hc that the reason jm could listen to jk's music even though his room was far was bc he y's room was beside jk's 👀 lmao also jm was wearing pants but shirtless under that robe 👀
they were curled up together on yoongi’s bed, yoongi had long since gotten jimin out of his shirt and was pressing gentle kisses along his jaw and down his neck, jimin’s fingers in his hair, until jungkook got a little too loud and jimin pulled away with a sigh and told yoongi he’d Be Right Back.
sometimes i think about what could have made me like sc*tt. like. s1&s2 sc*tt definitely had his faults- esp. wrt his treatment of derek- but i think he definitely could have developed as a person from there and had a rly interesting character arc? like real personal growth and shit. it gets harder after master plan. is there a way that episode could have gone down the way it did and still made him a likable character after that? is there any apology he could give that would suffice?
cont. - like im not sure of the answer, but id love to see someone manage it. i don’t know if ive ever come across a fic that manages to redeem him from that moment while still acknowledging it. most fics either dont forgive him for it or they just sort of ignore it. for me tho, i think the real breaking point for sc*tt is the true alpha storyline. after that i don’t think there was anything they could have done for him to make him an interesting or likeable character. that storyline ruined it.
I think one of the biggest places where people take issue with Scott –– and this doesn’t mean they hate him or he’s a horrible human being (although some people feel that way too, and are entitled to it), but where many people see Scott falling short as a character is in that the show seems to have decided that “main character” or “hero” should mean perfect, and that’s just… that’s not good for character development, for plot building, or honestly, for a character’s likability.
Characters need to grow to be engaging. And people grow by making mistakes, learning from them, and moving forward. Scott’s mistakes, his flaws as a human being (and yes, he has flaws, everyone does, that’s not character assassination, that’s just fact) are really never addressed. He isn’t made to apologize for the things he does wrong (and why should he, honestly, since no one around him recognizes his problematic behaviors and calls him out on them) or face any apparent payment for them. This compared to the rest of the characters in the series, who are called out on their mistakes –– either by other characters or by consequences in canon. I always use Derek as a comparison, because there are a lot of straightforward parallels, such as the key moments with Isaac. Derek throws a glass at Isaac to get him to leave the loft. We know that’s an absolutely shitty thing to do, it reads immediately on both Isaac and Derek’s faces, and as consequence Derek loses Isaac as a pack member. That’s some hardcore, immediate reaction showing people in the scene and in the audience that This Was Not An Ok Thing To Do. The fact that Derek knew it wasn’t ok as he was doing it, and that he did it on purpose to get Isaac to leave for his own safety, does not make the behavior alright, and Derek acknowledges and pays for that behavior in the permanent loss of Isaac as a housemate and pack member.
When Scott, a short time later, throws Isaac into a wall in a moment of jealousy, it should, on the surface, seem to strike a fairly close parallel. We have Isaac’s Alpha, someone in a position of power over him, physically lashing out at him in some way. But in this instance, neither Scott nor Isaac react much to it, Isaac continues to go on living in Scott’s house and remaining a member of his pack, and there is just… no real follow up to that moment. And while I understand how that can lead some viewers to dismiss the moments as not being parallel (Isaac wasn’t upset there, so clearly Scott’s behavior is acceptable), what I and many viewers are instead left with is the message that Derek lashing out is unexpected and unacceptable, Scott lashing out is expected and acceptable, and that makes him… more heroic?
In season five I believe there finally was a moment between Stiles and Scott where Scott seemed to be being called out on his behavior, but even that came off as very “I’m flawed and you can’t understand that because you’re perfect,” which is… it’s how Scott sees himself, and it’s how the writers seem to see him, but A) that fails to acknowledge the ways in which he is flawed –– meaning that he can’t learn from and improve upon those flaws –– and B) makes for an incredibly un-engaging character. How can we identify with perfection? How can we root for perfection? And how can we fully get on board with someone we are told is perfect, when we can look at them and point out a dozen instances where they weren’t?
This is my major issue with Scott’s character. That we are told he is perfect when we see he isn’t, that he has a double standard of being excused from all of his bad behaviors when the characters around him aren’t, and I do think this connects very much to the True Alpha problem (I got another ask about my thoughts on that so I’ll answer that in more detail separately), because it’s just another level of saying “Scott is a better man, werewolf, and person in general than everyone else.”
Ok, now after all of that, how do I think Scott could have been improved and made more likable for many critical viewers? To be honest, for me it would have been really simple. Include moments where he apologizes for things. That’s… really, honestly, all I would have needed. Because like I said, I’m not looking for perfect characters. Scott acknowledging that he screwed up now and again would make me ecstatic because it would mean that he’s learning and growing and is trying to become better, and that makes for an amazing character arc in any show. If Scott had done the exact same thing in “Master Plan,” except when Derek asked why Scott didn’t tell him Scott had said “I’m sorry… I was afraid if I told anyone then Gerard would find out my plan. And I couldn’t risk that, my mom was in danger” then bam. I would have had a complete turnaround on my attitude toward him in that moment. He would have been humanized, we would have seen that he was in a tough situation, and he would have become more sympathetic by sympathizing with the shitty thing he’d done to Derek. Honestly, that simple.
Is the True Alpha bs something that the show cooked up because I have no idea what it would mean. So Scotts like better than a regular Alpha or his powers are stronger than that of an Alpha?
In season 3A, while the Alpha pack was coming after Scott (and Derek), the show had Scott “ascend” to Alpha status without killing any other wolves for the power, and Deaton explained that it was because Scott was a True Alpha, or:
a canine werecreature who rises to alpha rank solely on the strength of their character, their virtue and sheer willpower. The True Alpha is the rarest form of alpha, shrouded in myth and is said to appear once in a 100 years.
That’s basically all we know about it, which is a vague and… honestly somewhat insulting description if you ask me, in regards to every other wolf we’ve met. This suggests that Scott has a stronger character, higher virtue, and greater willpower than not only every other werewolf on TW, but every other wolf to exist in the past hundred years. It’s the show’s attempt to make Scott an extra special snowflake and I don’t think it does any favors for his character or for the show in general.
As far as his strength, though, I don’t believe he’s actually supposed to be any stronger because of his True Alpha status. It’s just the way he became an Alpha that makes him different and “special.”
The Night Manager: Secrets of Le Carre revealed at TV Festival
The BFI Radio Times Festival hosted key members of The Night Manager’s cast and crew last month, with Oscar-winning director Susanne Bier, executive producer Simon Cornwell and cast members Alistair Petrie and Tom Hiddleston sharing backstage secrets on this magnificent edge-of-the-seat spy thriller.
There will be some paraphrasing – you try deciphering my notes a month later! And apologies to any of the speakers if I attribute a quote wrongly or misquote.
Radio 4’s Front Row presenter Samira Ahmed was on hand to chivvy the info out of them.
What made you want to do it?
AP: The scale – even though it was the BBC – the settings, the budget to make it happen. Thanks to Tom and Hugh’s involvement, AMC and others got on board. The budget worked without being gratuitous.
SB: I come from low budget film, so I’m used to expanding small into something worth looking at.
SC: The budget was bigger than many films, we were free to do stuff we wouldn’t normally do.
SB: The story is about being drawn into the world of lavishness. You can’t do that without it being rich. Crucial was Roper’s location. That would set the bar for everything else.
A lavish location was key for The Night Manager
TH: The crew make it look more expensive than it was. The interior of the Alps hotel was inside tents! It’s a testament to an impeccable crew.
SC: When we found the Majorca location – originally Greece in the script – we had to rewrite.
AP: The private jet was a cardboard loo roll.
SB: It was a private jet!
AP: There was a guy with a light pretending to be the shining sun. Secrets revealed!
(At this point, Susanne’s reactions made it unclear whether AP was making this up!)
We revisited the clip of Danny’s attempted abduction, closing in on Pine’s eye through the hole in the door. Remembering how the tenseness set in almost immediately, you could almost taste the IMAX audience relive the original moment. The panel discussed how that frantic scene came together.
SB: Whenever you direct a scene you have one single idea. We had this leisurely, relaxed scene completely turned over.
AP: Susanne’s method is to go straight into rehearsal, thrust straight onto set. The crew can get nervous when cameras aren’t turning and you’ve nothing in the can. There are so many elements of the story to fit in but endless rehearsal means everyone knows where they should be. Being in the middle of it is a privilege.
The panel discuss the intricacies of a busy scene
SB: You have an idea, you collect material. You know this particular moment is going to be there. There needs to be real emotion. You don’t see the actors acting, you’re in the emotion. And child actors are just as ambitious as adults.
TH: The casting of Hugh Laurie was genius. His presence, his casting presented a conflict, so affable and likeable (in comparison with evil Roper) he (Roper) is charming, funny, loves his family but is responsible for awful things – all the stuff is paid for by arms.
SC: That scene was a Masterclass in acting and directing. A brilliant piece of construction. It’s in the book but came alive on screen.
AP: The nanny was the director’s daughter, Alice, just 19. I felt like a creepy old man but she put me at my ease: no, we’ll have a dance, no worries.
They moved onto the fire alarm test scene, where Pine breaks into Roper’s office looking for evidence.
SB: This shows why Tom is so brilliant. What he does, he thinks, “Who is Roper? Where would he put stuff?” Not many actors can do things just with their face like Tom.
TH: It’s my favourite scene in the book and a testament to Le Carre. You read it with a propulsive momentum. The internal compulsion within Pine is active even when he’s still. It’s classic suspense, a ticking clock time window. The props were chosen carefully: Churchillian. Boxing. Stalingrad. Roper’s fantasy of powerful statesmen yet rough enough for a boxing ring.
We took a moment to appreciate the glory of Tom Hollander in the restaurant scene where Corky loses it.
Corky tries to warn Roper about Pine
TH (jokingly): The manhandling was improvised. He didn’t ask permission. I’m scarred for life.
SC: John le Carre loved the whole experience on set. The scene is in the book but not so bold and exciting.
SB: Tom Hollander went way more extreme than we’d all anticipated.
TH: It was such a pivotal scene and so exciting. The moment of Corky’s demise and Pine’s elevation to the top rank. JLC was magnificent in that scene. Pine settles him quite quickly in the book but JLC refused to be settled – like any great actor, he forced me to achieve more.
SB: I had to direct him to accept the apologies! He was: “What about her? What about him? (being brought their correct food). Well, I think this is very shoddy.”
AP: We’re on the coffee and mints by now on the next table.
“I must apologise for my friend’s behaviour” “I think you bloody well should!”
Pine v Roper
TH: The whole character was an exploration of the malleability of identity. There is something broken and unique about Pine. All his grief curled up inside. It’s why he’s a night manager, he hides behind darkness. Burr identifies that Pine is able to slide between characters. He had to embrace the side of himself that is quite like Roper. They’re looking in a mirror divided by a moral red line.
AP: My dad was an RAF pilot who came across interesting people. One guy became a good family friend. Great company – but he was a legit arms dealer. There was a disconnect between the job he did and what it led to, and the human being. You start with the human being, before the ‘what do you do?’ They do normal things and you layer in everything else.
We’re reminded how Roper likes to show off his arsenal – and then Pine blowing it all skyward.
SB: You need the scale and the drama of the explosions but it was a metaphor of the shoot out between two men. Roper doesn’t know how powerful Pine is until then.
AP: Looks bloody good on IMAX!
TH: There could only be one attempt at the explosion, everything after that had to be shot very fast while we had the smoke and flames. Hugh is magnificent. He realises he may have lost and loses his cool.
Capturing lightning in a bottle
AP: Dr. House, put the gun down! Sometimes, when you’re pressed for time, magical things can happen. Tempers can get frayed. Then it crackles and Hugh grabs the gun, unscripted. An extraordinary thing captured under time pressure. We were blessed with catching lighting in a bottle moments.
SB: In a way, limitations can be advantageous. It forces you to be accurate and push the boundaries.
Twitter got a bit shirty over Pine having sex with the women he rescued after they were tortured – apparently, even Bond doesn’t do that.
SB: That’s not true – Jed is rescued by Olivia Colman. I don’t think they had sex.
TH: He’s in love with Sophie. She awakens his moral duty and he’s motivated partly by guilt.
Any scenes that took you to the brink?
SB: Every day! There’s always an element of not knowing what’ll happen, it’s part of the creative process.
TH: Fight scenes always look violent but have to be very safe. I love shooting action, it’s choreographic, like dance.
The will is there for Series 2!
How do you feel, watching it now?
SB: It was a heart in mouth process but now I can sit down and enjoy! It was so much fun to do – none of us anticipated the impact . We showed it at the Berlin Film Festival and everyone loved it. So rewarding.
AP: If you’re really lucky as an actor you get something that strikes a chord. I’m genuinely bonded to the people involved. You share something very special. A special little gang. You’ve no idea the emails I’ve been sending with ideas for Series 2.
SB: It’s a privilege. I’m also sending emails. JLC doesn’t respond – I’m joking – I’m really scared of saying anything!
TH: I’m really proud of the team effort. The commitment and detail of every department adds up to more than the sum of its parts. It’s like a 1000 piece jigsaw landed intact. I couldn’t possibly comment on my email correspondence.
Having raised the bar for TV drama, is there a green light for Series 2?
SC: We are working on a story for Series 2. There’s no book and no Le Carre adaptation without a book. We’d love to see it happen. There’s an unspoken contract with each other but we have to come up with something really great.
It’s the greatest export in British cinema! (Audience member)
AP: Aw, shucks!
We need to see more of the Petrie Dish
If you think Hiddleston a bit of a charmer (yes, yes, me too) it has to be noted I did leave the room with a bit of a crush on the very funny Alistair Petrie. You might say he’s now my … Petrie Dish. #sorrynotsorry
Ok. I had a business dinner last night, and am just catching up. I logged in to what feels like “picturegeddon”. WTH???
Here is what I see…..it is a cute pic of Sam and Cait at the party. Quite frankly, Cait looks a little drunk, (and who can blame her after the last two weeks!), and Sam seems to be supporting her and happy to do it. I found it interesting that they were standing like this right in front of “others” and looks like a photographer walked by and said say cheese! My guess is that Cait had her arm that way not because she didn’t want to touch him, but because they already were, and that is a no-no….at least right now. You see, that is the problem with SC….they are magnets to one another, and why they have had to appear seperate during this latest shitshow. If they are anywhere near each other….they drift right on in, and that flies in the face of the current narrative. Think of this as Baftas…part 2! The parallels are right there, and we know how “happy” they were there (not)! And we would have bought it had that backstage picture not come out. This is exactly the same.
I completely understand that angst and emotions of the past two weeks, and we are entitled to them. But for heaven’s sake…stop looking for the sky to fall. We all agreed that we would not write this bs narrative for them, and don’t you find it intersting that after a day of silence on Shaggy and Scooby, we actually saw SC emerge a little (on TW, and then that pic). Have you ever thought that just maybe they were glad someone believed in them when they are spinning in this shitshow themselves?? I have said this before….when it’s dry and dusty, people are edgy, yet when it rains to clean it up we bitch about the rain!!
It is ok to think and feel, but I am sticking to what I have always seen (people….did you forget everything from January??), and I am still sitting back watching, smiling sometimes and snarking at others, but SC are still there. I can also point out quite a few “staged” events, just from the weekend alone, but I won’t put them here. Like I said earlier…I won’t write their narrative for them, and based on the carefully placed shots and everything else we have seen, they are reading our blogs and we are feeding it. If you want to feed it, feed it with what you want to see, not with help to perpetuate it. That picture was proof. And, we should be reblogging the hell out of it, not tearing it apart. We will get enough of that when Shaggy shows back up. After all, that one has been through the car wash and simonized!! But remember, you can’t really polish a clunker. And always admire the “classics” when you see them, and SC were the classics at that party.
Try to have a good Tuesday sweet shipsters. Love to you all, and find your chill. Trust me, it’s there!!😚😍❤
Julia, a dumb question. Are we only called shippers, when we pretend to be on our "ship for SC? Or can we not believe in SC while relaxing on the shore? Sounds really dumb, I know, but I read comments saying shippers are gone and the twins are celebrating their "victory".
a shipper just means you enjoy the relationship between two people. whether it means you think they’re together, they were and now they’re not, they’re not but they should be…doesn’t matter. if you enjoy the relationship and/or friendship between Sam and Cait you can call yourself a shipper. if you want to, of course. Jess doesn’t think they’re together but she’s still a shipper. I’m not 100% on where I stand on anything but I’m still a shipper.
and shippers are still here. We always come back stronger and better than before. so screen cap away, losers! we’re not going anywhere :))))