mostlythemarsh:

Maybe

Reposted from http://lies.tumblr.com/post/171110901582.

mostlythemarsh:

Ball!

Reposted from http://lies.tumblr.com/post/170961160030.

mostlythemarsh:

Art Lover

Reposted from http://lies.tumblr.com/post/170917001451.

mostlythemarsh:

Encounter

Reposted from http://lies.tumblr.com/post/170808428971.

mostlythemarsh:

The Chase

Reposted from http://lies.tumblr.com/post/170722229525.

mostlythemarsh:

Maybe

Reposted from http://lies.tumblr.com/post/170667395771.

mostlythemarsh
replied to your photo “mostlythemarsh:
Condensation”

Loving the Maybe In Space series Lies

Yeah; I started going through your #maybe tag and may have gotten in a little over my head. But there are more coming. 😀

Reposted from http://lies.tumblr.com/post/170659135091.

mostlythemarsh:

Condensation

Reposted from http://lies.tumblr.com/post/170622823026.

mostlythemarsh:

Maybe

Reposted from http://lies.tumblr.com/post/170538050606.

mostlythemarsh:

A Space Odyssey

Reposted from http://lies.tumblr.com/post/170168643801.

Reposted from http://ift.tt/2dhK7S2.

No idea yet who’s responsible for the two apparent murders so far. But I’m willing to go out on a limb and say I know who’s going to die in Chapter 3.

Putting it after a cut in case someone (presumably someone unfamiliar with my history of predicting things) views it as a spoiler.

HG Wells will be shuffling off his mortal Tesla coil by the end of Chapter 3.

My reasoning goes like this:

• So far they’ve been killing off one character per episode, alternating boy/girl. If that pattern holds we’re due to lose a male character in Chapter 3. N=2 is a pretty low number for such a conclusion, but the even balance of characters suggests they might be doing that.
• Looking at the trailer is instructive. I’d previously noticed that Louisa May was missing from all the trailer scenes other than those from Chapter 1, and wondered if she’d be next to go in Chapter 2. I didn’t post anything about it at the time, so you’ll have to take my word for it, but when she did in fact get killed in Chapter 2 it made me think that’s a pretty good way to predict future deaths.
• Assuming we’re going to lose a male character in Chapter 3, the trailer suggests HG is the one with the worst chances. He’s missing from all the group shots we haven’t seen so far: “Who do you think we are? The Austens?”, the dancing scene, the “lie sandwich” scene, and the startled wheeling around at the end in the library/study.
• The scenes we do see of HG in the trailer all seem to place him in jeopardy: poking his head up into the attic during his credit shot, and sitting amidst his apparatus, apparently having made a foreboding discovery, saying, “Oh, dear.” Possibly his exit line?
• There’s also this: The silent “Next Episode” clip at the end of Chapter 2 begins with a closeup of HG. Going back and looking at the clip from Chapter 1, it began with a closeup of Louisa May. Is being highlighted in the Next Episode clip a bad sign for a character?

Since the show creators have been pretty active in liking/reblogging/responding to posts about the show, my predicting this sets up an interesting test: Will any of them like/respond to this post? When I offered a lamentably bad interpretation of what was being said in the Next Episode clip from Chapter 1, it picked up several responses, including MK’s droll “That’s it. You’ve done it.”

That was an easy one, because that post’s prediction was silly. If this post’s prediction about HG dying next is correct, though, how will they respond? Their first inclination would probably be to not make any response at all. But in the context of their previous activity that could be interpreted as a Dog That Didn’t Bark in the Night. So maybe they would respond. But they’d be constrained to respond in a way that doesn’t spill the beans while still looking like good clean fun when the prediction turns out to have been correct.

Of course, if the prediction is wrong they can just endorse it as correct, like they did before. But if they endorse it as correct, does that mean it must be incorrect? Would they endorse it as correct even though it actually is correct, just to throw me off?

Hm.

Reposted from http://ift.tt/2cfqqwv.

schwarmerei1:

fuckyeahisawthat:

canis-exmachina:

allaboutmmfr:

mmfrconfessions:

I understand everyone has different views on the matter, but sometimes it rubs me the wrong way when people act like it was so wrong for Furiosa to kill her crew. They obviously wouldn’t have helped her once they realized what her reason for going off course was. The women she was saving are more important than the men who worship the man who hurt them, as well as the man who forcibly took Furiosa from her home and murdered her mother. I don’t think there was any bond between them.

Whether it was ‘wrong’ for Furiosa to kill her crew or not, I do disagree about the bond between Furiosa and her crew. Everything in the body language and attitude of her crew spoke of familiarity and comfort. These War Boys – Ace especially – had done this countless times with Furiosa. We see it most strongly in the casual way Ace talks to Furiosa, the way they work together so fluidly when taking down Buzzards.

A natural bond emerges among soldiers when they do missions over and over again together.

It’s important to remember that one of Furiosa’s big motivations is redemption. She wants to get back to her roots, to strip away the Imperator she’s become and return to being the Vuvalini she once was. All this implies that, for a time, even if only out of a need to survive, Furiosa was a compliant part of Joe’s war machine, working among her fellow war boys and becoming a part of them. She was gone for 7,000 days at minimum – that’s 19 years. The idea that she could spend 20 years rising to the rank of Imperator, command an elite group of fighters on the War Rig, and still not bond at all with her crew is incredibly unlikely.

Ace doesn’t ask “Why won’t you stop” or “Why don’t you stop”, he asks Furiosa “Why can’t you stop”. To me, that says it all. He seems to have no reason not to trust her implicitly, and his disbelief and shock is painfully apparent. Being stabbed in the heart hurts more than being stabbed in the back.

I think there are a lot of textual clues–A LOT–that she had, at bare minimum, a level of professional trust and camaraderie with her crew, of the type you would expect in a military unit that has spent time training and fighting together. War bonds can be incredibly strong bonds–ask anyone who’s been in the military. It certainly took me multiple viewings to see some of these clues, but I think it’s undeniable that they’re there in the text. (Instead of listing every example I’ll just link here and here.)

But what I really want to say is about dramatic choices when you’re constructing a film story. In dramatic writing, you look for conflict. Films, in particular, are structured around high-stakes choices. You’re always looking for the impossible choice–the scenario that will force your character to choose between two unacceptable options.

Having Furiosa care about her crew, and then decide she has to kill them to achieve her mission, automatically creates a much richer dramatic environment. It complicates both the good guys and the bad guys. It complicates Furiosa, because it makes her not just a single-minded revenge machine, but a person who made real human connections in the place she was held prisoner–and then decides she has to betray those connections in pursuit of the goal that makes up the main plot of the film. It complicates the Citadel, because it turns the War Boys from one-dimensional cannon fodder into people who care for, and are cared about, by our protagonist. Even if they are also people who worship a rapist, slave-owning tyrant as their god.

What would they have done if they’d figured out her mission? We don’t actually know. It seems highly unlikely to me that all of them would have made the kind of ideological break needed to side with her, at the speed that would have been needed to not fuck up her plan. But that’s the most interesting option–if she knew that, and cared about them anyway. That’s maximum internal conflict right there, which is dramatic writing gold.

And I’d like to point out that all the stuff we’re talking about happens in her first few minutes of screen time. Lots of screenplays save the impossible choice for the third act. But the Buzzard chase is her character introduction! This is the beginning of the movie! And we’re already watching her make an impossible choice! That’s some next-level writing.

I have little to add to this excellent commentary except that I believe that John Iles who plays The Ace was formerly SAS military and also receives a credit as being a warfare and weapons advisor – so that’s perhaps an additional reason the War Rig v Buzzards sequence works so well.

Reposted from http://ift.tt/1QZuFuD.

schwarmerei1:

manticoreimaginary:

I just watched Blade Runner for the first time (yes I know) and WHAT THE FUCK WAS THAT ‘ROMANCE’ SCENE?? YUCK YUCK FUCKING GROSS.

There are many things I love about that movie, but that scene is CREEPY AS FUCK! And I don’t think it’s supposed to be…

A few years ago I rewatched it after a 20-year gap and had the same reaction. The strange thing for me is that while remembering the scene, I’m didn’t recall feeling the revulsion I felt at it during the re-watch. So either I’d blocked that out or 1980s me really was that clueless.

I suspect it was mostly the latter.

Welcome to 1982, when a sympathetic lead male character can be rapey as fuck in pursuit of an edge-y, noir-ish aesthetic, and the audience is expected to respond with, ooh, sexy.

Reposted from http://ift.tt/1LOryll.

Reposted from http://lies.tumblr.com/post/61894466357.