Just imagine though, the Muggleborn 11 year olds show up at Hogwarts, get sorted, enjoy the great feast, and start settling into their dorms all excited about the first year at wizard school. Then they remember, just as the prefect is leaving, “Oh I almost forgot to ask, what’s the wifi password?”
And the pure blood prefect gives them a puzzled look, “What’s ‘wifi?’”
And just like that, Hogwarts is a terrifying place.
Marvel Part Time Jobs by Chow Hon Lam
"are you a robot?"
"I am an artificial intelligence program."
"cool i’m part robot."
"The technical term is cyborg, sir."
"what’s that over there?"
#OMG OMG OMG #and then tony thinks it’s amazing #and wonders #can he make a pair of goggles for bucky #with a hud like his helmet #so that he can communicate with jarvis #fuck yes he can #if google glass has done it #then tony can do it 10000x times better #and then when bucky LOVES THEM #tony asks him if he’d like them to be able to interact with his arm #it could come in handy #tony knows it comes in handy to have jarvis at his back when he’s incapacitated #and he knows bucky’s iffy about the arm #but baby steps #goggles first #tony’s gonna make him some goddamned goggles #dummy where are you #get the fabrication units fired up #we’ve got shit to make #tony stark #jarvis #iron man #art #my heart
Then Bucky accidentally uses the goggles to order a pizza. He’s really surprised when it gets there, he didn’t mean to, STEVE WHAT DO. Steve is really apologetic and tries to pay Tony back, but when Tony hears what happened he’s in stitches. He waves it off as pocket change. They do set things up so Bucky can’t buy things anymore, though. Bucky wouldn’t do that to Tony on purpose, but he pretends to be upset.
get them out of here sam
nakedsasquatch it’s ya man
Okay but seriously folks - as often as I joke about this movie stirs my loins and as weirdly popular as this text post got a while back, I wanna rap with you all about why the George of the Jungle remake is a pretty important piece of cinema.
It’s literally the only movie I can think of that is based completely around the unheard of “FEMALE gaze.” Granted, while I’m a huge movie buff I’ve not seen every movie ever made. But even so, even if there’s another example of the “female gaze” in cinema that has escaped me it’s still damn impressive that a kids movie from 1997 based on a Jay Ward cartoon from the 60’s managed to turn gender representation in media on it’s fucking ass!
Let me just say that while Leslie Mann is adorable and a talented actress, she does look a little less conventional and a little more plain compared to the bombshells that Hollywood likes to churn out. Leslie, in comparison, looks much more like a real women you’d meet on the street. She dresses pretty conservatively and plain throughout the film ; Wearing outfits that are more functional than fashionable for trekking through the jungle, pulling her hair back and so forth. Not that if she was dolled up and more scantily clad it would give her character any less integrity, but can we appreciate how RARE that is in the male dominated industry of film? Just think about all the roads a film about a woman in the jungle COULD have taken but didn’t - no scenes with her clothes strategically ripped or anything! You can say this is a kids movie, intended for children and that’s why the sensuality of the female lead is so downplayed but there are PLENTY of kids movies that handle women in a very objectifying and sexualized manner despite the target audience is pre-pubescent. Like, a disgusting amount. So I don’t think “it’s a kids movie” is why the film doesn’t take ANY, let alone EVERY, opportunity to showcase the main female character’s sex appeal…
…especially considering the sex appeal of the film rests squarely on the well defined shoulders of our male lead, George of the Jungle played by Brendan Fraser in the best god damn shape of his life!
*Homer Simpson Drooling Noises*
Whenever members of the reddit community try to compare the sexualization of women in fiction to the design of characters such as Batman and Superman, I always want to just sit them down and show them this movie. Because THIS is what the female sexual fantasy looks like, and Batman and Superman are male power-fantasies. Look at him - his big blue eyes, his soft hair, his lean, chiseled physique built for dexterity rather than power. He’s wild and free, but gentle. It’s like he fell right out of that steamy romance novel your mom tried to hide from you growing up.
Hell, the whole plot seems to be designed around how damn hot he is! First, for the majority of the film, he wears only a small strip of cloth to cover the dick balls and ass. Everything else is FAIR GAME to drool over for 40 minutes. Then, after he meets Ursula she takes him with her to San Francisco just so we can enjoy him in a well-tailored suit (as seen in the gif set), running around in an open and billowy shirt along side horses while Ursula and all of her friends literally crowd around and make sexual comments about him, and my personal favorite, ditch the loincloth entirely and have him walk around naked while covering his man-bits with various objects while one of Ursula’s very lucky friends oogles him and makes a joke along the lines of “So THAT’S why they call him the ‘KING of the Jungle’…”
And yes, it’s also a very cute and funny little movie. Out of all the movies based on Jay Ward cartoons, it was the most faithful to the fast-paced humor and wit of the original source material (yes even the new Peabody and Sherman movie which honestly I thought was too cutesy-poo.) But that’s not why this movie is popular with the gay community or why we all became women in 1997. It’s just really cool that there’s a film out there where the sensuality of the female form takes a back seat for the oiled up, chiseled, physique of Brendan Fraser (in his prime that is)
One thing to add: in the scene mentioned above where the ladies are watching him in the billowy shirt running with the horses, it pans back to about 50 feet away to two guys in suits at this party looking at the women and one of the guys says, “Man, what is it with women and horses?” So not only does this movie highlight the female gaze, but it blatantly points out that western male sensibilities don’t have a clue what actually appeals to women.
The artist behind the “Stop Telling Women to Smile” campaign wheat pasting in downtown Atlanta, GA.
This is such a vain campaign.
how self absorbed do you have to be
I guess I’m an oppressor now because I tell people to smile if I see them sad.
In my case, smiling can actually help you feel better.
If being asked to smile is the worst thing to happen to women, I’ll take it.
Because trying to be friendly is oppression. Ever tried to see things a bit more positively? Maybe someone asks you to smile because they want to try and cheer you up a bit? No, let’s just assume that all those evil gross men want you to smile for their entertainment only, because OBVIOUSLY every man is selfish like that (oh and women would never ever say things like that am I right?).
"I tell people to smile if I see them sad."
You assume that someone is sad. And sometimes, people do not appreciate you interjecting your assumptions onto them. Moving throughout the day with a neutral face does not mean you are sad. It means that you are simply not smiling.
If someone IS sad, being told to smile is not an automatic pick-me-up. Smiling is a natural reaction. People do not need to be told when to smile. It will happen easily and genuinely for them.
"If being asked to smile is the worst thing to happen to women, I’ll take it."
Really? Do you really think this work is saying that being told to smile is the worst thing that happens to women?
"Maybe someone asks you to smile because they want to try and cheer you up a bit?"
Wrong. “Smile for me.” “You’d be prettier if you smiled.” “Let me get a smile.” etc. Those are not gestures of comfort. Those are attempts by the man asking (read: demanding) to make the woman more approachable for HIM. For her to be more physically appealing to HIM.
It has nothing to do with her or her emotions. And that is what the title work is about.
I find it really mind-boggling that I have to remind people that the title of the project has nothing to do with the act of smiling. It’s about the demand to smile.
It’s also interesting that the Smile piece is the subject of this thread, when it isn’t the piece in the photo. STWTS encompasses a range of statements that address street harassment - including the one pictured, “Women Are Not Outside For Your Entertainment”. Why isn’t the conversation about that poster?
Being told to smile is one instance that fits into this larger context of the way women are treated in the public space. Each poster serves as that very same thing - one reaction to a particular type of treatment. All together, the posters are confronting a larger issue. People get stuck on the smile piece, when there is a larger issue that the posters are pointing to.
All the above. Incidentally, every person who’s told me to smile has been really aggressive and weird about it, like my lack of a smile was personally offensive to them.
The most recent instance that I was told to smile by a stranger in public, I had been told less than an hour before that my friend had attempted suicide and was currently in the hospital. So maybe think about that the next time you start to assume that other people’s faces and emotions are ANY OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS.
i love how vague this is because it implies that what the pigeons do is too scary to write down
"we cannot bear to tell you what horrors the pigeons have wrought"