Read More

POSTED 2 weeks ago WITH 1 notereblog

rebel-in-the-mirror:

lastofthetimeladies:

"I may have the body of a weak and feeble woman" did they really just

Yes they did just have a female character say something that would be completely normal and typical of the time. You can’t project today’s values onto the past even when recreating it for tv.

Look, here’s the thing: Queen Elizabeth I actually did say these words. That’s nice, lovely, an historical nod.

No. It was an unnecessary, confusing historical nod that most viewers, including myself, didn’t pick up on (one of my followers directed me to that speech). Perhaps it would be totally typical of the time for a character to say words like that, but because we exist in this time, it’s important to have that context lest it just seem like the writers are doing the casual misogyny thing (and in this case, I find it hard to give Moffat the benefit of the doubt).

With research the quote totally makes sense, but it’s taken out of context and thrown into the script of the show so carelessly that it’s ridiculous, startling, offensive. 

And let’s think: would the episode have been any different if the quote hadn’t been said? Would Elizabeth’s characterization have been any different without the quote? NO. Because internalized misogyny, in this case, was really not a central point of her development in this episode. It was completely irrelevant and it had no place in the episode except to be an obscure historical nod. (I’m not sure how obscure this line is to British people, but the show reaches such a large global audience that it needs to be taken into account when sticking historical references in.)

POSTED 4 months ago WITH 228 notesreblog

We’ve been learning in my directing class about framing - that is, setting up the space so that the rules are clear to the viewer (this pertains to theatre, but I believe it’s relevant for film too, although there is probably a different term for it). My biggest problem with the 50th anniversary episode is that it just wasn’t well-framed, and it continuously broke the rules that it had set up: we were set up to believe that the episode would continue in this back-and-forth between the Doctors and UNIT, but it became overcomplicated when the frame expanded to the Queen and Gallifrey/TimeWarLand (and all of the Doctors on Gallifrey, without this being explained to make it logistically possible, but only John Hurt being able to see “Rose”).

This overcomplication could have been avoided if the framing had been more clearly explained and focused, but instead everyone was jumping around everywhere and there weren’t any clear rules to the space at all. When dealing with something like time travel, which is already complicated, it’s really important to specify what is possible and what is not possible. Therein lies a lot of the problem, because something Doctor Who does a lot is contradict itself - something that’s been a paradox in the past (ie the future version of someone touching their past self) happens and there are no consequences, a character says “that’s not possible” and then discovers it’s possible, a dimension that should have been time-locked is visitable, a character that may be a past version of a current character visits the current character but doesn’t actually explain how or why he is there or even say definitely who he is…

The lack of clarity and specificity was super visible in this episode, and it made it seem like the writers were floundering for ways to appear complicated and sophisticated, rather than that the writers actually knew what they were doing. And that’s the thing: I’m sure that the writers had at least more of an idea of what they were doing than I do. But they didn’t do a good job of translating that, so I got lost along the way. 

POSTED 4 months ago WITH 38 notesreblog

50th anniversary episode reaction video

POSTED 4 months ago WITH 40 notesreblog
Anonymous:

why is parks and rec so good? it has made me cry? i really love it? whats your personal view on it... i mean. im sad about rashida leaving the show :(

i haven’t seen like any of season six but uh it’s my favorite tv show right now because it just makes me happy

it’s a show about people loving things, people being enthusiastic about things. instead of a comedy about people hating things and hating each other (which has been done, is usually the thing that is always done), it’s a comedy wherein the people just love each other and are passionate about different subjects (which i think is altogether much more realistic - most people have one thing, if not many things, that they care a lot about. like leslie and politics and waffles and friends. donna and her mercedes. ben and math and game of thrones. chris and health. tom and swag. i could go on). everyone cares so much, and that’s funny, and it’s heartwarming, and it’s beautiful.

i’m so torn up about rashida leaving. the day i read the news i called maddi and sobbed on the phone to her about it. coincidentally i found out the news a few days before i left for college, and maddi’s the ann to my leslie and the leslie to my ann, and leaving for college meant leaving her behind, so it hit home in a way it couldn’t have done otherwise.

parks is just so funny and relatable and human and beautiful i can’t

POSTED 4 months ago WITH 8 notesreblog

its-a-small-universe:

lastofthetimeladies:

don’t you hate when you identify so hard with a fictional character but they’re also kind of your hero and you’re not sure if you are like them or you just want to be like them

this is like my main problem with appreciating badass lady characters

if you are like them and you want to be like them, wouldn’t it be like wanting to be like yourself? did that even make sense?

that’s why it’s such a gray area. if we’re watching someone onscreen who we understand completely and identify with, but we are not the ones making their choices, we’re both objective and subjective. it’s hard to differentiate between understanding both the character and yourself and where there is personality overlap, and understanding what parts of the character you’re projecting onto your own personality out of pure need to be more like your hero. do i identify with rose tyler because i am just like her, or because i want to be just like her? does the fact that i understand her actions mean that my personality is actually similar to hers, or does it just mean that i connect with her? it’s the difference between “this is me” and “this is my best friend.” i want to get better at being able to pick apart pieces of characters that i believe are truly parts of myself, to give myself peace of mind as a viewer and as a human being (and also, because this is now constantly on my mind and i don’t know if i’ll ever be able to view the world outside of this lens anymore, as an actor). 

lol i didn’t mean to get all ~what is the meaning of life~ intellectual. it’s just something i’ve been thinking about a lot recently. where does our favorite character end and we begin? how much of them is us filling in the blanks? i’m gonna go ahead and say a lot. we project a lot more than we wish we did - we expect things, and then we look for confirmation that our expectation is true, and if there’s no evidence against it, then we were right. that’s not always the case, and i realize i’m being really vague, but i think it’s kind of true. that’s why people watching martha’s run on doctor who, for example, will only see a whiny tagalong if they’re expecting to find someone who could never live up to rose’s legacy for whatever. (that was unfortunately my experience when i first watched season three - i looked for reasons to hate martha, consciously or not. i think a lot of people have gone through that and regretted it, like i do. anyway.) and that’s also why people see chemistry between two people when they’re looking for it, and that’s why people see parts of themselves in characters they love.

i don’t think characters are entirely comprised of bits of ourselves, though. media is a collaborative experience between the creators and the viewer. without the writing, there wouldn’t be a rose tyler for me to identify strongly with. without my viewership, there wouldn’t be someone there to identify with the character, and the entire creation would be null and void. art and storytelling exist to be reinterpreted by the viewer, whether consciously or not. 

so to answer the question you raised in your comment, i think i’d say yes. from my personal experience, when i identify with a character but also idolize them, i find great satisfaction in realizing that i’m similar to them, and it makes me want to be more like myself. it makes me more comfortable with myself and happy with who i am, because if i’m anything like the characters i love, then i must love myself a little bit as well.

POSTED 7 months ago WITH 113 notesreblog

mypatronusiscat:

lastofthetimeladies:

oh man remember that one time when steven moffat started tweeting about bisexuality and he said “We don’t acknowledge you on television cos you’re having FAR TOO MUCH FUN! You probably don’t even watch cos you’re so BUSY!!” oh man my blood is boiling rn

You do realize he wrote The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances episodes with Captain Jack in them, right? And that Harkness is *pansexual*? Yeah, no, I’m pretty sure those tweets were intended to poke fun at the fact that his profession tended to ignore bisexuals and not to say that he doesn’t like people who are bi.

he didn’t mean to say he didn’t like bi and that’s not what this post is implying. he really inconsiderately perpetuated bi stereotypes that bisexual people aren’t serious and he implied (or at least, what i and many other people took from this tweet) that they’re too busy getting it on…after all, isn’t that what bi people do? right???

anyway, if this doesn’t convince you that steven moffat doesn’t care about bisexual people, then maybe this will: when fans on twitter responded to him about how he wasn’t really contributing to bisexual visibility with river (who he said on twitter was bi but it’s not a known fact on the show) he said “When did I say I thought I was contributing to bisexual visibility?? Please stop being rude to me, you have no reason to be.”

and yeah he also called jack harkness bisexual when jack is pansexual (p.s. moffat did not create jack harkness - he merely wrote the episode that introduced jack. people give moffat too much credit with jack tbh)

or rather, he said jack is “nice in both directions” which is just a completely fundamentally flawed way of viewing sexuality and gender, and therefore is a flawed way of viewing a character that he’s written 

POSTED 9 months ago WITH 689 notesreblog

I have to say, I’m getting REALLY tired of the apocalypse dystopia trend that’s going on with movies right now. I like dystopia when there’s a reason for it - the book Brave New World was brilliant because it was written as a warning (not for entertainment purposes), and even The Hunger Games served to show us ourselves through the eyes of someone who cannot afford to be us (and the movie did an especially good job of this). At the risk of sounding pretentious, it feels like dystopia is being cheapened by Hollywood right now. These movies don’t have messages, they just have depressing premises and lots of CGI. They’re written for box office sales, not for art. And sometimes that’s how Hollywood is, but right now I’m particularly frustrated as a fan of dystopia (and utopia in particular) and a fan of movies. 

POSTED 10 months ago WITH 60 notesreblog

like i just really wish that all the people who genuinely believe they wouldn’t get along with martha jones could actually spend an hour in the same room with her

you don’t KNOW

you don’t know if you would get along with any characters, really, because every character on tv that you watch is written to be viewed a certain way. the script and the camera angles and the music and the acting - all of those things frame the story of the character. like i can tell you that rose tyler is my favorite fictional character of all time, but does that mean i’d necessarily get along with her? i don’t know. maybe she and i would come to some kind of trivial disagreement that we could never get past. or maybe we wouldn’t. 

donna noble and martha jones were buddies. rose was initially jealous over martha, but obviously got over it, as did martha with rose. and the doctor loved them all. look, there are characters i know for sure i probably wouldn’t get along with: draco malfoy. joffrey. cassandra, the talking skin flap. but if i were stuck in a room with them for an hour, i wouldn’t write them off at first. HEY, actually, cassandra is a really good example. remember how she’s a villain and does horrible things, and then during “new earth” we find out that she actually has real feelings and real redeeming qualities? so who’s to say you wouldn’t get along with any certain character? they’re characters. we can appreciate their personality from afar, but getting to know someone from the start, you only know of them what they show of themselves. not what the writers and producers show of them. someone who really sucks might be really charming at first. someone who’s really awesome might make a horrible first impression. 

one thing i think we can all agree on: we’d get along with jack harkness, for sure. 

POSTED 10 months ago WITH 33 notesreblog

fandomblogger:

Martha Jones is a fucking star → Look at these fucking companions

Okay but I think you also have to acknowledge that you don’t have to like a character even if they’re amazing. I don’t think she’s stupid or anything, I simply dislike her personality. She and I would not get along irl tbqh. (And imo she’s not really like the Doctor at all.) The reason I don’t like Martha is because she’s really clingy and she complains too much. I wouldn’t be able to sit in the same room as her for 10 mins w/o punching her. Yes, she’s awesome and does some pretty great stuff, I just don’t like her, and no amount of gifsets telling me what she’s done will change that. Just like no amount of me disliking Martha will make you dislike her.

Okay but I think that since this is my post, I don’t have to acknowledge anything I don’t want to.

I also think that the fandom makes Martha out to be “clingy” because they don’t want to get over Rose (note: Rose is my favorite companion - not hatin’) DESPITE THE FACT that the Doctor was like “listen I think you should come along for one more trip” and “one more trip” and “one more trip” and Martha NEVER KNEW when she wasn’t going to get that one more trip because he was stringing her along and treating her like shit. Martha was the one who got out of it and was like, “Doctor, you have to stop doing this to me.” I laugh at the idea that Martha Jones is “clingy.” That’s a poor excuse for disliking her, because she is not clingy. Actually, clingy is a really shitty (and oft-used) insult against all the companions. I’ve literally seen it used against every single one of them, and it pisses me off.

IT’S ACTUALLY TOTALLY OKAY TO DISLIKE CHARACTERS??? Yes. In fact, we’re supposed to be bitter about Martha’s presence at first, as viewers! Because we’re getting over Rose with the Doctor, and we see Martha, at first, as a girl trying to replace Rose. BUT THAT’S NOT WHAT MARTHA IS TRYING TO DO. Martha is being CONSTANTLY compared to this faceless stranger, being constantly told, “Rose would know,” and constantly compared. Wouldn’t you be upset? Wouldn’t you complain? Martha actually BARELY EVER voices her complaints out loud - it’s all to herself, because Martha is much more introverted. That’s why it’s such a big deal when she finally does speak up to the Doctor, like when she takes a stand and asks him to tell her about his past, or when she takes a stand and gets out.

"Clingy" and "complains too much." You’re projecting. You’re welcome to dislike any characters you want, but at least be real about why. 

POSTED 10 months ago WITH 17,977 notesreblog

I miss the days of knowing that characters I loved were in good hands. Not knowing what would happen to the characters, per se, or even knowing that they were necessarily safe in their universe, but knowing that they would be written well and whatever path they took, I wouldn’t be disappointed.

I miss when humanity was valued in the writing of this show. I miss when it wasn’t about the “what” or the “who,” but the “how” and the “why.” I miss watching my favorite show and being able to identify with the characters. I miss the time when its characters were consistent - had an arc, a development, and didn’t develop backwards or forget everything they’d known (with one horrible exception, of course). I miss when the characters were people and not plot points. I miss when the characters had agency and weren’t being used as plot devices. I miss when the characters could stand on their own - through tears, they could still stand on their own - without needing to have something special about them as a crutch for their sometimes-sub-par writing. I miss when what was special about the characters was their own personalities, and anything beyond that they created for themselves. I miss when they weren’t paradoxes, but they created paradoxes of their own because they decided their own fate.

I miss the days of hands pressed against walls on opposite sides of the void, because at least back then there was emotion at all. I miss the idea that human beings are wonderful and creative. I’m tired of this show being about all the amazing, horrible things that this one man can do, because that’s not what it was originally about. It was about all the amazing (and yes, sometimes also horrible) things that humans could do. It was about humans teaching him, not the other way around. It was about him showing them a thing or two about the universe, and them teaching him a universe of knowledge about love and bravery and compassion and curiosity. It was give-and-take. I miss that.

POSTED 11 months ago WITH 209 notesreblog

I’m still battling with mixed feelings about the last episode, because although I’m a huge fan of the hugging and hand-holding and ~significant looks~, I’m really pissed off about the forgetting. The fact that any character development that may have happened was thrown away. The fact that there is NO COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE DOCTOR AND CLARA. I refuse to believe it’s better that they continue to have secrets - he doesn’t want to share his name, that’s fine, but he can’t continue to keep her in the dark about why he finds her to be such a mystery. And he’s got to start treating her more like a human and less like a mystery.

My feelings for Doctor/Clara are pretty strong, but they would be so much stronger if their relationship (or even friendship) had some kind of foundation. Right now there’s no honesty or communication between them. I’m questioning if there’s much trust. He’s hauling her a long a little bit like how he hauled Martha along before she made him tell her everything. I hope Clara does the same. 

POSTED 11 months ago WITH 42 notesreblog

Sometimes I have a REALLY hard time deciding between Gryffindor and Hufflepuff because I honestly think the two can be SO similar. But there are a few distinguishing differences. These are all trends, not rules.

POSTED 1 year ago WITH 41 notesreblog

theloveyoumake:

safebehindwalls:

I hate that Beauxbatons was turned into an all-girls school for the movie. Fleur was the best out of the girls AND guys at her school - the movie negates that. Plus, in the movie their entrance is sexualized and completely bereft of any kind of power, and then Durmstrang comes in with fire and complete power, and I honestly cannot even BELIEVE the obvious sexist juxtaposition. 

I agree with the sexualization, but even though they made Beauxbatons an all girls school does’t immediately make her classmates less competitive  That would imply that because they’re all girls it was easier for her to get picked? Obviously it would have been cool if they had stuck with a co-ed Beauxbatons, but I don’t see that it being turned into an all girls school makes it any easier for Fleur to have been picked. 

That’s not what I was saying at all. I was trying to make the point that it’s a common misconception/internalized belief that men are naturally stronger and braver and more heroic than women, and the fact that Fleur was picked over the men AND women of her class in the book dispels that myth because Fleur is feminine AND powerful. 

POSTED 1 year ago WITH 7,239 notesreblog

fuckingdeanandcastiel:

safebehindwalls:

I hate that Beauxbatons was turned into an all-girls school for the movie. Fleur was the best out of the girls AND guys at her school - the movie negates that. Plus, in the movie their entrance is sexualized and completely bereft of any kind of power, and then Durmstrang comes in with fire and complete power, and I honestly cannot even BELIEVE the obvious sexist juxtaposition. 

OR it’s because the scene is told from the perspective of a teenage boy who starts noticing the opposite sex. THE SAME WAY Ginny and Hermione check out Cedric earlier in the movie. Seriously, get your mind out of the gutter, not everything is about sexism.

No, not everything is about sexism. But this is an issue of sexism, and I’m truly sorry that you don’t see it.

Yes, it’s told from the perspective of a teenage boy. Okay, fine. BUT that doesn’t mean that the way that the entire story was set up is not problematic. This is a change from what the book said - and the book is ALSO told from the perspective of a teenage boy, by the way, and in the book none of the girls nearly so objectified. 

My mind is not in the gutter. I’m seeing what’s right in front of me. This isn’t, like, in-depth meta, this is just observation. I’m so sorry that the fact that sexism being pointed out is so inconvenient for you.

POSTED 1 year ago WITH 7,239 notesreblog
THEME