He’s an average adult male who is stronger than most guys, he has a beard and short, dark hair and can’t run for too long. He’s great at climbing up places and fighting and he can kill people easily.
A client sent an (exceptionally) rude Word Doc outlining the ‘psychic’ website she wanted to start, with comments like “I know you’ll have trouble understanding this,” “don’t question me, I know it’s going to work,” and best of all, “I know you have nothing going on in your life - see this as an opportunity to finally do something useful.”
After I sent her my quote…
Client: That was a lot more than I was expecting to pay.
for today’s episode on how fucked up our world is: women have a completely different section for plus sizes with completely different clothes and very small variety, but men have all their sizes in the same section, without classifying it “plus sized”.
i have never thought about this..
Don’t forget that “plus size” women is more common than “average”
what i mean:
It's a film that, essentially suffers from an existential crisis throughout the entire two hours it runs. There's no world building whatsoever, leaving too many unanswered questions the audience in regards to the magic and lore of the land. It's inferred the trolls know everything there is to know about magic, but it does not explain how Elsa recieved her powers in the first place, leaving a pretty big unanswered question. Also, the decision to take a fantasy race usually isolated from magicks as the main sage magicians was an ...interesting choice, and would have worked out a bit better if the world was built up more. The plot is all over the place, with there being no clear antagonist until the final arc of the movie. Is the Duke of Weaselton supposed to be the antagonist? No, and he honestly doesn't even belong in the movie: in what way does this character move forward the plot? He doesn't, so why is he given such emphasis? Is Elsa supposed to be the antagonist? Through the film the audience is constantly being given conflicting views as to whether or not we are supposed to sympathsize with her or hate her, and we're never given our answer until the final arc of the movie, which is, ironically, when the real antagonist show his face: Hans. Since he is introduced as he antagonist in the final arc, it makes Hans' development as a villain feel rushed and unnatural. Such a sudden heel-face turn from charming benevolent prince to cold-blooded killer feels wrong, and considering there was no foreshadowing or dramatic irony leading up the reveal, it comes as a shock to even the most watchful moviegoers. Beyond the shock response, there is no reason for the audience to hate Hans, making him an ineffective villain all in all. The audience only hates him because he betrayed the trust that was willingly given in the first half of the film. Yes, he wants to usurp the throne and kill everyone off, but wouldn't that incentive be more effective if it were presented as such from the beginning of the movie? Give the viewers hints and clues that he is not what he seems, making the reveal of his plan much more suspenseful. Additionally, if it were addressed from the beginning, a large amount of the aimless plotless wandering that plagued most of the first three-quarters of the movie would be practically non-existant. In addition, the shock factor response wears off eventually; the impact of his betrayal means less and less to the audience each time they watch it. Part of the reason of the weakness and confusion in the beginning also stems from the fact that the movie is trying to juggle too many characters. Many named characters are completely unneeded and did not need to steal screentime (and by extension, valuble character development) from the main characters (Anna, Elsa, Kristoff, and I guess Hans). And the lack of character development is bad. Really bad. Anna doesn't feel like a real person, even by Disney standards. Elsa is a bit more believable, but her "development" is rushed and inferred instead of shown to the audience as it should be. Why was there such an emphasis on the parents in the beginning if they were only going to be killed off for plot fuel? And as an audience member, I did not feel any sadness for their death or for how Anna and Elsa were grieving. Having Elsa locked in her room for upmost of ten years was just...weird. There was absolutely nothing that justified it, making the isolation feel like a cheap way out for the writers to transition from childhood to adulthood. And beyond that, Arendelle is shown to be a peaceful kingdom, so it makes no sense that Anna would not be allowed to leave the castle and walk amongst the city. If magic exists in this world, why was Elsa locked away? Why was it a secret? All of these questions stem from weak worldbuilding that justifies very little of the events of the movie. There are so many unanswered questions that rise up from what happens inbetween childhood and adulthood. Is there a puppet monarch? Was magic seen as something negative or unknown? Why the trolls. Why the trolls. I'm sorry I just do not understand the trolls. The romantic subplot again ties into making the trolls feel even more forced and unneeded and the Hans reveal stale, I don't need to go into this. From a technically standpoint, the animation is subpar compared to its contempararies. Rise of the Guardians, a movie made a year before Frozen, had better ice effects. The particle effects and textures were nothing to write home about and the numerous clipping issues are clear evidence that the final product was rushed. The character design is the biggest complaint everyone has heard the most, but, Jesus Christ, oh my god it's bad. There's virtually no variation in character design. The facial structure of all the women are practically identical. Elsa, Anna, their mother, even Rapunzel all look 100% identical. Perhaps that wouldn't be such a problem if their body types were the same as well. There's no power of silouette in the film, something that is absolutely crucial to animated film, making Anna and Elsa blend together not only in the film, but in the industry itself. They do not stand out. They are blank and bland. The music is the only good thing, and that's only considering some songs. "Let it Go" and "First Time in Forever" are strong, powerhouse showtunes that actually move the plot forward, as songs in a musical should, but "Fixer-Upper" and "Love is an Open Door," while good, solid songs, do relatively nothing for the plot can could be omitted without sacrificing anything. "In Summer" is a total joke song that literally fades into nothing--I could not recall the tune if I tried, and "Do You Wanna Build a Snowman?" has a lot of potential but is, esentially, the same chorus repeated with little to no transition three times. It doesn't help that the song is also the most awkward contrived timeskip in the history of awkward contrived timeskips, again because it is never explained why Elsa is locked in her room at all. And the trolls and the--oh god. Please, all artists and writers, do NOT overlook the importance of worldbuilding. Even the dialogue is mediocre and does nothing to immerse the characters into the world around them. The resulting product is nothing but two hours of mediocrity masquerading as the best film of the decade in commercialization and ticket sales, but ultimately does nothing but leave a bad taste in the audience's mouth and will encourage Disney to continue making mediocre movies because they know they will sell and sell well.
what i say:
because it's a bad movie
Anonymous asked: mind if i ask what your sexuality is? Not what sexuality you are, but what your sexuality means
Autochorissexuality is on the asexual spectrum. It means that the object of our sexual desire is deprecate from our physical wants and needs. Meaning we can be aroused as enjoy sexual fantasy or erotic content and even benefit from personal pleasure, but we lack the desire to participate in sexual activities with other people. Autochorissexual people often disassociate themselves from their fantasies and do not imagine themselves within them at all, or if they do then it’s often in third person.
