The only main issue with transfem supremacy as that it complicates a lot of other kinks like ‘yeah all cuntboys are to bow down and be submissive to me’ but also forcemasc and transmasc supremacy is so hot and like you guys are all actually on equal terms if not above me of course I’ll suck your gorgeous t dick; but cuntgirls are 100% like fully inferior except for like the ones who actually are just doms that’s different and doesn’t count and also yeah actualy those transfems are inferior to them and you can use her like a dildo that’s hot but other than that; oh of course no your actual genetalia doesn’t matter it’s more just whatever you find hot, you can still be submissive or dominant with Neo pussy BUT OTHER THAN THA-
The main take away here is I’m too woke in my real ideology for my kink ideology world building to be consistent.
Unless we’re talking about cis men,sorry you are just inferior; this is still fantasy, if I wanted a world where cis men dominated everyone else I’d go outside.
We can tell "what" the colors are because this is a digital image, and we are therefore capable of reading the RGB values for each pixel (Red Green Blue, the three colors used to make up every color in photos, videos, and broadcast).
For our purposes, each Red Green Blue color value for each pixel ranges between 0 to 255 - 0 being absolutely no Red, Green or Blue, and 255 the full amount of Red, Green or Blue. Different levels of Colors will combine to make a new color. For example, equal Red and Green with no blue will give us Yellow. if were only at 100 for red and green, that will be "darker," mellower yellow, well 255 for both red and green will give us a bright, "pure" yellow.
Knowing that, If we take a quick scan of the colors on the dark portion of this dress, the Red value is between 85-130, Green is between 65-120, and Red is 35-90.* So it's definitely dark, but the high reds and low blues would place this color, from a strictly RGB interpretation, in the mustard/gold region.
On the light portion of the dress, however, the Reds are between 75-155, The Greens 92-175 and the Blues are between 105 to 215. That makes this portion of the dress quite "blue," by RGB values.
So, if this stupid argument persists, tell your friends that this dress is definitely "Gray-Orange" and "Medium-Gray-Royal Blue," (as labeled by After Effects, whose colors are based on RGB, only). In that case, we're all half-wrong.
As far as for what color the dress is, you might as well ask what color The Matrix is. We can really only say, definitively, what color is "shown." Cameras, TVs, and color correct software are all mechanical and, for the most part, uniform. The human eye is not.
We understand and differentiate light and color in a much more complicated way. It's an individual, subconscious activity that has grown only more complex with evolution. If you want to get really mind trippy, check out this Ted Talk, which is just the tip of the iceberg.
Really, this is an argument about how we perceive the dress. Most on the post end of things will tell you that the perception of color is highly variable, reliant mainly upon the accompanying colors. In this case, a camera had difficulty balancing between a natural light source and a tungsten light source typically, the human eye in that situation will have figured it's own way to allow both light sources to interact in the same setting.
I've heard someone in the post world argue that those who see "Blue and Black" are "more sensitive to light and high functioning." Perhaps. I would argue that those who see "Blue and Black" are better at compensating for hues at a higher luminance, while those who see "Gold and Black" are better at a differentiating hues at a lower luminance.
In either case, one color strikes the viewer first, and he or she tries to compensate for the poor color balance of the picture in order to understand what the dress "is."
Oddly, those who see the digital colors gold and blue only seem to be computers.
But if you really want to know what this dress is, it's hideous.
*All of my values are quickly eyeballed by reading scopes. Not 100% accurate.
The 87th Academy Awards just ended, and with it, all hope and memory of Boyhood becoming a classic, historical installment in the annals American Cinema.
Oh, no, that's not how the Oscars work. Despite so many Linklater-lovers tears of distress, Boyhood's lack of awards means almost nothing. Remember, hardly anyone outside his loyal viewer base had even heard his name before this year. He's never been the awards seeker, his previous films' success has had little to do with the typical the Hollywood circus. He makes little films, mostly about normal people.
This one happened to be bigger, and happened to take a little longer.
If anything, the lack of awards probably just means a smaller kick-back from the studio. Maybe fewer people go after Linklater for bigger projects, but that probably wasn't going to happen, anyway. He'll go back to little films, and little stories, not too different from this one.
Furthermore, it's not as though the Boyhood was slighted in any single category. Patricia Arquette rightfully won the film's lone Oscar. Hawke had a much smaller chance against a very strong supporting actor field. The same is true for Original Screenplay, where Birdman was far more clever and complex.
Editing was, perhaps, the biggest surprise of the night, but Whiplash was far more deserving. While I thought they would give the award to Sandra Adair for shear scope of the project, I'm honestly elated Whiplash won. Editing almost always goes to the best picture winner, because no on knows how to judge editing. Just look at Gravity last year, a film with almost no impact from the editor, winning for Best Editing. Whiplash's Tom Cross just might be the most deserving editor I've seen the Academy Award in years.
So then there's Best Picture and Best Director. Birdman won both.
It's hard to argue with that. This isn't Crash over Brokeback Mountain and Goodnight and Goodluck. This isn't Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan. This isn't even Dances with Wolves over Goodfellas. Instead, it's two damn good films that should never be compared to each other. I say that not because one film is far worse than the other (Crash and the field), or because one film won on popularity (Shakespeare). Birdman and Boyhood just shouldn't be compared because they have nothing in common.
Literally nothing. I mean, I guess they're both about a bunch of white people, if you want to make a race statement–which is completely valid. But that's a systemic problem in American Cinema. That's far too fucking deep for me and this post.
So really, the only thing they have in common is that they are both compound words starting with the letter "B."
Sure, there are probably some parallels about identity, purpose, desire, race, and a bunch of other topics one could bullshit into a convoluted thesis for a film 101 course, and they'd probably get an A (by the way, I did that through all of my film courses. Film Theory is bullshit [I did that in philosophy, too {english called me out on that shit, though]]). The truth is, the approach, the production, the technique, the context, the characters, the fucking narrator and the goddamn universe are so wildly different in each film that any comparison between Birdman and Boyhood is baseless. A further attempt to decide which film is empirically better borders on irresponsible.
Yet we do this every year. Why?
Mainly for Hollywood to pat each other on that backs and stroke each other on the cocks. Studios give filmmakers huge bonuses for nominations, and those can double with a win. Slapping an "Oscar Winner" on the cover of your DVD increases sales, and "Best Picture" is even better. Perhaps more importantly the whole event makes Hollywood look as important as they feel.
As for us, the audience, who doesn't love competitions? Art probably shouldn't be competitive, but it certainly make it more fun. The individual praise is even better. Who hasn't imagined standing on the stage, thanking everyone who has lead to you being the most awesome person that year? I mean, the themes of Birdman would appear to be entirely against this idea of praise and elitism, yet even they ran on stage shouting "Yay we won!" Not literally, but I mean...pretty much.
When it comes to the greater import of The Academy Awards, there's not much to say. We only remember most of the winners because they get written down. In time, the victors are slowly worn away with the benefit of hindsight. For the few out there who praise Ordinary People more than Raging Bull, Elephant Man, or The Shining, it has little to do with it's Best Picture oscar, and more to do with that person being wrong.
More importantly, I doubt many will remember The Shining wasn't even nominated that year. For anything (Well, it did get two Razzie nominations). No one's holds that against the film, and no one has forgotten it.
I'm not saying that any of this is directly true with this year's winners and losers. I honestly think we'll remember both Birdboy and Manhood fondly. I'm only saying that the Oscars don't really decide what's important in film.
Advertisers tried a new approach to the Big Game this year: Let's make everyone cry.
Fuck laughter and feeling good about our brand. Forget that this all surrounds a form an escapist entertainment used mainly as an excuse for celebration during a time of year that's already depressing enough. Let's call 911, threaten parents lives, and kill children. Brilliant.
So grab your tissues and let's jump into the worst commercials of Super Bowl XLIX history.
No.6 - Coca-Cola's IT Ineptitude
Typically, Coca-Cola can shit in a paper bag, scribble the word "Joy" on it, and call it a success. Their whole brand is about spreading Joy, and what better way to do that than over the internet?
Granted, this is not how the internet works. Spilling Coca-Cola on a server is just going to fry a few drives, and cause a slight blip in the user experience while other drives take over. This is Coke, we know their campaigns. We accept diabetic Polar Bears and tiny colonies inside Coke machines. If the tone is handled right, I can accept some Coca-Cola becoming all electric magic happiness.
But the problem in the commercial is that the tone is too serious. The dictates an approach too realistic for me to accept that this makes any sense. If they were in a glossy server room, some ethereal place with "THE INTERNET" molded in a gold gate over the entrance, I could accept the concept. But it looks like they tried to create a believable "internet" set. It lacks the whimsy of many of the classic Coke commercials
That seriousness permeates to each situation–two politicians fight on a news program, a woman crys at a bus stop, and a boy on a bus (super creative situation, by the by), reads "NO ONE LIKES YOU." That's not my emphasis, that's how it's written in the commercial. That's fucking mean.
Sure, Coke fixes all these problems...well, not really, but it makes them all happy again. So joy is spread and they fit their brand, right?
Not quite. By creating this initial sad scenario for each person, it puts the audience in a bad place. It's forcing us to realize the negativity of our reality in relation to it's brand. Coca-Cola should be spreading Joy simply because that's what Coca-Cola does. You don't need to be all fucking sombre about it.
Also, it generally underwhelmed, and I expect more from Coke.
No.5 - Dodge Turns 100
There were two decent car ads this year. BMW's Electric car, and Fiat's "Blue Pill." I guess Mercedes tried really hard with "Fable," but for all it's hype and design, it was empty.
The Super Bowl is a trap for car commercials, and outside of Volkswagen, very few auto manufacturers have a strong track record. Ford has given up on the game completely, and I think that's a great decision. Consider what Lexus did this year. I bet you can't remember Lexus at all. They actually had two commercials air during the game. Neither of them said anything beyond "cool car, bro." They got great search metrics, somehow, but I can't see how they expanded their brand.
Almost every car commercial was giant circle jerk, and none more circley-jerkley than Dodge. It was just bunch of old people telling me what to do with my life. Maybe it's not depressing, but it is serious, and not remotely fun.
It culminates with Dodge tugging themselves off for turning 100 this year.
Congrats. You made it. I hope the big birthday present to yourself was worth it.
No.4 - Fuck You, Ray Rice
Before the football season started, Ray Rice knocked his wife out in an elevator and got away with it. A week into the season it turned out Adrian Peterson beat his child with a stick, causing fantasy football owners everywhere to cry out in anger. Oh, and people who are good parents were probably upset, too.
Now the NFL has tried to make up for it. Well, not really, but they are airing a shit ton of domestic abuse commercials. I guess that's penance.
Honestly, this is a very well done spot. Ignore the fact that most 911 operators are not this good, nor are most abused women this clever with this much clarity and control. But It's an affective PSA.
It just falls flat with the viewing context of the Super Bowl. No one wants to watch this right now. They just want to enjoy their nacho cheese dip, and hope both teams loose.
There's a reason we don't see PSAs during the big game. They don't work. Well, and they cost a lot. We only saw one this year because of Ray Rice.
So again. Fuck you, Ray Rice. You abhorrent human being.
No.3 - Harry Chapin Should've Driven a Nissan
First, the commercial is a minute and a half long. Whhhhhhhyyyyyy? The only important moment, the car wreck, happens at exactly :30 seconds. After we see the dad is alive, the commercial inexplicably continues for another 50 seconds. In that time, pretty much nothing happens. It's just the lyrics to the song, dragged down by a boring commercial.
And about that song...Harry Chapin's "Cat's in the Cradle," is one of the saddest songs ever written. What a fucking cheap way to tug at your heart strings. My wife has walked in on me alone and weeping because that song came on the radio. I don't want to be sad! Stop making me feel things other than laughter, commercials!
Also, Harry Chapin died in a car wreck. Did none of the creatives know this? Were they not briefed on their own approach? They really had no idea a commercial featuring his song and a car wreck would be completely insensitive?
No.2 - Budweiser's Worst Commercial Ever
This isn't depressing, it's just awful. We're talking brand destructing stuff here.
First, the basic approach and substance just isn't Super Bowl material. It's some pretty shots and extremely simple typography. This is a Ford Truck commercial. This is a forgettable regular season beer commercial. This is the style of commercial you have year-round so people don't forget your brand exists. So before we even get into how bad the creative is, Budweiser should have never paid for this commercial to air during the big game.
But the creative is really, horrendously bad.
"This is the only beer beechwood aged."
There's a reason for this. The Beechwood does not add flavor. In fact, they leech all of the flavor out of the chips beforehand, and the beechwood is only used to speed up the fermenting process of the lager. So "aged" is really a loose term here.
You don't know that, and neither did I until I researched it. That makes this the best line in the entire commercial.
Outside of that bullshit beechwood chips, "Crisp, Smooth Finish," and "Golden Suds" are literally the only things positive they have to say about their product. Everything else about this ad is simply the name "Budweiser," and the message that enjoying other beer is bad. We shouldn't "dissect" and "fuss over" beer. We should just drink it. Other beer and those who drink it are all stuck up and elitist.
The problem is, if you believe this message, you likely already drink Budweiser. That doesn't do Budweiser much good. They are trying to win over a growing portion of the micro-beer drinking populous, mainly people between the ages of 21 and 35, who have no interest in their company.
Budweiser's approach? Belittle them and their interests.
Here's a good idea for an ad campaign for any major brand: don't alienate anyone. People who like micro brews drink macros, too. They just don't do it as often. When they walk into a bar and only Coors, MGD and Bud are on tap, don't give them a reason not to pick yours.
Beyond that, every micro brew you're competing with has great fodder to fuel their own positive campaign. Budweiser's too biggest advantage are money and brand. They just used both against themselves.
And don't give me this "All publicity is good publicity" bullshit. That's never been true, and certainly isn't in the digital age. Everyone knows who Budweiser is. They had the great frog commercials when we were kids, and the brilliant "Wassssssup" from Super Bowls long past. We won't forget them anytime soon. They aren't Locktite, who's just happy to get their name out there to a wide audience. Once you have a household brand, a name known as widely as "Budweiser," the importance is getting the name out there, it's keeping the brand strong, positive, and inclusive.
Sure, Budweiser spiked in post-Super Bowl queries on google, but read what people are saying. Understand that metrics can be a bad trend, too.
Also, one more nugget of to anyone advertising for a big brand. Do your research. If you make fun of "Pumpkin Peach Ale," maybe make sure that none of your companies recent acquisitions actually makes that beer.
No, it wasn't on purpose. The creative claimed they were trying to think of the most preposterous combination, and the former Elysian owner was none to happy when he saw the ad air.
As Russell Wilson can tell you, "Oops," is not something you should say on Super Bowl night.
No.1 - The Kid is Dead
You're fucking kidding me, right? You want me to buy insurance because I might accidentally kill my kid?
Fuck you. Fuck you harder than Nissan and Ray Rice combined.
If good ol' angst's your thing, go read whatever tickles your fancy from seriousish and modestroad's angst/drama tags - there are some great fics there. So far I can wholeheartedly recommend (copying authors' summaries because I suck at writing those):
Not A Fairy Tale Romance by seriousish
Emma has always annoyed Regina. The way she dresses. The way she talks. The way Regina's in love with her…
This one (and the next one actually) are early-written fics and stray from canon as we now know it - some pretty major differences but they don't hurt the story at all.
Not Forgotten by seriousish
Regina had asked for a glass of water while he explained it to her. Now, she ran her finger over the rim of the glass. "Car accident. Brain damage. Amnesia. We've had this conversation five times already, over the course of the last year. My treatment requires me to stay inside my own house. Otherwise, I could become confused and wander off. Like a stray dog." Swan Queen.
Life as we Know it by modestroad
Regina's, Emma's and Henry's lives are forever changed because of a terrible misunderstanding followed by a near deadly encounter. Now they must fight to try and put their lives back together and find the happy ending they all deserve.
The Need by modestroad [in progress]
Regina needs something. Emma is not sure she can fulfill that need.
For SQ, seriousish has more humour fics, so if that's your thing - enjoy (and I gotta say, even some lines in the non-humour fics got me laughing). Still, I'm me so I'm gonna stick with the tear-wrenchers.
