seen from China
seen from United States
seen from Brazil
seen from Jamaica
seen from United States
seen from Czechia
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from Argentina
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Australia
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
Hi, Jeff! It's Gracie the Flerken here! My Person left almost a full pizza in the Big Cold Box, but I need some help getting it out. She's going to be gone to work all day, and if you come over, and help me open the Big Cold Box, we can have pizza and watch TV all day!
--Gracie the Flerken
Mrrrr!!!
[Jeff says he's got it open! grab the pizza and he's ready to eat!]
I've told you before, dearie, and I'll say it again: you may not have intended Bambigate, but it's a brilliant piece of symbolism in a heart-wrenching work of art. In a few lines you encapsulate Belle and Gold's beautiful but fragile and threatened relationship and SHOW (not tell) what's going on at that desperate state of the story. You're a wonderful writer. Live with it.
Okay, how about #3 instead?
fuck, take a bullet for, murder
Fuck: Gold. The man is a panty dropper.
Take a bullet for: Weaver. Hasn’t he taken enough bullets?
Murder: Sparkly Rumple. Sorry bb. You’ll be fine.
Send me 3 names + a number
anneelliotscat replied to your post: emospritelet replied to your post: ...
Which one is this? You can set it as early as 1790, which wouldn’t have Empire waists yet, and I don’t know about bonnet etiquette before that, but hats were very much worn …
Which one is what? The movie? It’s the 2005 one. P&P is straight up Regency Romance and first and foremost the novel is a “novel of manners” which is designed expressly to examine the moors and customs of a particular cultural group in that particular time period, which is fixed on a period from 1812 to about 1815. The specific social customs and requirements that are described in the book, and which occur between characters, are the backbone of the entire story and are the reason for every single thing that happens. The movie throws all of that out the window and turns it into a romance for romance sake with none of the class divisions, catty and hilarious social commentary, and all of the things that make a Jane Austen book. The only thing that saves the entire movie is that Keira and Michael have incredible chemistry and make you believe in a relationship built on about 20 minutes of being on screen together.
The mini series from 1995 in contrast, is extremely faithful to the book, and portrays the fashion and class structure with near perfect accuracy. The dialogue is also much more Austen’s style and while old fashioned is still very understandable in context. It’s also infinitely more hilarious, a true period romcom, and that’s a thread that’s completely lost in the movie version because everything is dark and heavy and DRAMATIC.
I will now get off my soap box and watch the 1995 mini series on Hulu again because it’s my life now.
anneelliotscat
Oh, fuck a buck. Having watched The Greatest...
And you’ve got janitor/maintenance man Leroy and adorkable salesgirl Astrid … but why would they hire Killian Jones to be the new Santa? Why fire lovable Marco after so many years? And Mrs. Lucas in the store restaurant … what does she know? Her granddaughter Ruby works in Makeup… what did she see?
YOU’RE SUPPOSED TO BE TALKING ME OUT OF IT, NOT MAKING ME WANT TO WRITE IT EVEN MORE!
Also Marco would be THE BEST department store santa.
anneelliotscat replied to your link “Emilie de Ravin on Twitter”
See her Belle ornament!
OMG she does have one!
anneelliotscat replied to your post “the garden of forking paths” impressions”
Yup. The writing was back on track. I'm just watching S7 for the first time after giving up in disgust in S6. And I'm loving it.
Awesome! I hope you keep having fun. I'm a little hesitant to rate the writing for the season, because most of them had a pretty strong start only to sag in the middle, but it really seems like they worked out some of the major kinks in their storytelling and are now concentrating on the stuff they’re good at.
{Quick request to anyone reading: I’m watching OUaT for the first time, and I want to avoid spoilers. So, if you want to discuss something spoilery, I’d be grateful if you could start a new post for that. Thank you!}
anneelliotscat replied to your post “Ok, we need to talk about Jack/Hansel/Nick, whatever his name is...”
But this is *not* the same guy as "Nicholas," from the first season, right? So where's Ava? Different guy, same name?
I believe it’s a different guy with the same name, yeah. Maybe they purposefully used the same name, but they could easily have forgotten they used Nick/Nicholas for a cursed Hansel before.
