this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2025
35 points (100.0% liked)

Slop.

634 readers
603 users here now

For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/El Chisme

founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
 

This shit literally looks like one of those mid-aughts "click me now m'lord" clickbait browser games.

top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FlakesBongler@hexbear.net 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The 1950's?

With the Hays Code still in effect?

Yeah, no that ain't happening

[–] SorosFootSoldier@hexbear.net 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Retvrn to pre-code hollywood.

[–] someone@hexbear.net 11 points 3 months ago (3 children)

This, unironically. The post-talkie pre-Hays era, brief as it was, had a ton of great movies that feel very modern in terms of topic, tone, and dialog.

[–] SorosFootSoldier@hexbear.net 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Plus I have a soft spot for the women of that era they look so cute in those flapper gal outfits.

[–] comrade_pibb@hexbear.net 6 points 3 months ago

flapper gals my beloved

[–] Wertheimer@hexbear.net 6 points 3 months ago

Design for Living was a revelation. Turns out sexual intercourse did not, after all, begin in 1963, "between the end of the Chatterley ban and the Beatles' first LP".

I went to check my memory on the poem's wording and the Google AI was very helpful:

[–] GalaxyBrain@hexbear.net 3 points 3 months ago

Absolutely agree. There is some fantastic stuff there

[–] GalaxyBrain@hexbear.net 10 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Absolutely nothing about that looks like a 50s movie. Especially a 70mm panavision movie cause the first movie to use thar format came out in 1959. The set would absolutely not look like that. There were no white hallways in the 50s. It would probably look like a ww2 submarine but with a wider hallway. The color is completely completely wrong. Way too bright and even, clearly digital in the 'exposure' and shadowing and the saturation is nearly high enough. They wanted to show off colors in their big roadhouse shows. Also who im guessing is Leia is dressed wrong

[–] Belly_Beanis@hexbear.net 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

If it's Phantom Menace, I think it's supposed to be Padme in her white catsuit. But it doesn't look like Natalie Portman or Carrie Fischer so who the fuck knows?

[–] Aradino@hexbear.net 4 points 3 months ago

I'd bet the prompt was just "sexy star wars" followed shortly after by "sexy star wars woman"

[–] GalaxyBrain@hexbear.net 2 points 3 months ago

White catsuit padme was attack of the clones but yeah

[–] buh@hexbear.net 2 points 3 months ago

Also who im guessing is Leia

that's luke, who is a girl now because of WOKE

[–] Carl@hexbear.net 6 points 3 months ago

It's a pretty great illustration of the fact that these nostalgia freaks don't actually want old things, but what they imagine old things to be like.

[–] doublepepperoni@hexbear.net 2 points 3 months ago

A while back I got recommended these types of channels all the time. All the "1950s" thumbnails featured ladies with massive greased up racks in stripper outfits

[–] D61@hexbear.net 2 points 3 months ago

I'm sorry Barbarella already exists.