OK, I'm annoyed. I saw a post a few days ago that said that people shouldn't be upset by the fact that Emma Watson is auto tuned in Beauty and the Beast because all movie musicals are auto tuned.
So, this is one of the many reasons the casting of a big name celebrity with little to no musical theatre experience bothers me so much. Audiences are starting to think that in order to be in a musical, signing talent is not a necessity.
Also, this person obviously hasn’t seen a musical that was made before the year 2000. Really, even later than that! More like, anything before 2010.
Here’s a homework assignment for this weekend. Don’t worry it’s easy. Look up:
Nelson Eddy and Jeanette MacDonald:
In watching some videos of these wonderful people, you will see how much work goes into the craft of musical theatre and movie musicals.
And, it bears mentioning, that at the time, these actors were “big names” and they were box office draws based on their singing and dancing talent. I’m all for bringing that back. If Hollywood wants to keep making movie musicals, then let’s bring back the movie musical star!
I think what makes people hostile about La La Land isn’t the movie itself. Standing alone, it’s a lovely movie. But when you get down to the principle of the matter of its popularity, it makes people who actually love musicals really angry. I guess it’s taken as a compliment when people say, “I normally don’t like musicals, but I loved La La Land!” But it’s really not. It just means you don’t watch musicals and most likely only watched that movie because it was the trendy thing to do and wow, it was great. And you attack the people who say they didn’t like it by saying, “You guys are talking shit about it for no reason.”
No. Not at all.
People who didn’t like La La Land actually regularly watch (AND LOVE!!!) musicals. And it’s astonishing to us that people are losing their shit over a movie that has been done a million times, and done better. It’s not a brand new thing just discovered and executed perfectly. What’s annoying is you all acting like it’s new.
White people falling in love in Hollywood? Fred and Ginger. That was their whole shtick. DECADES worth of movies. A musical about Hollywood? “Singing In The Rain.” And you don’t even have to go back to the older movies. A modern musical? A modern musical with a much more realistic ending? “Once.” And it’s like nobody praising “La La Land” knows what “Sing Street” is.
Anyone who claims La La Land is the best musical they’ve ever seen is either 1.) A liar, who didn’t watch musicals in the first place and probably doesn’t even like them, or 2.) Has really bad taste in musicals. Like this is coming from somebody who loved the film, but can see the faults in it. Faults that would be nitpicking from a musical watcher, but are ignored by the people who, before La La Land came out, had no interest in musical movies and honestly probably don’t want to see anymore unless they’re like La La Land.
Which means that you’re not going to see the SAME STORY done SO MUCH BETTER that La La Land was based on and inspired by.
I’m bitter. It seems like everyone fiercely defending La La Land were the people who ridiculed theater kids and scoffed at Broadway and only took part in viewing a musical in the first place was so they would be in the loop, and now since they were exposed to a musical, they see how great they are and can’t take people saying negative things about it. And they won’t consider going to look at the movies that started it all. It’s hypocritical and insulting.
La La Land was nice, but it isn’t a special movie. The way I see it, it’s just getting the awards that Whiplash deserved.
If you’re just learning how to write essays or you want to improve your arguments in an essay, it’s important to look at logical fallacies. These explanations should help you avoid creating fallacies and help you find them when deconstructing others’ arguments. I will be using South Park to help explain the most commonly used logical fallacies.
Mr. Mackey is the perfect example of a circular argument. He uses the same argument in his premise to support his conclusion. For example, Mr. Mackey often says, “Drugs are bad M’kay. So don’t do drugs because they’re bad.” Mr. Mackey has shown no evidence for what makes drugs bad, he has just repeated his opinion.
Another fallacy is Post Hoc: one event is said to have caused a later event simply because it happened earlier. So, when Randy says the town getting a Whole Foods caused kids to come out as gay, he’s assuming no kids in South Park were gay before. The issue is he has no evidence the first event effected the second event.
Generalization is the fallacy of making a universal statement about a group of people with insufficient evidence. When Randy says Stan is “funny” or implying he’s gay, for only hanging out with Kyle, he’s making a sweeping statement about homosexuality. Randy is assuming that any boy spending most of his time with another boy must be gay. He’s generalizing homosexuality behaviour based on their society’s opinion instead of evidence.
A Red herring is an observation that draws attention away from the central issue in an argument or discussion. For example, Sharon talks to Stan about the merits of an individual vote when he’s actually concerned about disliking both candidates. The episode’s central issue was about being stuck with two undesirable choices, but everyone focuses on the privilege to vote. Red Herrings bring up unrelated topics and problems that don’t connect to the main discussion. In other episodes, Cartman often creates Red Herrings that distract from the central issue, by arguing about the “flaws” in Jewish people.
Bandwagon is an argument based on the assumption that the opinion of the majority is always right. This fallacy also makes the assumption that the majority is what’s normal and makes sense. For example, the Goth kids don’t want to “jump on the bandwagon” and wear clothes from the Gap like every other kid. The Bandwagon mentality is often about giving into status quo and not forming an opinion for yourself. Another bandwagon example is the episode all the guys in town dress metro-sexually, except for Kyle. The other boys tell Kyle he should dress metro-sexually because they decided to.
Slippery slope is assuming a course of action will lead to many consequences till an undesirable result happens. However, we can never know if a certain result is determined to follow one particular event. Cartman also displays this fallacy, as he often reacts delusional to topics he has little information on. For example, in the ginger kids episode, Cartman argues, “The ginger gene is a curse and unless we all work to rid the Earth of that curse, the gingers could envelope our lives in blackness for all time.” Cartman has no evidence of red haired people being inherently evil or dangerous. Instead, he let’s an irrational fear of ginger kids make him believe unlikely scenarios will occur.
Ad hominem is a personal attack based on the adversary’s flaws instead of the merits of the argument. When Mr. Garrison says he doesn’t trust women because they menstruate, he is attacking a biological aspect women can’t control, instead of pointing out an untrustworthy action or statement by the opponent.
Straw Man, is when the opponent’s argument is overstated or misrepresented to be easily refuted. For example, the journalist misrepresents Wendy’s argument against photo shopping pictures of women. He claims she is actually jealous and a “hater” to make her argument appear weak.
The either or/false dilemma is an argument where only two options are available, when there’s actually numerous alternatives.For example, Jimmy saying to Nathan he can only be a nice kid with no gun, or a bad kid with a gun. South Park episodes often use binary conflicts to show how ridiculous it is to think a situation only ever has two sides. When characters pressure the boys into thinking there is only two solutions to a problem, they often find there are many answers to the issue.
Finally, a non sequitur is an argument where the conclusion doesn’t follow logically from what preceded it. PC Principal often uses the fallacy to support his beliefs. For example, he argues that gay kids need support. However, giving money to kids for being gay is random and does not show tolerance towards them. There is no relevant connection between his claim and support for it. Hopefully these explanations help with your essay writing and general analyzing skills. Please go check out the blogs I used gifs from. :)
I got this headcanon that nicole comes from a really fucked up family like her moms a crackhead or something so pls gimme all the headcanons about nics family to cleanse my thoughts
uhhh its canon that nicole doesnt talk to her parents so i assume either theyre fucked up or homophobic but anyway heres some headcanons about nicoles other family
she has an older sister and a younger brother, meaning shes the middle child which makes a lot of sense if you think about how she acts
her sister is a paramedic and her brother wants to be a fireman
they joke about how dialling 9-1-1 is just a haught speedial
shes taller than her little brother and she makes fun of him for it everytime she sees him. consequently he makes fun of her for having the ‘ginger gene’
her older sister has a little boy who loves his auntie with all his heart and nicole always buys him the loudest and most annoying toy for christmas because she loves to watch her sisters face when he unwraps it
the haught siblings make fun of each other and mess with each other but they love and look out for each other always
they Never talk about their parents, though nicole knows both of her siblings are still in contact with them
shes glad they dont
nicoles brother is 5 years younger than her, but her sister is only 1 year older. they all got roaring drunk after her brothers high school graduation and nicole stole a traffic cone, a neighbourhood watch sign, and her sisters neighbours collection of garden gnomes
she bashfully returned them all the next day
nicole introduces waverly to her sister first when she goes to pick her up from the airport and waverly comes along with her
they all eat an airport curry and get on like a house on fire
they all get the shits
when nicoles brother meets waverly he thinks its a joke because “dude shes super hot”
nicoles brother is a dumb jock but thats cool they love him
each one of the haught siblings excelled at a different sport in high school
when nicoles sister meets wynonna the pair disappears and nicole finds them a day later passed out in a ditch behind shortys
waverly and nicole babysit for nicoles sister
nicoles nephew adores waverly
it becomes tradition to have a big haught-earp meal once a year and nicoles parents never show but thats okay because “your parents are assholes, join the club”
One of my friends is a redhead and he can't go outside without getting sunburned to some degree so I imagine hux as hating the sun for always burning him and taking immense satisfaction in destroying suns with Starkiller XD
hahahaha I’ve seen plenty of fanart where Hux gets sunburned as a boy and swears revenge on the sun 😂
I’ve had no less than 13 anonymous queries from followers asking me to address the rumour that Fred Astaire ever named someone as his favourite dance partner.
Disclaimer Number One: I am a huge Rita Hayworth fan. I love her, and I think she is one of the purest technical dancers in the history of dance. I also adore her exquisite, sheer joy as a dancer. I am only addressing this for those who – like me – might feel uncertain about the idea that Fred Astaire would ever be “disrespectful” to his other dance partners, or, indeed, hurtful to them in any way by naming a favourite.
Disclaimer Number Two: I am only an “expert” on Astaire, Ginger Rogers and other dancers throughout history insofar as my life’s training and work has been as a professional dancer and then as a student of dance history and art history, and insofar as I am now writing two academic essays for a university and for a book on the history of dance on film.
So, in the context of those two disclaimers, here is where the rumour of Mr Astaire naming a favourite dance partner came from.
In 2009 a biography of Astaire was published by author Peter Levinson, entitled
Puttin’ On the Ritz: Fred Astaire and the Fine Art of Panache, A Biography. Levinson had already passed away when the book was published, as it was one of his final publications.
In that biography – as has been noted by several reviewers, including The New York Times – Levinson makes grave spelling, grammatical and historical errors. For example, in the area of historical errors, he mixes up the directors of Top Hat and Swing Time several times throughout the book. He names Mark Sandrich as the director of Swing Time more than once, and George Stevens as the director of Top Hat. These are just two small examples of the many odd factual errors threaded throughout Levinson’s book.
If you read reviews of this book on Amazon, or indeed in national newspapers, you can see more detailed accounts of this.
In other paragraphs he actually quotes – with no citation or annotation to prove where he amassed this information – people from Fred Astaire’s life who claim that Astaire and Rogers had a long affair behind their spouses’ backs. This seems so odd and so fragmented, and downright slanderous for both Astaire and Rogers, and yet Levinson was allowed to print this information with no indication as to where he sourced it. What makes this even more odd, is that Levinson will then turn around and claim – moments after he’s alleged that they had a tumultuous, multi-decade affair – that Astaire and Rogers hated each other.
And, again, with no citation, he was allowed to print that Fred Astaire – through unfounded, unproven, and again with no citation – told a “friend of a friend of a brother of so-and-so, who told another friend of a friend of a friend” that Rita Hayworth was his favourite dance partner.
I must reiterate that I am not out to “disprove” this as a slight against Rita Hayworth. I love her and think she was a genius and deserved more credit as an artist than she ever received. I am only answering the queries sent to me in the context of how unfair and somewhat hurtful it might be to the many fine dance partners Astaire had who shaped and contributed to his career. I also would love to direct people away from this disgusting idea that incredible female dancers from great periods in dance history were just sitting around like sex-crazed children waiting for “daddy” to tell them which one of them was his favourite. This is a misogynistic idea that has plagued female dancers for centuries, and it has been most prominent among biographers in describing Astaire’s and Gene Kelly’s partners.
I have quoted the paragraphs at the bottom of this post. You can google the paragraphs and see them for yourself via Google Reader in the original book that Levinson published.
I hope this answers any queries or questions. And I hope this will restore the idea that both Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly wanted to maintain – which was that neither of them would be so crude or vulgar as to name a favourite partner, because all of the women they danced with had something special and incredible to offer. Both men stated this in their AFI tributes, and both men have repeated it until their dying days in interviews with the BBC, national newspapers, radio broadcasts, etc., etc., etc.
Here is the source of the rumour, which has since gone gangbusters as “factual” information all over the internet over several years. I have included any spelling errors made by Levinson, so those are not mine, and the information is on pages 123 and 124 of his book:
“The dancing combination of Fred Astaire and Rita Hayworth was absolute magnetism on the screen. The erotic quality that Ginger Rogers brought to her association with Fred in their ten films together was surpassed by Rita’s innate Latin sensuality. With the nineteen-year difference in their ages, as dancers Rita’s youthful exuberance meshed perfectly with Fred’s maturity and elegance […] Over the years, Astaire was asked, ‘Who was your favorite dance partner?’ countless times in interviews in the press […] Alan Johnson was the choreographer of the 1971 NBC special ’S Wonderful, ’S Marvelous, ’S Gershwin, in which Astaire appeared. According to Johnson, Martin Charin, the producer, writer and codirector of the show, while having dinner with Astaire in New York, asked Astaire who was his favorite dance partner. He answered, ‘All right, I’ll give you a name, but if you ever let it out, I’ll swear I lied. It was Rita Hayworth.’”
There you have it. A rumour. No citation, no public or printed “proof”. Levinson literally says that a producer told a choreographer who told someone else that Fred Astaire may have stated this. Maybe he did. Maybe he didn’t. But that’s what a rumour is.
There is no citation, no annotation, and no further information. Also worth noting, in the subsequent paragraph, which I have not quoted but you can read anytime, Levinson claims that Rita Hayworth used to come home to Orson Welles after rehearsals for You Were Never Lovelier, in tears because Astaire was so exacting. This suggests that Hayworth was having a terrible time in rehearsals with Astaire, and also suggests that she was living with Orson Welles during the 1942 production months of You Were Never Lovelier, when she was actually in the process of leaving her first husband, and she and Welles were not married until a year and a half later, in 1943.
The book is full of insulting non-facts which slander Astaire, Rogers, Hayworth, and many other people in their lives. I hope this is useful in some way. If it hurts or frustrates anyone, it is certainly not my intention to do so, and I only offer it up as part of my endless research into the dance world that I love.
I thought tortoiseshell cats were cats with nearly all black or blue and red, apricot, or amber speckles. Aren't calicoes predominantly white with black or blue and red, apricot, or amber patches? Torbies = tortoiseshell with tabby markings, right? What are calicoes with tabby markings? Tabicoes?
Tortoiseshell can be a cat with any mix of the black and ginger genes. Calico refers to cats with the above pattern that also have large patches of white. Colour dilution modifiers can affect any base coat colour.
Tortoiseshell is just a colour. That colour can be modified with markings such as tabby, dilution or white patches, but underneath it all that’s still tortoiseshell. ‘Torbie’ is a strange portmanteau that I had not heard before, and to my knowledge is not in common use.
All these cats are torties.
But if they have enough white, they can also be called calico.
If they are calico then they are also tortoiseshell.
Where the heck did black!Harry come from and why are people so obsessed with racebending? And when people do racebend, why is Ron the only one kept white?
it isn’t anything new, i’ve been in the fandom for 17 years and racebending has /always/ been a thing, I promise you. people aren’t obsessed (i mean, in general. im sure there actually people who are obsessed but for the most part thats not whats happening) people are just much more vocal now about the way they see characters, because society has opened up a bit in that respect. Its only been in the past few years that everyones been hitting the lack of diversity in media pretty hard, we’ve been /needing/ it for ages. But it’s taken this long.
anyway, you might feel that people are obsessed with it because you’re just seeing so much MORE than you’re used to, or would have years ago. But it’s not because theres more of it, its because people are finally feeling comfortable bringing it forward. and you know, naturally people like to see themselves represented in their favorite things. So they may racebend in order to make it happen.
And i think the reason Ron is generally kept white is because the weasleys are pretty much described that way, where as harry and hermione are ambiguous and have darker features and i think i saw a post once about how the ginger gene is most common in white people? like it can happen in other races for sure but its far less likely, so the fact that the /entire/ weasley family are ginger makes less sense if they’re anything but white. I dunno. That is a science i did not research, but its possible so if you care look it up lol
DISCLAIMER: this fic was written when Gene and Clyde just had their first canon kiss, buy it goes a few weeks into the future. I don’t know what’s gonna happen, so if you’re reading this later then I’m sorry if its inaccurate to the plot.
NEXT GEN! From left to right; Rose, Roxanne, Albus, Fred, Lucy, Molly, Louis, Hugo, Lily, James, Dominique (aka Domi), Victoire and Teddy.
I have this headcanon that James loves Teddy’s style and he wants to look like him. I also have the headcanon that the ginger gene in the Weasley family is so strong it stayed despite other strong genes. ALSO: headcanon that Percy doesn’t mind Lucy and Molly’s look. As long as they’re happy, have good grades and don’t act bad, he is happy with it. Also, they inherited their father’s eyes problems. Also, I love to think that Domi tease her sister all the time regarding her relationship with Teddy (she is the little sister after all). And I like to think Roxanne is the funny one and Fred is the serious one.
I kind of liked working on all their body shapes. Good practice, good practice.
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer 25th Anniversary Silver Jubilee, 1949 First row, bottom, left to right: Lionel Barrymore, June Allyson, Leon Ames, Fred Astaire, Edward Arnold, Lassie, Mary Astor, Ethel Barrymore, Spring Byington, James Craig, and Arlene Dahl. Second row, left to right: Gloria DeHaven, Tom Drake, Jimmy Durante, Vera-Ellen, Errol Flynn, Clark Gable, Ava Gardner, Judy Garland, Berry Garrett, Edmund Gwenn, Kathryn Grayson, and Van Heflin. Third row, left to right: Katharine Hepburn, John Hodiak, Claude Jarman Jr., Van Johnson, Jennifer Jones, Louis Jourdan, Howard Keel, Gene Kelly, Christopher Kent, Angela Lansbury, Mario Lanza, and Janet Leigh. Fourth row, left to right: Peter Lawford, Jeanette MacDonald, Ann Miller, Ricardo Montalban, Jules Munshin, George Murphy, Reginald Owen, Walter Pidgeon, Jane Powell, Ginger Rogers, Frank Sinatra, and Red Skelton. Fifth row, left to right: Alexis Smith, Ann Sothern, J. Carrol Naish, Dean Stockwell, Lewis Stone, Clinton Sundberg, Robert Taylor, Audrey Totter, Spencer Tracy, Esther Williams, and Keenan Wynn.