Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008–2020) Star Wars: Rebels (2014–2018) The Mandalorian (2019 - present)
“It’s Rosie, Rosie Cotton”, said Sam. “It seems she didn’t like my going abroad at all, poor lass; but as I hadn’t spoken, she couldn’t say so. And I didn’t speak, because I had a job to do first. But now I have spoken, and she says: ‘Well, you’ve wasted a year, so why wait longer?’ ‘Wasted?’ I says. 'I wouldn’t call it that.’”
Since Gandalf smokes weed and Radagast does shrooms, I have a theory that each of the wizards represents a drug. Saruman is cocaine.
new blue wizards dynamic just dropped guys
“The Imperial need for control is so desperate because it is so unnatural. Tyranny requires constant effort. It breaks, it leaks. Authority is brittle. Oppression is the mask of fear. Remember that.
And know this, the day will come when all these skirmishes and battles, these moments of defiance will have flooded the banks of the Empire’s authority and then there will be one too many. One single thing will break the siege. Remember this. Try.”
ANDOR - Season One (2022)
Source: hegodamask
GET TO KNOW ME:♡ [20/30] films: ☆ Clueless (1995) [Dir. by Amy Heckerling]
If the government could just get to the kitchen, rearrange some things, we could certainly party with the Haitians, and in conclusion, may I please remind you that it does not say R.S.V.P. on the statue of liberty?
This is cracking me up..why on earth did they delete his response in the movie!? hes so offended LOL
nicolecieux
UNMUTE THIS
discountjainasolo
sCuM?!
I don’t know why it cracks me up so much that Han’s first reaction is not to attack, or to protect Leia, but to hold her back, clearly assuming that she’s just going to fling herself into the middle of a dozen armored Stormtroopers and start trying to kill them with her bare hands.
dizzyhmuffin
Han, carefully lightly pushing Leia back so that she doesn’t go all Tusken Massacre on the crowd: hang on, “scum” is the best insult you can come up with?
His indignation is my favourite thing in the world
people are always like “why did they cut this????” and…they cut it because this was The Reveal that the whole thing is a trap is better without it. it’s pretty masterful editing, really, because it is undeniably GOOD, it’s just not good with the rest of the story.
my unpopular opinion is that i hate tiktok because now people just publicly watch loud ass videos in public spaces with no regard for anyone else. 100% it was not this bad with youtube, it’s such a different thing with tiktok. put on headphones. you are grown.
fairypage01
Girl……
This is it! This is what social media/smart tech have done! They’ve rotted away any distinction between private and public.
Yes, we do have the right to make demands on public behavior. Of course we do. Have you never heard of laws and etiquette? I’m not allowed to grocery shop naked. You can’t rummage through my purse. I can’t have a work meeting in the middle of a movie theatre.
I remember when it was taboo simply to answer your cell phone in public. The person answering would apologize and try to go to a more private area. Then public calls were normalized. Then putting people on speaker. Then listening to music without headphones. Do you know how many times I have hiked up a mountain or driven to the beach, only to be met with someone blaring shitty top 40 music from their portable speaker, because Heaven forbid you go one hour without noise?
Old woman yells at cloud and all that, but I can’t believe someone is not only admitting this behavior, but saying it’s a good thing! No one likes you! You’re a menace!
BEING INCONSIDERATE OF OTHERS IS STILL BAD.
It was obnoxious when it was youtube.
It was obnoxious when it was music.
It was obnoxious when it was the radio.
It was obnoxious when it was dudes wanting to talk to you instead of letting you just read your freaking book.
Do you want to be this guy? Because being obnoxious in shared spaces is how you become this guy.
Wear your damn headphones like an adult participant in the social contract.
Best art history lesson ever, thank you
"Yesterday, you told me something of your story. And I...thank you."
QUEEN CHARLOTTE: A BRIDGERTON STORY (2023) dir. Tom Verica
Star wars men you will always be famous, i’m in love with them.
“But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Éowyn I am, Éomund's daughter. You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him.” - Eowyn, The Return of the King
oh damn, okay, so literally last night i was talking with friends about how unrealistic the golden horse in tears of the kingdom is and how it feels like they were just trying to one-up the white horse in breath of the wild, and then i run across this post, do a tiny bit of looking, and—no really gold horses are actually literally a real-world thing!
I remember reading about this breed in horse books. They're indeed very very old (over 3000 years old) and come from the deserts in turkmenistan. The way their hair is built helps them with the extreme temperature changes in the desert.
They're tough, with high endurance and intelligence, friendly and sensitive.
hey folks, I’m gonna introduce you to two very important fandom terms and they are watsonian and doylist
they come (obviously) from the sherlock holmes fandom, and they are two different ways of explaining something in a story. say I’m a fan and I notice that, in the original books, watson’s war wound is sometimes in his leg and sometimes in his shoulder. the watsonian explanation is how watson (that is, a person within the story) might explain it; the doylist explanation is how sir arthur conan doyle (a person in real life) would have explained it.
sherlock explains the migrating war wound by making the shoulder wound real and the limp psychosomatic. the guy ritchie films explain it by having the leg wound sustained in battle before the events of the film and the shoulder wound happen onscreen. the doylist explanation, of course, is that acd forgot where the wound was.
this is very important when we’re discussing stuff like headcanons and word-of-god. I see this when people offer watsonian explanations for something, and then a doylist will say something like “it’s just because the author wrote it that way,” and I see it when a person is criticizing bad writing/storytelling (for example, the fact that quiet in metal gear solid v is running around the whole game in a bikini and ripped tights) and someone comes back with “but there’s an in-story reason why that happens!” (that reason being she breathes through her skin).
there’s nothing wrong with either explanation, and really I think you need both to understand and analyze a text. a person coming up with a watsonian explanation has likely not forgotten that the author had real-life reasons for writing something that way, and a person with a doylist interpretation is likely not ignoring the in-universe justification for that thing.
but it’s very difficult (and imo often useless, though there are exceptions) to try to argue one kind of explanation with the other kind. wetblanketing someone’s headcanon with “or it could just be bad writing” is obnoxious; dismissing someone’s criticism with “but have you considered this in-universe explanation” is ignoring the point of the criticism. understanding where someone is coming from is important when making an argument; acting like your argument is better because you’re being doylist when they’re being watsonian or vice versa is not.
it’s been 5 million years but this thing still gets notes with like “can someone explain this to me in a shorter, easier way” so here it is:
watsonian: the enchantress cursed the eleven-year-old prince from beauty and the beast and all of his servants because fairies don’t understand why humans would think that’s insane and unfair. I am using in-universe evidence to explain why the character might think or act a certain way, as if belle and the prince and the enchantress are real people.
doylist: the writers didn’t realize that the prince would have been eleven when he was cursed until it was too late to change it, and the servants are also cursed because talking furniture is funny and allows for unique character design. I am explaining this plot point based on an outside knowledge of how writing works and how writers think.
To use some other, possibly more familiar terms: Watsonian is “in-universe”, Doylist is “meta”.
Watsonian: “Batman doesn’t kill the Joker because killing is a fundamental betrayal of Batman’s personal values.” Doylist: “Batman doesn’t kill the Joker because the writers would lose their most popular villain.”
Both are true, but true from different perspectives and for different reasons.
Another really good word that might be useful, along with Watsonian and Doylist, is diegetic
The diegesis is basically the world of the fiction. These are the things that the characters experience, that to them are real. When something is diegetic, that means it’s real to the characters, that it exists within the fictional world. Something being non-diegetic means it doesn’t exist for the characters, only for us as an audience.
For example, a film’s score is (usually) non-diegetic. The characters in Star Wars cannot hear the John Williams score. When Darth Vader shows up, they don’t hear the Imperial March like we do! They just… idk hear him walking I guess. Editing, too, is non-diegetic. If you see a character at home, and then the film cuts to that character being at work, they probably had to drive there or take the bus or something, and they didn’t teleport, like it seems to us. Songs in musicals are frequently non-diegetic, but not always. In Les Miserables, Javert didn’t stop to sing a little ditty about his conflicts before dying. The song was just an expression of his internal struggle, so we the audience can know what’s going on. And because musical numbers are good and I like them. Meanwhile, in Phantom of the Opera, Christine and the Phantom are literally singing The Point of No Return. The other people in the room can hear them singing those words. It’s a thing they’re all actually experiencing within their world, which would make it diegetic.
Anyway, I know the additions to this post are there to make it more concise, so sorry for, uh, un-concising it. But as soon as I learned the word diegetic, I wondered how I ever discussed media without it. In my mind, Watsonian readings are only using diegetic justifications for stuff, and Doylist readings are explaining things with non-diegetic reasons.
