kunhan tuntuu hetken jossain

she/her 🇫🇮 header by @ilkkawhat

[guiltfactory]

when one of them is terrified of the way the other demonstrates love

[losingbenni]

ASSAD ZAMAN as Armand

INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE (2024) 2.05 – Don't Be Afraid, Just Start the Tape

[polarity-disturbed]

Being able to draw older people as attractive without reducing or erasing the visual signs of aging, and in fact showing that they're attractive because of those signs, is an artistic skill that should be valued so much more. Honestly, it should earn you an immediate fortune because holy fuck is it a rare commodity. There are so many artists who seem to think attractiveness and aging exist in opposition to each other, so they smooth every wrinkle, erase every crease, and de-age the character until they're basically thirty with silver hair. But when an artist can look at crow's feet, smile lines, weathered skin, deep-set wrinkles, and all the little traces of a life well lived and say, "No, that's what makes them beautiful," that's a level of artistic observation and care I wish we celebrated more often.

[fandiagnosis]

THE VAMPIRE LESTAT 3.5 | INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE 1.1

[arlo-maintenanceman]

I got curious and looked into the ‘you can only have sex one day of the year’ movie more and holy shit

for those not as invested in this shit as I am, the movie ends with the protagonists not having sex and deciding people who like having sex are shallow and weird. Yknow. Agreeing with the facist government banning them from having sex.

If you think about it for more than a second, yes it is.

[nepenthean-sleep]

straight white people making a romance movie: haha what if it was illegal to have sex? wait what's lawrence v texas. wait what's mclaughlin v florida. wait what's loving v virginia

[ninewheels]

As preposterous and stupid as this fucking movie's premise sounded (for a light-hearted rom-com, and not The Handmaid's Tale) I didn't want to think about it too much until the movie actually came out, and then I could see if it was somehow more intelligent and subversive than the trailer let on, but guess what, it's even worse!

One Night Only review: Pull out from this sex-negative rom-com

If this is what it takes to get a rom-com greenlit these days, maybe we should just let them die.

Sex workers are thrown under the bus, shown only as thieves who fleece men in the woods at night, while queer sexuality is relegated to a few scenes with Allie’s roommate (a woefully underused Quintessa Swindell) and a handful of pans past blurry same-sex extras making out in the background. “This night is for the straights,” Swindell’s character says to Allie, before saying that queer people have worked around straight laws for centuries.  This is supposed to be a nod to queer resilience, but largely comes off as straightwashing the history of anti-LGBTQ legislation in this country that led towards raids of queer clubs and incarceration of queer people in the not-too-distant past (let alone the current barrage of anti-Trans and LGBTQ legislation currently in the works and on the books). It’s also ignorant of the long and fraught fight for the normalization of age-of-consent laws, which, by the way, did not happen in all states in this very country until 2003. Yes, that’s not even thirty years ago.  By the end, our intrepid protagonists have not had sex with anyone, because this is a film about Romance with a Capital R (and I guess sex is not part of romance!) and for that very same reason they ultimately embrace the fascist state of things. They aren’t the only ones who refuse to fight back. No one in this cursed film is protesting this mandate beyond “repeal” signs in various windows and some creative graffiti (...) (...) If we are supposed to believe that the film is making some subversive statement about the state of sex and bodily autonomy in this country, it cannot end with its leads embracing their chains. That’s just warmed-over conservatism running around in sheep’s clothing.

[nepenthean-sleep]

yeah i wrote this post having only seen the trailer, but jesus christ. was this movie a psyop LMAO??

also, for the unaware: mclaughlin v. florida was a 1964 supreme court case that struck down a florida anti-miscegenation law that criminalized cohabitation (and thus, as implied, sex) between white people and people of color of opposite genders. anti-miscegenation laws made marriage and sexual relationships between white people and people of color, most often specifically black people, a FELONY in several states in the united states up until the 1950s and 1960s. though it was already struck down by the supreme court, the state of alabama didn't repeal their law until 2000! there were THREE ATTEMPTS at codifying anti-miscegenation into the us constitution!

like yes, the issue here is partially straight white people's ignorance on the united states's history of homophobic policy, but it's also really important to recognize that arguably the majority of the issue here is straight white people's ignorance of the united states's history of codifying eugenics and antiblack racism.

the premise could have been interesting as a serious dystopian story, especially taking that history into account, but it wasn't written that way at all. this movie should never have been a fucking romcom making light of the violence the united states (and many other countries) has enacted on any kinds of sexual relationships it deems undesirable.

[nepenthean-sleep]

can y’all maybe reblog this version i feel like people are forgetting about the racism and just focusing on the homophobia

[wren-was-here]

scrolling thru iwtv tiktok reminds me why i stopped going on tiktok

[wren-was-here]

no i’m not done here’s a list of media illiterate takes i’ve seen:

- it’s bad because it has a different atmosphere than the first two seasons: correct. it is a different show based on a different book set 70 years later.

- lestat’s character is too different from the first two seasons: correct again! because the whole fucking thing with this series is that it’s all told by heavily biased and unreliable narrators. it’s the WHOLE plot, actually. this is the first time we’ve really met lestat. and even this version isn’t accurate because it’s his biased recounting of his own actions. arguably the most authentic version of him we’ve seen was in the hurricane scene from the s2 finale, and he was real soft and pathetic there, absolutely nothing like how louis described him.

- louis has been reduced to a side character: it is quite literally a completely different show titled “the vampire lestat.” please explain what you were expecting. louis is barely in the novels after the first one. anne rice clearly had a favorite. most of the rest of the books are about lestat. be glad louis is there at all

- they ruined claudia’s character: please see point number two. we’ve only ever seen a morphed combination of louis’ incredibly flawed perception of her and whatever she chose to write in her diaries that she knew other people were/would eventually read. THAT was claudia, except not really because it’s lestat’s perception/memory/what he chose to say claudia’s ghost said, though i’m willing to bet this version of her is a hell of a lot closer to reality than louis’ version. we will never get to see a completely unbiased perspective of her story, And That Is The Point.

[kings-of-infinite-space]

Agreed. It just seems many people don't enjoy unreliable narrators/limited pov's as a storytelling device because they get frustrated when the story refuses to give them Objective Truth. But instead of saying "this is not my cup of tea," they say "this is bad." There's been a post going around that said the show was using the strict pov as a way to rationalize its inconsistent characterization, but like. No. If you actually pay attention to the dialogue and visual clues, the differences in characterization depending on who's narrating are incredibly well thought out. You can even see it in s1-2, where Louis from his own pov is different from Louis as described in Claudia's diaries.

I personally adore this type of storytelling. The narrator is an actual character with their own biases and agenda, and not just a framing device for the story. You get a more intimate view of their inner world, as opposed to an omniscient view of the world through their eyes. They're telling a story to themselves about themselves to make sense of everything that happened to them - instead of just telling us what happened.

I love it not because I can use the unreliable narrator logic to dismiss any character action I disapprove of as a lie or an obfuscation. I love it because the flaws and inconsistencies in the narrator's story are where the real story is happening. Is the narrator lying? Are they being lied to? If so, why? What don't they know? What are they not telling us and why? What are they missing, and why? What truth are they not ready to face? What will happen when they do face it? Why do they perceive the events and other characters the way they do, and would a different narrator see things differently? What does the difference in perception tell us about them? That's the good stuff! That's what's interesting! It is not a silly TV gimmick, and it is not a mistake made by bad writers.

Amc didn't invent this. Anne Rice didn't invent this. This has been a staple in modern (and postmodern) writing for quite a while. It's a shame so many people are turned off by it, but I'm genuinely so happy that this show is being written by such talented and intelligent and fearless playwrights, who can turn a story into a living thing you have to engage with instead of passively consuming it and going, "And then what?" at the end of each episode.

[vorreitenertiqui]

JACOB: I don't know, I feel like I could be pretty calm in a... Should I– I don't know if I should actually tell you this. We got stuck, I won't tell you where, we got stuck in an elevator yesterday.

Oh... (Gasps)

JACOB: I got stuck, and Sheila and Eric and Assad were also in there. And, I would say... everybody was very calm. But I felt like my job was to be like, "This is... this is fine! This is silly." but we were in there for like 45 minutes.

I could think of two possible places that could happen, and both would be a little unnerving to me.

JACOB: Yeah!

But I'm glad you all survived [Laughter]

JACOB: But I think that would be my job, is to just be like, "Let's find the fun in this!"

That's essential.

JACOB: You know? That like "This is all going to be okay. We'll be fine."

That sounds like a key contribution to the group. If the vibe's not up, you're all doomed, so...

JACOB: Keep the spirits up.

(Source: Youtube)

[triibulinekiisu]

Oispa joku jonka kanssa maata romanttisesti kalliolla kylki kyljessä katsomassa taivaalla lentäviä perseitä

[televisionenjoyer]

anyways no luck on the everything dash but i did find out that if you do [blog].tumblr.com/random will just pull up a random post from that blog

[pinkfire-chacarera]

okay. nice. love you frog.

[televisionenjoyer]

love you frog...

[graygiantess]

I'm really glad we settled on Zamasian as the RPF portmanteau for Assad and Eric, but I'll always think back fondly on that one time a long time ago when my Twitter mutual said "Assric Bogoman" and everybody lost their shit for a couple of days.

[bimbloop]

Still learning how to draw him. One thing's for sure - Armand is a very fun blorbo to draw hehe

(also some chill Hermitcraft fanart coming soon as well hehe)

[sermna]

"I can't believe [media] was actually about _____ the whole time!!!"

[one possible interpretation, yep]

[literally the main theme??]

[worst take you've seen in your life]

[sillystigmata]

HUSBANDS

[niceferatu]

remember when they were saying that bisexuals couldn't be butch or femme and we had to be like. deer

[niceferatu]

it was worse than I remembered

you couldn't be a futch they/them you had to be a pigeon

[yaoiblackmold]

[this-is-trans-joy]

I don’t know if this is an obvious take or a hot take, but I think people need to start re-framing feminism as the fight for body autonomy as opposed to whatever this second wave revival gender essentialist bullshit we have going on right now. Once you reframe it in this way, it’s easier to understand intersectionality and why cis women are not the only people who need feminism. The lack of body autonomy effects cis women, trans people, intersex people, disabled people, poc, homeless people, sex workers, etc. and your feminism needs to include and prioritise all of these groups of people (which will include men btw) because feminism is about autonomy, not about establishing a matriarchy. Body autonomy is the biggest threat to the patriarchy, both with reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and even the right to not be drafted into military services. Once body autonomy is established for everyone, the patriarchy no longer has a leg to stand on.

And body autonomy does include things that you don’t personally like either. I was prompted to write this post after a series of bad takes from progressives, but one of them was re-hashing the Sabrina Carpenter album cover drama with “I don’t think it’s conservative of me to think that the album cover is a bad look when we’ve seen images of women being abused in this way” because I do actually think you’ve failed to understand feminism by projecting your morals onto a woman who was consensually expressing her own autonomy just because she expressed it in a way that you didn’t like or that made you uncomfortable.

Body autonomy also means unhealthy choices. Body autonomy also means regret rates. Body autonomy also means freedom of sexuality. Body autonomy also means mutilation. If you believe body autonomy has limitations and exceptions, then your feminism is most likely surface level.

TERFs are some of the biggest opponents to body autonomy, and if you find yourself thinking “oh people can do whatever they want with their bodies as long as it doesn’t harm them or make others uncomfortable” then you are far more susceptible to TERF propaganda than you think.

[this-is-trans-joy]

ooooh the radfems are BIG mad about this one