Into
Into

Into

Ball Hog
Ball Hog

Ball Hog

Hog
Hog

Hog

Are
Are

Are

Why The Hell
Why The Hell

Why The Hell

The Hell
The Hell

The Hell

The
The

The

You Are
You Are

You Are

That
That

That

When
When

When

🔥 | Latest

Books, Children, and Community: Only start creating a lore after you already finished half of the series and keep adding stuff a decade after finishing it Steal 90% of your deep lore from real life history and other authors to fill out your world map Create an entire universe with a bloody, theological history with hundreds of characters and dozens of devastating wars, then write a childrens book in it aethelflaedladyofmercia: Ok like I think people are forgetting something very important about JKR.Namely, she did not make up this stuff after the fact. Back in the day, JKR was extremely open about the fact that there was tons of lore behind the scenes she could not address in the books. She couldn’t address it, btw, because it was a known fact in the publishing industry that young adult novels had to top out at like 250, maybe 300 pages because kids didn’t have the attention span for anything longer. And early HP was middle grade, which is the next age category down. She was only able to start addressing deeper lore halfway through the series because that’s how long it took to convince her publishers it wouldn’t scare readers away.(I distinctly remember another, long-established children’s fantasy author dedicating a book to JKR because the success of HP was the reason said author was able to negotiate an extra 100 pages into that novel.)In the mean time, she was in a ton of interviews. She was absolutely the most open author about her worldbuilding. If a fan asked her a question and the answer wasn’t a spoiler, she answered it every time. JKR was famous for this. She was worshipped for it practically. I remember on the early internet boards, when one fan had the chance to meet her in a Q&A we would all pile together and come up with as many questions as possible. Ask what year Beauxbatons was founded. Ask who the ghost of Hufflepuff is. Ask McGonagall’s age. Ask Lily’s maiden name. Were all the Marauders in Gryffindor? Which of Gilderoy Lockheart’s stories were stolen and which were flat out made up?We collected these interviews, we held them as canon, we altered our fanfic to accommodate what she revealed. And then, all of a sudden, that wasn’t what the fans wanted any more. When she finished HP, she said she was done, that she’d move on to other projects. No one wanted any of her non-HP stuff. No one cared. So she came back to build the Fantastic Beasts verse, with exactly the same policy about answering fans that we had welcomed back in the early 2000s.So, like, you don’t have to enjoy what she’s doing. The fan community has changed, and that’s fine. But JKR contributed a lot to the children’s fantasy genre and to the way fandom operated, and we should at least acknowledge that.
Books, Children, and Community: Only start creating a lore after
 you already finished half of the
 series and keep adding stuff a
 decade after finishing it
 Steal 90% of your deep lore from
 real life history and other authors
 to fill out your world map
 Create an entire universe with a
 bloody, theological history with
 hundreds of characters and dozens
 of devastating wars, then write a
 childrens book in it
aethelflaedladyofmercia:

Ok like I think people are forgetting something very important about JKR.Namely, she did not make up this stuff after the fact. Back in the day, JKR was extremely open about the fact that there was tons of lore behind the scenes she could not address in the books. She couldn’t address it, btw, because it was a known fact in the publishing industry that young adult novels had to top out at like 250, maybe 300 pages because kids didn’t have the attention span for anything longer. And early HP was middle grade, which is the next age category down. She was only able to start addressing deeper lore halfway through the series because that’s how long it took to convince her publishers it wouldn’t scare readers away.(I distinctly remember another, long-established children’s fantasy author dedicating a book to JKR because the success of HP was the reason said author was able to negotiate an extra 100 pages into that novel.)In the mean time, she was in a ton of interviews. She was absolutely the most open author about her worldbuilding. If a fan asked her a question and the answer wasn’t a spoiler, she answered it every time. JKR was famous for this. She was worshipped for it practically. I remember on the early internet boards, when one fan had the chance to meet her in a Q&A we would all pile together and come up with as many questions as possible. Ask what year Beauxbatons was founded. Ask who the ghost of Hufflepuff is. Ask McGonagall’s age. Ask Lily’s maiden name. Were all the Marauders in Gryffindor? Which of Gilderoy Lockheart’s stories were stolen and which were flat out made up?We collected these interviews, we held them as canon, we altered our fanfic to accommodate what she revealed. And then, all of a sudden, that wasn’t what the fans wanted any more. When she finished HP, she said she was done, that she’d move on to other projects. No one wanted any of her non-HP stuff. No one cared. So she came back to build the Fantastic Beasts verse, with exactly the same policy about answering fans that we had welcomed back in the early 2000s.So, like, you don’t have to enjoy what she’s doing. The fan community has changed, and that’s fine. But JKR contributed a lot to the children’s fantasy genre and to the way fandom operated, and we should at least acknowledge that.

aethelflaedladyofmercia: Ok like I think people are forgetting something very important about JKR.Namely, she did not make up this stuff af...

Fashion, Feminism, and Fucking: GOOD MORNING A WOMAN A CREWMAN duckbunny: quirkquartz: socialistexan: jazzchordravepiano: wetwareproblem: amayakumiko: thetrekkiehasthephonebox: spocks–cock: Christopher: A woman? Kirk: A crewman. OH LOOK AT THAT THE 1960S AND SHE’S IN COMMAND GOLD FUCKERS. She’s not in Medical blue, a caretaking, feminine role.   Those in Gold were either OFFICERS, NAVIGATORS, PILOTS, TACTICAL OFFICERS, or WEAPONS SPECIALISTS.   This is the Kirk everyone likes to forget. Y’all, if you care about feminism, then you ought to care about the history and context of the miniskirt. The 60s were an era of rebellion against the 50s, and the skirts were part of it. They were literally cutting edge fashion, and a statement that women made against the more housewifey style of skirt from the decade before. It was Grace Lee Whitney herself who suggested to Roddenberry that they wear them, and Nichelle Nichols has said she never had a problem with them. They are a product of their time yes, but the women chose to wear them because of the context of that time.  Also some men in Starfleet ware miniskirts and dresses: And some of the women wear pants: They’re given the power of choice, regardless of gender or sex. Shit ‘-’ None of this even clicked to me - Thats fucking glorious :D Picard in that dress is so good. Look at him! He looks formal and serious and dignified! He looks like he’s captain of his ship and he’s got some important business to do. And he’s in a dress and tights. And it’s not a joke. It’s not a joke about a man in a dress! It’s just, you know, a man who is wearing a dress, and that’s normal and appropriate. It’s part of the uniform. It fits him. It’s totally unremarkable and that is so rare and I’m so happy.
Fashion, Feminism, and Fucking: GOOD MORNING

 A WOMAN
 A CREWMAN
duckbunny:

quirkquartz:


socialistexan:

jazzchordravepiano:

wetwareproblem:

amayakumiko:

thetrekkiehasthephonebox:

spocks–cock:

Christopher: A woman? Kirk: A crewman.

OH LOOK AT THAT THE 1960S

AND SHE’S IN COMMAND GOLD FUCKERS.
She’s not in Medical blue, a caretaking, feminine role.  
Those in Gold were either OFFICERS, NAVIGATORS, PILOTS, TACTICAL OFFICERS, or WEAPONS SPECIALISTS.  

This is the Kirk everyone likes to forget.

Y’all, if you care about feminism, then you ought to care about the history and context of the miniskirt. The 60s were an era of rebellion against the 50s, and the skirts were part of it. They were literally cutting edge fashion, and a statement that women made against the more housewifey style of skirt from the decade before. It was Grace Lee Whitney herself who suggested to Roddenberry that they wear them, and Nichelle Nichols has said she never had a problem with them. They are a product of their time yes, but the women chose to wear them because of the context of that time. 

Also some men in Starfleet ware miniskirts and dresses:
And some of the women wear pants:
They’re given the power of choice, regardless of gender or sex. 

Shit ‘-’ None of this even clicked to me - Thats fucking glorious :D


Picard in that dress is so good. Look at him! He looks formal and serious and dignified! He looks like he’s captain of his ship and he’s got some important business to do. And he’s in a dress and tights. And it’s not a joke. It’s not a joke about a man in a dress! It’s just, you know, a man who is wearing a dress, and that’s normal and appropriate. It’s part of the uniform. It fits him. It’s totally unremarkable and that is so rare and I’m so happy.

duckbunny: quirkquartz: socialistexan: jazzchordravepiano: wetwareproblem: amayakumiko: thetrekkiehasthephonebox: spocks–cock: Chri...

God, Monster, and Movies: INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL SAN DIEGO AN DIE ECON CONCON CON INTERNA INTER INTERNATIONAL 1N DIEG0 OIEGO SAN DIEGO CON OUG NO CON DIEGO CON INTERNATIONAL ONAL INTERNATIONAL IN E WATIONAL TERNATIONA SAN DIEGO CON SAN OIEG0 0 93 eONCON CO SAN OIEG N OIEG CO INTERNATIO COMICE CO OM feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was.  When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical:  When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x) Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor.  “We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x) Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak just to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior.  What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman.  Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man.  So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder?  He makes her Thor.  Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words.  What a photo. What a film. What a man. 
God, Monster, and Movies: INTERNATIONAL
 INTERNATIONAL
 SAN DIEGO
 AN DIE
 ECON CONCON CON
 INTERNA
 INTER
 INTERNATIONAL
 1N DIEG0
 OIEGO
 SAN DIEGO
 CON
 OUG NO
 CON
 DIEGO
 CON
 INTERNATIONAL
 ONAL
 INTERNATIONAL
 IN E WATIONAL
 TERNATIONA
 SAN DIEGO
 CON
 SAN OIEG0
 0 93
 eONCON CO
 SAN OIEG
 N OIEG
 CO
 INTERNATIO
 COMICE
 CO
 OM
feministscoundrel:

This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why. 
Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was. 
When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical: 
When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x)
Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor. 
“We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x)
Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak just to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior. 
What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman. 
Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man. 
So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder? 
He makes her Thor. 
Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words. 
What a photo. What a film. What a man. 

feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not...

Gif, God, and Monster: INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL SAN DIEGO AN DIE ECON CONCON CON INTERNA INTER INTERNATIONAL 1N DIEG0 OIEGO SAN DIEGO CON OUG NO CON DIEGO CON INTERNATIONAL ONAL INTERNATIONAL IN E WATIONAL TERNATIONA SAN DIEGO CON SAN OIEG0 0 93 eONCON CO SAN OIEG N OIEG CO INTERNATIO COMICE CO OM ebonyheartnet: jewishdragon: feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was.  When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical:  When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x) Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor.  “We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x) Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior.  What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman.  Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man.  So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder?  He makes her Thor.  Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words.  What a photo. What a film. What a man.  Wiatiti And Portman are also BOTH jewish! Jews lifting up Jews!
Gif, God, and Monster: INTERNATIONAL
 INTERNATIONAL
 SAN DIEGO
 AN DIE
 ECON CONCON CON
 INTERNA
 INTER
 INTERNATIONAL
 1N DIEG0
 OIEGO
 SAN DIEGO
 CON
 OUG NO
 CON
 DIEGO
 CON
 INTERNATIONAL
 ONAL
 INTERNATIONAL
 IN E WATIONAL
 TERNATIONA
 SAN DIEGO
 CON
 SAN OIEG0
 0 93
 eONCON CO
 SAN OIEG
 N OIEG
 CO
 INTERNATIO
 COMICE
 CO
 OM
ebonyheartnet:
jewishdragon:

feministscoundrel:

This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why. 
Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was. 
When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical: 
When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x)
Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor. 
“We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x)
Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior. 
What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman. 
Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man. 
So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder? 
He makes her Thor. 
Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words. 
What a photo. What a film. What a man. 


Wiatiti And Portman are also BOTH jewish! Jews lifting up Jews!

ebonyheartnet: jewishdragon: feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shu...

God, Monster, and Movies: INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL SAN DIEGO AN DIE ECON CONCON CON INTERNA INTER INTERNATIONAL 1N DIEG0 OIEGO SAN DIEGO CON OUG NO CON DIEGO CON INTERNATIONAL ONAL INTERNATIONAL IN E WATIONAL TERNATIONA SAN DIEGO CON SAN OIEG0 0 93 eONCON CO SAN OIEG N OIEG CO INTERNATIO COMICE CO OM feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was.  When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical:  When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x) Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor.  “We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x) Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior.  What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman.  Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man.  So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder?  He makes her Thor.  Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words.  What a photo. What a film. What a man. 
God, Monster, and Movies: INTERNATIONAL
 INTERNATIONAL
 SAN DIEGO
 AN DIE
 ECON CONCON CON
 INTERNA
 INTER
 INTERNATIONAL
 1N DIEG0
 OIEGO
 SAN DIEGO
 CON
 OUG NO
 CON
 DIEGO
 CON
 INTERNATIONAL
 ONAL
 INTERNATIONAL
 IN E WATIONAL
 TERNATIONA
 SAN DIEGO
 CON
 SAN OIEG0
 0 93
 eONCON CO
 SAN OIEG
 N OIEG
 CO
 INTERNATIO
 COMICE
 CO
 OM
feministscoundrel:
This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why. 
Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was. 
When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical: 
When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x)
Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor. 
“We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x)
Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior. 
What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman. 
Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man. 
So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder? 
He makes her Thor. 
Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words. 
What a photo. What a film. What a man. 

feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not ...

History, Glory, and Racing: I welded this sculpture together to celebrate the history and glory of Sidecars racing
History, Glory, and Racing: I welded this sculpture together to celebrate the history and glory of Sidecars racing

I welded this sculpture together to celebrate the history and glory of Sidecars racing

Chicago, College, and Dank: Got denied from harvard s March 2015 2.8 HARVARD COLLEGK Office of Admissions and Financial Aid Molly McGaan 330 W. Webster Ave Chicago, Il 60614 Dear Ms. McGaan: Thank you for your interest in Harvard College. After careful consideration of your application, I am sorry to inform you that we are unable to offer you a place in the class of 2019. This year's application pool was the strongest in the College's history, and we are unable to offer admission to every student, regardless of their proficiency in "dank memes", or their level of "Swagg moneyyyy." Although your GPA and ACT scores were certainly up to our standards, your essays raised some eyebrows at the admissions meetings. For future reference, it is not wise to start an essay with the words, "listen here u little slanks" and end with "McGaan out "drops mic We also didn't need a copy of your mixtape, regardless of how ire" it is (one admissions counselor actually listened to it, and we are pretty sure 40 minutes of you making animal noises is not fire"). In addition, we will be returning your copy of Grownups 2 signed by Chancellor Angela Merkel, because you said it's your "greatest possession" and we don't want it. We also suggest obtaining recommendation letters from teachers or trusted mentors, not "my #4 side ho Derek" or Chief Kee, who submitted a picture of a dinosaur drawn in crayon on a rolling paper. We greatly appreciate your interest in Harvard, and we offer our best wishes of success as you pursue your educational goals
Chicago, College, and Dank: Got denied from harvard s
 March 2015
 2.8
 HARVARD COLLEGK Office of Admissions and Financial Aid
 Molly McGaan
 330 W. Webster Ave
 Chicago, Il 60614
 Dear Ms. McGaan:
 Thank you for your interest in Harvard College.
 After careful consideration of your application, I am sorry to inform you that we are
 unable to offer you a place in the class of 2019. This year's application pool was the strongest in
 the College's history, and we are unable to offer admission to every student, regardless of their
 proficiency in "dank memes", or their level of "Swagg moneyyyy." Although your GPA and
 ACT scores were certainly up to our standards, your essays raised some eyebrows at the
 admissions meetings. For future reference, it is not wise to start an essay with the words, "listen
 here u little slanks" and end with "McGaan out "drops mic We also didn't need a copy of
 your mixtape, regardless of how ire" it is (one admissions counselor actually listened to it, and
 we are pretty sure 40 minutes of you making animal noises is not fire"). In addition, we will be
 returning your copy of Grownups 2 signed by Chancellor Angela Merkel, because you said it's
 your "greatest possession" and we don't want it. We also suggest obtaining recommendation
 letters from teachers or trusted mentors, not "my #4 side ho Derek" or Chief Kee, who
 submitted a picture of a dinosaur drawn in crayon on a rolling paper.
 We greatly appreciate your interest in Harvard, and we offer our best wishes of success
 as you pursue your educational goals
Definitely, Doug, and New York: 2 Effigy of the Forgotten metalkilltheking: 1991. Effigy of the Forgotten is the debut album by band Suffocation, released in October 22. The cover artwork was created by Dan Seagrave.Suffocation was formed in 1988 on Long Island, New York, by vocalist Frank Mullen, bassist Josh Barohn, guitarists Guy Marchais and Todd German, and Barohn’s friend on drums.The album was dedicated to the memory of Atheist bassist Roger Patterson, who had been killed in a car crash earlier in 1991.Effigy of the Forgotten is considered to be one of the first death metal albums to have a highly sophisticated level of technical proficiency. The guitars are very low-end and down tuned whilst using a lot of tremolo picking and fast alternate picked notes alongside a lot of fast blast beats drumming and quick fills involved. It’s all very violent,  Some passages are oddly catchy and most of the solos are awesome. The slam on the album’s opener is famous for being the first slam in death metal history, and it’s one of the best at it. In fact, the whole song serves as the sole highlight to this album. It’s simply great from start to finish, with the other songs trying to outdo what it did best, Definitely a classic that I recommend for the death metal fans looking for older albums.Frank Mullen   Doug Cerrito    Terrance Hobbs   Josh Barohn   Mike Smith
Definitely, Doug, and New York: 2
 Effigy of the Forgotten
metalkilltheking:

1991. Effigy of the Forgotten is the debut album by band Suffocation, released in October 22. The cover artwork was created by Dan Seagrave.Suffocation was formed in 1988 on Long Island, New York, by vocalist Frank Mullen, bassist Josh Barohn, guitarists Guy Marchais and Todd German, and Barohn’s friend on drums.The album was dedicated to the memory of Atheist bassist Roger Patterson, who had been killed in a car crash earlier in 1991.Effigy of the Forgotten is considered to be one of the first death metal albums to have a highly sophisticated level of technical proficiency. The guitars are very low-end and down tuned whilst using a lot of tremolo picking and fast alternate picked notes alongside a lot of fast blast beats drumming and quick fills involved. It’s all very violent,  Some passages are oddly catchy and most of the solos are awesome. The slam on the album’s opener is famous for being the first slam in death metal history, and it’s one of the best at it. In fact, the whole song serves as the sole highlight to this album. It’s simply great from start to finish, with the other songs trying to outdo what it did best, Definitely a classic that I recommend for the death metal fans looking for older albums.Frank Mullen   Doug Cerrito    Terrance Hobbs   Josh Barohn   Mike Smith

metalkilltheking: 1991. Effigy of the Forgotten is the debut album by band Suffocation, released in October 22. The cover artwork was creat...

Animals, Bailey Jay, and Community: gluklixhe: ironbite4: fluffmugger: crazythingsfromhistory: archaeologistforhire: thegirlthewolfate: theopensea: kiwianaroha: pearlsnapbutton: desiremyblack: smileforthehigh: unexplained-events: Researchers have used Easter Island Moai replicas to show how they might have been “walked” to where they are displayed. VIDEO Finally. People need to realize aliens aren’t the answer for everything (when they use it to erase poc civilizations and how smart they were) (via TumbleOn) What’s really wild is that the native people literally told the Europeans “they walked” when asked how the statues were moved. The Europeans were like “lol these backwards heathens and their fairy tales guess it’s gonna always be a mystery!” Maori told Europeans that kiore were native rats and no one believed them until DNA tests proved it And the Iroquois told Europeans that squirels showed them how to tap maple syrup and no one believed them until they caught it on video Oral history from various First Nations tribes in the Pacific Northwest contained stories about a massive earthquake/tsunami hitting the coast, but no one listened to them until scientists discovered physical evidence of quakes from the Cascadia fault line. Roopkund Lake AKA “Skeleton Lake” in the Himalayas in India is eerie because it was discovered with hundreds of skeletal remains and for the life of them researchers couldn’t figure out what it was that killed them. For decades the “mystery” went unsolved. Until they finally payed closer attention to local songs and legend that all essentially said “Yah the Goddess Nanda Devi got mad and sent huge heave stones down to kill them”. That was consistent with huge contusions found all on their neck and shoulders and the weather patterns of the area, which are prone to huge inevitably deadly goddamn hailstones. https://www.facebook.com/atlasobscura/videos/10154065247212728/ Literally these legends were past down for over a thousand years and it still took researched 50 to “figure out” the “mystery”. 🙄 Adding to this, the Inuit communities in Nunavut KNEW where both the wrecks of the HMS Erebus and HMS Terror were literally the entire time but Europeans/white people didn’t even bother consulting them about either ship until like…last year.  “Inuit traditional knowledge was critical to the discovery of both ships, she pointed out, offering the Canadian government a powerful demonstration of what can be achieved when Inuit voices are included in the process. In contrast, the tragic fate of the 129 men on the Franklin expedition hints at the high cost of marginalising those who best know the area and its history. “If Inuit had been consulted 200 years ago and asked for their traditional knowledge – this is our backyard – those two wrecks would have been found, lives would have been saved. I’m confident of that,” she said. “But they believed their civilization was superior and that was their undoing.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/16/inuit-canada-britain-shipwreck-hms-terror-nunavut “Oh yeah, I heard a lot of stories about Terror, the ships, but I guess Parks Canada don’t listen to people,” Kogvik said. “They just ignore Inuit stories about the Terror ship.” Schimnowski said the crew had also heard stories about people on the land seeing the silhouette of a masted ship at sunset. “The community knew about this for many, many years. It’s hard for people to stop and actually listen … especially people from the South.”  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/sammy-kogvik-hms-terror-franklin-1.3763653 Indigenous Australians have had stories about giant kangaroos and wombats for thousands of years, and European settlers just kinda assumed they were myths. Cut to more recently when evidence of megafauna was discovered, giant versions of Australian animals that died out 41 000 years ago. Similarly, scientists have been stumped about how native Palm trees got to a valley in the middle of Australia, and it wasn’t until a few years ago that someone did DNA testing and concluded that seeds had been carried there from the north around 30 000 years ago… aaand someone pointed out that Indigenous people have had stories about gods from the north carrying the seeds to a valley in the central desert. oh man let me tell you about Indigenous Australian myths - the framework they use (with multi-generational checking that’s unique on the planet, meaning there’s no drifting or mutation of the story, seriously they are hardcore about maintaining integrity) means that we literally have multiple first-hand accounts of life and the ecosystem before the end of the last ice age it’s literally the oldest accurate oral history of the world.   Now consider this: most people consider the start of recorded history to be with  the Sumerians and the Early Dynastic period of the Egyptians.  So around 3500 BCE, or five and a half thousand years agoThese highly accurate Aboriginal oral histories originate from twenty thousand years ago at least Ain’t it amazing what white people consider history and what they don’t? I always said disservice is done to oral traditions and myth when you take them literally. Ancient people were not stupid.
Animals, Bailey Jay, and Community: gluklixhe:

ironbite4:

fluffmugger:

crazythingsfromhistory:

archaeologistforhire:

thegirlthewolfate:

theopensea:

kiwianaroha:

pearlsnapbutton:

desiremyblack:

smileforthehigh:

unexplained-events:

Researchers have used Easter Island Moai replicas to show how they might have been “walked” to where they are displayed.
VIDEO

Finally. People need to realize aliens aren’t the answer for everything (when they use it to erase poc civilizations and how smart they were)

(via TumbleOn)

What’s really wild is that the native people literally told the Europeans “they walked” when asked how the statues were moved. The Europeans were like “lol these backwards heathens and their fairy tales guess it’s gonna always be a mystery!”


Maori told Europeans that kiore were native rats and no one believed them until DNA tests proved it
And the Iroquois told Europeans that squirels showed them how to tap maple syrup and no one believed them until they caught it on video

Oral history from various First Nations tribes in the Pacific Northwest contained stories about a massive earthquake/tsunami hitting the coast, but no one listened to them until scientists discovered physical evidence of quakes from the Cascadia fault line.

Roopkund Lake AKA “Skeleton Lake” in the Himalayas in India is eerie because it was discovered with hundreds of skeletal remains and for the life of them researchers couldn’t figure out what it was that killed them. For decades the “mystery” went unsolved.
Until they finally payed closer attention to local songs and legend that all essentially said “Yah the Goddess Nanda Devi got mad and sent huge heave stones down to kill them”. That was consistent with huge contusions found all on their neck and shoulders and the weather patterns of the area, which are prone to huge  inevitably deadly goddamn hailstones. https://www.facebook.com/atlasobscura/videos/10154065247212728/
Literally these legends were past down for over a thousand years and it still took researched 50 to “figure out” the “mystery”. 🙄

Adding to this, the Inuit communities in Nunavut KNEW where both the wrecks of the HMS Erebus and HMS Terror were literally the entire time but Europeans/white people didn’t even bother consulting them about either ship until like…last year. 
“Inuit traditional knowledge was critical to the discovery of both ships, she pointed out, offering the Canadian government a powerful demonstration of what can be achieved when Inuit voices are included in the process.
In contrast, the tragic fate of the 129 men on the Franklin expedition hints at the high cost of marginalising those who best know the area and its history.
“If Inuit had been consulted 200 years ago and asked for their traditional knowledge – this is our backyard – those two wrecks would have been found, lives would have been saved. I’m confident of that,” she said. “But they believed their civilization was superior and that was their undoing.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/16/inuit-canada-britain-shipwreck-hms-terror-nunavut
“Oh yeah, I heard a lot of stories about Terror, the ships, but I guess Parks Canada don’t listen to people,” Kogvik said. “They just ignore Inuit stories about the Terror ship.”
Schimnowski said the crew had also heard stories about people on the land seeing the silhouette of a masted ship at sunset.
“The community knew about this for many, many years. It’s hard for people to stop and actually listen … especially people from the South.”
 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/sammy-kogvik-hms-terror-franklin-1.3763653

Indigenous Australians have had stories about giant kangaroos and wombats for thousands of years, and European settlers just kinda assumed they were myths. Cut to more recently when evidence of megafauna was discovered, giant versions of Australian animals that died out 41 000 years ago.
Similarly, scientists have been stumped about how native Palm trees got to a valley in the middle of Australia, and it wasn’t until a few years ago that someone did DNA testing and concluded that seeds had been carried there from the north around 30 000 years ago… aaand someone pointed out that Indigenous people have had stories about gods from the north carrying the seeds to a valley in the central desert.

oh man let me tell you about Indigenous Australian myths - the framework they use (with multi-generational checking that’s unique on the planet, meaning there’s no drifting or mutation of the story, seriously they are hardcore about maintaining integrity) means that we literally have multiple first-hand accounts of life and the ecosystem before the end of the last ice age
it’s literally the oldest accurate oral history of the world.  
Now consider this: most people consider the start of recorded history to be with  the Sumerians and the Early Dynastic period of the Egyptians.  So around 3500 BCE, or five and a half thousand years agoThese highly accurate Aboriginal oral histories originate from twenty thousand years ago at least

Ain’t it amazing what white people consider history and what they don’t?


I always said disservice is done to oral traditions and myth when you take them literally. Ancient people were not stupid.

gluklixhe: ironbite4: fluffmugger: crazythingsfromhistory: archaeologistforhire: thegirlthewolfate: theopensea: kiwianaroha: pearlsn...