Cherryqueenoftarts - 🏳️‍🌈♿😷💉

i hate hate hate hate hate hate hate when a monster is loved and that love turns them human I HATE IT I HATE IT SO MUCH. tell that thing that goes bump in the night that you love the way its fangs glimmer in the moonlight and the way its horrible gnarled claws are so gentle with you or GET OUT OF MY HOUSE!!!!!!!!!!

I haven’t been on tumblr for quite as long as a lot of people but over several years I’ve noticed this interesting gradual sorta,, shift in the general culture? that it went from this mostly depressed, nihilistic outlook where people would regularly joke about hating themselves and being hopeless and depressed, to a wave of vehemence of “STOP hating everything actually the world is Good and you deserve love!!!” type posts, to now, where those aggressive ‘PSAs’ have faded away and instead I regularly see people romanticizing simple things like stars and hot tea and rainy mornings, and waxing poetic about their friends, and just trying to put love out there. and I don’t know exactly what that means (someone who knows more than me could probably say something smart about generational expression and trauma or popular perception of mental health and whatnot), but I do know that it makes my heart very full to see people learn to love the world and themselves by extension, and a whole userbase adopting healthier coping mechanisms, and therefore teaching the younger users to do so as well. I might just be following different people, but I really do think we’ve grown. everyone has grown. five years ago it wasn’t unusual for the next post on my dash to be a scathing commentary on why nothing matters or an anon ripping into someone they barely knew or someone complaining about how pathetic their interests are. now I have mutuals who get excited and spam reblog art of cows and friends I see tagging each other in pictures of frogs and strangers writing paragraphs about how much I matter. it makes me happy. idk. just an observation I wanted to make. I think people are good and everyone’s just trying their best at the end of the day

This really makes the Studios costing themselves even more money (and getting more unions involved) by prolonging the strike for the promise of free ai labor even more fucking funny. you dumb fucking bastards lol

From @veggiedayz: “Blackberry has a song he wants to sing for you.” #cutepetclub [source: http://ift.tt/28SdMmN ]

When I taught history I used to show Apocalypto (another gem from Mel Gibson) which is supposed to show the ancient Maya. That film doesn't go five minutes in a row without a blatant historical inaccuracy, and in addition to the obvious problems with that all of these dishonest choices are part of a larger attempt to show how ignorant, evil and corrupt the Mayan Empire was by way of making the arrival of Europeans at the end *a good thing.*

I think there's a few things at work here. In the case of Apocalypto you have this desperate underlying need by colonizers to rewrite history so they don't have such a burden of guilt to carry. That's going to be at the root of a lot of inaccuracy in historical film, or some variation; a need to make a history that soothes the ego of the forces behind the creation of the work.

But what's even deeper and more universal, I think, is that unless you were there (as Ridley Scott suggests), history is just stories. To some, the Realness of the people involved is much more vivid; I'm not sure why. I used to have to have a student read some of the primary sources I used in my class because I'd burst into tears (yes, this alarmed the students, but I also thought it was maybe a good thing, because maybe it made it all a little more Real). Even I had a moment when I realized that as much as I cared about, for instance, the atrocities of WWII, it wasn't actually Real to me... until people started openly supporting Nazism some years ago. I realized that until that moment it was all a story locked in a jar and I felt it was completely separate from my life. Realizing it wasn't was... something.

Anyway I think Scott and Gibson and their ilk are content to tell lies about history because to them it's just stories. What's wrong with tweaking the story to make it flow better or whatever? None of the characters are real. It happened in the past and it's in a jar and doesn't matter. But the Mayans are still suffering under imperialism, Mel. It *does* matter.

Ridley Scott, regarding his new Napoleon movie, is being aggressively defensive about its inaccuracies with historians. He's gone on record saying "When I have issues with historians, I ask: ‘Excuse me, mate, were you there? No? Well, shut the fuck up then.’" This is a classic argument of people with no idea how historians do their work, how historical accuracy is determined and evaluated, and - in Ridley Scott's case in particular - how important it is to properly portray historical accuracy in other media.

The reason why Ridley Scott is being so aggressively dismissive of complaints about historical accuracy is due to past beef leading to a problem he likely has.

This is a movie that, by din of being touted as a 'nonfiction' movie about a historical figure, is basing much of its marketing on historical accuracy by default. The trailers show it's not, and reviews by historians say it is riddled with dozens if not hundreds of inaccuracies. Napoleon's portrayal is frankly a surface level depiction and nowhere near the nuance that historians were hoping for.

Scott's defensive about it. He need not be. If he had a historical consultant then he could go "I'm not an expert on the time period, but I have someone who is, ask them about it" and fob them off on his movie's historical consultant. It's a whole Thing. He doesn't have one, however, so he has to defend it personally.

You see, Ridley Scott probably didn't hire a historical consultant for Napoleon. The last time he had one - Kathleen Coleman for Gladiator - she was so upset over the inaccuracies he pushed through and how little her work affected the film, she requested her name be taken off of it.

Why this is important is because so many more people will watch a movie made by Ridley Scott than I or any other person could write. More people will watch Scott's Napoleon in the States than five hundred books about Napoleon combined worldwide.

More people watched Dunkirk than ever read a book about the Evacuation of Dunkirk. The movie Breaker Morant did so much for public perception about the execution of a genuine war criminal people in Australia still on occasion call for a pardon for Morant.

Fundamentally, mass media like movies will always have more impact of a popular perception about somebody, a time period, an event. That's why Ridley Scott making an inaccurate movie and going 'oh, you weren't there, you didn't see it with your own eyes, so how could you know, I don't have to listen to you' is a problem.