In the Shade

In the Shade

frank-e-fighting-words:

note-a-bear:

popca:

okayophelia:

“Literally objects start moving when the guy enters a room. He’s an actor of uncommon power and uncommon humanity.” — Guillermo del Toro

oh sweet baby fucking jesus holy damn i ain’t even making sense fans self

Things that move:

me to the bed

my drawls to his head

my clothes to floor

In that order.

My unders just spontaneously teleport.

was about to say…

but, what am I looking at?

where are those gifs from?

isn’t there a sci-fi movie he is in recently (as in coming out soon) that these came from? where there are these aliens and giant battle suits (dare i say gundams but not really)?

More like Lovecraft monsters and Evangelions from the look of them. But yes, Pacific Rim. Yes please.

(via native-detroiter)

opifexumbratili:

I am about to embark on a brave adventure to find out if a 36DD bra with no underwire that isn’t made of failure and crushed dreams is a thing I can buy. Wish me luck.

Acquired a 38D. Close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades.

I am about to embark on a brave adventure to find out if a 36DD bra with no underwire that isn’t made of failure and crushed dreams is a thing I can buy. Wish me luck.

�The film never takes the time to consider how little thought Khan would’ve given to killing Pike, a disabled person. Khan likely believes that all disabled people deserve to die for the good of humanity. Hell, he probably had an extermination program against disabled people during his heyday. By ignoring Khan’s eugenicist ableism, the film loses a good deal of the moral complexity found in Star Trek.

We never see Admiral Marcus weigh the options of aligning with a genocidal murderer in the name of Federation security. If Khan advised him to implement a eugenics policy to save the Federation, would Marcus do it? Who would Marcus kill to protect the many? Would he go for Pike, one of his own officers?

We also never see Kirk truly consider the ethical implications of teaming up with Khan for the infiltration of Marcus’ starship. Is Kirk just as bad as Marcus now? By partnering with a man who would want Pike exterminated, does Kirk betray his memory? Is stopping Marcus worth the risk of Khan escaping and conquering Earth again?

But none of these kind of questions get asked in the film because the J.J. Abrams version of Star Trek is more interested in gunfights and girls in their underwear than the hard questions that need to be debated to build a better future for life on this planet and far beyond.�

Star Trek Into Darkness: Able-Bodied Angst and Abrams’ Anti-Intellectualism (via spacecrip)

I wonder if they would have had time to do all that? Although it seems to me they did cut parts out of the movie.

(via geekgalsrock)

Isn’t the point of the show and the movies to spark the discussions within ourselves, not to have the discussions for us?

(via am-i-soup-or-beauty)

While the Star Trek franchise most definitely encourages discussion amongst fans, one of the trademarks of the shows and films is the characters debating whether they have the right to take a certain action or if they have the ethical responsibility to behave in a certain fashion.

See: “The Menagerie,” which is one long debate about whether breaking Federation law is permissible if it is on a perceived mission of mercy. Or “The Measure of a Man,” which is another long debate about what constitutes a person. Or “Who Watches the Watchers?” where Picard does one of his classically trained monologues about religion vs. secularism. Or “In the Pale Moonlight,” where Sisko and Garak tackle whether murder can be justified to save countless lives in the Dominion War.

(via spacecrip)

I kind of feel that Kirk’s speech at the end of the film was an acknowledgement that siding with Kahn was a mistake? Certainly the movie was far more action oriented than the show, but I also feel this is something of an apples to oranges comparison. The small screen, shorter, incremented nature of the show allowed introspection in a way that a box office blockbuster with an ensemble cast does not have room for. Abrams juggled eight main protagonists and two villains into a feature length film, and still managed to creep in some moralizing. I think he did okay.
(via nicocoer)

This really isn’t that difficult to grasp.

tzikeh:

1) Benedict Cumberbatch gave a phenomenal performance as Khan Noonien Singh in Star Trek: Into Darkness.

2) The casting of a white man as Khan Noonien Singh in 2013 is HIGHLY PROBLEMATIC.

3) Both of these things can be true at the same time.

4) No, really; they can.

(via tennantarse)

The Frenemy.: *Nothing pisses me off more than people romanticizing the Great Gatsby...

thefrenemy:

*Nothing pisses me off more than people romanticizing the Great Gatsby quote

“I hope she’ll be a fool—that’s the best thing a girl can be in this world, a beautiful little fool.” Oh, great! Love seeing this picture over Instagram photos of lipstick and flowers and shit. Daisy Buchanan was a…

native-detroiter:

patrickandmarcus:

he been throwing haymakers and not giving one fuck
that was such a dumb question. like folks weren’t already star trek fans.

(Source: whitelaws)

hinoneko:

thecorruptedquietone:

prongsmydeer:

Plot twist: The next companion is a normal girl/boy who only dies once in their lifetime and has no remarkable back story but he thinks they’re wonderful because they are human and the Doctor needs reminding that you don’t need to be a mystery to be remarkable.

#and the doctor never has to kiss them or sexualize them at all #in fact they are not even attracted to the doctor

classic who

the thing you’re talking about is called classic who