Text

"Ever since Disney switched to CGI animation, all the female characters have looked identical"

eternal-disnerd:

disneysfrozenguy:

thehelsalife:

Oh

image

yes

image

they’re

image

all

image

exactly

image

the

image

same.

image

How

image

dare

image

they?

image

image

why can’t we just move on from this argument already? Disney’s female characters look similar because that’s their STYLE. there’s nothing wrong with it, but there’s nothing to defend, either. can we please just move on?

This is meant to be a DEFENCE against Disney’s samefacing? If you take away the character who aren’t villains or background characters, this collection proves the point it’s trying to refute. Villains are always allowed to be ugly; background characters are there to look characterful and varied. No one is accusing Disney of making all its female characters look the same, they’re saying the HEROINES of the new Disney films all look the same

They’re saying that Disney have taken to presenting a single aesthetic that is coded as ‘beautiful’. They’re saying Disney has decided on a single way to visually present female characters who we are meant to find pretty and engaging. They’re saying that it’s a problem that the drive to create female characters who perfectly adhere to a very narrow idea of female attractiveness has now fully trumped these characters having any visual individuality. They’re saying there’s such a fear of heroines looking anything other than pretty at all times, all visual variation has been ironed out.

Disney have one of the world’s most recognised visual house styles and yet for years they’ve managed to create heroines who are visually distinct from each other. Strip away all ephemera - hair colour , clothes - and you’d still know Snow White’s face from Cinderella’s, Ariel from Belle’s etc. No, they were never the most adventurous company in terms of art-style, and yes there are commonalities between all the princesses (waifish figures, big eyes, mostly long hair, small noses, round/oval faces). But they still managed to make them look different from one another.

Having a style is not the same as having a single face you’re prepared to give your female heroes. The examples pictured above actually undermine the idea that the samefacing of the heroines is the product of studio style rather than choice, because they prove that a wide variety of appearance is still possible within a single style - but that it’s not being allowed amongst the heroines.

(via thatbrummielass)

Text

starsandatoms:

keladry of mindelan as captain tortall

I hear you, but if Kel was Cap, then who would Beka be?

Blah

(source)

(via fytortall)

Photo
ultrafacts:

Source For more facts follow Ultrafacts

We have that in Britain too, we call it ‘Aldi’.

ultrafacts:

Source For more facts follow Ultrafacts

We have that in Britain too, we call it ‘Aldi’.

Photoset

gbbo-blog:

stuckinthedaydream !!!!!!!

Whoopeeeee

Photoset
Text

Anonymous said: So does every dude have a thing with Mitzi?? Cos seriously

lackadaisycats:

She’s fixated on her deceased husband.  She has history with Zib.  She made an attempt at something with Wick (though it didn’t go at all as planned), and Rocky chases her approbation with unsettling application of zeal (arguably, something he’d do for anyone who’d give him the time of day). Certainly not all of her associations (Viktor, Mordecai, Asa, Freckle to name a few) have a romantic slant, but that’s beside the point.  Mitzi is a central character who pursues and maintains a complex of relationships in a criminal, male-dominated business.  It’s rather the crux from which the story branches.  
Does that seem problematic?

Mitzi has relationships of different tones and dynamic with all the male characters in Lackadaisy. As Ms Butler points out, only a few of these have any romantic element to them (and one of those three only is part of her backstory, the character is question being dead). Mitzi exists in the perfectly reasonable state of SOME of her relationships being romantic ones.

I really hope Tracy Butler isn’t stung by this comment because the questioner is talking through their hat; the network of interesting, enjoyable and above all varied relationships is one of Lackadaisy’s many strengths. It’s irritating to see this comment so unjustly aimed at a writer who deftly avoids cliche in favour of more interesting dynamics.

Without attributing thinking to the anon which may or may not be true of them, this is the kind of thing you get when people are ready to dismiss female characters, or not to pay them the kind of attention they do male characters. They form their ideas of a character based on very broad strokes and pre-existing stereotypes in their own head. Mitzi has more than one romantic connection and a coquettish appearance therefore she must ‘have a thing with every dude’. It feels like a case of a reader projecting their own preconceived notions onto a character who is actually skilfully subverting them.

Tags: Lackadaisy
Text

coppertellurium:

bakrua:

faggitvekubby:

imagine if people were born with traits based on their zodiac signs so like aries had ram horns and hoofs like a satyr and shit how rad would that be

i would be a giant fucking crab

capricorns would look so weird. like, “hey, do you like my goat horns? they go perfectly with my fucking mermaid tail.”

I would assume the mighty and mythical form of… a person carrying water.

(via thatbrummielass)

Text

macpye:

People are starting to notice I’ve lost weight. I mean, I’m hardly slim and svelt (yet?), but I’ve shed a full jeans size so far. I’m trying to loose at least another size (because I still have acceptable jeans in that size, hahaha), or two (luckily I know where to get 13 pop jeans).

That’s a nice feeling, well done! I went about 5 weeks earlier in the summer eating really well and gradually losing weight and then I went to Glastonbury and it all fell apart (that was almost a month ago now). But from today I’m officially Back On Track. I think I suit being about 3 pounds and 1 dress size smaller than I am right now. For me what works is simply eliminating certain categories of food from my diet (chocolate, cake, pastry, sweets). I found when I used to give up stuff for Lent (I went to Catholic school) that I find it surprisingly easy to stick to hard-and-fast rules like this though they may seem draconian whereas when I just give myself a vague instruction (‘eat healthier’) its too easy to allow myself loopholes. A great book I read a few years ago (The Happiness Hypothesis by Jonathan Haidt, which sounds like a self-help book but is more pop psychology/neuroscience) talked the relationship between the atavistic limbic system and the conscious mind in a way I found very helpful - using an elephant (unconscious, instinctive mind) and rider (conscious, recently evolved part of brain) metaphor. It’s no good relying on sheer willpower to overrule cravings and desires that come from the unconscious brain, just as there’d be no point in a human trying to physically push an elephant in a direction she didn’t want to go. It’s only going to end in a cycle of failure and disappointment in oneself. But the elephant can be steered, bribed and distracted. Ultimately, there needs to be a respectful partnership between elephant and rider. So for me it works to impose blanket rules there’s no sneaking around. That way I avoid entering into a negotiation with my own limbic system that my conscious brain will ultimately lose because it has less stamina. It’s still possible for me to flout the SPIRIT of the diet even within the parameters I’ve left myself but its a lot more manageable. So I have tediously involved rules like I am allowed to have a cappuccino twice a week (Tue and Thur), I am allowed EITHER a Caramac or a Kinder Egg once a week (Mondays) as my exception to the no-chocolate ruling et etc. They sound tedious but give me a sense of choice and control within the parameters I’ve set myself which I find psychologically useful.

I’m aware that’s what really missing from the equation is enough exercise. Barring making myself take the stairs once a day (I work on the 6th floor or I’d do it more often) and the 20-minute walk home from the station, I don’t really get much of a workout. I was a lot healthier when I worked in the retail half of the company. My old shop had 5 stories so I was on my feet, springing up and down the stairs all day. Now I’m sat on my bum all day at work, I really ought to find some enjoyable way of compensating for all that sedentary-ness.

Sorry for jumping all over your post, this stuff is on my mind today!

Text

Audiobooks?

hicockalorum:

if anyone knows some good ones? 

I absolutely adore Bill Bryson ones myself - something about the involved, dry, witty text works really well on audio. I’ve given books like At Home (basically a broad social history f the last couple of centuries) and Made In America (the history of American English) many, many listens and never get bored of ‘em.

One of my other favourite audiobooks was The Thousand Autumns of Jacob De Zoet by David Mitchell. The story is set in 18th Century Japan, with mostly Japanese and Dutch characters, and I found the audio format good for keeping track of names I might otherwise have got confused about. The readers are vey good and the book is fantastic. It gets off to an arguably slow start, but again I find I actually rather appreciate a certain dryness and saturation of tiny detail in an audiobook - it makes it feel very immersive. and without giving anything away, the early parts of the books are excellent grounding for later parts!

If you don’t mind a touch of the macabre and triste with your funnies, David Sedaris is excellent - his books are collections of essays and stories.

Betcha sorry you asked now :D Apologies if I’m preaching to the choir on any of these, hope there’s something of some use in there for you!

Photoset

Cool! I wonder where these’re from? I’m imagining a Children Of The Stones ‘84 Christmas Annual if there’s any justice in the world.

(Source: keystothecitadel)