Underneath the Moonlight

How about these NEW rules, mate? 🇦🇺

➡️ Go to Dropout to watch new Game Changer now

Last week, the Trump administration quietly released a sweeping new federal rule that would use funding threats to force institutions across the country to reject transgender people. The 400-page proposed regulation would codify the administration's anti-trans executive orders into binding federal policy, imposing a blanket prohibition on federal funds going toward "gender ideology"

The proposed rule, formally titled "Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance," rewrites the government-wide framework governing all federal grants across every agency. Among its most consequential provisions, it requires that before a federal grant recipient can receive money, the award must pass a "pre-issuance review" conducted by a political appointee—not a career expert or peer reviewer—to ensure it is "consistent with applicable law, Federal agency priorities, and the national interest." The regulation explicitly instructs these appointees to screen for "denial by the recipient of the sex binary in humans or the notion that sex is a chosen or mutable characteristic." [...] An institution that acknowledges transgender people exist—through its policies, its training, its healthcare, its bathroom access, its HR procedures, its name-change processes—could be deemed to "deny the sex binary" or to “support the notion that sex is mutable” and have its federal funding blocked.

I don’t like this trend of readers being angry that not everything is 100% understandable for them. I want my characters to be believable as people and sometimes people use words people outside of their field will not understand. That’s not a bad thing.

Exactly. Food doesn't have more additives today; it's just required to REGULATE and LABEL the additives.

Let’s play the biggest game of kick the can on the internet.

She didn't say IT...😳

➡️ Go to Dropout to watch new Game Changer now

Josh is FROZEN!!! 🥶🧊

➡️ Go to Dropout to watch new Game Changer now

Films reflect the time period in which they were made.

Our most popular films right now are all reboots, sequels, and reused IPs.

On one hand, you could make the case that our generation is being deprived of its place on cultural timeline, because (as far as the mainstream goes) all we're being given is rehashed ideas from other time periods. Seems rather boring to analyze.

But on the other hand, I think future film historians will find that this era is culturally fascinating. Not because of the "nostalgia bait" itself, but because it represents the emergence of independent cinema and streaming.

When TV was invented, people could watch filmed media at home. You no longer had to go to a theatre just to watch cartoons or comedies.

So the studios responded with a wave of epics in the 1950s. They said "Okay, you can get Dick Van Dyke at home, but you can't get Ben-Hur." Television couldn't compete with the budget, big name stars, or visual tech that film studios could offer. They were financially incentivized to blow your socks off with visuals and big name stars.

But with the emergence of streaming and independent film, that's no longer the case. A-listers are happy to take TV roles, and TV offers Hollywood-level visuals. You don't need to mess with the theatre system at all. It's easier than ever to make good-looking movies and share them with the masses with no major studio backing.

So what's the one thing that studios still have going for them? What's the one thing that Disney can give you that an independent filmmaker can't? Yoda. The Little Mermaid. Iron Man. Fucking brands. That's all they have, so that's all they sell.