Fangirling and snark aside, here is another thing I really appreciate about Captain America in the recent movies.

His grief is palpable.

He carries that air of loss with him. He’s quiet about it but it’s there in spades. I think it’s part of why he rubs Tony up the wrong way - apart from him being all the things Tony thinks he should be and never will, Tony is t e r r i f i e d of grief and loss and doesn’t know how to deal with it. Steve freaks him out because he is still functioning, and yet so clearly in grief.

Steve is dealing with it all really fucking well, frankly. He’s lost everything he loves and his entire life and he’s getting on with it mostly, and feeling sad when he needs to, and finding ways to process that. Massive props, dude, that shit is HARD. And our society likes to move on real quick - like not usually 50 years on but that could be an extended metaphor if you like. It’s been like a year or so since Steve lost his best friend and only remaining family member (Bucky is family), saw a bunch of the horrors of war, and was catapulted into a new life he doesn’t want. I’m sure a lot of us have stories in our family of parents or grandparents (or, so help me, great grandparents) who went off to WWII and came back different, could never really settle back in. And THEY came back to their families. 

Anyway I am off track. Apart from being a meta version of the experience of the dislocating effects of modern war (and another reason I loved the scene with testimony of modern soldiers’ experiences, tying that in) Cap’s story is a story of loss and grief. And of dealing with that. And of it sucking, big time. And being sad about it and not getting less sad but learning how to still walk around and function and find new good things, even though you remain sad. Of those new good things not diminishing your sadness or the value of what you lost. Of that staying with you and becoming part of who you are.

We need more of those stories in our culture, I think.

absentlyabbie:


shinykari:

legete:

haipollai:

ok, idk how easy this is to read but since everyone is discussing dates, i went to the movie to check. this is steve’s rejection from the beginning, his birthday is in the upper right corner and there’s ANOTHEr date in the lower left which I think is supposed to be a today’s date kind of thing and it looks to be June 14 1943
so there we go, steve enlists in mid 1943

#this feels late for bucky to be enlisting #but that isn’t the issue
How interesting that you would mention this, because I’ve recently been thinking he didn’t enlist. His serial number, which he’s heard muttering when Steve comes to rescue him, starts “32557.”
According to this fabulous WWII serial number generator, an enlisted man from New York should have a serial number starting with the numbers “12.”
A New York man with a serial number starting with “32”? Drafted. What we may be dealing with here is a Bucky who didn’t choose to go to war but was instead compelled to do so versus a Steve who is desperate to get in. I think it opens up a lot of different and interesting storylines for the two of them.

There’s been some great meta/discussion about this in the last couple days, which I think is great.

Makes you wonder if Bucky got the draft, and then, knowing how Steve felt about things, told his best buddy he was “enlisting.” Because how do you face this skinny, brave idiot who just won’t stop trying to volunteer that you wouldn’t be going if you didn’t have to?

absentlyabbie:

shinykari:

legete:

haipollai:

ok, idk how easy this is to read but since everyone is discussing dates, i went to the movie to check. this is steve’s rejection from the beginning, his birthday is in the upper right corner and there’s ANOTHEr date in the lower left which I think is supposed to be a today’s date kind of thing and it looks to be June 14 1943

so there we go, steve enlists in mid 1943

#this feels late for bucky to be enlisting #but that isn’t the issue

How interesting that you would mention this, because I’ve recently been thinking he didn’t enlist. His serial number, which he’s heard muttering when Steve comes to rescue him, starts “32557.”

According to this fabulous WWII serial number generator, an enlisted man from New York should have a serial number starting with the numbers “12.”

A New York man with a serial number starting with “32”? Drafted. What we may be dealing with here is a Bucky who didn’t choose to go to war but was instead compelled to do so versus a Steve who is desperate to get in. I think it opens up a lot of different and interesting storylines for the two of them.

There’s been some great meta/discussion about this in the last couple days, which I think is great.

Makes you wonder if Bucky got the draft, and then, knowing how Steve felt about things, told his best buddy he was “enlisting.” Because how do you face this skinny, brave idiot who just won’t stop trying to volunteer that you wouldn’t be going if you didn’t have to?

(via mariusperkins)

Teeth

thecharmingstrangeness:

psshaw:

turbofanatic:

Has anyone else noticed that in the largely female horror/monster artist  community on DA and tumblr (myself included) tends to focus a LOT on teeth, mouths, and violence as a consumptive act (there’s a lot of cannibal characters is what I’m sayin’) and that seems as a bit of a weird counter to mainstream horror and monster art where violence is nearly always penetrative? It’s usually knives, chainsaws and blades, heck even the Alien had a phallic mouth used to bore into faces.

Is this even a thing happening consciously?

No? Never mind then.

I… am trying to figure out approximately how much this post has irrevocably changed my life.

okay so we actually talked a lot about horror in my philosophy class this past week?

and like one of the things about typical horror movies is that they’re very much about violence towards women? like i don’t want to say that all horror movies are about violence towards women but i also don’t want to talk for a thousand years on the nuances of that trope so long story short if you watch a lot of horror movies there’s a lot of penetration imagery and blending the boundaries of sex and violence. and even the entire “final girl” trope that has become a basic structure of horror is basically asking for all of this imagery of penetration and violation etc. and all of it happens because the victims in horror movies are often women because he stereotype is that women are vulnerable.
i’m probably explaining this really badly it’s all waaaaaaaay more nuanced than this but it all kind of ties together in a really fascinating way.so when you look at it that way, it makes sense that a lot of monsters created by/for men (i.e., mainstream monsters) are going to be penetrative. as for monsters created by women being consumptive… that’s a very interesting trend and there’s probably a reason for it but i havent thought about it enough to pick one out

I wonder how much of that, then, is tied up with women’s consumption being a subversive act? Women being encouraged to not consume or take up space, so that then greedy, unapologetic consumption and largeness and loudness and appetite becomes monstrous, which could be problematic. But when driven by the people who are told not to consume, it become atavistic and wish-fulfilling and an outlet for impulses and desires, which the best horror always does.

(via mariusperkins)

hollyjollyboxghost:

nowyoukno:

maybe-this-time:

supernaturalshadowhunter:

adventuretimetimeline:

fuckier0:

tempestuous-sovereignity:

alittleworldofimagination:

forgetpolitics:

mariavontraphouse:

philliciaglee:

nowyoukno:

See More Daily Facts Here!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH
Sorry….kind of

isn’t captain hook and his crew suppose to be a lost boys who escaped and that’s why he’s trying to kill peter pan

…what the actual fuck

I NEVER TRUSTED PETER PAN

nah everything in Peter Pan was fucked up. 
Tinkerbell and her fairy buddies were having an orgy when they found baby Peter. Tinks also extremely jealous, tricking one of the Lost Boys into shooting Wendy in the fucking chest.
Peter’s also crazy omnipotent. Like, he “make believes” he’s a doctor, and heals Wendy. When he’s hungry, he pretends to eat imaginary food and his stomach actually gets fuller.
He’s also a dick. He would teach children how to fly but never how to stop, so they’d fly for months on straight without rest or break, and they couldn’t sleep either or they’d stop flying. And when one of Wendy’s brothers actually fell asleep and plummeted into the ocean, Peter laughed his ass off. He only saved him when Wendy begged him too.

okay but that’s the point of Peter Pan. It’s not supposed to glorify never growing up, it’s supposed to show kids why growing up is not only good, but necessary otherwise they’d end up as fucked up as Peter. He never matured, never learned right from wrong, he never listened to his parents because - according to Peter - he ran away as an infant.It’s a tale to teach children that listening to their parents and growing up is good. As far as Tinker Bell goes, if you actually read Peter Pan you would know that fairies only feel one emotion at a time and they feel that emotion very strongly so the orgy? lust. Trying to kill Wendy? Jealousy. She embodies the seven deadly sins and what happens if you let your emotions get the best of you. (And as far as the new fairies series of films making her nicer it’s because you only see the jealous side of her in Peter Pan and you see other sides of her in the series because those movies are about her).Rant over, you can go back to your regularly scheduled blogging now.

So if Peter Pan shows up in your window. Stab him in the fucking chest kids. You have school tomorrow

Reblogging because I believe this will be important to the Once Upon a Time fandom tomorrow.

It’s more complicated than that. Peter is kind of a tragic hero. He chooses not to grow up, he knows he is incomplete.
I mean, he cut off Hook’s hand because he thought it was a game. He clearly doesn’t know right from wrong. He also only knows the unconditional love of a mother to a child, which is why he thinks everyone wants to be his mother. He also switches sides in a fight just for fun, kill pirates for fun, and “thins” out the Lost Boys when they can’t fit in the tree anymore.
But, like, it wasn’t a cautionary tale to tell you to listen to your parents, it’s a story about death and youth. Why can’t Peter grow up? One of the popular theories is that it’s because he’s dead. J.M. Barrie’s older brother died when Barrie was little and he dressed up in his brother’s clothes to please his mom. His mom - who was always distant, whose love Barrie craved like Peter craves a mom - started crying and said something like “At least my baby will never grow up” and that idea stuck with Barrie forever. Then, as an adult, it’s believed he never slept with his wife because Barrie was just a kid. He was Peter Pan. He was too innocent for that. He befriended the Llewelyn-Davies boys and based Peter Pan off of them and their games. (Fun fact: The boy Peter Pan was named after, Peter Llewelyn-Davies, threw himself under a train). There was also a bunch of stuff about Barrie being in love with The Llewlyn-Davies boys’ mother, but that’s not important here.
People think Peter’s dead because he literally cannot return home. He tried and the window was barred and his parents had replaced him with another baby. Why? Probably because they had lost Peter to the flu. Why does Peter come in through the window? Because of the joke “I once had a bird names Enza. I opened up the window and ‘influenza’.” Because lots of babies died back then form the flu. The Lost Boys are children who fell out of their prams. Odds are babies could not survive falling out of their prams. Peter is liked the pied piper ferrying the souls of young children to the neverland/afterlife. Barrie believed that all children were “gay and heartless” but he didn’t think that was a bad thing.
Also, Hook and his crew are not old lost boys trying to kill Peter. Hook was once a British gentlemen (hinted at to be associated with Charles II and attended Elton) and he is afraid of growing old. His biggest fear is growing old and dying - that is why his nemesis is the embodiment of eternal youth. That is why the crocodile that chases him swallowed a clock and ticks. That is why when Peter finally decided “It’s Hook of me this time” the crocodile has stopped ticking and Peter started (he’s trying to trick them into thinking he’s the croc). At that moment - Peter is time and time has ran out for Hook.
Also, it’s not so much that Peter is omnipotent. All kids basically are in the Neverland. Like, it states that the island looks different to every kid because it’s the land of their dreams and stuff. Also, the island legit freezes when Peter leaves and thaws when he comes back. He’s been there so long he’s not human anymore - but fey. (keep in mind being fey isn’t good, just chaotic neutral). Peter even secretes pixie dust now. The island is so fine tuned with him because he’s one of the only people that stay, that it caters to him. Most likely any child that stayed as long as he did would become omnipotent to an extent.
As for Tinker Bell, the above stated is true. Fairies are so tiny they can only have one emotion at a time - “Tink wasn’t all bad” - and they also have really short lifespans so, like, Tinker Bell isn’t even that important to Peter Pan. He forgets all about her and Hook by the time Wendy is grown up.And the orgies thing is because in the legends fey are known for their revelries. 
And it wasn’t so much that Peter was a dick, he just doesn’t know when to stop. He’s a child. He doesn’t know right from wrong. He doesn’t know when to stop playing -cutting Hooks hand off was a game to him. He also has the memory of a child, so odds are he just forgot to teach kids how to stop flying or how to imagine food, etc. He is just carefree, like all children. Everything is a game to him, because he never learned anything else.
But like, no, Peter Pan is not a cautionary tale. Barrie loved his character and the story and brought up a lot of good things in it. He wrote Peter as an exaggeration of a cocky overconfident boy, but, like, Peter wasn’t afraid of death. It says “he felt scared, yet he felt only one shudder run through him when any other person would have felt scared up until death. With his blithe attitude towards death, he says, “To die will be an awfully big adventure”.” and with that Barrie is showing us both a naivety and bravery we possess as children but lose as adults and is basically telling us that we shouldn’t let that go. Like, the point is growing up is inevitable but you don’t have to lose everything.
And so yeah….I’m really passionate about Peter Pan.

Now You Know

All of this. I love Peter Pan, every adaptation, it’s my THING. I personally have no trouble saying that book Peter is a DICK. I found some of the things in the book really traumatizing, and it kind of fucked me up, but you’re absolutely right. It is so much more than that, so much more. 
To the the thing about him KILLING the Lost Boys though, it is stated in the novel that he would like … lower the number of Lost Boys, thin them out when they got too old, but we actually don’t know how he did that. He could have killed them, or he could have exiled them - I know I’ve always preferred to think of it that way.

hollyjollyboxghost:

nowyoukno:

maybe-this-time:

supernaturalshadowhunter:

adventuretimetimeline:

fuckier0:

tempestuous-sovereignity:

alittleworldofimagination:

forgetpolitics:

mariavontraphouse:

philliciaglee:

nowyoukno:

See More Daily Facts Here!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH

Sorry….kind of

isn’t captain hook and his crew suppose to be a lost boys who escaped and that’s why he’s trying to kill peter pan

…what the actual fuck

I NEVER TRUSTED PETER PAN

nah everything in Peter Pan was fucked up. 

Tinkerbell and her fairy buddies were having an orgy when they found baby Peter. Tinks also extremely jealous, tricking one of the Lost Boys into shooting Wendy in the fucking chest.

Peter’s also crazy omnipotent. Like, he “make believes” he’s a doctor, and heals Wendy. When he’s hungry, he pretends to eat imaginary food and his stomach actually gets fuller.

He’s also a dick. He would teach children how to fly but never how to stop, so they’d fly for months on straight without rest or break, and they couldn’t sleep either or they’d stop flying. And when one of Wendy’s brothers actually fell asleep and plummeted into the ocean, Peter laughed his ass off. He only saved him when Wendy begged him too.

okay but that’s the point of Peter Pan. It’s not supposed to glorify never growing up, it’s supposed to show kids why growing up is not only good, but necessary otherwise they’d end up as fucked up as Peter. He never matured, never learned right from wrong, he never listened to his parents because - according to Peter - he ran away as an infant.It’s a tale to teach children that listening to their parents and growing up is good. As far as Tinker Bell goes, if you actually read Peter Pan you would know that fairies only feel one emotion at a time and they feel that emotion very strongly so the orgy? lust. Trying to kill Wendy? Jealousy. She embodies the seven deadly sins and what happens if you let your emotions get the best of you. (And as far as the new fairies series of films making her nicer it’s because you only see the jealous side of her in Peter Pan and you see other sides of her in the series because those movies are about her).
Rant over, you can go back to your regularly scheduled blogging now.

So if Peter Pan shows up in your window. Stab him in the fucking chest kids. You have school tomorrow

Reblogging because I believe this will be important to the Once Upon a Time fandom tomorrow.

It’s more complicated than that. Peter is kind of a tragic hero. He chooses not to grow up, he knows he is incomplete.

I mean, he cut off Hook’s hand because he thought it was a game. He clearly doesn’t know right from wrong. He also only knows the unconditional love of a mother to a child, which is why he thinks everyone wants to be his mother. He also switches sides in a fight just for fun, kill pirates for fun, and “thins” out the Lost Boys when they can’t fit in the tree anymore.

But, like, it wasn’t a cautionary tale to tell you to listen to your parents, it’s a story about death and youth. Why can’t Peter grow up? One of the popular theories is that it’s because he’s dead. J.M. Barrie’s older brother died when Barrie was little and he dressed up in his brother’s clothes to please his mom. His mom - who was always distant, whose love Barrie craved like Peter craves a mom - started crying and said something like “At least my baby will never grow up” and that idea stuck with Barrie forever. Then, as an adult, it’s believed he never slept with his wife because Barrie was just a kid. He was Peter Pan. He was too innocent for that. He befriended the Llewelyn-Davies boys and based Peter Pan off of them and their games. (Fun fact: The boy Peter Pan was named after, Peter Llewelyn-Davies, threw himself under a train). There was also a bunch of stuff about Barrie being in love with The Llewlyn-Davies boys’ mother, but that’s not important here.

People think Peter’s dead because he literally cannot return home. He tried and the window was barred and his parents had replaced him with another baby. Why? Probably because they had lost Peter to the flu. Why does Peter come in through the window? Because of the joke “I once had a bird names Enza. I opened up the window and ‘influenza’.” Because lots of babies died back then form the flu. The Lost Boys are children who fell out of their prams. Odds are babies could not survive falling out of their prams. Peter is liked the pied piper ferrying the souls of young children to the neverland/afterlife. Barrie believed that all children were “gay and heartless” but he didn’t think that was a bad thing.

Also, Hook and his crew are not old lost boys trying to kill Peter. Hook was once a British gentlemen (hinted at to be associated with Charles II and attended Elton) and he is afraid of growing old. His biggest fear is growing old and dying - that is why his nemesis is the embodiment of eternal youth. That is why the crocodile that chases him swallowed a clock and ticks. That is why when Peter finally decided “It’s Hook of me this time” the crocodile has stopped ticking and Peter started (he’s trying to trick them into thinking he’s the croc). At that moment - Peter is time and time has ran out for Hook.

Also, it’s not so much that Peter is omnipotent. All kids basically are in the Neverland. Like, it states that the island looks different to every kid because it’s the land of their dreams and stuff. Also, the island legit freezes when Peter leaves and thaws when he comes back. He’s been there so long he’s not human anymore - but fey. (keep in mind being fey isn’t good, just chaotic neutral). Peter even secretes pixie dust now. The island is so fine tuned with him because he’s one of the only people that stay, that it caters to him. Most likely any child that stayed as long as he did would become omnipotent to an extent.

As for Tinker Bell, the above stated is true. Fairies are so tiny they can only have one emotion at a time - “Tink wasn’t all bad” - and they also have really short lifespans so, like, Tinker Bell isn’t even that important to Peter Pan. He forgets all about her and Hook by the time Wendy is grown up.And the orgies thing is because in the legends fey are known for their revelries. 

And it wasn’t so much that Peter was a dick, he just doesn’t know when to stop. He’s a child. He doesn’t know right from wrong. He doesn’t know when to stop playing -cutting Hooks hand off was a game to him. He also has the memory of a child, so odds are he just forgot to teach kids how to stop flying or how to imagine food, etc. He is just carefree, like all children. Everything is a game to him, because he never learned anything else.

But like, no, Peter Pan is not a cautionary tale. Barrie loved his character and the story and brought up a lot of good things in it. He wrote Peter as an exaggeration of a cocky overconfident boy, but, like, Peter wasn’t afraid of death. It says “he felt scared, yet he felt only one shudder run through him when any other person would have felt scared up until death. With his blithe attitude towards death, he says, “To die will be an awfully big adventure”.” and with that Barrie is showing us both a naivety and bravery we possess as children but lose as adults and is basically telling us that we shouldn’t let that go. Like, the point is growing up is inevitable but you don’t have to lose everything.

And so yeah….I’m really passionate about Peter Pan.

Now You Know

All of this. I love Peter Pan, every adaptation, it’s my THING. I personally have no trouble saying that book Peter is a DICK. I found some of the things in the book really traumatizing, and it kind of fucked me up, but you’re absolutely right. It is so much more than that, so much more. 


To the the thing about him KILLING the Lost Boys though, it is stated in the novel that he would like … lower the number of Lost Boys, thin them out when they got too old, but we actually don’t know how he did that. He could have killed them, or he could have exiled them - I know I’ve always preferred to think of it that way.

(via pinkhairedlesbianadventures)

buzzfeed:

This fog only rolls over the Grand Canyon once a decade and last Friday it was filled to the brim.

I love the internet. When I was a kid this was the kind of thing I might see in a National Geographic and it would be presented as timeless and out of time and an official Thing That Happens Sometimes.

Now it’s ‘last friday’. I hear about it maybe not in real time as in, as it happens. But in real time as in, it exists in the same ordinary world as I do, it is real and glorious.

(via schrodingershipster)

flamingshoe:

craftastrophies:

NO BUT

LOOK at Spock’s face. He is having an emotional reaction. It is a small one, but he is showing emotions on his face. As compared to usually, when he has a polite blank face, and he basically always looks like he has a clenched jaw and raised eyebrows (unless his brow is lowered in disapproval). If you look at his face, compared to how it normally is, he’s shocked and confused, but his face is open, not closed. Look at him scanning Kirk’s face. He’s been taken by surprise but he’s allowing himself to SHOW it. Which is AMAZING for spock. He basically think Kirk kind of hates him, or at least finds him inconvenient.

And then Kirk is like ‘what, no huge emotional reaction right away? BAH I REJECT YOU.’ Which is UNREASONABLE.

And now look how hurt Spock looks. I mean, for spock. He looks hurt and confused and then his face shuts down again.

I am so mad at Kirk for this moment. Yes, I know Spock didn’t react like Kirk wanted him to. Because he was never going to. Because that is not how he operates.

The magic of ToS Kirk/Spock is that Kirk pays attention to Spock. He knows when he says something that seems cold and logical but that, for Spock, is an emotional statement. His reactions aren’t big and obvious and up front, but he still has the reaction. And ToS Kirk knows how to read that, because he actually gives a shit. Reboot Kirk also gives a shit, but needs more validation himself, so he doesn’t have the time and patience and emotional energy to put into actually paying attention to someone else - who they really are, not how they are pretending to be.

Couldn’t that partially be because ToS Kirk and Spock have had a lot longer to get to know each other and understand each other? Like, these two have been working together for a little while, but they don’t have the history that their ToS counterparts do, forged in adversity (I think?). Not yet, anyway.

That said, I totally agree that new Kirk is pretty self-centred.

Definitely. And you can see Spock relaxing and Kirk getting more and more fond of baiting Spock into a pseudo-logical but actually-emotional reaction, as the series goes on. It is a strong relationship that has been built up over time and involves a lot of trust and respect that has been earnt.

But it also involves each other initially having respect for each other, at least professionally, which reboot world does not have. They despise each other’s MO. Kirk thinks that Spock is cold and cruel (as opposed to, at least, efficient and good at his job) and Spock thinks Kirk is volatile and irrational (which he is - but I would say that, basically being Spock myself - as opposed to, in ToS, being confused about his motives but acknowledging his competence and people skills). In ToS they had at least some common ground to build on. I’m not sure they do in the reboot, despite obviously still having a strong connection.

This world’s Kirk is different, more self-centred but also more broken and needy himself, more emotionally abandoned, as Spock is himself, so they have competing needs. Kirk/Spock is a Sun/Moon relationship (my favourite kinnnnnd) which means that, when it’s working, it’s healing for both of them. Two halves making a greater whole (awww yeah). But in the reboot, the dynamic is shifted, and what each brings to the table is off, just a bit. They resonate at slightly different frequencies.

In ToS they compliment each other. In reboot they abrade each other. I just wonder if Spock Prime’s matchmaking is enough to overcome that.

(You should know better than to encourage me when I write a metapost!)

(Source: becauseiamthemonster)


House Mottos

"But satisfaction brought it back".
Also the original phrase was “Care (i.e. worry) killed the cat”. That is, even though a cat has nine lives, worry and toil is enough to strip it of all of them. Which obviously has a much different message. See Claudio in Much Ado About Nothing with:

"What, courage man! what though care killed a cat, thou hast mettle enough in thee to kill care."

RAVENCLAW

House Mottos

"But satisfaction brought it back".

Also the original phrase was “Care (i.e. worry) killed the cat”. That is, even though a cat has nine lives, worry and toil is enough to strip it of all of them. Which obviously has a much different message. See Claudio in Much Ado About Nothing with:

"What, courage man! what though care killed a cat, thou hast mettle enough in thee to kill care."

RAVENCLAW

(Source: greeenarrow, via schrodingershipster)

lierdumoa:

futuresoon:

sleepy hollow’s profound racefail towards native americans this past episode hits a little harder because, well

this is a show that has exactly three recurring white male characters, one of whom only appears in brief flashbacks and one of whom does not have a head

in the opening credits the four listed characters are a white guy, a black woman, a black man, and a white woman

the second episode’s primary villains were a woman and an asian guy who will probably be a recurring character

now we’ve got another recurring black female character

this show is so great about representing women and POCs

and then it does. um. what it did.

i don’t have any solutions for that but i can at least hope it will continue doing all the good things it is doing and not do that one glaring bad thing it did in hopefully just one episode

because for all its rampant cheese and laughable mythology it is a bizarrely progressive show and i would like that to keep going

(also how great is it that a bizarrely progressive show on fox garnered one of the highest ratings the network had ever seen and got a second season after three episodes)

(it’s pretty great)

I have to say I’m not particularly surprised that the show grossly mishandled Native American history.

What the show is really good at: Writing multi-faced 3 dimensional characters of regardless of their race and/or gender.

What the show is really bad at: cultural and/or historical accuracy of any kind at all ever.

Let me clarify that I am not excusing the show’s failure, merely explaining how that failure took place.

On The One Hand: The show portrays white American revolutionaries as a secret society full of mysticism and magic.

This is not a big deal.

  • more accurate retellings are widely known and easily accessible
  • white men does not have a long history of misrepresentation in the American media
  • misrepresentation of white male historical figures is not reflective of damaging stereotypes that have caused hardship for white men in the past
  • misrepresentation of white male historical figures does not promote damaging stereotypes that continue to cause hardship for modern day white men

On The Other Hand: The show portrays Native Americans as a secret society full of mysticism and magic.

This IS a BIG DEAL.

  • accurate retellings are NOT widely known and NOT easily accessible BECAUSE OF GENOCIDE AND RESULTING SYSTEMATIC ERASURE FROM HISTORY BOOKS
  • Native Americans DO have a long history of misrepresentation in the American media BECAUSE OF INSTITUTIONALIZED OPPRESSION BY WHITE PATRIARCHY
  • misrepresentation of Native Americans IS reflective of damaging stereotypes that have caused hardship for Native Americans in the past
  • misrepresentation of Native Americans DOES promote damaging stereotypes that CONTINUE to cause hardship for modern day Native Americans

Have you all read The Allegory of the Talking Baskets?

Because everyone needs to read that, okay. Required reading.

.

This is a privilege problem. The show writers need to check their privilege. More importantly, the show writers need to stop thinking that checking ones privilege is something only “bad people” are required to do.

Look at Crane, for example.

This show is so set on painting Ichabod as some kind of moral ideal. He can do no wrong. The show writers appear to currently be suffering under the misapprehension that being a good person means being a “finished” person. They do not seem to grasp that morality is not an ideological stance, but an empathetic process

My biggest fear is that Ichabod Crane will never inadvertently offend someone, and never get called on it, never apologize for it, and never grow as a person.  We all live in an unjust society. We all spend decades steeping in poisonous ideologies without even realizing it. Having “strong ideals” and a “good heart” does not magically make us immune to those poisons.

.

That said, I’m still a big fan, I still think it’s better than a lot of the shows out there in terms of representation, and I still enthusiastically recommend this show to others.

(via mariusperkins)

verysharpteeth:

Do y’all know how striking this scene in an action movie was to me? Main lead, who is young and gorgeous and the whitest of whites, oversteps his bounds. He touches a commanding officer. In any other action movie the dressing down would not be this severe (Elba’s adlibbing on this is terrifying…forget kaijus, Raleigh looks more scared by him than anything that crawls out of the breach and half the audience squirmed in chastened sympathy because WOW). And the thing is, Raleigh is right. His initial argument that Stacker is holding back Mako is for all intents and purposes, the correct assessment. He’s RIGHT. But he isn’t in a position to tell that to a commanding officer, especially the way he does. So Stacker puts him back in his place. Raleigh KNOWS he went out of line the minute he touched Stacker and rather than argue or shout “you know I’m right” or storm off or IGNORE a commanding officer like any other action movie would have the hero do, Raleigh backs down. Stacker doesn’t even let him get away with just the nod and choked back frustration, he makes him VERBALLY back down as well. There is no question who is in charge here. Raleigh is obviously angry and frustrated and still riding the testosterone high of kicking Chuck’s face, but he FREAKIN’ BACKS DOWN LIKE ANYONE WITH SENSE IN THE MILITARY WOULD. It’s always baffled me that main rodeo cowboy hero of every movie can just walk all over rank and command and not pay for it because he’s “special”. Raleigh only sort of does this once (and remember, his argument is valid) and he’s immediately reminded that’s not what he’s there for. And he KNOWS because he never complains about it, never goes off and stews about how unfair Stacker is, never holds it against Stacker later. He knows he crossed a line and he belly crawls back across it because it’s all about respect and he overstepped.This is something 9 out of 10 action movies wouldn’t address.

I would say I spend about 10% of the time when watching Star Trek (and now also Agents of Shield) yelling ‘Why are you arguing? He is your superior officer! You don’t get to discuss it! YOU ARE A TERRIBLE SOLDIER. WHAT KIND OF MILITARY IS THIS’ at the tv.

So I really appreciated this. And I appreciated that Stacker isn’t trying to convince Raleigh. He doesn’t need to convince him. He is the BOSS.

(Source: hirocks, via mariusperkins)

thelybrarian asked: As a massive fan of buffy, angel, firefly, I thought aos genuinely awful. I realise not all pilots can be as strong as serenity (angel didn't get really good till ep2 s2), but there was so much I wanted to like and ended up being really disappointed. Mostly it was how dull and/or silly the characters seem (supermodel hacker recluse, annoying as fuck british quirky scientists). Ron glass' mysterious allusion to coulson was the only interesting bit. What are your sincere thoughts on aos ep1?

acciomjollnir:

bluelightseven:

tcfkag:

artielu:

tcfkag:

artielu:

fuckyeahjosswhedon:

I actually enjoyed quite a lot, I’m loving the characters, the Whedon-y moments and all the references to the Marvel Universe. Yes, it wasn’t “Serenity” but I think it holds up against most pilots. Most Whedon shows get a lot better later, since their strongest point is usually character development.

Hopefully, you changed your mind after the second episode, and the pretty awesome cameo. 

I’m also a massive buffy, angel, firefly, dollhouse, dr. horrible, and avenger movies fan, but do not like AoS yet at all.  I slogged through the pilot and turned off 1.02 about 20 minutes in.  I want to like this show so badly, but it is not working for me.

tcfkag, what do you think?

Hmmm.  I haven’t seen 1.02 yet - I’m waiting to watch it with a friend in the hospital. I think that AOS is in a very different tone than either Buffy or even Firefly; its more campy, superhero fun. If you go into it expecting that, then I think you will enjoy it more. I don’t think you can take it too seriously. I found it good fun - and saw hints of deeper Whedon-esque plot development later.  For example, there is something about himself that Coulson doesn’t know. Readers of the comics might wonder if he is a Life Model Decoy (possibly) or something else entirely.

I think as the team gels it will hopefully feel more Firefly-esque [remember that when we started Firefly, the team was already essentially a family, here the team is brand new and barely know each other.]  I also am looking forward to learning more about Melinda May who seems like she is going to be a total BAMF.  

Basically what I’m saying is, give it a few episodes. Its not going to be exactly like Firefly and Buffy because its a very different genre, but I think given how awesome Avengers was, that Whedon can pull it off.  

Patience you must have my young Padawan. And faith in our great Master, Joss Whedon. :-)

I will be guided by you in this, my master.

I did like the Ron glass parts, the Maria hill parts, the what happened to coulson mystery, and the pockets of sass where the lines were classic joss. But the supermodel hacker, the British yammering duo (shades of topher minus the charm), and Mr. Chip on his shoulder while he smoulders bug. And I found the pilot ep kinda racist. Yes please to more Ming na kicking ass. LMK when you watch 1.02, I guess I may as well watch the rest of it.

You have identified both my favorite parts and my least favorite parts. The hacker better get more interesting really quickly and Mr. Chip on his shoulder better get BOTH more BAMF-y and either better at team playing or more like Hawkeye very quickly or I’m going to get sick of him. He’s not pretty enough to be this boring. 

As far as the racism, yeah - WHAT WAS THAT? It was so random. I *might* have been able to forgive the fact that LA was so weirdly white [I mean, I guess you work with the extras you get - but really - you couldn’t find a FEW more extras of color?] but the part where the only hispanic people in the whole episode were “thugs” that she used as a distraction - OMG - that was not okay.  I hope that does not become a thing, because that would be a deal breaker.  

I will let  you know about 1.02 - probably this weekend at the latest - and we can discuss [perhaps not on whomever this poor person’s original post this was!  Lol - hello person we are just hijacking your post from.]

My feelings!  They have been captured!  

I’m obviously going to stick it out, because I have faith in the Way of the Whedon, but it’s a bit of a slow start.  Team needs to get it together!  Which they will, but, as mentioned so excellently above, we’re seeing them at the beginning, and it’s going to be awkward for everyone.

Mostly I just want to watch Melinda May kick all the ass ever goodbye.

I think the biggest missteps this show has made so far are the following:

1) Making J. August Richards more compelling and relatable in episode 1 than any of the regular cast. He was a hard working everyday guy struggling in this economy. He was a fantastic access point. And instead of making him someone we could use as our way into this universe as viewers, they made him a one-episode quasi-villain. HUGE misstep.

2) Leaning so heavily on the films. I’m thinking this is network meddling, as I have this idea they think they’ve got a huge cash cow on their hands, tying into the most successful film franchise currently being made. But the episodes lean SO HEAVILY on the films that people who haven’t seen them are legitimately confused by the nods and tie-ins. 

3) GIVE US SOME FREAKING DEPTH ON SOMEONE PLEASE. No one on that team, not even Clark Gregg, who at the VERY LEAST has movie stuff to back him up, is compelling or multidimensional at this point, so there’s seriously no reason to like them yet. SFX and movie nods are not going to last long and if we don’t have character development to fall back on then the viewers are going to give up and find a show that does.

Honestly to me (and I’m a big Whedon fan, Dollhouse aside) the reason I don’t feel this show is pulling me in the way another Joss show would have is that it’s not Jossverse. It’s Marvelverse. And the things that make Jossverse shows so successful feel cheap and wedged in right now when pushed against the Marvelverse stuff this show requires of it. Particularly considering how much this show would bring the network if it were to succeed.

Another small thing is that I honestly wonder if Jed Whedon and Maurissa Tancharoen were ready to helm a writing team. They’re awfully green, all things considered.

I’ve been meaning to talk about this. I am REALLY ENJOYING this show so far but I’m also finding that I am having to work at enjoying it, a bit. That is, at shutting out the bits that I have concerns with.

I feel like 1.02 shed some light on where Whedon sees the hacker and Mr White Dude Hero going. I actually kind of like that the white dude was included - because he’d usually be the hero. But I feel like the first two eps made it real clear that he is the opposite of the hero. I REALLY hope that continues, or if he has a redemption arc that it is solid and not just ‘and now he’s learned people skills yay!’. And I’m already feeling a bit fatigued about the hacker plotline, but we’ll see.

I hope that we see more of Richards - is that in the works? The setup made it seem like he is out of action for now but might be back? I SURE HOPE SO because that ending was pretty unsatisfying. And I hope that they delve more into Ming Na’s PTSD or whatever is making her not want to be in the field (oh my god I LOVE HER SHE IS MY FAVOURITE).

Personally I really love the bickering scientists, but that shit is my jam. And I love Coulson being perky and competent. Again, that was basically what I was hoping for from a spin-off from the Avengers tv show. I can see how you would not like it but I was really just hoping for it to be a bit of a sandbox to see more of the characters I loved. It’s looking like that far. That is good for me but bad for people who don’t want that.

The big thing I am having to work on is the fact that SHEILD is a super creepy government agency that kidnaps people with bags over their heads and blows shit up. I have faint hope that there is some awareness of that - what with the hacker plotline (‘oh so everything I’m against, then’) and the big evil looking vehicles. But like… they shot a bunch of rebels. I was VERY UNHAPPY ABOUT THAT. I am hoping that the idea is that they were paid by the army as a distraction but I don’t believe that was ever discussed? I mean obviously an agency like SHIELD doesn’t care who they have to shoot.

But I do.

I care who they have to shoot. So that is an issue for me. At the moment it’s being held at bay by Coulson’s very clear morals and emphasis on limiting violence. But he’s one man in an organisation designed to keep shit under control and I am just not sure how long I can suspend my disbelief about this.

Headcanon: SHEILD is proto-blue-sun.