#they had the audacity to say that FANS ACTUALLY WANT TO PROFIT OFF THEIR INTERESTS | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

roberttchase · 2 years

Note

The Brettsey breakup, which happened over the phone, pisses me off more as a Matt fan than a Brettsey fan right now because it feels like they just haven't given Matt and the fans any closure.

10x05 was a shitty goodbye for the longest OC character at that point and the person who started CF and One Chicago; they used long distance to keep and bait the fans (also used it for Kara because they eventually knew she would need a few episodes off), they brought Jesse/Matt back for the Stellaride wedding, and they didn't have an onscreen breakup. Finally, they had the audacity to have Sylvie break up with him over the phone. I am just annoyed.

I think all of us our pretty annoyed and disappointed. Jesse was the reason I started the show. Thanks to him, I realized I wanted to be an EMT. I went and got certified. The show means a LOT to me.

While I don't agree with the writers, season 10 was hard. Not a year prior Jesse said he would never leave the show. Flash forward to the filming break between s9 and s10. Jesse decides he wants to leave so he can (assumedly) be with his wife and newborn child. I get it. He's been on some kind of television program for almost half his life, 18 years. Consecutively. That's a hard thing to deal with. He's never really had a chance to just relax and be a husband. It's absolutely justified, and I'd never disagree with his decision.

But the writers were put in a tough spot. They had just gotten Brettsey together, a ship that I personally thing EVERYONE agreed would last, they wrote it as such. But then Jesse said he was leaving, so they had to scramble to figure out what to do in only six episodes. Could they have gone with a slightly more believable story line? Of course. But they also had presumably written some of the first few s10 episodes, and any kind of change would affect the entire cast and script, not just Matt and Sylvie. Making him move is probably the most logical way to not have to rewrite every single thing. Any kind of injury/death would have had a huge impact.

I think once they realized Brettsey wasn't going to be able to be a thing anymore, they were at a loss. Because let's be realistic. As a fan of the show (avid or just a regular viewer) watching a ship you've been invested in become one sided completely, that's not entertaining anymore. From the writers and creators view, that ultimately means losing viewers and ratings going down. Because Brettsey was 1 of 2 major ships, and Matt was one of four major people in the show. That loss is significant.

Any chance of re-boosting ratings would have to come from the breakup so they can make Sylvie get another love interest. Do I agree with it? No. But love interests are something regular viewers enjoy. The reason they didn't have Matt and Sylvie break up in the last episode of season 10 was simply that. Boosting viewers. If we all knew for sure Brettsey wasn't going to happen, how many of us would have actually tuned into the new season? I'm not saying I wouldn't completely, because Stellaride will always be top tier too, but again. I'm a Matt fan. So knowing Jesse wouldn't be there, and knowing they broke up?

Ultimately, the decisions made were purely for profit and viewership. It does suck. But I get it.

Did they do Brettsey wrong? Yes. Did they do Matt wrong? Yes. Did they throw away characterization? Absolutely. Am I angry? Of course. But it's just a show, and when it comes down to it, writes, directors and creators will do whatever it takes with what they have to work with, to keep viewers, even if it means sacrificing characterization.

I hope this all makes sense. It's so thrown together and probably super confusing. Ooops.

3 notes · View notes

bagofbonesmp3 · 3 years

Note

So what's wrong with Loki TV? I wouldn't expect the MCU character to properly resemble any Loki from comics (especially because MCU Loki is effectively a different character every time he appears thanks to inconsistent writing and no one working together to ensure a coherent narrative), but am I missing something here in why they've made a mistake? I do greatly enjoy the series for what it is on its own.

i don't particularly love the series. i like making fun of Loki and the aesthetics are cool but to be honest.... i don't really care about the show anymore. before talking about the aspect of the show itself i don't like, there is the issue of the evident misogynoir of the show, which bothered me specially after the last episode.

(cw for misogynoir)

it's become evident how little the (white) show runners care about the female black characters (ravonna, hunter b-15 and hunter c-20). ravonna has had little character development asides from being a strict antagonistic character, who just keeps on intruding on Loki and Sylvie's plans for no reason apparent (that we've seen). b-15 is another black female character that gets ridiculed constantly by Loki, used by Sylvie to escape and so far I've only seen her be used as a comedic relief or an enabler for the plot, with little to no information about who she is as a character (unlike Owen Wilson, who has the same position in the agency but has way more character development). lastly, hunter c-20 gets used, hypnotized and then killed off screen by the titular white woman. these are all the black female characters in the tv show. also let's mention the fact that they get assigned numbers as names unlike Mobius does. interesting. all of these characters are either antagonists or victims with no agency. it's very fucked up to say the least. i was excited for gugu mbatha raw and wunmi mosaku to be casted in a marvel project, but the way they've been treated so far is frankly awful. this is not exclusive to the Loki show, wand*vision had the same issue with monica's character.

now with the show narratively:

the first two episodes were very strong. they focused on the mechanics of the world, loki's character and how he felt about this new environment, and the humor (which the writers are known for). but onwards, with the introduction of Sylvie's character, it stopped... being loki's show? i get that she's supposed to be another Loki but we're here for the Loki Loki guy! he's in all of the posters!!! why are we suddenly treating him like a secondary character? he just asks questions and reacts to situations. i don't care about Sylvie. also there are a bunch of plot holes in universe but that's a minor thing.

from a Loki Fan™️ standpoint:

look ngl, this must only bother me because I'm a Loki comics fan, although this IS an MCU issue in general... and that is using imagery or plot points from the comics without the actual story that makes them relevant. this is the case with Sylvie's broken horn crown, which has a whole reason to be in the comics, but here it's just a stylistic choice. and i have a feeling this is also gonna happen with kid Loki and king loki's appearance in the next episodes. they're gonna be stripped away from their meanings and be given a funny, ridiculous backstory. this is an MCU thing. they love to mock the source material and then use their imagery or concepts (and they usually execute them in a mediocre or just bad way). of course i don't expect it to be comics accurate, or to adapt these storylines right, but then simply... don't borrow from them? do your own thing? it's specially nasty because they've credited the writers and artists who made these concepts, took what they wanted from their stories, and then they mock them. loki in the MCU was always incapable to be comics Loki. but they're having all of these elements from the newer comics in their show with none of the soul.

and as an extra, hi I'm genderfluid and bisexual

why are you like this marvel!!! stop profiting from lgbt identities and then give them scraps you cunt!! i would prefer Loki remained a cishet character at this point, if I'm being honest. that little blink and then miss it moment did nothing for me. and then have the AUDACITY to market him as genderfluid, and make the "female Loki" another whole different character? there was a post that said "the Loki show had the genderfluid character be a cis man and a cis woman" AND LITERALLY that's how it feels. they didn't even paint his nails smh. Loki means a lot to me as a trans person. his latest arcs specially. i don't care about marvel's terrible rainbow capitalism. I'd rather have no rep than bad rep.

overall, i think the show is just another one of marvel's flawed and mediocre products. I'll stick around to see how it turns out, but my previous expectations of it just being a funny wacky show with small emotional moments is gone i just know it's gonna be an action packed series trying to be epic and groundbreaking and failing to do it

#idk if i made myself clear let me know if otherwise #misogynoir tw #also this is just me all my opinions about the plot and its adaptation from the comics are biased

49 notes · View notes

cartoonessays · 7 years

Text

Standards of Beauty... and the Beast

The star of the upcoming live-action Beauty and the Beast film Emma Watson has caught a bit of flack for a recent photo shoot she did with the magazine Vanity Fair. Watson has been known for the past few years as an outspoken feminist and her recent photos have been met with cries of hypocrisy from some circles. How could she take photos like these when she once criticized Beyonce for doing the same thing? Doesn’t taking sexualized photos like these undermine her feminist message?

The short answer is no.

I’m quite sure that seeing the underside of Emma Watson’s breasts doesn’t discount her activism in favor of equality between men and women. That’s like saying Samuel L. Jackson can’t speak out against police brutality towards black men and women because he’s played a lot of angry characters who shout things like “motherfucker” a lot. To go even further, I think most if not all of these circles decrying Emma Watson as a hypocrite have no interest in feminism let alone the most effective way of conveying it. They’re more interested in simply getting a “gotcha” over on Watson for speaking out so publicly in favor of an ideology that is still so polarizing, even as it has become more profitable to commodify in recent years.

In part of her response to critics, Watson stressed that “Feminism is about giving women choice. Feminism is not a stick with which to beat over women with”. As far as it not being a stick to hit other women with, I could agree that it would be worth pointing out if someone claims to be supportive of one thing, but profits off of and builds power from the opposite. I’ve criticized Hugh Hefner on at least a few occasions for claiming to be a feminist because he built his empire from reinforcing women’s bodies as consumable products for men. Emma Watson showing a little skin in a photo is no where near the level of something like that, so this is just nitpicking. It would be like saying she can’t be a feminist if she’s a fan of a musician who has had sexist lyrics.

As far as feminism being about giving women choice, I agree. However, I don’t think discussing feminism, or any movement for social justice or liberation, strictly within the realms of choice sets their target goal high enough. Our choices don’t exist divorced from the structures that shaped them. And if the system of patriarchy our society has been structured in persists, women’s choices are always going to be limited in relation to men’s choices. I don’t love the theorizing of ideologies that seek liberation from oppressive structures on choice because I think it’s a limited way of looking at the world and it’s a painfully easy ideology to pervert. From this point of view, choosing to be anti-feminist could be framed as a feminist act.

If you think the picture Emma Watson took for Vanity Fair is sexualized, I do too. It’s more artistic than the cover of a Playboy, a Maxim, or even a Cosmo magazine, but it’s still sexualized. If that is something you’re critical of, critiques can’t just focus on Emma Watson herself. This photo was in collaboration with a photographer and artistic director (if he/she isn’t the photographer as well) for a magazine that owes a big part of its profit from sexualized photos like the one Emma Watson took.

Doing a quick Google Search of Vanity Fair covers, it’s clear that Emma Watson is hardly the first person to take her shirt off for a picture. A lot of other women have taken topless photos for the magazine too. Even most the pictures of clothed women are dressed in either unbuttoned blouses or low-cut dresses that bare their cleavage. Everybody’s skin is unblemished and alabaster as the ground right after a fresh snow. The large majority of these women are looking at the camera with, as feminist sociologist Gail Dines calls it, the “fuck me” look. These are all different women with various points of view and various opinions on feminism. Why is there such a uniformity in all of these photos? Why do they look so much like Emma Watson’s photo?

All of these Vanity Fair photos meet a very conventional and very rigid standard of beauty. A standard of beauty that is framed as something for the male viewer to have (the nudity, cleavage, “fuck me” looks, etc.) and something for the female viewer to aspire to, so that males would want to have them too. Even the pictures of a very pregnant Demi Moore are taken within this standard. This was what Emma Watson was criticizing about Beyonce’s photos a few years ago, not criticizing Beyonce for taking the photos in the first place. This lets you know that none of these photos, from Vanity Fair or otherwise, exist in a vacuum. This standard in photo shoots in magazines like these is a microcosm of society, especially working in Hollywood.

For women like Emma Watson who are paid to look like an image that doesn’t actually exist for a living, there is constant pressure for them to look a way and project an image that is attractive to men. Plenty of actresses have opened up about the pressures put onto them to maintain that standard. Actresses like Emma Thompson and Patricia Arquette have spoken out about the pressures put on them when they were younger and the disregard for them when they become middle-aged. Other actresses like Christina Ricci and Kate Winslet have struggled with body issues in their attempts to live up to this standard. Rose McGowan has said of the earlier part of her career that “I felt I was being mis-sold as a commodity and not a person”. All of them were discouraged to speak out about these issues as they were going through them because the big Hollywood studios and directors would write them off as “being difficult” and refuse to cast them for any movie roles. Obviously nobody put a gun to Emma Watson’s head and demanded she flashed her boobs to the cameraman, but it wouldn’t be out of line to think that her agent and PR department would persuade her to take photos like the one for Vanity Fair as a good way to promote her upcoming movie, regardless of whether she had misgivings about it or was 100% on board with it.

In another live-action remake of a Disney film, there was some controversy over how slim Cinderella’s waist was in her eponymous movie. The starring actress Lily James admitted that she went on a liquid diet in order to fit into her costume. That’s a pretty starting admission among all the the responses the director Kenneth Branagh made defending the waist size of the costume. If Lily James had been more adamant about making her costume’s proportions more realistic, what likely would have happened is that either Branagh would have recast the role of Cinderella, or let other studio executives know that James is “difficult” to work with and threaten her ability to get cast in movie roles in the future. In an environment like this, an outspoken actress like Emma Watson is put in a position where she can’t win. If she’s more outspoken about everything, it will likely derail her career because studios won’t want to work with her. If she doesn’t she’s a “bad feminist”.

This Vanity Fair fiasco is a bigger issue than Emma Watson herself. And I’m disappointed that the discourse around this has missed the forest for the trees just so they can find a cheap way to discredit one person who had the audacity to call herself a feminist.

Reminds me of what happens to another person any time they say anything about anything ever…

#beauty and the beast #emma watson #feminism #beauty standards #women #hollywood #cartoon essays #just my thoughts

1 note · View note