I would take a job pushing the Sisyphus rock if it paid 20 an hour and I could wear my headphones
$LAYYYTER
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
𓃗
EXPECTATIONS
Not today Justin
No title available
almost home

No title available
🩵 avery cochrane 🩵
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
Phantogram Three
The Stonewall Inn

@theartofmadeline

shark vs the universe
Sade Olutola
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
taylor price

pixel skylines

gracie abrams

seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from Ukraine
seen from Bolivia
seen from Türkiye

seen from Türkiye

seen from United Kingdom

seen from Germany
seen from Canada
seen from United Kingdom

seen from Argentina
seen from United States

seen from Vietnam

seen from Indonesia

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from Indonesia

seen from Brazil

seen from Malaysia
@never-ever-have-i-died
I would take a job pushing the Sisyphus rock if it paid 20 an hour and I could wear my headphones
this lash was hilarious and i'll miss him dearly
Yahhh I have to build Rome. Yup it’s due tomorrow.. noo I haven’t started yet haha is that bad?
annoying when shows set in the medieval period have the women with thier hair just long and unstyled and out . girl go put on your wimple girl 🤦♀️
like there are so many fun medieval hair and headgear options, it's so boring just seeing loose beachy waves meant to appeal to 21st century beauty standards
put that hot prince in a gay little hood with an ostrich feather or so help me god
RPG where it's very easy to overcome all of the bosses nonviolently through correct dialogue choices, but actually doing so locks you into the bad ending; in order to get the good ending, you need to do a bunch of obtuse side quests in order to goad them into fighting you.
#honestly this sounds fun #gimme the options #i wanna know what my choices are #how ambivalent can i be? #but also it's so much funnier that this concept makes violence the correct answer (via @cuzosu-blog)
Yeah, you could definitely play a scenario where violence is the morally correct answer for laughs, but you don't have to.
If you wanted to play it straight, one might imagine a game about fighting a fascist state where all of the bosses are The One Good Nazi types with very sympathetic, human reasons for collaborating with the regime – there's the Sad Dad who's only committing mass murder because they're holding his kid hostage, the idealist who genuinely believes they can reform the system from the inside, the moral coward who rationalises their atrocities as harm reduction because if they quit, whoever replaced them would be even worse, etc. – and all of the talky nonviolent options for dealing with them involve compromising the player character's principles.
The final boss is naturally a totally unsympathetic Hitler 2.0 type, but before you can fight him he hits you with the old Mustapha Mond monologue, and if you've let even one of his buddies off the hook, he turns the tables on the conversation-fu trope and persuades the player character to stand down.
The achievement for getting the good ending is, of course, titled "The Only Good Nazi Is A Dead Nazi".
I work with kids and sometimes we have to do safety lessons with them about like, not telling strangers on the internet your home address or something. And sometimes the kids wont understand why, so you have to impart upon them that, well, some adults want to hurt children. And thats kind of difficult to do, because you have to beat around the bush, both because you dont want to scare them (while still making them understand how serious it is) and because you might lose your job if you explain it too straight forward.
Luckily, for some reason, the villain of one of the most popular franchises with children for the last 10 years happens to be a serial child murderer. So when a kid asks why they shouldnt trust strangers, instead of hand wringing and humhawing my answer out, I can just say "we dont always know when a strange adult has good intentions with children, or when they are William Afton."
unironically this is the major reason why little red riding hood (and similar fairy tales) were written 'sometimes strange adults are heroic like the huntsman. other times they are the wolf. its not easy to tell the difference with humans. if you cut the monsters out of children's stories you cant protect them from the monsters in real life. if you cut the heroes out of children's stories then they wont know that they can defeat monsters in real life. if they become scared? good. better frightened and prepared than bold and naive. u just need to help them channel that fear constructively so they dont walk into the wolf's mouth
Imagine seeing an interesting beetle keep confidently walking up to random other bugs trying to fight them, losing, and then trying again. That's weird enough to be interesting. You got nothing better to do so you watch it go. It gets flipped over so you take a little straw and help it upwards again, so it gets up and skitters to go fight yet another strange bug and lose. But it lives and keeps going. You keep watching this crazy little creature. There's a puddle in the way it's going, so you put a stick over the puddle so it won't drown because you want to see what dumb thing it will try next. It falls off the stick so you get another straw to gently nudge it out of the water. Determined, the beetle gets back on its five or six little feet and keeps going.
I think that's what it's like from the other side, whenever there's a legendary hero who is favoured by a god. You are a cool, shiny bug, determined to do strange and inadvisable weird shit, and they want to know what the hell you're planning to do next.
Come, you simply must meet my associates! This woman right here is a delightful pervert of sorts, and this fellow here, he’s some kind of a fucking idiot.
Do you know what really gets my goat? So many problems with the Odyssey movie could’ve been solved if Christopher Nolan had the awareness or background knowledge to realize that both the Iliad and Aeneid are infinitely better suited to the story he wanted to tell and morals he wanted to focus on.
I get the desire for a story about war and what comes from it, to look at PTSD and trauma and how senseless such conflicts ultimately are. But in a very profound way, so did Homer. It's just that he explored those themes in the Iliad, not the Odyssey. That's why it focuses on both sides of the war, why Hector and Achilles are so often contrasted in their desires and actions — because it begs the question of what a hero, a general, a warrior, really is.
You want a story about the kind of atrocities men at war can commit? You want to cast Agamemnon as the villain? You want a protagonist who's big and strong and does awful things he must learn to regret? That's Achilles' story! Not Odysseus'!
Odysseus is wily. He's a trickster. He's a liar and schemer and talker and thinker. He's also a phenomenal fighter, sure, but that's nobody's first impression of him! His primary epithet is polutropos: literally a man of many turns, many tricks, many tongues.
And that's nowhere to be found in Nolan's Odyssey, which means...it's really not a story about Odysseus. He's not winning the day with wits and tricks and disguises — he's certainly not Athena's chosen champion. Nolan wrote a story about a completely different man than the titular protagonist of the original myth. That doesn't change just because he borrows a small handful events from the Apologoi and a few more from the Telemachy and Mnesterophonia with a completely protagonist and focus and moral.
But we all know Nolan loves his tortured, tragic, angsty powerful male heroes. And one of Homer's epics did contain that — it just wasn't the Odyssey! The Iliad would've worked so much better, because Achilles at his core is the kind of character Nolan likes to write. He's angry and scared of his own mortality and constantly worried about his own legacy and driven to do terrible things at war due to grief and love!
Nolan presents Odysseus' trick with the Trojan Horse as though it was some kind of Ancient War Crime, but the Greeks would not have given a shit and certainly wouldn't have considered it a violation of xenia (which the film incorrectly called "Zeus' Law" — more on that here).
But you know which Homeric protagonist did do something that the Greeks considered horrifying and a violation of honorable combat? Achilles! When he desecrated Hector's corpse because the guy had killed his lover and best friend.
There’s discourse (not just among modern academics, Plato’s Hippias Minor is too) about whether wits and tricks should be held as more respectable or valued than pure martial strength in Homer’s eyes — whether Odysseus or Achilles is the greater Homeric hero. Nolan's Odyssey claims to be about Odysseus, but its values clearly state that Achilles is the better hero and protagonist. This movie gave almost zero credit to tricks and wits and disguises and lies, instead focusing on his sense of duty towards his men, his martial strength, and his leadership.
The latter is notably distinctly missing from Odysseus' canonical journey; his relationships with his comrades (summachoi) are almost completely absent, because the Odyssey is instead a story about marriage, about partnerships between men and women. (Circe, Calypso, and Nausicaa are all notably love interests for Odysseus whom he rejects in favor of Penelope; the former two are too dominant and powerful, the latter too young and impressionable. The woman he loves is his equal partner — by Greek standards — Penelope.) But Nolan's misogyny means he was never going to correctly rate the significance of the female characters in the Odyssey correctly, which further hampers the film. He'd likely have done better with the Iliad, where Chryseis and Briseis simply have to cry beautifully and he can paint Helen as a bitch or whore and Andromache as the tragic wife, like he prefers.
And if Nolan really wanted to get into the horrors of war, the things men can do when convinced of their righteousness and their strength is unchallenged...Neoptolemus in the Aeneid would be a fantastic lens to view that through. The Iliad is the war itself, and I think Nolan would prefer the battles to their aftermath, but you can look at the trauma and abuse that occur at war through both the spear-wives of the Iliad and the entirety of the Aeneid.
You're allowed to think the film was fun, but it was not the Odyssey. Nolan wanted to tell any other Greek hero's story. Achilles, Neoptolemus, Agamemnon, but even Heracles, Theseus, or Jason would've worked infinitely better.
Yknow when you see a post and you're like "oh I have to reblog this for The Mutual" and then you scroll up and you see that the one who reblogged it is The Mutual
count dracula? uhhh ok. one
(bravely) i don't think odysseus' characterization in epic the musical looks better compared to christopher nolan's
AAA video game publisher voice: "Look. The goose layed a golden egg, and that's nice! Everyone loved that egg. But keeping the golden goose means paying for bird feed and I don't want to, so I killed the goose."
#‘that goose keeps laying golden eggs. that’s stagnation. I’m going to kill it and go look for a goose that lays diamond eggs’#‘that goose normally lays golden eggs but this time it laid a silver egg. I’m going to kill it because even though I can still make good#money with that it’s not as good as a golden egg’#‘that golden egg laying goose only lays an egg once a day instead of constantly shitting them out. I don’t care that golden eggs take time#if they’re not constant the goose is worthless to me’
@thebaldursmouthgazette y u leave all the good stuff in the tags