? Is that why people are willing to believe this garbage?

After 14.20 aired (and heck, even after 14.18 aired), I was writing about how Dean and Cas may have had some conflict there, but in the language of the show, the rift between Dean and Cas is already on the road to healing. If it wasn’t, Cas wouldn’t have been standing by their side in that final scene of 14.18. Dean wouldn’t have admitted he did the EXACT SAME THING to Sam, of failing to express his concerns about Jack to either Sam or Cas more clearly.

Did they have a big heart to heart conversation about it on screen? NO! BECAUSE WHEN DO THEY EVER?! And yet... they all continue to work together as if they had come to an understanding, and we-the-audience are supposed to understand that they are not actually “dead to me.” In an episode where we spend like 2/3 of it being reminded that things happen offscreen (sometimes MAJOR things, via the flashbacks to Mary’s life) and where the beginning and ending are mirrored like bookends with Dean’s line about what they’re going to do now (evolving from “get her back” to “let her go” over the course of the episode), we’re given to understand that Dean and Cas are finally able to “let it go.”

We saw them talk about Cas’s trip to Heaven, how he’d begged to be allowed to resurrect Mary and was told no, because he saw her at peace in her own Heaven. Dean knows he tried... and knows that Mary’s happy at last. In ShowSpeak, there is no conflict there anymore. Dean’s anger is at the situation, and not at Cas. Do you see the difference? Because he’s about to have a REAL target for what’s ACTUALLY behind ALL of this suffering...

By 14.20, Dean-- out of his own personal sense of guilt, and not any sort of anger with Cas-- believes he has no choice but to kill Jack himself using Chuck’s horrific weapon. Cas goes to Jack directly in his frustration, hoping he can convince Jack of what Mary failed to-- that there is something very dangerously wrong with him. Jack finally agrees, and acknowledges that he doesn’t feel anymore. And Cas is literally trying to save BOTH of their lives, because if Dean uses that magic gun on Jack, they will both be dead...

Cas’s anger isn’t at Dean, it’s at CHUCK, for refusing to fix this problem and healing Jack, despite clearly having the power to do so. Dean isn’t angry at Jack, because in the end he can’t bring himself to shoot Jack-- not even when Chuck shows up and eggs him on, and Jack kneels down perfectly willing to accept his fate. Not even when Chuck offers to resurrect Mary as a reward...

WHERE THE HECK IS THIS NOTION OF A CONFLICT BETWEEN THEM COMING FROM?!

I mean, any more so than like... the “conflict” between them at the beginning of s11? Which also devolved into this same sort of scenario with them both feeling guilty while neither blamed the other, and their nonpology involved Dean refusing to let Cas heal him for a few episodes so he could wallow in his own guilt a little longer. The acknowledgement of their mutual guilt served as their “apology,” and the fact they both kept standing by each other throughout it proves their relationship was never actually in trouble in the first place. This is the language of the show.

I don’t blame Singer for this one, I blame the reporters who asked those questions and made those implications, that he then scrambled to answer with a bit of tap dancing.

CAN WE ALL PLEASE COLLECTIVELY CHILL NOW?!