Italian girl, from Sicily, currently studying Japanese in Venice. This is mostly a Fandom blog, I reblog the things I like. Sometimes I also post my shitty drawings and other things I make. Feel free to talk to me.
Benvenuti

omg, is tumblr allowing you to know when someone answer to your ask or is it xkit? Anyway, I’m liking it *A*


posted 5 minutes ago with 0 notes

ereini0n said:
What is your absolutely least favourite piece of les mis fanon?

une-amie:

Thanks for the question!

The first things that comes to mind is woobie!Grantaire. Just the hint of that, be it in the summary, post, comments or tags , makes me go nOPE and hit the back or block post button (if only I I had that option on AO3…).

However, there’s something that’s starting to bother me… I’d say even more than woobie!R. And that’s Les Amis deliberately interrupting Enjolras during a meeting just to mess with him. It bothers me when it’s Grantaire, it pisses me off when Courfeyrac joins him. Courfeyrac. I don’t even need to explain everything that’s wrong with that, do I?


posted 2 hours ago with 8 notes via ereini0nune-amie)

paranoid-panda:

10 things to love about FMA 2003 8/10

Day 8: The animation.


posted 7 hours ago with 1,622 notes via kathulu23pandacea)

- Oh… I see.

- You see what?

- Nothing. Nothing at all.


A moment of silence for…

ladiesforloveandjustice:

poppypicklesticks:

mishawinsexster:

fucknofetishization:

black-american-queen:

Every black man that is “ok with white people using the n-word”

That Asian girl who applauds Katy Perry dressing up like a Geisha

Those native American folks who are fine with the “Redskins” mascot

The Chicano/Latino boy who wants to “deport all the illegals”

A moment of silence for our fallen soldiers. They are lost to the cause.

For people of color who fetishize themselves and are ok with others fetishizing them

image

"I may not even have a drop of asian blood in my veins or have ever stepped foot in an asian country let alone Japan, but I know what is best for Japanese culture far better then any uncle tom Japanese person simply because I’m not white!" 

Wow, way to insult and roll over people just because they have different opinions and don’t belong to the ~POC hivemind~ (because it honestly seems like you think that all people who belong to a certain ethnicity MUST think the same way). Clearly they’re just poor, fallen soldiers and should be pitied instead of listened to. 

Fuck you and fuck your agenda for trying to shame and silence people.

~Mod Silvermoon424



Some Random Amateur’s Guide To Overthinking The RTD Era

thatsabsurrrrd:

So the lovely moffatappreciationlife recently posted an excellent guide for people who want to give Moffat Who a fair go but can’t get it to work for them for some reason, and I thought… why not do the same kind of thing for people who want to get more out of RTD Who? So here’s a guide to RTD Who for Moffat fans, with the same intention as the other guide - so that even if the RTD era still isn’t your favourite, you’ll have a better idea of why people get something out of it.

Read More


posted 1 day ago with 51 notes via thatsabsurrrrd

Some Random Amateur’s Guide to Overthinking Doctor Who

moffatappreciationlife:

Hello, all!  As someone who blathers interminably and pretentiously about my favorite things, I thought I’d write up a sort of guide for people who want to give Moffat-era Doctor Who a fair shake, but for one reason or another can’t really get it to work for them.  The thing is, I believe that different pieces of art—whether that art is television, books, video games, or whatever—require different approaches, and nobody is going to intuitively grasp all of them.  This way, even if you decide in the end that Moffat really isn’t your thing, you’ll have a better idea why it *is* somebody else’s thing—why they get something out of it.

So.  Tips for watching.

1) Watch the minisodes.  There is a bit of character development in the minisodes.  Whether you consider this an expansion of the medium or a pacing flaw is up to you, but things like “Night of the Doctor” really do enhance the main show.  “Night of the Doctor,” for instance, gives you the story of exactly how the War Doctor came to be, and also shows you how long and hard the Doctor tried to find a way to help without turning into a warrior.

2) When something seems nonsensical, jarring, or uncomfortable, you’re supposed to look closer and start deducing.  For instance, Amy Pond—some of her behavior is downright uncomfortable.  She runs away on her wedding night, tries to seduce the Doctor, and never said the words “I love you” to Rory, all of which would seem to suggest she doesn’t care at all—but in “Amy’s Choice,” she was willing to take (what looked like) a fifty-fifty chance on death if it meant a universe where Rory was okay—so what gives?

            Well, at the end of Amy’s story, we can say for sure that her parents didn’t technically exist in that timeline.  Back in Series Five, we didn’t know that much, but we did know that they were gone, and she lived with her aunt—and her aunt was mainly notable for not being home.  We can probably deduce some attachment problems just from that.  On top of that, we know that Amelia had years of “therapy” that seemed mainly focused on getting her to doubt her own judgment—that she was NOT happy with the situation, reacting violently to it, and that her strong feelings on the matter had no effect on whether she would be packed off to psychiatrist two, three, or four.  All in all, Amy has every reason to have serious intimacy issues.  In fact, with a history like that, you’d barely expect her to know what her emotions are doing at all.

            And if you approach the show with the hypothesis that she *doesn’t*—that Amy’s feelings are largely a mystery to her, and that she has massive problems dealing with them—many of the rougher aspects of her character abruptly come into focus.  Such as the fact that divorcing her husband to “set him free” apparently makes more sense to her than asking him what *he* wants.  Themes start becoming apparent: the climax to Series Five was Amy successfully facing down and answering the repeated question, “What am I feeling, and why am I feeling it?” which is a question that many of us don’t even have to consider, but must seem like an Everest to Amy.

            In short, flying fish and living statues are normal, but when something seems off on an emotional level, it’s worth digging deeper and figuring out what the show is trying to tell us.  Sometimes, it’s the key to an entire character arc.

3) Nobody is right all the time.  Nobody is *good* all the time.  Rory arguably comes closest, but even he has a passive-aggressive streak and takes the lowest blow he can think of when pushed to his limit.  Everyone is struggling with major personality flaws.  If there’s an overarching theme to Moffat-era Who, I’d say it’s the idea that flawed people are fundamentally worth it—worth loving, worth defending, and occasionally worth shouting at and telling them to sort themselves before they get someone else hurt.  (And by the way, if you’re wondering what some people find downright inspirational about Moffat-era Who, this theme is one of the most common answers.)

4) It is worth going forward, backwards, and sideways, often with a rewatch or two, to notice things that you missed.  For example, if “Deep Breath” was the first time Clara really clicked for you (which is an opinion I’ve seen in one or two places around the internet), it may be worth going backwards to play personality trait spotter.  In “The Bells of St. John,” Clara told the Doctor to come back tomorrow, despite clearly wanting to go—why did she do that?  Is that the “control freak” thing?  Did she want to make sure that *he* would respect her wishes, or did she want the time to carefully examine her own motives?  (Either would fit with being a control freak, IMO, but they’re different *kinds* of control freak.)   What about the times when she’s been emotionally compromised to the point of tears, and yet made a compelling case for something?  Clara fans will tell you that the seeds have been laid for a long time.  (Abossycontrolfreak is probably the tumblrite to check out for most of your Clara-analysis needs.  Control freak no longer looks like words.)

5) Watch for themes, parallels, and symbolism.  What we are told about one character will often apply to another.  What we are *shown* about one character will often apply to another.  What we are told about inanimate objects will sometimes apply to a character.  For instance, in “The Wedding of River Song,” we are told at the very beginning that trying to move the queen again, in the game of Live Chess, would be lethal.  The next thing we find out is that River Song has taken extreme exception to being “moved.”  The Silence have forced her every which way, and she’s had enough.  However, the Doctor’s solution to the chess game is to throw it, and that becomes the solution to the episode as well.  “Moving” River again would not be victory.  Victory is surrendering the game and focusing on what’s really important.  There are zillions of these parallels, some obvious, some obscure, and some that look at first like outright headcanon—or rather, they would look like headcanon if people didn’t make somewhat decent predictions based on them.  For instance, last series, I predicted that time-related shenanigans might make it necessary to go back to the moment the Doctor fled Gallifrey and make sure all of Whovian history happened the way it happened, and that would be what the fiftieth anniversary special would be all about.  I was, of course, completely wrong—that was how “Name of the Doctor,” ended.  This series, I predict that all the talk of Clara and control will be paralleled somehow in the Doctor’s arc, that there’s some major control-related issue lying in wait for *him.*  Let’s see if I’m right.  (For those of you reblogging this later, I’m writing this the week before “Listen.”)

Anyway, that’s enough long-winded bullet points to make most peoples’ eyes glaze over, so I’ll just leave this here.  Hope it makes someone’s Who-watching more rewarding.


"

When did Doctor Who go off the rails? It probably happened when you turned seventeen or so. Suddenly the world was about dating and drinking and independence, and this magically coincided with the show you loved as a kid descending into nonsense.

Maybe it wasn’t precisely seventeen, but for most Doctor Who fans, there generally comes a point at which the show they love simply stops being the show they love. “Back in my day, it never did that!” we exclaim.

What’s strange is that absolutely every era has provoked this reaction. For some, it happened when Steven Moffat took over, and for others the new series was a write-off from the get-go. For some, the 1996 telemovie ruined the whole thing, and for others it was the Seventh Doctor’s era. One person I know says they fell out of love with it when Patrick Troughton took over. Troughton. The Second Doctor. 1966. The show’s just never recovered since then, apparently.

Consequently, I am firmly of the belief that there is someone out there who thinks Doctor Who is fundamentally a show about two teachers hanging out in a junk yard, and that it all fell apart when they introduced that time travel guff.

“This junk yard sure is great, Barbara.” “Call me a purist, but I preferred the classroom from scene one.”

Forget the ever-changing tone and the subjective perceptions of undulating quality: for a lot of fans, Doctor Who fails when it messes with what’s been established. Steven Moffat has been accused of doing this a lot — of screwing around with the show’s history — but isn’t that what Doctor Who has always done?

The mistake fans so often make is in viewing the Classic Series as a uniform whole. Remember, his is a show that ran for 26 years from 1963 to 1989, had dozens of producers, numerous script writers, and absolutely no series bible. Seriously. There was no document ever produced for writers to refer to. That’s why they featured the origins of the Loch Ness Monster on two separate occasions, and why they explained the destruction of Atlantis no fewer than three times. They simply made it up as they went along, often contradicting much of the stuff that came beforehand.

When we, with the benefit of hindsight and familiarity, homogenise all of that into the “Classic Series”, it implies a consistent overview that the show simply never had.

So if you’re freaking out about Listen, the most recent episode by showrunner Steven Moffat, and think that Moffat has taken an outrageous liberty with the show’s text, take a moment to think about how it must have felt when they suddenly introduced the idea that the Doctor could change his appearance. (It took them two more goes before they called it “regeneration”, and made it a proper thing in 1974.) Or how about when the Second Doctor revealed he was a Time Lord, and was put on trial for stealing the TARDIS? That nugget was revealed at the end of the show’s sixth season. We think of it as something that’s always been — but imagine if Buffy had suddenly revealed at the end of season six that she was from the planet Slayos, or if Lost’s final season had suddenly introduced time travel elements that had nothing to do with what had come befo— oh.

TARDIS surfing is very dangerous, and should not be emulated.

Barely a season of Doctor Who has gone by without the show’s head writer drastically reinventing some major piece of canon. Once you tally up all the liberties the show has taken, the idea of Clara meeting the Doctor as a child on a pre-exploded Gallifrey really isn’t much at all.

And this is the fundamental truth of the show: it is only ever Doctor Who when it evolves. The times in its history when it’s consciously tried to be “classic” are the times when it’s stagnated and failed. Only when it stops trying to be Doctor Who does it truly become Doctor Who. That’s some zen-like shit right there — much like that brief period in the early 1970s, in which many of the plots suddenly had a Buddhist undercurrent. See?

It’s odd that Listen should inspire such discussion about canon (he says, as if someone is forcing him to write about it under threat of a mind probe), because it’s Steven Moffat’s first real standalone work since he took over. As showrunner, he writes the season openers, the season finales, the Christmas specials, the anniversary extravaganzas. It’s like writing for an orchestra all the time, he says, and doing this episode was a chance to flex his writing muscles and write a chamber piece. Something smaller, more self-contained.

Teaching children and adults alike about the importance of buying action figures.

It’s a good instinct given his most notorious insta-classic Blink was the very definition of a standalone chamber piece. Or maybe it’s that both episodes focused on something deeper and more relatable: Blink introduced monsters that can only be defeated when you look at them, and Listen has creatures that are always hiding, listening to you when you think you’re talking only to yourself.

Reducing the threat down to a key sense makes these stories so much more empathetic and terrifying. He’s clearly on to a winning formula, which logically leads me to the following viewing suggestions: Touch, in which the asexual Doctor must overcome his fears and defeat the fearsome Buxomians by repeatedly groping their hindquarters; Taste, in which the Doctor is challenged to tongue-to-tongue combat with the slime monsters of the planet Halitosis 8; and Smelly, in which the Doctor battles farting aliens in… oh, hang on, that was 2005’s World War Three. Okay, forget that last one. Cheque please, Mr Moffat.

“Fear makes companions of us all,” says the First Doctor in the very first story, 1963’s An Unearthly Child – word-for-word what Clara says to the young Doctor in this episode. Maybe Moffat’s being truer to the show’s roots than he’s getting credit for.

"  -

http://junkee.com/doctor-who-recap-a-lesson-in-how-to-upset-the-fanbase/41631

I have nothing further to say.

(via moffatappreciationlife)