lesbians4lupin

21 | art?? i guess idk. this is just a pitt posting account now

[w4terl1ly]

NO REGULUS NOOO GET OUT OF THE WATER

[w4terl1ly]

okay good omens season 3 thoughts.

i totally get why people are upset about the ending but i think it made a lot of sense. crowley just wanted to run away with aziraphale. aziraphale just wanted to do the right thing. this ending was the only way they could both get what they wanted. if aziraphale and crowley as demon and angel were spared, it wouldn’t have been fair. it wouldn’t have been the RIGHT thing. they are the centre of the narrative so of course we as the audience care about them the most. but what about…literally everyone else. there were no happy endings in the original universe. there was no happy ending for the angel and the demon. but them sacrificing themselves literally gave humanity purpose. there was no point to humanity before. humans were just toy soldiers for heaven and hell. the new universe was created because they loved each other and they loved humanity. their love gave humanity meaning.

would’ve been nice if they kissed tho can’t argue with you guys there

[frodo-in-a-fez]

i actually really liked the good omens finale and while there are definitely valid critiques to be made i feel like a lot of the more common complaints i’m seeing (at least off the bat) are the result of the fandom as a whole shifting towards appreciating good omens less for what it’s actually trying to say and more for aziraphale and crowley. i love aziracrow but gomens is a story about less about them and more about PEOPLE, and i really loved how it took every opportunity to uplift humanity and love and free will. i wish we had more but given the everything, i’m more than happy :)

[soloorganaas]

that post that's like. fans have got too used to acting as stakeholders. media analysis is about the narrative intentions not a checklist of what fans want. i think criticism of the finale because it didn't include specific elements we wanted to see is separate (if sometimes intertwined) from whether the narrative worked overall. because as an overall arc it makes sense. from the start they wanted an earth where humans could live their lives free to make their own choices, without interference or pre-determined rules and plans and divisions into heaven and hell. crowley believed the system couldn't be fixed, aziraphale believed god could be reasoned with, and in the end they were both right and they both got what they wanted: a chance for humans and them to make choices that were true to who they were. for crowley and aziraphale that was choosing each other. it always would be

[w4terl1ly]

can’t believe they made god a black woman and a canon fujoshi. what a time to be alive

[w4terl1ly]

one thing i’ve noticed about pitt discourse is that there is of course the subsection of viewers that are watching the show with their eyes closed. but that subsection has also inspired another group of people that are addicted to feeling intellectually superior to the point that they’ll conflate normal fandom nonsense with poor media literacy.

like. enjoying a crack ship is not bad media literacy. that’s just regular fandom shenanigans. why are you writing a think piece in the comments of someone who is clearly joking. you are not some elevated television viewer. you are annoying

[w4terl1ly]

my season 3 pitch:

robby goes on a southern alberta history tour and ends up visiting frank slide. he gazes at the rubble at the foot of turtle mountain and says to himself “frank slide…franks..lied…frank lied…” and bursts into tears

just then, a field trip of elementary school students clamber off their school bus. a little girl walks up to robby and asks him if he’s okay. he nods and says “you look like a friend of mine” “what’s her name?” the little girl asks. “baby jane doe” he replies.

[bonetailes]

I need someone to explain to me like I'm six why whitaker got mad at langdon cause I have no idea why he was mad abt that specifically.

[w4terl1ly]

my take:

santos confided in whitaker about how she was annoyed that everyone was acting like nothing happened w langdon. and whitaker is one of the few people who knows the full story so i think he was annoyed on behalf of robby and santos. i also think he probably felt like langdon was talking down to him a little bit and not giving him the respect he deserves (and the whole golden boy thing).

and whitaker backtracking immediately after langdon apologized was probably bc he wasn’t expecting langdon to actually apologize (cause he doesn’t know him very well) and whitaker is a pushover/people pleaser at heart so when langdon didn’t fight back he felt guilting about yelling in the first place.

i do think the pacing of the scene could’ve been better tho

[w4terl1ly]

sometimes i catch myself getting legitimately angry about the chronically online nature of the pitt fanbase…..but then i realize that i’m getting angry….about fandom…online….i have become the thing i wish to destroy

why am i willingly putting myself in a “who can watch tv correctly” competition. i have finals to study for.

[w4terl1ly]

robby’s mom left him…baby jane doe abandoned….baby jane doe is robby time travel confirmed???

[w4terl1ly]

“how can robby criticize mohan for having a panic attack when he had a breakdown at work during pitt fest?”

guys i fear we are running head first into the point.

everything he said to her was something he has most likely said to himself in the past (except maybe the mommy issues thing idk)

she is a reflection of him!!! he is being unkind to her because he’s unkind to himself. it doesn’t mean that he isn’t in the wrong (because he absolutely is) but it was written this way intentionally.

“how can he tell her to keep her personal issues out of the workplace when his personal issues are affecting his work”

THATS THE POINT. the hypocrisy was intentional

****edit to say that i don’t think this analysis should be used to absolve robby of his sins but rather as a reminder that these are characters in a television show and depicting flaws on screen =/= endorsing that behaviour in real life. i encourage us all to be critical about the media we consume, i just ask that we leave room for nuance. please and thank you

[w4terl1ly]

it has come to my attention that the mommy issues thing is most definitely NOT exempt

[w4terl1ly]

the pitt writing team is doing such a good job of portraying mental illness that they’ve unironically got me feeling like this

[w4terl1ly]

robby seriously is one of the best portrayals of “high functioning” depression i’ve ever seen. the way he can’t stop himself from dropping hints about how poorly he’s doing. he doesn’t want anyone to know but he’s also fully aware that he can’t go on like this anymore. he simultaneously wants someone to see him while also being terrified that someone will see him. he wants everything to stop but he doesn’t want to die. he wants to get better but he doesn’t think he deserves to. god it’s so good

side note: the way !some! people are responding to his character makes it so obvious that they’ve never struggled with severe depression before

[w4terl1ly]

even if whitaker is not gay that boy has got to have a little effervescence cause as a fellow mean lesbian i know santos isn’t letting just any straight man into her home

[w4terl1ly]

i’m sorry but some of you HAVE to be joking

“her issues with langdon shouldn’t be personal”

“are they working some sort of romance angle?”

ARE WE WATCHING THE SAME TELEVISION PROGRAM?!?!??!!???!! what is going on

[w4terl1ly]

i’ve seen so many people say something along the lines of “i get where santos is coming from and i know how mental illness and trauma can influence a persons behaviour but there’s still something about her that just makes me dislike her”.

and uh. guys. how about we maybe explore exactly what it is that’s unique about her that makes you dislike her. is it. perhaps. that she’s a woman and a lesbian. could we maybe. perhaps. explore that possibility

[w4terl1ly]

i gotta say i do find it a little interesting that there is a small subset of pitt viewers that can’t seem to grasp the idea that untreated mental illness can make you act unfavourably in the “negative consequences of untreated mental illness” show.

like omg no way. you’re telling me a woman with a history of trauma around male authority figures is not acting completely rationally about the male authority figure that treated her poorly. whaaaaaaattttttt. she’s just a stuck up bitch there’s simply no other explanation!

edit: also. maybe i’m just biased towards santos but i didn’t take her saying “you should’ve had your license revoked and gone to prison” as her saying that she endorses that punishment. but rather that any other doctor in his position would’ve faced far worse consequences and he got incredibly lucky (because she chose not to officially report him)