i don't wanna be on my phone but i need my phone to figure out where i'm going on a walk and i need my phone to get to my audiobook and i need my phone to call my brother and i need my phone to get in touch with my friends which is fine but i don't want to be on my phone.

so i walk and that's fine and i'm using the phone in an okay-way in that moment. but sometimes i am using the phone like it is a weapon and that's stupid because no it's not. ive seen a weapon those are different this is a phone. but it's also in my hands until 2 AM and i haven't slept. at 4AM. i don't even mean to do it half the time i'm opening the phone to check the weather or to check my email which are things-that-are-okay but then i am in my phone for hours somehow, and i missed the dawn while i was on instagram. i don't even like instagram.

i don't want to be on my phone im not good at it so i try to put distance there but then i'm distancing myself from my friends. we meet up in person but my pictures are on my phone and the menu is on the phone (mon dieu) and so is venmo. so i need the phone to be with my friends and that's fine because it can record concerts and fun activities and i can take pictures of them smiling with pumpkins.

but i don't want to be on the phone because i go to look at the pictures of the pumpkins and i hate how i look in it but it's fine. and somewhere between the pumpkins and 3AM i have lost so much time. i don't even know what i'm doing on it only that i don't enjoy it any longer. it is this long blank void. forever and ever. restless like how mushrooms feel restless beside a dead body.

i don't want to be on my phone so i pick up the phone and i type into google things to do in my area and i save them to my phone and i'll need my phone to get to the tickets and i'll need my phone to book the appointment and i'll need it, i'll need it

Being sexually obsessed with a vtuber is like being horny for Spaventa. Not the guy playing Spaventa. Like, the comedia del arte character itself. The mask has wholly eclipsed the actor.

Thousands of Renaissance Italian theater fans running gooner Twitters for this mfer.

Hold up the actual post just formed.

Like, the commedia del arte cast aren't characters per se, they're commedia. They're more like archetypes. The Spaventa you see in one play may not be the Spaventa you see in another. But, he is always a humorously cowardly braggart. Pantalone and Il Dottore are always wealthy old men, Arleccio is always someones witty troublemaking servant, etc etc.

I feel like a lot of vtubers are like if there was a goonbait commedia. Which is fine, righteous even. Its like doing improv while you flirt with the audience like a bartender. May a thousand high-poly flowers bloom.

But what's fascinating to me is, I think people are horny not just for the sexy vtuber model, but the concept of a sexy vtuber. It's like how people are horny for this nebulous concept of a goth woman, but even further abstracted. Goth women actually exist. The commedia of the goonbait vtuber by nature cannot exist IRL.

People also jerk off to dragons fucking cars and that can't exist either. I think it's whatever. I think all those dudes who make shockingly high resolution overwatch pornography should pivot to late Renaissance Italian street theater pornography. I'll kill everyone in this room.

I will never stop drawing imaginary scenes post-agni kai

while i was trying to wade through the large amounts of people trying to leave the central subway station, everyone abruptly came to a halt in front of the subway turnstiles. two french girls had misunderstood the tap-out process, and one of them was now stuck behind the gate. as i was wracking my brain on how to explain the tap-in tap-out process of the milan metro to both of them with my rudimentary french while they both got increasingly upset at the closed gate between them, a young teenager suddenly pushed me to the side.

i was just about to give him my most scathing disgruntled glare when he took out his ticket and, after realizing they had no common language, started gesticulating wildly in front of the french girl left behind. he pointed at the ticket, then at her, and very seriously said: “on three, we go.” she nodded, and after he counted to three, holding up his fingers so there could be no confusion, they sprinted through the gate together, giggling profusely afterwards as if they had just pulled off the heist of the century,

it was just a small moment during the morning commute. but i realized then and there that the time i had spent trying to intellectualize the problem and wondering if my lack of language skills would be awkward the situation could have already been resolved. and that while i had been mad about being pushed aside, the teenager got it exactly right: no questions, no fear or shyness, just direct action to help where you can and rushing there to do so. i think about him every time now when i run to lift someone’s pram or ask a lost looking person if they need my help despite the fear of being rude. on three, we go.

Why Zuko's scar is not there:

Pages from the Gothic & Lolita Bible Vol 2. (x)

This just in: Multigender people are intentionally being transmisogynistic if they choose not to disclose their assigned gender.

That is. Certainly a take.

(Context of this reply: A discussion on how genderqueer/multigender people who were assigned female don't want to say that they were assigned female because they want to escape accountability for being transmisogynistic and don't want to be seen as TME. And not because, you know, trans people don't owe you knowledge of their agab and it's quite frankly transphobic to demand that)

im gonna reblog this with an unfun fact: 1 divided in thirds is actually 0.333 repeating, on into infinity. a line of not-quite-thirds-of-a-percent getting ever smaller, forever. multiply that endless line by three and you get a different size of endless line: 0.999 repeating.

and unfortunately 0.999 repeating equals 1. it's not close to 1, it is the same thing as 1.

this is because the difference between 0.999... and 1, is a fraction that gets infinitely smaller for as long as you zoom in. they're the same number. the difference between them is infinitely small. you will never be able to reach the final sum of how much smaller the fraction is from the whole integer and therefore it's mathematically not there.

where is that 0...001? it's at the end of infinity. it's nowhere. therefore, it isn't.

Which makes this a great metaphor! Slice up your cake (integer) into several pieces (decimal representations) and just a little bit, an infinitely small crumb, is left stuck to the knife (number system by which we attempt to concretely represent abstract concepts).

ELIA MARTELL And RHAENYS TARGARYEN

Qimir is completely naked in front of Osha and then two hours later he's like here's what my back looks like if you forgot

Oberyn Martell and the eldest three Sand Snakes. Quick sketch on my phone

bloodraven the type of guy to disappear after a bus passes when you see him on the other side of the street

Well modern camera equipment can almost see in the dark so what do you even need lighting for?

i just gotta real quick make sure that youre joking. you are joking, right?

I’m not joking. Do you understand the ISO value system as it relates to film?

im not arguing that you cant film in the dark without special lighting (obviously you can), im saying you shouldnt. im arguing with the second half of your statement. the lighting in the first picture is very purposeful and enhances the horror of the film. they didnt get into the editing room and go “oh darn, we forgot to shine a light on the guy hiding in the shadows!” jaws was made scarier because you could rarely see the shark, so your brain invented the scariest possibility. you can just… see the whole man in the second picture. having a flat shot where the lighting doesnt even draw in the viewers eye to anything (much less obscure something thats supposed to give the movie tension and anticipation) looks fucking boring and adds nothing

thats what we need lighting for

One of these is much more visually appealing than the other

Lighting in film, and especially horror is so *so* important to the tension in the scene, it’s a significant part of visual storytelling, and the cinematographer/DOP (director of photography) should’ve picked up on that.

It’s particularly embarrassing in comparison to the original material, as with digital/modern technology, you can literally see how the shot looks while you’re shooting.

This should’ve also been sorted in comp and fixed well before distribution.

As already pointed out, the lighting values have no depth to them, thus creating a very flat scene (this is one of the first design principles we are taught in design for animation/film- if I had handed in a lighting shot or concept anything like this, I would’ve failed the module).

If you take the shots and put them into greyscale, you can see this a lot clearer.

In the original Halloween shot, we can see a high range of value (how bright or dark something is)- the lighting is brightest on Jamie Lee Curtis, the viewer’s eye is drawn to her first- we can see her emotions clearly and gain sympathy for her character. Then we are drawn into the darkest value, creating dread, and this is fulfilled and heightened with the contrasting (and next highest) value of Michael’s mask.

In the modern shot, all the values are within a similar range (mid-greys), and there is no proper depth in value- making the tension within the shot fall flat (not ideal for horror).

In fact, the highest value in this shot is the fire in the background- which is where the eye is drawn to first. The background. Not the action. So instead of feeling empathy or dread, we are focusing on the wrong details.

And yes, while it could be said from a film analysis POV that the flatness of the shot ‘puts the characters on the same fighting ground/level of power in the shot,’ I’m not going to give them the benefit.

To top it off, the use of colour in the modern shot highlights the errors in lighting. Whilst sharing the blue/orange colour scheme of the original shot, everything is blue except the one area of contrast, the orange fire. So once again, we are drawn to none of the action and instead the background.

With a very small edit in compositing and lighting to match the original Halloween, the feeling (and focus) of the shot is completely changed. The shot has higher contrast and range of values- the focus is on Curtis, while Michael feels more foreboding in the darkness. The contrast puts the characters on opposite sides- good vs evil, telling a narrative in contrast to the unedited shot.

These effects could’ve easily been achieved by adding a key light on Curtis and rim lighting on Michael in production, and if necessary, editing value depth in comp to enhance the raw footage.

TLDR: Digital filmmakers still need to know traditional film and design theory- just because you have good actors, cameras and composition, does not mean you can forgo basic film craft. The aim of cinematography is to enhance the narrative, not restrict it.

ultimately… who cares if cameras can see in the dark? we’re not making movies for cameras.

#as for the other one she is beating aemond and daemon in hell for crashing her car into a lake and using her sword to do it