AIRBENT

tina-warriorprincess:

sorta-out-there:

disneyfrozenprincess:

peterapanzel:

pile-on-the-years:

baku-babe:

jordanpowers1995:

baku-babe:

frozenheadcanons:

Olaf will melt when Elsa dies.

image

image

I’M SORRY, IT WAS A THOUGHT.

Well then *ahem* WHY WOULD YOU THINK SOMETHING LIKE THAT?!!!
 *cries*

Um, I hate to be that person but…imagine Anna singing Do You Want To Build A Snowman at Elsa’s grave. 

first of all how dare you

i’m so done right now

i’d like to apologies before hand for this.

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

i am very sorry.

NO.

Actually, I have an alternate theory about this.

Since’s Elsa powers are controlled by her emotions, I believe that incredibly powerful emotions might cause those powers to transcend death and persist even if Elsa passes, especially if she feels those things near the time of her death itself…almost like a ghost of Elsa that lingers after she’s gone.

For instance, this means that if Hans really had murdered Elsa at the time when she was overcome with grief, believing that she had killed Anna?  The endless winter wouldn’t have simply stopped.  Instead, Elsa’s agony and despair would have raged on even after she was gone, essentially becoming frozen in time by her traumatic death (if not even further magnified by it), leaving Arendelle trapped as an icy barren wasteland for all eternity.  A death curse, in other words, fueled by tragedy and pain.

Alternatively, if Elsa passes away surrounded by love and peace, I believe things like her enchantment upon Olaf — who is himself a physical manifestation of her love and happiness — might also endure beyond her death to become a sort of benevolent spirit that can’t be destroyed.  The last vestiges of her power might, in fact, bind itself to Olaf like a protective talisman.

What’s the use of magic, after all, if it can be so easily undone?

seveneaglestar:

brianwilly:

I’ve been thinking a lot about Sam and that diner scene. Specifically, that “oh hell no” moment where he asks Mercedes’ friends whether their hair is real and reaches out to touch it.

I laughed at it. I thought the whole scene was well-executed, from Sam’s obliviousness to Mercedes’ distress to…

From what I’m reading in the Glee fandom, this went over a lot of people’s head. Some people seems to not have understood the problem with Sam’s behavior in that scene, instead, they saw it as an example of Mercedes not accepting who Sam really is. They saw Sam as the blameless, harmless, innocent victim of people who are racist and a girlfriend that doesn’t accept him.

I can’t really blame them because the writing was so simple in regard to this issue, that it didn’t really show why what Sam did was wrong and Mercedes not really addressing it reinforce their believe that Sam did nothing wrong. 

But I have to say that I kind of do blame those viewers if that’s the reaction they had to the scene.  I mean, I can definitely see people not understanding why Sam was wrong specifically in this specific case if it’s not a problem they’ve ever heard of before, which is absolutely possible, and you’re right that the episode doesn’t elaborate much more on the issue other than having Mercedes’ friends be irritated at Sam.  But it’s the responsibility of the individual to be able to recognize racist actions whether a TV show blatantly spells it out for them in cliff’s notes or not, and the fact that they might go as far as to interpret Sam as the white victim of…black…racism?…says more about them than it does about Glee.  I mean the episode wasn’t clear about that stuff but you had to have had some iffy personal preconceptions to come away with that.

And like, even that’s kind of besides the point because, well, on some level Glee can even be as problematic or outright bigoted about an issue as it can possibly be (and I’m not saying it went anywhere as far as that in this instance, just laying out a hypothetical) and if the viewers we’re referring to actually agree with that bigoted depiction, well, they still have to take responsibility for that.  We fans are not mindless drones whose only interaction with the world and its issues revolve around what a 1-hour TV episode shows us once a week.  Or at least, we shouldn’t be.  We can’t be.

So at the end of the day, I can only judge Glee on what Glee does and not how its fans watch Glee.  Because I’m sure all of us here have seen a lot of viewers give some super iffy reactions to Glee’s treatment of its issues, whether Glee depicts those things a little right or a little wrong or even a lot right or a lot wrong.  Glee’s audience is simply too diverse to use as that standard.

:D

image

thegourmez replied to your post: I’ve been thinking a lot about Sam and…

To add to your internal debate, there were likely people who saw that scene and wondered why it was supposed to be rude, as in what had Sam done wrong at all? And maybe those people learned a little something. Or maybe it just went over their heads.

Oh yeah, I’m certain there were viewers with both sorts of reactions all across the board.

The problem I’m mulling over is whether, by making the scene a mostly “funny” moment, Glee might instead give the impression to those types of viewers that “Hmm, well, they are joking about it, so even if it’s bad I suppose it can’t be that bad, right?” and maybe not getting that, no no, this is super bad, it’s just that Glee made a joke of it anyway, as Glee does.  I’m sure the majority of people who actually watch Glee are able to put two and two together…but maybe, in instances like this, Glee doesn’t exactly make it easy for them to do so.

But then again, I tend to fall on the side of the fence that believes that, unless Glee is overtly espousing something wrong and problematic — and there have been instances of this — then it’s not fair or logical to hold it responsible for the way that people choose to watch it, because that tends to say more about them than it does about Glee.  At the end of the day, something that depicts problematic behavior is not inherently problematic, and it was clear in this case that Sam was the butt of the joke here, not the other way around.

I’ve been thinking a lot about Sam and that diner scene.  Specifically, that “oh hell no” moment where he asks Mercedes’ friends whether their hair is real and reaches out to touch it.

I laughed at it.  I thought the whole scene was well-executed, from Sam’s obliviousness to Mercedes’ distress to her friends’ increasing mixture of disbelief and indignation.  It was super obvious what they were going for, making it really clear that Sam was being an unintentionally but completely offensive buffoon who was bringing shame to his country and dishonor to his household…and so forth.  Glee has done this before, and Glee isn’t even nearly the first ones who have ever pulled off this sort of moment.

But…

well, it’s still…………..pretty terrible, right?  It’s super terrible.  Not necessarily that “this scene was terrible,” but the fact that what Sam does is a thing that routinely happens to a lot of black people everywhere?  Is a terrible, ongoing problem that they have to deal with.

And there’s this part of me that wonders, even as I enjoy this scene on a completely superficial level, if it becomes a matter of “This is such a terrible thing that it’s a little wrong to make it into a joke, even if the problematic element itself is the punchline.” So it’s not necessarily that this scene depicted anything wrongly at all, it’s that this sort of thing — in and of itself — may possibly be, well, too offensive to be depicted as a humorous scene in the first place.  At least, not in the way that they did it.  Like, that it might cross the line of things that we are allowed to laugh at.

And that line does exist, no matter how hard it might be to see sometimes.

I laughed at this moment.  But I wonder if I would laugh if Sam had asked Kurt and Blaine, completely innocuously, which of them was the girl in their relationship.  Or if he had asked Mike and Tina if they had been vaccinated for the bird flu, just to make a funny awkward moment with them.  Heck, Glee has actually made cracks about that latter thing, twice, and neither time was I particularly amused.

I dunno.  It always seems to come down to the question of whether Glee needs to be more overt about its stances, and about vilifying the things that it needs to vilify — and sometimes it is really blatant about it — and I always go back and forth about just how much subtlety they are allowed to have with these things.  Either way, Glee does make it its business to cartwheel on the edge of controversial things, and that, I do know, is something I wouldn’t change for the world.

It’s a dirty job, but someone’s gotta do it.

Okay.  Alright, here’s my thing about it.  Here it is, no holds barred.

Carmen Tibideaux’s instruction is awful.  She gives terrible advice and is a completely unhelpful music teacher.  My friends and I who have majored in music often watch the NYADA scenes from behind our fingers because so much of what she and the other teachers say are the opposites of what you should actually do, and our worst nightmares are that people might watch Glee and think that this is remotely what an actual musical education is like.  On a grand aggregate, I would even go as far as to say that Will Schuester teaches music and performance better than Carmen does.  That’s how bad she is at doing her job.

Let’s start from the top:

Read More

I think the line that actually stuck with me most from this episode was when Burt demanded if Kurt thought the other kid wasn’t brave or strong just because he ran.

There’s no such thing as a correct response to being assaulted.  There’s no right or wrong way to be the victim of violence.  There is absolutely no onus on anyone for any kind of action they make in that kind of situation.  And if your first instinct is to take care of yourself first and foremost then you sure as hell do that and make no apologies for it.

I’ve always hated the idea that some people had — god, ages ago at this point — that Blaine ran from his problems because he went to Dalton.  I’ve never liked the idea that Kurt switching schools to escape his stalker was somehow less ideal in peoples’ eyes than him just sticking it out at McKinley and…I dunno, fighting back or something.  That doesn’t make them passive; it doesn’t make them anything, frankly.  There’s no right answer here.  Saying “they should’ve done this instead” or “they should’ve done that” is a form of victim-blaming, for something that is not their responsibility to shoulder.

Likewise, Kurt might feel powerful and proud of himself for doing what he did tonight but there is utterly no obligation on anyone’s part to have to be “powerful” and “proud” like that.  It’s important for Kurt to do what he needs to do to be able to hold his head up in the morning, but it’s equally important to understand that not being some sort of unbreakable hero would not make him any less of what he is.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

image

Marvel does it again.

Read More

jazzypizzaz:

One thing that keeps nagging me is how many times Brittany mentions lesbians

or well, I guess just twice
~  lilies are the lesbian of flowers
~  she wants Santana to run away with her to the lesbian paradise of Lesbos

but both examples are huge— millions of flowers covering the choir room!  one way ticket to an island of only lesbians!

and like Brittany was who helped Santana realize she’s a lesbian and that’s a big part of her identity

but I just keep thinking of Santana’s biphobic comments to Dani, her reaction to Sam who previously she seemed to be on good terms with, and I just wonder… how much has Brittany heard/inferred about Santana’s reaction to Britt loving guys as well as girls?

it seems like a concerted part of Britt’s plan to win Santana back— mentioning lesbians enough to reassure Santana’s insecurity and promising she wouldn’t leave her for a guy

Yeah, ngl, the very first thing I thought about Brittany’s speeches that episode was that she was way overcompensating.  If I were Brittany and trying to get Santana back, and I’ve gotten the impression that Santana was pro-lesbians but biphobic, I too might try to drop in as many casual/non-casual lines about loving women as I could get away with…and then some…and not make a single peep about any other preferences whatsoever.

And, hey, it totally worked.  Brittany did say she was an expert in SantanaLopezology, and evidently she might have meant it in more ways than one.

acciomedium-drip replied to your post:

my first reaction was like uh Quinn what WHAT? And I kinda haven’t gotten past that stage yet

batkonehat replied to your post
Egg donor doesn’t have to be the actual surrogate if that helps any.

Read More

"And I’m pretty sure that you don’t know the names of the other half of the people."

"That’s not true."

This moment was so right and also so very wrong.

Obviously Rachel wouldn’t know Ryder’s name.  Who is he to her?  He’s just a student at her old high school.  So many things in this episode illustrated the painful and patronizing divide between the old glee club and the new glee club and this was one of the starkest indications of it.

But then let’s flip that around: why should anyone expect Rachel to know Ryder’s name?  He’s just a student at her old high school!  More to the point, why should she feel bad about not knowing his name?  They’re two people living in different states with different circles of friends.  Should Ryder be ashamed of not knowing who Elliot or Dani are?

Well okay, of all the old glee members, Rachel’s the one who probably bonded the least with the new glee club.  That’s probably a fair point.  And…so what?  That’s not her job.  Just because nearly every other graduate had the luxury of dropping everything in their lives to “mentor” high school students doesn’t mean she had to.

This was kind of a funny character moment.  And that’s really all it was.

Since you talked about Blam during the podcast, how did you react to the blina crush storyline and what was the main message you took away from that storyline. I enjoyed the storyline overall, I just did not like the vapo scene and the fact that Tina kind of forced Blaine to apologize when he did not need to.
Anonymous

:D Hi anon, sorry this took forever, but obviously what should’ve been a simple response got way more complicated than it probably should’ve (which is pretty standard for me).

Anyway, I would say that I basically agree with you.

I love Tina, and I’ve actually enjoyed her fiery, passionate, no-filters attitude that’s been a surprisingly consistent and relatable character development throughout these seasons.  I even kind of enjoy her being the resident Jerry Gergich who gets jokingly (if unfairly) scapegoated by her friends and peers (“Tina always does this!”).  I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: of all the characters on Glee, I’m personally more like Tina in personality and history than I am like any other character, even the gay, male characters. (I never did have an assistant, though.)

It’s clear what they were trying to accomplish with the Blina crush…after all, RyMurphs as much as said it himself at one point: it was about her being lonely and feeling under-appreciated and wanting something to fill that space.  I like that they had an idea of where they wanted to take the character.  And I didn’t even mind that she would crush on Blaine because, wow hey look, yet another reason why Tina is totally me!  And though I shipped Tike with the heat of a million burning priceless California redwoods, from an in-story, in-narrative perspective I thought Tina crushing on Blaine (while he was crushing on Sam) was bound for really fascinating shenanigans.  I don’t think we would even have the current status of Blamtina without the antics that went on during that time.

But…buuUUuuUUUT…

Read More

I'm not against Santana, neither I think that she had intention to sabotage Rachel, we can see by her face in the end of the episode that it wasn't her purpose, and that now, she really cares about Kurt and Rachel, but Santana has a reputation to boycott people. Joining ND following Sue's orders and giving information like set lists, giving mono to Quinn and Finn, "It's not unusual" piano on fire, forcing Karofsky to bea eachoters beard, or outing him and also Brody
Anonymous

"Boycott" is an interesting way to put it, but I think I agree with you if you’re saying what I believe you’re saying!  Santana loves to start shit, partially to make herself feel better when other people get theirs.  A part of her will probably always love it.

My point though, was that, well…most of those things?  Happened ages ago.  Some of them literally from season 1; it’s ancient history.  So for us to say, for instance, “Oh yeah I can see Santana doing this, ‘cause of that mean thing she did however many years ago,” we risk falling into the same trap Rachel did in this episode, where we act like it’s foregone conclusion that Santana is still that person.  But it isn’t; on the contrary, treating her off the bat as if she’s still that person creates a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy where she’ll regress to those tactics just to deal with that judgmentality.  Who knows what would have happened if we gave her the benefit of the doubt instead?

Characters like Puck fall into the same trap sometimes where others just assume right from the outset that he’s going to be an asshole and so his internal dialogue goes “Fine, you think I’m bad, I’ll show you just how right you are” despite the fact that he’s entirely capable of being better.

And, again, it’s a similar situation for Rachel.  Santana kept her audition a secret from Rachel under the premise that Rachel is still the same old Rachel that can’t handle competition.  And what if she had discussed it with Rachel beforehand, could it have prevented or at least lessened the subsequent blowout?  We’ll never know, because she simply assumed Rachel would behave as she did and then gets to say “See, I knew you would behave this way” when Rachel does so.

And, well, this sort of thing is always a danger when you have the loaded history that they do, but the tragedy is that I think they both deserved the benefit of the doubt from each other instead :D

I don’t think for a minute that Santana originally went for the understudy part to sabotage Rachel or as some sort of intentional scheme to tick Rachel off. It’s easy to meta that, but I think the episode makes it clear that Santana was really beginning to struggle and genuinely needed something to bolster her spirits.

So that’s something we the audience are aware of.  The question then is whether it’s reasonable to say Rachel should have known it.  And I’d say the answer is…maybe?  Probably?  Santana may have a history of fucking with people, but I don’t recall her scheming to swindle anyone out of any songs or solos or roles.  She wants songs and solos and roles, sure, but being ornery about them isn’t really her M.O., probably because she usually gets the ones she wants anyway.

Moreover, when was the last time Santana came up with any sort of vindictive schemey scheme, period?  That thing against Brody, probably.  Otherwise…she’s not really that person anymore.  She’s certainly not that kind of person to Kurt or Rachel.

Which isn’t to say that it ain’t easy as pie for her to regress.  The episode, after all, is all about baggage, loaded with baggage, sending baggage every which way, and the thing about baggage is that it comes back to bite you.  Rachel’s in a similar circumstance here; of course she’s not the exact same Rachel Santana accuses her of being.  She’s obviously learned to coexist with friends by now, she’s obviously not the same powder keg as she used to be, but when you throw the “Old Rachel” jibes at her, it just exacerbates that regression.

It’s sort of like “If you treat people like mean people, they’ll probably end up being mean to you,” but in this case it’s more a case of Rachel and Santana accusing one another of being the exact same people they used to be long ago and, lo and behold, that sort of interaction time-warps both of them to the same kids from years ago.

This is something that’s been growing on my mind ever since the podcast and I’ve been struggling with how to say it or even what exactly to say about it.  A lot of this might sound defensive or even reproachful, though I really hope it doesn’t, because it’s 150% not about being defensive or reproachful and just laying out things that I wish I had been remotely eloquent enough to express at the time.

I feel like we were rather critical about Mike Chang’s storyline in Asian F.  At the time I even actually felt myself being swayed by that criticism just because it all felt so valid.  And, again, I really don’t want to sound like I’m rebuking anything anyone said about it during the podcast, moreover it’s entirely possible that I’m simply not truly understanding peoples’ concerns about it, and I apologize if I misrepresent them in my attempt to lay all this out.

Because the truth is that I find myself rather incredibly protective of Mike Chang’s storyline that began in Asian F.  Taken entirely on its own narrative merits, I feel like Mike’s struggles with his parents was a very genuine, rewarding arc that was absolutely not phoned-in in any way by the writers.  And as I mentioned, something similar to Mike’s situation happened to myself.  But far moreso than that, I feel like this is a very important storyline to tell regardless of how many “stereotypical” buttons it hits.

Because if this is stereotypical, where are all the other shows doing this?  Where’s all that other media depicting Asian families with all their earnest, uncomfortable complications?  Where are all the other stories of shy Chinese-American boys and girls breaking away from familial expectations to pursue the arts?  We call these things clichéd depictions of quote-unquote #Asianproblems and yet we never see them.  They are invisible, unrepresented.  If Glee is doing this wrong then who is doing it right?

Once upon a very hella long time ago, I compared Mike Chang to Kurt Hummel in the sense that the same judgmental, societal forces that compelled Kurt to hide who he really was were similar forces to those that made Mike afraid to dance outside his own room.  And if Kurt Hummel is a story that deserves to be told then I think Mike is as well, with all its racial and social cliches in all their politically-incorrect glory.  I think we take for granted that boys who look like Mike Chang don’t need to see him standing up to his father or finding common ground with his mother like he does…but they do.

In that light, I honestly don’t think there was anything wrong with the depiction of Mike or the Changs in that storyline.  Or…actually, let me rephrase: I don’t think there would be anything wrong with that storyline if it existed in a vacuum, if it weren’t the first and only storyline Mike ever really had on the show…as in, Asian F wouldn’t be objectionable at all if placing 1/2 of the token Asians into a Kinda Asian Situation wasn’t the only substantial thing Glee ever did with that Asian.

It hearkens back to the infamous Gangnam Style Dilemma.  Query: If Glee gives the Korean pop song to their one Korean-American actress, are they being racist?  But if Glee didn’t give the Korean pop song to their one Korean-American actress, wouldn’t that actually make them racist?  Which one is actually them doing it wrong?  Answer: Neither, because that’s the wrong query.  The real query is why their one Korean-American actress hasn’t had more songs before they wanted to do this one Korean song, because this wouldn’t be an issue at all if she did.  That’s what made it questionable.

Likewise with Asian F.  An earnest, satisfying storyline where a character’s race matters becomes stereotyping that character when he doesn’t really exist outside of that storyline.  But, at least to me, the influential importance of that earnest, satisfying storyline kind of overshadows the typecasty nature of it.

~peace and all dat shite~

wowbright:

At some point it would be really great if someone put a ginormous gifset together of every homophobic incident on Glee and we had a discussion on why we forgive some characters for what they’ve said and done, and why we don’t forgive others.

So there are two ways to take Puck’s remark; one gives him the benefit of the doubt, and the other doesn’t.

In the former case he means “Even you, Blaine” as in “I had some preconceived notions about you and believed that you were somehow less ‘manly’ because you are gay, but it appears that I was wrong about that.  Sorry, buddy.”

In the latter case he means “Even you, Blaine” as in “I totally didn’t expect you of all people to overcome your unfortunate sexuality handicap to be as much of a ‘man’ as these guys here, but by some miracle you’ve somehow managed to do just that.  Good job, buddy!”

And I think either interpretation is valid for the purposes of the scene, which explains Blaine’s own uncertain response.

For the purposes of analysis, though…I mean…Puck strikes me as the sort of guy who, through no evident malice, still has no idea what a gay person actually is even after all this time.  To him, not only does “gay” still mean “girly,” it’s also something that makes gay people very different from straight people.  It’s not that he has any problem with any of that, it’s just a matter of these concepts being internalized for him.  So if I were forced to pick, unfortunately I’d assume he intended the latter, more offensive meaning of “Even you, Blaine.”

I think it’s just easier to “forgive” because, again, that internalization really is born simply out of ignorance instead of malice at this point of Puck’s characterization, and it’s easy to imagine that once he actually meets more gay people in his life or once someone explains why this is offensive to him, he would actually understand and change his outlook.  On a good day, natch.

(Apropos of nothing, Puck is also internalizing the concept of ‘manly’ as a synonym for fortitude and strength of character, which is problematic for a litany of other reasons.  I suppose the homophobia of this exchange is also easier to overlook when the misogyny is so much more blatant.)