marzipanandminutiae:

glamaphonic:

moniquill:

No guys, I need to stop and talk about something in this movie and how fucking revolutionary it was; something that I haven’t seen in a movie before or since.

This is a movie about a kid who leaves her birth family.

Not a kid who find that they have a secret lineage or something that allows them to find their ‘true family’ – this is a movie about a kid whose true birth family is made up of bad people. So she gets out. And that is played as the right thing to do. She isn’t punished for it or made to feel bad about ‘abandoning her family’. There isn’t an underlying ‘but they’re your family and you have to love them’ or ‘they’re your family and they love you even if they don’t show it well or do hurtful things’ message of the kind that I see OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER in media. Matilda gets out and lives happily ever after because of it.

We need a million more movies like this to counter the metric shit ton of movies that directly counter this message.

 #sometimes the family you start with isn’t a good one #but you can find your own #family is not absolute #blood is not absolute

not to mention, Miss Honey is an abuse survivor herself (and in the book, she’s only 23 years old)

they both got out. they both became each other’s happy ending.

jayalaw:

treepelt:

shadowdj94:

treepelt:

libertarirynn:

I’m legitimately so tired of the Disney remakes. Like I can’t even muster up enough energy to be mad about it, I just truly do not care. There hasn’t been one remake I felt compelled to see in theaters, and only a few that I bothered to watch on Netflix. The result is always either no better or actively worse than the original, and if you like watching them that’s fine, but I’m sick to death of the argument that we need these endless remakes so that “a new generation can enjoy the stories”. What planet are you one where you can’t watch a movie more than once? The stories are readily available. I watched plenty of movies as a kid that came out before I was born, there’s literally nothing stopping you.

Also, it used to be when they made a remake they at least had the decency to remake 40+ year old films; now they’re remaking things that came out just a few decades ago and adding practically nothing.

I guess I really don’t see what the appeal is or why they make so much money. I mean I get nostalgia but if I feel nostalgic for an old movie I’ll just… watch that movie.

It sucks cause Disney’s just going to make hundreds of millions of dollars off this remake cause everyone thinks it’s amazing animation and it’ll be called a smashing success, and any more original film ideas are never gonna see the light of day again because it might not be a “safe” option to pick for big greedy corporations.

Here’s a crazy idea: maybe there are ideas being thrown around but none of them are getting there yet. Or they could be looking at old concepts.

You wanna run that by me again?

Not pictured: live-action Mulan, Maleficent 2, 101 Dalmatians remake, Lilo & Stitch remake, LA Little Mermaid, LA Pinocchio, Snow White remake, and that’s just future releases.

We’ve already had to deal with an awful live-action Beauty and the Beast, a pointless Jungle Book remake, those weird-ass Alice in Wonderland movies, a Cinderella remake, and the first Maleficent.

There’s a reason new ideas “aren’t getting there yet”, and it’s all in the name of money. Once you slap a recognizable brand name onto something you’re working on, you’ve immediately secured a huge pre-existing fanbase that will see your movie no matter what, so that’s half their job done already. Slap together something resembling a remake and voila, let the cash flow in. They’ve been doing this for years.

Yeowch

ranma-official:

delcat177:

finnglas:

dangerwaffle:

castiel-knight-of-hell:

masquerading-as-a-genius:

sage-of-rocknroll-oromis:

the-deaf-mermaid:

giants0rbiting:

I LITERALLY THINK THIS EVERY TIME THE SONG COMES ON

What song is this talking about?

‘Baby It’s Cold Outside’

Otherwise known as the original ‘Blurred Lines’

HEY FRIENDS HISTORICAL REMINDER: ‘WHAT’S IN THIS DRINK’ ISN’T TALKING ABOUT DRUGS, HE IS NOT TRYING TO ROOFIE HER

THE SONG IS TALKING ABOUT ALCOHOL

but still a pushy song

historical reminder that the reason pina coladas and pink squirrels are known as “girly drinks” is because they mask the taste of alcohol and men were know to give women these drinks without informing them that they were alcoholic. It takes a couple of drinks to realize you’ve been consuming alcohol and by then you’re more susceptible to suggestion, making it easier for him to convince you to stick around and have a third drink. When this song was written in 1944 most women didn’t drink regularly, meaning they had a low tolerance and it would only take 2-3 drinks to get her drunk enough that she wouldn’t be able to put up much of a fight. This was the 1940s version of being roofied

No no no it was not.

“Hey what’s in this drink” was a stock joke at the time, and the punchline was invariably that there’s actually pretty much nothing in the drink, not even a significant amount of alcohol

See, this woman is staying late, unchaperoned, at a dude’s house. In the 1940’s, that’s the kind of thing Good Girls aren’t supposed to do – and she wants people to think she’s a good girl. The woman in the song says outright, multiple times, that what other people will think of her staying is what she’s really concerned about: “the neighbors might think,” “my maiden aunt’s mind is vicious,” “there’s bound to be talk tomorrow.“ But she’s having a really good time, and she wants to stay, and so she is excusing her uncharacteristically bold behavior (either to the guy or to herself) by blaming it on the drink – unaware that the drink is actually really weak, maybe not even alcoholic at all. That’s the joke. That is the standard joke that’s going on when a woman in media from the early-to-mid 20th century says “hey, what’s in this drink?“ It is not a joke about how she’s drunk and about to be raped. It’s a joke about how she’s perfectly sober and about to have awesome consensual sex and use the drink for plausible deniability because she’s living in a society where women aren’t supposed to have sexual agency.

Basically, the song only makes sense in the context of a society in which women are expected to reject men’s advances whether they actually want to or not, and therefore it’s normal and expected for a lady’s gentleman companion to pressure her despite her protests, because he knows she would have to say that whether or not she meant it, and if she really wants to stay she won’t be able to justify doing so unless he offers her an excuse other than “I’m staying because I want to.” (That’s the main theme of the man’s lines in the song, suggesting excuses she can use when people ask later why she spent the night at his house: it was so cold out, there were no cabs available, he simply insisted because he was concerned about my safety in such awful weather, it was perfectly innocent and definitely not about sex at all!) In this particular case, he’s pretty clearly right, because unlike in Blurred Lines, the woman actually has a voice, and she’s using it to give all the culturally-understood signals that she actually does want to stay but can’t say so. She states explicitly that she’s resisting because she’s supposedto, not because she wants to: “I ought to say no no no…" She states explicitly that she’s just putting up a token resistance so she’ll be able to claim later that she did what’s expected of a decent woman in this situation: “at least I’m gonna say that I tried.” And at the end of the song they’re singing together, in harmony, because they’re both on the same page and they have been all along.

So it’s not actually a song about rape – in fact it’s a song about a woman finding a way to exercise sexual agency in a patriarchal society designed to stop her from doing so. But it’s also, at the same time, one of the best illustrations of rape culture that pop culture has ever produced. It’s a song about a society where women aren’t allowed to say yes…which happens to mean it’s also a society where women don’t have a clear and unambiguous way to say no.

Reblogging for that last bit because this is what I rant about to Kellie every time this discourse happens on my blog but I’m too lazy to type it out. SO thank you to @dangerwaffle for not being as lazy as me. This song has a cultural context, and a historical context, and it’s worth talking about how fucked up that context is, but you have to get WHICH context it is right first.

I see the Annual Discourse has been reblogged, it is Christmas in fact an deed

broke: tracking christmas by calendar date

joke: tracking christmas by christmas song google searches

woke: tracking christmas by baby it’s cold outside discourse

skeltonjunction:

probably the worst take on this website is the “ugh those privileged cis gays” mentality, as if gay men aren’t one of the most persecuted groups in the world? and like, it absolutely comes from this mogai mentality that the more obscure your labels are, the more oppressed you are (and therefore the better/less problematic/more ‘pure’ you are as a person), and that’s why we end up with 14-year-old lgbt kids struggling to come up with super specific labels for every single facet of their identity in order to prove they’re worth something to older people who they look up to on here, and y’all need to stop

when the story is just not working, but you keep writing anyway

bardofheartdive:

pearlcrandall:

amynchan:

missannaraven:

howitreallyistobeanartist:

Current mood…

Reminder that she actually wins that season, so keep your head up.

Reminder that she constantly had trouble believing that she deserved to be there and her first few could best be described as ‘not the worst’.

And she won. She stayed positive, cried when she needed to, and kept going.

Once more:

  1. Stay positive
  2. Cry when you need to
  3. Keep going