#but they weren't actually critiquing her music.....

[sampsonstorm-critical]

So. I DID watch Hazbin Hotel. And oh boy. So I'm going to give my critique on the show.

"antagonists and supporting" Characters- A bit better than Helluva. Studio oversight curbed some stuff. The characters somewhat had their own personalities in their dialogue. Some characters I thought could be cut out. I'm sorry but Sir Pentious is one of them. He's too cartoony even for this universe. He's annoying on the level jar jar binx was in star wars. Same with Mimzy. I think they could've done much better with Adam, but they just made him a dude bro? I did like the Seraphim sisters. Lute was just a bitchy, cynical, anime antagonist. Nifty was a bit aggravating too on the same level as Sir Pentious. I liked Husk as a character. Lucifer being a crushed dreamer fallen angel was actually interesting however his take on his people that he rules? Now if he was actively choosing to punish them himself using hells tools, it would be one thing? But he just has depression??? I guess? After thousands of years? Instead of trying to reconnect with his daughter, he just Mopes??? Like a sad boy??? No. Sorry. You lost me. Cherry Bomb? Meh. She's pretty shallowly written.

Now!

Main Characters -

Charlie- I hate her. I hate how fucking useless she is. She's the main protagonist for fucks sake. Now if she started like this and actually got better as the story went along in season 1, then alright. But she just gets her ass kicked and daddy has to save her skin. Way to take away her independence as a character.

Vaggie- I like Vaggies premise, but I hate the way her arc is executed. And the fact that she lets Lute live??? I'm sorry? WHAT THE FUCK WAS THAT?! No way. No how. Someone like her from a military background, or hells backdrop would let someone as callous as Lute live.

Alastor - he's my favorite character but, it's not his show. And it feels like it is. I love Alastor, he's the only entertainment I get from this show for the most part.

Angel - he's a characature. He is a walking stereotype. I know many people like him including the hypersexuality. Angel dust unless written for plot specific purposes only, is a very selfish unredeemable person. I'm sorry. He's being raped, and he still sexually harasses other people, knowing how it makes him feel? Now this would be great if we weren't supposed to feel bad for him right away, because it would show how abused can become abusers even if they don't mean too. And that could've been part of his arc to becoming a better person. But no.

The Vs - I like Vox. He's written to be genuinely manipulative, charismatic, and intimidating. I like Velvet too. I wish we knew anything about her. Valentino is written to be a villain, but some of his more childish moments are a bit of a movie mood killer.

On to the show as a whole.

So the most hated part of HH. Episode 4s infamous sexual assault scene. - I actually think it was very raw. It was done in an artistic taste. And I DEFINITELY think that if it wasn't taken from a SA fetishizer, it would've sat with me better. I understand what they were portraying and as someone who's had friends, gay men from the aids crisis era who have been SA, I see it but it's not done well. The only instance it's done well is when Angel is shown in the studio with Valentino especially when he tells Charlie to leave.

The build up and pay off issue - the music for the most part was good. OUT OF CONTEXT. I. Context it pays off without building up the conflict. It just resolves immediately. And these aren't Saturday morning cartoon conflicts. These are deep seeded emotional traumas between people. They don't resolve within one episode. These types of conflicts should resolve in 3 part episodes to 1 season. Yet again the Helluva problem shows up. Setting up too many character arcs and plotlines that cannot be properly resolved in the time span.

The finally- it was. Hot. Garbage. What the fuck was Charlie wearing to fight???? What the fuck???? Seriously???? And Angel???? In his booty shorts??? And we're supposed to take the extermination seriously??? HA! No. I do like in the episodes leading up to the finally, where Charlie and Emily rise against Heaven. I think they should have kept going with that moment in the song "If hell is forever, then Heaven must be a lie". It was very powerful and undermined immediately with "the big reveal!" Yuck. And don't even get me started on how NIFTY is the one who killed ADAM! SERIOUSLY? I think it was actually cool to see Alastor get HIS shit kicked in and see him crack under the pressure for once. I DO NOT like how Charlie's daddy had to come and fight her battles especially seeling as how he could do it the whole fucking time for thousands of years????!

#helluva critical #helluva criticism #helluva critique #helluva rewrite #hazbin hotel critical #hazbin hotel criticism #anti hazbin hotel #hazbin hotel critique #anti spindlehorse #anti helluva boss #anti vivziepop

[vasito-de-leche]

Hi, I just wanted to tell you that your r1999 ocs are pretty and I love their designs too! Especially people in the fandom are pretty creative for making their r1999 ocs and I was wondering if do you have a tips for making an r1999 oc? I'm quite hard time making an oc from r1999.

Do you need them to make an oc based them irl people, history, myth or perhaps a fiction characters from another story? (For example, baby blue is based from Alice in the wonderland in the book, ig?)

Some characters are pretty unknown who their based of, for example like X, Pavia, Click and the other characters.

OH!! OH OKAY OKAY I LOVE TALKING ABOUT THIS OKAY

As far as I've seen, not EVERY character is based on a single actual figure, whether fictional or historical.

Yes, we have John Titor who is. John Titor. But some characters have PLENTY of different people that they reference in relation to their themes, others represent broad groups, movements or genres like horror, the hippie movement. You have Dikke who has many, many different references to figures of justice. Mondlicht, who seems to represent all three characters from Little Red Riding Hood--the girl, the wolf and the hunter. You have Blonney and Horropedia who reference a shitload of different things and actors and works within the horror genre.

With the examples you've given, X does not seem to reference a person but the concept of Rube Goldberg Machines. Pavia seems to reference the Werewolf of Pavia. Click? No clue actually, I haven't looked into him much, so I don't know what else he could reference beyond WWII.

Baby Blue is indeed a reference to Alice in Wonderland, but her 01 Story "Fantasy is in Vogue" clearly state that Baby Blue is NOT the Alice that discovered Wonderland. The rest of her lore and i2 Garment also imply that Baby Blue is more akin to the figure of the Red Queen as opposed to Alice.

My point is: if you'd like to make a character then you shouldn't feel like you have to pick a single historical figure. You can pick ANYTHING that interests you and to have your OC embody and represent--mythology, folklore, fantasy, artistic movements, music, architecture, history... LITERALLY ANYTHING. OR LITERALLY NOTHING!

The whole point of the characters in R1999 is that they're a small piece that represents the era they come from. That's why they're considered art pieces to be preserved by UTTU Magazine. This is why we have Sweetheart, who is based on Marylin Monroe but is also a biting critique on Hollywood.

And you can even take this a step further and toy with this idea, like I did with my own OCs!

Spina Venatores is meant to represent the people that are truly left behind and displaced, people that you once knew but weren't lucky enough to meet Vertin nor the Foundation, to drive home the idea that Vertin cannot save everyone no matter how hard she tries.

The vulnerable that were taken advantage of by Manus Vindictae, a group that represents extreme isolation and supremacy, who lack any meaningful connections other than their own elitist groups. So I wanted my OCs to feel extremely disconnected--that's why all of them don't look like they belong in any single era but straight out of a different game, why they lack details that could connect them to their original times, and why the themes and concepts they reference are vague and timeless. I'm also big on bones and dark topics, so I shoved a SHIT ton of those into them, easy!

I always suggest that people grab their favorite character from the game and connect their OC to them, makes it easier to establish a connection within the universe and find themes to start with. You like Druvis III? Easy, your OC could be a childhood friend she had in her homeland before she and her family moved to America. Or a noble from a family that had business with the Weyerhaeuser company. You like Madame Z? How about an OC who is an assistant for her?

If people are too shy to make direct connections like this with a canon character, then you have plenty of organizations and groups--Zeno, Laplace, the Foundation, the School of Discipline, Manus Vindictae, Apeiron, and who knows what else is out there.

You can even study the lore and find places to fill in with your OCs. That one tidbit from a few days ago that revealed theres a few other terrorist organizations aside from Manus Vindictae? Make your own terrorist organization! Have you seen the white and red enemies from the Mintage stages? The Rock City enemies and Little Finger Peter? Make an OC that belongs there!

It always helps to have a solid starting point if you can't pick an era or anything to use as a base for your OC! And don't be discouraged if you come up with something and R1999 suddenly drops a character with similar or near identical themes--take advantage of that! Your OC has the same arcanum skills as another character? Make them fight about it, make them study buddies, find ways to engrave your OC and make them relevant to the world in their own ways.

It happened to me with Pavia! So I just made my OC and Pavia be insufferable and hate each other! Easy!

If you're looking for resources, I have a post here--it's a little outdated since I know there's a lot more new things to add, but it's a good place to start! It also helps to study the characters you like and pick them apart to understand how to better make an OC!

#not a prompt #reverse 1999 #reverse: 1999 #i cant share my own process of making an OC #bc i just know what i want the second i sit down to make the OC #but hope this helped!

[myjunkisyuzuruhanyu]

Some thoughts about One Piece on Ice

Thanks to some help by one kind fan I managed to watch One Piece on Ice. 😍 Thank you so much! ❤️

Admittedly I probably wouldn't have watched the show if Shoma wouldn't be the star of the show. I was so interested to see his character portrayal because it's so out of Shoma's own character.

But before I talk about Shoma here are some other thoughts...

First of all I am quite clueless about the anime or manga of One Piece which probably would have helped to understand the story better because I don't own any Japanese language skills, so I won't say anything about the story. I just wish I could appreciate the whole story better. (I have basic knowledge of the characters and I watched a couple anime episodes when I was like 12 years old so 😅)

I think anyone who has seen pictures of the show, knows how amazing the costumes are and how close they are to their animation counterpart (I mean at least I know the characters with my less than good one piece knowledge)

It's quite a different than usual ice show. It really tells a complete story, no "extra" skating to just show off, every skating is implemented into the story. It really feels more like a theatre on ice than an actual ice show. It's not easy to produce a theatre that needs to tell a story from 3 viewing angles. Usually theatres are directed to watch from the front. Here it's watched from 3 sides, which on a stream made it sometimes difficult to see the conversation that was going on but in the arena it's needed. (Tbf no stream or video can ever give justice to a theatre production no matter if on ice or in theatre just because the circumstances are wildly different. I won't elaborate on that but let you tell this by a musical nerd who watched countless musicals live and on screen)

The choreography ideas are great. Especially cool are the choreographies for the fight scenes, each fight scene has a different set up. The spcial effects on top of it are so cool. Congrats to Kenji Miyamoto for this show and also congrats to the lighting and special effects designers. These things really add a lot.

The ACTING!!! OMG the acting is so good for an ice show. These are skaters not actors (besides Miyu) and all of them do an amazing job. There is a lot text going on especially for Marin, who is actually the main star of the show, no one has as much to do besides her and she is emoting so well to an audience. She really should be thinking about going to theatre. Rika Hongo is one of my favorite characters in this whole show. This suits her so well. How she can implements the skating skills into the character and how she is never off charater. And SHOMA OMG OMG OMG 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 How can this be Shoma? He can act. Like really. He's full of energy, full of different expressions, he is a come to life animated character, acting over the top like it's suited to the character and on top he does skills on ice I haven't seen him do anywhere before. Admittedly I was sceptical about Shoma acting and on top such a "quirky" character, but they couldn't found a better person for it.

I applaud the full cast for their acting. And they stayed in character until the very end until the curtain call.

It's a great show from the ideas, to the choreography, to the costumes, to the acting! ❤️

What an amazing show! 😍

Do I have any negative points about the show? 🤔 Well only one thing...the availability for ppl outside Japan is a disaster. I know countless ppl who would have paid to see the show on stream but weren't able to because of the geoblocking and trouble finding a working vpn or credit card. It probably has to do with copyright but then at least give the fans an explanation...The other small critique is simply on me personally😅...without knowing Japanese or One Piece it was not the full experience it would surely give...but you know what maybe that actually gives me a reason to really learn Japanese and to watch the anime/manga 😉

If anyone wants to and is able to watch. Do it, you won't be disappointed!

#shoma uno #figure skating #one piece #one piece on ice #personal

[sotwk]

Whag do you think about Lord of The Rings: The rings of power?

Did you watched it? If not, why? If yes, why?

Oooh! A bit of a controversial question, but one that I am happy to finally be asked, so I can give my thoughts and opinions about it. Thank you for the Ask, @estethell!!

My Thoughts on "The Rings of Power"

When I heard a new Tolkien/Middle-earth series was coming out, I was super excited about it. I watched the first two episodes the very evening it came out on Amazon. My excitement was so contagious, I even got my husband (who wouldn't know an elf from a dwarf) to sit down and watch it with me for like 5 whole minutes.

Now, the truth: my initial excitement about the series quickly dropped about four episodes in. The storyline and characterizations just weren't really what I expected (actually, I'm not even sure what my expectations were, except that they were high), and so my interest dwindled in my disappointment.

However, a few weeks later, after all the episodes had been released, I sat back down to finish the series, and my impressions of it improved overall.

I wouldn't say I love Rings of Power, but there are enough things about it that I liked and enjoyed to be able to engage with others who do love it. It's kind of like the folks who didn't like The Hobbit movies, but are able to gush over Lee Pace's Thranduil anyway.

Stuff in Rings of Power that I liked:

Liked BEST: Young Elrond, and the way he was portrayed as such a wise and kind lord by Robert Aramayo (so handsomely elf-y!).

A Close Second: Durin IV and Disa. What a wonderful couple that brought just the right amount of comic relief.

The chance to see Khazad-dum in its glory.

Poppy Proudfellow. We all need a friend like her.

The music/soundtrack, ESPECIALLY the song "This Wandering Day" Poppy sang--I literally cried when she sang it.

Arondir. He was a such sweetheart and I hope he comes back next season.

Adar. The take on orcs being corrupted elves is one I embrace.

Elendil and Isildur. Excellent acting on Lloyd Owen's part, and I liked Maxim Baldry's earnestness.

Halbrand. I'll admit, I wasn't too impressed or happy with the revelation of him as Sauron, but the character alone as it stands was actually very good, and very well portrayed by Charlie Vickers.

Stuff I didn't like so much (so probably don't ask me about them 'cause I prefer not to dwell on critiques):

Short-haired elves. Just not a fan, purely a preference thing.

Galadriel being short. This is petty and minor, but for some reason, even though Morfydd Clark did a fine job, it bugged me to see Galadriel looking UP at mortal men.

Celebrimbor cast as an older man. So sorry, Charles Edwards is a lovely actor, but this was far from what I had in mind for the character.

Eärien. Normally I will give OCs a chance, but I did not like this one. Felt really unnecessary, and the screen time should have been given to Anárion, wherever he might be.

The poor armor design and nerfing of the Numenorean army.

Portrayal of the Gwaith-i-Mírdain. Again, I expected much more.

The origin story of mithril. Such a strange choice.

WAY, WAAAAAAY too much CGI. Why is everything so shiny??

Overall low/poor production value. But honestly, there is never gonna be another production like Peter Jackson's trilogy. It's sad, but filmmakers just don't do that anymore. I hope someone proves me wrong.

I remain conflicted about the following:

The Haladriel ship. I'm a Celeborn fan (I have some lovely HCs about him and his ties to Thranduil), and I ship Galadriel with him. However, the way Halbrand looks at Galadriel just does something to me, so even though I'm not sold, my mind is open to it as an AU. I blame Charlie Vickers being such a charming rogue.

The Elf-Human love story. Arondir and Bronwynn were sweet and convincing, and I did swoon for them, but... this is just so overdone already. Couldn't we have just featured other kinds of relationships?

The revised origin of Gandalf. I kind of get it, and I appreciate the relationship between him and the Hobbit progenitors... but it's kind of also weird.

Halbrand as Sauron. I plan on withholding judgement until I see where they are going with this in Season 2.

Overall Rating and Conclusion:

62% fresh SotWK Tomato Rating

I choose to just be HAPPY and GRATEFUL that we have another cinematic adaptation to the Tolkien fandom, however flawed it might be.

Definitely looking forward to Season 2 and I will definitely watch it.

Positive vibes ONLY, please! I am happy to publicly post and gush with others about the good points of RoP. But I will not have public bashing of things other fans might love and enjoy. I am very against crapping on the things others love, even if I might hate them myself.

If anyone wants to discuss the things I dislike about RoP, we can do it via DM or private Asks.

Everyone has a right to enjoy whatever they want in this show; let's just all respect each others' differences in tastes and opinions! <3

#sotwk answers #rings of power #tolkien #middle earth #rop #rings of power review

[susandsnell]

Oh my god, did you see the HSM demonises femininity video. The author sayd that because Sharpay is the villain and she wears pink and is girly, this is clearly demonising girliness. And all the comments were whining about how oppressed they were for liking Sharpay (I promise they weren't, I was 9 when HSM came out, Sharpay was EVERYONE'S favourite.

The author also rebutted my comment that Gabriella and Taylor are also girly af by saying they don't wear pink (they do, and Sharpay doesn't only wear pink either) and that Taylor isnt as girly because she I WISH I WAS MAKING THIS UP wears a lot of headbands. Never mind Monique Colman had to wear those because the hair dep, didn't know how to style black hair and just gave her shit wigs.

And i like Sharpay, she's a fun character. But she's not the villain because she's feminine. She's the villain because she's a bully (Kelsi) , Stalker (Troy) and sabotaged in every film, including to her own brother.

Sorry for the rant this has been making me angry for years

As it happens, I'm trying to put a moratorium on watching video essays I know will only aggravate me, especially the spate of several about ~demonizing femininity~ after a certain one about the non-issue of "nlog" in period pieces melted what braincells 2023 has spared as I spent my finite minutes on this earth watching a woman I'm pretty sure would've called me slurs in high school shriek barely-disguised reactionary garbage for forty minutes or so over the existence of masculine presentation because the consequence of a decade of ~choice feminism~ is women who think the central struggle for gender equality is no one being allowed to criticize their fantasies unquestioning adherence to gender expectations but couch it in progressive lingo. See: the morons who threw a tantrum over Rachel Zegler saying Snow White's story evolves beyond being rescued by a prince because women's narratives were limited in the 30s compared to now (a completely anodyne and accurate statement that created a harrasment campaign horseshoe between racist alt-right chuds and liberal feminists because god forbid you question the potent feminism of their dollies). See also: the pathetic whining about a lack of heterosexual romance or an extremely conventionally feminine, thin and usually white female character wearing pants. However, I fully welcome the opportunity to rant about it lol, because I feel very strongly that "unapologetic femininity" is one of the biggest jokes/psyops/reactionary disguised as progressive movements so long as it refers to people of whom society demands femininity as a performance (chiefly, cis women - there are actually people discouraged/disallowed by cisheteronormative patriarchal society from being feminine, and for whom that phrase actually means something lol). I constantly say this as a super feminine queer woman (literally, my room and most of my clothes are pink, frilly, and floral): femininity is derided, but it is also imposed.

I was never that into High School Musical even as a kid, but the fact that a conventionally feminine character is treated by 'masculine' by these dummies because she isn't hyperfeminine is utterly unsurprising. 'NLOG' as a whole might have started as a critique of female characters who fit a certain male fantasy of internalizing misogyny and catering to certain ideals of being low-maintenance, but at this point as I've previously said, it's being used in place of homophobic slurs for girls and women, both real and fictional, who aren't hyperfeminine, who don't prioritize male attention, or who simply, for one reason or another, feel alienated from 'proper' girlhood/womanhood. The 'mean girl' bully stereotype exists, be it in HSM, Heathers, Mean Girls, or what have you, for a reason. Bullying frequently occurs along the lines of failing at performing your assigned gender 'correctly'. Just as male bullies in media frequently pick their targets due to perceived failures of masculinity, perceived failures of femininity are an extremely common justification for social ostracism and punishment, because that's how gender conformity is socially enforced. This overlaps with these ideals being based in concepts of class, race, and homophobia/transphobia etc, which are simply other facets of the hierarchy. The "demonized femininity" boogeyman we've seen discussed in the last few years genuinely feels like a conservative psyop of some kind if I didn't see so many people otherwise fall for it hook, line, and sinker, because the presupposition that gender nonconformity is rewarded - particularly in the wake of the recent spate of extreme transphobic and homophobic backlash - is laughable.

#thanks for the message! <3

[bisexualshakespeare]

For the ask meme, 8 and 12?

8. Do you listen to music while you write? If so, share a song that’s been inspiring you lately.

I usually listen to music when I'm writing cause I have to drown out my own worry. That's also why I usually don't listen to music when editing cause I need to hear to critique! lol Lately I've been working on an idea that takes place at school so I've been listening to a playlist I made that has soundtracks from monsters university and other movies that take place at school. I don't always make a playlist for the project but I try to keep the vibe.

12. Is there a trope you haven’t written yet but really want to?

TONS! I don't write as much as I would like and not as self indulgent as I could be. I've had this idea for a subversive soulmate au for LITERAL YEARS this was teen wolf days so probably 2013/14/15 at the LATEST and I still want to write it whether it's teen wolf or another fandom whatever!

So there's this movie Timer. it's about this society that has this Timer technology that counts down to the moment you meet your soulmate (in the movie they call it The One) and our main character is a woman who has a timer but her soulmate doesn't, so her clock never starts. Our secondary character is her sister whose Timer is counting down but it says she won't meet her soulmate until she's like in her 60s or something.

It's actually a really good movie in how it dissects the repercussions of a society like this. Their parents got divorced when they got Timers installed and found out they weren't each other's One and there are some kids who meet in high school and they're like pushed on each other.

The sister meets this guy and says what the hell and starts hanging with him and kinda dating and growing closer and our main character just starts fucking this random guy cause she's having a crises. Eventually the main and the sister's BF meets and DING DING DING their timers sync up and it's awkward and her sister is really upset but ultimately the movie does have the main and the BF *ambiguously* end up together which to ME seems to go against the whole POINT of the MOVIE

anyway I wanna write something like that except the people decide to not end up with their soulmates and instead stay with the people they know are not perfect for them because they love em anyway 💕

thanks for asking!

#ask game

[mysticdragon3md3]

Why Monsters University is Pixar's Greatest Underrated Masterpiece by Rockotar

Thanks for standing up for this movie.

And for using FE3H music. I'm going to put my Edelcrit glasses on for fun: I think it's really appropriate how the FE3H music was used during the part of the essay where he talks about how Mike narrowed his view into believing he had ONLY ONE PATH to success and "put all his eggs in one basket". One of the flaws I see repeated in FE3H's El (even in her FE Heroes appearance) is that she has narrowed her focus into believing she has only one path. She often acts like war is the only solution to everything. Edelstans will even admit this, but make excuses for her, from "it's just her trauma expression", to "Adrestia's culture would make anyone's mind like that", to "all her one-on-one interpersonal relationships are non-hostile, so we're going to ignore all her ultimate actions as a nation's leader, effecting a continent-wide scale, always seeming to eventually end in war", to "she feels bad about it, so we're going to excuse that she didn't try harder to avoid war" (which honestly would hold weight---as it temporarily did for me in 3Hopes Claude---if it wasn't for the fact that we had a whole other major Lord, Claude, demonstrating actually trying harder to think outside of boxes and getting results that weren't unnecessary warfare).

The thing that stings about El is that she is enacting the archetype that is often lauded in anime/manga protagonists: the hero with Resolve. This was most clearly stated in Bleach's scene of Ichigo's duel with Renji, but Resolve is actually a trait that defines most (Shonen) protagonists. They persevere, they win the day, they achieve all their dreams, because they were single-mindedly focused on nothing but their one goal, and never were tempted to sway their focus onto anything else. One of my favorite protagonists, Sengoku Basara 2009's Date Masamune, is defined by this. He embodies Resolve; he wins because of his Resolve. He has "all his eggs in one basket" to the extent where he enters a duel saying "I'm always wearing my burial shroud" and it sounds cool as fuck! El is the same, but what makes her interesting is that FE3H is a rare critique of that single-minded resolve. Resolve has been praised as the highest ideal for years in Japanese pop culture stories, and yet, that media rarely ever questions whether there was a dark side to that ideal. (At least, the anime/manga and videogames that I've seen.) There is the occasional series like Madoka Magica which ultimately warns against the futility of Homura's Resolve as obsession, and solving the series problem through Madoka thinking "outside the box". But even that could be said to be praising Madoka's own Resolve in maintaining her final episode decision. Bamboo Blade has one episode about an old kendo coach who was critiqued for driving away all his students through his rigid teaching methods not adapting to new times, new mentalities, and student's individualities. He wasn't willing to adapt to the proven fact that his methods were yielding counterproductive results! All because Change is the antithesis of all that "cool" Resolve. But even that episode ended by framing the old kendo coach as "so cool" for Resolving to not change his ways, even after a whole episode where he was shown and accepted that his rigid ways were counterproductive. There's just so much pop media that wants to frame Resolve as the ultimate ideal without questioning it for flaws. FE3H asks that question.

The dark side of Resolve is single-mindedness, a narrow view on the world, chasing singular paths, even when they prove obviously (self-) destructive, because of a belief that Resolve is the ONLY path to victory, while proudly declaring how "you will not be deterred". People come to El with alternate options, criticisms of her current path, and all she replies with is ultimately "I will not be deterred", "my actions will not be swayed", "I've come too far to turn back now", etc. It all sounds VERY COOL, out of context. And in most anime, manga, and videogames, it is framed as VERY COOL. But I appreciate how FE3H actually questioned and critiqued this previously unquestioned "always good" ideal.

Sometimes there are other options. Better options. If you just give it a try. Try expanding your worldview.

I guess that explains why Claude's function in FE3H was to contrast El. His goal is multiculturalism. He's a foreigner. He's literally from outside of Fodlan's box. He takes inspiration from SWANA cultures, even though most medieval fantasy settings are stuck within the medieval European cliche. He's curious. He's always questioning the status quo, even the status quo of "the only way to solve things is through war". He's non-conventional. He's very unusual for a FE Lord, to my limited understanding. He shows that being "unusual", straying from "the path", and "thinking outside the box"---hell, realizing there IS a box (called Warfare)---is the true way the fight the status quo. Not just the cliche of "identifying one bad guy and believing all problems will be solved when they are destroyed" nor the cliche of "once I'm in charge, I (alone) will make everything right". Even when Claude's Verdant Wind ended with him defeating a singular grand enemy, Nemesis's battle was incidental. Claude was actually working to achieve a truly improved Fodlan through finding answers, restructuring the government, and making plans to facilitate different people understanding/accepting each other. He didn't go to fight Nemesis, as his end goal or belief that simply defeating Nemesis would save Fodlan. His worldview was bigger than that cliche.

Heck, even El's "victorious ending" to Crimson Flower was also adhering to status quo. She stayed "inside the box" by enacting the cliche of "defeating the evil dragon will save the world". It doesn't get any more basic than that. And it's sad, because she thought she was breaking Fodlan outside of its "box" of overdone traditions. But she didn't realize all the cliches she was just following along.

#Youtube #mouse monarchy #video essays #analysis #story themes #character analysis #fe3hfuukasetsugetsu #resolve #elredeaglescrit #claudeVRkhalid

[alpacahat67]

Okay, I posted about Diamond Dogs at 7 in the morning and... I feel as if it wasn't my best writing. So... okay here's my Actual thoughts on Diamond Dogs.

Note that I haven't listened to all of Bowie's discography yet so go easy on me.

Generally, my thoughts about Diamond Dogs are mixed. I feel as if it has a lot of good material, both music and story-wise, but... side two is... not the best for a Bowie album, save for Big Brother which is literally in my top 10 Bowie songs. I might just have to read 1984 to appreciate it though, lol. It's really astonishing that this album turned out so objectively good and well received by critics IMO and honestly? Yeah I get it.

At first I really didn't like Diamond Dogs. I thought a lot of the songs just... they weren't my cup of tea, and I still am not a fan of Sweet Thing personally and I think the snare in Candidate is FAR too loud (typical percussion critique comment, sorry, but like seriously do you know what moongel is man buy a sticky hand from a coin machine that works just as well). And that was the extent of my opinions. Of course, I'm less partial to soul as a genre, and as it seems Bowie was playing around with soul in this era of his career, it makes sense as to why I didn't quite like some of the more soul-heavy songs.

Then I relistened to Diamond Dogs. And, boy, I really like the album now. It's not as good as The Man Who Sold The World or Station to Station in my books, but it's really good. Mainly, I enjoy the storyline of Diamond Dogs, but mostly side one. I need to read 1984 so I'm left with an incomplete understanding of side two, which is mostly an homage to 1984 (not like Bowie could turn it into a musical, lmaooo.)

I really like Halloween Jack! He's up there in my favorite Bowie characters! I feel as if he had a lot of potential that he didn't live up to because he was brought into the story so soon and then never mentioned again, and also the fact that he didn't exist as a stage character for long and was quickly replaced by the Soul Man. Furthermore, I love the worldbuilding of Hunger City and the gang of the Diamond Dogs that we get in the first half of the album. I really wish the entire album was solely that concept! Bowie seemed to have so many plans that were probably born from spite when his request to adapt 1984 into a musical was declined and I wish he got to put those ideas to good use. Rebel Rebel ends off side one and is a... really good song, yes, it ends off the half well, but... many critics bring up how it doesn't further the story provided in side one and I have to agree. It could be about Halloween Jack as he's mentioned to have a "hussy" with him and... if it's from his POV then it's probably about her. But that's the only correlation I really see. And to be fair, sometimes songs don't have to fit into an album's story, sometimes a guy can just write a funny little song. So it doesn't take away from my enjoyment of side one of Diamond Dogs

The second half of the album, side two, somehow, doesn't feel as... refined. Maybe because Bowie, realistically, might have had to leave that part as simplistic because again no rights to 1984. I feel as if someone more well-versed in the original media could comment further on this. I don't know I just... I wasn't interested in this half of the album. Until We Are The Dead and Big Brother came on but.

I don't know. It's not a bad album by any means, it just has some rough spots, and I greatly prefer one half to the other. It comes down to it not being my cup of tea more than anything. David Bowie's music is great about that though because he has changed his focus so much that like, he has a song for EVERYONE.

I'm very impressed by Diamond Dogs nonetheless, because you'd think it'd be a bad album because it was kind of a rebuilding period? Prior to this album, Bowie had fired all of his backing band from his Ziggy Stardust tour, and the documentary Cracked Actor came out around the same time as Diamond Dogs revealing Bowie's struggle with a cocaine addiction that had worsened during this time. It's also a more experimental period as he was clearly transitioning out of glam rock. I'd liken it to Hunky Dory, just in reverse. Where Hunky Dory was sort of like a precursor to Ziggy and kinda like Bowie playing around with the concept of glam rock while still maintaining some of that folk music he was doing previously, Diamond Dogs is Bowie playing around with soul while still maintaining some of that glam rock he was doing previously. A gateway between Ziggy to the Duke. Y'know?

TL;DR, Paul Trynka calls Diamond Dogs "a beautiful mess" and I agree. It is a mess, but because Bowie seemed to be able to write a hit song in his sleep, it wasn't BAD by any means. I really like it... even though there's some other albums I enjoy more.

I also think it's very fun that punks in rollerblades was a concept for the album before punk existed. He predicted punk. Also that audio glitch in Chant of the Ever Circling Skeletal Family that Bowie kept in lol.

#Diamond Dogs #David Bowie #1984 #Halloween Jack #he's one cool cat #my thoughts #can you tell that im a percussionist based on my moongel comment?

[altmusicposting]

Critiquing From Inside the Box

Many artists have expressed their displeasure (as well as stronger words and feelings) for the music industry in their songs, with varying degrees of directness. But in this arises the question of the efficacy of criticizing from the inside. Can you effectively critique something and create change while participating in it?

I think it depends. What's the goal in making a song about it? Awareness? Change? Corporate bashing? Public Shaming? Any and all of these are possibilities, but as far as any of that actually happening, it is largely up to the artist(s), and the audience.

It is perhaps expected to hear this sort of topic in genres of protest music such as hip hop or punk, and you do. In 1977 the Sex Pistols released their first (and only) studio album, Never Mind the Bollocks Here's the Sex Pistols, which closed with a song bashing the label that first signed them: EMI. The lyrics of the song don't bother hiding the band's distain behind metaphors. Instead they opt for direct attacks, claiming that the company only picked them up for the money and fame they thought the band would bring in, and then dropped them when they realized that the band wasn't putting on an act for the public and weren't going to censor themselves. The whole relationship with EMI lasted all of 3 months, and there's a brief nod to the second record company that picked them up and dropped them within 6 days.

So what's the effect here? Well, there was no real change to the company as far as I can tell, but the Sex Pistols came out the other side of the ordeal on top. They were signed to Virgin Records when the album released, they got to publicly bash the industry suits who tried to hop on the UK's "punk trend" for money, and they got their name and message out in a chart that climbed to number 1 in the UK Albums chart.

But it's not just insurgent music that has taken to commenting on the nature of fame and the music industry. In 1974, Billy Joel released "The Entertainer" on the album Streetlife Serenade, which discussed the passing phenomenon of the pop/popular artist, and how public and industry opinion wavers based on hits. It also stemmed from and comments on how music and variety shows like The Midnight Special felt "like an assembly line, ... like [artists] are all interchangeable." Additionally, lines like "I've got to meet expenses, I got to stay in line," and "It took me years to write it...it was a beautiful song, but it ran too long...so they cut it down to 3:05," discuss the way many artists feel restricted in what they can do personally and musically.

What about here then? Well, the song itself was a hit, off of what was otherwise one of Joel's least successful albums. One he himself said was "half-baked" due to lack of time to write, since he was busy touring to support his previous album. Beyond that, while the criticism is valid, it proved to not be a big issue for Joel himself, who is world-renowned, and who's music is still played and loved to this day. Additionally, despite these criticisms, and a few other industry and societally critical songs, a majority of his songs "fit the mold" as it were.

And, old as this conversation is, it is far from over. Second wave pop-punk band Waterparks released their third album in 2019, on which at least half of the songs talk about many of the same issues, and is aptly named Fandom. What's interesting to me about their approach to these topics is that lyrically they take the approach of earlier punk and socially critical bands in being rather direct, but instrumentally and formally they stick to largely catchy, pop-leaning sounds. I don't think this lessens the impact of their words though. Waterparks still works in diversions from formulaic pop-punk, but even if they didn't, I think making a critical song that sounds like any other jam is entirely the point. To quote Emily Carter from Kerrang in her review of the album, Fandom "tackles its difficult topics with a sense of humor...subtly portraying the light-and-dark nature of modern life in a band."

There are a few favorite songs of mine that demonstrate this well. First, I Miss Having Sex But At Least I Don't Wanna Die Anymore is the perfect example of the aforementioned tongue-in-cheek type of approach to a fairly serious topic. The topic of the song refers to the common phenomenon of anti-depressants lowering libido. The opening lyrics directly address the sense of frustration and exhaustion singer Awsten Knight feels in regard to the common questions and demands from fans and media: "I'm sick of all this/ how'd you get your band name?/ Is that your real first name?/ Can you text/ or can you follow back cuz it's my birthday?"

The other two songs I want to highlight are Watch What Happens Next and War Crimes.

Watch What Happens Next focuses mostly on the industry and how pop-punk bands very often get pigeon-holed, struggle to "make it big" like they want or are expected to, and are under a lot of pressure to sound a certain way by both suits and fans. Lyrics like "Got nothing from our label/bitch, pay me what you owe me/ if you play guitar you can't want things," "All the fans that like us need an easy fucking format...It's a cultural hold-back," and "Can I pay rent?/ sure but not much else/ Can I try new sounds?/ go fuck yourself" are peppered through the verses between a chorus that belts "You wanna hear my art, but only on your terms." All of this over a boppy, catchy riff-heavy instrumental that you can just picture crowds of people jumping to at a concert.

Likewise, War Crimes critiques the façade a lot of bands have to or are told to put up to appear a certain way to the public, while also being expected to partake in "bad shit" behind the scenes. What's interesting to me about this song is the oscillation between the poppy, catchy sound of the chorus, and the heavier, distorted sound under the verses, especially the second verse/bridge. The lyrics of this song are also well worth a read through, with biting words like "I'm forgetting how to hate myself/ I saved my own life," and "So get your coke of my bus/ yeah keep that shit to yourself."

It's not quite clear yet what the impact of Waterparks' critical songs will be. But they have been immensely successful thus far, so I'll be interested to see if their message takes hold.

So, why is this still a conversation? Because of a combination of things likely. Including the "well you're still participating in it so you're complicit," mentality. Which is used in other areas of socio-cultural criticism as well (i.e capitalism), and while understandable is frankly irrelevant for situations like this where it's the only option for many people if they want to have any kind of livelihood. While it's entirely possible that there are hypocritical artists who make industry critiquing pieces for the clout or to be seen in a certain light, it seems the majority have actual grievances.

And it isn't all on the artists. The audience needs to actually pay attention to the lyrics and songs they consume, if this kind of music is going to do anything. It seems like the majority of the response to songs like this is, "yeah that's shitty, good on them for speaking out," in one breath and "it sucks, but that's how the industry is, it needs to change," in the next. But it stops there. Everyone agrees its shitty, and that the way artists are treated by industry execs and fans is beyond less than stellar, but no one really does anything. There's been a push lately with the strange sense of closeness social media can breed between fans and creators, with listeners banding together to back artists calling people out, but we've yet to see much real change. There's also still the issue of people not really looking at musicians as people. It's like people forget they have lives outside of the stage, that they have feelings, that they're fallible. Maybe I'm getting too pedantic, but I think it's worth mentioning.

Regardless, I think songs that make noise like this are important for recognition at the least. And hopefully, as we become a more conscious and caring society, we can actually clear the skeletons out of the closets and make these spaces better.

#music analysis #music industry #criticism #sex pistols #punk #punk music #pop punk #billy joel #waterparks #my wriitng #my thoughts #Youtube

[royaltywhxre]

enough for you by olivia rodrigo (and pretty much every other song on the album) really be making me break down crying because, like, our experiences might've been different but i can still relate heavily to the lyrics

like i never dated anyone in high school, there wasn't ever one specific person i was trying to please, but i remember throughout a lot of middle and high school trying so hard to be attractive

and like i was a fucking kid????? that pressure most definitely should not have been on me. and like olivia, i spent a lot of time resenting the other girls in my class when i couldn't reach their level, despite them growing up and dealing with the same bullshit beauty standards shoved onto teen girls and young women. they were never the enemy, but for the longest time i felt like i was losing some race i didn't even really wanna be a part of

and i also remember all of that shit changing when i came to terms with my sexual and romantic attractions and came out. like, it wasn't a full 180°, it didn't just completely stop, but i didn't let it consume my life anymore. i stopped trying so hard to look pretty and desirable for boys, stopped trying so hard to impress them. my self worth went up so fucking high during the last half of high school because i stopped letting boys' opinions of me make me feel inferior or like i wasn't "enough"

#idk why i went on this rant #i saw a few days ago on tiktok someone talking shit about olivia and her album #and like okay you dont have to like her music it doesnt have to be your taste i get that #but they weren't actually critiquing her music..... #they were just critiquing her #they were calling her out on her being misogynistic #and like YEAH! THATS THE FUCKING POINT! #i think even olivia herself had pointed that out #she like many other teenage girls experience internalized misogyny and thats exactly what her lyrics reflect #like its so clear these people didnt ACTUALLY listen to the songs #because the whole point she makes is she KNOWS its not their fault but she cant help feeling that way regardless #and there were also people saying they couldn't relate to the lyrics because she's straight and the lyrics reflect that #like okay.....first of all #we're not gonna sit here and pretend bi people dont exist...... #because we can still very much relate to the lyrics #but also you can swap out whatever pronouns you want so the song fits your identity better #but the overall message is the same and its something so many of us can relate to regardless of sexuality #oof didn't mean to also go on a rant in the tags #im just pissed off at 3am #this is when i feel the most filled with rage #olivia rodrigo #sour olivia rodrigo

[statusquoergo]

Can we talk about how much of the ending montage of the finale was just marvey moments? They weren't even chronological, it was all these other moments with other people (the one clip of Jessica was from the 'How do you know I'm thinking about Mike Ross?' 'Who else would it be?' scene) interspersed with classic marvey faves especially from the pilot, like Harvey just kept coming back to meeting Mike as the thing tying it all together, his underlying theme at the end of his journey was Mike Ross.

p.s. re: the ending montage, it's even more obvious if you watch it without the music somehow

We sure can talk about that ending montage! (Before we get into the Marvey-ness of it all, though, I just gotta say that especially watching it out of context, and especially with the soundtrack muted, Donna approaching Louis at the elevators and then him biting his lip and them holding hands as the doors close definitely reads to me as a Lonna moment.)

So. Structural critique. A couple of things read weirdly about this whole setup; first of all, they cut immediately, and I mean immediately, from Harvey looking...nostalgically? Mournfully? Reverently? at the painting his mother gave him of baby!Harvey watching Lily paint that stupid duck painting to the first clip of the montage, i.e., Mike’s briefcase breaking open at the interview. So this is either a “Look how far we’ve come” overview, in which case I’m confused that it starts off with a reference to Lily, since she doesn’t come up again so the painting has no referential anchor point, and the montage itself doesn’t specifically reference Harvey’s childhood or life before coming to the firm in any way (which isn’t to say it’s not a nostalgic overview, but if so, it’s very poorly arranged), or it’s a commentary on important people in Harvey’s life, in which case it sure is interesting that we go straight from Harvey’s mother to Mike, given that literally the only link between them is that Mike showed up at her funeral to support Harvey.

Getting down to a granular level, the clips in the montage are:

1. Mike crashes Harvey’s interview (s01e01) 2. Harvey lectures Mike about the importance of a good first impression (s01e03) 3. Jessica advises Harvey to support Mike in being himself (s04e02) 4. [Flashback] Harvey and Louis give each other shit right after Louis becomes a junior partner (s02e08) 5. [Flashback] Harvey and Donna's first meeting (s04e16) 6. Harvey invites Mike to come with him to visit Ava Hessington (s03e03) 7. Harvey yells at Mike for not coming to him when Jessica threatened him (s03e01) 8. Mike tells Rachel he’s a fraud (s02e16) 9. General cycle of clips of everyone supporting each other over Harvey’s dialogue that “We’re not just colleagues, or even friends. We’re family.” (s05e10) 10. Mike does finger guns and Harvey swerves out of the way (s01e01) 11. “Life is like this. And I like this.” (s01e10) 12. Mike and Rachel reunite when Mike gets out of Danbury (s06e09) 13. Harvey and Donna make out (s08e16)

And for a bit of analytical commentary:

1. The start of the series and introduction of the premise, this is an obvious choice. 2. An interesting direction; possibly a commentary on Harvey’s general life philosophy, this could also be interpreted as a continuation of the Harvey-Mike dyad established in the pilot being the show’s central focus, particularly when one considers that it comes on the heels of Harvey’s rather...interesting first impression of Mike. 3. Lacking context, this is just an excuse to showcase Jessica in the montage as Harvey’s mentor; with context, it’s easy to interpret as another reminder that the show is centered around Harvey and Mike as a pair. 4. This is a weird moment to choose because while it fits the direction of Louis’s ultimate story line quite well, from struggling in Harvey’s shadow despite his considerable accomplishments to becoming head of the firm, it doesn’t fit in with the other incidents Harvey’s recalled up to this point; this is for the benefit of summarizing the show, not consistency with the direction of Harvey’s thought process. 5. Another moment for the benefit of summarizing the show that comes otherwise out of nowhere. 6. While this gets us back on track with Harvey’s train of thought prior to the Louis interruption, it really has nothing to do with anyone other than Mike and Harvey; in fact, it’s very much about a moment of reconciliation between the two of them. (On the surface, it’s merely circling back around to the Harvey-Mike dyad, but if you want to go full conspiracy theorist, it’s like...an apology to the viewer, or to Mike, that the narrative got distracted for a minute. And that’s an extremist interpretation that I’m not advocating as truth, but it’s also kind of funny, so I’m mentioning it anyway.) 7. Harvey needs Mike. Harvey needs Mike to need him. There’s not a whole lot of maneuverability in that one. 8. The interesting thing here is that the clip stops right before Mike and Rachel kiss. Showing it would require an extra two seconds of footage and could have been fit in, but the way it’s cut puts the emphasis not on them as a couple but on Rachel’s sense of betrayal after Mike’s deception. 9. The first clip of this montage-within-a-montage is of Rachel hugging Louis, which follows naturally from Rachel interacting with Mike as a way to ease the focus from Harvey-and-Mike to...literally anyone else, but also sets up this quick cycle of clips as kind of a catchall for “characters being supportive of one another because they’re not just colleagues they’re also family but also we need to fit in everyone who isn’t Harvey and Mike because this is technically an Ensemble Show™.” 10. Okay what the fuck, there’s absolutely no reason for this to be in here except to emphasize Harvey and Mike’s camaraderie and easy friendship. It’s from the pilot, for crying out loud. 11. This one is a little bit of a wildcard in that it both re-centers us on Harvey and Mike as partners (reading just slightly deeper into things, Harvey hired Mike in the first place in part because he likes taking risks, but also, having Mike around makes his life exciting), and could also serve as another general commentary on Harvey’s life philosophy. 12. Yet again, this is a Mike-Rachel moment that ends right before the Machel part. Mike walks out of the prison gates and Rachel gets out of the car, but they don’t noticeably move toward one another, let alone actually hug. Maybe this is out of sensitivity toward Meghan’s status as the Duchess of Sussex? (Or it’s a liability issue, I don’t know.) 13. This makes sense as a conclusion to the montage because the final season is largely focused on the Darvey narrative, or trying to establish the Darvey narrative, but it also comes out of nowhere in that very little of the rest of the montage has featured Harvey and Donna as a couple, or even a pair, with the exception of their first meeting (which was right on the heels of Harvey and Louis interacting, making it less an intimate start-of-something type of scene and more of a “Hey remember when the show was just about these six specific central characters, well, now we only have three of them left” tag).

In summary: Boy that sure is a lot of Marvey and Marvey-adjacent content for a series of clips that are supposed to be about everyone but are in fact badly disordered and don’t tell much of a cohesive story. Looking back, especially with this legend of episode citations, it really does seem to be a pretty slapdash collection of some editor’s favorite scenes, or more likely Korsh’s; it doesn’t even have a very smooth emotional trajectory, it’s just a bunch of stuff that happened in no particular order. Oh well, I’m sure they had fun putting it together probably.

Thank you for...asking? Well, thank you for bringing this up, anyway!

#marvey #analysis #Anonymous

[rplayford02]

Critical Reflection: Pure Electric

Before I'm too critical of our film I first need to say how proud I am of our group. Eva and Bethany were incredible directors, their attention to detail in all aspects of production has been amazing, and goes far beyond just directing. Findlay's editing made the film what it is -that montage!!- and of course thanks to Jack for handling the boring job of those risk assessments! We also had help from Eva's friends, Tom, Cecilia and Naomi, and of course Peer - this film would be nothing without their efforts.

Onto the notes made during the crit...

Class feedback:

visual effects are great

storyline is a bit confusing - mainly down to the dialogue being lost, also the section with on-screen text moves quickly and it isn't that clear how it fits into the story

good locations for sci-fi - doesn't look like Edinburgh

cool to see the progression from the master shot

good to see the use of recent spiking incidents in a sci-fi story but the narrative is too ambitious for a three minute film

production design, make-up and costume are all fairly sci-fi

good build up of sound in the montage section [thanks to Eva's friend Tom for the music!]

could have used even more surreal lighting

the performances of the actors are mismatched

Lecturers' feedback:

given the ambitious script and low budget it worked well

the narrative was sometimes challenging to follow

could have used even more colour

good silhouette at the end

dialogue issues that we should have used ADR to fix or better yet booked out the lav mics in the first place

soundscape feels too current and social realism (for want of a better word)

should bring the VFX back later in the film to enhance world-building and make it's presence purposeful

good score

lacking light in actors' eyes

dialogue shots were too profile and eye-lines weren't great

Additionally, a few of the lecturers said that the glitches didn't feel as though they were happening to the character/belonged to Iskra. I think one of the problems was that they start in the first scene before we've even seen Iskra's face and so they become detached from her experience. David commented on the POV shot in the last scene - one of my favourite shots - and suggested that more POVs might have gone some way to fixing this.

There was some debate around this first scene and how it felt too separated from the rest of the film. The initial storyboard had more close ups in this first sequence, which we cut for time, but I wonder whether this might have made a difference. I think in the process of making a film it's very easy to get caught up in the story and forget how it will appear to a new audience. This also applies to sound - the basis of most of our critiques.

Really we should have used the lav mics or tried ADR but at the time this had seemed one to many new things to try out and no one in our group felt confident enough to give it a go. ADR especially is completely new to me. It's been mentioned on the course but we've never been taught it and so it felt too unknown to attempt with one week of post production time left. Eva did a great job of the sound based on what she had, in fact I didn't hear the problem until the crit. I guess my ears are too inexperienced, I'd go as far as to say ignorant, to the workings of sound. (Which I'm working on improving)

I'm glad we tried something ambitious even if it didn't pay off in all aspects. I liked our slightly experimental take on the genre and I'm really interested in exploring less conventional types of filmmaking going forward, learning from the mistakes we made this time around i.e I'll try to use on-screen text sparingly in future - having said that I'm actually more proud of the flashback sections than any of the dialogue scenes so either I need to improve on narrative filmmaking or explore other directions, or maybe both.

On a side note, everyone else's films were amazing!! Here's some very brief thoughts:

Subject #36: sooo good, I got goosebumps! The sound was so eerie, the cinematography was gorgeous (the light through the railings, that shot of the monster's back in the credits!!), and it was so well written - "it cried this time", the last line of dialogue was just perfect at alluding to this whole world beyond the film

Dirty Work: so creepy, loved the red lighting, great shot in the window, attention to details told you so much about his character

Cherry: really liked the cinematography, personally didn't have a problem with the headroom, very funny script

Catacombs of the Lost: great cinematography, great music (Orla you're so talented!) and I loved the chase scene so much!!!

Sceptic: loved the writing, such an interesting script, whip-pans were so good, loved the character of the director, very well cast

Road to Nowhere: loved the naturalism in script and acting, jump cut from night to day was so cool, really tight edit

Dreamer: that last shot up the stairs was perfect! Great comic timing and the transitions with the trains were amazing

This course is full of so many talented people and I can't wait to work with them next trimester!

#filmgenres