Happy Leland Melvin Day!!!

Happy Leland Melvin Day!

Happy Leland Melvin Day!

Happy Leland Melvin Day!!!

Happy Leland Melvin DAY!

If you haven’t seen Wish yet and you love Disney, do not go see it. I am telling you now. It is ripping out the hearts of the Disney movies you love and then waving their corpses around as if celebrating those hearts.

I’ll explain why, again: the message of Wish? Awful. Anti-Disney.

But they've been doing this for a long time. Saying one thing with their movies, and saying another with their PR and Disney Parks Soundtracks.

I'll explain.

Main Idea of Disney's Wish (and the You Are the Magic theme park song and merch): "The power to make your wishes come true is in you."

≠

Most Disney Movies' Idea on How to Have Wishes: "Do what's right, (trust a higher power) and something even more wonderful than what you wished will happen."

Don't try to argue with me about this. You have to look underneath the slogans and the sweater designs and the song titles to what the stories actually support to acknowledge this.

Because you can’t say “do what’s right” has power unless you answer the question “who gets to decide ‘what’s right?’” (Which, coincidentally, is a question Wish brings up and then doesn’t answer.)

Audiences of Disney used to accept that wishing on a star was much like prayer; there’s something you long for, and it’s out of your hands, but you wish for it and you do what you know is right in the meantime. And you’re not crushed, you’re not downhearted, because somewhere in your mind you trust that the combo of those two things—wishing on a higher power and diligence to do what’s good—will be what makes your wish come true.

Trust in a higher power—COMBINED WITH:

—diligence to do what’s good.

The Blue Fairy (higher power) gave Geppetto his wish specifically because he had demonstrated commitment to do good, whether he got what he wanted or not. The Fairy Godmother (higher power) gave Cinderella her wish specifically because she kept on being kind and good to low creatures like mice and wicked stepsisters, whether she got what she wanted or not.

Do you know why that combo (higher power + diligence to do good) is impactful? Timeless? Important?

Because it’s selfless. You want something, but you’re not going to sacrifice doing the right thing to get it. You’re not going to focus so hard on making what you want a reality, on your own, that you miss out on things that could be more important than what you want. And, you’re not so self-focused as to believe that if you don’t do it, it won’t get done.

Jeez, that’s the whole point of The Princess and the Frog!

Tiana wishes to have her own restaurant, and she believes that only her own hard work will grant that wish. She misunderstands her dad’s advice before he dies. She isn’t willing to trust a higher power combined with her own diligence to do good—she only trusts her own ability.

It’s not until she realizes that Ray, the character of faith, was right all along that she learns—what she wished for was too self-focused. It wasn’t complete without love. Something bigger than herself. And getting that was never going to happen just based on her own hard work.

But you know what? It was never going to happen just by a “higher-power” flavored shortcut, either. Because Facilier offers her her wish if she’ll just trust him, no hard work needed. But what does she say?

Trust in a higher power + diligence to do what’s right = selflessness, and getting more than you could have ever wished for. And if your wish is selfish, doing those two things will change your wish into something selfless.

More examples? Get ‘em while they’re hot, in case Wish made you forget, just like the current #NotMyDisney executives have forgotten, what real Disney wishes are for.

It’s like a whirlwind inside her brain, a howling gale slamming the shutters against the windows of the house in her mind that’s the supposed to keep everything contained, the anger, the hatred, all of it locked under key. And yet, for as loud as it is in her head, the louder dining room is only twisting the key tighter, forcing the pent-up emotion to the surface.

Her grips tightens on the silverware, one hand curled around the fork the other the steak knife and it would take a split second to jam it somewhere that would more than likely kill her in seconds and somehow, somehow she forces herself to put it down but now that the hand is free, it’s curling into a fist, nails biting into the skin until there are half-crescents torn into her palm and the blood creeps down her skin like a trickle of warmth.

The laughter is too boisterous, the hysteric arguments too enraging to her already volatile state. Whatever straw breaks the camel’s back is unknown to her because all she can see is a shattered, crystal glass on the floor and pomegranate juice dripping down the wall from where it impacted. But there’s silence. Sweet, sweet silence.

Sauron: “I like your Silmarils”

Morgoth: “Thanks, I stole them from the president”

hold on i have to read the Silmarillion real quick

yeah this is funny

braver than any US marine

THE PERFECT SCORE (2004)

@pscentral event 10: best of 2022 » the star wars franchise ♡ dedicated to all the friends i made bc of this silly space opera (especially to @djarin, @karisnemik, and @bitchlestat)

I made a baby blanket for a pregnant woman at work and I went back and forth about it like “is this weird? To like hand make something for someone when we’re like friendly acquaintances not like bffs. God why are you so fucking awkward.” Anyway I gave it to her and she said she loved it and in the back of my head I’m like yea she’s nice and probably just humoring the weirdo. Well she texted me a picture this weekend of a scrunchy faced newborn at the hospital wrapped in the blanket I made her. And I’m like. Wow. She loved it so much she took it with her! To the hospital! To give birth! She wrapped her newborn it! I am just so filled with love and joy right now.

People will love the things you make them. Because you thought of them and you cared.

[id: screenshots of tiktok captions. the images say, “but the only reason we still love princess diana is because she did not have the time to disappoint us.”]

begging queer kids to read up on princess diana’s involvement with the community. yes, she was a rich, pretty monarch. yes, she died young.

but the reason why queer people love her is because she used her privilege during the aids crisis to advocate for sick queer men, when very few others would - much less someone of her status.

diana spent years advocating for the health and care of queer people with hiv/aids. in 1987, at the height of the epidemic, she opened the first specialist clinic dedicated to treating aids patients (the first clinic of it’s kind in the uk).

she also fought public hysteria by hugging and shaking bare hands with aids patients, at a time when aids was thought to be spread by skin to skin contact. not only that, she visited patients in the clinic regularly and even comforted them through their sickness.

and when queen elizabeth told her to try focusing on “something more pleasant”?

diana ignored her and kept fighting.

and this is only her work towards the aids crisis. she publicly called out the royal family, brought attention to numerous world issues, and was known as an advocate for empathy and kindness. she’s known and loved as the people’s princess for good reason

Also, Princess Diana died at age 36.

Prince William is currently 40, and Prince Harry is 37. They've both had enough time to prove their character by now.

Was Prince Di just gonna start being an awful person if she lived a few more years?

The woman who was linked to over 100 different charities through her advocacy and fundraising efforts?

The woman who walked through landmines in Bosnia and Angola to show the world the reality of what was happening there, and getting 122 countries to sign a land mine ban treaty?

The woman quoted as saying “It has always been my concern to touch people with leprosy, trying to show in a simple action that they are not reviled, nor are we repulsed.”

The woman who regularly visited homeless shelters to raise awareness and boost charity efforts, and brought her sons with her to instill the same values in them?

The woman who went to the Children's Hospital 3 days a week to spend time with and comfort terminally ill children?

I think people who are not old enough to be aware of Princess Di when she was alive don't truly understand how she was literally the the definition of humanitarianism. I literally cannot think of a person alive today who personifies it more. Maybe Dolly Parton, but she doesn't have the international reach that Diana had.

There's a reason the entire world mourned for Princess Di. The whole world lost something precious that day.

She would only be 61 years old now... imagine what she could have done to change the world in the past 25 years.

Marvel movies have completely eliminated the concept of practical effects from the movie-watching public’s consciousness

Not just practical effects just like. Basic set design lol

How… How do they think sci-fi was done before CGI?

Really badly? Do you remember sci-fi before CGI? It was shit. And don’t say Star Wars because they went back and fixed that with CGI later.

*big sigh* *puts head in hands* heathens who’ve never watched pre-MCU sci-fi movies OR the unedited Star Wars movies, my beloathed

So first of all, most people agree that the majority of the “CGI fixes” in the Star Wars original trilogy (excluding minor visual/sound effects like lightsaber colors and blaster sounds) are unececssary, extremely conspicuous, and/or bad. This is not news to literally anyone older than about 20 who has consumed Star Wars content on any level. There are quite literally two very famous ‘despecialized’ fan projects explicitly dedicated to un-doing all of the shitty “fixed” CGI effects while simultaneously restoring the OT in HD.

And yes, I do, in fact, remember sci-fi special effects before CGI was the foundational cornerstone of moviemaking. It was not, in fact, shit:

Also, ironically I can show you by….*gasp* using fucking Star Wars, of all things. Welcome to the Tatooine pod race set of The Phantom Menace, which was not, as popularly believed, CGI’d but was instead a fully-built miniature set:

Yes, they built the entire set as a minature, built life-sized pod racers for the actors, then spliced the two together using digital effects. Yes, they did such a fantastic job that people think the entire set and scene sequence was basically completely CGI’d to this day. You’re fucking welcome for undervaluing the time, effort, and talents of set designers by implying that set design and practical effects inherently mean things will look like shit.

CGI also ages really poorly. What you think looks incredibly realistic now is going to look terrible in a few years. Just look at the original vs remastered Star Trek. They “restored” Star Trek around 2006 and replaced a lot of the practical effects with CGI, and maybe it looked ok in 2006, but it looks so bad and fake now.

You can see a video comparison for one episode here: https://youtu.be/ruPVTPCavdM

In the 60s they built a whole model of the Enterprise, complete with blinking lights and beautifully sculpted/painted details. It looks stunning! Then they replaced it with that horribly smooth and fake looking cgi ship.

Just look at this beauty

You can see the model at the Air and Space Museum in DC

Unfortunately the remastered version is the only version available to stream, but you can still find DVDs with the original effect.

made in 1968 and still stunning 2001 A Space Odyssey

the designers worked with engineers at NASA to make realistic futuristic special effects using models and matte paintings no computer effects at all! - and incidentally inspired David Bowie to write Space Oddity, later performed in space by astronaut Chris Hadfield

The CGI of the original Jurassic Park may not be aging well (though arguably still better than some), but the practical effects will always look stunning. 

I want to talk fantasy.

This shot was achieved with splicing and green screen.

This wild-looking shot (and similar manipulations) was famously achieved by having a professional juggler in a duplicate of Bowie’s jacket and gloves sitting behind him, basically with Bowie in his lap, doing the handwork while Bowie kept his arms behind the juggler. You may have seen a game based on this on Whose Line Is It Anyway.

This? Wires! Splicing! THE CGI TO DO THIS DIDN’T EXIST YET! (The juggler is hidden under the cape. If there’s a scene where he’s wearing a cape, that’s actually probably why.)

And this? This heartstopping shot?

This does appear to be from the version with CGI—

—CGI THAT WAS USED TO ERASE THE SHADOW FROM THE PRACTICAL EFFECT.

The shot itself hasn’t changed. The lift itself was done with wires and Bowie was given some propulsion with an air cannon so he could make that turn at speed. A minor amount of CGI was used in the 30th anniversary to “touch up” the work done in 1986, and one of the things they did was to remove a shadow on the wall from one of the wires.

How about this?

You don’t know it, but you’re looking at a practical effect. In real life, the Ruby Slippers are almost orange. That luxe, rich ruby color showed up on the film as black when the shoes were the correct color, so the costumers adjusted the actual costume to give the color they wanted.

A MODEL OF A HOUSE SHOT INSIDE A NYLON STOCKING ATTACHED TO A FAN.

MAN IN A COSTUME.

HORSES DUSTED WITH COLORED GELATIN.

And this? This is where it would’ve been useful to have CGI. Margaret Hamilton got really badly burned on the steam doing one of her entrance/exits, and ended up in the hospital. THIS is what you use CGI for.

You come into my house and insult practical effects?

I’ll just finish off by reminding you THIS IS ONE, TOO.

That last one, iirc, was there was a double in a sepia-toned costume, and the interior door and wall there was painted brown, so when it was lit and shot it all appeared to still be in the sepia tone of the Kansas scenes, and part of why Dorothy stepped back out of the frame was so the double and Judy Garland (in the proper blue-and-white costume) could swap.

You are correct. The double’s name, by the way, was Bobbi Koshay.

#this is also a purely personal opinion but aged practical effects are charming #in a way that aged cgi is not (via @glorious-spoon)

There are also a lot of backgrounds that are matte paintings!

Lord of The Rings used some incredible miniature sets too.

The real reason CGI has taken over is not because it creates better effects (although it is very useful!) but because it’s cheaper. The practical effects artists have union protections. CGI artists don’t.

CGI (at this point) works well to do things like smooth out practical effects (erase wires, etc).

And when you want a bit of uncanny valley effect, to make actors look like animated characters without hours in the makeup chair.

Use CGI to remove safety gear from the shot, so the stunt people are safer.

And unionize CGI artists so they have safer working conditions & are properly compensated.

i'm never getting over the fact that romance as a genre, as the HIGHEST selling genre, exists largely because straight women fantasise about being loved and treated kindly by men and men constantly make fun of this because they think it's just that unrealistic that they could cherish women and that women are stupid in the first place for wanting such an impossible thing

everyone keeps talking about fifty shades in the notes but I wrote this post thinking about pride and prejudice which is basically the blueprint of all romantic novels and romcoms and romantic relationships in media ever since—a bookish loner has a fight with a guy that is above in the social hierarchy than her because she thinks he's an ass and he later turns out to be a sweetheart when he's kind to her/helps her out.

many romantic works that are labelled as romanticising abuse simply focus on the wrong aspect of this equation, where they make him an ACTUAL rich inconsiderate arse. Twilight falls in this zone (Bella has only one personality trait which is she loves Austen, how obvious can it be) and so does, consequently, fifty shades.

but that doesn't change these fact that the CRUX of the liz-darcy formula is this: a man will listen to what I have to say and apologise for his behaviour and put my needs first. a man will love me for the bits (headstrong nature, a preference for solitude) that society asks I change. that's the female fantasy. a rich handsome dude will love me for who I am and put my needs first.

and straight women have been mocked for this! for decades! because of wanting to be seen and heard and loved by the men they're dating! and I say straight because while self indulgent romances exist for wlw's and queer men, I have never, in my life, seen a queer person mock another queer person for reading romance. this derision only exists by straight men for straight women because the idea that they could dare to have standards in their relationships deserves to be mocked and shamed.

cishet men don't need a romance genre because their dream fantasy woman pervades every single genre in every single medium, in all her hundreds of iterations where she sacrifices every aspect of her self to fulfil their needs and effortlessly fulfils impossible standards and finally is killed off so he can heroically avenge her before promptly finding another male fantasy to use and discard. but women are labelled shallow for wanting a darcy, when darcy has a personality and friends and family and motivations and isn't dressed in gold bikinis and sensuously brutalised and tortured for our benefit.

all these posts about people clutching their pearls about seeing bare titties at pride make me laugh because at last year’s pride i met a cishet guy who had no idea what was going on and had joined because he saw bare titties and thought “those people look like they are having fun, and also i can see tits for free” and he asked me about what was happening and let me explain LGBT struggles for some time before telling me he had a transgender cousin and he was going to make sure to be there for her in the future. bare tits will be the beacon to world peace

Fantastic art

Nicknames: when you shorten someone’s name affectionately

Nicholasnames: when you elongate someone’s name affectionately

Nichard names: when you incorrectly elongate someone's name for humorous effect.

Fave new twitter thread

Gonna start a youtube channel where I call out the problematic elements of popular media except every single thing I call out will be both objectively true and also entirely unclear what's problematic about it beside the firm assertion that it is.

(voice over to various clips of season 1 Spongebob) "Early Spongebob had a lot going for it with strong writing and smart gags, but the writers really dug themselves deep with problems right from the start. The biggest issue that stands out to me--featured as early as episode 1--is Spongebob's pineapple house. You can clearly tell this was not meant as a malicious choice, rather the writers did not think through the implications of it when crafting Spongebob's undersea home. Yet even with ample time recover or apologize, they instead dug their heels in deeper with this choice, continuing over and over to feature the pineapple house across every season."

"Well you see it's really about the lack of consideration the writers put into this choice. How even when faced with other options, they doubled down on the use of pineapple as a housing mechanism. Some might reason that it was an acceptable choice in the pre-2000's era of television, but the lack of growth over 20 years later really shows--"

Post canceled. If people read "objectively true" as meaning "the fact that it's problematic is objectively true" rather than my intended meaning of "a random, neutral, true fact about the show" then this post is gonna get me lit on fire.

Alternatively I may have actually hit on the true honest way people discourse on the internet and in my satire have become indistinguishable from what which I am mocking. Which will also get me lit on fire.