athousanderrors | Mar. 11th, 2020

Mar. 11th, 2020

via https://ift.tt/2ICbSoP

bluetattoolove:

(It’s that time of year again!)

“They have called this day the eleventh of March! And whomsoever of you gets through this day, unless you are shot in the head or somehow slain, you will stand at tiptoe when e’er you hear the name again. And you will get excited at the name March the eleventh! We happy few, we few, we band of brothers… our names will be as like… household names! And those who are not here… be they sleeping or doing something else, they will feel themselves sort of crappy! Because they are not here to join the fight on this day the eleventh of March!

Move out.”

-Sgt. Buck Frobisher, March 11, 1999

Due South finale “Call of the Wild”
(Your picture was not posted)

via https://ift.tt/3cTepsG

little-scribblers-heart:

otto-woods:

weaver-z:

How the media depicts the Apollo 11 mission:

Actual quotes from the Apollo 11 mission:

also according to michael collins when the three of them were discussing what neil armstrong should say when he first stepped on the moon, collins suggested armstrong say “Oh, my God, what is that thing?” and then scream and cut out his mic.

Everyone forgets Michael Collins and it’s fucking tragic.
(Your picture was not posted)

via https://ift.tt/2W5Wbhh

sheistheweather:

The Universe: WHERE DID YOU FIND ANOTHER SWEET POTATO?!

rebloggedstuff42:

This was already amazing. But that reblog comment and the extra they hid in the tags (for some unfathomable reason) makes this fucking hilarious and I love it even more. XD

aw-hawkeye-no:

Me, chewing on my Bad Decisions™ Bagel in the corner:

The Universe: What’s that in your mouth?

Me, chewing faster:

The Universe: I said, WHAT THE FUCK IS IN YOUR MOUTH

this-onegoes:

- Blythe Baird
(Your picture was not posted)

via https://ift.tt/2VZVnL7

polkadottedmars:

olreid:

oscarspoe:

Patrick “BUFFERING” Brewer

It’s going to take me a week to stop laughing.
(Your picture was not posted)

via https://ift.tt/38GgAMS

ruffboijuliaburnsides:

and like. Not to detract from the amazing way they treat Evie, because believe me as a lesbian i can go ON about Evie, but can we talk about Jonathan for a moment?

The “failure” of the family, in a movie set in the 1920s, who is either explicitly or heavily implied (i can’t recall off the top of my head) to be a veteran of WWI? Who has so much more depth to him under the surface than the initial “comic relief” typing would suggest? Who is played as a drunk idiot who is still clearly both highly knowledgeable about egyptology and archaeology (just not as much of a genius at it as Evie) AND a frankly excellent marksman? Who i’ve seen people very successfully argue is clearly struggling with PTSD (which would explain the “failure of the family” stuff quite handily btw, back then), yet here he is. Sure he came along wanting treasure, but he sticks around when shit gets super bad for the love of his sister.

All these characters are fucking amazing, I cannot handle.

(and don’t get me started either on how much I love The Mummy Returns. Is it as good? Maybe not, depends on your tastes, but it’s still DAMN good, and you know I love me a good established adventuring spouses story…)

lena-in-a-red-dress:

Let’s talk about The Mummy (1999)

Someone was talking at me yesterday about this movie and I was getting riled so I decided to go full rant. Specifically in regards to the feminist podcast that slammed it.

I don’t even remember which podcast it was, but I am still rankled and baffled that any “feminism in movies” podcast could jump to anything but “this movie is phenomenal.”

First of all, even just discussing the overall quality: sure, it might not have been groundbreaking with its cgi or plot twists. But back in the 90s, that wasn’t the standard of measure like it is now (and even now is a shitty standard that needs to die). This movie was light and funny and yet hit all the right beats to maintain the dire stakes needed to make it a compelling action flick.

Its characters are fully realized and entirely distinct from each other. Even those treated with a broader brush, such as the Americans, were charismatic enough that we were fully invested in their fate. The entire cast of characters were real people with real impact and real agency.

The script is quotable and fucking hilarious. There are gems from literally every single character. Rick and Evie have actual chemistry, aided by Rachel Weisz’s natural magnetism and Brendan Frasier’s career-long knack for acting utterly charmed with his female costars.

Actually, let’s talk about Rick O'Connell for a second. This is peak 90s Brendan Frasier. He is absolutely GORGEOUS, suave, and cool, rugged and handsome. He is the epitome of the 1920s adventure hero. Dear god I want to kiss those casting directors. But for all his general peak masculinity? He’s feminist as fuck. He is equally dumbstruck by Evie as she is by him, and it’s wholly evident that it’s more than a “oh no she’s hot” thing.

How do we know?

He steals her some tools to dig with. This gift demonstrates that he a) has identified her passion for archaeology, b) has recognized her proficiency in the field, despite it not being explicitly stated on screen, and c) sees a chance to restore her full and active participation in the discovery of Hamunaptra.

There is never a moment where Rick assumes to be the leader of the expedition. He is the weapons expert, the muscle–and he knows it. Better than that, he’s totally okay with it. He follows Evie’s lead in all things.

Another favorite moment of mine is when they’re facing off with the American team on Day 1, and Evie realizes there’s a chamber underneath Anubis they could use to excavate the statue. She puts her hand on Rick’s arm, looks him in the eye, and says very deliberately “there are other places to dig.” And he yields, instantly.

By comparison, see the way the Americans treat their workers and guide.

Does he groan about his work being made exponentially harder as a result? Nope. And that’s a recurring theme in his behavior the entire goddamn movie. The only time he is in charge is when a situation is in his wheelhouse– namely, combat and rescue. And it deserves mentioning that the majority of the time that he’s in charge, Evie is not present.

Meanwhile, Evie– her adventurer’s spirit chafing in an academia that dismisses her for her gender– is an absolute marvel. She is visually coded as being very feminine (she’s in dresses and long hair most of the film), but that fact in no way detracts from her competence and agency.

She is consistently protrayed as a fully capable expert in egyptology and there is never a single moment where she waffles on what to do. Even when she’s the damsel in distress, she actively makes the choice to be so because she weighs the potential outcomes and decides doing so provides their best chance of success.

Evie is never the passive victim. She is constantly brash, constantly scheming, and saves the lives of her would-be rescuers mid-abduction. And when her brother (who is the failure of the family, against type) needs help with translation, she correctly translates for him while being throttled by a mummified priestess.

When I first saw this film, I was too young to realize how novel it was. Back then, all I knew was that it was just a good time. But now as an adult– an adult acutely aware of the treatment female characters have gotten in the twenty years since– I marvel at the respect with which the writers and directors treated Evie.

I marvel at how tender Rick was allowed to be, despite his rugged adventurer archetype.

The Mummy (1999) is peak storytelling. It doesn’t try to outsmart the audience, but rather lays out a consistent, coherent narrative that gives the characters and viewers room to breathe. It invests the audience enough to care whether the characters succeed in their goals.

The Mummy (1999) does it right. It’s the reason that any talk of the Tom Cruise version gets an immediate eyeroll from me, because whatever modern grimdark grit they shove into a story about a mummy cannot compare to the reliable and timeless entertainment of the 1999 adaptation.

All modern media should aspire to be the kind of film that The Mummy (1999) is.
(Your picture was not posted)

via https://ift.tt/2wQQFow

kdinjenzen:

nastiazuchko:

grifalinas:

directium:

kdinjenzen:

Hi, welcome to my Ted Talk, today we will be dealing with something that has bothered me about Disney’s Robin Hood since I was a kid and I still cannot get over to this very day.

And it all stems from THESE THREE PEOPLE:

Maid Marian, Prince John, and King Richard

I’m going to preface this entire thing by saying THIS version of Robin Hood is very very VERY different than the source material, much like all Disney animated films, but it wasn’t really DISNEY who did the big changes… those just came over time with making things more… I’m just going to say “normal for society”, which is ultra double lame.

BUT that’s not the point, because that stuff happens everywhere and with everything, and if I started to complain about THAT we’d be here all day, and I’m already going to take more of your time than needed to complain about something SUPER unimportant from a children’s animated movie made in 1973.

ANYWAY!

So, in the movie the titular character, Robin Hood, is a fox. Makes total sense, foxes are crafty, hard to catch, cunning, and known for getting into and out of situations that other animals would have difficulty with. Take that and turn it into an anthropomorphic character and you’d get someone who would easily be against the normal laws, not BAD, but would do BAD to do GOOD. Robin is a show off when he wants to be, and quiet when he has to be.

He’s a pretty perfect Robin Hood, especially in the case of animated kids movies, his characteristics just work SO WELL with his personification as a fox. GOOD STUFF, if I do say so myself!

Little John, meanwhile, is a bear. Not just any bear, but a big ol’ lovable brown bear. This plays on the idea of Little John being a cheeky nickname because Little John is a big, strong, and above all the calm, cool, and rationally smart one of the two. Robin may be clever, but John is the big picture guy. Pun intended.

These two designs and animal choices work SO well with each other, and it’s because these two are so different yet they get along and honestly NEED one another that makes the differences so perfect.

ALAN-A-DALE IS A ROOSTER. BRILLIANT. I don’t even have to go into this, do I? What a GREAT call by making Alan-A-Dale a rooster. Though, I feel a bit of his characteristics were also borrowed from Will Scarlet for the Disney version, but even that still fits everything. And, honestly, I don’t mind the blending of Alan and Will, it kinda works? Especially with the movie being as short as it is.

ROOSTER BARD. ROOSTER. BARD. So good, I mean c’mon. It’s perfection.

The Sheriff of Nottingham being a wolf is… okay. It’s okay. I get it though, having the wolf hunt the fox. Haha. Cheeky. Cliche, but cheeky.

I really have nothing to say about him, he’s just…okay. Dude’s a cop, so whatever. Not a fan of bootlickers, and the fact that they’re dragging wolves in the mud by making a wolf into a cop is… whatever. /He’s A Wolf Cop/

Personally, I don’t like Friar Tuck as a badger. It really doesn’t make sense to me, and I lowkey hate it that they totally missed so many opportunities. DOVE OF PEACE? LAMB OF GOD? Like FOR REAL, you coulda done something super cute like that, but NOoOoOoOoOoO… he’s a badger. And they kinda pick on him for half the movie, for no reason, and I don’t like that.

Still, Friar Tuck is cute, and a really fun character and they do some clever animation stuff with his “badger”-ness. Still a bit of a missed opportunity.

OKAY NOW THAT WE’VE GOT THESE OTHER BIG ONES OUT OF THE WAY, IT’S TIME FOR MY ACTUAL PROBLEM!

MAID FRICKIN MARIAN IS A FOX.

WHAT THE FRICKEN FRICKITY FRACK?!

ABSOLUTELY NOT! Disney did this JUST because they wanted Maid Marian and Robin Hood to be THE SAME ANIMAL, and that’s ABSOLUTE BUNK!

WHY? Well there’s two BIG reasons that is irks me!

First, the idea that they HAD to be together because they were the same animal or they were made to be the same animal so it wouldn’t be “weird” that they were together.

LAME! UNINSPIRED! BULLSHI-

*ehem* Nonsense. Nonsense.

And it’s even MORE nonsense because of this little fact…

PRINCE JOHN AND KING RICHARD ARE HER RELATIVES!

MAID MARIAN THE NIECE OF PRINCE JOHN AND KING RICHARD!

Okay, you could argue that Maid Marian was adopted, or that King Richard married a lovely fox woman and the fox woman’s relative had a daughter and THAT was Maid Marian. And YES, that would make the situation plausible…

EXCEPT!

This is MEDIEVAL ENGLAND and they are ROYALTY and that kinda stuff wouldn’t fly even IF King Richard is the King.

WHAT I’M SAYING IS…

DISNEY ARE COWARDS FOR NOT HAVING A BIG LIONESS LADY DATE A TINY FOX MAN AND WE WERE ROBBED!

#I cannot focus enough to read all of this but that last part is a GREAT POINT

I really recommend reading the rest, it’s gold

Also this post is a goddamn mood

I couldn’t rest until I brought this lioness to life. I hope my humble Maid Marian does your imagination justice!

kdinjenzen

YESSSSSSSS~
(Your picture was not posted)

via https://ift.tt/2xq4ABX

here's a heart for a hard day.

some fish to help you focus.

a pillow to help you sleep.

and my favorite stone for good luck!

chibird:

This penguin cares about you and even wants to give you its favorite stone that it’s been carrying around for a while. ❤️️

Chibird 2020 Calendar | Patreon | Webtoon
(Your picture was not posted)

via https://ift.tt/2vjcLzy

tackedtothewall:

[Image description: a tweet from The Hungover Pundit:

“A friend once shared what she called the Parable of the Choir: A choir can sing a beautiful note impossibly long because singers can individually drop out to breathe as necessary and the note goes on.

“Social justice activism should be like that, she said.

“That’s stuck with me.”

Timestamp 9:12 pm, Jan 14, 2020. /ID]
(Your picture was not posted)