T.W Spots

All I had to eat today was a big bowl of consequences

[twspots]

Throw Tigers a snack!

Duckies have been asking if I have somewhere they can further support my efforts. See below for a kofi!

Buy T. W. Spots a Coffee. ko-fi.com/twspots

Become a supporter of T. W. Spots today! ❤️ Ko-fi lets you support the creators you love.

You don't have to, but if you do choose to support, know in your heart that another tiger is born in the wild. <3

Every little bit does help.

[animentality]

[foone]

BTW, just to make sure everyone knows, this isn't just some internet rando commenting on her observations on the internet.

They are an Assistant Professor of Media Industries at New York University and literally just finished writing The Apple II Age: How the Computer Became Personal, a book on the history of the computer industry in the 70s.

This tweet isn't just an observation, it's the result of years of research and study. And it's absolutely true.

[saxifraga-x-urbium]

[isuggestrespecttranspeople]

This is a good idea!

[dunkthebiscuit]

"Have your employers told you to ask me about my genitals? Because that's a terrible thing to do to you. But I'm not going to tell you about my private parts. Because they're private. I'm sure you understand."

[bethanyactually]

I don't wanna @ anyone because I understand how fast things seem to move in today's landscape of streaming shows dropping entire seasons in one day, and networks pumping out new series constantly to try to attract more subscribers with no intent to actually maintain those shows over time but I just saw someone self-deprecatingly lament that they are still thinking about a show that ended almost a year ago, making fan art and playlists for it, and I want to be very clear:

you can still create fanworks when it comes to old media!! PLEASE do!! there are always going to be new fans who will appreciate it, and veteran fans who are dying for new content and new perspectives. also, less than a year is NOTHING. the original Star Trek series was on TV six decades ago and there are still people losing their minds over it, writing stories and reblogging gifsets daily, and that's only one example.

a fandom lasts as long as there are people who love a thing, even if it's only a handful of people. love what you love and write and draw and make gifs and playlists about it!

[racethewind10]

raise your hand if you still have brainrot about a show that isn't airing

[bethanyactually]

#art doesn't have a best by date YEAH @wreative-criting!

[theslaybymic]

Don’t overlook paternity leave because it’s a hugely important feminist issue

Celebrating fatherhood with official paternity leave policies challenges traditional gender roles and empowers parents in the workplace. It’s one of those rare issues where men’s rights activists and feminists can find common ground with a mutually beneficial cause. It even has an impact on LGBTQ equality.

Follow @this-is-life-actually

[dailymanners]

I’ve reblogged a lot of posts today about why paid paternity leave (or just in general all parents regardless of gender being entitled to the same amount of paid parental leave) is such an important social issue, and these posts have made a lot of great points about why gender equality in parental leave is such a massively important issue for equality, such as:

- It’s important for LGBT+ parents who don’t fit the cis-hetero mold of one mother and one father.

- It’s an important feminist issue for reducing the second shift: when only one parent gets adequate parental leave, it’s only natural for a pattern to develop that the only parent who got adequate parental leave takes on the lion’s share of childcare. However, if both parents get adequate parental leave, then it’s more likely for a pattern to develop of sharing childcare duties. This is obviously massively important for reducing how much women’s careers are affected by having children.

- If the mother has post-partum health issues (anything from recovering from a C-section or other physical traumas, to post-partum depression and/or anxiety) it’s incredibly unfair to expect her partner to just go back to work immediately instead of allowing her partner to stay home and help with childcare duties. When someone is recovering from having a baby, it can be really important for their partner to stay home to help care for them and the baby.

However, one important point I haven’t seen brought up in why equal paid parental is so important for social equality is how important it is for reducing hiring discrimination.

By that I mean, when a country has *only* guaranteed maternity leave, but either no paternity leave (or really short paternity leave of a few weeks like the U.K. has), this is only going to raise the risk of hiring discrimination against women.

So if a company is choosing between two candidates for a position: one is a young woman and the other is a young man, if the country this company is in has a maternity leave policy of several months or more, but paternity leave is either just a few weeks (or completely non-existent), the company will look at the woman as riskier and less reliable to hire than the man.

So equal paid parental leave leads to more equality in the job market, because it means companies are less likely to see women as riskier and less reliable to hire. If everyone, not just women, has the same length of parental leave, everyone runs the same risk of needing to go on leave for the same amount of time.

There’s no reason not to demand that all parents regardless of gender receive equal paid parental leave. All parents and all children benefit from it.

[mens-rights-activia]

I miss the world before AI image generation

Secondly, I also miss the world where AI image generation was just incoherent blobs and obvious fakes

Thirdly, I miss when I had a spark in my eye

[ketchup-cat-sub]

Fourthly, I miss when I throw so watch out

[chilewithcarnage]

Five, nothing wrong with me

[firewirecompatible]

Six geese-a-laying

[starphaserdisco]

Seven (often stylized as Se7en) is a 1995 American crime thriller film directed by David Fincher and written by Andrew Kevin Walker. It stars Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman, with Gwyneth Paltrow and John C. McGinley in supporting roles. Set in an unnamed, crime-ridden city, Seven's narrative follows disenchanted, nearly retired Detective Lieutenant William Somerset (Freeman) and his newly transferred partner David Mills (Pitt) as they try to stop a serial killer from committing a series of murders based on the seven deadly sins.

Walker, an aspiring writer, based Seven on his experiences of moving from a suburban setting to New York City during a period of rising crime and drug addiction in the late 1980s. An Italian film company optioned his script, but following financial difficulties, the rights were sold to New Line Cinema. Studio executives were opposed to the script's bleak conclusion, insisting on a more mainstream and optimistic outcome. Fincher, determined to re-establish himself after a career setback with his directorial debut Alien 3 (1992), was mistakenly sent Walker's original script and, convinced of its merit, committed to directing the project if the original ending remained intact. Principal photography took place in Los Angeles between December 1994 and March 1995, on a $33–$34 million budget.

[cool-jpgs-of-wizards-with-swords]

[caninite]

My best friend's favorite number is nine. It's because there isn't a number that's higher. 9. 99. 999. 9999.

If everything gets high enough, you become invincible. Nothing can hurt you anymore. Nothing can hurt anyone anymore.

But isn't it scary, to think that there's a highest number? That if you made 99 good memories, you couldn't hold any more?

So I don't like to keep count. Of the flowers they pick, or how many times we laugh, or how many scary faces they make.

I just hope we'll be friends for 999 more years.

[seven-oh-four]

Ben Ten

[milfannihilator-deactivated2026]

Kevin Eleven

[bunwichhorror]

12 Monkeys is a 1995 American science fiction thriller film directed by Terry Gilliam from a screenplay by David Peoples and Janet Peoples, based on Chris Marker's 1962 short film La Jetée. It stars Bruce Willis, Madeleine Stowe, Brad Pitt, and Christopher Plummer. Set in a post-apocalyptic future devastated by disease, the film follows a convict who is sent back in time to gather information about the man-made virus that wiped out most of the human population on the planet.

[mutantrenegade]

[fae-candy]

[catdotwav]

[daughter-of-sapph0]

happy pride

[lindleland]

[learningtogirl]

I've seen this clip many times, but never really appreciated the power of "what was her problem?" Just casually assuming that lesbians come in a wide variety of shapes and being inclusive. As a transbian who is probably still closer to Homer shaped than to my ideal, that's huge!

[soyalexnajera]

[captain-price-returns]

[transmechanicus]

Revealing the ignorance of my youth here, but who is this and what is she known for?

[boybeetles]

Anita Sarkeesian, feminist who interpreted media under a feminist lens. She did a series about video games and she was the subject of targeted harassment. That was the start of gamergate

[flurrin]

Minor correction, the start of gamergate was based around a different reporter, Zoe Quinn, but they were both absolutely violently threatened over their involvement in video game criticism and development. A hate campaign was started by Quinn's ex-boyfriend when he wrote a post falsely accusing them of dating video game journalists in order to receive positive reviews on their own game, Depression Quest, which led other bad actors to accuse all women in the industry (Zoe identified as female at the time) of perceived sexual immorality. Anita Sarkeesian's brilliant Youtube series Tropes vs Women in Video Games (which everyone should watch, right now) sparked a particular nerve for criticizing popular games of killing and/or victimizing any important female character (there is a CHILLING bit that borders on ludicrous where she describes the plots of a seemingly endless parades of games as "In [title], [male player character's] wife dies, and you then have to rescue [his] daughter."). That series did actually make a huge change in the industry, especially when touted by progressive legacy developers like Tim Schafer (Monkey Island, Psychonauts), who went on to expand hiring in his company to front women and minority voices, but the shift didn't really show for a long time and echoes of the sexism that plagues the industry at its core are still rampant.

[crazy-pages]

In all seriousness, if you live in the US and you aren't familiar with the misogynistic harassment these people in the game industry faced during Gamergate, you need to watch this series right now.

This was the beggining of the current form of the US fascist movement and it underpins the entire thing about it to this day. If you live in the US and Gamergate isn't familiar to you, you're missing critical history to understanding US fascism. I'm not joking even a little bit here, you will understand modern United States fascism so much better if you are familiar with Gamergate.

[cumaeansibyl]

Not an exaggeration. Gamergate led directly to the redpill/incel movement, which white supremacists exploited and colonized. Not to say that most of the white men in those movements weren't already racist to some extent, but that wasn't an active part of their politics until white supremacist recruiters came along and convinced them that the women ruining their videogames were part of the conspiracy to destroy the white race.

That's a very brief summary but you can go back step by step over the past decade and see how they did it.

[lestatfag]

STAY SAFE!! [ID: the Gilbert Baker pride flag with the words “Happy pride to all those who are unable to celebrate openly and safely. You are loved and seen!” in all-caps black text over it. /end ID]

[sirfrogsworth]

Old is good. New is bad. The winning formula for a viral video essay.

I am noticing a lot of these videos popping up in my feed. I guess my complaints about those hard light videos made the algorithm decide I should be inundated with "modern movies suck" content.

They follow the same basic formula of "old = good" and "new = bad."

And if you watch them with only a surface level understanding of filmmaking and photography and how to author visuals, you will probably go, "Wow, what an amazing video!"

I get why people like these essays. And I understand there are genuine frustrations with how many modern movies are made.

And the video does have some interesting philosophical filmmaking explanations. I really enjoyed those aspects.

But there is something in the very thumbnail of this video that completely invalidates the overall premise.

The Premise: Old movies look more "real" than new movies.

The Evidence: Comparing one of the greatest movies of all time (Jaws), by one of the greatest directors of all time (Spielberg), to a franchise soft reboot cash grab.

Why not compare to Sinners? Why not compare to Weapons? Or Dune? Or The Brutalist?

Also, is realism always the goal?

What about Spider-Verse and KPop Demon Hunters? Does their unreality make them lesser?

This is how they bait you with these videos. They want you to buy into their nostalgic cherry picking. They don't elevate any modern films that look amazing. They pick their favorite movies from years ago and then compare them to the worst examples in the recent past.

But the thing I dislike the most is that problems are often blamed on artists. If artists were more competent and went back to the old school ways, movies would look better and more real.

Use hard lighting. Use practical effects. Use deep focus. Show and don't tell.

Individual quick fixes are never going to solve a systemic problem.

I assure you that directors and all of the artists involved in making movies would love to use every tool in the toolbox. They haven't forgotten these techniques. But most of the time these tools are not compatible with hyper-efficient filmmaking processes.

I liked his explanation of haptic visuals. To create artistic, textural scenes to help the world of the movie feel more lived in and real. That's a cool concept. But adding a few haptic scenes into Jurassic World isn't going to fix the story. It isn't going to improve the weak script. Hard lighting and deep focus aren't going to fix the systems that produce these risk-averse reboots of profitable IPs. It isn't going to fix the rushed, fix-it-in-post mentality that doesn't give CG artists enough time and resources to produce more realistic imagery.

But also, has he seen a Vince Gilligan show?

Breaking Bad, Better Call Saul, and now Pluribus have some amazing haptic visuals. It seems like he is ignoring more modern examples to sell the story that things were "better" in the distant past.

This hurts the filmmakers who are creating legitimately beautiful work. And it also ignores the fact that bad, ugly movies have always existed.

Jaws was released in 1975.

Of the 216 movies released that year, I have seen a total of 5.

Only 5 movies from that year stood the test of time. 211 movies are completely ignored when assessing how real and aesthetically pleasing movies used to look.

That is textbook survivorship bias.

Have you seen the classic 1975 cinematic masterpiece... The Happy Hooker?

Let's compare the visuals of The Happy Hooker to Sinners.

It's not a fair fight.

But when you compare Jaws to Sinners...

You can see the quality is not dependent on when the movies are made. It is dependent on a director with a strong vision and a large team of artists who are passionate about their craft.

If you have to resort to this level of nostalgic cherry picking to prove your point, I don't think your argument is very strong.

And I also think some of this appeal to nostalgia contributes to the very problems people are frustrated by.

The top grossing movies of 2024 had no original stories.

That isn't to say there weren't original stories released. But they are often harder to find. They aren't marketed well. And, sadly, people don't go to the theater to support them. The online discourse spends more time talking about how much better movies used to be and there is no discourse championing said original stories.

When the capitalists that fund movies hear this hyper-nostalgic discourse, the least risky option seems to be "Let's just remake the thing they loved. Let's reboot it. Let's add a sequel."

There are so many beautiful movies and shows being made. But if you watch all of these essays it really seems like everything looks like garbage and artists don't know what they are doing.

And these essayists don't seem to have any practical experience authoring images. They read a book. They listened to a podcast. They heard a famous cinematographer make an offhand remark in an interview... "Man, I really miss deep focus in movies."

Suddenly, shallow depth of field is the enemy and they need to let the people know that deep focus will make movies look better. ALERT ALL OF THE MOVIE NERD INFLUENCERS!

They say that movies all look like iPhone Portrait mode.

I'm sure the ghost of Stanley Kubrick will be pleased to know his famous candlelight scenes in Barry Lyndon look like a gimmick smartphone feature.

This video and others like it say that "deep focus" is never used in modern movies.

To prove their point, once again, they mine their nostalgia and select one of the best movies of all time by one of the greatest directors of all time.

In this case, their past example is North by Northwest by Alfred Fucking Hitchcock.

And their modern counterexample?

A Megan Fox Netflix movie called Subservience.

Here is the rub...

They don't actually know what deep focus is.

They probably googled it and got North by Northwest as a genuine example and thought, "Oh, deep focus is when everything is in focus."

They confused deep depth of field with deep focus.

And while deep focus *requires* a deep depth of field, it is not synonymous with deep depth of field.

When you look at their other examples, their misunderstanding reveals itself.

This is deep depth of field.

This was a technical decision more than an artistic one. They are shooting in midday sun. The sun is extremely bright and so you have to stop down the lens to a small aperture—which causes deep depth of field.

He is assigning an artistic intention to a technical limitation.

Deep focus is a deliberate artistic compositional choice that often has to fight technical limitations to be achieved.

When you are designing a shot for deep focus, it means the shot is reliant on subjects being in focus even if they are far apart. So the director may need the foreground and midground or the foreground and background to be in focus. And if these multiple planes are not in focus, there will be a loss of narrative or artistic information.

It's easier to show you.

Pluribus (a modern show, OMG!) recently had a beautiful deep focus shot.

If they were completely blurred out, it would change the entire composition. Note they are not perfectly sharp. They don't need to be. They are just sharp enough to give weight to both the foreground and midground. In this frame, the buildings in the background could be blurred and it would still be deep focus.

This photo I took of Otis is deep focus.

I'm telling a story with the composition.

Dog wants the ball. You can see his desire for the ball. Nothing else exists in this moment but that ball. He must have the ball.

If Otis was blurred out, it would change the story of the shot.

Now we are focused only on the ball and there is a blurred figure lurking in the distance. The ball is afraid. The ball feels isolated and scared of being chewed and slobbered on.

It's not that deep focus is better. Or that shallow focus is worse. Both techniques give artists the ability to tell different stories.

This is deep depth of field.

This shot could work with a shallow depth of field. There would be no narrative information lost if I had blurred the background.

It might not work as well aesthetically, but you aren't losing important storytelling information.

The two best examples of cinematic deep focus are Citizen Kane and Kurosawa films.

If you watch this scene with the speech, the composition is created so you can see him giving his speech and you can also clock all of the expressions of the people behind him.

Seeing their reactions is important narrative information that would be lost if they were blurred by shallow DOF.

He does this throughout the movie.

Another sign of deep focus is the effort involved to get everything in decent focus. Creating the blocking is more complicated. You have to spend time to make sure everything lines up correctly. You may have to build out sets to a high degree of detail to accommodate the shot. If the environment is dark, it's difficult to close down the aperture enough to get foreground and background elements in focus. So you may need creative lighting design to make sure everyone is exposed properly.

You have to specifically design the shot and work with the camera and lighting folks to pull it off.

If the shot still works if you were to blur the background, it isn't deep focus. Here is another example they showed.

This gives you a great sense of the environment. It is well composed. But it's bright and sunny. Closing down the aperture is not only trivial, it is necessary to get a proper exposure. And if the sky were blurred out, I don't think it would change the storytelling of the composition.

In this scene from a Kurosawa film, deep focus is vital.

The foreground subject is restrained and struggling. The midground subjects are guarding him. And there is a dark figure far in the background approaching.

Deliberate deep depth of field helps build an aesthetic and sense of environment.

Deep focus helps tell a story.

But is shallow depth of field the villain?

In this example from the video, you can see out the window. They were probably using bright lights and it was just easier to use a small aperture.

Does seeing a dumpster out of the window help this scene aesthetically or narratively?

If this is an emotional moment, it might actually be better to blur the background and draw more focus to his expressions. Some may get distracted and think, "Is that a dumpster next to his head?" The performance becomes less immersive and that could hurt the narrative intent.

Now the frame is less busy and distracting. You are drawn to his expression.

Shallow depth of field is an important tool in cinema. It creates subject separation, removes distractions, and draws focus to emotional moments.

Yes, it is sometimes used for efficient filmmaking. It is more expensive to build a detailed set or go to a fancy location. You don't have to do all of the planning required for deep focus shots. Just blur the background and move on to the next scene.

But that is not artistic incompetence. That is an artistic limitation created by a system that prioritizes efficiency.

I'd love to see more deep focus in modern movies. I'd love to see less bland lighting design. I'd love to see more practical effects. And I love how much we can learn from the past.

But this toxic nostalgia is keeping us stuck in a world of reboots. Ignoring the beautiful movies made in the present perpetuates the very problems these essays fear. And blaming artists instead of systems is hurting the people who can craft the better visuals we desire.

CG artists are the best example. When the discourse says that CGI sucks, they are not valued. They are overworked and underpaid. They are denied a proper union. Good CG visuals are dependent on having the time and resources to craft them.

When we appeal to nostalgia and say "practical effects are better than CGI," the studios add a few more practical effects and hide any evidence of the 3000 CGI shots also in the film. They hide all the blue screens in the BTS shots by making them gray.

You can express a desire for more practical effects without pitting them against CGI.

And you can express your disappointment in CG visuals by saying, "I wish the artists were given more time to do their best work."

Systems are limiting artists. And I think the best way to change those systems is to elevate original modern content that prioritizes skilled crafting of storytelling and aesthetics.

I think these essays spend too much time on what they don't like and not enough time celebrating what they do like. They do surface level research that leads to fundamental misunderstandings of the filmmaking process.

It's just... pretentious CinemaSins.

If you want to watch some quality video essays on filmmaking, I highly recommend Patrick Willems. He has actually crafted films. He has practical experience authoring visuals. He does extensive research and I think his criticisms of modern filmmaking are much more robust and practical. He is great at showing appreciation for the history of cinema while still showing love for well crafted modern movies.

Patrick (H) Willems

Pretty much the Terrence Malick of YouTube. All videos directed by Patrick Willems Send any mail to: Patrick Willems P.O. Box 380333 Broo

[little-miss-rasputin-pageant]

in almost every other children's book where the main heroine is swept away to a land of whimsy she's shown having a lovely time; braving dangers occasionally, trying to find her way home, sure, but ultimately delighting in the magic around her. meanwhile alice spends her entire time in wonderland like

[roach-works]

look, here’s the thing: alice in wonderland’s enduring fucking charm is that it perfectly captures the vibe of being a very tired and annoyed child who is nonetheless required to play along with adult nonsense.

alice is dragged from place to place without warning, forced to play stupid games with no good prizes, grilled over her schooling and manners and recitation and dress, scolded, judged, insulted to her face, sent away, given gifts she didn’t ask for and doesn’t like, corrected incorrectly, been subject to shifting and arbitrary rules, and then when she gets snappish with all this bullshit everyone acts like a little girl’s temper is the end of the fucking world.

alice in wonderland isn’t a drug trip or a nightmare or a metaphor, that’s just what being ten years old is LIKE. that’s why kids love it so much. even if they can’t quite articulate how, they recognize themselves in it.

[trans-pickles]

I'm gonna go ahead and add - the reaction image is barely even a joke. This is the original illustration of her at the Mad Hatter's tea party.

look at how fucking angry she is

[marzipanandminutiae]

"19th century child points out what a load of bullshit expectations for 19th century children were" is the most enduring type of 19th century children's book for a reason 

[beardedmrbean]

[enki2]

[liminalstrands]

Good news! It gets worse!

I think it's the galactic orbit thing that really did me in

[derinthescarletpescatarian]

WHAT DO YOU MEAN SHARKS HAVE BEEN AROUND THE GALAXY TWICE

[asteroidtroglodyte]

It’s a very good design

[depsidase]

[do-not-u-dare]

Stole this from somewhere but i think it’s appropriate

[ghostisredacted]

just saw someone say "a fandom is small, so like only 1-3 fics posted per day" . you wouldnt survive a day in the place where im from

[aprillikesthings]

The poor dude sounds just a little exasperated, and with good reason

[aropride]

u used to be able to put a dvd in your computer. and then u could watch it

[sensitivesiren]