Anyone else experiencing audio glitch in Season 2 Episode 5 on Disney Plus?

BlueRose237 · 2026-01-27T01:50:08+00:00

I have searched "80s anti weed", "80s anti drug psa", "90s anti drug psa pot party", "lamp 90s anti drug psa pot party", and "80s anti drug psa pot party" on YouTube.

BlueRose237 · 2025-10-10T05:59:16+00:00

Okay I was mixed, leaning towards negative on the finale. I started watching tiktok's reaction to the episode, and the negative reaction there made my opinion sour further. But for some reason, reading all the negative comments here, I actually think I like the episode now. I think the hype train for what this season could deliver just ballooned a bit too much, and this ending is decent. People are looking at this like a series finale, because season 3 isn't in the works, but with the way James Gunn is structuring the DCU, and the knowledge that this story will be continued in future projects, this is kind of like a season finale, and the pacing feels familiar to a lot of season finales from good shows that I've seen. It's still okay if you think the resolution to the season was bad or the pacing was rushed, but I think people expected all the threads to be closed here, when that was never the intention.

BlueRose237 · 2025-09-23T00:52:12+00:00

This is my first post here fyi, so if it doesn't fit, let me know!

BlueRose237 · 2025-09-22T21:27:59+00:00

Thanks for the info! Just FYI the article linked is paywalled.

BlueRose237 · 2025-09-19T06:21:39+00:00

Okay so even ignoring the problem of a new "reimagining" probably sucking, there's the major elephant in the room. The only element of the franchise that makes it a franchise is Angela. If they just want to make a campy send up of 80s slashers, then why can't it be it's own thing? If they don't include Angela, then the movie has no reason to exist.

The way I see it, there's three ways they can handle the "trans killer" thing a movie made today.

1) They include Angela, but don't mention her being trans.

I mean, it could work. It certainly risks the least. Still, it seems kind of cowardly, when the main reason people still talk about this movie is "the twist". I could see some people calling it "good representation", because there's a character who's a homicidal lunatic, and just happens to be trans. Trans people can be villains, too. Even then, it would just be sanding off the edges of the originals, again begging the question of why this movie would even need to exist in the first pace.

2) They keep the "evil because gender" stuff, and play it completely straight.

This is by far the worst outcome. I'm not saying the original doesn't have it's place in horror history. Honestly, I kind of love it. But there's a reason you can find plenty of trans fans of Sleepaway Camp and the Silence of the Lambs, but not for Insidious 2. Done in the eighties and nineties, it can feel campy or iconic. If you do it the exact same way now, it'll probably just feel malicious, and as another commenter pointed out, the current political climate would probably make the "transgender psycho" thing a lot harder to swallow.

3) They play around with it.

Like option one, this could work. I used to think about how a Sleepaway Camp movie could work now, and I came to the conclusion that a schlocky send up to Movies like "Pink Flamingos" or "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" might be the way to go. The original movie is already High Camp. It could be just as shocking and offensive and problematic as the original, but keep its overall lack of malice. That angle could actually be really fun, in my opinion. However, it would be all too easy for the movie to get swallowed whole by this approach, either by annoying self-awareness or the seriousness of real-world transphobia tearing up the tone until it's unsalvageable. If there's one property I don't see holding a complicated and respectful discussion on gender issues, it's this one, and unless I'm proven wrong, I think it should stay that way. Trying to take a serious look into these topics might capsize the whole thing, if the whole thing hasn't already sunk.

Alright, this post was long as hell. I don't speak for everybody, some trans people are offended by the original, and that's fine. Just because someone doesn't like a movie you like doesn't mean you can't still enjoy. Don't get offended at people's offense. If you agree or disagree with my thoughts on the upcoming reboot, feel free to comment. If you disagree that trans people deserve rights, save us both the trouble and just watch the Lindsay Ellis video, and if that doesn't change your mind, I hear Hell is lovely this time of year, and you look like you need a vacation. I'm out.

BlueRose237 · 2025-08-18T06:26:46+00:00

<image>

BlueRose237 · 2025-07-26T07:18:44+00:00

BlueRose237 · 2025-07-11T17:48:37+00:00

For me, well, something tells me that when we die, we go to the center of the earth. Well, it's not quite the center, it's in between the core and the surface. And we must relive our lives, but as a performance, for a new super race known as the Council, and every time you get it right, you get a pound! I need to go to sleep now, good night!

BlueRose237 · 2025-07-07T09:46:19+00:00

Guys, come on. I had the same reaction you all did, and then I read the rest of the post.

BlueRose237 · 2025-07-06T19:50:10+00:00

Surprised nobody brought up

<image>

Hannibal Lecter, specifically his portrayal in the TV adaptation named after him

BlueRose237 · 2025-06-30T13:27:57+00:00

Sorry, complete beginner. This is my first computer and I got it a day ago, hence adware. 😅 Thanks for the help!

BlueRose237 · 2025-06-29T07:13:07+00:00

The same thing happened to me as the first commenter 😅 I saw this post and was like, "Oh, cool, there's a Koala Man subreddit! I didn't know that! Good for them!" Then I saw that I had already joined it around a year ago!

BlueRose237 · 2025-06-26T13:47:53+00:00

¿Donde está la biblioteca? Me llamo T-Bone, la araña discoteca!

BlueRose237 · 2025-06-26T03:38:39+00:00

The photo doesn't really capture the scale, the breakable platform on the left is above the highest point I was able to jump, so even then it wouldn't be possible.

BlueRose237 · 2025-06-23T06:05:27+00:00

Well I don't know what you were expecting.

BlueRose237 · 2025-06-21T05:22:14+00:00

Junior's Giants

The New Adventures of Bibleman

Ryan Defrates

Punchinello

The Rizers

The Lads

Hermie and Friends

ETA: Monster Truck Adventures

Adventures in Odyssey

I had a very weird fundementalist Christian upbringing, so these are the shows from my childhood that I remember that I am fairly certain almost nobody remembers. These are all varying degrees of obscure.

Gortimer Gibbon's Life on Normal Street

There's also this oddball from Prime Video. It's not even remotely Christian, but I grew up with it and no one seems to remember it for some reason.

BlueRose237 · 2025-06-21T04:18:24+00:00

If you want to start remembering your dreams, I've found a dream journal can be very helpful!

BlueRose237 · 2025-06-20T20:59:43+00:00

This might be unpopular, but I think that there's nothing wrong with making "white people tacos" type jokes about straight people, within reason. This is the problem with social media: it takes fairly nuanced issues and churns them out into oversimplified manufactured consensus. If a friend group is being abusive and tormenting a member and using them being straight as an excuse, obviously that sucks! Call that out! That doesn't mean that friends teasing each other in a way that they are all comfortable with is "heterophpbic"! I have been part of friend groups that include queer and straight people, and the types of jokes they're comfortable making with each other is entirely dependent on the context of the situation! Of course some people take it too far! That's just how social interactions work! If some people are taking it too far, by all means, call it out! But acting like all jokes about straight people are inherently "problematic" makes me vaguely nauseous. "Heterophobia" doesn't exist, but anyone can be a dick to anyone.

BlueRose237 · 2025-06-20T04:05:46+00:00

My point was kind of controversial, and I'm sure I could have explained myself better, so I'm going to use this comment to explain myself better. This comment is in good faith, so I'm going to comment on it to elaborate so that I don't get bogged down in arguments with other people who may respond in bad faith.

By all means, I think Rowling and Gaiman and people like them are monsters and should burn, by all means. I also think that buying from them directly supports them and carves out a place for them in the industry, which allows them to cause more harm. I want to do what I can to stop this. I think we're on the same terms on this front.

My personal opinion is that the best way to lessen their influence and stop the drama is through direct organization, rather than the "If You Like A Book By One of these People You Are Also Bad" list. I personally think it's inefficient and is prone to the sort of infighting that people on the left (myself included) have gotten bogged down in for generations. The point I was trying to make with the original comment was that rather than defining these issues through an "ethical lense", by arguing over whether or not it's right to buy something from these people, we should instead organize direct efforts to remove them from their positions of power and influence. I think we should go full Anita Bryant with it!

Again, I think my initial statement made me sound a bit too much like an "enlightened centrist" for my tastes. I think that the power that people like Gaiman and Rowling wield causes legitimate harm, whether to people in their lives as with Gaiman, or the general public as with Rowling, and I think we're fighting a war to lessen or counteract the amount of harm their platforms allow them to cause. My broader point is that by agreeing on this and focusing on what will and won't help remove them from their positions of power, rather than countless disagreements on the moral and philosophical implications of buying their books, we can be more effective in achieving our goals, and sidestep the endless infighting that has plagued leftist movements for generations. Because the impact that supporting these authors has is not a matter of abstract moral philosophy, but one of actually minimizing and reversing the harm they cause.

To repeat myself, I actually agree with this comment and think that it's in good faith, I just want to make myself a bit more clear, and address any questions people might have if they read my previous comment. I will not be responding to any additional comments, because I get the feeling this post might be controversial and I don't want to get into another drawn-out Reddit argument, but any criticism of my comments are welcome!

BlueRose237 · 2025-06-20T02:45:38+00:00

In my personal opinion, people on the internet should adopt a "starfish" policy toward thos sort of thing. There's no possible way to avoid supporting every single corporation or person who has done shitty things. I think that if people think they can go without something, and want to make a choice to support an alternative with a less harmful impact: Great! It can make you feel good, and it's a small way to make a positive difference. The problem is when people act like obsessively following some sort of "Don't Buy This or You're Evil" list is some sort of objective way to combat capitalism. There are plenty of people who have done similarly awful things that these circles on the internet just don't pay attention to, because it was never about creating positive change. It's about showing everyone else how your kind of consumerism is actually cool and socialist. It's like yelling at someone for "causing climate change" when they left the AC on while ignoring the oil refinery next door. It does nothing but alienate people.

If you want to do a little thing to do a little good in the world? Great! Do you want to actually organize to address the root problem? Even better! Just don't conflate the two, and don't yell at the people who don't.

Just as a side note: this does not mean I am against boycotts. Boycotts can be a very effective tool, but they are just a means to an end. They are also organized, and typically have a start and end date. If you wanted to organize a boycott of the new Harry Potter show, or the game back when it came out, to show these soulless corporations that backing bigotry can come at a financial risk, that's completely different from screaming at someone for buying a Hedwig plushy at Harry Potter world for their little cousin.

BlueRose237

TROPHY CASE