Bollywood CC # 115 (DT Note pg 56) - Page 17

His face keeps changing every 5th month

https://www.instagram.com/p/C0hQvE2hTU_/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

Originally posted by: MostlyHarmIess

The whole interview is what makes it feel like a truly bad choice. You have been declared the Person of the Year, and you want to use that opportunity to take digs at your nobody ex-boyfriend and Kanye West, girlboss-ify capitalism, and put easter eggs for your album. It's all so frivolous.

There's a point where she is branding reputation as some societal vendetta against her, and the interviewer writes that the album sold millions of copies, produced big hits, and most of the mess was of her own making. Yet they don't ask her because who are they to questioin her. No mention of Healy, her private jet controversy, her role in politics, and her amassing insane wealth this year. And a passing mention of the Brazil mess. I don't blame the journalist; she probably forced them to do a fluff piece in exchange for the photoshoot. But it makes it look so unserious. Like it's not Time's but US Weekly or something.

A lot of my thoughts about the interview. I can see why Time picked her. She has literally dominated the headlines in 2023. And she has experienced unparalleled success for a female artist.

But the interview is a puff piece and not substantive like a Time Person of the Year article should be. Even more disappointing when you see her regressed in the interview. There was a level of maturity in Miss Americana and during the Folklore/Evermore Era. She had grown so much as an artist. She seemed to have moved on beyond her beefs and her love life to focus on herself as a songwriter/storyteller. Now all of a sudden, it is like 2013 Taylor again acting like a teenager gushing about her boyfriend and complaining about her beefs. I don't understand the logic with this move.

---

Fran Drescher would have been an interesting one. I hope she's featured in the 100. Because she did some incredible work on the frontlines of one of the biggest artists' strikes in history.

---

Haha. I was so thrilled when the Packers beat the Chiefs on the weekend. Wisconsin is Packerland, so obviously, that's where my loyalties lie. And it was adorable to see Simone Biles all bundled up in the cold out front, cheering Jonathon Owens. The Chiefs lost their first game when Taylor was present and it's all our doing.

Originally posted by: MostlyHarmIess

I mean, I get the choice. She has dominated culture relentlessly this year, at least in the Americas. She is also a sub-economy of her own, so it makes perfect sense for Times to associate and capitalize on it. God knows they like a controversial pick to generate traffic.

But it's also rather silly. They were never going to touch on Palestine for obvious reasons. But how can any individual even come close to the way AI has dominated conversation? Put it next to last year's cover, and it looks laughable.

If they wanted to do bread and circuses, the right way would have been to do a more broad entertainers spread with Margo + Greta, Fran Descher, Beyonce, etc.

Times doesn't have the balls GQ has. Granted it was ME GQ issue, but still worth mentioning.

Rest, I know zilch about bands and entertainers like Swift. And after the recent issue with Beyonce, I can't even pretend to care.

I just sprayed myself with muscle relief spray instead of sunscreen, so I no longer feel intellectually qualified to have this conversation.

https://twitter.com/peaky_balvinder/status/1732062315389063354

Luke Skywalker's father was absent his whole life and chopped off his hand when they first met. Yet he became a Jedi, not an Animal.

If I had Photoshop skills, I would update this to include Ranbir and Anil instead of Ezra and Tilda and rename it "We need to talk about Vijay."

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Luke Skywalker's father was absent his whole life and chopped off his hand when they first met. Yet he became a Jedi, not an Animal.

Originally posted by: MostlyHarmIess

Luke threatened to kill Kylo once, and he murdered his actual daddy. Everyone deals with daddy issues differently.

Incorrect. Luke did not kill his daddy. In fact, Luke took multiple lightning shocks from the Emperor for refusing to kill his daddy. His daddy threw the Emperor down the reactor shaft for hurting his boy and was fatally wounded in the process.

Now, Anakin Skywalker. He committed genocide because of his mommy issues.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Incorrect. Luke did not kill his daddy. In fact, Luke took multiple lightning shocks from the Emperor for refusing to kill his daddy. His daddy threw the Emperor down the reactor shaft for hurting his boy and was fatally wounded in the process.

Now, Anakin Skywalker. He committed genocide because of his mommy issues.