Mary Beard as the Doctor.
She might regenerate into Lucy Worsley at some point.
why can’t we just move on from this argument already? Disney’s female characters look similar because that’s their STYLE. there’s nothing wrong with it, but there’s nothing to defend, either. can we please just move on?
This is meant to be a DEFENCE against Disney’s samefacing? If you take away the character who aren’t villains or background characters, this collection proves the point it’s trying to refute. Villains are always allowed to be ugly; background characters are there to look characterful and varied. No one is accusing Disney of making all its female characters look the same, they’re saying the HEROINES of the new Disney films all look the same
They’re saying that Disney have taken to presenting a single aesthetic that is coded as ‘beautiful’. They’re saying Disney has decided on a single way to visually present female characters who we are meant to find pretty and engaging. They’re saying that it’s a problem that the drive to create female characters who perfectly adhere to a very narrow idea of female attractiveness has now fully trumped these characters having any visual individuality. They’re saying there’s such a fear of heroines looking anything other than pretty at all times, all visual variation has been ironed out.
Disney have one of the world’s most recognised visual house styles and yet for years they’ve managed to create heroines who are visually distinct from each other. Strip away all ephemera - hair colour , clothes - and you’d still know Snow White’s face from Cinderella’s, Ariel from Belle’s etc. No, they were never the most adventurous company in terms of art-style, and yes there are commonalities between all the princesses (waifish figures, big eyes, mostly long hair, small noses, round/oval faces). But they still managed to make them look different from one another.
Having a style is not the same as having a single face you’re prepared to give your female heroes. The examples pictured above actually undermine the idea that the samefacing of the heroines is the product of studio style rather than choice, because they prove that a wide variety of appearance is still possible within a single style - but that it’s not being allowed amongst the heroines.
Anonymous said: So does every dude have a thing with Mitzi?? Cos seriously
She’s fixated on her deceased husband. She has history with Zib. She made an attempt at something with Wick (though it didn’t go at all as planned), and Rocky chases her approbation with unsettling application of zeal (arguably, something he’d do for anyone who’d give him the time of day). Certainly not all of her associations (Viktor, Mordecai, Asa, Freckle to name a few) have a romantic slant, but that’s beside the point. Mitzi is a central character who pursues and maintains a complex of relationships in a criminal, male-dominated business. It’s rather the crux from which the story branches.
Does that seem problematic?
Mitzi has relationships of different tones and dynamic with all the male characters in Lackadaisy. As Ms Butler points out, only a few of these have any romantic element to them (and one of those three only is part of her backstory, the character is question being dead). Mitzi exists in the perfectly reasonable state of SOME of her relationships being romantic ones.
I really hope Tracy Butler isn’t stung by this comment because the questioner is talking through their hat; the network of interesting, enjoyable and above all varied relationships is one of Lackadaisy’s many strengths. It’s irritating to see this comment so unjustly aimed at a writer who deftly avoids cliche in favour of more interesting dynamics.
Without attributing thinking to the anon which may or may not be true of them, this is the kind of thing you get when people are ready to dismiss female characters, or not to pay them the kind of attention they do male characters. They form their ideas of a character based on very broad strokes and pre-existing stereotypes in their own head. Mitzi has more than one romantic connection and a coquettish appearance therefore she must ‘have a thing with every dude’. It feels like a case of a reader projecting their own preconceived notions onto a character who is actually skilfully subverting them.
imagine if people were born with traits based on their zodiac signs so like aries had ram horns and hoofs like a satyr and shit how rad would that be
i would be a giant fucking crab
capricorns would look so weird. like, “hey, do you like my goat horns? they go perfectly with my fucking mermaid tail.”
I would assume the mighty and mythical form of… a person carrying water.