September182014

Theory Thursday

LUCY FROM DRACULA

LUCY FROM DRACULA?

  • LUCY FROM DRACULA

WHY DIDN’T I CONSIDER THIS. THERE IS PRECEDENT FOR VAMPIRIC ATTACKS TURNING SOMEONE INTO A PARTY GIRL (or the 1890s equivalent thereof).

WHAT IF THERE IS A VAMPIRE BEHIND THE DISAPPEARANCES BUT IT’S NOT CARMILLA. WHAT IF IT’S DRACULA. SOMEHOW.

I DIDN’T THINK THEY WERE MIXING MYTHOSES (is that the correct pluralization) BUT IF THEY ARE THEN THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING.

Danny said “Normally I’m not into this sort of thing” just a little bit too quickly and defensively. Honestly, does anyone in the fandom NOT think the Summer Society is a secret league of monster-hunters at this point?

Also, is it just me, or was her reaction to “seduction eyes” kind of…off somehow? Yes, she’s protective, but look at what got her attention. Not the fact that Carmilla’s allegedly been giving Laura terrifying nightmares that cause her to go without sleep rather than experience them again. The fact that Carmilla seems to be seducing Laura.

If she cares about Laura, why wouldn’t she have been on red-alert from the beginning of the threat to Laura’s life? What suddenly lights a fire under her ass when the minor-by-comparison seduction eyes come up?

If I was going by my crack “Danny is Carmilla’s mom” theory it would make more sense; then she would be angry because Carmilla is definitely not supposed to be seducing Laura. But the only real support I have for that theory right now is that Danny is tall, and the dean is a much likelier candidate for the Countess Karnstein, Sr.

Either way, it makes me like Danny a little bit less (and no, not because I don’t ship her and Laura). It’s just…why does she only start looking for ways to eliminate a threat to Laura when threatened with competition, when Laura’s life has been- allegedly -in danger for some time now?

5PM

barefootdramaturg:

This is the correct face to make when being told you’re a heinous bitch.

(Source: dianekrugers, via addams-beineke)

5PM
platypusinplaid:

These Pottermore stats literally go against every house stereotype ever

platypusinplaid:

These Pottermore stats literally go against every house stereotype ever

(via addams-beineke)

5PM

lindsayloveslife:

My finished banned book display!

(via notafraidofstopping876)

5PM

eemersonm:

It is incredibly ridiculous and hypocritical for OUAT to say "Since we didn’t originally plan for Emma and Regina to be a couple, we aren’t going to even consider making them a couple" and have that be considered justification that we should just accept. Because what they’re basically saying is that to have a queer couple on a show, it HAS to be planned from the beginning, there’s no space for fluidity especially in our characters’ sexualities. It has to be a conscious decision from the beginning that the character is gay, otherwise they are simply defaulted to straight. 

There’s the other aspect of this which is that we will only put two characters together if we planned it from the start which is complete bullshit and any TV writer will back me up on that. But it is also complete bullshit on OUAT itself.

Let’s look at some of the canon romances of late.

  • Example #1: Robin Hood was originally brought on for one episode and probably wasn’t planned to be Regina’s love interest a season later by means of pixie dust. Why? Because if that was true, the casting on the show would’ve found someone with more availability than Tom Ellis. But at some point the writers thought “Oh hey, Robin’s a man. We should hook him up with Regina.” and then re-casted the role to someone who could appear in more episodes.
  • Example #2: Hook’s future was unknown when initially being introduced. It was only due to what O’Donoghue apparently brought to the character *cough* his looks *cough* that he stuck around and was put together with Emma.

Neither of these couples were planned from the beginning. The only difference I see is that where OQ and CS are heterosexual, SQ is not.

image

Tell me again how this is not heteronormative?

Most shows will go willy nilly into unplanned romances, so long as they are heterosexual because 90% of characters created on television have an unspoken default of being straight. It’s something most writers probably don’t even think about. But apparently, if there was unexpected chemistry or potential between two women or men, it has to be ignored or friendzoned because apparently “those characters are not gay” and we didn’t plan that so too bad so sad. And that’s exactly what OUAT is telling us.

PLEASE. If you’re actually satisfied with this answer as a justified excuse for not even considering a romantic plot line for Emma and Regina then I seriously don’t have time for you.

(via swanqueen-is-regal)

5PM
4PM

intensional:

"you can choose your own groups for this project"

image

(via frenchfrysplash)

4PM
persephoneholly:

ten-and-donna:

kissnecks:

THIS OKAY

You want to get kids out of foster care and into good, loving homes? I’ve got a simple solution to your problem.

Did you know LGBT couples are more likely to adopt older, children of color and disable children than straight couples? LGBT couples tend to adopt ‘undesired’ children more (basically kids no one else wants.)

persephoneholly:

ten-and-donna:

kissnecks:

THIS OKAY

You want to get kids out of foster care and into good, loving homes? I’ve got a simple solution to your problem.

Did you know LGBT couples are more likely to adopt older, children of color and disable children than straight couples? LGBT couples tend to adopt ‘undesired’ children more (basically kids no one else wants.)

(Source: beaconpress, via the-hooded-queerent)

4PM
4PM

clinttbarton:

lvegotadarkalley:

i love fall colors and fall drinks and fall activities and fall weather and fall clothes but most of all i love fall out boy

(via inpiscinationstation)

← Older entries Page 1 of 1801