Origami Around
Fai_Ryy
Not today Justin
blake kathryn
Aqua Utopia｜海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
Noah Kahan
official daine visual archive
★
EXPECTATIONS
Product Placement
macklin celebrini has autism
ojovivo
No title available
Monterey Bay Aquarium
oozey mess
Mike Driver
cherry valley forever
No title available
tumblr dot com
Game of Thrones Daily
seen from Iraq
seen from Argentina
seen from Malaysia
seen from Malaysia
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from Russia
seen from Malaysia
seen from Venezuela
seen from Malaysia
seen from Argentina
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from Lebanon
seen from Palestinian Territories
seen from South Africa
seen from United States
seen from Chile
@whitherwanderyouspirit
Friendly announcement: I am always open for messages and asks, if you would like to continue a conversation beyond a comment section on any of the sites I use. Or bounce ideas off of me.
I might not always respond right away (I am very introverted and usually miring through some degree of burnout), and sometimes I might just kind of... fall off the map to recharge. But my messages and ask box are always open unless indicated otherwise.
The worst characters are the ones were you only get like three pieces of lore about them but the lore is so fascinating and hits your brain at just the right angle to have you behaving like a feral dog in front of your conspiracy theory cork board
unfortunately i dont think its queerbaiting if the creator is just so terminally heterosexual that they never remotely considered the same gender relationship their show is centered around could be read as romantic. it is deeply painful however.
Maybe accidental queer baiting? The way someone may not mean to say something rude, but it may come off rude, so it's rude. Frustrating either way.
Not being a dick, just a friendly clarification.
By definition you can't accidentally queerbait. Queerbaiting is specifically using a same sex pair from the show to market the show to queer audiences with no intention of ever following through on a romantic relationship.
There is officially licensed Destiel merch signed off on by Kripke. Teen Wolf had a commercial with the actors for Derek and Stiles draped over each other talking about being "on a ship." Both shows actively used scenes between them as marketing while actively mocking fans for wanting them together. Sherlock has multiple characters refer to Johnlock as a couple, including characters we're supposed to believe are never wrong about human behavior and pushed those scenes in marketing. Then they acted insulted when fans saw them as a couple.
That's queerbaiting.
Done on accident it would just be queer subtext. Done because they had no other choice due to censorship is queer coding.
The specific meaning of the word is really starting to get lost and it's a pretty important one to keep accurate. It describes a very specific phenomenon that was done repeatedly and maliciously for decades and is meant to examine that specifically.
Doing it on accident sucks, but it isn't a tactic of capitalism intentionally intended to suppress queer representation while making money from queer fans.
Reblogging to keep the accurate definition and examples of queerbaiting circulating in the world
The Mummy Returns (2001) dir. Stephen Sommers
i do think theres something sad about how largely only the literature that's considered especially good or important is intentionally preserved. i want to read stuff that ancient people thought sucked enormous balls
Time to take this post entirely too seriously:
I often wonder if this is why you so commonly see the sentiment that we are in an era of uniquely bad literature, or at least that the fact that most books don't have artistic aspirations and are not aiming to be anything other than mindless entertainment is new. In fact what's new is the idea that everything is worth preserving (and also the internet making it easier to preserve it). The dumb artistically unambitious trash books of the past have survived only sporadically, because people thought of them as literally disposable.
When I was in college I had a professor who was an expert on detective fiction. He had a longstanding beef with the idea that "Murders in the Rue Morgue" was the first detective story. He thought that it seemed way too polished to be inventing a new genre, and also that the whole orangutan business had the vibe of someone subverting preexisting audience expectations and maybe engaging in a bit of stealth parody. With the help of some student volunteers, he went trawling through old magazines and newspapers and found hundreds of detective stories from the early 1800s that just hadn't garnered enough individual attention to be remembered. This was because most of them sucked balls. He created an online archive of them, so you too can read these mostly terrible stories.
I've spent a ridiculous amount of time on Project Gutenberg sifting through forgotten old fiction and lemme tell ya. a lot of that stuff sucks ass.
Tremendously comforting, really.
An Archive of Our Own, a project of the Organization for Transformative Works
Summary: While preparing for their first date, Walter and Barbara discover a particularly potent infestation in their household. Something...several somethings from the Darklands have taken up residence in the spare room turned nursery.
Notes: This kind of got away from me. Running a bit behind, but still plugging away at the prompts. On to this week's actually prompts next.
Will resume working on finishing chapter 2 of Shaking Things Up tomorrow. The fatigue is taking me and it's been a long enough week that I'm letting it drag me off away.
Guess who decided that the intro I had written originally would fit better with the next chapter, then proceeded to spend three hours writing a new one instead of finishing the rest of the chapter?
At least I'm following tradition by posting late, lol.
Wrote 4k+ between yesterday morning and today. Still need to finish the conclusion of the chapter. Send help or caffiene.
The chapter is finished! I'm going to get some sleep and set fresh eyes on it in the morning for one final edit.
Total word count before editing: 6,221.
That...might have gotten away from me.
i have a suggestion
this poem is about being nonbinary.
This has been my main argument against "AI" from the very beginning.
OpenAI scraped the entire web. All of which had been a labor of love from humans. Wikipedia is the backbone of a lot of LLMs, and that was volunteer human labor. They stole it and now they're selling it back to us.
And worse, they're trying to destroy the free sources that they stole from. It's destruction of human knowledge on an unprecedented scale. The burning of the library of Alexandria has nothing on this.
Will resume working on finishing chapter 2 of Shaking Things Up tomorrow. The fatigue is taking me and it's been a long enough week that I'm letting it drag me off away.
Guess who decided that the intro I had written originally would fit better with the next chapter, then proceeded to spend three hours writing a new one instead of finishing the rest of the chapter?
At least I'm following tradition by posting late, lol.
Wrote 4k+ between yesterday morning and today. Still need to finish the conclusion of the chapter. Send help or caffiene.
If you start reading books again, you’ll feel at least a little better. I promise.
12 years on and still the best articulation ever made of how one should respond to useless critiques
I swear, some of you people somehow manage to possess all of the three most unfortunate character traits someone can have: a) kinda stupid, b) obnoxiously contrarian, c) deeply annoying.
stuff you say when you don’t give a fuck about women quite frankly
Hence the not-uncommon adage that the washing machine did even more for women's liberation than the birth control pill
Just saw The Muppet Movie (1979) in a theatre today. I've seen the movie dozens of times, but never in a theatre.
This movie is the reason I used to smell the bottlecaps when I opened a pop bottle, and a heavy contributor to all of my formative memories of what fame was and how it was obtained. Seemed easy.
It's *meant* to be seen large, by the way. So many of the effects are practical and when Kermit's that big, you realise even more all the work that went into that movie. Who is out there building massive Animals to come through the roof in a ghost town? Who is putting frogs on bicycles? Who is making me forget that Miss Piggy is actually performed by a 34 year old man? (Yeah. Frank Oz was 34. Jim Henson was 42.)
I watched it this time and for the first time was struck by the performance that Hope That Something Better Comes Along is- because it's Kermit and Rowlf in a duet. Jim Henson is dueting with himself through the power of magic.
Now, sure, it's dubbed audio of Jim singing both parts sync'd to probably Jim and Steve Whitmire and... I dunno, maybe Jerry Juhl or Frank Oz doing the puppeteering. (I know all of them had done Rowlf's hands from time to time, and Steve had done Kermit puppeteering for Jim, though maybe not this early.) But when you're watching the movie, it's just a frog and a dog singing together and you don't even question it. A basketball and a ping pong ball and some faux fur and felt, but they're alive.
And sure, the movie's full of digital effects- the pre-green screen compositing in El Sleezo (They used to use black velvet- the same technique is used in Labyrinth for the Fireys), but practical ones, too, like Kermit on the bike. Or a mix of the two, like the opening crane shot, which transitions from a helicopter shot of a swamp into the studio as the camera pans across the water without making ripples. (Go find it and watch it and realise you never considered how that was done.)
The desert scene is practical. The daylight shot was done on location, and the night scene is a studio set. They could've composite shot the moon and inserted it digitally, but they didn't. They did it exactly the same way your local community theatre would do it- a moon box behind a cyclorama studded with lights for stars. Why? So the light would fall naturally on the puppets. Because Muppets have to be lit entirely differently than humans. And because the Muppeters are below stage level performing above their heads, so it couldn't be shot at the location.
Your eyes and brain just nod and go, "Yep, that's a dog and a bear and a pig and a chicken and a thing, whatever Gonzo is, out in the desert with a frog."
I saw Hamlet for free on Friday night. With the popcorn, I paid over $30 for this movie I've seen more times than I've seen Hamlets, and I had a better experience. I said that the performance of Hamlet did not make me feel I had considered the story or the performance in any different way (apart from going, WHY did you do it like THAT?), but I genuinely feel I have a new and better appreciation for The Muppet Movie after seeing it today that I wouldn't have gotten from watching it at home.
So. Anyway. If you ever get a chance to see The Muppet Movie on a big screen? Do it. Because even if your brain doesn't suddenly go, "Hey. Wait a minute. That's HARD." You'll still be seeing a movie that, like The Lord of the Rings, is grounded in the reality of the performance. The world on screen feels real.
The choices are dictated by budget, sure, but they're also made to serve the story that's being told. And that *feels* different on a big screen. I would like that experience from Hollywood more often.
