Ice Princess [no spoilers]

OMG, so many possibilities for femslash--why doesn't Hollywood make more movies like this where all the characters are female? Oh, yeah, right. That's why. But really, flist? Remind me to watch more movies intended for teenaged girls, okay? ETA: And, according to femslash_today there are at least two femslash fics in that fandom, both written by the same flister (viciouswishes) and in the same pairing (the obvious femslash OTP one). ETA2: And it's actually the same fic, indexed twice. Which means there's half as much femslash written for this fandom as I thought there was. Which surprises me, really; I expected it to have a small but loyal fandom, like other nominally heterosexual female-heavy fandoms (like Devil Wears Prada or Bring It On). ETA3: But in the comments of that fic, there is a rec to another one! (Linking to the rec rather than the fic mostly because of the awesome Emma banner.)

ETA4: What I really want is one of those fics where everyone's inexplicably gay and the pairing list is something like "Gen/Ann, Joan/Tina, Casey/Zoey." Or whatever permutation.

There's a 'cest possibility, too--well, loads of them, actually, if one's willing to go parent/child. But there's a sibcest possibility as well, which is the one I was thinking of. And it's not my thing as much, but there are people on my flist who'd be all over the coach/skater crossgen (and this time, I'm actually not thinking of Ari).

Unlike Will Brooker, I don't find Hayden Panettiere hot. (To be clear, I do not think Will Brooker is hot; Will Brooker thinks she is hot, as per fandebate. Well, I've never met him, so it's not impossible that I would think he was hot were I to meet him, but I am straight enough that I find it unlikely. So unless Will Brooker is actually David Tennant in disguise. . . .) Pretty, yes. Adorable, absolutely.

Michelle Trachtenberg, on the other hand. . . . WhedonCon 2008, people. (I really need to write a sequel to that sometime.)

The supporting characters in this movie rock. It's a shame they get so little screen time, but that's part of what makes them rock--that they manage to be interesting and engaging so quickly with so little information.

Um, Christophe Beck? The fact that it felt like the "Buffy/Angel Love Theme" was playing all through the movie is not a good thing. At least, I don't think it is. If it had been the Nerf Herder theme instead, that would have been pretty cool.

katieliz once gave away a poster for this movie on her radio show.

I am not now, nor have ever been, a moral relativist.

1. Libraries as represented by the ALA oppose filtering. Libraries which filter in order to preserve government funds are indeed giving in to the Man and cooperating with a moral evil--although in very many cases the lesser moral evil, i.e. it's better to give in to the Man in the short term than keep people who need information from it completely (works of mercy get in the way of social action), and this should not be read as a direct criticism of those who have to make this or other difficult decisions. Making it easier for libraries to censor should not be paraded as a moral good, however.

2. Private corporations can censor. Think of a television station--who are the people who make sure you don't say bad words on the air, even if it's cable? Yep, they're called censors. It's not a freedom of speech issue when private entities censor--or rather, it is a freedom of speech issue but not a first amendment issue, and we have don't have a right to freedom of speech from private entities. That said, private entities whose sole function is to provide people with a platform for otherwise undifferentiated communication and still engage in the curtailment of free speech within their area of control may still be engaged in a moral evil. Just because something's legal doesn't make it okay.

3. It is not illegal to make protected speech available to minors on the internet. I could be wrong about this: certainly Congress seems to be passing a new law, and the courts striking it down, every six months or so. IANAL, but my talking point is that it is not illegal, and insofar as it is illegal (which it very well may be this week) the laws making it so are unconstitutional. That's not saying much--I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU and there are a whole lot of laws I think are (or should be) unconstitutional, and for the most part I just have to suck it up and abide by them anyway, because the battle was lost back in 1847 or something. But there's some indication that at least in previous years some courts, including the Supreme Court, have actually agreed with me on this issue. And if this is true, people engaged in certain types of moral evil cannot even have the excuse that it was legally compelled of them.

4. As said in #1, cooperating with moral evil by obeying an unconstitutional law can be absolutely necessary--morally required, even--if you are Rural Village Public Library which absolutely depends on federal funds to give poor children access to reading material. Not so much if you're a million-dollar private corporation out to make a buck. Just saying.

5. Sex being separated from other things which are "adult" (whatever that means), like having a job or caring about politics or falling in love, as something from which children need to be protected is, without a doubt, a form of misogyny, which is a moral evil.

6. I'm wondering if using the terms "NC-17" and "R" to rate fic according to sexual explicitness and other spectra is cooperating with a moral evil. It certainly isn't intended to mean "No children under 17" or "Restricted" when I use them, but that is their etymology and that meaning is out there and there is the (mostly) value-neutral alternative (if less precisely graduated, if you can get less precisely graduated than the MPAA system) "Not work safe" available. I'm thinking no--etymology isn't destiny--but it is food for thought.