i think using real animatronics really enhanced the experience of the film. not just in the charming yet uncanny way freddy + friends robotically stomped around but also when they finally reveal springtrap at the end of the film. the way he lumbers in, hunched over. immediately recognizable as an animatronic but theres something Wrong. he's moving too fast, too lifelike. that has to be a person in a suit. he found you, mike.
it was really effective idk guys
6K notes
·
View notes
Evan: James Potter? He's so arrogant and boring, what do you even see in him?
Regulus: Oh fuck off, he's-
James: *shoves past a group of kids, blows up snape's cauldron, runs away*
Evan: ....I take it back, that guy's Slytherin levels of awful, I approve of your taste
2K notes
·
View notes
good omens the book, 1990: see, queen is so ubiquitous in london these days that if you leave a tape in a car for too long, it'll inevitably morph into a best of queen tape. which is why their megahits are playing in crowley's bentley all the time! isn't that a funny and topical joke?
good omens the show, 2019-2023: yeah crowley's car has a hands-free call system and also only plays cassette tapes. yeah it's whatever don't think about it. what's an incredibly earnest and passionate queen love song we can play during this scene where crowley tries urgently to reach aziraphale
3K notes
·
View notes
i hope that the popularity of goncharov convinces people to watch mikey and nicky, which is a movie about two mobsters who are so close to having gay sex that at one point john cassavetes' character has sex while peter falk's character takes slow drags of his cigarette and watches. clocks and the passage of time are potent motifs. the only friends from childhood they have left are each other. they hold each other close and brawl in the streets and the betrayal at the end is so slow and inevitable it feels like watching a dentist wash their hands and put on their gloves before coming to pull out your teeth. it's literally just like my favorite movie goncharov
20K notes
·
View notes
everything about these final scenes was painful but Crowley struggling to find the words to say what he feels for Aziraphale was just.idk.i can't 😭
2K notes
·
View notes
In the wake of FCG' fate I've been thinking about death in ttrpgs, and how it kind of exists on three levels:
There’s the gameplay level, where it only makes sense for a combat-heavy, pc-based game to have a tool for resurrection because the characters are going to die a lot and players get attached to them and their plotlines.
Then there’s the narrative level, where you sort of need permanent death on occasion so as not to lose all tension and realism. On this level, sometimes the player will let their character remain dead because they find it more interesting despite there being options of resurrection, or maybe the dice simply won’t allow the resurrection to succeed.
Then, of course, there’s the in-universe level, which is the one that really twists my mind. This is a world where actual resurrection of the actual dead is entirely obtainable, often without any ill effects (I mean, they'll be traumatized, but unless you ask a necromancer to do the resurrection they won’t come back as a zombie or vampire or otherwise wrong). It’s so normal that many adventurers will have gone through it multiple times. Like, imagine actually living in a world where all that keeps you from getting a missing loved one back is the funds to buy a diamond and hire a cleric. As viewers we felt that of course Pike should bring Laudna, a complete stranger, back when asked, but how often does she get this question? How many parents have come and begged her to return their child to them? How many lovers lost but still within reach? When and how does she decide who she saves and who she doesn’t?
From this perspective, I feel like every other adventurer should have the motive/backstory of 'I lost a loved one and am working to obtain the level of power/wealth to get them back'. But of course this is a game, and resurrection is just a game mechanic meant to be practically useful.
Anyway. A story-based actual play kind of has to find a way to balance these three levels. From a narrative perspective letting FCG remain dead makes sense, respects their sacrifice, and ends their arc on a highlight. From a gameplay level it is possible to bring them back but a lot more complicated than a simple revivify. But on an in-universe level, when do you decide if you should let someone remain dead or not? Is the party selfish if they don’t choose to pursue his resurrection the way they did for Laudna? Do they even know, as characters, that it’s technically possible to save someone who's been blown to smithereens? Back in campaign 2, the moment the m9 gained access to higher level resurrection they went to get Molly back (and only failed because his body had been taken back by Lucien). At the end of c1, half the party were in denial about Vax and still looking for ways to save him, because they had always been able to before (and had the game continued longer it wouldn’t have surprised me had they found a way). Deanna was brought back decades after her death (and was kind of fucked up because of it). Bringing someone back could be saving them, showing them just how loved and appreciated they are. Or it could be saving you, forcing someone back from rest and peace into a world that's kept moving without them because you can’t handle the guilt of knowing you let them stay gone when you didn’t have to. How do you know? How would you ever know?
455 notes
·
View notes
Yes, Ren genuinely thinks cramming his wolf ears under that hat will distract people from his sharp canines, his tendency to tell Zedaph what to do, and his bad habit of barking at moving objects.
Yes, Doc genuinely thinks hanging an old rag over his face and wearing those ancient spectacles with no lenses will help distract people from... well, everything.
Yes, they're both delusional.
558 notes
·
View notes