my most immediate takeaway from The Odyssey is that I love Himesh Patel

Origami Around

ellievsbear
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
Not today Justin
Monterey Bay Aquarium
TVSTRANGERTHINGS

shark vs the universe
RMH
cherry valley forever
taylor price

bliss lane

Product Placement
Claire Keane

oozey mess
The Bowery Presents

Kiana Khansmith

blake kathryn
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ

pixel skylines
𓃗
seen from United States
seen from Singapore
seen from Mexico
seen from Malaysia

seen from Malaysia

seen from T1

seen from Singapore

seen from Malaysia

seen from Singapore

seen from Türkiye
seen from Thailand
seen from Bolivia
seen from United States
seen from Singapore
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Georgia
@22drunkb
my most immediate takeaway from The Odyssey is that I love Himesh Patel
What’s your girl blorbo most likely on the way to?
Heaven
Hell
Valhalla
Reincarnation
Ghost
She’s always been dead
She’s immortal
Other
😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
for anyone interested in watching one of THE worst depictions of the story of alexander the great starring william shatner and john cassavetes (alongside adam west and joseph cotten what is this casting fr) this great news it's on youtube
Good Luck, Have Fun, Don't Die
Good Luck, Have Fun, Don't Die (2025) dir. Gore Verbinski
watching sinners with an inflation calculator open in a second tab so i can understand just what kinda money the smokestack twins are throwing around. nerdiest possible movie experience i think.
Okay coming out of lurking for this because among the many great features of Sinners is you don't actually have to go outside of the movie to understand what kind of money they're throwing around. The movie tells you itself.
In the scene where Smoke teaches the young girl how to negotiate, they're standing in front of of a cafe. The shot of them negotiating is framed so that you see a sign in the cafe window advertising a Ham and Eggs breakfast - in other words, a full meal - for 25 cents. The editing makes sure to put that sign back into frame whenever the question of the value of money arises in their discussion.
Smoke offers her 10 cents a minute and asks if that works for her. She says yes. He says no, it does not and tells her to negotiate higher. The 25 cent sign is framed in the shot when he tells her no, reminding us *why* it's not a good value.
She comes back with 50 cents - which the sign has informed us is the cost of *two* meals. Smoke tells her that's too much and counters with 20, which is just under a full meal but we now know that's a fairly respectable price because we just got the high/low contrast of 10 being too little and 50 being too much.
The negotiation ends with her getting 20 cents per minute and we now know 1) 25 cents is the cost of a filling meal in this environment 2) This girl only needs to do five minutes of work to be able to feed herself for a over day (20 cents per minute times five is a dollar, which is four meals) 3) Smoke has the kind of money to throw around that over a day's worth of food for someone can be to him - as it is to our modern eyes - mere pocket change and 4) Smoke's the kind of person who can both be a violent gangster but also care about teaching this girl how to look out for herself so that one day maybe she too can throw over a day's worth of food around like pocket change.
Combined with 5) you can now use that 25 cents = a meal to do the math every other time money gets mentioned in the movie to understand just how much cash the Smoke Stack boys are dealing with.
And that's just ONE detail which, thanks to props (Hannah Beachler), editing (Michael P Shawver), and cinematography (Autumn Durald Arkapaw), told you almost everything you needed to know about how finances work in this environment. This movie is unfair to all other films in how fucking good it is.
Louise Glaum in The Wolf Woman | 1916 | dir. Raymond B. West | Fragments from a lost film
please help me- i used to be pretty smart but i’m having so much trouble grasping the concept of diegetic vs non-diegetic bdsm!
gfkjldghfd okay first of all I'm sorry for the confusion, if you're not finding anything on the phrase it's because I made it up and absolutely nobody but me ever uses it, but I haven't found a better way to express what I'm trying to say so I keep using it. but now you've given me an excuse to ramble on about some shit that is only relevant to me and my deeply inefficient way of talking and by god I'm going to take it.
SO. the way diegetic and non-diegetic are normally used is to talk about music and sound design in movies/tv shows. in case you aren't familiar with that concept, here's a rundown:
diegetic sound is sound that happens within the world of the movie/show and can be acknowledged by the characters, like a song playing on the stereo during a driving scene, or sung on stage in Phantom of the Opera. it's also most other sounds that happen in a movie, like the sounds of traffic in a city scene, or a thunderclap, or a marching band passing by. or one of the three stock horse sounds they use in every movie with a horse in it even though horses don't really vocalize much in real life, but that's beside the point, the horse is supposed to be actually making that noise within the movie's world and the characters can hear it whinnying.
non-diegetic sound is any sound that doesn't exist in the world of the movie/show and can't be perceived by the characters. this includes things like laugh tracks and most soundtrack music. when Duel of Fates plays in Star Wars during the lightsaber fight for dramatic effect, that's non-diegetic. it exists to the audience, but the characters don't know their fight is being backed by sick ass music and, sadly, can't hear it.
the lines can get blurry between the two, you've probably seen the film trope where the clearly non-diegetic music in the title sequence fades out to the same music, now diegetic and playing from the character's car stereo. and then there are things like Phantom of the Opera as mentioned above, where the soundtrack is also part of the plot, but Phantom of the Opera does also have segments of non-diegetic music: the Phantom probably does not have an entire orchestra and some guy with an electric guitar hiding down in his sewer just waiting for someone to break into song, but both of those show up in the songs they sing down there.
now, on to how I apply this to bdsm in fiction.
if I'm referring to diegetic bdsm what I mean is that the bdsm is acknowledged for what it is in-world. the characters themselves are roleplaying whatever scenarios their scenes involve and are operating with knowledge of real life rules/safety practices. if there's cnc depicted, it will be apparent at some point, usually right away, that both characters actually are fully consenting and it's all just a planned scene, and you'll often see on-screen negotiation and aftercare, and elements of the story may involve the kink community wherever the characters are. Love and Leashes is a great example of this, 50 Shades and Bonding are terrible examples of this, but they all feature characters that know they're doing bdsm and are intentional about it.
if I'm talking about non-diegetic bdsm, I'm referring to a story that portrays certain kinks without the direct acknowledgement that the characters are doing bdsm. this would be something like Captive Prince, or Phantom of the Opera again, or the vast majority of bodice ripper type stories where an innocent woman is kidnapped by a pirate king or something and totally doesn't want to be ravished but then it turns out he's so cool and sexy and good at ravishing that she decides she's into it and becomes his pirate consort or whatever it is that happens at the end of those books. the characters don't know they're playing out a cnc or D/s fantasy, and in-universe it's often straight up noncon or dubcon rather than cnc at all. the thing about entirely non-diegetic bdsm is that it's almost always Problematic™ in some way if you're not willing to meet the story where it's at, but as long as you're not judging it by the standards of diegetic bdsm, it's just providing the reader the same thing that a partner in a scene would: the illusion of whatever risk or taboo floats your boat, sometimes to extremes that can't be replicated in real life due to safety, practicality, physics, the law, vampires not being real, etc. it's consensual by default because it's already pretend; the characters are vehicles for the story and not actually people who can be hurt, and the reader chose to pick up the book and is aware that nothing in it is real, so it's all good.
this difference is where people tend to get hung up in the discourse, from what I've observed. which is why I started using this phrasing, because I think it's very crucial to be able to differentiate which one you're talking about if you try to have a conversation with someone about the portrayal of bdsm in media. it would also, frankly, be useful for tagging, because sometimes when you're in the mood for non-diegetic bodice ripper shit you'd call the police over in real life, it can get really annoying to read paragraphs of negotiation and check-ins that break the illusion of the scene and so on, and the opposite can be jarring too.
it's very possible to blur these together the same way Phantom of the Opera blurs its diegetic and non-diegetic music as well. this leaves you even more open to being misunderstood by people reading in bad faith, but it can also be really fun to play with. @not-poignant writes fantastic fanfic, novels, and original serials on ao3 that pull this off really well, if you're okay with some dark shit in your fiction I would highly recommend their work. some of it does get really fucking dark in places though, just like. be advised. read the tags and all that.
but yeah, spontaneous writer plug aside, that's what I mean.
What makes you think it’s okay to watch Hannibal given its subject matter?
sometimes i watch television shows for entertainment purposes.
I want the record to state I have never been this hard in my entire life
Black Sails really is like
Flint: [brutally raw and yet also poetic monologue about the nature of colonial “civilization”]
[HARD CUT]
[CAPTAIN VANE is wearing a HENLEY from old navy INSIDE OUT]
Sam Reid and Jennifer Ehle in The Vampire Lestat "Toronto"
Nosferatu (2024) painting by me. Acrylic and coloured pencils on paper.
They Will Kill You dir. Kirill Sokolov | 2026
Black Sails & text posts 14/?
and the winner of superwholock is officially??? no one. we all lost. congrats team