“I do have another project I want to do, which is a winter game show called “What Time Is It?” where you look out the window and try to guess what time it is and you’re like, “Oh, it’s probably midnight,” but it’s always 5 p.m.”—John Mulaney. (via fuckyeahjohnmulaney)
“Get out of bed, make a hot drink and go outside. You owe yourself that much. Maybe you still cry in far too many public bathrooms, but I swear, you stay a few seconds less every time. Smile at strangers if it’s all you can do, know that life doesn’t start when the sun rises or the credits roll but when you decide it’s time to go after what you deserve, and you deserve everything because we are alive both only once and a million times every day and every minute is something new to learn and someone new to love, and if it all crashes and burns as it so often does cling on to hope through it all and don’t ever ever ever let it go. Start your life again whenever you need to. Repeat after me: it is not yet the end. It is not yet the end. It is not yet the end.”—A Greater Reality (via indemne)
I know the 1975 is like SO September but this song is seriously my jam. like, dance party by myself in my room, can’t stop won’t stop, literally packing my bag for las vegas for the weekend right now, got into my first choice med school yesterday, have an interview for my NYC job on tuesday, moving to new york to spend some quality time with quality people in january kind of jam.
His body isn’t even cold yet and the New York times has already put out a shameful article declaring Nelson Mandela to be an “icon of peaceful resistance”. News outlets around the Western world are hurrying to publish obituaries that celebrate his electoral victory while erasing the protracted and fierce guerrilla struggle that he and his party were forced to fight in order to make that victory possible. Don’t let racist, imperialist liberalism co-opt the legacy of another radical. Nelson Mandela used peaceful means when he could, and violent means when he couldn’t. For this, during his life they called him a terrorist, and after his death they’ll call him a pacifist — all to neutralize the revolutionary potential of his legacy, and the lessons to be drawn from it.
I get your thought process, Simon Kinberg, but I’m still side-eyeing you real hard.
In the Days of Future Past comics, Kitty Pryde goes back in time to alter the course of history and save mutants from a horrible future. In the upcoming Days of Future Past movie, the same thing happens – except it is Wolverine, not Kitty Pryde, who takes the role of time traveller. Many fans were disappointed to learn that Kitty was getting effectively kicked out of her own storyline in favor of a male hero. Why would the writers of this film put the focus on Wolverine all over again when they could give a female character a chance?
According to writer Simon Kinberg, the reason is mostly logistical. He told Empire Magazine:
“We made the decision for a lot of reasons, some of them obvious and some of them more nuanced, to make it Wolverine who goes back in time. One reason is that he’s the protagonist of the franchise, and probably the most beloved character to a mass audience. Probably the bigger reason is that when we started thinking about the logistical realities of Kitty’s consciousness being sent back in time, to her younger self, as opposed to her physical body being sent back..it was impossible.
Obviously in the book it’s Kitty..but you’re talking about an actress (Ellen Page) who, in the age of Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy, would have been negative 20 years old. So we started thinking again, and the first reflex response to that was a character who doesn’t age. Wolverine is the only character who would looks the same in 1973 as he does in the future.”
In short, the Kitty Pryde from the cinematic world of X-Men just isn’t old enough for this type of time travel to make sense. I get that. I really do. However, it seems telling that rather than make adjustments to the storyline to accommodate the Kitty they had (such as changing the method of time travel or moving the timeline up), they elected to simply replace her. Kitty will still be in the film, but she has been relegated to a position of supporting role rather than protagonist. It’s disappointing, no matter what the reason.
So there you go: another female-led superhero movie that almost happened. Wolverine gets the spotlight (again), and the studio gets a popular and conveniently male character to lead the film. The reasoning does make sense, but it’s an excuse. If the people behind DOFP had really wanted Kitty, there are a whole pile of ways they could have managed it and made it work within the world of the film. As it is, I’m rolling my eyes. The perfect opportunity to bring a beloved female character to lead a superhero film, and it is once again deemed too “tricky.”
Maybe next time.
You are having a story with time travel.
Awesome. Really cool.
Why do you have to use a type of time travel that won’t let Kitty go back?
You can literally do basically anything.
I’m definitely one of those fans who was (and still is) disappointed by this move, and I’ve tried to keep quiet about it because if you get me going I’ll never shut up. Yeah this makes sense, but you know what else would make sense??? SEND KITTY BACK IN TIME. ELLEN PAGE KITTY. GIVE HER SOME 70’S DUDS AND SEND HER WITH HANDWAVEY TIME TRAVELLING ABILITIES TO YOUNG CHARLES XAVIER. YOU KNOW CHARLES XAVIER? HE’S GOT SOME EXPERIENCE WITH PEOPLE WITH MIRACULOUS ABILITIES. KILLY SAYS ‘I’m from the future.” HE GOES “Oh really? GROOVY!” AND IF HE DOESN’T BELIEVE HER, HE READS HER FUCKING MIND AND GOES “SHIT. YOU *ARE* FROM THE FUTURE”
BOOM. DAYS OF FUTURE PAST. INSERT TITLE CARD. OVERLAY DRAMATIC MUSIC. OR DISCO MUSIC. WHATEVER YOU PREFER.
Can I also just mention two other very irritating facts about them deciding to use Wolverine instead of Kitty? They not only erased Kitty’s part in the story, but Rachel Grey, who’s the one that psychically sends Kitty back. So they erased not one, but two women’s huge part in this story, though Rachel doesn’t show up a lot in the original Days of Future Past, they easily could have expanded her role and the cast of characters in a way that makes sense. Because I’m not seeing the point of throwing in all these random new characters other than to expand the roster, which could be done in a way that makes sense to the plot and furthers it in an interesting way.
Furthermore, having Bishop there completelynegates the need to have Logan’s consciousness sent back. Bishop is a time traveler, he has devices that allow him to move through time which means he easily could go back in time or bring someone (ahem, Kitty) back from the future to explain the situation to Professor X.
This is my main problem with their decision to call this film “Days of Future Past” when the only resemblance it bears to the story of the same name is that it involves sending someone’s consciousness to the past in order to prevent a negative future. But time travel is already humongous within X-Men. You have characters like Bishop and Cable who travel through time so fucking often they easily could have created a new story or used one of those storylines involving Bishop instead of ripping off the name of an iconic X-Men arc to generate interest. They could have called the damn thing X-Men: Time Travel and that would be far more accurate.
And don’t get me wrong, I love Wolverine, I think he’s a wonderful character, but this is X-Men, not Wolverine and the X-Men. And they’ve already destroyed any sense-making timeline (because, let’s face it, even if Scott were Alex’s younger brother, that would still make him born in the 1950s, which would make him at least middle-aged by the time of the first X-Men, so I’m calling massive bullshit there [or, if he were his son, he’d have to have been born in the 70s or 80s and in the X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Scott was alive so…]), so why the hell couldn’t it be Kitty? This is stupid, the writers are stupid and this movie never should have happened.
“If you go to see ‘Catching Fire’ this weekend, don’t miss the opportunity to remind everyone that the Capitol cut food stamps for the hungry while giving corporate welfare to the rich, that the police ruthlessly suppress all dissent against the Capitol, and that the ‘Hunger Games’ is actually based on our current situation.”—Via US Uncut (via snogandagrope)
"If at the bare minimum we are not telling stories to make the world an easier, more fun, slightly more bearable place for all of us to live in, then why the hell are we telling stories? At the bare minimum, if you don’t view storytelling, regardless of what the story is, as an act that fundamentally makes someone’s day a little better, then why are you telling stories?
And if, at bare minimum, stories make the world a better place, then if you’re telling a story that literally can’t have real representations of the world around us in them, then the story that you’re telling is flawed. Fundamentally flawed. Because a story that limits itself to only being applicable to white people is a story that excludes when it should include, a story that alienates when it should connect. And that’s not a story worth telling. And a story that puts forth the idea that some stories are only good if white people are in them is not a story worth telling. And if you find yourself arguing that a story shouldn’t have a non-white person in it, then you’re debasing yourself for a story that’s not worth telling.
Because what the fuck are we doing if we are not telling stories that allow us all to connect to each other and to connect to universal truths and snippets of joy and love and understanding. Storytelling isn’t cheap. Storytelling is one of the single most powerful ways we have to advance the human condition. If we are not, fundamentally, constantly trying to find better ways to connect to each other through stories, better ways to tell better, more universal stories, then what the fuck are we doing?
Ultiimately my response to anybody who starts in with the “this story can’t have POC in it” line of rhetoric is simply: then that story is not worth telling. And you should think long and hard about why you’re so hellbent on telling it.”
relogging this (which is quoting me) to add the original context :)