A movie where a mostly average dude accidentally stumbles across a valuable magical artifact, which is a key piece of contention in a war between the forces of good and evil. The forces of evil attack his home, and the confused man is nearly killed, but is rescued from certain death by a mysterious, beautiful young woman.
The young woman takes him to a secret hideout, where her father, a wise old wizard, has been secreting away key weapons and artifacts so that the forces of darkness cannot destroy them. The young woman proceeds to get into an argument with her father. Legends tell of a champion of the light, who is destined to rise up and use the tools that they have been hiding to defeat the darkness. The young woman has been training with most of these tools for all of her life, and now, as they have obtained the last artifact, she feels it is imperative that they act. The darkness will come for them. They cannot simply wait for that to happen.
But the wise old wizard rebukes her. She is arrogant to think that she is the legendary champion. Destiny often works in more subtle ways, and destiny has brought to them another option: the random dude she just rescued.
Disgusted, the daughter storms off. The random dude moves to go after her, but the old wizard stops him. His daughter is headstrong, and she is passionate. She wishes to fight, but she must learn patience, and appreciation for other paths in life. The old wizard has had more time to appreciate the paths of fate. The random dude has much potential – though of course, he doubts it and refutes it, baffled but unable to leave for fear of being tracked down by the forces of darkness again.
The next day, the old wizard announces that it is time to begin his training.
The random dude goes through precisely one day of gruelling magical/physical tutelage, and then books it to where the daughter is still brooding by a waterfall. Last night he saw this chick suplex a motorcycle and summon up a wall of fire with her bare hands. Dude is not an idiot. He is not going to match the skills of someone who has spent a lifetime training at this stuff, no matter how sexist her father is. He makes a suggestion – he’ll distract the old man with training montages, while the daughter takes all the mystical artifacts and goes to defeat the forces of darkness. It’s the perfect plan! Even if the forces of darkness are still after them, and they come here, then he and the old wizard can serve as a red herring. Meanwhile, the daughter can do whatever she thinks she needs to do to defeat them!
For about five minutes the daughter waffles, because maybe that is arrogant, to think that she is a legendary hero. She’s been living her whole life with the Wizard of Undermining Women’s Contributions, after all.
But the random really is a good dude, so rather than deciding he must have a Destiny, or explaining that her father is probably just trying to protect her, or asking him to help learn instead, he clasps her shoulder and looks her in the eye and is just like:
“You flip-kicked a truck. Normal people can’t do that. So I’m thinking you deserve the benefit of the doubt.”
The daughter concedes his point. After all, she saw him struggling to carry those two buckets up the hidden mountain, and her dad’s not even making him try to do it with his mind yet.
They go through with the plan. The daughter steals all the artifacts/weapons and then has another ‘fight’ with her father, which prompts him to seal all the locks on the already-empty treasure room. Announcing her intention to go sulk, she then takes the mystical items of destiny and fucks off on an epic quest to defeat the forces of darkness.
Occasionally we cut back to the random dude still training with the old wizard. This is the comic relief portion of the film, featuring various hijinks as the dude tries to keep the wizard from discovering that all the mystical artifacts are gone and that his daughter isn’t still just hanging out by the waterfall or in her room or something. Occasionally the wizard wants to find her to help with the training or because ‘nothing motivates a man like a beautiful woman’, and the dude just has to keep dodging it.
Meanwhile the daughter gets the action hero plotline, recruiting new allies and engaging in dangerous, pitted battles across various harrowing landscapes. She bonds with a love interest and wrestles with the temptation to join the forces of darkness, but ultimately finds her great internal reason to fight, beyond the burning desire to prove herself or meet impossible standards.
Of course, for the dramatic climax the forces of darkness attack the hidden sanctuary where her father and dude are. The daughter and her allies rush to defend the place, as the old wizard tells random dude to take his daughter and flee, while he holds off the forces of darkness. Random dude finally explains, however, that the old wizard’s daughter has been gone this entire time. And rather than dying in a spectacular last-stand, the old wizard is stumped as his newest pupil helps hold off the attacking forces long enough for the fully-equipped and supplied champions of light, led by the daughter, to arrive and defeat the armies of darkness before the sacred sanctuary is overtaken and destroyed.
Afterwards, the old wizard is shocked at first. But then he nods sagely to himself. Of course, the random dude was the hero after all – if he had not stayed, then surely the sanctuary would have been lost. His actions led the old wizard’s daughter to victory, and surely now that they have been reunited, the random dude will take his rightful place as a champion of the light. And also probably marry the wizard’s daughter, and produce a suitable male heir…
Everyone basically just tunes him out as the random dude and the daughter fistbump, and the dude sags in relief when the daughter explains that he can go home now and then drops like a sack full of gold into his arms to try and compensate him for all the trouble.
~ Fin
You had me at “distract the old man with training montages”.
I literally couldn’t care less if we lose good bands and good movies if it means outing sexual predators. Let it all fall apart if that’s what it takes to stop allowing these disgusting people safe places to abuse their power. Fuck your favorite movies, fuck your favorite tv shows, fuck your favorite albums. Stop defending bad people because they make good content.
why does anyone in Gotham even bother doing crime like you KNOW the second you leave the bank with the money you just stole Bruce Wayne is gonna be chilling on a bench on the other side of the street in his bat fursuit like “hey bitch u better not be breaking the law”
because batman never bothered attacking the roots of social problems
you know what… you’re right call him out!!
Wayne Enterprises has a jobs program for those who are fresh out of prison.
He routinely takes major villains with mental health issues to an asylum where professionals are there to help.
Or do you just read the fight scenes?
Because
Batman
Never
Bothered
Attacking
The
Roots
Of
Social
Problems
WHAT THE HELL KIND OF BATMAN HAVE YOU BEEN WATCHING?
Fake geeks, I swear to god…
The best part is that most of the lore, especially Batman: The Animated Series, gets to a point in Batman’s career when everyone asks the question of why someone would rob a bank in Gotham when they know that if they approached Batman, and coincidentally Bruce Wayne, they could get the help they needed.
That’s the whole point of Batman. Granted there have been modernized adaptations that paint him out to be nothing more than a growling, punching, antihero. But nobody ever said those adaptations were canon or even good. The original Batman comics, most of the newer comics, the Animated Series, the animated spinoffs, even the Arkham video games all operate under the lore that Batman does everything within his power to help as many villains as he can, even if it means going against cops, politicians, etc. That’s what originally made him the vigilante. He went against the social norms. He did everything that a hero shouldn’t do, not in a murderous way, but in a taking-sides way. Every other hero swoops in to save the corrupt politician from the criminal. Batman swoops in to save the criminal from the corrupt politician.
I literally can’t get myself to sit through movies that don’t have women. I’m like where the fuck are the women? Why are there so many men? This is boring as fuck goodbye
Even if it’s historically accurate?
as everyone knows, women were invented in 1990
All the notes of “women weren’t on old time battlefields” are wrong. There were more prostitutes and merchant women than there were soldiers in most every encampment. They followed the armies, marching alongside them, and notably ran the camps.
Many more women dressed as men to fight.
Long before female nurses were officially considered to be a part of the military, they were already on the battlefield. They merely didn’t get written into official reports because they were “invisible women”, “not supposed to be there”. Usually they would be local women running a makeshift care center out of their homes.
Movies involving ancient societies? Guess how many had female fighters?
Spies? Mostly female. Yeah, only the men were caught, usually (because nobody suspected the servant woman), but historians believe most cases had more women spies than men. Most cases meaning across time and continents.
Giving me a movie on samurai? Women were trained as well to avoid being captured and raped, and often fought just as hard as men. One woman notably survived multiple battles, and became a hero alongside her sisters after taking out 7 men before dying in her last fight (usually in sword fighting you’d be lucky to take out 2 enemy soldiers. 7 is fucking insane, but because she was a woman it was shoved under the records how the lord managed to survive).
Women have ALWAYS been on battlefields. Women have an intense history in driving victories and losses alike. They were supply runners, fighters, spies, assassins, prostitutes (look up how prostitutes essentially ran the western world, or even the social status of harem members. They literally fucking ruled), even underground activists.
The only time there weren’t many women were with cowboys. Actual western cowboys tended to be both POC and gay. In fact, any time women didn’t have a near equal or greater presence, there was a LOT of gay men.
History: either 80% female or 100% gay. And it’s 95% POC.
This kinda seems like the perfect date for me though? Like something to drink, Uno, and Bob’s Burgers? But I don’t like people so made it’s just me.
You all really need to get rid of this notion that your partner has to take you somewhere or spend money on you to show their affection. Fast food, lowkey chill time, and staying in are all fine, and sometimes that is all you can do. Spending time together is the point. Not everything needs to be a spectacle to impress your Facebook friends or Instagram followers.
Imagine buying 2 mcchickens & sitting on the couch & calling it a date. Yea ya’ll are spending time together cool. But these are not “dates”
Imagine dismissing quality time with the person you care about as not good enough because they didn’t spend a ton of money on you and you only gauge their affection by how much they’re willing to shell out on your ass.
What the actual fuck is wrong with you people
poor people apparently can’t date, they only vaguely circle each other in misery before mating for life if they can afford a “real marriage”
Nights in are just as relationship-fostering as nights out. Sometimes they’re more so because, hey, you’re not in public, so you can get as rambunctious and affectionate as you damn well please. I love going to restaurants and the theater and such as much as the next person when I save up for it, but like hell I’m gonna devalue a night in of doing whatever I want with my significant other.
This post is like… a weird expression of the unhealthy culture and authenticity problems ‘romance’ (vs. like. just feeling romantic attraction or something) has. A lot of the rituals including the concept of ‘a real date’ have a lot to do with socioeconomic status, high visibility, and even race. A lot of it is set up to use coupling, eventual marriage, as the main way to replicate and pass down units of wealth in our society. And you just have to look at people who have less access to wealth (lgbt+ people, disabled people, people of color, poorer people) to see who in turn has less access to rituals of ‘romance’ and by extension whose expressions of intimacy and relationship-building are considered trashy or insufficient.
at length, what I’m saying is “a real date” is a concept mostly set up to narrow down that white, straight, middle class people get to experience romantic ideals for essentially the socioeconomic status quo. Go eat chicken nuggets with your partner in bed. It’s counterculture.
re: last gifset i mean yes and good and i would die for zendaya but the spiderman reboot only exists because andrew garfield was vocally campaigning for a bi peter parker and for michael b. jordan to play mj and sony responded by firing him and signing a licensing agreement with marvel which explicitly contractually obligates marvel to portray spiderman as heterosexual and white
ok this seems to be getting notes outside of my circle so i’m going to add some more context to this
so in a july 2013 interview with entertainment weekly, andrew garfield said that he’d been discussing the possibility of a bi peter parker with marc webb, the films’ director, and matt tolmach, one of the producers. this was just a little over a year before the amazing spiderman 2 was released. choice quote:
Recently, he says, he had a philosophical discussion with producer Matt Tolmach about Mary Jane or “MJ” to fans. “I was kind of joking, but kind of not joking about MJ,” he tells EW. “And I was like, ‘What if MJ is a dude?’ Why can’t we discover that Peter is exploring his sexuality? It’s hardly even groundbreaking!…So why can’t he be gay? Why can’t he be into boys?”
Garfield even has an actor in mind: “I’ve been obsessed with Michael B. Jordan since The Wire. He’s so charismatic and talented. It’d be even better—we’d have interracial bisexuality!” The star has clearly suggested a sexually flexible Spidey to his director, Marc Webb, as well. When EW later mentions the idea to Webb, the director says, “Michael B. Jordan, I know.” Oh, so he’s heard this too? “Uh, are you kidding?”
so, in andrew’s own words, he was “not joking” about this, and michael b. jordan was not just a random suggestion andrew threw out during an interview – he’d actually discussed the possibility with the director.
Spider-Man‘s Andrew Garfield recently said that the superhero’s sexuality is open to interpretation, and he named you as someone he’d want to play his gay lover in the film, should Marc Webb choose to go that route. No thoughts on that, but I am a fan of Andrew. He’s a talented actor, I admire his work, and I’d definitely love to work with him in the future. He’s a funny guy–he’s got a sense of humor and I love people that won’t take themselves too seriously all the time, so it’s cool for him to come out and say how he felt or joke around or whatever. It was fun, I laughed at it.
it’s worth noting that one month prior, in june 2013, it was announced in the hollywood reporter that shailene woodley, originally cast as mary jane, would have all of her scenes cut from spiderman 2. note this excerpt from the article:
“I made a creative decision to streamline the story and focus on Peter and Gwen and their relationship,” said Webb. “Shailene is an incredibly talented actress, and while we only shot a few scenes with Mary Jane, we all love working with her.”
The plan now is for Watson, one of Peter Parker/Spider-Man’s iconic love interests, to be introduced in the third movie.
It is likely that Woodley will not return and that the part will be recast.
“Of course I’m bummed,” Woodley told Entertainment Weekly, which first reported the news. “But I’m a firm believer in everything happening for a specific reason. … Based on the proposed plot, I completely understand holding off on introducing [Mary Jane] until the next film.”
okay, so – couple things:
“watson, one of peter parker/spider-man’s iconic love interests” – not “mary jane,” but the gender neutral “watson”
the director complimented shailene’s talent and work ethic, indicating that nothing in her performance was a problem; nonetheless, “woodley will not return and the part will be recast”
and woodley says, “based on the proposed plot, i completely understand holding off on introducing [mary jane] until the next film”
and the brackets around [mary jane] indicated that she… didn’t say mary jane. she said something else. maybe “watson.” maybe “MJ.”
and, of course, one month later, andrew garfield and marc webb were publicly running around comic-con calling for a bisexual spiderman and michael b. jordan as MJ.
hmm.
now, when later asked about the entertainment weekly interview, andrew claims that he was “joking” and that “it wouldn’t make sense for peter parker to suddenly discover he’s into boys” but then… he delivers a three-minute monologue about lgbt teen suicide and the importance of representation and almost starts crying. so make of that what you will.
then, shortly after comic-con, in august of 2013, stan lee was asked a couple of times about andrew garfield’s call for a bisexual spiderman. his thoughts:
This past weekend, Comicbook.com covered Fandomfest in Louisville, Kentucky, where we reported on Stan Lee’s reaction to a question about Andrew Garfield’s idea to make Spider-Man bisexual. Stan Lee said, “He’s becoming bisexual? Really? Who have you been talking to? I don’t know…seriously I don’t know anything about that. And if it’s true, I’m going to make a couple of phone calls. I figure one sex is enough for anybody.”
In an interview yesterday with WGN radio, Stan Lee was once again asked about Andrew Garfield’s comments. The radio host asked, “There’s one thing that happened recently, and I think this is one thing that makes you a little bit mad. Andrew Garfield suggested that maybe MJ could be a man. Was that out of left field?”
Stan Lee replied, “Boy, that was so out of left field! I don’t understand why he said that, and one of the quotes I gave, he wanted to talk about I think Spider-Man being bisexual, and my only comment was I thought one sex at a time ought to be enough for anybody.”
When asked where he thought Andrew Garfield’s comments came from or if he was just trying to include another audience, Stan Lee said, “Or maybe sometimes you say something just to be noticed or to create a controversy, who knows? But he’s a great guy and he’s a fine actor, and I hope this doesn’t hurt him in any way.”
so like… stan lee was not on fucking board. stan lee was talking about “making a couple of phone calls,” and suggesting andrew “said something just to be noticed or to create a controversy,” and intimated, “i hope this doesn’t hurt him in any way.”
and then, of course, andrew was let go from his contract, and sony struck a deal with marvel to reboot spiderman according to a legal licensing agreement – in place prior to the andrew garfield movies, actually – requiring peter parker to be heterosexual and white.
now, earlier this year, andrew garfield took part in a roundtable discussion with several other actors, including dev patel.
at one point, around the 36-minute mark, dev mentions that he regrets participating in avatar: the last airbender, saying:
I saw a stranger on the screen, like, i didn’t really relate to. And I was just like, this is a terrible extension of me. This is not what I want to represent in any way.
andrew then replies:
I love what you just said, that it felt like you were looking at a stranger, and feeling like you were perpetuating something that’s toxic. And something that’s shallow. And something that has no depth. No matter how much depth was attempted to be bought into it and sold. And then you go – millions and million, for me it was, you know, Spiderman stuff… There’s millions and millions of young people watching who are hungry for a hand here. Someone to say, “You’re okay. Everything’s okay. You’re seen. You’re seen very deeply.” And we have opportunities to do that with those kind of behemoth films. And more often than not, the opportunity is not taken. And it’s absolutely devastating and heartbreaking because there’s so much medicine that could be delivered through those films.”
then the interview asks, “but why is it not taken?” and andrew replies, “why do you think? why do you think?”
tl;dr andrew garfield and marc webb were lobbying for a bisexual spiderman and sony literally fired both of them, signed a licensing agreement with marvel, and rebooted the entire franchise to ensure that would not happen. thanks for coming to my ted talk.
North American LGBTQ advocacy groups, like Athlete Ally and You Can Play (YCP), exist to make the sports landscape more inclusive – and yet, this advocacy model brings its own problems. Far too often, queer advocacy in sports is actually an argument for queer assimilation, and in pro sports like hockey, the specter of queer and trans inclusion is often a boilerplate statement, draped in rainbows, that is intended to obscure a true lack of action.
“If you can play, you can play” is an appropriate slogan for You Can Play, because it illustrates the organization’s limited mandate. The slogan frames queerphobia in sports as a question of merit while limiting the discussion of inclusion to a given athlete’s talent. However, homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia in sports has never actually been an issue of ability.
YCP’s slogan promotes advocacy without challenging a discriminatory culture. Such advocacy doesn’t promote inclusion, but rather assimilation. Queer assimilation will not result in the free participation of queer athletes because assimilation leaves in place the racist, hypermasculine, homophobic, and transphobic culture of sports like hockey. This is by design.
This is such a fantastic read that really sums up the problems with YCP (and other organizations like it, and how they can and must do better.
Steel Phoenix Studios 