Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

February 02 2018

8958 f9d1 500
Reposted byliteon44rickmillerbehcioirmelinjulannbercikoskusbananananacavebearshithappensswasnaelucanussuczniknodifferenceCharmaquestverdantforcepsyentistjojinthesuncepluski-adigrizzlychickenYogSothothblackdramaoutofmyheadOkruszekjanuschytrushugostiglitz

February 01 2018




Honestly, I think the whole “don’t pay the writers” thing boils down to the notion that everybody thinks they can write. It’s the old saw about the novelist at a cocktail party having to hear someone say, for the millionth time, “I’d love to write a book someday.”

Someone–Stephen King? Pretty sure I saw this in a Stephen King foreword–once said they’d like to say to a brain surgeon, “Boy, I’d love to do brain surgery someday.”

We treat “the ability to put words into a sentence” like it’s just the same as “the ability to form a coherent narrative that engenders a variety of emotions within the reader and puts them in a scene and shows them what they didn’t see before”.

And that’s like me drawing a stick figure and saying I’m an artist.

Writers are constantly devalued because everyone thinks they have a book in them and don’t realize the level of skill and commitment it takes to finish even a short story, much less a whole book. 

This goes well beyond fandom, but man, I would’ve hoped fandom would know better.


6002 38d6 500
I’ve been calling Hugh ‘Will’ for like a year now.
— Mads Mikkelsen, Post Mortem Interview (via isyoursocialworker)

Not every character needs to be in a romantic relationship reblog if you agree



“don’t reduce this female character down to a love interest” does not translate into “this female character shouldn’t have a love interest.”

preventing female characters with strong, compelling narratives from experiencing love, intimacy, and affection is just as regressive as reducing them down to sexual accessories for male characters. it assumes that women must choose between a romantic interest and depth of character and ignores a far more productive message: that women are capable of possessing both. 

6061 dca0



i noticed something interesting while i was giffing wonder woman - a bunch of people, including myself, had the impression that diana’s skirt was shorter in justice league, you saw her ass cheeks constantly while she was fighting/ moving and that was certaintly something we did not have in wonder woman;

that’s because the wonder woman crew and patty jenkins had gal gadot and her body double have shorts underneath the skirt bc she knew the skirt would flip during fight scenes - its quite obvious one would think - and they knew there was no fuking reason for gratuitous ass shots. so we have this:

while in justice league, of course the guys didn’t fucking care :)) and had her (and her body double) have her shorts up her ass, so we got this:

(and many more) so long story short……i miss patty jenkins and the ‘wonder woman’ crew lmao

so many people in the tags are like ‘’fuck joss whedon’’ and while i share the sentiment with all of my heart, this is also snyder’s fault and the whole crew who worked in the movie since the beginning, let’s not let some men off the hook bc some are worst ok bye




Whenever you hear someone trying to pass off bootstrap theory as the reason for success in the business world, ask yourself three questions: were they white, were they male, and does their family already possess even moderate wealth? If two of those answers are yes, then their “success” resulted from built-in privileges that are baked into American society. Not gumption, and not “hard work

6093 592a


On an episode of ‘I Get That A Lot’, Paris Hilton works as a gas station attendant at VIP gas as she attempts to go under the radar. She did a great job and I almost cried when she gave the customer a hug and filled up her tank.

6112 4474 500
6127 2a8f 500



6161 7508 500




“billionaires bad” is an objectively good opinion actually

One of the best soundbites I’ve heard about modern economics is (paraphrased)) “It’s not possible to earn a billion dollars. It is possible to steal a billion dollars.”

There is nobody smart enough, hardworking enough, trained enough and dedicated enough to earn a billion dollars without leveraging corrupt systems and exploiting people.

The poverty threshold in America is $11,490 for one person. If someone has a billion dollars, that is 87,032 times the poverty line.

It’s possible for someone to be twice as smart as another worker. It’s possible for them to be four or five times as hardworking. It’s possible for one person to have ten times the training of another person. So if you have one person that is half as smart, a fifth as hardworking, and a tenth as trained, they should reasonably earn one percent of the other. That’s the very outside figure. But anyone who takes in more than a million dollars per year did not earn that, they stole it. They found a vulnerable system to exploit or they found a group of people to cheat. Maybe they did it legally. Maybe they paid someone to make it legal to do that. It happens. But “earn”? Actually -deserving- that much money because of their merits and efforts? No.

thought of your recent conversation @fandomsandfeminism

6193 308f 500


Scott Listfield’s “1984” at Thinkspace Projects.

Currently on view at Thinkspace in Culver City, California is artist Scott Listfield’s unequivocally spectacular solo exhibition, “1984.”

1984,” as the title suggests, invokes the dystopian futurity of Orwell’s 1949 classic, a text which has experienced a recent surge in Amazon sales, perhaps an indication of some collective, self-reflexive admission. This incidental fact piqued the artist’s interest in the current timeliness of the Orwellian nightmare; a vision of surveilled humanity seems somehow less outlandish and far-fetched in our era of simulated falsification and mediated experience. Our culturally dictated über reliance on social media, handheld devices, and virtual platforms, all in service of some feigned human connectivity, are forged through a bizarre consensual voyeurism – not such a far cry from Big Brother’s omniscience after all.

1984” will be on view until January 27th, 2018 and should be sought out if in the area.

Don’t miss Supersonic Art on Instagram!

6217 134c





@ElaheIzadi:’Beauty and the Beast’ to have Disney’s first-ever ‘exclusively gay moment’
@HeatherMatarazz: I thought it was when I popped out the closet in “Princess Diaries 2”

also this

She definitely legalized same-sex marriage in Genovia

you fool……. gay marriage was never illegal in genovia….

Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!