#kime11e

[ingravinoveritas]

kime11e replied to your post “Oh my god. MICHAEL. What. Why...”

Tbh I really miss when Michael Sheen became chaotic on Twitter. Alas no longer.

@kime11e I miss it, too. I really don't think enough people know or were around to see what Michael was like on Twitter over the past five years, and how unique his interactions with fans were. And "chaotic" is the perfect word for it (especially given that it fits with my #bless his bisexual welsh chaos tag), because Michael's tweets were chaotic, but in the best way possible.

These are just a few of the most infamous 2019 tweets of his:

The last one doesn't even have any text, but it was constantly things like this. Michael changing his username to "David Tennant" on April Fool's Day and posting a tweet that was just the eggplant emoji. Michael defending fanfic. Michael talking about liking being chained up. Michael doing ASMR videos, reciting poems, and almost obsessively retweeting and replying to GO/Ineffable Husbands fanart. Michael actively engaging with the fandom because he was a part of the fandom, and got as much out of GO as the rest of us did (if not more).

That's what I think makes me most sad of all. That Michael has been more or less pushed out of the fandom and people have somehow forgotten the way he used to speak for himself, on his terms. I know he's been nonstop busy with work for the last six or seven months as well, so maybe now he will come back to Twitter a little more, if he chooses to do so. I guess we'll have to see what happens...

[problematicwelshman]

@problematicwelshman

This post had me roaring with laughter.

---------

If he starts with this late night bullshit of lurking/"feral" posting again, I don’t wanna see it on here. I’m tired of it, I don’t need to see that shit ever again.

[ingravinoveritas]

(Note that @angelsadvocate96 also included a screenshot of AL's post, which I am omitting here since we have two already.)

I did see this Insta story yesterday, and again...wow. Before I go any further, I want to be clear that my issue with this has nothing to do with it being "inappropriate" (depending on your definition, of course). I am by no means a prude, and it is not and should not be shocking that Michael and AL have had sex. We know this, and we have proof of this, so that is not a big thing. I do, however, think it is interesting that just a few days ago, we had Michael being David's "boyfriend" and now here's AL seemingly marking her territory again. So that makes me wonder what has suddenly changed.

Also, as angelsadvocate96 mentioned, this does indeed seem to be a Georgia-style brag...but it falls flat. It doesn't help that "sleep next to" is just a really weird turn of phrase, and could as easily mean AL and Michael's beds are next to each other (a la every 1950s TV sitcom) as it does that they're sleeping in the same bed. It also stops short of being overtly sexual (because she didn't say "sleep with"), and so ends up in that weird place of trying to be scandalous, yet also not. But when you have Georgia out here five years ago talking about how much she and David enjoy anal sex and possibly her pegging him, Anna's "innuendos" just seem completely tepid in comparison.

The other thing that stood out to me is the mention of Ian McKellen, the #lifegoals hashtag, and Anna seemingly bragging about the fact that one of the most important parts of her relationship with Michael is meeting celebrities. We knew this already from the Dolittle premiere and the now-infamous picture of her meeting Rami Malek, as well as the fact that she follows many of Michael's co-stars and other famous figures connected to him on social media, and has had a history of replying primarily to comments from those people, to the exclusion of most everyone else. But I'm genuinely confused as to why you would ever want to give that impression of your relationship, especially on a post that's supposed to be promoting a TV appearance of his.

Her post also made me wonder how aware Anna really is of Sir Ian or his work, as I wasn't sure I could see her being a big fan of his...until I realized she shared this post from her and Michael's PR person (@dobbscld). The OP mentioned Sir Ian specifically, and knowing that, it suddenly all made sense. But it also struck me that, rather than make a post or story of her own to promote Michael, AL shared a post from PR...and once again made a post about Michael into a post about herself. Just as we've seen before.

Honestly, I don't think I would even mind this post or similar posts AL has made that much if it felt like Michael was even remotely a part of it. But it's the very fact that he never talks about her or their relationship (and not in a "he's a private person" kind of way) that makes it so awkward. And here he was going on Graham Norton to promote his directorial debut--a project that is hugely important to him--and Anna just brings it down to the most base level, making it seem like she does not take Michael or his work seriously. And I can't think of anything more embarrassing than that.

So yes, that was my reaction to AL's Insta story yesterday. Again, this is just my perspective, and I'm glad to hear from folks in the comments on this post with their thoughts. Thanks for writing in! x

[ingravinoveritas]

So anna posted this picture just after the trailer the assembly got released abit it fairly obvious after the trailer showed the 1st question so is she trying to show ppl that michael happy in this photo like he smile like he happy or been made to look happy for the family photo

What ur thoughts on Al post

Ask from @kime11e, who also included a screenshot of the above comments:

(Grouping all of these together for ease of answering.)

So...whew. Of course this all had to happen on Wednesday as I was at one speaking engagement and traveling on the way to another one today. Let me just make sure I have the order of events down... - The trailer for The Assembly came out earlier in the day; - Anna then shared the above photos from the trip to Disneyland Paris; - An hour or so after that, she shared the trailer as an Insta story; - ...And then a few hours later we see that she's replied to the comment in the screenshot above.

Wow. It feels like an entire week (or month's) worth of content somehow happened in the space of a day. I will say that for me, again what this all comes down to is timing and/or PR. The trailer was released and soon all of social media was abuzz over that one particular question (It was rude! It was totally fine! Let's use this as another excuse to attack Michael! and so on...). Bear in mind that we (as of now) have no idea what Michael's answer is to that question, but that did not stop the almighty furor from the fans assuming that he must have been offended/uncomfortable/upset and so on, and this set off a wave of fresh speculation and discussion about Michael and AL's relationship.

...And just when all of this chatter is happening, AL posts the family photos. The reasons for this could be numerous, from damage control (again, without us knowing how he even responded to the question) to trying to (again) push the "happy family" image, to who knows what. Whatever the case may be, I really don't feel like the timing was a coincidence. Also again, I am baffled by her choice of caption: "We dragged him" immediately followed by the tag #itwashisidea. Two things that seem to contradict each other, leaving it unclear what the truth actually is. Was it actually Anna's idea, insisting on them going away on Michael's three days off, and using that tag as a deflection?

It becomes even more interesting when you realize that David and Georgia are currently in Disneyland as well (albeit in California, rather than Paris). Not long after AL posted the pictures, the discourse on social media immediately shifted to "Omg, are Michael and David and their families are on vacation together?" And just like that, the focus yet again shifted away from AL and back to Michael and David (as it always seems to do).

One other thing that is interesting about the caption is that one of my followers sent me the below screenshot via DM, which is of a tweet Michael wrote in 2020 for Lyra's birthday, and the similarities are quite striking:

The cadence of AL's caption and Michael's tweet could be a complete coincidence, but it's hard not to think that there is some PR aspect to this/that someone went to the trouble of echoing a previous tweet about the kids to reinforce a particular narrative.

In any case, I do think it is lovely to see Michael smiling, which he always does when the kids are there (in contrast, notably, to when we are talking about a picture of just him and AL). But what really struck me about all of this is the comment shown above, and Anna's response to it. The commenter added another response that is not shown, so I will include a screenshot of it now:

What's so interesting is that the commenter asked exactly the same question that Michael was asked in The Assembly trailer...and AL set a very specific tone in her response to that (and to this commenter).

I've been surprised to see people characterize her response as "chill," when there is really nothing chill about this at all. It's her typical passive-aggressive style, which we're all used to at this point, but it also reeks of insecurity. I have a hard time seeing how this makes her a "queen," as someone who is "unbothered" would not respond in the way that she did. Regardless of whether the commenter was asking sincerely or meant it as a dig, someone who genuinely felt confident and secure in their relationship wouldn't even respond to this comment at all. I'm also not sure what people expected her to say. Do we think she would be fully honest about her feelings or admit to any cracks in their relationship? Most people (famous and otherwise) would not, and certainly not on social media, either.

My feeling is that Anna was very bothered by this, and (again) tried to copy Georgia's snarky/quippy way of responding to comments, and likely did not at all expect that person to throw it right back at her. So why, then, bother responding at all? Why not just block the person, or ignore the comment entirely? Because from my perspective, it seems like all AL did was draw attention to it, and to the fact that it struck a nerve in her, which just does not seem to be a good look from any angle. And all of this coupled with the timing of the post directly after the release of the trailer really makes me wonder what, exactly, Michael said in his interview. We'll find out soon enough, though, since the show airs tomorrow.

That is my take on AL's post and all of the events of the past few days. As always, this is only my perspective, but I am glad to hear from my followers with your thoughts, whether you agree or disagree. Thanks for writing in! x

[ingravinoveritas]

Amazing that Staged received Best Returning Comedy. But Anna and Georgia didn’t even acknowledge Best Comedy Partnership!

It’s like they only care about acknowledging the award for their contribution, not the award for their partner’s contribution?

In all of this I know Im reading too much into it. It seems like they’re adamant about removing the narrative about the men in their lives who earn the dosh because you know, they’re white (occasionally) cis men.

But does it not come across as toxic feminism when you deliberately try to ignore men’s achievements? When in fact they deserve the applause and awards?

Hi there! Well, in complete fairness, Georgia did share the video of her and David accepting the Best Comedy Partnership Award (and AL subsequently re-shared it from Georgia as an Insta story):

And I think Georgia was being a good sport with the Michael Sheen cardboard cutout (as it was an obvious callback to them doing this very same thing when Michael and David won this award in 2021).

What I'm really fascinated by, though, is everything that has followed this, including this bizarre back-and-forth between Georgia and Anna in their Insta stories:

I'm not even fully sure what is happening here, but it seems like another attempt on Anna and Georgia's part at being "flirty"/suggestive like Michael and David, but not managing to come even remotely close to them. "Needy" also seems to be Georgia's new favorite phrase, as she previously called Ty that on one of her posts, and while a case could be made for it to be some sort of mother/son banter there, I'm having a difficult time not seeing it as a read here.

And then for Anna to double-down and re-share that and actually call herself "greedy"? I guess she's trying to cover all of the seven deadly sins, since we've already had vanity (pride), so now it's time for greed. The problem is, all of the above with Georgia comes across as so forced and fake, and nothing like the genuine, natural warmth and affection and attraction that exists between Michael and David.

All of this then culminated in Georgia sharing one of AL's photo shoot pictures to another Insta story, with the hashtag #mywife:

Obviously, this immediately calls to mind the multiple instances of Georgia calling David Michael's "other wife" for the last three years (and David now saying it himself as well). But where it seems like that nickname came about as a result of people seeing that powerful connection between Michael and David and Georgia not being able to ignore it and therefore choosing to acknowledge it in her own way, I get the sense that that is not the case for this hashtag.

It also does not escape my or other people's notice that all this happened today right when the I Talk Telly awards were announced, nor that it just feels so completely planned. It feel self-congratulatory, as if this was meant for Georgia and AL to congratulate themselves primarily (again echoes of "They're everything...and they're just Ken"). And while I'm not sure I would categorize it as "toxic feminism," it strikes me as strange that there is this repeated need to seemingly put Michael and David down in order for AL and Georgia to lift themselves up.

Again, could I be completely wrong here? Absolutely. But it just seems like there is too much strangeness here to overlook...

[ingravinoveritas]

Go Wilfred! Love their shirt!

Hi there! Well, I did see this post of Georgia's yesterday, and there is a lot happening in this picture/post, of which Wilf's shirt is just one small part, and I definitely have a lot of opinions. Full disclosure, however, before I delve deeper: I am an only child, and my parents have been married for over 50 years, so I am by no means an expert on sibling relationships or blended families. What follows are only thoughts based on my own observations.

For those who didn't see Georgia's post (and I was a bit delayed in seeing it myself, due to the holiday here this week), she posted the photo below of her and David in the DW era, one of her as Jenny, and the family photo above, in that order. This was then followed by the below Insta story of a picture of Ty inside a Dalek:

What really struck me about this post is that Georgia posted that family photo and wrote the caption about Doctor Who giving her a family...and yet Ty is not in the picture. She very, very easily could have chosen a picture that Ty was in, but seemingly purposely chose not to, and the optics of that alone are questionable. It is my understanding that, in many blended families, the stepchild (in this case, Ty) is sometimes treated differently than the "biological" children, for any number of reasons. Yet David has never once treated Ty as anything other than his own, never once referred to him as his "stepson"--only as his son. So the impression that this post gives is that Georgia thinks of her family as the one she had with David, and Ty somehow "doesn't count" because he was from a previous relationship ("new" family vs. "old").

As I mentioned before, I am not at all an expert on blended families, but I feel as though my impression of this post was further bolstered by what we see in your screenshot @kime11e--Ty commenting asking where he is, and Georgia calling him "needy," followed by her posting that photo in an Insta story as almost an afterthought. I'm just very confused by what kind of mother calls her own child "needy" for wanting to know why he's not in a family photo, because it seems rather cold and heartless on her part. Could this be some sort of inside joke/banter between Georgia and Ty that I am entirely missing? Absolutely. But as we know, in jokes are only funny if we're in on the joke, and the fact is, we have seen Georgia make similar comments about her other children (calling Birdie a drunken accident, lest we forget) so that, to me, suggests this isn't a one-off occurrence.

Which then brings me to Wilf and their shirt in this picture. It is definitely a great shirt, to be sure. And I truly do love that Wilf seems to be so supported and accepted by their parents for exactly who they are. What I keep thinking about, though, is that Wilf is 10 years old, and is starting to or about to start going through puberty and that journey of finding out who they are. I remember how difficult and painful and scary that journey was, navigating the turmoil that was happening inside my body and my mind. The difference, however, is that I went through all of this in private, but Georgia is putting Wilf's journey out on Instagram for the world to see.

What also seems strange is that none of the other kids are wearing shirts that advertise their sexual orientations. Again, this is not about shame, or saying that Wilf should have to hide who they are--and I cannot overstate how beautiful it is that they have such a loving family and a safe place to be themselves, especially at such a young age. It's about the fact that David has been/is being targeted by lunatic homophobic and transphobic bigots in the UK calling him a "groomer" and all sorts of foul and disgusting insults, and I just worry that singling Wilf out in this particular way could have unintended negative consequences. I know folks will say that that seems ridiculous or paranoid and that Wilf of course has people who are looking out for them...but their own parent is the one who posted this on Instagram. And once something is on the Internet--pictures or any personal information--it's out there forever.

So, yes. Those are my (not at all intended to be controversial) thoughts on this new post from Georgia. I know I could be completely off and misinterpreting all this, so I welcome comments from my followers with their thoughts and impressions about all of the above...

[ingravinoveritas]

What does Michael Sheen even mean about this answer? Any thoughts?

Hi there!

Well, I did notice that question/answer, which is from the interview we’ve all been freaking out about (thanks to Michael’s “an angel that looks very much in love with a demon” comment). I think what Michael was trying to say here is that he finds his co-star in Last Train to Christmas (Nathalie Emmanuel) attractive, and that if she’d been a teenager when he was a teenager in Port Talbot in the 1980s, he would have possibly wanted to date her.

The interesting thing is, a lot of Michael’s answers in the What To Watch interview are the same as the ones he gave for another recent interview with TV Times. This means that probably some of the answers are pre-written/stock responses. But there are a few different questions in interview #2 (WTW) where we get unexpected answers, and this is one of them. And it’s kind of a weird comment to make for a variety of reasons, particularly because Michael is talking about the attractiveness of his main co-star...but doesn’t bother to mention that his actual girlfriend is also in the movie. He gives the same stock answer about what his plans are for Christmas, but in interview #1 (TT), the article adds in brackets that she’s in the movie, rather than it being a quote from him.

I mean...did he forget that AL is in the Christmas movie? Is her part so insignificant as to not warrant any notice? Once again, I am confused. Both of these interviews were opportunities to mention her and play up her role in the film, but instead Michael is talking about how attractive one co-star is and how he looks “very much in love” with another co-star (don’t @ me, he’s talking about David, not just their characters, and I said what I said). The other thing I noticed is that in both interviews, Michael is asked what he would do if he had a time machine, whether he would go back and change anything. In both cases, he says no, he wouldn’t...yet his answer to this question in the screencap seems to suggest otherwise. That though he might not change anything, he’s definitely thinking about what his life would be like if he made different choices, or--and I don’t think this is too far a stretch--if he was with someone else. So...yes. That’s my interpretation of Michael’s slightly odd answer...though again, he always give himself away more by what he doesn’t say than what he does. It will certainly be interesting to see how he talks about the Christmas movie in his upcoming TV interviews, that’s for sure...