Critique - Tumblr Posts
Looking for feedback/ constructive criticism
Feeling
She makes me feel
Like a room full of sunlight,
Warm tea mixed with honey.
She makes me feel
Like there is a hammer in my chest
Slamming against my ribs
And shattering them
In an attempt to reach her.
She makes me feel
Like flowers are blooming inside of me
Like hope is cradled in my hands.
She makes me feel
Like I am looking through
A fogged up window pane,
Hazy glass difficult to see through.
I can no longer discern my reflection.
I am afraid I’m losing sight of who I am.
(She makes me feel
Like the embodiment of heartbreak
Like I will never stop closing in on myself
Like I will never stop fading.)
She makes me feel
Like I am worthy of love,
Like I am capable of being loved.
Like I can finally learn
What I have been trying to teach myself
For far too long.
She makes me feel
Like I am made of fault lines.
Like there are earthquakes inside
That threaten to rip me apart.
Because even thinking of her
Makes my hands shake
And I don’t know if it’s because of
Anxiety or anticipation.
She makes me feel
Like a campfire burning,
Like art,
Like poetry,
Like s’mores and shooting stars.
If anyone wants to give me any feedback or constructive criticism on this poem I would greatly appreciate it! I hope anyone who reads this has a wonderful day tomorrow! 💛
I get what they were trying to do but did anyone else think she had pimples on her eyes?
Red and white can be a good combo but I don't think they thought the idea through, maybe should've gone with some green instead or done an ombre on the eyes or just not little white dots that blend into the red like you see on those pimple popper game ads (which are gross btw)
Ten questions to ask a friend who just read your novel
Here are ten questions to ask that will not put your friend in a tough spot, but will still give you some useful input on your novel:
1. At what point did you feel like “Ah, now the story has really begun!” 2. What were the points where you found yourself skimming? 3. Which setting in the book was clearest to you as you were reading it? Which do you remember the best? 4. Which character would you most like to meet and get to know? 5. What was the most suspenseful moment in the book? 6. If you had to pick one character to get rid of, who would you axe? 7. Was there a situation in the novel that reminded you of something in your own life? 8. Where did you stop reading, the first time you cracked open the manuscript? (Can show you where your first dull part is, and help you fix your pacing.) 9. What was the last book you read, before this? And what did you think of it? (This can put their comments in context in surprising ways, when you find out what their general interests are. It might surprise you.) 10. Finish this sentence: “I kept reading because…”
Your friend is probably still going to tell you, “It was good!” However, if you can ask any specific questions, and read between the lines, you can still get some helpful information out of even the most well-meaning reader.
Source: Examiner
My 16 week transformation.
(RIght): Jan. 1st: 200 lbs. 31.8% Body Fat
(Left): Apr. 27th: 180 lbs. 23.1% Body Fat
Any comments, suggestions, feedback, and what you think my next goal should be... Thanks!
watching anime is trying to figure out whether:
1. I’m sexist for finding That Girl character annoying
2. They genuinely are the worst person ever
3. The writer was actually just sexist and thinks human women are like that
The other post I made about it was pretty vent-y so I'm going to make another one on the same subject, but;
Going into spaces specifically intended for the positive appreciation or enjoyment of something with the intent to be negative or the attempt to convert it to a negative space is both a shitty thing to do and it Will Not get you the result you want.
As one reblogger on the post said; Reddit is appalling for this, but Tumblr is already hot on its heels.
People create spaces around the things they enjoy because, well, they enjoy them. They want a space to create and share that enjoyment. They want a space where they can cycle that positivity into content and community.
These spaces are founded on the enjoyment of the source and the belief that it is good. TV shows, movies, books, games. These spaces are based on the pure fact that the people within them, by majority, like what they are consuming.
And obviously, that doesn't mean you can't be critical of aspects of it, or not like parts of it, or be disappointed with things that have happened. But the point is that the good should vastly outweigh the bad.
And if you're trying to wedge yourself into those positive spaces with the bad outweighing the good, that is not the space for you. That is not the purpose of the space, nor is it fair to the people who created that space with the intent of being positive.
It is not, by any means, toxic positivity to have a specific place designed to revolve around the enjoyment of and positive perception of something.
That place is not for you and your voice. Your voice does not have the right to speak over theirs within that space. Positive spaces are not obligated to allow you to speak within them.
You're not going to change minds by being negative in those positive spaces. You're just going to make people avoid you and dislike you and be unwilling to listen to what you have to say.
So I watched Star Wars the last Jedi I while ago. And I usually wait a bit of time before I make up my mind about something so big, just because with time you see more than just your first thought.
Even though, my first thought was not a bad movie, the Star Wars feeling was there, but by far not the best one. So my boyfriend and I both were discussing TLJ yesterday for a long time and our results were pretty much the same on our problems with the movie itself.
First of all my personal favourites: -the scene where Holdo craches the ship is amazing -the ironing scenes was perfect
So and our combined review to TLJ parted into each character storyline: -We really likes Kylos storyline from start to finish. It made sense and we saw how killing Han changed him. The whole scene with Snoke and Rey worked out perfectly well and we could see his Force Mind Powers Work. The only problem we had here was the figh scene with him and Rey against Snokes minions. Because Kylo wasn’t better than Rey. Rey is a good fighter by all means, but she is not nearly as trained in fighting with a lightsabre as Kylo is and she simply can not be as good with the Force as he is. Even Anikin took years of training to be that good. So while I am fine with saying that Rey is a very strong Force user and her having a chance against a heavily injured Kylo is fine with me, her being a nearly as good fighter as Kylo doesn’t make any sense here. in Iron Man 2 there is the scene where Happy takes out one guy and then turns around while Natascha took out everyone else, that scenario would have been more likely from what we know about those two.
-Hux was great from start to finish. Nothing said. A well used side-character and we saw more interaction between him and Kylo so we know his opinion towards Kylo better which will be even more interesting in Star Wars 9.
-Phasma was underused. That is it. There was so much about Phasma being a really big villain this movie and she was just not. The scene where a piece of her helmet is missing and Finn looks at her with the notice that she is just a human too is really good. but they wasted her character this movie. Again.
-Well they killed Snoke off halfway through. So we know nothing. It was clear from Episode 7 that he was going to die, but at least one or two questions more answered about him would have been nice. At least what exactly he wants from Kylo. Beause he really seems to be going on about the Dark Side, even though he isn’t a Sith. So something in that direction would have been good.
-Well Chewbacca wasn’t doing much this movie, like R2D2 and C3PO which I am fine with. They are giving the movie over to the next generation and giving them less and less screentime makes sence.
-Leia using the Force was cool and all. But they could have made it better. Because honestly there was no way they would have been able to open that door for her. Her getting knocked out for half of the movie made sense by all means and her getting upset about Poe was good. That Force scene just didn’t make sense from a physical standpoint. At all.
-Holdo. Okay Holdo. Laura Dern looked great, acted great and her character was another waste. She had no reason not to tell Poe anything at all. Yes he fucked up, but that doesn’t mean that she shouldn’t tell a guy who is known to be a bit of a wildcard that she actually has a plan. And she reacted way too late with her turn the ship around plan. After they started attacking the first ship she should have turned around, not after they killed half of the people.
-Luke was great. Simply that. I personally really liked the 3 what really happend scenes between him and Kylo. his storyline and progression in character made sence. And he went out like a boss. And Kylo facing him with that same fear he had when he saw Luke the last time is wonderfully acted by both of them.
-Rey is a Mary Sue. I really like her but she is just an unbalanced character. She has way too many positive chacter traits and practially none that are negative. And she just can do anything she wants to. Nobody can do that. Anakin was the chosen one but he had all kinds of flaws. Rey doesn’t seem to have any. Or at least they are not shown as flaws. And they could easily give her some. Her running after Luke after he told her no could have been made into a negative charater trait. Let’s say you see Luke telling her and why. And her going on and harrassting Luke about him training her and never stopping. It wouldn’t have been her not giving up and staying strong, but rather her being nagging and annoying only thinking about herself and not what Luke went through. And she’d have a flaw. And she shouldn’t have succeeded with her nagging. The scene where Luke is in the ship could have turned him around, reminding him of himself in the good old days, but not her nagging. As mentioned above she is too good at fighting. Even Luke had more training lessons with Yoda and Rey still fights better whith a lightsabre with practially no training. I get it she is fit as hell, makes sence. her being a good fighter with her staff a-ok, but her mastering lightsabre fights like nothing makes no sence. Her stealing the books was a good scene. Even though Force Ghost Yoda wouldn’t have been able to summon a lightning bolt like that. Rather Luke wanting to burn the place down and then being undecicive and the weather naturally burning the place down would have made more sense. And Rey should actually be the antagonist in the next movie. Why? Because she is the unbalanced one. Kylo/Ben figured it out. It’s not about the Dark Side or the Light, it’s about Balance. She didn’t, she still wants to be a Jedi. So technically she’s the villain now. And her scene in that hole, while it looked amazing condistributed anything to her character. It was supposed to represent her Dark Side or something but it didn’t really tell us anything besides that they are great with CGI.
-The whole plot surrounding Rose, Poe and Finn, or rather the whole casino-plotline was pointless. It was completly pointless. Rose was likeable and all but she didn’t distribute anything to the plot the another character couldn’t have done. But then again the whole casino plotline made no sense. Let’s start with Poe’s part. As mentioned before Holdo has no reason to not tell him anything. Him stayling put makes less sense, it’s the opposite of his character to do that as established in the first few minutes of the movie. So why is he off all people staying behind at all? And I get that Finn should have gotten this whole the world isn’t devided into good people and death eaters but technically he shoudld know that, because he used to be a StormTrooper. And even if he needed at new refreshment of that sentence they could have made that everywhere else too. You just need some morally ambigious character for that. So I think they should have just scrapped the whole Casion plotline and do somthing else. So to bring everything together let’s say Phasma contacts them. She want’s to execture Finn in front of the Troopers so they know what happens to traitors. There she tells them that they can get the children or off the ship of something. Holdo says yes, Poe dislikes her because of it, he offends her and she doesn’t come to tell him about the upcoming plan of evacuating the ship. Finn is already without knowing what’s up on his way out of the ship, meets Rose who is holding him off. A whole mess accures. Finn doesn’t want Poe and the others to die. Poe is for fighting instead. Finn knockes him with Rose help out, she thinks of him as a great hero again. Finn still thinks about searching for Rey instead, but gives the search device thing to Poe instead and goes off to Phasma. She wants him to see the rebels dying first, he gets thrown into a cell, meets Mr, Shady guy who teaches him about moral ambiguity. Ship crashs he get’s out of the cell, Shady Guy has a chance to help him but doesn’t, Finn sees Phasmas humanity and get’s his ass saved by Poe who came after him, because he can’t sit still for three seconds and get’s him off the ship. Poe’s storyline is arguing with rose about saving Finn against saving everybody. At the end neither of them is sure what the right thing to do is. but Poe doesn’t want to let Finn die at any chance and he takes that from Rose saying to save those who you love. Poe goes to save Finn. Later on the planet when Finn is about to sacifice himself Poe crashed into him instead. Maybe Rose sacifices herself for all of them like her sister did instead. So anyways, a lot of Phasma and Finn interacting on the ship, so we have more going on between them.
-And do something with that salt. You can do so much great shit with salt than just making it look cool. And who touches some white crystal on a planet you don’t know, that shit could be toxic. -A big problem we saw was the fact that they wanted strong women and they wasted every single one of them. Rey is a Mary Sue without any flaws which is very unrealistic, unrelatable and annoying. Leia is still a badass, but mostly uncontious, which makes sense, but she was the best female character in the movie and that title shouldn’t fall to someone who is uncontious. Holdo was wasted because she acted shady to someone who is as loyal as you can be. She acted unprofessionally because Poe got told off by Leia, which makes her someone Leia wouldn’t have put in a position of power because it is extremly unprofessional. Well Phasma was hardly in the movie which is a waste of a really interesting character and an amating actress. And Rose had no distribution to the plot. And that is exactly the thing they did with women from the start, throw one in so that there is a woman there. She doesn’t need to have to be plot relevant or anything.
I am sick of fake feminists in critics and media making saying something is good simply because it has representation and everybody hopping onto it just as sick as I am of misogynists that blame everything on women.
So often I see people on the one end saying that something is good because it has women in it or lgbtq people or people of color (afterwards refeard to in etc. because I am not going to write that out every single time) as if having a non straight-white-cis-cast makes media automatically good because of representation.
Representation is important and it is amazing, but the same people who started putting 1 woman and 1 token black guy into a group of 5 people are the same kind that now make a movie just about women and call it progessive. They aren’t trying to make a point, they try to make money. And because the current audience wants more progession they do that by monetizing women, poc and the lgbtq community.
And when something flops, because guess what- just because you put a big variety of people in something it’s not automatically good they say audiences are misogynistic/racist/homophobic/etc. because they don’t like it and I am so sick of that.
And so many people hop on that train through the internet.
You can dislike something or critize it that has women (etc.) in it without having an actual issue with women (etc.) but with badly written storys.
Critizing is complicated and no matter what you review you’ll probably never get all aspects of something because we aren’t objective. But could we please just get to a point that you can say you didn’t like a piece of media that was advertised as “progessive” by the company and not getting called “non-progessive” automatically and immediately saying every critic is wrong because it’s against something that has representation?
On the flipside we have people that go on rants on how that piece of media is bad because it features women (etc.). No having women (etc.) does not make it badly writing, bad writing does. You can have amazing scrips with all female casts, you can have strong written lqbtq characters and every character having a different skin color and no-one will say it’s good because it has those things. But if it’s bad it’s suddently the fault of the women (etc.)
It’s not. It’s companies wanting to make fast and cheap money by exploring the current “trend” of making pieces with representation.
But not actual good representation, just make a quick cheap script throw some women (etc.) in there, cast somebody well known and call it a day.
And then it ends with every critic getting called mysoginistic and every other person saying that representation ruins media.
But representation doesn’t ruin media. Quick cash grab productions from stuios do. So can we please stop blaming women (etc.) on it and blame the production companies who are responsible for it?
So I've said my part about ofmd season 2s finale and that I didn't even care anymore that my favourite character died, but the show had such an insane decline from season 1 to season 2 it was simply not as enjoyable for the entire time.
So here's a quick critique of open issues that stuck with me:
-they killed Ivan off-screen and he's only mentioned once in passing, no one cares or questions where he is when they meet again, they were fine with Izzy there, but didn't even bother asking about a crew member they were much closer with -Buttons turned into a seagull (which I didn't think was bad) and it's only questioned once by Roach and then never again brought up, and Roach asks if Ed didn't simply kill him and it's just ignored -Ed doesn't really become part of the crew, he doesn't pay up for what he did and why is Izzys deathbed apology more sincere than Ed's non apology about Izzys leg? He doesn't deserve to come back at all, because he doesn't do anything to earn it. He spends a day with Fang and that counts for the whole crew, Fang who isn't even angry at him -Izzy actually earns his place within the crew and still has to apologize to Ed, his worst abuser. Sure Izzy was part of the problem with Blackbeard, but in no way does it justify what Ed did to him (and everyone else while he was Captain of the Revenge) -remember last season when Ed made it clear that he only ever killed one person, and then in the finale he coldly pushed Lucius over and it was therefore a big deal? Yeah Ed just randomly kills like it's nothing now, and "go back to what you were good at", it wasn't killing, Ed was never good at killing
-they barely paid attention to the non ships aside from Izzy and it sucks. We had such a wonderful balance in season 1 of crew live, that we got to love them all, we didn't have any of that in season 2, it's so plain when you look at Archie, she just didn't get what her crewmates got to the point you don't care about her all that much -speaking of Archie, that relationship something with Olo, JIm, Archie and Zhang Yi Sao was a mess, they sank of the biggest relationships from season 1, which had such a well done ark in the first episodes, and many, myself included thought we might get a poly relationship, but we didn't, we got the mess we had. We had a well developed relationship that took an entire season to build and it got removed during the first three episodes in favour of two new underdeveloped characters getting with them in no time
-I know we are not historically accurate and don't bother too much with it, but Zheng Yi Sao is the most powerful female pirate in history and they nerved her for nothing, I did like how Richard got rid of her fleet, but they should have used someone else than a pirate known for dying peacefully because she got so powerful she made a deal
-the pacing was obviously bad, and I want to give them as much nicety about it as possible, but Owl House got cut from an entire season to three episodes and they still manged to nail it, ofmd lost 2 episodes and it doesn't excuse this pacing
-honestly Izzys redemption ark was rushed, just so he could be killed off, it was too much, too fast. I do love the first few episodes of him, but doing drag was a bit far fetched for episode 6, but it's a small complain, loved the singinig and dancing
-"bottle it up" is the new solution to problems, after "talk it through as a crew" from season 1. Lucius, Frenchie and Izzy just bottle everything up and nothing bad comes of it, we're supposed to believe that's a good thing? -everyone knows Stede is alive, Mary relies on him being dead and it's never brought up or important whatsoever
-this season feels like there aren't proper consequences, Ed can leave and come back and it's fine, Buttons can turn into a seagull and no one cares, Auntie gets blown up with the fleet and survives, people get stabbed multiple times and survive, but Izzy gets shot and dies, it's all over the place -there is always the whole: we have a suicidal character, they try to kill themselves, they fail, they get over their depression, they finally get happy, and we kill them off just after they found happyness. It sucks as a trope, it gives every last person that is suicidal the feeling that being happy is not worth it, because you're going to die anyway and well, maybe don't have the characer that tried to kill himself this season a line about wanting to go and in the same episode that had "it's only suicide if we die", it's tasteless at best and ill-intended at worst
-Roach is in the main cast now, but I swear he had more scenes in season 1 than seaosn 2
-having a tiny funeral scene and bam wedding, like there was no decent emotional impact on either of these moments, any why would they bury him without his leg or ring?
-Stede has a panic moment when he kills Ned and it seems like that's why he and Ed slept togeher, but it's not brought up that killing is still an issue
To end it on a few positive notes, I liked -Swede becomes Jackies husband and Roach going Mrs Bettet about the whole thing -most of the first three episodes in general -Buttons turning into a seagull and being recognized as a seawitch -having more historical figures -Auntie -Susan (mostly) aside from the issue I brought up -Wee John getting into knitting -Izzy sining and dancing -the entire leg arch of Izzy -pretty much all Izzy/Stede interactions -Frenchie sceming again and the rest all going with it -indigo! -everyones new looks -Fang going fishing and his and Roachs spa day -the after credit scenes -Ed freaking out because Stede moved too fast -Stede having a killing flashback when killing Ned Low -Spanish Jackie in general, but especially poisoning everyone and getting Swede a new look -Richard as the main antagonist -Clocks -Stede getting Hellcat Maggie and the to mutiny -the entire cast was amazing
And I shouldn't have to say this, but: don't harass people over this, critiquing is fine, threats are not. And no it's not bury your gays, everyone here is gay and that is not one of the issues this season had.
The big difference between the two to me was that KinnPorsche's tone felt very cohesive. It was a Mafia Romance. The mafia sucks but we're not going to take it TOO seriously because we all know we're here for the sexy men. It's a bit of an indulgent fantasy and that's okay because it's fiction.
But none of the characters felt like caricatures. They all struck a balance between heightened, bigger than life qulaities and a kind of authenticity to them that was just perfectly excuted in most cases.
KinnPorsche was not a perfect show and I actually dislike Kinn and Porsche so much I don't rewatch most of it, but I do think they got that right.
On the other hand, 4 Minutes feels like it wants to be taken more seriously. The mafia is much more realistically portrayed. it is NOT cool. And then there's the scene with Nan and her friend that is so realistic and dark it's GUTTING.
But then we get Warit, the wine swirling caricature walmart Gun and his daughter who also lacks complexity and depth except for the briefest moment when it's kind of too late for me to give a shit. And then that makes the scene where Tyme sees Fasai crying over Warit feel like cheap emotional manipulation of the viewer because I seriously don't feel sorry for either one of them! they don't even feel like real people.
And overall I think the characters were not as convincing or interesting as most of them in KP, in part because there is a lot of consuion about what is an authentic depiction of them. The show is much more about the concept and themes.
The mess that 4 minutes was kinda made me think back on Kinnporsche (which with love sea is still my fave bl to this day) and why I loved it so much.
Don't even wanna compare them (you can't) but since both are boc shows and all that lol
I think KP had great production and an innovative plot that felt new and fresh but was still tropey in a way that only the romance genre can be you know? But like in a good way.
The story was cohesive and easy to follow but still had you on the edge of your seat most times. It was a perfect mix of sexy and sweet (I do appreciate that they weren't sponsored by Durex lol cause that way the sex scenes didn't feel like one long spicy) and every single character and relationship had meaning and were easy to get into and attached to.
It was serious enough to be different from most of what we've gotten this far in the bl genre but also had light hearted and funny moments that fit in the story and weren't too silly or overpowering.
Idk lol long story short I'm seriously struggling with a lot of the bls out right now (not just 4 minutes) and basically just wanted to scream about how much I love Kinnporsche and how desperately I want another bl like it. Or you know another Fortpeat show but that's a whole other post🙈
This is one of my favourite quotes. Although it's attributed to the book Don Quijote de la Mancha by Cervantes, it actually comes from a poem by Johan Wolfgang con Goethe titled "Kläffer"(barking?).
It says (my rough translation):
"We ride in every direction
in pursuit of joy and business;
But they're always behind us barking,
and they bark with all their power.
The little dogs of the stable
wished they could accompany (or come along) us forever,
but the loud ramble of their barking
only proves we are galloping".
It means that when we receive criticism is just a sign that we are doing something. So, to whoever you are, please keep this in my mind next time someone criticizes you: let them talk. Let the dogs bark. Keep doing what you are doing, they're going to complain anyway.
🖤
Sorry for not posting yesterday! Was trying to work of a comic of mine but I still need loads of practice. For some reason, I'm able to draw fine for requests but the moment I try to draw a panel, I flunk it. Still somewhat happy with it I guess.
Any recommendations/critiques?
Sobre meu pequeno ATRASO.
Eu sempre me atraso.
Talvez esse seja a explicação para as coisas que eu sempre fiquei por último.
Todo ser humano já foi deixado certo?
Menos as pessoas que deixam ao em vez de serem deixadas.
Mas talvez até mesmo as pessoas que deixam as outras pessoas, já tenham sido deixadas por outras pessoas, que foram deixadas por outras, e que foram deixadas por outras, e no fim encontramos um pai que deixou todas.
A redundância desse lugar me incômoda, queria poder apagar vocês, e depois apagar a mim mesma. Você não abraça seu pai já tem uns anos, você atualmente não senti falta, mas para falar dele você precisa de uns sete segundos, para assimilar.
Mas é.
O céu está azul hoje.
E realmente não sei o sentido dele ainda se sustentar por cima de nós.
Qual o resultado disso?
Já vimos ele?
Os astronautas são felizes.
Olhe lá fora, tem mas um bebé nascendo.
Ele chora, para se acostumar.
Olha para mãe, seu único porto de esperança.
Mas depois de uns anos ele vai estar andando em uma rua escura no centro da cidade, com a cabeça doendo de tantas drogas, e sua boca e mãos cheiram a tequila.
A mãe dele vai estar morta, e realmente nunca teve muita coisa para ela escrever em sua lápide.
Eu cheguei atrasada.
E estou feliz, perdi o começo de algo ruim, mas o final fui abrigada ver.
Os astronautas são felizes.
Quando sua avó chamar você com aquele apelido de infância, que ninguém mas se lembra só ela. Abrace-a.
Olha lá fora.
As pessoas que nos deixam não se sentem culpadas.
Elas diferem da minha família.
Olha lá fora.
Tem mais um bebê.
Ele vai viver plenamente ou morrer jovem?
Ele vai chorar ou viver como se sempre fosse o último dia de verão?
Você ainda consegue ver o verde das montanhas atrás de sua casa.
O homem ainda continua andando em uma rua escura no centro da cidade, o cheiro de drogas sumiu, mas ainda tem drogas em sua vida.
Os astronautas são felizes.
Cantar a música que faz você parar de pensar apenas em si mesmo talvez resolva, por favor só faça a letra dela se tornar verdade.
Enquanto seu filho corre em um asfalto quente com a barriga roncando, me diga que você não consegue dormir sabendo disso, por que se não...
Ainda não tem sentido o céu ainda se sustentar acima de nós.
Eu cheguei atrasada, a festa dos homens com capital começou.
Meninas e meninos vocês estão prontos?
Senhoras es senhores, eles chegaram!
Trazendo mais coisas sem sentido para sua cabeça pequena.
Os astronautas são felizes.
Você não consegue dormir, mas eles dormem em lenços egípcios até as três da tarde.
Você esta esperando por uma mudança faz tempo, eu também.
Estamos esperando o sentido para todas as coisas.
Os astronautas são felizes porque eles não estão aqui.
Diga ao seu filho para ser um astronauta quando crescer.
The Fallacies of Millennialism
By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim
This article is partly excerpted from chapter 10 of my book, “The Little Book of Revelation.” Therein, I explain that there are not 2 resurrections but only one! Daniel 12.2 explicitly mentions that both the saved & the damned will be resurrected TOGETHER in one general resurrection. By contrast, the second death in Revelation 20.14 is incorporeal, NOT physical. It’s the lake of fire; a spiritual death. So, only 1 physical resurrection is indicated in the Bible; not 2! Notice what the passage of Rev. 20.4 (KJV) actually says:
“And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them,
and judgment was given unto them: and I
saw the souls of them that were beheaded
for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of
God, and which had not worshipped the
beast, neither his image, neither had
received his mark upon their foreheads, or
in their hands; and they lived and reigned
with Christ a thousand years.”
Notice that the verse doesn’t tell us if and when they were resurrected. Only that they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years; (not “for” a thousand years).
Then, the following verse (Rev. 20.5) goes on to say:
“But the rest of the dead lived not again until
the thousand years were finished. This is
the first resurrection.”
But that’s the only resurrection! Biblically speaking, there is no other physical resurrection. And if it’s explicitly mentioned as the first resurrection, then it means that there couldn’t have been an earlier one. We erroneously assume that the previous verse (v. 4) mentions an earlier resurrection. Not so! Revelation 20.4 and 20.5 appear to be two different versions of the SAME resurrection!
It seems to me that Revelation 20 verses 4 and 5 are talking about the *same resurrection* but in light of varying reward scenarios. The implication is that the believers of verse 4 (probably the tribulation saints or the recently deceased) lived and reigned after the thousand years (καὶ ἔζησαν καὶ ἐβασίλευσαν μετὰ . . . τὰ χίλια ἔτη)! Similarly, in verse 5, the rest of the dead (presumably the believers who had been dead for many centuries) were not raised from the dead until the thousand years were finished, which is the first resurrection:
οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔζησαν ἄχρι τὰ
τελεσθῇ χίλια ἔτη. αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ
πρώτη.
In other words, it appears that the faithful throngs (both the recent dead and those who had been dead for a long time) took part in the first resurrection after the thousand years had passed. But the details of their rewards——namely, that they lived & reigned, and that they were resurrected——are differentiated for a more comprehensive elaboration!
5 Questions Need to be Asked
A) According to the text, when does the 1st resurrection take place? Answer: when the thousand years were finished (Rev. 20.5)!
B) Can there be 2 resurrections? Answer: No. There can’t be 2 physical resurrections. According to the Bible, there is only one (Dan. 12.2)!
C) Which physical resurrection is explicitly mentioned in Rev. 20? Answer: The one in verse 5, which is said to occur at the end of the millennium or at the end of the thousand years. Verse 4 does not explicitly mention a resurrection. It simply says: καὶ ἔζησαν (and lived). It doesn’t say that they came back to life or that they were resurrected, as some modern Bible versions do. Nor does the original Greek text have any parentheses, as you find in the NRSV. It reads:
καὶ ἔζησαν καὶ
ἐβασίλευσαν μετὰ τοῦ
χριστοῦ χίλια ἔτη
(Rev. 20.4 SBLGNT).
The textus receptus has it as follows:
καὶ ἔζησαν καὶ
ἐβασίλευσαν μετὰ τοῦ
χριστοῦ τὰ [the] χίλια
ἔτη;
The Greek New Testament doesn’t say “for” a thousand years. And the Greek word μετά can be translated as either “with” or “after” Christ. In other words, this could also be translated or paraphrased as follows: [after] the thousands years were completed, they lived and reigned forever. In other words, the original Greek text doesn’t say “for” one thousand years.
D) which resurrection is referred to as the 1st resurrection? Answer: the one in verse 5 that occurs when the thousand years are finished. The one in verse 4 is neither mentioned as a resurrection nor as being the first.
E) So then, how could the same people who would not be resurrected “until the thousand years were completed” (Rev. 20.5) simultaneously live and reign with Christ for a millennium? (Rev. 20.4). Answer: They cannot be both dead and alive at the same time! The only explanation is that the people who are said to reign with Christ are the same people who took part in “the first resurrection” (Rev. 20.5), but they’re described differently in the earlier verse (v. 4) in order to furnish the reader with further details about this particular time-period. It’s similar to the different descriptions in Revelation chs. 19 & 20 about the beast who is thrown into the lake of fire in Rev. 19 but who nevertheless continues to be active in Rev. 20! There are not two Beasts or Antichrists; only one. The same satanic beast who is captured in Rev. 20.2-3 is the exact same figure who was captured and thrown into the lake of fire in Rev. 19.20, but in the following chapter (ch. 20) he is described in more detail as the text provides further descriptions of his release and whereabouts prior to being cast into the lake of fire (see Rev. 20.7-10).
Conclusion
There is also a judgment (κρίμα) mentioned in Rev. 20.4. But are there really 2 judgments? No. Only one! Thus, the millennium implies 2 additional comings of Christ, 2 appearances by Satan, 2 Great Wars, 2 Great tribulations, 2 resurrections, 2 apocalypses, 2 Armageddons, 2 judgments, 2 Great Ends, and so on and so forth. This binary eschatology is biblically unfounded because there is only one of each!
It demonstrates that this brief passage must be taken symbolically, not literally. So, the passage really indicates that when the thousand years are completed the believers will be raised from the dead and begin to reign with Christ. This is also the chronological time period when the Antichrist is released for a short time. This is probably a reference to the Great Tribulation which only lasts for 3 and a half years, or 42 months, or 1,260 days, or a time, and times, and half a time (cf. Rev. 11.2; 12.6, 14; 13.5). This is also the time when the apocalyptic events will commence!
It took 21 symbolic days for God’s word to arrive on earth (Dan. 10.13–14). There are also 21 Judgments in the Book of Revelation. And since “one day is like a thousand years” (2 Pet. 3.8), the implication seems to be that the apocalyptic events are set to take place in the 21st century. It is a symbol of our century! Thus, the millennium seems to be referring to the end of the 20th century (i.e. 2,000 CE) and the beginning of the 21st!
By the way, the Bible never mentions the alleged “thousand-year reign of Christ on earth.” Only 2 verses mention those who “reigned with Christ a thousand years.” These are not to be taken literally but rather as *signs* that reveal the timing of Christ’s coming and of the apocalyptic events! In other words, when the thousand years are completed, Satan will be loosed for a little while (a reference to the 3 and a half year Great Tribulation). Then, the first resurrection will occur and the believers will henceforth reign with Christ!
What is the ultimate signpost that indicates when these events will commence? These apocalyptic events will begin when the thousand years are completed!
So, the thousand years act as the defining moment, the temporal mark, the chronological signal, the millennial warning that the end is near. It is not a coincidence that the 70 weeks of Daniel, the Mayan Calendar, Malachy’s Prophecy of the Popes, the recent Blood moon prophecy, and all the other biblical & extra-biblical doomsday prophecies began to hold sway after the thousand years were completed in 2,000 CE. Moreover, the Bible clearly prophesies the arrival of the Antichrist (Dan. 9.26-27). And I believe that he has already made his appearance on the world stage, namely, on the eve of the 2,000 year mark, that is to say, on December 31, 1999, precisely at the end of the thousand years, as prophesied in Rev. 20.7. For further details, see my article: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/623534877070016512/nostradamus-and-the-bible-seemingly-predict-the
The reference to the chiliasm, then, serves as a caveat that Satan will be loosed when the thousand years are over. In my view, that’s what the millennium actually means! Thus, I don’t believe in a literal millennial kingdom because it contradicts the Bible. It implies, 2 comings of Christ, 2 apocalypses, 2 Great Wars, and so on. That’s probably why the doctrine of millennialism was condemned at the Second Ecumenical Council in 381 CE. In addition, the endtime war that Satan is said to unleash at the end of the millennium (Rev. 20.8) is the exact same war mentioned in Ezekiel 38: Gog & Magog. Also, 1 Thess. 4.17 says that after the rapture “we will be with the Lord forever,” not just for 1,000 years. And the Book of Daniel is clear that both the Saved and the Damned will be resurrected simultaneously, not successively (12.2).
Therefore, the millennium represents the sign of the times when the thousand years are completed. It signifies the beginning of the apocalypse, that is to say, the period of the Antichrist, who will gather the kings of the earth for Armageddon. It also represents the time of the Great Tribulation, the rapture, and the resurrection of the dead, when the faithful will be glorified and reign with Christ not simply for a thousand years, but forever (cf. Dan. 7.18; 12.2; 1 Thess. 4.17)!
Although there are some similarities between my view and that of Amillennialism, I don’t consider myself an Amillennialist because I don’t share their core views on realized millennialism, perfect/imperfect amillenarism, or that “Christ’s reign during the millennium is spiritual in nature.” We have completely different views on a number of topics! Similarly, my view is in agreement with that of postmillennialism in regard to a literal thousand years, after which Christ will come. However, I disagree both with the quality as well as with the timing of the millennium as explained by postmillennialism. I don’t view the millennium as a literal thousand-year-Kingdom of peace nor as an interim period (or parenthesis) that will transpire in the far distant future. Rather, I see it as a period that already started in the year 1,000 CE (with the crusades) and culminated in the year 2,000. That’s when the Antichrist came to power (in the year 1999 = 666) in Russia (see my articles on that subject), at the end of the thousand years, and Satan was released from prison (Rev 20.7), so to speak, and was allowed to gather the kings of the earth for Armageddon! And since I have a number of disagreements with postmillennialism, I don’t consider myself a postmillennialist either.
The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9: A Critique of Questionable Interpretations
By Author Eli Kittim
Christological readings
The Prophecy of Seventy Weeks is given by the angel Gabriel and inscripturated in the Book of Daniel ch. 9. Despite being the subject of much hermeneutical study for thousands of years, it has nevertheless continued to baffle scholars and prophecy pundits alike. I will only deal with Christological readings and will not consider the historical-critical approach to Jewish eschatology, which usually presumes that the 70-weeks prophecy of Daniel pertains to Antiochus IV Epiphanes (c. 215-164 BCE). Liberal epistemology is based on historical reductionism, which often leads to gross misinterpretations of Scripture. Historically speaking, Jews began to return to Jerusalem from their Babylonian exile in 538 BCE. They were prompted to do so under an edict issued by Cyrus, King of Persia, aka Cyrus's edict. They also began to rebuild their Temple which had previously been destroyed by the Babylonians. By ca. 515 BCE, the Second Temple was completed.
There are Three Major Historical Starting Points for the 70-Weeks Prophecy
The key passage to the 70 weeks prophecy is Dan. 9.25 (NRSV):
Know therefore and understand: from the
time that the word went out to restore and
rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an
anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks;
and . . . sixty-two weeks . . .
Daniel 9.26 goes on to predict the timeline pertaining to the death of the Messiah:
After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one
shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and
the troops of the prince who is to come shall
destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end
shall come with a flood, and to the end
there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.
So, with regard to Daniel 9.25, there are 3 historical starting points of the prophecy. One is 538 BCE, which is associated with Cyrus’ edict. If you’re going to apply a historical interpretation, this appears to be the most precise date, given that it accurately portrays when “the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” as well as the timing of the restoration and rebuilding of the Temple sometime around 515 BCE!
The second date of the alleged starting point of Daniel’s 70-week prophecy, that some scholars employ, begins with the decree bestowed to Ezra by Artaxerxes I in 458/7 BCE (Ezra 7), which supposedly terminates with Jesus’ Baptism 483 years later (i.e. 7 weeks = 49y & 62 weeks = 434y; thus 49 + 434 = 483y). These calculations employ the day to year principle (cf. Num. 14.34; Ezek. 4.5-6): one year for each day.
The third possible date, and the most popular, that follows Sextus Julius Africanus, is 445 BCE, which refers to the letter given to Nehemiah by Artaxerxes I (Longimanus cf. Ezra 2). It’s important to note that many writers use a 360-day year period based on biblical passages for reckoning time (e.g. Gen. 7.11, 24; 8.4).
Criticisms of the 70-Weeks Prophecy Historical Interpretations
There are, however, many confounds in these historical theories. One problem is that the text itself does not explicitly state whether the king reference in the passage is to Artaxerxes I (465–424 BCE) or to Artaxerxes II (404–359 BCE). Although many scholars contend that Ezra probably lived during the time of Artaxerxes I, others are not convinced. Another problem is that the 69 weeks of years are supposed to terminate with the death of Christ, and yet the calculations from this perspective do not match the time of the purported Crucifixion.
Another exegetical problem is that although Christ and Antichrist appear simultaneously as contemporaries and are juxtaposed in the same verse (e.g. Dan. 9.26) regarding the 70th week, exegetes nevertheless deliberately separate the 70th week from the 69th week by a proposed 2,000 year gap between them. This decision doesn’t account for the end-time events that are described in the text (cf. Dan. 9.27). Furthermore, despite the violence done to the text, the proposed dates still do not match: they’re either too early or too late. They only appear to be close if you round them out.
There are other problems as well. Those who hold to the second possible date as the starting point of the prophecy, namely the date 457 BCE, contend that Jesus appeared during the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar Augustus (Lk 3:1), who reigned from 14 to 37 CE. This would put Jesus’ appearance at approximately 28 CE. But Daniel predicted not that the messiah would appear but that he would die on that date. So, this is also an inexact calculation. In his lectures, Chuck Missler frequently quoted a phrase that was coined by economist Ronald Coase: “if you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.”
The Historical Model: Sleight of Hand Hermeneutics
The first and only possible decree or edict to return, restore, and rebuild Jerusalem has to be the first one issued by Cyrus II of Persia, aka Cyrus the Great! In fact, the rebuilding process of Jerusalem had actually begun under Cyrus the Great, who had freed the Jews from Babylon, allowing them to return to Jerusalem in order to rebuild Solomon's Temple. As a result, many Jews returned in 538 BCE and began building the Temple in 536 BCE (Ezra 3.8). Not only that, but they completed it by 516/5 BCE (Ezra 6.15).
So why do most prophecy scholars attribute the starting point of the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel to the letter of Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) in 445 BCE? Almost a century earlier, in 538 BCE, King Cyrus made a public declaration granting the Jews the right to return to Judah and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. But because that date doesn’t fit their calculations——because it would put Jesus’ appearance at about 55 BCE——scholars conveniently try to manhandle the Danielic prophecy in order to force their own private interpretations. So they arbitrarily move up the starting point of the prophecy to 445 BCE, 93 years later, with the aforesaid letter of Artaxerxes I (Longimanus). But this is underhanded exegesis which is not supported by the data.
In fact, many such theories were devised in the 1800s (to calculate the coming of Jesus) which had as their starting point the *Babylonian exile.* All of them were wrong! The classic work on the 70 Weeks of Daniel is Sir Robert Anderson’s 1894 book, “The Coming Prince.” Similarly, the Millerites also used the *Babylonian exile* as their starting point to predict the future coming of Jesus. They also used the Book of Daniel chapter 8 (specifically Dan. 8.14), which ultimately led to a false prophecy and the “Great Disappointment” of 1844! In short, these 19th century writers have devised complicated, elaborate, and convoluted schemes which ignore history and arbitrarily assign chronological dates that only match or confirm their specific biases.
Returning to the 70 Weeks historical model, the alleged chronological timetable is also intentionally broken up and divided, as if there is a 2,000 year gap between the 69th and the 70th week, even though this is not what the text is describing. For example, the death of the *anointed messiah* and the timing of *the prince to come* are inextricably linked together and juxtaposed in the same verse as if they are contemporaries rather than separated by 2,000 years (Dan. 9.26). In fact, this thought continues seamlessly into the following verse (v. 27) as part of a running narrative without the slightest hint of a change in chronology!
This exegetical decision is therefore a case of special pleading. These exegetes make little effort to support the data. They use bizarre gaps and anachronistic juxtapositions in chronology to make heterogeneous passages appear homogeneous, and vice versa.
The construction of this confusing exegesis is unwarranted. It embraces some questionable assumptions that do not square well with the data. It’s a failed attempt by Christian evidentialism to validate historical Christianity and the historical Christ by appealing to his fulfillment of Daniel 9. This is bad exegesis that prevents the text from being interpreted in a straightforward manner that is consistent with its grammatical and canonical contexts.
The Futurist Eschatology of Daniel 9
Notice that these events take place not in Antiquity but at “the end of time.” The Brenton LXX has the following footnote regarding Daniel 9.27:
. . . the original writes ἕως τῆς συντελείας,
i.e. -until- the end of time.
The realization that the 70-week prophecy is not referring to Antiquity is clear from Dan. 9.23-24:
So consider the word and understand the
vision: ‘Seventy weeks are decreed for your
people and your holy city: to finish the
transgression, to put an end to sin, and to
atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting
righteousness, to seal both vision and
prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.’
Notice that fulfillment of this prophecy requires the end of all transgression and sin, and the beginning of everlasting righteousness, which signifies the end of all vision and prophecy. This is reminiscent of the end-times in Rev. 10.7 when “the mystery of God will be fulfilled.” Many scholars know that the chronology of Dan. 9.24 is within a futurist eschatological timetable. To attribute it to the Babylonian exile is therefore inappropriate. Why? Because sin has not yet ended. Neither has prophecy. Another reason is that the Babylonian exile didn’t last for 70 years. Historically, if the first deportation came after the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar II in c. 586 BCE, and the Jews returned to Judah in c. 538 BCE and began to rebuild the second temple in Jerusalem in c. 537 BCE, according to the Book of Ezra, then the Jews were actually held in Babylonian captivity for approximately 48 years, not 70. Let’s not forget that Ezekiel 38.8 prophesied that “In future years” Israel would be restored as a nation. So what is the timeline that the prophecy is alluding to?
The question is twofold:
If the 70-Weeks prophecy is referring to a restoration and a rebuilding that takes place in the end-times,
1) is it referring to the nation of Israel?
2) or is it referring to the rebuilding of Jerusalem?
Possible Answers:
1) Israel 1947/8
2) Jerusalem 1967/8
These are the most pertinent questions that should guide our hermeneutic. Depending on one’s exegetical decision, the calculation will take a different trajectory. In hindsight, we should be more accurate than our predecessors. We are not trying to set dates but only to frame the question correctly so as to set the tone for further exegetical studies.
How Can Weeks Be Interpreted as Years?
How can “weeks” be interpreted as years rather than heptads or seven-year periods?
The first reason is that Gabriel himself imparts a cryptic clue which, in effect, equates the “seventy weeks” of Daniel (Dan. 9.2) with the “seventy-year” oracle revealed to Jeremiah (Jer. 29.10). Gabriel suggests that the seventy years of Jeremiah’s prophecy must continue to be calculated as “years” within Daniel’s seventy-weeks oracle. In other words, this framework allows us to perform calculations using “weeks” as the standard of measuring time in addition to using actual “years.” That’s precisely why Gabriel doesn’t say 69 weeks but rather 7 weeks and 62 weeks! The values of these numbers appear to be different. The former is interpreted as weeks of years; the latter as years per se. However, an inversion would not work. For instance, if the former (i.e. the 7 weeks) is calculated as years, the calculation cannot work simply because we have exceeded the 50-year time period. That’s why the author did not clamp them together but carefully separated them to emphasize that their values are not equivalent.
The second reason why weeks can be interpreted as years has to do with the meaning of the Hebrew term for “weeks” (Heb. שָׁבֻעִ֨ים šā·ḇu·‘îm; BHS) in Dan. 9.24. This term comes from the Hebrew term “shabua,” which typically means a period of seven (days, years), heptad, week, etc. But it can also refer to a Feast of weeks (Shavuot), otherwise known as Pentecost (cf. Exod. 34.22; Num. 28.26; Deut. 16.10, 16; 2 Chr 8.13):
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/7620.htm
Interestingly enough, a Shavuot occurs once per year. So, using this definition of one “week” or one Shavuot per year would give us *70 weeks* or 70 Shavuots in 70 years.
Therefore, from starting point x until the coming of Messiah there will be 7 weeks and 62 weeks (Dan. 9.25). Why doesn’t Gabriel just say, “from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an anointed prince, there shall be” 69 weeks? But that’s not what he says, precisely because the 7 and the 62 do not comprise identical values. And why is that? Because the 7 weeks represent *one of the 2 Questions* we asked earlier, while the 62 weeks represents *another one of the 2 Questions* that I proposed. It appears, then, that the 7 weeks represent *weeks of years,* while the 62 weeks represents actual *years.*
Bear in mind that the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem technically began in 1968 when Israel started to rebuild the Jewish Quarter. Thus, the starting date for this variable may actually be 1968. Let’s not forget that the calculation must be consistent with a period “After the sixty-two weeks” in which “an anointed one shall be cut off” (Dan. 9.26).
The rebirth of Israel in 1948 may also be a viable option. The 70-year generation that culminated in 2018 may represent the final generation that “will not pass away until all these things have taken place” (Mt. 24.34). Notice that the Danielic verse (9.26) says AFTER the 62 weeks (not during) the messiah will be slain. So, hypothetically, 1948 could still work as a starting point since the messiah’s death may come a little while after the 62 weeks run out (i.e. *after* 2018). As already mentioned, there’s evidence to suggest that the 70 weeks of Daniel may be referring to 70 Shavuots or 70 actual years. This lends credence to an alternative interpretation that the 70 Shavuots may actually begin on Sabbath years. That is to say, the 70-Shavuots countdown may actually *begin* on the first Sabbath year in the modern State of Israel (which was 1951-1952), rather than in 1948!
How do we know which date is correct?
There is a litmus test. The coming of Messiah should fall within one generation from its starting point, be it Israel (1948) or Jerusalem (1967).
In fact, there is still one generation from 1948 to 2037 because Ps. 90.10 reads:
The days of our life are seventy years, or
perhaps eighty, if we are strong;
This means that people born in 1948 would still be in their 80s by the year 2037 CE. This would qualify as one generation!
It is important to remember Irenaeus’ claim in Against Heresies Book 2 Chapter 22 that Jesus lived to be about 50 years old. Compare Jn 8.57:
You are not yet fifty years old, and have you
seen Abraham?
This is why the Bible repeatedly emphasizes that the “promise” is fulfilled in Abraham’s old age. That’s why something happened to Enoch when he was 65 years old, represented metaphorically through his giving birth to Methuselah, a symbol of eternity (Gen. 5.21; cf. 5.24)! All these pericopes are symbols of the promised “seed” who is Christ (Gal. 3.16).
Conclusion
To sum up, in contrast to the *historical* starting points of Daniel’s 70-weeks prophecy that have been traditionally proposed, I have presented an alternative *futurist-eschatological* model that can be equally applied with more success, and one that is actually more straightforward and faithful to the text’s grammar, canonical context, and authorial intent.
Here’s a case in point. By way of allusion, Dan. 12.1 is almost certainly employing the messianic terminology of “an anointed prince” (Dan. 9.25; cf. 10.21; Isa. 9.6) to signify the Messiah’s death and resurrection at the time of the end:
At that time Michael, the great prince, the
protector of your people, shall
arise.
In the following verse (12.2), Daniel goes on to describe the general resurrection of the dead that will occur during the same time period. Thus, the Messiah’s death apparently transpires *AFTER* (not before) 1948, as Daniel’s 70-weeks prophecy seemingly suggests. This time period is elsewhere referred to as “καιροῦ συντελείας” (Dan. 12.4 LXX), which is translated as “the end of time” in Daniel ch. 9 (Dan. 9.27 LXX cf. 9.23-24; 12.4, 9, 13 NRSV)! Despite the fact that we don’t know the precise date, nevertheless Daniel’s 70-Weeks prophecy strongly suggests that the messiah will not come hundreds or even thousands of years from now but that he’s right around the corner: “right at the door” (Mt. 24.33 ISV)! In fact, according to Mt. 24.34, the last generation that sees the end-times signs will also see all things fulfilled. And Joel 3.1-2 ties the return of Israel to Armageddon. He claims that during the same time period that Judah and Jerusalem will be restored as a nation (1948) is when all the nations will come down to the valley of Jehoshaphat!
i've made a few posts about the Clone High reboot before but something specific that i think it gets wrong are the way they handle their celebrity cameos. the original Clone High would sometimes bring in these popular celebrities to appear in the show, usually to influence the clones and push the main anti-moral of the episode. since Clone High was made in the early 2000s, these appearances got really dated really fast. but something that counteracts that is the way they're characterised. for example, i have no clue who tf Mandy Moore is, but i still really enjoyed her appearance in the Snowflake Day episode because of the way she's characterised and satirised. she's portrayed as this homeless girl who happens to be attractive and look suspiciously like Mandy Moore who's obviously trying to hide the fact that she's a popular celebrity by playing the role of Joan's guardian angel. she leads Joan on into thinking she's this magical angel when she's actually just stealing everyone's stuff and replacing it with spices, and it works really well because 1. her insistence that she isn't a celebrity was really funny and 2. she works on her own as a solid character to push the story along and set up jokes. they put a twist on the whole "hi i'm [insert celebrity here] and i'm here to talk about [insert psa here]" by turning it into a joke of itself and adding on extra traits that make the characters entertaining to watch.
the reboot, however... just does the "hi i'm celebrity" bit with full sencerity and doesn't really satirise the celebrities in any way. they don't make fun of them or add commentary or critique them in any way, they just appear to send a message and then dip, just like they would in the same teen dramas Clone High was meant to parody in the first place. for example, in the episode where they get hunted down by the Heebie Jeebie monster, its revealed at the end to be that guy from Sharknado who's just kinda like "hey i'm trying to send a message about the importance of teenager's mental health, here's a hotline, i'm sharknado dude btw" and then just kinda... dips? i don't like this because there's no joke there, it's literally just a celebrity coming on, saying the message out loud, and then leaving. there's no criticisms, there's no making fun of the character, there's no commentary on the fakeness of bringing on big celebrities and actors delivering a message that big stars like them could's possibly care less about to influence a vulnerable and impressionable group of people like teenagers, there's nothing there. i'm not saying the message of mental health is dumb or bad or anything, i'm just saying that the celebrity appearances aren't handed the same criticisms the original show was written to have, and i think that takes away the reboot's spirit as being connected to Clone High. it's not a satire anymore and i feel like i can't enjoy it because of that. it has become the very thing the original saught to mock, and like, that's kinda funny in a fucked up ironic way, but it's also really not. the reboot just doesn't have that same spark that made me fall in love with the original series and i feel like i can't like it because of that, among the multitude of other issues it has.