this drama lacks a lot of things


Just started to watch this series on Netflix (idk about other countries, but here in Mexico it was added yesterday). I’m only in episode 3 BUT I have to say that it is fun and interesting. There’s a disturbing lack of wigs and some of the costumes are… suspicious? very inaccurate? But there are some good things to see:

  • LOTS of furs. Of course, that’s practically the theme of the series, the fur trade. So we have a lot of fur garments and accessories. Maybe a little bit too much? (look for the girl with little fur hair accessories). You know, enough fur that if it were real, all of the members of PETA would have a collective heart attack.

Originally posted by jacnaylor

  • Jason Momoa. I don’t think I have to add anything else to this line.

Originally posted by hawaiian-jesus

  • Many Native characters. Thank you. Really we need to see this in more not only historical series and films.
  • There’s a guy who looks as if he were Daniel Radcliffe’s cousin. His Irish cousin. (Who is also the guy from Hemlock Grove but looks SO much younger in this series. A.K.A. Landon Liboiron).

Originally posted by elwinio

  • The locations are breathtaking, as well as the interior scenes and the ones in little cities and forts. I’ve only been in 1 place which was a fur trade spot and the whole isolation and wilderness spirit of the place is very well seen in this series. I guess it’s some Discovery stuff. IDK. It’s supposed to be set in Ontario and so (you know, the whole Hudson’s Bay Company) but it was filmed in Newfoundland.

On the down side:

  • A lot of short hair, and a lack of wigs. Even in the London scenes. O.o
  • The setting is just “late 18th century” but there are a couple characters and outfits that look taken from (at least) the 1810s.
  • There’s a lot of blood. I mean, a LOT. Like, if you don’t have the stomach to see a guy having his throat open on screen, then maybe it’s not for you. This is neither a good nor a bad thing. It’s just a fact.

Well, this is it. For now. This series have only 6 episodes, so I’ll finish quick, I think. I’ll let you know any other thoughts and if you’ve already seen Frontier, let us all know what you think!

Stop complaining about the lack of gayness in the episode

I understand that many people wanted something to happen between John and Sherlock, I mean hell, I ship them too. But this isn’t a reason to dislike the episode, I knew since the start that Johnlock wouldn’t be canon because it has been pretty solidly proved that John is most likely straight with his many relationships with women during the show and lack of male interest. The writers were messing about when talking about John and Sherlocks ‘relationship’, it was supposed to be a nod to the fans and a bit of humour, I realise that many people may find this as queer baiting but it’s most likely just humour as things like that happen a lot on British television. Leave the writers alone, it’s a crime drama, not a romance and they shouldn’t have to live up to the expectations of the fandom.

anonymous asked:

What do you think of La La Land?

Lengthy response incoming.

I haven’t seen La La Land or Whiplash, which are two of the ‘jazz’ movies made so far by director Damian Chazelle.  I hear a lot about them, and what I hear often depends largely on who is saying it.  A lot of movie buffs I know loved Whiplash, and a lot of professional musicians or music educators hated it.  The movie buffs loved it because it’s, from what I hear, a compelling character drama, and the musicians hate it because its portrayal of music education is, uh…  very, very inaccurate, for lack of a better way of putting it.  

La La Land is different, of course, because it’s a musical.  As a jazz fan, it’s my inclination to be irritated at it, because anytime something vaguely jazz related happens in the mainstream popular media, that thing becomes the subject of every third post on every jazz message board on the internet for the next month.  Going past that, though, and going off of what I do know about the movie having not seen it, it sounds to me like it’d be a perfectly fun movie to watch as long as you understood that it was not at all an accurate picture of jazz music or the people who make it.  Here are the most common criticisms I’ve heard about it from its detractors:

1 - Damian Chazelle often seems, in the dialogue he writes, to believe that jazz is a dying art. La La Land has characters like J. K. Simmons’ nightclub owner, who gets mad when Ryan Gosling’s piano gets ~too jazzy~.  Emma Stone’s character admits to just not caring or thinking about jazz ever (which, to be fair, is basically accurate for many people, and doesn’t make them bad people or less cultured or intelligent in any way whatsoever).  John Legend’s character is a jazz musician who has decided to make a better career for himself by…  playing something else that people will pay more money to listen to.  It’s a very romanticized, idealized vision of something that presents it as though jazz is something of days gone by, when it’s still something that a lot of people actually do care about and spend their money on.  It just doesn’t get covered with the same attention as other more populist genres, so it’s easy for someone who doesn’t know any better to assume it really is dead or dying.  One of my coworkers once asked me whether people still make jazz, and yes, they do.  If anything, there are probably more jazz musicians now across the world than there ever have been.

2  - The picture of jazz music (and of Los Angeles) is oddly whitewashed.  I did mention John Legend above, who is obviously not white, but for a movie at least partially about jazz, it’s very odd that he’s the only notable non-white jazz musician character, and also not great that he’s also the character whose role in the plot is basically to try to corrupt Ryan Gosling’s character away from the ‘pure’ form of jazz.  Rostam Batmanglij of Vampire Weekend also pointed out the film’s complete lack of LGBT characters, which, while not as much a jazz-specific criticism, is really more of a criticism of its depiction of both Los Angeles (which has a large LGBT population) and of the arts in general (which has always enjoyed enormous contribution from the LGBT community).  

To try and condense exactly how I feel about it, because that was your question - largely indifferent, to be honest.  If I was hanging out with some friends who wanted to watch it, I wouldn’t say no and angrily lecture them on its ~inaccurate depiction of jazz~ - as important as jazz is to me personally, that kind of stuff is something that I think just goes with the territory of liking something that isn’t widely understood and appreciated.  At the same time, I’m definitely looking forward to not having to see threads in r/jazz any more like ‘Just watched La La Land, how do I get into jazz?’  Because as much as I’d like to believe things like this will get more people into jazz, and get them to see in it what I see in it, I rarely see those people stick around.

Thanks for asking!

I had a long weekend thinking about things, sorting through some issues, and reevaluating my priorities.  There has been some drama as of late, nothing that I want to stir up again or get into but it was enough to make me take pause and step back for a bit.

I try not to step on anyone’s toes, nor do I expect anything from anyone in return.  I do what I do for fun and I try to extend that fun to others.  When it starts to turn into a lot of drama or more of a chore, it’s time to reevaluate.

I have always struggled with my Danny muse.  He never came as easily to me as Kono and I sometimes find myself trying to force replies and/or feeling guilty for my lack of time I spend with him.

That coupled with other things, has brought me to my decision.  I am cutting my Danny blog.  I apologize to those that I interacted with on that blog, but I feel I am doing you an injustice as it is.  Replies are extremely sporadic and it’s not fair to my partners to lie in wait for so long.

I was almost at a point of walking away altogether.  Abandoning everything and just giving it all up.  But I do enjoy writing and I love the friendships I have made over my time here on Tumblr. 

I won’t let certain people spoil things for me.  If I do that, then they ultimately win and I don’t want that either.  I want to keep writing and having fun with Kono and the people I have grown to love here.  My Five-Ohana. 

So, my apologies again to the people I interacted with as Danny.  I did enjoy our threads and conversations, but I feel I can’t do him justice and it’s time to let him go.

Thanks for reading and for your support.


x-posted @konokalakaua50

Please, don’t do this to me.

I just read something that I really wish I didn’t read. Even though it was a small tiny part from an interview that could be mistranslated, my heart hurts so much more now than it was last week when CIIT ended. Despite the controversy surrounding the drama, one thing I was hoping for is the actors themselves are still in good term.

“An actor’s job is to be viewed as his character to the viewers so it upsets me a lot that the actor himself became a controversy and distracted from the drama”

The reason why Park Hae Jin spoke up is exactly what you think an actor’s job is. I wonder if she knows her statement completely contradicts her reasoning to be upset. He spoke up not because he felt injustice for the lack of scenes his character is receiving or trying to draw all the attention towards him, which the attention should be drawn towards his character because he’s the FREAKIN main character in the drama, but because the lack of development his character’s receiving. How can he be viewed as his character to the viewers when the viewers are not seeing the full story of Yoo Jung. He has all the rights to speak up about his dissatisfaction and how the drama is going. Yes, he could have wait until the drama ends to voice his opinion, but what goods will that do to his character? For all we know, Yoo Jung will forever be that crazy psycho in the drama and to some people he is. We might never get that small glimpse of Yoo Jung’s past and redemption in the last episode if he didn’t voice his thoughts about the drama.

distraction from the drama…the drama was going down hill way before Park Hae Jin spoke up. He doesn’t need to create a distraction, the plot and how the drama was going is a distraction itself. I truly want to know if she read the webtoon in full. Do she sees Yoo Jung the way the drama depicted him to be? Does she truly understand her character and her character’s love interest? Does she even know what’s exactly going on behind the scenes? It’s not about Park Hae Jin drawing attention to himself, it’s about respecting his character and himself as an actor. So many questions and there’s no answer(s).

If this is indeed her own words then I am disappointed that as an actress herself, she couldn’t see why Park Hae Jin did what he did. I do like their relationship outside of their character(s) relationship even though there is definitely a wall between them, mostly due to the age difference and the sunbae and hoobae status. I wasn’t asking for a reel to real thing, but at least I was hoping their relationship is still good so I can at least see them again in another production. I’ll take it as she’s still young and new to all these dramas and let this slide because I do see her as a great actress and love her portrayal of Hong Seol. But I am disappointed that their off screen relationship has gotten sour.

I hope in the next couple of years down the road they meet again, maybe at a salon like how they first met prior to the drama casting, and reminiscing how stupid all this is and laugh about it. Because this whole thing is indeed ridiculous.

I feel like there should be a mandatory class at the end of the year (like the whole sex ed thing) explaining the different sexualities, talking about untrue stereotypes, the difference between sexual, aesthetic, and romantic attraction (or lack of), etc. I feel like it would help clear up a lot of confusion in a lot of people who aren’t sure about their sexuality, as well as aiding in educating the people who know their sexuality, but don’t understand others. The same goes for gender identites and so on and so forth.