Deleted lines from The Walking Dead 5x02 - Strangers
In which a passing Walker serenades Caryl
Now THIS is art.
Have I reblogged this before. I don’t care, How absolutely amazing this is.
IT JUST GOT BETTER
Don’t get me started on how important this movie is. I won’t stop.
we need a deadpool marvel movie
Game of Thrones Season Three Commentary: Director Daniel Minahan, s03e02.
It’s wildly OOC, Emma Swan is a complete stranger to me now. Emma’s tough girl style was her thing, and now I just can’t recognize her in that outfit anymore. Everything that made her who she was is quickly being stripped away.
- look at the dress Emma wears in the pilot
- even “tough girls” like frilly dresses at times
- It doesn’t mean she’s being stripped away she’s just as badass as before, only now she’s got a chance of happiness WHILE being happy
- I think anon should look up what “heterosexism” actually means (it doesn’t work if the character in question is straight)
- YOU CAN LIKE PLAID SHIRTS AND LEATHER JACKETS WHILE ALSO LIKING FRILLY DRESSES (I’m one example of that, fyi)
- She’s not being stripped away it’s character development
As I’ve said multiple times, no one is saying Emma can’t be a tough girl and wear dresses. Emma’s tomboy style is something that makes Emma who she is, it’s her thing, something specific to her character. Emma has never dressed like what she is wearing for the date. Emma goes from having a consistent style, to making this huge jump to a girly frilly dress. It’s OOC. Emma can still be tough, but this is something that makes up her character that they have changed. If Emma wore other cutesy frilly things in the past, or started to wear something transitioning to a feminine style, then this wouldn’t be such a huge jump for her character.
It’s called character development and character depth. I strongly disagree that CLOTHES is such a huge thing.
I find it almost sexist to be this upset over a dress.
So first you hail the sudden change in wardrobe as character development and depth, then you dismiss the idea that a character’s clothing is a reflection of their personality? Great contradictory logic there.
The attire of a character very often *is* important. Take Regina, for instance. Before Rumple manipulated her, she wore pale clothes that displayed her innocence and pure heart. Then when she made the decision to become Rumple’s student and eventually the Evil Queen, she wore dark dresses which represented her corruption. As another example, let’s look at Walter White from Breaking Bad. He begins by wearing soft-toned clothes: light greens and khakis. Then as he progresses into a ruthless drug lord, he wears dark clothes, representing his spiral to moral bankruptcy.
I don’t think Emma’s new frilly dress is indicative of character development. Colin O’Donoghue “quipped” that it took a man with leather and a hook to bring out the feminine side in her. This is not true. Emma let in love three occasions before: with Neal, with Graham and with Walsh. In those three instances, she did dress femininely. However, the message we’re now getting is that those instances were not acceptable showcases of Emma’s femininity because she apparently was not dressed in an acceptably feminine way. Apparently, her date with Hook is the only valid instance of her lowering her walls to let in love because her dress is more “girly” by societal standards. I like Colin, but I think is comment drips with sexism.
So to conclude: I do not see Emma’s new dress as character progression, but rather something completely out of character. I can accept it if Snow picked it out for her as a way for her to spend some bonding time with her daughter.
Daryl’s flirt attempt #2
It’s messy I’m sorry.