also very big scenes are not a good idea

3

Chapter 02 - Part II - :

  • - Next  

- Prologue

- AU blog

___

Sans… Drinking ‘ur coffee at 4am is a bad idea. A very bad idea. :>

Big thank to a good friend for finding an ideal song for this scene. The lyrics are based off Debbie Gibson - Lost in Your Eyes.

Also, the colored version of young Salphys can be still found HERE.

I thought trying to film my reaction to the opening scene of Baymax Returns was a good idea…

…I fangirled so hard 

Movie 21 - The Crimson Love Letter Story Summary

This tuesday, Movie 21 was aired in German cinemas, with Japanese audio and German subtitles and I was able to see it.

Disclaimer: this summary is very long and basically more me narrating and retelling the entire movie. Also, I could only watch it one time, so I left out some details and may be slightly wrong about some scene orders, but overall, this is what the movie was.

Special thanks go out to @yesyunniechan, who after I got tired of typing after the first half yesterday, listened to me ramble about the second half and made helpful notes, from which I today created a coherent second half of the summary.

Are you ready for a 6k word long - Update: 7,5k word long retelling of The Crimson Love Letter? Then you’ll find everything you want under the cut:

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

Heyy, I'm looking for books to read that have steamy romance but also a good plot. Like a mystery with romance. Or low fantasy and romance (like Night Circus). Any ideas?

Mmmmm… you’ve discovered my weakness… 

Try:

Soulless by Gail Carriger - some mystery, some supernatural, some naked werewolves, gay dandy vampires, and a tad sexy times.

Wintersong - magical magic writing, that is very much like Night Circus but some steamy scenes.

Deathless by Catherynne M Valente - dark fantasy set in Soviet Union, some sexy steamy scenes 

Maybe:

Kushiel’s Dart - BDSM sex society that makes 50 Shades look like kid’s stuff. Big Con: it’s like 900 pages long

Trick by Natalia Jester - it ended up being too romancy for me, but a lot of people like it. Very steamy.

Horror Movie 2-A Very Cliché Title Goes Here

Lord - the big bad that’s been stalking/behind the scenes the whole time

Muse - the big bad that’s been been hiding in the party the whole time

Heir - the leader, but also the one who decides it’s a good idea to go in the creepy basement

Page - the one who gets attacked/kidnapped early on

Thief - the cocky one who keeps insisting that it’s still fake/a prank

Rogue - the one who goes out to scout ahead and never comes back

Prince - the one who keeps drawing the enemy/monster/whatever’s attention

Bard - the one who disables/breaks their friends out of the traps at the last second

Mage - the one who tells the heir not to go in there

Seer - the one who knows all the oddly obscure but very relevant information

Knight - the one who saves everyone with some crazy hidden skill

Maid - the one who jumps in front of the one getting attacked

Witch - the one that leaves when they see the creepy house

Sylph - the one that stays behind to help the fallen friend

MTG Movie: What WOTC needs to do...

As most of you will probably already know, a while ago an agreement between Hasbro and 20th Century Fox was settled to create an MTG movie, “on the scale of Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings.”  This all sounds very awesome, and I can say i’m excited as well, but so many times before we’ve seen video games and board games taken to the big screen to turn into a big flop. Even the recent World of Warcraft movie lacked any emotional connection and didn’t really make it past the video games’ fan base. So how can an MTG movie be succesful? Here’s what I think…

Keep reading

p96822  asked:

What do you think about Max compared to Bonnie

Max feels like his personality was decided by someone who really hated their younger sibling or, at best, found them incredibly annoying more often than not.

Bonnie takes herself more seriously, like kids generally do, while still throwing a few fits and getting grumpy over not being taken as seriously as she takes herself + not being allowed to do certain things yet. She might be a bit idealized (what a lovely little sister! … possessiveness and snarky comments aside), but it’s also justified because Clem practically raises her, so he’s more like a parent than just a big brother.

I found it very realistic how, even though she’s obsessed with finding her big bro a wife, she isn’t really ready to let him go yet and the idea he might marry and leave her alone distresses her so much.

Max is a really good character too when they let him be. He had the most poignant scenes in all of AG, in my opinion. Do I Hear a Ralts? is one of the most beautiful episodes of the entire series and is one of those I’d point at if someone asked for an example of the Pokemon anime at its finest.

It’s when he’s written more like Bonnie, in terms of showing us his frustrations about being too young to train a Pokemon, too powerless to help others, but also trying his best to be responsible for others and cracking, a little, under the weight of being responsible for another life that I feel he shines way more. Let him deal with actually difficult things, like taking hisdad’s side when it seemed to everyone he was cheating on his wife because he still loves him the most. The Jirachi movie’s ending broke my heart, I’ve also gushed plenty of times over that “May, are you okay?” “No, I’m not… but I will be” scene at the end of the Manaphy movie– it’s more of a May moment, really, but Max prompts it and it’s one of my favourite exchanges because it’s just so genuine.

… of course, when I said “written more like Bonnie,” I meant in terms of being approached from his perspective of the world and not just “this is how annoying a little kid feels to their older sibs” aggravating comic relief, I actually do like his own brand of snarkiness and the really unique self-awareness he conducts himself with.

Keep reading

The Graveyard Domestic

Okay. I was watching the graveyard scene today, and as some of you know, it’s been niggling at me. Every time I watched, it seemed to me that the plot or narrative payoff wasn’t worth the minutes that are invested in this scene to the overall episode. And that is always my biggest hint that I’m about to have my mind blown. Because the biggest rule of subtext? If it feels like a non-sequitur, it’s in there for a very specific reason that isn’t text. And on Sherlock, what that inevitably means is that what started out as a minor annoyance is going to invariably end up as a one of my very favorite scenes. And as for the graveyard scene, well. I cracked the code and I am not disappointed.

Now. This essay is going to give you a big sneak peek about what I’m going to be talking about in my bigger post-TAB queer gothic write up, and quite honestly, I don’t care. Because this little snippet of an idea, I want to get out there now and let you all chew it over. I’m absolutely in love with it. (Also, as a disclaimer, I don’t think I’ve seen anyone do this analysis yet, but it’s been hard to keep up with all the good ideas coming across my dash. If someone else has already written this particular thing, my apologies, but hey isn’t it great we’re coming to similar conclusions!)

I’ve seen discussion about how the graveyard scene represents Sherlock’s worst fears. I love that reading, but I think it actually goes quite a bit deeper than that. Full analysis of the graveyard scene, and how it shines a huge beacon on both John and Sherlock’s psychology behind the jump cut.

Keep reading

soratori42  asked:

Opinion on Newspeak from 1984? Realistic at all, or completely ridiculous? (ugh, that sounded like some newspaper thing)

There are two questions when it comes to Newspeak: (a) Is it any good? and (b) is it realistic?

Let’s start with the easy one, (b). The tl;dr answer is no, it is not realistic.

The idea behind Newspeak is that, little by little, complex vocabulary would be replaced by transparent compounds. Thus, rather than saying good and bad in English, you’d say good and ungood. By removing vocabulary from the language, the populace is supposed to become much more malleable, as people become less creative and less knowledgeable. Pretty soon if you winnow down the vocabulary far enough, all the Party has to do is say one word, and the populace will do as instructed, as they won’t even have the language skills to comprehend the notion of rebellion.

This fails on many levels. For starters, it completely overestimates the influence language has on thought, which is very little. Human language is a byproduct of human consciousness, not the other way around. Orwell would have had a lot more success if he’d focused instead on reframing, rather than the language itself. This is something that’s hinted at in 1984, but Orwell was ahead of his time in that regard. It’d be another 30 years before Lakoff and Johnson’s landmark work Metaphors We Live By appeared and people really started to take a look at conceptual metaphors and framing. That stuff can actually be more powerful than simply changing out the language.

The reason is that while there’s a correlation between meaning and language, language doesn’t change meaning in any substantial way. Language can help to highlight certain aspects of meaning and hide others, but it can’t change reality. For example, you can’t change the word “fire” and suddenly make a worker happy about being fired. You can say that the company is downsizing, that they’re allowing the employee to explore their options, that they’re permanently restructuring their work schedule, or whatever other artful euphemism you can come up with, but it doesn’t change the fact that the employee is no longer going to be able to work at the company they were working at and will no longer be paid by said company. Reframing and altering the language can’t change the facts, and when those facts directly impact an individual, the language means absolutely nothing—kind of like when someone has to deliver bad news and frontloads it with a bunch of good news and then says “but”. As soon as the “but” comes, everything that was said before is thrown out the window.

Now, having said that, when might this actually be effective? Precisely when it matters least to the listener/reader. This is why framing conventions have been so effective in political discourse over the past twenty odd years. Many issues in political discourse have or would have an abstract or nebulous effect on a lot of voters. Gay marriage is one of these. The legality of gay marriage has an absolute direct impact on a certain segment of the population, and an immediate indirect impact on another segment, and a less immediate indirect impact on the rest. It’s easier to catch someone’s attention when you’re talking about an issue that has a direct impact on them. This is why when conservatives took up arms against marriage equality they ignored the smaller percentage of the population whom the issue affected directly and targeted the larger percentage that was affected indirectly. And then they argued that it affected them directly—negatively.

If you’re not from California and are interested in where the NOH8 campaign comes from, it comes from a ballot proposition here called Proposition 8 that sought to ban gay marriage. Americans not from California often think of our state as a liberal Shangri-la, but there are some staunchly conservative areas here, and they’ve got a lot of money. While it initially looked like Prop. 8 wouldn’t pass, public opinion flipped as a result of two things. One was a clip of a speech Gavin Newsom gave, in which he said of gay marriage that it was going to happen “whether you like it or not”. He was right, of course, but people hate being told that they have no voice in democratic America, so a lot moderates sought to prove him (whom most had never heard of prior) wrong at the polls.

The other crucial piece (and this goes to our topic) was the primary theme of the campaign in favor of the ban: That if gay marriage is allowed, public school teachers would teach Californian children that gay marriage is right. Seemingly a non-sequitur, this had a powerful impact on voters who were on the fence. It’s an interesting “argument”, because it really is kind of a litmus test for society. You could say the same thing right now, and I bet a majority of Californians would say, “Yeah. So?” But even though 2008 wasn’t that long ago, the prospect that this could be the case was enough to push moderate voters to vote in favor of a gay marriage ban. The campaign was successful because they took an issue which had little impact (and what impact it did, certainly not negative) on a large percentage of people, and said that it would have a direct impact, and implied that that that impact would be negative—although they never stated explicitly that it would be negative. It was only in the form of a question, like, “Would you want your kids’ teacher to teach them that it’s okay for same sex couples to marry?” They knew how the majority of moderates would answer that question, so they knew it would be to their benefit to ask it. And, despite early polls, the proposition passed, and gay marriage was banned here until the Supreme Court refused to reverse the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturning of Prop. 8.

This type of thing doesn’t work when the population really doesn’t want it, though, which is why something like Newspeak wouldn’t work (with a caveat I’ll mention at the end). A good example is what just happened in Arizona with SB 1062. Proponents of the measure that would have allowed businesses to refuse service to anyone based on religious grounds (meaning that if one’s religion found homosexuality sinful, one could lawfully refuse to serve homosexuals) used the same framing devices that have been used for years. They framed the bill with extremely positive language (it was actually called the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act”), and framed their argument as a defense of a minority whose religious freedoms were being impinged on by the majority. Never mind that the “religious freedom” was the right to discriminate, this is precisely the type of argument that would have worked seven or eight years ago. Yet it didn’t. Part of it has to do with the particulars of the bill (this wasn’t really sanctioning gay marriage so much as putting Arizona businesses in a negative light, even though they did nothing to earn it), but part of it has to do with a general shift in societal opinion. The arguments aren’t swaying anyone because their minds are made up. In 2014, there was no way the public was going to be behind this bill, which is precisely why it had to be crafted in the legislature.

Back to Orwell, the main difference between the world in 1984 and our world is (snarky, tinfoil hat cynicism aside) the populace of Eurasia is a complete and total dictatorship. There’s a policing organization that can effectively punish you for your thoughts! And Orwell would seriously have us believe that Newspeak has ANYTHING to do with this?! Listen, if you can control every single aspect of the lives of every single person in a nation, you can do anything. Saying that Newspeak was “effective” is kind of like suggesting that nuking an anthill while holding a rabbit’s foot succeeded in destroying the ants because of the rabbit’s foot. The rabbit’s foot probably didn’t hinder the nuclear holocaust all that much, but it sure as hell didn’t do anything to help, either. It’s quite easy to conduct experiments on someone whose will is utterly broken. Trying to conclude anything based on the results of those experiments, though, is, to say the least, misguided.

With that said, now to (a). First, Newspeak isn’t a good conlang, because it’s not a conlang. It’s basically a language game, like Pig Latin. It starts with a natural language as its base—English—and invents some rules about how you can and can’t use it. As a language game, it’s far from complete, so it can’t really be judged. As a fictional device, it does the trick. It’s totally unrealistic and implausible, but it’s a nice detail. And, let’s face it: A lot of what works with 1984 are these details he throws in. Take the average reader, and more will remember some of the memorable scenes or details than the plot itself. One of Orwell’s goals was to show what this totalitarian state looked like; what it was like to live there. He did that very effectively. So, as set dressing, Newspeak is good enough.

The idea for Newspeak itself was to parody and/or criticize two language experiments from the time: Esperanto (and, actually, probably other IALs, too) and Basic English. I don’t think the criticism of Esperanto was fair, but I also don’t think it was strongly intended: Orwell’s big beef was with Basic English. The idea behind Basic English was to cut down the vocabulary of English to a fixed set of words and use those for international communication to make it easier for non-English speakers to understand English news. You can see the parallels and understand where Orwell got his ideas for Newspeak. While Basic English failed, the principles have been used for international broadcasts (i.e. use fewer idioms, use less convoluted syntax, etc.), and, so far, there hasn’t been a 1984-style totalitarian takeover. Furthermore, as hopefully this overlong post on Tumblr serves as evidence of, the presence of such language programs hasn’t affected the way English users speak or write English in any significant way. Given how successful those folks who wrap your knuckles every time you say “can” instead of “may” haven’t been, it seems doubtful that any such program could ever make any serious inroads into the way we use our own languages.

That, more or less, is what I think of Newspeak. We should all be grateful to Orwell, though, for without 1984, there never would have been Diamond Dogs. I mean, maybe I could’ve lived without that album, but that life would never have been so sweet as this one.

Hamlet – A review by UCBUT

Well, a promise made is a promise kept! Here is my personal review of this marvellous piece of theatre that was Hamlet by Lindsey Turner. Because it really was fantastic. “Spoilers” ahead.

A foreword…

The play is really faithful to Shakespeare’s original text. No simplification or modernization! Only some reorganisation or cuts here and there. Nothing harmful. And all the more impressive when you think about the thousands of lines to learn and remember! (Especially in BC’s case, since his current predicament probably didn’t help, but that’s another story)

Set

As everyone has already stated, the set design was incredible. I’m not familiar with theatre at all, but I loved what Danny Boyle did with Frankenstein on the NT stage, and Es Devlin’s work is equally, if not far more impressive. The colours, textures, structure, props and decorations… everything was absolute perfection and created a warm, rich, incredible atmosphere, whether it be in the first 3 acts (palace interior, with a gorgeous banquet scene) or the last two (amazing post-bombing/apocalyptic look). Also… CONFETTIS!!! (reaching the audience only on the right side of the theatre, BTW)

On a negative note: if you’re sitting on the far left of the stage, you don’t see what’s happening upstairs, which is a shame for one main scene at the beginning (= Hamlet fighting with Marcellus and Barnardo when his father’s ghost appears) and little details afterwards (e.g. staff looking through Ophelia’s papers and letters); and if you’re sitting in the front row, you can’t see what’s happening just after the banquet scene in the main corridor behind the table (two guests playing cat and mouse, with little clothes on, IIRC!).

Lighting

A beautiful set means nothing without good lighting. And for Hamlet, Jane Cox’s work highlighted Es Devlin’s vision in a superb fashion. The banquet scene, as mentioned above, was the best realisation in that regard. I also loved the exterior scenes or those happening at night (e.g. Hamlet in England). Again, the atmosphere was incredible. There were real candles (you could even smell the smoke after they were put out), and special effects (strobe lights, steam visible in the projectors’ light…). Everything was smartly done and worked hand in hand with the set and movement on stage. I guess it’s a basic requirement, but nothing felt out of place or cheap. It really worked smoothly.

Sound and music

This Nat King Cole introduction still gives me shivers and makes me cry every time I hear it. So nice a choice for Hamlet – who he is, how he sees the world around him… and a choice which completes the enchanting vibe of the set that appears just afterwards for the banquet scene. The parade/military music was a very good choice too, and BC had real fun with it. I wish I knew what it is! But my love goes to the sad and dramatic tunes, which beautifully conveyed the emotional atmosphere of some scenes: an ethereal piano piece for Ophelia going to her death, muffled and rhythmic sounds like heartbeats when Hamlet is being chased or when a menacing Claudius plots his murder)… Hamlet’s father’s ghost had a nice grim echo too.

Movement/directing

There’s always movement everywhere. BC alone works the stage, standing still for some lines and then moving around. With other actors, he’s using all the space there is, which, for specific scenes (e.g. with Ophelia, Gertrude or Horatio/Marcellus/Barnardo), reinforces his wildness and excitement. Only one scene (= Ophelia singing) is mostly happening on the far left of the stage, and thus lacks dynamics.

The palace’s staff is often busy in the background during the main scenes, which was smart both visually and technically, as they are the ones who put in place or remove the various elements and props on or from the stage between scenes. The slow motion, used for every mind-palace-like sequences with Hamlet, was also a very good idea. A bit surprising and funny at first, but a really good idea.

A big no-no for me was the general choreography for the scenes where Hamlet is being chased (with actors bouncing before crawling (???) on the floor or simulating electric shocks to go with the probe lights) and when Hamlet stabs Laertes (with everyone dancing more or less gracefully around them both). I couldn’t help but laugh every time. The concept was interesting, but the execution was… let’s say sloppy and a bit weird, frankly on the verge of ridiculous.

Costumes

I really liked them, and especially their timeless feel – end of 19th century, 30’s, 40’s, 60’s, modern times… A lot of fashion periods were represented and sometimes mixed together in a fun way (Converse sneakers, BC and his Bowie T-shirt or his hoodie, etc.). Ah, and modern guns are used as props, adding to the timeless vibe.

On a negative note: I deplore the use of a headdress by Hamlet, even for a few seconds. They could have used anything else.

Performance

I knew BC was going to do a nice job with his Hamlet, and he was really, really, REALLY good. A bit OTT or unnatural/forced in some alone scenes during the first performance I’ve seen (only the first), but that’s the only and tiny negative point. Overall, he’s majestic. Hamlet’s sadness, loneliness, cynicism, anger (oooh, his anger…), excitement, playfulness, despair… Everything was beautifully played and nuanced. The man jumps, races around, climbs tables, fences all over the place. He’s incredibly energetic and sweats an awful lot. He often screams his wrath and disgust at the audience or other characters, which is very, VERY impressive. So impressive that I sometimes couldn’t even move or blink. He drowns himself in the role and gives his all into the performance, crying and trembling with a face red from anger. I don’t know how he manages not to lose his voice or collapse from exhaustion at the end of each show.

But the most pleasant surprise was the comical side of his Hamlet. This man is not only excellent in drama, but he’s pure comedy gold! The funny faces he makes, the high-pitched tone he uses (Martin Crieff-like), his toy soldier frenzy, awkwardly dancing with Rosencrantz… he’s HILARIOUS. I wish I could have told him that at stage door. He made the whole audience laugh hard, myself included. It was glorious to watch.

As for the vision of Hamlet – even though I’m not familiar enough with the play or the character, the way he regresses to childhood to feign madness (and also probably to protect himself and his own sanity faced with his impossible situation), felt right to me. Whether it came from Lindsey Turner or BC, it was a very good idea.

Performance-wise, my personal favourites aside from BC’s Hamlet were Jim Norton’s Polonius (very clear, natural and funny, totally comfortable with Shakespeare’s text which he delivers with excellence), Leo Bill’s Horatio (giving Shakespeare’s English a welcome modern tone), Anastasia Hille’s Gertrude (her scenes with a frantic Hamlet or after Ophelia’s death were just right, neither tame nor too much) and Kobna Holdbrook-Smith’s Laertes (wonderful resonant voice and range of emotions). I also liked very much Ciaran Hinds’ sly and nasty Claudius, Matthew Steer’s funny and nuanced Rosencrantz along with Rudi Dharmalingam’s also very right Guildenstern. Sian Brooke’s Ophelia only got my appreciation on the third night, when her performance was spot-on. Before that, it felt a bit over the top or weak. But her portrayal of Ophelia losing her mind was really good every time. (Her PDA with Hamlet is laughable though, especially when they sort of kiss near the chest from which Hamlet pulls out the headdress. I was like “OMFG, stop it, it reminds me of something!” LOL)

NOTE: For my last night on October 7, which began 5 minutes late, all were rushing their lines and gave the whole play another dimension, more vivid and way more emotional too. Especially BC, Anastasia Hille and Sian Brooke. I was very lucky to sit in the front row that night, as I could enjoy every emotion on their faces (and BC spitting and Gertrude crying – and drooling on her dress while screaming “Speak no more!”, hahahaha!)

BONUS: Look out for the “You’re a fishmonger” and “Thy loving father, Hamlet” scenes. He did them differently each time (a dance move/funny face/sniff for the former, an air kiss/funny face/flipping the bird (!!!) for the latter) and it was wonderfully comical.

BC’s appearance

Yes, he’s thin. There’s not an ounce of fat in that body! Only flesh and muscles. And yes, his face is gaunt. No surprise there. But he didn’t look unhealthy, thank God. He’s energized by the work, and looks dazzling on stage. Breathtakingly handsome. There’s a tiiiiiny bum coming back. But if his clothes (and mostly trousers) aren’t well adjusted, he’s swimming in them. For comparison: Kobna’s thighs and bum are roughly twice BC’s size! Anyway. A good rest after the run will do him good. ;)

Conclusion

I want to see it again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. Well, you get it!

Congratulations to all the cast and crew.

5

Okay, for the people who are still confused about why the rest of us are laughing about the very casual sniper in Sherlock’s “Lazarus” explanation of the fall…

YES, Sherlock did say Mycroft took care of the sniper.

But look at the scene more closely.

They showed the sniper aiming at John’s head after Sherlock had already pulled his whole airbag & body swap fakeout. You can tell because when John is in the crosshairs (third image in this set), he’s standing on the sidewalk in front of St. Bart’s by the place where Sherlock fell. John obviously wasn’t allowed over by the fall site before the airbag and body swap, or that would’ve ruined the trick.

So for Lazarus to be true, it would have to mean the sniper (considering his angle of view) watched people inflating a big airbag, Sherlock landing on the airbag, Sherlock getting up and running away unharmed, a corpse getting dumped out the window, that corpse being hauled off as Sherlock took its place, and Sherlock being wheeled away into the hospital. But despite seeing all of the clear shenanigans being pulled, the sniper didn’t take aim at John’s head until after Sherlock was hauled away.

Even though that sniper’s only job was to kill John if Sherlock didn’t really take the fall. And even though the giant blue airbag being inflated before John ever arrived on the scene was a pretty good tipoff that Sherlock didn’t intend to go through with it.

To make matters worse, it wasn’t until the sniper aimed at John’s head that Mycroft’s people intervened. I mean, if that had been the true story, what a terrible idea! John just as easily could’ve been killed before they stopped the sniper from pulling the trigger. But apparently Mycroft’s people are very casual as well?

So basically it’s lucky the whole thing was a big, fat ball of lies Sherlock told Anderson. (At least according to me. And many other fans.)

Also of interest: That shot of the sniper “aiming” at John’s head? It was actually the shot from Reichenbach of the moment the sniper gave up and stopped aiming at John. They just ran the footage backwards. And the shot of the sniper in the crosshairs of Mycroft’s team was also old Reichenbach footage with an image overlay. Meaning they didn’t think ahead and shoot footage to cover what happened to the sniper in this version of events when they were filming Reichenbach, or care enough about this scenario to get new footage when they filmed The Empty Hearse. They just slapped a couple of effects on there and called it a day.

Also also of interest: The Lazarus version of events implies Mycroft’s people shot the sniper, what with the big crosshairs on him and “Is it done?” and all. But in Reichenbach we saw that after the sniper decided not to shoot John, he calmly packed up his stuff and left. No indication whatsoever anyone else was there in the stairwell with him. Meaning apparently Mycroft’s plan was:

  1. let sniper watch the whole secret plan unfold
  2. wait until sniper is a trigger-pull away from killing John
  3. very very quickly bribe the sniper into keeping his mouth shut, and hope that works out
  4. let the sniper pack up and leave at his leisure

The smartest character on the show, folks.

Open letter to Adam Horowitz

Dear Adam Horowitz,

I often read you want critics and feedback and here I am. Silent for many months but now I can’t hold it anymore. I don’t want to be rude or spread hate. No, this is the last thing I want, but I am aloud to tell my opinion and I also wouldn’t stay quiet if I was dissatisfied with a waiter or a carpenter for example ;)


First of all I want to say, I used to love your Show. I really did. It was something new and most of all, it was inspiring in many many ways. Most of the time, your ideas have been very good and exactly here my critics will start. Your Ideas are great. You don’t even have great Ideas, no,  it seems you also have many of them. Many, many, many, many… and that is a big Problem, because you just put one Idea next to another, instead of focusing a few great Ideas and gave them depth. =/


For me, lately it seems you are not telling a fluently story, just painting pictures like in a picture book. No scene is important for another scene. Everything what happened before is unnecessary and everything what will come after, will also not fit in the narrative flow.


I can’t relive your character’s behavior. Most of the time it is very implausible. They are like a flag in the wind to serve just a few other characters. I’m missing consistency. It is a difference between character development and to bend a character. That is the saddest part because you have the power to do a great development but it looks like you chose the easy path. That makes me even more mad, because you choosing the easiest way, let me believe you think the audience is stupid and dull.


Let me tell you why the audience is so into Regina Mills. It’s because you gave her time to develop. Her arc until 4b was comprehensible and understandable. You show all the actions that lead to how she become the person she is in the present but than it seemed you lost interest in her. You stopped developing and started bending her, like how you would needed her in particular scenes. You gave her such a strong backstory, gave her depth and than you gave her scenes and actions which didn’t satisfy her character and backstory we already knew. Why make her boring, just because she was on the road to become a hero? Why took all the bitchiness away? Why always black and white, if we have such a wide palette of grey tones. Please start using it.


All the time you are starting very promising and I found myself very exiting for every season arc but unfortunately you just don’t managed to deliver. And that is beyond sadness because the Ideas have been good but the realization failed. It’s like you have an expensive fillet of beef and decides to make ground meat. Or you have a whole wide and beautiful Playground to play, but just stay in one corner. It is so disappointing, because I really believed in you.


But what throws me in an ocean of raging emotions is the way how you worked on Robin and Regina. Don’t panic, I will not spread hate on you, it is more my attempt to understand your writing process. I asked myself for over one year, what did the author want to tell.


You have the most iconic character on your Show. A character with so much background information finding in Stories, Ballads, Movies etc. But you literally did nothing. And to top this, you came out, not only with the most disgusting, but the cheapest twist in TV-History.  I wished it was the end, but you continue with this and here is the moment, I really don’t understand your ambition behind your writing. You drop a Bomb, but you do nothing with it except ignoring it. You bend two wonderful characters with so much potential in every layer of their relationship, to serve a jealousy, much to rushed redeemed character.  It was and is still totally unlikely, that the same man who snark on the evil queen, the same man who showed no fear for the great and terrible evil queen, was silent when ever Zelena was mocking him. I now you tried, to bring something like justice, when you gave Regina and Zelena the fiercely dialogue in Camelot, but as much as I like watching Lana Parrilla on my screen, this scene had belonged to Robin, who finally put Zelena on her place.

Sadly this was the only attempt, to show that Zelena didn’t had the upper Hand on Robin and Regina and the whole progress till now, make it unreliable. I can’t enjoy this new sisterly bond, because it was either earned nor developed. It was there, like I said before, as in a picture book. Just nice scene but no depth or something that established to what we have seen before.

I don’t know if Zelena became your new favorite toy to play with. Or better say, I have no ideas about Television politics, but you didn’t do justice for any of these three characters.

For example Regina’s infertility. It was, as often, a good Idea, but your intention was utterly wrong. This scene just served Zelena and the disgusting twist you brought. There have been no conversation for Regina and her Soulmate about this, nothing that further her character, no, just an outcry in the audience. And  I refuse to believe, that you as a writer consider yourself satisfied with just an outcry. Imagine you has shown us this scene in the Save Henry arc. That would have been an impact. Showing how Regina is going to lose her son and revealing, that he really is her everything because she can’t get pregnant. God, I would have cried for days, because of the beauty which would have been in the narrative.


Do you know how disappointing it is, to believe in someone. And I believed in you. Week after week, I was waiting for the Element of big surprise in the Baby-arc but week after week I became more frustrated, because there has been never a satisfying surprise at all.

Listen, Adam, I know author’s pride, oh believe me I do,  not to use Ideas from other…and maybe that the fault of the Outlaw Queen fandom, because they came up with a bunch of amazing Ideas…so no one was left for yourself. I still can’t understand why I found so many amazing Ideas how to make this disaster work in the internet, but not once on your show. I still can’t understand, why “non-professional”- writers came up, with a naturally narrative way, of what should happened next. All the dialogues between Robin and Regina after he was tricked into bed (I don’t use the R-Word, because I don’t want to scare you) Everything that should had come logically, I found only online, but nothing from you, the creator. I really don’t want to bash you, really, I just wanted to understand, why you make the decisions, you did. I mean, if you had say from the beginning, don’t expect to much, I wouldn’t have a problem, but now I’m struggling with the thought you are not the good writer I saw in you, when I start watching your show.

Maybe it’s lack of ambition or you simply incapable to work a proper way through your ideas. But if it’s just a lack of ambitions, I’m begging you to find it again. I know writing is just a job for you and maybe it become exhausting doing the show for so long, but what preventing you to action critics. You get a lot, many not entitled but also many which are. I just want you to give your best, because I don’t give applause to laziness.  

But if it is just your inability than please look for stuff who is able to put your amazing ideas into good storylines.

So at least a word or two about “last rites”. I know people are angry and mad, I’m too. But I am not angry because you killed Robin, I am mad, because you really didn’t do anything with him, or better say, you screw Robin up for Zelena. For a character with the depth of a flounder. I mean, come on. You gave her a flat motivation, so I asked myself more than onetime, how will you justify her behavior only with jealousy that was root in her mother’s choices to give her up as a baby. Instead of bending Cora and the rest of the Mills family in a flashback with two sister who SUDDENLY feel connected because they remember they have been sister for a couple of hours, you should show how Zelena has found her mother, when she was all growing up. Imagine what kind of impact and especially in her motivation, if we found out, that even as an adult, Cora would send her away and don’t want anything to do with her. That would have been a motivation, which were comprehensible  to all her actions.  It is soooooo sad because there has been so much potential do develop each of the characters, but as I said above, but you didn’t do it.

I really don’t know how you will get out of the mess you arranged and let me tell you, I have a very wide fantasy and I am on a point where I see no satisfying way out of it rather than bring Robin back. Everything else would just confirm my critics.

But nevertheless, as much as I’m disappointed of S5 I have to commit the costumes have been amazing. Sadly that didn’t console me for you not seeing the potential of having two British legends on your show (Robin Hood and King Arthur)

Sincerely

Your Diana =)

Ps. Please consider that English isn’t my mother tongue and if I sound rude or unkind, that was not my intention.  All I wanted was to motivate you, to use your god given talent and start again giving yur best. And if you need someone who kicks your ass or a drill instructor, don’t be shy, call me.

…If I could only tell my concern in my mother tongue, believe me, we both would lay in each other arms, crying about the wasted potential ;)