shows with my favourite theme songs;

Since I just finished The Fosters I felt the need to make this post.

Rankings and videos below!

NO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT INTENDED. I do not claim to own any of the songs or videos used in this blog post.

1. Doctor Who Theme 2005 – 2007 [Murray Gold.]

One word: iconic. The same tune that is legendary to generations of people has been modified and improved over the years, but Murray’s genius puts his version above the rest.

2. Orange Is The New Black Theme. [You’ve Got Time – Regina Spektor.]

We’ve all got most of this memorized. They put as much of the song as possible in front of the episodes, which essentially means you’ve memorized it. It gives you a minute to regroup while basically explaining the theme of the show in one catchy tune. Not to mention it’s paired wit actual clips and pictures of women’s inmates.

3. Pretty Little Liars Theme. [Secret – The Pierces.]

WONDERFULLY CREEPY. Suits the show and it’s creepy, stalker undertones perfectly. It’s like it was written for the show.

4. The Fosters Theme. [Where You Belong – Kari Kimmel.]

The song choice is soft and caring, much like the Fosters. It is the theme of the show in a nutshell; giving you the exact feeling the relationships in the show give you.

5. F.R.I.E.N.D.S. Theme.

Do I even need to explain this one?

6. The 100 Theme.

Not sure who this one is by, but I’d love to know. It’s so wonderfully epic, making you feel a little larger than life.

7. The Walking Dead Theme.

I LOVE THIS ONE. It’s so unique that the sound sticks with you. Anyone who watches the show will remember the song for ages. Wonderfully creepy and anxiety-enducing.

8. Lost Girl Theme. [Jody Colero, Marco DiFelice, & Benjamin Pinkerton.]

Just.. awesome. Perfect lyrics and beat that suits the characters.

9. SNL Opening Theme.

The song that is the soundtrack to many generations; the soundtrack to my teen years spent idolizing a show that would introduce me to writing for TV. The SNL theme will always have a special spot in my heart. 

10. Orphan Black Theme.

When you can sing along to a theme song and it’s wordless, you know it’s perfect.

the barden bellas are back.. maybe?

So Pitch Perfect 3 (PP3) has been announced and, as you all expected, I have thoughts on it.

The first movie was one of the best teen movies I’ve seen in a while. Of course, the only thing that bothered me was the way they chose to tackle Beca and Chloe’s sexualities – they were bisexual in the books, but the creative team behind the movie decided not to explore that. The two of them still became extremely popular as a slash couple, so joke’s on them. I’m getting off track here.

As much as I love the Pitch Perfect franchise (as we all know I do), I don’t see how they can effectively raise the stakes even higher and still keep it fresh and interesting – especially without Anna Kendrick in the mix, who, let’s face it, carries the franchise on her shoulders. Beca Mitchell is the glue that holds them all together. Their new star, Emily Junk (because Hardon was too weird) was fantastic and the way they set her up as a new lead was great, but.. I don’t think she can carry the movie the way Anna did. Already with a passionate fan following, not only on her own but for her relationship with Brittany Snow in the movie, the Up In The Air star is what pushed the franchise into cult movie status.

Then again, I did say something similar about the first movie and they managed to surprise me. Kay Cannon is a great writer of teen films and managed to make the second one even funnier than the first, so I’m not opposed to another funny movie with great music in it. My concern is that if they don’t get back Anna or involve an Acapella competition in some sense, it’ll feel more like Glee – not at all like Pitch Perfect, but they’ll keep trying to make it feel like that. It’ll effectively ruin the feel of the franchise, and third time is supposed to be a charm. Their choice to make the Bellas graduate was a weird one if they were planning a third. How are the Bellas supposed to come together again? Are we exploring the new Bellas? How will the old Bellas connect back into it?

The final number of PP2 felt like it was closing the franchise. Bit of a weird place to put a middle film. It makes total sense that they’d make a third movie (PP2 is the highest-grossing musical movie of recent times), I just don’t know how it would fit in.

Anyway, long rant. TLDR; PP3 is a good idea in theory, but with graduated Bellas and Anna Kendrick possibly gracefully bowing out, it might be time to just stop it while it’s ahead.

P.S. Be sure to check out my Tumblr!! I’ve revamped it and made it up for the public to check out.

who was that red-headed woman in age of ultron, because it certainly wasn’t natasha romanoff.

I have one word to sum up the latest Marvel movie: disappointing.

This article obviously has spoilers for the Marvel movie Avengers: Age Of Ultron, so don’t read on unless you’re prepared for spoilers or have already seen the movie. I have not read enough of the comics, so my judgment is based off movie characterization and personal research.

I went into this movie with somewhat low expectations. I’d heard from friends various reviews. One of the most common things that my friends told me was that the characterization of Black Widow (Natasha Romanoff) was off. Natasha, one of the best spies and assassins in the entirety of S.H.I.E.L.D and even the world, has been characterized by her controlled, almost emotionless persona to keep whatever she’s thinking a secret from almost everyone, even the people that she trusts the most.

Mischaracterization of Natasha is exactly what I got. The movie starts out with the Avengers (Steve Rogers, Tony Stark, Thor, Bruce Banner, and Hawkeye) going to retrieve the magical scepter stolen by the Germans who had been using it to experiment on humans. There, the team run into two of the experiments who are used as weapons against them – twins Pietro and Wanda Maximoff. Pietro has superhuman speed, and Wanda can manipulate minds and throw energy blasts.

Stark and Banner use the gem in the scepter to create Stark’s “Ultron” program – a program designed to create world peace. They underestimate how much power they put into Ultron, and he becomes destructive and decides he needs to annihilate the Avengers himself. He creates his own agenda.

In the meanwhile, Natasha and Bruce begin a relationship. What utterly surprised me at first was the choice of romantic interests – in the first Avengers movie, Natasha was hinted to have a pining relationship with Clint (Hawkeye), as it is in the comics. She was also significantly incredibly afraid of Bruce in the first movie. Age Of Ultron pushes us right into the relationship, showing us no actual character development between them that led to their relationship beginning to change into something more.

Before Ultron reveals himself, there’s a party scene that takes place in Tony Stark’s house. The party is humourous (including a part where everyone tries to lift Thor’s hammer, but no one is worthy enough to do so). Once again we are faced with Natasha and Bruce, who have a talk. This was about the part where I realized that something was fishy with Nat’s characterization. Essentially, in a quality completely unlike the Natasha we’ve seen in previous movies, we witness Natasha turn into a stereotypical giggly woman. When she walks away from Bruce, Steve immediately walks up to them and engages him in conversation about them, obviously a push to tell the audience that yes, this is exactly what you think it is.

Then Ultron comes in. As he begins to destroy everything, the Avengers are thrown everywhere. This is the part that got to me the most. Natasha and Bruce are thrown over the bar, and Natasha lands on the ground first. On top of her falls Bruce, face-down onto her boobs. Obviously another ploy to get us to accept a ship that didn’t make sense in the first place, feminist fans are thrown off by the clear lack of proper judgment on Whedon’s part.

As the movie continues, many parts of it do prove redeemable. The acting, as always, is utterly fantastic. I don’t know where Marvel finds it’s talent, but I’d like a piece of it. Another excellent thing in the movie was the humour – although I expected stale, overdone jokes, Marvel is known for it’s ability to keep it’s work light while still being serious, and Ultron is no exception to the rule.

When Wanda uses her powers against the Avengers, she throws them into haunting visions. Although they vary for each Avenger, what really really stood out to me was how a majority of the visions for the Avengers served some sort of purpose for them – Thor’s is about his own personal problems, which leads him to exploring a personal journey throughout the movie; Tony’s is about his worries on being the cause of the downfall of the Avengers (not in the same scene); Steve’s is about how he’s scared of living without a war.. but Natasha’s vision was used only for a purpose to further her storyline with Bruce. We get a quick peek into her past, where the agency she worked for sterilized her, in order to validate her sharing the piece with him later on.

And so we go into Clint’s (Hawkeye) safehouse, which is his home with his family – of which are not in the comics and an invention of Joss Whedon, another way to divert the attention from Clintnat despite having hinted at it in the first Avengers movie – and the Avengers make themselves at home. We move onto a scene where Bruce gets out of the shower and Natasha is there waiting for him. There’s a bit of flirting, and then an emotional talk between them where they both label themselves a monster.

This was probably the best representation of Natasha’s mischaracterization. I actually cringed when Natasha stated that she should’ve joined Bruce in the shower. What was intended to be showing Natasha’s vulnerability turned out to be incredibly out of character. Not to tear Joss apart, but he didn’t seem to understand Natasha’s character enough to write her in such a vulnerable state. As I stated in the beginning of the article, Natasha has been characterized – both in the comics and in the Cinematic Universe – to not be one to spill her heart to anyone, not even those she trusts. As I said earlier, Bruce was a bad choice for a romantic interest for Natasha. To recap:

“What utterly surprised me at first was the choice of romantic interests – in the first Avengers movie, Natasha was hinted to have a pining relationship with Clint (Hawkeye), as it is in the comics. She was also significantly incredibly afraid of Bruce in the first movie. Age Of Ultron pushes us right into the relationship, showing us no actual character development between them that led to their relationship beginning to change into something more. “

The final fight scene of the movie was redeemable. It was exciting to witness and left the viewers with an epic feeling. Once the movie started to move onto focusing on the actual story as opposed to the sloppily, lazily-written relationships, the movie actually became good and enjoyable.

Natasha’s stance in the movie does not improve as time goes on. For the time being she was the only female Avenger, and she also happened to be the Avenger who was kidnapped and had to be rescued by, yes, Bruce, only to then be told that she can’t fight because he needs her to help evacuate the city. Once she does fight, however, it’s very little. Self-proclaimed feminist Joss Whedon is not doing a wonderful job at showing this feminism in his writing of Natasha’s storylines.

I am disappointed at the death of Pietro. Relieved as I am that it was was not Wanda, his death hardly made sense to me. Only an hour earlier in the movie we witness him catch a bullet out of thin air and put it back within seconds, only for him to die by bullet.

To conclude and sum up my review: that was not the Natasha Romanoff that I know and love. As an avid fan of Marvel, I feel cheated. The characterization of Natasha in CA:TWS leads me to believe that when the Russos take over the series, it will improve. As a movie, it’s enjoyable enough to the casual viewer. It’s certainly epic and took advantage of it’s special effects budget. Despite the horrible characterization and anti-feminist writing, it was still a movie I enjoyed seeing, it still got a few laughs out of me, and it still left me with that warm feeling Marvel movies usually do. It’s a shame that all this doesn’t change the fact that it was still Marvel’s biggest disappointment to date.

6/10

8 reasons to watch orphan black

Orphan Black is almost Orphan Back. (I know, I know, it’s overdone.)

With the return of Orphan Black in only a few days (April 18th), I thought I’d make a quick and fun post on why you should binge-watch the first few seasons before season 3 premieres.

First, a quick background on the show. I won’t tell you much because honestly, the less you know, the better. Orphan Black is a Canadian sci-fi show about a woman named Sarah Manning who experiences the suicide of a girl who – plot twist – looks exactly like her. When she decides to steal her bag and her identity, her world is turned upside down.

Orphan Black stars breakout Canadian star Tatiana Maslany (Ginger Snaps, Picture Day, The Vow) as every clone (and believe me, this is a feat in itself), Jordan Gavaris (Degrassi) as Felix Dawkins, and Maria Doyle Kennedy (Downton Abbey, The Tudors, Queer As Folk) as Mrs. S.

Now, let’s get right into it. Before we start I’d like to say that none of the photos I use in this article belong to me.

1 – Clone-Mania

Clones everywhere! One of the unique things about Orphan Black is the way it portrays clones – what could’ve been a cheap tricks that backfired on the creators was done so intricately and brilliantly that there are instances where you actually forget that they’re all played by the same actress.

Maslany’s talked many times about the ways she gets into character for the different clones, and it certainly works. By the time you get the know the clones, you’ll be able to tell which is which even when they’re wearing each other’s clones. It’s astonishing how well done it is, both by the creative editing team and the actress who plays them.

Also, it still blows my mind when clones hug each other. There’s no way this is the same person. It’s just not possible. I think they cloned Maslany for this role.

Good luck picking a favourite clone, guys.

2 – Feminist Messages

One of my favourite things about Orphan Black is how amazingly feminist it is. Not only is it a women-led show (or woman-led, more like) with the core characters as complex and well-written women, but one of the main messages of the show is the relevant “my body is my own”.

The clones soon found out that they’re property, but that doesn’t change the fact that these clones own their bodies. Several times other characters try to make decisions for them, but the girls immediately shoot them down. What’s great about the timing of Orphan Black is that it comes along during the big issue of abortion in the US and women’s rights regarding their bodies.

The clones take control of their bodies and demand that others respect that, and it’s refreshing and incredibly feminist material.

3 – LGBTQ+ Representation

What Orphan Black also does right – and something every show should be doing, honestly – is LGBTQ representation.

Representation is the act of implementing a minority in a form of media. Here are some of Orphan Black’s LGBTQ representation (with minor spoilers):

• Cosima Niehaus: Clone, sort of everyone’s favourite. Cosima is a scientist, so when she starts to fall for a French exchange student, she starts talking about sexuality as a spectrum, and eventually identifies herself as not straight.
• Delphine Cormier: Also a scientist, and the French exchange student I mentioned earlier. When she starts to fall for Cosima, she brings up bisexuality (which, by the way, is a huge feat, considering most shows make their bisexual characters identify as “fluid”, as though bisexuality isn’t an actual thing) and says that she never considered it for herself.
• Felix Dawkins: Sarah’s foster brother, as gay as they come. Felix is also a sex worker, which is fantastic because it’s showing those workers in a positive light.
• Tony Sawicki: Also a clone, and get this – he’s trans! I remember when he was first introduced to the show, and every trans fan of the show that I followed burst into tears out of happiness. What’s excellent about Tony’s introduction to the show in season 2 is the way it’s done. When someone misgenders him, they’re immediately corrected, and the person who misgendered them doesn’t question it. We watch him get his hormone shots, and witness him defend his identity. We see a trans man normalized, and it’s amazing representation. It changed lives of trans fans who were watching the show.

4 – It’s Exciting

What’s lots of fun about Orphan Black is that it always keep you at the edge of your seat. From the first five minutes, you’re reeled into the adventure and you’re addicted. With only 10 episodes per season, the writers do a fantastic job of fitting in just enough per episode that you’re both satisfied and anxious for next week.

5 – Well-Written

If you’re like me and tend to watch a lot of shows that have great actors, great characters, but messy writers and horrible storylines, then you know what it’s like to both hate and love your show. As a writer myself, I know that the script is the most important part of any piece of work – you can have the best cast and the best crew, but if the script sucks, the show will suck.

Lucky for you, Orphan Black’s script certainly does not suck. Paired with a fantastic script, the amazing cast and crew only makes it ten times better. Orphan Black is a great show from both a viewer standpoint and a critical standpoint. That should be reason enough to be obsessed with it.

6 – Realistic Sci-Fi Element

Sci-fi is fun, but sometimes the unrealistic aspect of it is distracting to the story.

Fear not, fellow science geeks! The writers of Orphan Black had a scientific consultant working with them when they were writing it – Cosima’s namesake, no less. The science behind the show is creepily realistic.. kind of makes you wonder if there’s an actual DYAD out there. Hopefully they’re cloning someone as talented as Tatiana Maslany.

7 – Realistic Portrayals

I’ll keep from letting you know who the clone that this one is mostly focused on is (unless you know already). I’ll just say that, as I touched on earlier with the fantastic writing, Orphan Black is very realistic when it comes to targeting issues such as abuse and depression that their characters experience.

In fact, one of the “flaws” in the design of the clones is a mental illness that is obvious in two of our favourite clones. It leads us to challenge morals, think about what we’re watching, and appreciate the way it’s done.

Orphan Black also deals with morals and actions under pressure in a realistic and believable way. There’s also a huge theme about how far you will go to get answers, and how far will go to protect the ones you love, and what to do when you’re faced with a choice of choosing between them.

8 – Tatiana Maslany

Smart, talented beyond measure, and a great person to be around – what more could you want from a lead of your favourite show?

So, there you have it, folks. 8 reasons to watch Orphan Black. If you’re still reading at this point, stop. Stop and go find a way to watch right now. You’ll thank me later.

– T Lopes

why are we demonizing teen girls?

Earlier this week, a member of world-famous band One Direction left the band for “personal reasons” (some people are hesitant to believe this, but nonetheless). One Direction is famous among preteen and teen girls – as a former teenage fangirl myself, I can understand how important a band can be to someone.

When the news broke, fans took to social media to express how upset they were. Many trends (trending topics) on Twitter related to the news; in fact, a majority of the trending topics in the US were about Zayn Malik. People were grieving. Buzzfeed published an article showing some examples. I tweeted my sympathies and continued on with my life. It wasn’t until I saw the reactions to said article that I had to speak out.

The degrading of women in our society isn’t news. However, the degrading of teen girls is something that’s so mainstream it’s seen as “funny” and “harmless” – simply scroll through the popular app of Vine and you’ll come across many examples of people mocking teen girls using phrases such as “I can’t”, “literally”, “o.m.g.”, and so on. Demonizing teen girls has become normal practice for people nowadays, for both adults and other teens. How is this unfair?

For starters, it’s a double standard. When a sports team breaks up or loses a player, endless social media posts of sympathy are created for fans of the sports team. When the same thing happens with a band with a primarily teen girl fan following, the fans receive nothing of the sort – they’re told to “get over it”, “grow up”, and “stop obsessing over boy bands”.. as though adults don’t do the same with sports teams.

What’s unfair about this is that it’s not just in the One Direction fandom. Growing up, I used to be a huge fan of many things of the sort. My obsessive nature mirrored that of dedicated sports fans, yet when I revealed that I was an avid fan of such things, I was mocked by both adults and other teens alike. Why are we pitting against teens in such a way?

What’s unique about a band like One Direction is that they’re so popular that they touch a lot of people. What’s prominent in teen girl fan followings is that many people use bands such as One Direction (or perhaps a movie or a television show) as a form of escapism from whatever mental issues (which is surprisingly common among teens nowadays) or other situations in their life that prompts such temporary escapism. Therefore, we should understand when they’re upset when something threatens their safe place. Instead of telling them to get over it and find something else, we should be supporting them and helping them overcome it. What we barely feel about the issue, they feel in every part of their lives.

(On an additional note, Zayn was also a Muslim man who spoke about his Muslim orgins and became famous in a society primarily dominated by white people – therefore, he was also an amazing role model for many young people.)

We demonize teen girls because they’re outspoken and they’re easy targets. If we are to fix society, we must start with seemingly simple issues such as this. As someone who’s been in a situation similar to this before, I understand what it’s like to feel the way these young girls are feeling, and I believe that, as a society, we should be supporting them rather than demonizing them.

Start at hope. If you see someone who is upset over the departure of Zayn, comfort them. Let them know that they’re allowed to be upset and their feelings are valid. Young girls are taught from a young age by society to keep their feelings to themselves. Through the social issue I outlined in this article, they’re taught to keep their fandoms and what they enjoy to themselves or face mockery. And that needs to change.

– T Lopes

tv’s most beloved bad boy is anything from a lovable bad boy

CAPTAIN HOOK’S PROMOTION OF RAPE CULTURE

First of all, what is rape culture? One simple google search answers this question:

• Rape culture is a theoretical concept (a qualitative theory) in which rape is pervasive and normalized due to societal attitudes about gender and sexuality.

Once Upon A Time uses a popular ship called Captain Swan to promote rape culture. Let me explain this by starting with the obvious.

Now, this line raised a lot of controversy. A lot of fans of Hook and Captain Swan said that this line was just him flirting. But let me explain why this line was a line that implied rape.

About a few days after they met, Hook was sparring with Emma. He was over her, pinning her down. This line was delivered not with sexual undertones, but with power undertones – essentially, he was delivering the idea that when he “jabs” her with his “sword”, it’ll hurt, and he’ll be the one in power. This line has triggered many fans, and it’s extremely problematic in itself. In this moment, Hook was not thinking about sex – he was thinking about winning the fight, gaining power over Emma.

Let’s look at Emma’s expression.

There’s no arousal, there’s no challenge. There’s disapproval, disbelief, and maybe even a hint of fear in her expression.

That line was implying rape. Okay, simple. I guess that could be excused if Hook had apologized and they’d moved on, right?

However, he didn’t, and they didn’t. In fact, the writers continued to promote this line as a great line – in fact, the actor who plays Hook has even said it’s his “favourite line”. Ridiculous.

That’s only one example of many. The entirety of Captain Hook and Emma Swan’s relationship rests on Hook relentlessly pursuing Emma Swan even after she obviously showed disinterest. No, she was not pushing him away because she was scared of love. And no, this is not simply fandom interpretation. Hook repeatedly touches Emma against her will (which is, in the most simple terms, molestation), one time even GRABBING her as she struggles to escape, holding her there to make a point and not letting go until he was satisfied. This is not the kind of man you want young women looking up to.

Sadly, Emma does give in eventually. By making Captain Swan canon, the writers are basically saying that pursuing a woman after they say no is perfectly fine, because they’ll say yes eventually! Insisting that you’ll “win their heart” (a woman is not a prize to be won, Killian Jones) eventually even when she says no is fine, because it’s “romantic”.

(Let’s not forget the fact that Hook has admitted to using alcohol to get women drunk in order to sleep with them.)

Here’s a great example of what I’m talking about in relation to real life. To take a section from what is being said in this blog post;

They are always around, always at your elbow, always lurking. They treat your lack of interest as an obstacle to be overcome. Hook declared he would win her. A woman is not an object to be won. A woman is a person who chooses you if, and only if, she so desires.

They presume to tell you why you are not interested. It is often something about you not being ready for a good man, but they will be there when you are. In fact, they will help you get ready. For example, Emma’s broken heart was not a broken heart. It was evidence of her ability to care for him. Walsh was not yet another man who betrayed Emma. He was an obstacle in the way of Hook’s affections. Neal was not the father of her son. He was the competition. You see how Emma is being robbed of her personhood here? Nothing in her life was about her. It was all just obstacles in Hook’s way. 

They don’t stop. They do not go away. They monitor and attempt to control every aspect of your life, and god help you on the day that you decide enough is enough. Because that man has made a significant investment in you and he expects to receive his returns.

Here’s another excerpt from the following blog post;

This is profoundly disappointing, particularly from a show that was premised on rethinking fairytales. This isn’t rethinking. It’s more of the same old patriarchy, and its 2014.

You thought 50 Shades Of Grey’s main character was bad? Captain Hook is essentially a teenager-friendly version of him. He is a dangerous character to allow young, impressionable teenagers to fall in love with.

He might even be worse than Edward Cullen.

CAPTAIN HOOK’S “HERO” ARC

Captain Hook is, put simply, a pirate. Adam and Eddy seem to think that him being a pirate means that they can excuse any of his horrible actions; including molestation, assault, attempted murder, rape, sexism, and so the list goes on. Instead of expressing that these are PROBLEMATIC, the writers PROMOTE it.

Let’s have some examples.

a) Captain Hook is a rapist/molester.

• Has admitted to getting women drunk in order to sleep with them. “If I didn’t know any better, I’d say you were trying to get me drunk, which is usually my tactic.”
• Threatens to rape Emma when he pins her own and says he’d use his manhood as a weapon against her. “When I jab you with my sword, you’ll feel it.”
• Repeatedly touches Emma Swan against her will.
• Grabs Emma Swan and holds her while she’s struggling to get away.
• Insinuated that Milah would be a sex slave to his crew.
• Forces a kiss on Emma Swan and belittled her charge of sexual assault.

b) Captain Hook is sexist.

• Believes women need to be “earned” (insists he has to “win” Emma’s heart) or “bought” (trades Emma’s love for his ship).
• Is constantly violent towards women and never apologizes for it.
• Ripped Aurora’s heart out and literally controlled her as though she was a puppet and never apologized for it.
• Numerous unwanted advances/comments.
• Frequently gained the sympathy of the girl he liked by lying by omission.
• Does not believe women can save themselves. “You deprived me of a dashing rescue.”
• Believes that being a good man means that he is owed sex. Promoted through the writing of Emma Swan (when Hook saves Emma’s father, Emma repays him by making out with him).

c) Captain Hook is an unapologetic murderer/attempted murderer.

• He tries to kill Belle by shooting her with a gun and erasing her memory. He never apologizes to her and the writers write Belle in a negative light when she refuses to forgive him.
• Repeatedly tries to kill Emma Swan then “falls in love” with her.
• Rips Aurora’s heart out then forgets she existed and never apologizes to Aurora or to Emma Swan, despite Emma being friends with her.

Captain Hook’s “hero” arc is nonexistent because all of this negative qualities, unforgivable negative qualities, are portrayed simply as part of his character. Not even are they said to be character flaws – he is still written as likable despite the facts. He does not apologize or show remorse for any of his actions.

Essentially, “hero” Hook is written the exact same as “villain” Hook, with absolutely no character development at all. The only difference? He’s in love with Emma Swan. Perhaps Killian Jones can open his heart, but he can’t seem to change as a person.

the 100 and the idea of sexuality in a post-apocalyptic world

After a long time of avidly following the story of The Walking Dead, starting The 100 was no problem for me.  I was prepared for the blood, gore, and raw human survival instinct. I don’t think I expected sexuality to become a factor in which show I preferred.

I’ve written a number of post-apocalyptic work myself. In none of these stories did I consider the idea of sexuality and homophobia to be an issue. I’ll explain why by using an example from another excellent television show: Orange Is The New Black. In an all-woman’s prison, women, even straight women, turn to each other for sexual release. This is not a sensation that is unrealistic or uncommon; in a lot of men’s prison, men find sexual release in other men – either through sex, sexual stimulation, or rape.  Now consider this same concept in a post-apocalyptic world: people of every sexuality and gender finding sexual release in whoever they can find. It’s basic human nature to crave sex; if not for the intimacy, for the release (not to say that asexual people do not exist, but that point will be touched on later). When you’re in a world where you’re in a war with the elements and people alike, you’ll take what you can get.

The idea that straight people still dominate the world in a post-apocalyptic story is an unfathomable concept – frankly, any kind of oppression doesn’t make sense. The oppressors in power have not only been stripped of power, but they’re among the people they’ve oppressed. Of course, I’m basing this off basic survival stories, excluding oppressive rulers that are there for the purpose of the story (The Hunger Games, The Giver, etc.); should people want to continue to exist in this world, the stigma of homophobia, transphobia, and racism will need to die out. If you refuse to work with people or a group of people because of such petty things, you won’t survive long. In these kind of stories, something that is heavily touched on is the idea that people can’t survive without the help of other people.

The Walking Dead forces the idea that sexuality in a post-apocalyptic world is the same as sexuality in the modern world we live in. Queer people didn’t become relevant until several seasons in (in season 2 we were introduced to two lesbians; but one was not revealed as a lesbian until much later, and one was immediately killed off). Consider this unrealistic. The 100 is the opposite; immediately from the first episode, we see two people of the same sex finding sexual release in each other (it was never debated whether or not they were gay, which I frankly enjoyed quite a bit) and the main character was revealed as bisexual in the latest episodes. Here are some tweets from one of the writers:

This is EXACTLY what I’m talking about. This is the way sexuality should be represented in post-apocalyptic work – why should gender and sexuality be such an important concept to people who are struggling simply to survive? The idea of homophobia, strict sexuality, and concern over gender in a post-apocalyptic world simply makes little sense. That’s not to say stigma doesn’t exist at all, but those people won’t last long. In conclusion, it simply doesn’t make sense to have sexuality and gender at the forefront of characters’ minds in a post-apocalyptic world. It’s a lost concept and it’s not a good excuse anymore.

The Walking Dead, one of the most popular pieces of post-apocalyptic work out there right now (I’m talking about the show, not the comics) has two, maybe three surviving queer people after six seasons. This does not include Daryl Dixon, who was “written as [asexual]” until the writers decided that it wasn’t a valid sexuality and instead told the world that he was straight. The 100 made their two lead characters proudly queer, in love, and did it in a matter of less than three seasons. If you want an excellent example of representation in a post-apocalyptic world, look no further than The 100.

– T Lopes