Ok so imagine in the spn world there's a "french men of letters" any headcanons as a french xD ?
Hi anon ^^
I LOVE YOUR QUESTION!! OMG, I’m gonna have so much fin with this one xD Ok, let’s go!
1) Richelieu founded the French Men of Letters in 1635, the same year as the
Académie Française (French Academy). They were the biggest and best well kept secret of the French
kingdom, then of the French Republic. They work on their own, have “carte blanche” but secretly receive money from the French government because they are useful to the nation. They never appear on any register though.
2) Working during the French Revolution was a pain in the ass but things got better with Napoleon who gave The Men of Letters an unlimited funding after his troops were attacked by a bunch of demons in 1804.
3) Gustave Eiffel was a Man of Letters and so were the Chevalier d’Eon, Marie Curie (poor Pierre never knew about his wife’s activities), Madame Yvonne de Gaulle (wife of General de Gaulle) even if they all denied these allegations.
4) The top of the Eiffel Tower (built by Gustave Eiffel, what a coincidence…) is an observation post that is used by the MOL to spot any suspect/paranormal activity happening in the French capital city. The top of Notre-Dame de la Garde, a famous church in Marseille, is also an observation spot.
5) Rumors says that The MOL’s HQ is located in an abandoned subway station on Line 10 of the Paris subway, Mabillon, or in the complex network of underground tunnels right below the Paris Opéra.
6) The Phantom of the Opera wasn’t a legend. The French Men of Letters
helped hunters to catch him in 1881. Gaston Leroux, the son of a hunter, wrote the whole story in 1910, inspired by the stories told by his dad.
7) Only a few members of the organization know about the location of a gate of hell, somewhere on the French territory. In 1999, the gate of hell was almost opened but the MOL prevented the worse. The brief opening “only” caused a series of cyclones over the country.
8) The Cafés are the biggest information network of the French Men of Letters. They are their eyes and ears and the French “garçons” are the best informants you could hope for. The Cafés being replaced by Starbucks coffees and hipsters bars are currently a big problem.
9) The French MOL stopped the big vampire invasion of 1992. You’ve never
heard about it? It’s normal, it’s because they stopped it, silly.
10) The Parisians Men of Letters are hated by the rest of the French Men of
Letters because the Paris Division is just a bunch of “pretentious
assholes” but the Paris Division doesn’t care because they despise the
other Men of Letters anyway. They are better than the others and they know it.
Please. The rivalry was
set aside during the previously mentioned 1992 vampire invasion because they had to collaborate on this big problem.
11) At 12:00, everybody stops their work/hunt/whatever because it’s lunch. We are not savages.
12) The Parisian MOL are often late to MOL meetings because the local trains are always late and because the traffic on the Périphérique (a belt highway around Paris) is just terrible.
13) The MOL are on strike at least twice a year because “we can’t work in
these conditions!! I mean, look at the Brits and all the stuff they have!! It’s an absolute scandal!!”. These strikes granted, among other things, a new Nespresso coffee machine, a high speed internet connection in MOL’s bunkers around the country, two weeks of paid vacations, a grenade launcher per employee and new silver bullets.
14) In July 2006, the French MOL briefly stopped their diplomatic relations with the Italian Men of Letters after the World Cup Finale because of the Zidane/Materazzi incident . It was Materazzi’s fault anyway, a position that wasn’t shared by the Italian branch, hence a brief cold in the relation that was put to an end in early August of the same year when a bunch of demons were causing troubles at the French-Italian border.
15) The vault of the French Men of Letters contains object such as a possessed apple, the one that terrified Annecy in 1585, the armor of Joan of Arc, a letter by Victor Hugo to a newspaper revealing the existence of the Men of letters and that was intercepted just in time (nice try Vic), the body of a Korrigan and of the Beast of Gévaudan, a gun by Casimir Lefaucheux, french gunsmith, that has the same property as The Colt (unfortunately, there is no more bullet left). Not to forget the body of the shape shifter that briefly replaced Marie-Antoinette in 1782.
16) They heard about the Winchesters but thank fuck, the elder one is afraid of flying and will never come to France. The last thing the MOL needs are these guys in the streets of Paris or Lyon (we have enough problems, thank you very much). There’s no space to park the Impala anyway.
“That day I saw for the first time what war is like”
J. F. Nitsch, a soldier in the 36th Infantry Division of the American Expeditionary Forces, wrote this note about his first battle experience near the end of, or soon after, World War I. He gives few details about his experience but states that he “had enough of it to know that [Gen. William Tecumseh] Sherman said nothing but the truth when he said war is hell.”
Operation Jackstay is over. I guess now I’m a veteran. Nothing they could have done would have prepared us for this. We now know the training in Hawaii and the Philippines was a piece of cake. God doesn’t know about the Mekong Delta, He didn’t create that hellhole. I think when He rested, the devil slipped one in on him. They told us before we went in that we were the first American unit to operate that far south in the war. I think everyone else had more brains. Maybe when I’m out of the Marines I’ll be proud of this, I’m just too tired to feel anything.
We lost some good guys. How do you explain this in a letter? One minute they were there, then dead. I have no idea why I’m still here.
Cpl. Jon Johnson in a letter home to his parents and wife, dated 8 April 1966. Johnson served in Delta Company, 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division.
From the people I’ve talked to I’ve come up with some new ideas on the war. For the most part nobody is particularly wild with patriotic feeling. There are, of course, those who just get a real charge out of killing people. One lieutenant I talked to said what a kick it had been to roll a gook 100 yards down the beach with his machine gun. But most people generate their enthusiasm for two reasons: one is self-preservation–if I don’t shoot him, he’ll eventually shoot me–and the other is revenge. It’s apparently quite something to see a good friend blown apart by a VC booby trap, and you want to retaliate in kind.
2Lt. Robert C. (”Mike”) Ransom, Jr. in a letter to his parents, 1968
The Division, a classified unit of self-supported tactical agents, is activated as the last line of defense in the case of a catastrophic emergency. Leading seemingly ordinary lives among us, The Division agents are trained to operate independently of command, as all else fails.
Followers, if you agree with this, please post it to NBC’s Facebook pages, tweet it to @NBCSportsPR, etc. I am sending it directly to them as well, but I want to make sure they receive it enough times to actually pay attention. (Use #NBCFail and #FireTrautwig, if you like.)
Dear NBC Olympics producers, content writers, commentators and executives,
During the last Summer Olympic broadcast, a bevy of
complaints were raised on social media under the tag #NBCFail. NBC responded by
stating that ratings were high as ever, and there was clearly no problem. This
grossly misrepresents the situation. Due to the exclusive nature of NBC’s
rights arrangement with the IOC, anyone in the US wishing to watch Olympic
coverage is essentially forced to use NBC’s services, regardless of their
quality. NBC could produce absolutely deplorable Olympic content and still
receive high ratings for it because people enjoy the Olympics and want to catch
as much of the action as they can. With that in mind, NBC really has no excuse
not to provide a positive viewer experience for the millions it reaches during
this period. Please consider my concerns regarding long-standing problems with
the quality of NBC Olympic coverage, and try to avoid them during this year’s
Absolutely first on the list must be the behavior of the
commentators. It is sadly far too common to hear creepy or sexually suggestive
comments about the athletes, even those who are legally underage or decades
younger than the sportscasters making the comments. I should not even have to
explain why this is unacceptable, but I will anyways: in many sports, there is
already an ongoing problem with objectification and exploitation of the
athletes. Comments such as these, from a respected commentator on a respected
network, only serve to legitimize such behaviors and normalize them in the
public eye. This cannot be allowed to continue.
I must point out that one of the worst, perennial offenders
in this category is Al Trautwig. A list of every such comment he has made
regarding (female, often underage) gymnasts would take up too much space to
place here, and it only continues to grow- just this past Sunday, at the national
championships in women’s gymnastics, he made inappropriate remarks about
(underage gymnast) Laurie Hernandez after her performance on the floor. He also
has a history of unprofessional interactions with spectators on social media. Please,
either formally reprimand him or terminate his contract.
It is also far past time for NBC to move away from
narratives that are disrespectful to the athletes. Whether it is infantilizing
teenagers simply because they are young; focusing a black athlete’s “backstory”
on negative stereotypes about her race rather than her accomplishments; or
characterizing an athlete who was very friendly towards fellow competitors and
fans as a “diva” because of a hand wave and dramatic eye makeup, this is an old
standby of NBC’s and it must end now. These athletes, no matter where they come
from, are some of the hardest working, most driven and dedicated people in the
world, and their accomplishments deserve to be celebrated, not ridiculed,
qualified or overdramatized.
Speaking of which, the increasing movement of NBC coverage
away from actually presenting the athletic events as they occurred, and towards
crafting a “dramatic narrative” – often at the expense of factual accuracy - is
absurd. The Olympics are a sports broadcast, and people tune in expecting to
see sports, not reality television. NBC focuses the broadcast so closely on the
US and their direct competition that others in medal contention are often left
out entirely – in 2012, the gymnastics broadcast barely showed routines from
even the bronze medal team in the finals, and the highest scoring bar routine
in the qualifying round (and, as it turned out, the entire Games) - Beth
Tweddle’s 16.133 set - was left on the cutting room floor as well. This causes
the amazing quality of sport present at the Games to be underrepresented to the
audience. Viewers are also shortchanged by commentators’ tendency to falsely
inflate US athletes’ medal chances, resulting in disappointment and confusion when
they fail to meet the mark.
Returning to Beth Tweddle’s bars, this omission is also
reflective of a major, constant problem in certain sports’ primetime coverage:
namely, that almost no sport is actually shown. The primetime slots are limited,
and producers must endeavour to use them as efficiently as possible. Why, then,
rather than editing the content to show as many athletic performances as
possible, are we so often left with shot after shot of athletes walking around,
waiting on scores, or talking with their coaches, often while other
performances go on in the background that we could be watching? If it is so
necessary to show these interstitial moments, split-screening technology has
existed at least for the majority of my lifetime. Please consider adopting a
format similar to the one ESPN now uses for major NCAA gymnastics championships,
so that the actual sporting performances viewers tune in to watch can be
shown as well. (This complaint also applies to excessive studio content that
takes up time in the broadcast and accomplishes nothing. I do not need Ryan
Seacrest to explain what I just watched to me, and neither does anyone else.)
Continuing in this vein, please stop insulting your viewers’
intelligence. Yes, there are many people out there who only tune in during the
Olympic year and need a helping hand to understand the finer points of the less
common sports. However, there are also many people who are dedicated followers
simply wishing to see the pinnacle of their favorite sport in action, and
having to put up with dumbed-down and often incorrect commentary makes the
Olympic year feel more like a chore than a fun, unique event. It is possible to
provide analysis that is both accessible to casual viewers and useful for fanatics;
simply being unwilling to try is no excuse (especially for tape-delayed
broadcasts where the commentary is not recorded live as the event happens,
allowing the team more time to think about what they will say).
There is another area in which NBC is not even trying, and
that is the web content. As a broadcast channel, NBC is available to anyone who
lives within range of a signal and owns the proper equipment. It’s time to do
the same thing with the web streams. Requiring a cable provider login to access
coverage is absolutely absurd: the population is moving more and more towards
streaming services like Netflix, and some people simply do not want to provide
their cable info to a third party. If some perceived loss of revenue
opportunities is causing the hold-up, NBC could simply institute a small fee
(eg. $1 pay-per-view or $10 for unlimited streaming access) that
non-subscribers would pay to access coverage. It is really that simple. As things currently stand, non-subscribers are only encouraged to commit piracy of other countries’ streams via VPN services.
By the way, it’s unfair and frankly quite rude to claim that
the existence of web streaming negates the need for comprehensive, intelligent
prime-time coverage. As I just discussed, many people currently cannot access
the streaming thanks to an incredibly arbitrary rule. Additionally, many people
work, attend school, or are otherwise occupied during the day when the streams
are live, and turn to the primetime content as a way to catch up on what they
simply cannot watch as it happens.
Thank you for your consideration of my concerns. I hope
these suggestions help NBC shape future Olympic coverage into something that
will be enjoyable and interesting to watch for every viewer.
The Vergilius Augusteus is a manuscript from late antiquity, containing the works of the Roman author Virgil, written probably around the 4th century. The Augusteus is not illuminated but has decorated initial letters at the top of each page. These letters do not mark divisions of the text, but rather are used at the beginning of whatever line happened to fall at the top of the page. These decorated initials are the earliest surviving such initials. Only seven leaves of the manuscript survives, four of which are in the Vatican Library (MS 3256), and the remaining three in the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin (Lat. fol. 416). The leaves contain fragments of Virgil’s Georgics and the Aeneid. The fragments are written in Roman square capitals, which shows that square capitals were used in handwriting and not only for stone inscriptions. Due to its great age, it was originally believed that the manuscript was written in the time of Roman emperor Caesar Augustus, hence its name. In the later Middle Ages the manuscript was kept in the abbey of St. Denis in Paris.
(This post is a very personal and empathetic look at Shane’s letter I’m only running on like 2 or 3 hours of sleep as I write this. I tried typing this post on tumblr mobile, but I lost the whole thing, so I’m retyping it all)
When Shane mentioned that Monty was responsive in the hospital, only to never wake up again, it really hit far too close to home. In September, 2009, a similar circumstance happened when I lost my older brother, Ian.
A man who had everything to offer to the world, who seemed like he was going to bounce back, but was still whisked away too soon.
In September, 2009, I was only a month into my Sophomore year of high school. And that event hasn’t left me the same. It’s kind of expected for death to severely impact the loved ones left behind. And the experience was extremely hard. For 2 years, I was an empty husk of a person- depression can do that to you. I was suicidal, and going to therapy felt more and more pointless.
That time was painful, abysmal, and numbing all at the same time.
What I’m worried about, is that Shane might be feeling the same way.
Regardless of how “biased” or divisive his letter may seem to everyone, I can’t help but see it as a cry for help. When people are in really bad places, sometimes they say or do bad things just to garner some attention to what they might be going through.
I, like a lot of others in the RT community, was charmed and inspired by Monty’s work. And because of encountering the show he created, I found something that made me happy, and gave me drive to better my art.
And based on how Shane wrote of Monty, it seems like he had a similar feeling. Shane knew Monty first hand, and was friends with him. Monty shared his knowledge of animation with him- and naturally, because he knew Monty in person, he was probably more impacted by Monty’s death than a big number of us can imagine.
And the place that Shane worked- RT animation- probably had a lot of Monty’s presence still there. Not just in spirit, but Monty probably left behind a huge “imprint” with his library of work (since we know that Monty’s sequences have been reused in various productions.)
But over time, because of whatever corporate entity there that Shane could’ve meant, Monty was being “erased.” And callously. Even in the very show that Monty left behind. And I think that might be a large part of why Shane wrote what he did. I think he needs a lot of support and comfort, regardless of how “wrong” people think he was to make that letter.
Because not everyone can “get over their grief” in just a year and a half.
'Scandal's' Tony Goldwyn on Abortion Storyline, Fitz and Olivia's Future
NOVEMBER 20, 2015 12:39pm PT by Lesley Goldberg
Courtesy of HULU/ABC
The actor talks with THR about the controversial midseason finale.
[Warning: This story contains spoilers from the season five midseason finale, “Baby, It’s Cold Outside,” of ABC’s Scandal.]
In its fifth season ABC’s Scandal gave diehard Gladiators everything they wanted: a presidential divorce that paved the way for Fitz (Tony Goldwyn) and Olivia (Kerry Washington) to finally go public with their romance and be together as a couple in the White House. But the dream may have been better than the reality if Thursday’s midseason finale his any indication.
During the episode, Olivia — already being accepted as the first lady-to-be — is growing tired of being left out of the “big dog” club and instead is left to deliver cookies to a senator’s wife as she has almost devolved to become the president’s arm candy.
Olivia’s frustration with her position in the White House intensified as she watched Sen. Mellie Grant (Bellamy Young) work tirelessly to support Planned Parenthood (in the latest Scandal episode that delivered a timely message). Adding fuel to the fire that Olivia and Fitz really weren’t truly ready to be together in such a high-pressure fashion was the fact that Olivia was pregnant and opted to have an abortion — unbeknownst to Fitz.
It all set the stage for the most epic fight Scandal has yet to feature between the couple that has long been considered end game. Olivia calls Fitz an ineffectual president and believes the White House is a cage. She feels that Fitz moving her into the White House so suddenly (and without asking) was punishment for releasing Rowan. Fitz thinks she released the man who killed his son so she wouldn’t have to marry him. Fitz blasts her as being more manipulative than Mellie. The two trade barbs about their upbringing. It’s brutal — and it ends with Olivia boldly declaring that “there is no us; no this; no Vermont; no jam; no future. Not anymore.”
The now-former couple agrees that they rushed into things and weren’t ready (“we tried,” they say) and that they were “broken” going into this. The episode ends with Olivia, bags packed, moving out of the White House and poised to celebrate Christmas with a big glass of red wine on a brand new couch in her apartment, alone.
THR turned to Goldwyn to break down the revealing episode and preview what to expect when the Shonda Rhimes drama returns Feb. 11 from its winter hiatus.
What was the table read like when the cast got this script?
We were all shocked, honestly, at how dark the writers went. That abortion blew my mind. It was not what I expected with Olivia and Fitz. I was really impressed with the boldness of it; Shonda never fails to amaze me with her fierceness. But emotionally, we were all silent afterward; like, “What just happened?!”
Did you guys have questions for Shonda after reading this episode?
I didn’t; I just had to absorb it and think about it. It was pretty clear. I thought that final scene with me and Kerry, as awful as it was, was very well-written. It was clear and quite balanced. Sometimes it’s more difficult since the show is often from Olivia’s point of view so I do have to ask Shonda questions in terms of what she has in mind for Fitz. But that scene has both points of view pretty firmly in place, which is part of what made it so sad. And of course she’s withholding this terrible secret that Fitz has no clue about.
This episode was such a timely and important one for Planned Parenthood, and it isn’t the first time a Shonda Rhimes series — or Scandal itself — has featured an abortion. Do you think there’s still a stigma associated with depicting abortion on TV? Why do you think more shows don’t go there?
The answer is YES, in capital letters. It’s such a divisive issue in our society and sadly has become a real political football. People have very strong and justifiable views on both sides of the question. But I think that’s what makes it worth talking about. Shonda sometimes dives into political issues because they are raw expressions of the human dilemma that we all live with everyday. She’s like, “Hey, people, I’m putting this on television because this is what is happening in our lives.” Shonda doesn’t make polemic arguments; she’s not sending messages. She’s progressive politically but she really does these things because they’re important to talk about. That’s where she’s coming from as a dramatist.
How much more will Scandal explore Planned Parenthood and abortion storyline going forward?
I can’t tell you that. A) I don’t know, and B) I couldn’t tell you.
How do you think Fitz, who recently lost his son, would feel about Olivia’s abortion?
I think it would be, next to the death of his son, the most gutting news he could get and frankly I don’t know how he’d recover from that. I can only assume he would because of his irrational love for Olivia. But the combination of the fact that Fitz’s fondest dream in life would be to have a child with Olivia — as he put it in Vermont. But that dream shattered is part one, and part two is the colossal lie and betrayal and withholding of that terrible truth that Olivia didn’t tell him. At the end of the day, it’s her body and her right, but it’s his child. And we don’t in fact know where Fitz lives on this issue. He’s a Republican but we’ve never asked that question [on the show]. He’s very progressive in so many ways and my guess is that Fitz would have a fairly progressive view on the matter, if only to say that it should not be in the hands of the government. I think everything would lead us to believe that Fitz would be ethically pro-life, even if he has a progressive bend like George Bush Sr. … But the bigger thing is not a political question; the bigger thing here is the emotional [impact].
Is this breakup something that Olivia and Fitz can come back from? Is there hope for them down the line or can they only work out once his presidency is over?
I think there’s hope. I think Fitz and Olivia really love each other. I may be alone at this point in thinking that, I don’t know (Laughs.) But I do, and I think when people love each other as primally as these two people do, I think they can come back from anything. I didn’t think Fitz could necessarily recover from the revelation that Olivia had been the one who saved her dad and yet Fitz did, albeit in such a dysfunctional way and making a grab at her and putting her in the White House. But he did so kind of from the right place; he was trying to take control of the situation. I can’t imagine how Fitz will react when he finds out about the abortion. But his feelings for Olivia defy logic. If Fitz were smart, he’d stay 100 miles away from her; he should get in another relationship because, really, how much abuse can two people take? How much pain and suffering? And yet I don’t think they have a choice in the matter with this.
Will there be a time jump when the second half of the season returns?
I can’t say.
How will this break-up change Fitz?
It’s a really interesting choice [for them to break up]. Fitz is going to be terribly lonely. Not only does he not have a partner, he’s utterly alone. He’s lost his family; though he has visitation with his kids, he and Mellie are utterly estranged. His connection with Cyrus (Jeff Perry), even thought they tried to patch things up, that trust is fundamentally compromised. Abby and Fitz don’t really know each other. He’s going to be very lonely. But that might be good for Fitz. He has always had a strong polarity in his life. There’s always been Mellie — and/or Olivia — as this other yin and yang. So it might be good for him. This is a very difficult job he’s got and it’s very lonely at the top. And the pressures are intense and to not have anybody that you can share your confidence with, who you know has your back and frankly who understands your frailties, that’s a tough place to live in. Fitz may grow through the experience; I have no idea what Shonda has in mind.
How will we see both Olivia and Fitz deal with the aftermath of their break-up? She looks happy — or freed — with a glass of wine, new couch and a Christmas tree, while Fitz is left almost heartbroken.
That’s true. I think Olivia is lying to herself. She has that thing where when you run away from a commitment or obligation, there’s that initial sense of, “I’m free! I can do what ever I want!” Fitz may have been replaced by a couch (Laughs.) but the couch is an inanimate object — it’s a nice couch, and the couch isn’t going to make a lot of demands on Olivia. But there’s going to be a tremendous backlash — I’m not saying this out of any knowledge of the story, but about life — when Olivia has to look in the mirror and realizes that she’s pushed away everybody who is close to her life and the man she does love. What ever Fitz has done wrong, what ever mistakes Fitz made or overreaching he did, they could have made a go of this. Shonda talks about the White House being this prison and cage and how horrible it is. Really?! Come on, it’s difficult; there’s a lot of scrutiny but what the hell is Olivia so scared of?! I don’t understand it. I understand as a viewer but if I were her shrink, I would have a lot to say. (Laughs.)
How much of their breakup do you think was based on Olivia’s stress from the pregnancy and feeling cornered — as she said, not running with the big dogs?
I’d say 90 percent. Fitz overreached a bit by moving her into the White House prematurely.
But give me a break! Look what he’s forgiving her for and what he’s overlooked, in terms of her bailing out on this supposed marriage they were going to have by making a deal with the man who murdered his son, with the father who has tormented her her entire life. Look at the fact that Fitz was able to move past that. So he inappropriately rushed things by moving her into the White House when they just needed time. Fitz is certainly not blameless in this but I think Olivia’s fear is a huge part of this. What would have happened if Olivia had said to Fitz, “I’m pregnant?” His face would have lit up in a smile and it would be the greatest joy in his life and he’d have embraced her and said, “Oh my God, we’re going to start a whole new life together, isn’t that fantastic?!” She couldn’t have that conversation because to her, that’s terror and a ball and chain. I feel like she disassociated from it. To me, that’s what was so disturbing about that abortion scene: it was so mundane. She went in and did it with no emotion. Boom. It was as if she didn’t connect with it at all. It just happened.
Will Fitz start dating? Does this open the door for Mellie to return?
Critical thinking or not, putting this much effort to figure how someone spends his/her night, and you are not even friends with him/her makes anyone a gigantic creep. Lets turn this situation around and say a complete stranger stalks your and your friends twitter/facebook accout to figure out how you spend your nights. It's really creepy isn't it?
It probably is creepy that I can find out with a fair degree of certainty where someone is. I’ve never done it before. Don’t really plan on doing it again.
I did it for mainly two reasons: First is the general hello, let’s look logically at the information we have and see if it supports the claim that he spent his evening at an incredibly kinky nightclub.
Second is the idea that it doesn’t fucking matter where he spent his night, because he’s a private citizen and it’s none of our fucking business. Did he go? I don’t care. Did he not go? I don’t care. But the speculation about what he was or was not doing after he was done performing is none of our concern. That I was able to actually tell where the picture had been taken was just a fluke. From being on street view I clicked twice and recognized the lettering.
There is a division between public figure Tom, upon whom all of us impose our fantasies and supposed understanding of his character, and who he actually is. And posting photos taken by someone else of your celebrity hero, and adding your own speculations, even innocently in question marks, creates a feeding frenzy in tumblr that is irresponsible. Even now, the original post speculating that he went there has 729 notes, as opposed to mine which has 196. I have to admit that when I originally saw the post, my inclination was that it wasn’t correct, not because I didn’t think he would go to a club like that, but because he’s protective enough of his public image that he wouldn’t get photographed coming out of a club that people would freak out about him attending. Sort of a ‘he’s smarter than that’ response.
So yeah, it’s fucking creepy that I can track a celebrity that easily. But I’ve never done it to show up where he is, or attempt to meet him. I did it this once (and god bless writing fanfic for teaching me how to use Google Street View) to hopefully give him back a little bit of privacy over how he spends his off hours. I have no idea why he was in SoHo. There’s probably 40 clubs (including The Box) within a few minutes’ walk. Maybe he was going there late. It doesn’t change his talent.
Go see him in Coriolanus, show up at press events (and behave!), send him letters, write Thorki, I don’t care. But don’t follow him home, or post pictures of him taken for non-official reasons that purport for him to be doing anything other than interacting with his fans. Let him have a few minutes to himself that aren’t us trying to shape him to either the 'kinky sex-god’ persona or the 'extremely perfect virginal gentleman’ persona that seem to be the gods of the various branches of the Hiddleston fandom. He’s a person. He’s not perfect. He farts and burps and probably leaves wet towels on the floor. He’s been in and out of relationships. He’s an incredibly talented human being with all of the complexity that entails.
So yes, my first foray into creepiness was done to hopefully provide him with a scant degree of privacy. You know what they say about the road to hell, right?
Also, if I can do this in 20 minutes with someone who’s famous and just a twitter account and Google Maps, imagine what the NSA can do with all the resources they have to track your movements. Now that’s creepy.