after a crappy episode of Glee: always a good time to bring this back…
after a crappy episode of Glee: always a good time to bring this back…
Fuck this “it is not sexual, but it’s beyond sexual”. You think we’re beyond showing actual gay sexual tension? No, we’re fucking not. We never had that in the first place, how could we be beyond that now?
I’m done with shipping, I’m sick of…
Also there are definitely ways to show “pure intimacy in a non-physical way” without intentionally adding a bunch of homoerotic subtext as he let his team do in “exploring the intimacy of these two men in an unexpected way without sexualizing them, but including a perception of sexuality that the cinema is actually portraying to the audience more than the characters are.” Like what? He’s making it clear that “no homo,” because Will and Hannibal are “beyond sexual,” and that they are at their “primal male bonding place” but intentionally adding homoerotic elements where he himself said there should not be, just to…what? What does he expect the audience to see?
"Oh there’s no sexual tension between these two at all. They’re just two hetero men at their ‘primal male bonding place.’ The chemistry and attraction that Fuller himself said is evident between them two? Oh it’s completely heterosexual. This is what non-physical intimacy looks like between them, duh. The blatant homoeroticism is just a ‘perception of sexuality.’"
Reblogging because the sadness and disappointment I’m seeing all over the fandom today is real, and there are things that need to be said and heard, whether I necessarily agree with all points or not. *hugs fandom*
It’s always sad when your cynicism is proven correct.
…about that beautiful thing they wrote or filmed or painted that you absolutely love, and then they start SAYING THINGS about it and you just want to gently put your hand over their mouth and whisper "Shhhh. You’re fucking ruining it."
A WORD ON THE “IT’S TOTALLY NO-HOMO” BETWEEN WILL AND HANNIBAL THAT HIT TUMBLR TODAY
We discuss this quite a lot in publishing circles, so I’m only going to say this once, and I’m putting on my Author hat (yes, it really does sparkle) to say it. God knows it’s been said enough to writers.
Once the story leaves your hands, you don’t get to decide how readers - or in this case viewers - interpret it. Whatever they take away from it will have a valid measure of truth no matter what you “really” intended.
So even though I love Bryan Fuller’s work, I’m not going to accept his interview statement that the relationship between Will and Hannibal isn’t sexual, because if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, I reserve the prerogative not to agree that it’s really a wombat.
That is all. XD
Bryan Fuller Breaks Down The Homoerotic Charge of “Hannibal”
TheBacklot: I’ve said to you before that I sometimes expect Hannibal and Will to just start kissing. The scenes are often so intimate. Can you talk about the homoeroticism between these two characters that are not gay?
Bryan Fuller: I’m not sure about Hannibal. I think Hannibal is a very broadly spectrumed human being/fallen angel, who probably is capable and interested in everything humanity has to offer. Whereas Will Graham is very definitely heterosexual, but that does not necessarily prevent us from a homoerotic subtext. It’s practically text in a couple of episodes just because we really want to explore the intimacy of these two men in an unexpected way without sexualizing them, but including a perception of sexuality that the cinema is actually portraying to the audience more than the characters are.
Yeah, I think this is Bryan Fuller trying to have it both ways, consciously or not.
Because emotional intimacy is one thing, but crossing over into intense physical intimacy like this, then throwing your hands up and insisting it is “absolutely not” sexual is disingenuous to say the least.
Sigh. Yet another showrunner doing the infamous queer baiting knife-edge dance.
GLEE: Kurt (Chris Colfer) nabs the lead role in a retirement home production of “Peter Pan” in the “Old Dog New Tricks” episode of GLEE airing Tuesday, May 6 (8:00-9:00 PM ET/PT) on FOX. ©2014 Fox Broadcasting Co. CR: Tyler Golden/FOX [UHQ]
The physical, social and mental health effects of being bullied as a child are still evident 40 years later, according to a new study out of London.
The new findings from the British National Child Development Study come from more than 7,700 children whose parents provided information about their exposure to bullying at age 7 and 11. Researchers followed up with the children-turned-adults until they were 50 and found the harmful effects of bullying never totally went away.
In childhood, 28 percent of children in the study had been bullied occasionally, and 15 percent bullied frequently — rates similar to those seen in the U.K. today. Compared to peers who had not been bullied, those who’d been bullied in childhood were more likely to have poor physical and psychological health, lower educational levels, higher levels of unemployment, and less general satisfaction with life. They often lacked a social support system. Those who’d been bullied frequently had increased risk of depression, anxiety disorders, and suicidal thoughts.
“We need to move away from any perception that bullying is just an inevitable part of growing up,” said senior author Louise Arsenault, a professor at the Institute of Psychiatry, in a press release. “Teachers, parents, and policy-makers should be aware that what happens in the school playground can have long-term repercussions for children. Programs to stop bullying are extremely important, but we also need to focus our efforts on early intervention to prevent potential problems persisting into adolescence and adulthood.”
While the study didn’t specifically look at the experiences of LGBT youth, we can pretty confidently say the results will hold true for them, especially considering the higher marginalization and stigmatization LGBT folks will have to put up with in society even after they’re out of school. Alright, everyone. Time to step up and put an end to this.
Why… is that a smile Mr. Graham?
"The show’s pre-Red Dragon setting is crucial, as it provides the series with its chief asset: FBI profiler Will Graham, played heartbreakingly by Hugh Dancy. Will is a more interesting protagonist than Clarice Starling—or, for that matter, Will Graham in Manhunter. Clarice, while memorably brought to life by Jodie Foster, is too purely good to be all that engaging as a character. Will, on the other hand, the man who eventually catches Hannibal, is as complex as Hannibal himself. He’s also as dark as you can probably get without actually becoming a serial killer.”
you damn right.
Gentle and sad reminder that Kurt Hummel had one solo in the whole of season 5 so far, and had to be bashed to get to sing it. If he gets another one it will probably be because Chris Colfer writes the episode and shows some kindness to his own character.
A lot of Gleeks and former Gleeks are freaking out about the potential arc for next year but I am going to breeeeathe now
and remember that Chris is still talented and beautiful and hardworking and he will be fine
and he will appreciate his job on Glee even if they totally screw him over
and he will be fine when it ends
True. No matter how screwed up Glee has become, and continues to get, it is still the platform through which Chris Colfer got his start. It brought him recognition, fame, and opportunities that he had the talent and good sense to make the most of. (I still remember an early interview where he frankly stated that no show stays on top forever so he wanted to make the most of his fame while he had it. The interviewer was so shocked to hear that coming from a then-19-or-20-year-old, but look where that foresight has taken him.) Glee also brought Chris a lot of love and friendship in his personal life, so I don’t think he’ll ever resent the show. It feels good to remember that sometimes. :)
I have a horrible, sinking feeling that in ep 9 Hannibal sends his animal-exoskeleton-wielding ex-patient in Will’s direction.
And that Will defends himself, kills the guy and is the one responsible for the grisly death tableau Jack and the team investigate in ep 10.
Am I the only one?
DON’T YOU DARE!! I can be as awful as you want with any other character but NEVER NEVER question my devotion and love to Chris or any project that involves him.
Yeah I want him out of glee and I know that not to see him weekly is going to hurt as shit but….What would you want for your favorite…
I worship the ground Chris and Kurt walk on, but god do I want Glee to be over.
As much as I adore Kurt, I feel just as strongly that nothing good will come from Glee for him. Quite the opposite.
Lea is Glee’s leading lady, and a genuine talent, and I will never begrudge Rachel focus.
But Darren/Blaine? Chord/Sam? When Murphy is bigging their particular brand of mediocrity up and his only mention of Kurt is as Blaine’s BF, isn’t the writing on the wall?
Let alone the expected location shift to Los Angeles, and literally everyone else well on their way to success and stardom…
I feel that there’s no place for Kurt in this Season 6 scenario. Nothing that won’t diminish him.
I hate that I’m tied to Glee for as long as Chris and Kurt are. I hope that I find the strength to quit the show entirely before they kill everything that is vital and unique about that flawed, wonderful boy we met in the pilot.
Nothing good is coming for Kurt.
Site Update: Hannibal - Episode 209 HQ Untagged Stills x13
Please consider sharing and reblogging this post so more fans actually know about this site and that the HQ untagged versions of these photos exist for their use and enjoyment. If you repost these anywhere please link back to our site.