will byers stan first human second
PR's Tumblrdome
#extradirty
No title available
almost home
Xuebing Du
art blog(derogatory)
šŖ¼
Three Goblin Art
trying on a metaphor
romaā
$LAYYYTER
Andulka
occasionally subtle
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
tannertan36
we're not kids anymore.
Product Placement
Discoholic šŖ©
No title available
seen from Canada
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from TĆ¼rkiye
seen from United Kingdom
seen from France
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from TĆ¼rkiye
seen from Germany
seen from Czechia
seen from United States
seen from Singapore
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from United States
@twinkle-talks
Sweet On You
a Beth x Nick fanfiction
In a universe where the rebellious Handmaid June Osborne, commonly known as Ofjoseph, had a first posting with Commander Lawrence and never met the Waterfords, June successfully escaped to Canada with her daughter Hannah. This is the story of Nicholas Blaine and Bethany Miller.
Chapter 1: First Posting
Chapter 2: The Driver
Chapter 3: Rita Blue
Max Minghella just told you everything you need to know
Max Minghella breaks down Season 4, Episode 7 of 'Industry' and playing con man Whitney Halberstram on the HBO finance drama
So Max did a Variety interview about Industry, and thereās a section where he talks about the difference between playing Nick Blaine and playing Whit. And I need everyone to read it slowly, because this is as close to a public indictment of the Handmaidās Tale writing room as we are ever going to get from this man.
He describes Nick as an āarchetypal character.ā He says he viewed Nickās narrative purpose as providing āa sense of relief and melodrama and break from the more intellectual aspects of the show.ā He says he embedded the performance in āa BrontĆ«-esque literary history, something larger than life.ā He says, and I need you to hear this, that he approached Nick as āalmost like a soap opera.ā
He never approached Nick with naturalism.
Let that land.
Because what Max is telling you, with the careful diplomacy of a man who is not going to trash a show he spent eight years on, is that Nick Blaine was never built to be a political player. Nick was never constructed as a power figure. Nick was a romantic archetype. Max understood that from the jump. He played him that way deliberately, consistently, for the entire run of the series. Brontƫ-esque. Melodramatic. Relief from the heaviness. A love story living inside a dystopia.
And then compare that to how he describes playing Whit on Industry: āhyper-real.ā No method. No plan. Blacking out on set. Letting each take happen. Wanting the character to feel ādynamic and unconstrained.ā Not deciding when to sit or when to pick up a mug. Just being in the scene with full spontaneity and full freedom.
Do you see the gap?
Nick was deliberately heightened, deliberately literary, deliberately romantic. Max made those choices because thatās what he understood the character to be. A figure out of gothic romance. A Heathcliff behind enemy lines. A man whose entire narrative function was emotional, not political.
And God, what a performance it was. I need to say that clearly, because this post could read as a critique of what Nick became, and I donāt want that to eclipse how extraordinary what Max built actually was. Especially in those early seasons.
He took Atwoodās Nick, a character who lives almost entirely in negative space on the page, a man defined by what he doesnāt say, what he withholds, what he lets you feel without ever confirming it, and he embodied that. He understood the assignment on a molecular level.
The way he played desire as something dangerous and quiet. The way every look carried weight because it had to, because in Gilead, a look is the only language left. The way he could make standing in a doorway feel like a declaration. That was Max reading the novel and understanding that Nick Blaine is not a man of action. He is a man of presence. And presence is what Max gave us, in spades, every single time he was on screen.
He brought everything I loved about the book to life. The stillness. The ache. The way love in that world isnāt tender, itās terrifying, because tenderness is the thing most likely to get you killed.
Max played that tension so beautifully it hurt to watch. He made Nick feel like someone who had already accepted he wasnāt going to survive this, and was loving June anyway, not in spite of the cost but fully aware of it. That is Atwoodās Nick. That is the literary Nick. And Max gave him to us with a precision and a vulnerability that the show, frankly, never deserved by the end.
And then the show, in its final stretch, tried to insist that this same character, this man who was performed as a romantic archetype for six seasons, was actually a politically compromised antagonist we should be suspicious of. That the love story was naivety. That the melodrama was a red flag.
The performance was never doing that. Max just confirmed it wasnāt trying to do that. He was playing relief. He was playing romance. He was playing something deliberately larger than life and embedded in literary tradition.
The show tried to rewrite its own text and the actor is sitting in Variety gently, graciously, telling you: thatās not what I was building.
Iāve said this before and Iāll keep saying it: you cannot retrofit an antagonist arc onto a performance that was never constructed to support one. You canāt spend six seasons letting an actor build a BrontĆ« hero and then announce in the final act that he was actually a villain all along. The body doesnāt lie. The stillness doesnāt lie. The performance doesnāt lie. And now the performer himself is telling you, in the most diplomatic, professional, generous way possible, that the version of Nick he was playing and the version the writers tried to sell at the end were never the same character.
The fact that he contrasts it so explicitly with Industry, where he describes total creative freedom, total spontaneity, a performance built on instinct rather than archetype, only makes the distinction sharper. He knows the difference between playing a constructed literary figure and playing a living, breathing human being. He was doing the former with Nick. On purpose. Because thatās what the material asked for.
Until it didnāt. Until the show decided it needed Nick to be something else. And by then it was too late, because Max had already built the house, and you canāt change the foundation in the final season and pretend the structure holds.
This interview is a gift. Not because itās explosive. Max is far too thoughtful and too classy for that. But because it quietly confirms everything the performance already told us.
Nick Blaine was a love story. Max always knew that. The show forgot.
And in the meantime, Max is out here doing career-best work as Whit on a show that actually deserves him.
A show with writers who understand that character is built through accumulation, not announcement. Who know how to seed an arc and then trust their actor to carry it. Who arenāt scrambling in the final hour to explain what they never bothered to construct.
Industry knows how to write. It knows how to let a performance breathe. And Max is running with it in a way that is genuinely thrilling to watch. Every episode heās making Whit more layered, more dangerous, more alive. This is what happens when brilliant acting meets writing thatās actually doing its job.
These types of posts pop up on my feed constantly, and every single time the content or the comments are the same regurgitated arguing points and lack of comprehension of the source material or the previous seasons.
Itās rage bait at this point. And most times I resist the urge to comment, the urge to correct the misunderstood but common use of ātrauma bondā, and even the gross mischaracterization of Nickās motives: āhe was hungry for powerā or even āhe was a sociopathā.
June being absolved of everything for having PTSD and being a mother is also not sitting right with me. Iāve seen hundreds of comments defending her abusing Luke in season 4 (or 5, I donāt remember).
This show was so important, so vital to understanding the core message of the book, but the lack of substance and the shallow motives of the last season ruined it. And it shows that by marketing it to the masses for views an awards, masses that donāt even understand the definition of trauma bond or morally grey characters, they have lost credibility and diluted a profound piece of literature and turned it into a divisive social media narrative.
Moss also shares a story of two auditions, including one for the TV series she didn't get, the same pilot season she auditioned for 'Mad Men
āIām super glad it wasnāt my job to write that show.ā -Elisabeth Moss. Yeah, and it shows.
I keep telling myself Iām done being mad about this show. That Iāve said my piece, written my fanfic ending, and moved on. But then I read quotes like this, and it all floods back.
The frustration, the heartbreak, the disbelief that something I once loved so deeply could be twisted so far from what it was ever meant to be.
Because this isnāt just me being dramatic about a finale.Ā The Handmaidās TaleĀ was a book I had a very personal attachment to. It was a story decades ahead of its time. One that understood womanhood, power, and love in a way that still feels revolutionary. And to see it gutted like this, turned into a hollow shell of itself by people who clearly didnāt understand the assignment, is honestly devastating.
When Elisabeth Moss says sheās āsuper glad it wasnāt [her] job to write that showā and waxes poetic about how āsatisfyingā the circular ending was. I just sit there wondering: did no one in the room realize that Atwoodās story was never meant toĀ circle? It was meant toĀ shatter.
The whole point was to break free.
From patriarchy, from silence, from the idea that a womanās worth and happiness begins and ends with her role as a mother.
Atwood wrote a story about transformation. About love as resistance. About the radical act of a woman telling her own story. The showās finale did the opposite. It silenced her again, boxed her back into the same cycle, and called it closure.
And Iām sorry, but without Nick and June, without that central relationship, this isnātĀ The Handmaidās Tale.Ā Itās just a long, grim dystopia about sexual violence. The heart, the humanity, the emotional rebellion of the story lives and dies in their connection. Thatās the axis of the entire narrative. The way love endures even in oppression, the way it drives defiance. Take that away, and youāve stripped the story of its soul.
What makes this all worse is that people keep defending it under the guise of āartistic interpretation.ā As if throwing away the bookās core message is just creative license. Itās not. Itās cowardice. Itās misunderstanding. And itās a betrayal of a story that was always meant to confront exactly the kind of sanitized, corporate feminism this version ended up representing.
This is supposed to be a story about womanhood.
Messy, angry, desiring, complex womanhood.
About tearing down the lie that motherhood is the ultimate fulfillment of a womanās life, that love makes you weak, that survival means acceptance. And instead, we got an ending that quietly reaffirmed all of those things.
Reading quotes like this from Moss just reminds me that she never understood the heart of what she was in. And the fact that no director, no writer, no one in the room stopped her from flattening this story into something self-congratulatory and empty? Itās beyond embarrassing.
I want to support Shell, truly. Minghella brought so much nuance and heart to a role that deserved better. But I canāt touch anything EM does again. Not after this.
Because this storyĀ wasĀ satisfying once. When it was about rebellion. When it was about love. When it was about a woman refusing to accept the world as it was handed to her.
And we donāt talk about this version of June enough ā the one we lost along the way. Fierce, sharp, emotionally feral. The real Offred. The one who didnāt flinch. The one who loved hard, demanded more, and refused to be handled.
And yet, in the end, she was afraid. She stood still. She let the man she loved die and did nothing. Thatās not strength.
I once saw her as liberation personified. Rage and love and defiance in human form. Now sheās a cautionary tale. A woman who became the very cage she was trying to break.
But hey ā if thatās what counts as āsatisfyingā to Elisabeth Moss, I guess we read a different book and watched a different story.
Nice meeting actor-filmmaker Max Minghella tonight! His new movie is Shell.
They Couldnāt Destroy Nick Without Destroying June
In Season 3, Bruce Miller was asked about Nickās motives. His answer was blunt:
āI donāt believe in the long con because Iāve never seen it in real life. Nick is not āworkingā on June. I think after all the time theyāve been together, you would think June is a boob if she didnāt recognize that.ā
Millerās own words framed June as perceptive, capable, and grounded. She wasnāt some naĆÆve fool; she knew who Nick was, and her choices reflected that. Even outside commentary at the time tracked the same truth: Luke represented Juneās past life, while Nick reflected her transformation into a soldier and a rebellion leader. In other words: erase Nick and you sever the very arc that makes Juneās growth recognizable.
But by Season 6, everything changed. Suddenly Eric Tuchman insisted:
āHeās done all those wonderful things and thatās what June has seen; she has not chosen to think about what he might be up to when heās not helping her out.ā
And Yahlin Chang co-signed:
āThere are certain things about Nick that June is blind to and that our viewers ā and we as writers ā are blind to because weāre invested in this romance.ā
Translation? June wasnāt a woman making deliberate, hard, survival-driven choices. She was downgraded to an airheaded romantic ā too swept up in her feelings to see the ātruth.ā
Even Elisabeth Moss joined in. On the red carpet, she admonished viewers to āget caught up, because they remember.ā That wasnāt a reminder ā it was gaslighting. A tactic meant to make fans doubt their own memory and swallow a rewritten narrative that contradicted everything weād been shown for years. Coming from the actress who was June, it was a betrayal of her own character.
Hereās the problem: you cannot assassinate Nickās character without dragging June down with him. To erase his arc of survival and resistance, they had to rewrite her as blind, duped, and a āboobāā the very thing Bruce once mocked as unthinkable.
The receipts prove otherwise:
ā¢ 1x10 ā June trusted Nick enough to walk into the unknown on his word: āJust go with them. Trust me.ā
ā¢ 2x13 ā She left the Waterford house with Nichole only after Nickās subtle signal of approval.
ā¢ 4x02ā4x03 ā She surrendered to Nick, cutting off his apology because she already understood.
ā¢ 4x09 ā Asked if Nick would help, June answered without hesitation: āI think he would do anything for me and for Nichole.ā
ā¢ 5x03, 5x10, 6x03, 6x06 ā June repeatedly sought him out, trusted his sacrifices, and believed his word.
June knew Nick. She chose him, over and over. The only way the writers could destroy Nick was by rewriting June into something she never was: a naĆÆve, airheaded woman duped by romance. Thatās not complexity. Thatās misogyny wrapped in bad writing.
Homegirl is telling Luke āI donāt know what to doā after being a resistance warrior for years and using and reusing the devotion of a man whoās loved her and put himself in the line of fire for her when her own husband didnāt.
I am SICK!
When watching the first season of The Handmaid's Tale, what I liked about the portrayal of Luke was, that even moreso than in the books, it was revealed that he was a weak ass man. He was not perturbed at the way June's rights were being curtailed. Made him feel all tingly in his big boy parts it seems. June was a weak woman married to a weak man. Luke was, as we were told, a cheater himself.
In the whole Handmaid's Tale the series he stays a weak man. When he meets Nick, the first time, it takes him nearly ten minutes to even ask about his daughter. He barely ever does anything useful for anyone, certainly not June. He could have been certainly worse, still, there isn't much substance to him. He wants to be part of Mayday because of the reflected glory more than anything, he constantly leaves June to fend for herself. He's meh.
But the series wants to make it very clear that because this mediocre man called dibs first, June belongs with him. No matter it's been Nick that kept her alive to do everything she has done. She's cheating on Luke with Nick, so Nick has to be left so June can be in her traditional place as loyal wife. Both she and Luke were once bystanders in Gilead; I'm sure the only reason Luke decided to flee was because the regime wanted to rip apart his "unlawful" family. But Luke has always been too passive for this game, as was the pre-Gilead June. This being an American show, she had to have a glow up, but since she has had one, Nick is a far more logical, strategic partner.
But The Handmaid's Tale, the series, delights in a very subtle misogyny, a strange sort of traditionalism through it all. Magical Motherhood - the way baby Charlotte could only be saved from death by her birth mother. The neverending cruelty inflicted upon its female characters where men's suffering is shielded from view. This weird voiceover by June calling the Pre-Gilead view of fashion wasteful and airheaded and inconsequential. Bitch, what? Only a man could have written that. The way women are judged by their clothing makes it anything but an airheaded part of their life. "They've forgotten that red is also the color of rage." No June, they very much knew red is the color of rage, only they channeled that rage into using the Handmaids as state executioners. Given that actually killing someone is taxing to people's mental health. This whole insistence on violence being the only way to oppose a regime correctly when we've just seen how easily that can be co-opted. Credit to Luke, he seemed to do his best non violently. Much more credit to Luke if he'd said: "June, I am better at PR" instead of "Now it's my time to fight for Hannah." (What took you so long then, if that's not what you'd been doing before?)
Hmpf. Don't we want to admit that this whole milquetoast performative progressive nonthreatening feminism is something Atwood was critiquing? O, June keeps her own name as long as Hannah has Luke's and Luke can stay sure of his rightful place in the world, when he may not be evil but is far, far too happy to be complicit? Whereas Nick, before he was sacrificed on the altar of suburban American respectability, was someone who was seduced, actually understood how sick this world was, and when it really counted tried very much to protect Eden, a young girl he didn't love? Willing to stay married and have a baby if that meant she didn't die? Even if he had everything to gain from her death? Only for June to go back to a man who, as far as we are shown, has done very little of consequence to fight for his actual family... Until June came back and upstaged him?
Why wasn't he with June in Alaska as soon as he got half a chance? Because adopted children do not count? Please. Tell that to the children who need to get adopted! I am not condoning baby robbing but I also can't deny how vital non blood family can be in giving children a good life. The fact that Serena has no interest whatsoever in Nichole's welfare after she has given her up I do believe, but as a sign of dysfunction, not as a sign of "only blood relatives count." It would have been much more believable to me if Serena would still have a bond with Nichole. It would have given the renaming her Nichole (possibly after Nick) after Serena gave her up much more weight.
But ah, if blood doesn't count for so much, that diminishes the role of the father even further, doesn't it? Can't have that!
Conformity, and through it, patriarchy got its claws into this show.
Today is Max's 40th birthday ! š So Grateful for the passion and depth he brings to every project, both on screen and behind the camera. Excited to see what the future holds. Sharing a few gifs and a small edit to mark the occasion š¬
Oh... shit. Yeah.
Marketing for the sixth and final season of The Handmaid's Tale had an unusual starting point. A Christian Siriano collaboration at New York
Glad to see more critics call out the stupidity of what The Handmaidās Tale has become in S6 (and S5ā¦). Sometimes I feel so stupid to have sticked with this show past 4x10.
Itās only now we know what they wrote that we wish we would have stopped though, but still. Damn you Max Minghella, the only reason I was so addicted to this show even in its weaker season.
This critics reminding us that Bruce Miller described The Testaments are āmean girls growing up in Gileadā makes me think that maybe the spin off will be as bad; if not worse.
Sorry M.Atwood. But at least we will always come back to your books.
me defending nick to my friend who just finished season 6 of the handmaids :
Felt this š š
Iāll be wildly honest, I donāt know why or how Nick loved June so much.
All she has ever done was use him.
For someone so clever and nifty, he didnāt see that. He didnāt see how Lawrence used him either. Pretty much every relationship heās had in Gilead has been transactional and heās always done so much for others, but rarely got anything in return.
Thatās why I get so mad when people say he craved power. He craved stability, safety, a chance to stay alive and keep both his childrenās mothers alive.
His fate and his entire existence is just so sad.
sometimes i think about osblaine in season 6 of the handmaids tale and i suddenly wanna cry (iām still not over it)
No one has ever disappointed me as much as that sixth season. I think about the ending and automatically have feelings of anger, sadness and disappointment.
Where Nick Blaine is in my head.
If you know, you know.
Yep, still not over it. Especially after reading the scripts notes from 6x02.
Hi Tumblr š«¶š½
Its been a hot minute. A lot has happened since my last crash out about Nick Blaine on here.
I promised some friends on here Iād share some pics of my Twilight Trip to OR and WA so here you go š happy to share the itinerary and answer any questions!
yāall remind yourselves your account is your space. youāre not a performance. youāre not annoying by being yourself. if people arenāt into it they can leave. youāre not obligated to please anyone, especially at the cost of your personal expression. the worst thing you can do for your online enjoyment is to filter or censor yourself.
