Untitled

Nov 17

This blog is the inactive blog of pitchercries

spynovel:

If I’ve liked something you posted or followed you, you can check out my actual blog at pitchercries.


This blog is the inactive blog of pitchercries

If I’ve liked something you posted or followed you, you can check out my actual blog at pitchercries.


Nov 11

phenex1331:

20 places that don’t look real (part 2)

11.Mount Roraima-South america

12.Naico mine-Mexico

13.Red beach-China

14.Solar du Uyuni-Bolivia

15.Tainzi mountians-China

16.Tulip fields-Netherlands

17.Tunnel of love-Ukraine

18.Wisteria flower tunnel-Japan

19.Zhangye Danxia landform-China

20.Zhangya Danxia Landfrom 2-China

(via starlady38)


Oct 9

Oct 8

Jossed, as those of us in Buffy Fandom of Olden Times Used it

dudski:

regala-electra:

To be Jossed by something does not mean Whedon did a thing and it excited/shocked you.

I don’t even think the latter meaning of “a shocking death” should be associated with it.

When Buffy fans spoke about being jossed it meant supposed canonical elements in a fic were deemed invalid based on new canon and fans were like, fuck, now our fics got jossed!

Spike’s backstory ep Fool For Love is great example of fans being jossed. In S2, all we know is that Spike’s human nickname was “William the Bloody” with an implication that he was even violent when he was mortal. In Fool For Love, we get a nerdy William who was a Bloody Awful Poet.

That’s being jossed. 

Know your fannish history.

WHAT IS WITH INTERNET CHILDREN TRYING TO REDEFINE THINGS???????? JOSSED MEANS HAVING CANON OVERRULE YOUR HEADCANON/FIC/WHATEVER, SHIPPING IS ROMANTIC, AND IN MY DAY, “BROTP” MEANT WANTING BARNEY AND ROBIN TO BANG. WE HAD TO FANDOM UPHILL BOTH WAYS IN THE SNOW! PICTURES OFTEN DIDN’T GET ANY BIGGER THAN THIS AND WE JUST LIVED WITH IT BECAUSE WE DIDN’T KNOW IT COULD GET ANY BETTER! FANVIDS HAD TO BE DOWNLOADED IN WMV OR REALPLAYER FORMAT! YOUTUBE DIDN’T EXIST UNTIL 2005!

[But also downloading things illegally was practically a utopian experience. Gather round, children, and let me tell you about the mythical paradise of Megaupload, and its beautiful but fickle neighbor, ihearttvshows. HOWEVER, before that, I was downloading episodes of Roswell as five separate RealPlayer files because the only person on the entire internet who knew how to upload them presumably didn’t know how to join them back up after cutting out commercial breaks.]

Also is this about SHIELD, it’s probably about SHIELD, don’t watch SHIELD, what is wrong with you.

REMEMBER WHEN FIC WAS MEASURED IN KILOBITES?

(via isagrimorie)


Apr 5

SOBBING

(via daughter-of-balin)


Mar 20

apaintedmaypole:

heidi8:

astolat:

andthenisay:

i’d just like to take this brief time to remind everyone who asserts that the internet is full of leeches who pirate and steal hollywood’s “property” and don’t think that there needs to be a new business model for the way hollywood funds and markets film that a relatively small fandom of a relatively small show is about to raise 2 million dollars in 24 hours just because a cast they used to love asked for their help.

so much this

It marks a sea change in the interaction between creators (who are, re TV and film (and music) usually not the copyright-holders, or who have licensed away their ability to use the works they have created) and fans. 

I’ve seen some concern about WB’s role in this, and various industry websites say that WB is handling distribution & things related to that (the way 20th Century Fox did for Lucasfilm, or Disney did for PIXAR initially) as well as legal clearance issues (via their legal department). No, it’s not an “indie” in the way we traditionally think of them, but many indies get picked up by studios at film festivals & events and distributed by majors; for this film, since WB owns the IP per whatever agreements they have from 2003/2004 with Rob Thomas, that structure was put into place ahead of time. 

Fascinating discussion of the studio process, as well as the “ethics of using Kickstarter for something distributed by a major company” went on last night between Leverage’s John Rogers and AtlanticWire’s Richard Lawson (among others) who wrote something that I thought was frankly ridiculous yesterday (no, kickstarter is not for charities and nobody is saying the VM film is one; most backers are pre-buying a product they will receive and a few people are buying a chance to be in a film, which is their choice to do with their money). 

The idea that those who back at the DVD level are being double-charged for the product is, imnsho, incorrect as cartoonist Gordon McAlmin discussed - and he also reminded me that “It’s worth noting here that Kickstarter prohibits financial rewards including ownership and financial returns.” As someone who saw Avengers twelve times in theaters, and paid for it ten times (two were sneak previews) was I deca-charged? If I was, was I totally okay with that? Or did I pay for something ten times, that I received ten times?

For those who think that the VM kickstarter is a bad use of their money, or who aren’t interested, that’s their call. Nothing wrong/problematic with coming to that decision. But acting (as mansplainer Richard Lawson did)  like your view is the only correct or appropriate one by saying things like, “My gut still finds all the upfront money talk to be a bit unrefined, let’s say. Art should exist for art’s sake…” will cause a lot of people in the entertainment industry, and in the fandom for any show, film, book, comic, music or sports team, to laugh at you. 

The irony of this is, the VM Kickstarter was announced a few hours before we learned there would be a new Pope, and was fully funded just after his first prayers in Rome. Remember the days when the Pope and the church and the aristocracy were the primary Patrons of Art, and the riff-raff’s theatricalities were at risk of shut-downs by The Powers That Be because of Indecency and such? 

Now, we all know, anyone can create art, and because of the internet and the democratization of funding, anyone can support art - whether it’s on ETSY or via a Kickstarter to bring a much-fanned-about story to the movies. 

Isn’t that awesome? 

ETA: A few days ago, there was a piece in Reuters that basically said, when people start donating, they tend to give more going forward - it starts with a discussion of the 700K+ in donations to the bullied bus monitor last year. A section of the piece: 

It is more fun, and much easier, to make one person happy than it is “to work together to change the underlying context”. And yes, that’s one of the reasons why we do such things. There’s nothing inherently bad about fun-and-easy, but Stevenson seems to think that there is. The hidden syllogism would seem to be that the $700,000 that went to Karen Klein is money that would otherwise have gone to change the underlying context, and that therefore there’s something corrosive about the donations to Klein, because the alternative, while not as fun and not as easy, was in some sense superior.

But this is silly. At the margin, the Karen Klein campaign, along with all the publicity surrounding it, surely helped, rather than hindered, those people working to change the underlying context. And once someone has given $20 to Karen Klein, they will be more rather than less receptive to people asking for help on broader campaigns.

Hmm… gotta say, I’m really uncomfortable with the claim that this Kickstarter campaign represents some sea change and a new, more egalitarian, “democratization of funding.” I think this claim is overlooking issues of access and income. (By access here I mean many things: access to the Internet, to Kickstarter, access in the sense of being recognized and courted by media industries/producers, etc.) If this is a “democratization” it’s one in which votes are limited and based on cash.

I’m uncomfortable with the idea that we might claim, based on one Kickstarter campaign, that now we somehow have proof that “anyone can create art.” I don’t see this as proof that anyone can create art, I see it as proof that commercial media producers are testing new investment strategies for their products. 

I think there are additional pieces to this scenario that we also need to think about: Sure, we can all make art. But who has the ability to produce and distribute art on a vast scale? Who has access to media channels to market their products? What art has the ability to enter the public and circulate broadly? 

As media industries increasingly adopt strategies to engage with fan cultures and utilize fan social networks to promote their products, I think we all have to be very careful of assuming that fan endorsement and engagement always leads to something more democratic, egalitarian, diverse, queer, etc.  

Don’t get me wrong. Like I said on DW: Yay, Veronica Mars movie! I’m a big fan of Kickstarter projects too. Just… I’d like us all take a deep breath before this is hailed as some sort of revolutionary move.

Yes! Also I don’t understand the analysis where the VM campaign is not charging people twice for the same product. Without getting into the people who put at 35$+ and who will get a digital download (which is not the same as say, having a free movie ticket when the movie comes out, or a reduced movie ticket so you’re only paying the movie theater/distributor but not the creator who you ALREADY PAID by donating to the creation process of the film) and the question of WHEN they will get the digital download since if it’s after the opening weekend (as the kickstarter pages allows) it’s obvious that any devoted fan, especially one devoted enough to donate money, will want to see the movie as soon as it comes out so it essentially guarantees people will buy movie tickets on top of donating even if otherwise they would have been happy to see the movie digitally - and again those first few days are crucial for WB’s bottom line.

But without getting into any of that - donating less than 35$ doesn’t get you a digital download, so essentially you’re paying for a movie to be made that you will then have to pay once again to actually see. not have the OPTION of paying again - as you do with say, Avengers, which you didn’t personally help finance - but will HAVE TO, despite your earlier financial contribution.

And I’m not saying that Rob Thomas should have taken out personal loans or used his own money to make this movie (as most indie filmmakers have done for decades and still do today because they DON’T have a built in audience and big studios will not produce their scripts), I’m not even saying he should have tried, IDK, making a profit from the people who DIDN’T already finance the movie + from merchandise and DVD sales, which would have been and will be substantial, the way Whedon did with Dr. Horrible.

I’m just saying I’m happy the VM movie is getting made, I absolutely think donating to it was a personal choice that is totally valid either way (I chose not to contribute because I don’t like Rob Thomas and don’t trust him to make a movie I’d actually enjoy - may I be proven wrong! - not because I think the method here is shady) but there is no denying, I think, that there’s something problematic or worrying about this where the WB basically got a movie they will profit from financed entirely by fans. And there’s absolutely something cool and exciting and awesome about this happening but there’s also the fact that fans are NOT getting a product in return for their donation - they’re getting a product they’ll have to pay for when it’s made. Which is not how it works in any way, shape or form when people ask for starting capital, especially since there WILL be a profit made from this product, from these same fans when the movie is out and that profit will go to Rob Thomas and WB. That shit is something that needs to be mentioned when people talk about the amazing paradigm shift/breakthrough/etc etc of this project.


Jun 5
This show is its own fanfic at this point but…. I can’t argue with those images.

This show is its own fanfic at this point but…. I can’t argue with those images.

(via poisononsunday)



Dec 29

gingerhaze:

“YOU HAVE A WINDOW”


Feb 19

Feb 10

Names

Coralee, Kier, Ashley (m) (surname?), Suok, Suiko, Anita


Feb 9


Page 1 of 3