anonymous asked:

psst got any jercy or pipabeth headcanons? :3c

hi it’s @vivilevone and i just watched guardians of the galaxy and it was hella AWESOME so i’m in a good mood

maybe a few. mostly pipabeth because #girls but I’ll indulge you

  • okay, piper is the literal best girlfriend ever
    • unfortunately she is also a liiiiiiiiittle clingy
    • she just loves annabeth and she loves hanging out with Annabeth and Annabeth loves her too but like.
    • “Piper I just saw you five minutes ago” “I know but I missed you” “Five. Minutes, Piper.”
  • together (as displayed in that one part of BoO) they are unstoppable
  • team leaders deliberately separate Piper and Annabeth for capture the flag because when they were together once they literally annihilated everyone
  • they are also good at compromise
    • if one wants to go to the beach and the other annabeth wants to go to this other “really super cool building with awesome structure and I swear it’s really interesting please”
    • they just do both
  • they are relationship goals to be honest
    also, they cook for each other. it happens. every day
  • As for Jercy, honestly these fucking losers have this game they play
    • it’s called the No Homo game
    • they go out in public and do extremely relationshippy stuff and then say no homo
    • and see how far they can go before someone interrupts
    • upon which they say “hey, look, it’s not gay. we said no homo.”
      • (tbh this is new york city and everyone’s seen stranger so they don’t get interrupted very often and end up just making out in time square)
  • they are both competitive by nature which leads to a lot of hardcore mario kart + cuddling
    • the loser of mario kart has to scale the lava wall
    • percy usually loses but thankfully he’s a good climber

whovianmuse-deactivated20170522  asked:

So I just found this blog, and as someone who spends far too much time thinking about Hogwarts house habits and analysis, this blog awesome! My question is: what do you think each house's organizational habits would be like?

Jamie (Gryffindor):

For me, nothing has an organizational system til it needs it. Downside: I have like 20 piles of miscellaneous things at any given moment. It can kind of stress me out, but usually this is how new hobbies go and its nice to have it easy access. Upside: when I invest in an organizational system of some sort, its knowingly. I understand how much needs to be stored, can take into consideration any expansion that may take place, and can determine the level or portability I feel I need for the particular thing. I’ve made the mistake of purchasing organizers before I knew how much space I really needed and it was a huge waste of effort and money and everything just ended up piled everywhere.

I think its a fair assessment to say a lot of Gryffindors are like that. Things that get used every day and don’t truly need to be stored live mostly in easily accessible piles, but things like books we’ve already read, holiday decorations, and craft supplies end up in a generic box/pile/shelf until the focus, time, an insight on what is needed are all available. Then its a Day of Organizing! Then we never have to worry about it again. Just hunt down that one purple box with the flippy handle when we need our paints. Once the effort has been put into setting up the organization, its easy to stick with it. Its getting to that Day of Organizing that’s difficult.

Amy (Hufflepuff):

So my personal organization structure is “awesome in theory, kind of a mess in practice.” I get ideas and then do them for a while and then kind of stop. I also tend to focus on the small things rather than the big picture a lot of the time. But, for Hufflepuff, I think there’s this organized chaos (also me). Like it looks like an explosion of THINGS. Books, pens, notebooks, plants, just things - but a Hufflepuff knows where everything is.

Caitlin (Ravenclaw):

Oh yikes none really. It’s a jumbled mess. “Organized Chaos” we like to say. I think I said in an earlier post about clothing that Ravenclaws are just hanging in balance and that’s definitely true with our organization. We’re the house of procrastinators and spontaneous decisions. Our workplaces are crazy and all over the place because by the time we’ve done one thing, our minds are already onto the next thing so we have to catch up to ourselves and it’s crazy. We might organize things like books, like I know personally that my book series are lumped together in the same space, but that’s as far as it goes really. The rest of everything I own is kind of everywhere, and I think in my mind, everything is in it’s place and it’s organized somehow personal to me, but to anyone else, it would be a disaster zone. So yeah, organized chaos.

Justin (Slytherin):

I’m a bit of an organization freak. The Container Store is my favorite place ever, and you can ask any of my friends that I have been furniture shopping with (including Amy) that I am obsessed with storage and organization. My home is full of labeled plastic bins in shelves and every closet. Literally looking in my hall closet, I have bins labeled for photographs, cards, paper keepsakes, pencils/pens, sharpies, screwdrivers/tools, tape, miscellaneous , dust rags, cleaning wipes, toiletries, dog supplies, curtains, sheets, etc…

anonymous asked:

I sent the last ask. I hope you know I have major respect for you and your blog and I'm just interested in your opinions and thoughts on this interesting subject cause you seem very intelligent and a lot of times your conversation does even go a little over my head. I don't mean to be baiting or bothersome...hope you know that. To continue, I guess I'm looking to clarify: You think Kylo is coded as feminine, but you don't think it will be handled well in the story?

I’m guessing that you are trans!Kylo anon and not the reylo shipper who wants me to know how inadequate my feminism is?

If this is trans!kylo anon, I’m definitely going to answer your asks.  It might take awhile though because I have many feelings about trans kylo.

Do I think Kylo’s feminine aspects will be handled well?  That’s a complicated question.

I think the authors of TFA used feminine coding as a tool to communicate existential horror.  The reason people watch TFA and see Kylo as “the bad guy,” horrible, evil, etc, is partly because of those code-markers, and because of framing, a lot of other diegetic tricks.  How does the story convince people to root against Kylo Ren?  To WANT him to suffer?  By playing sad, scary music when he’s around, and framing his actions more than his motivations, and by coding him as a feminine (pagan) archetype and as gender non-conforming.  These tactics are being used by the storytellers as tools to convince people that he deserves violence.  That makes for a perfectly legit story, on a structural level, but when you start analyzing the story on feminist and political level, there are some ethical problems.  People, especially children, absorb the moral signals they get from stories like this - we got hard science about that.  Stories engineer empathy and TFA builds empathy exclusively for masculine-performing characters.

So on an ethical level, TFA did not handle that well.  BUT.  It’s totally possible for me to enjoy a story and celebrate it’s formal and structural awesomeness while also acknowledging that it poses ethical problems.  That’s why I freebase the discourse.  Problmatic texts and rage-filled call-outs are the ying and yang of free speech and they are both necessary and vital to the health of human culture.  So in a sense, it was handled well, in that the story exists at all, and is effectively a pimp ✨ 🎵 ✨ space opera. ✨ 🎵 ✨

AND obviously TFA is not a stand-alone text.  Way I see it, three things could happen, now.

One is that the rules the universe has established stay the same, and Kylo changes.  Light stays “good,” Dark stays “evil,” it’s arbitrarily black and white, but Kylo changes from black to white.  That’d mean he would become more masculine-performing.  For me that would be a very disappointing direction for the story to go.

Two is that the rules in the universe change, and the characters stay the same.  Information is revealed to us that allows us to recognize that the good-evil binary is not as fixed as we thought.  This is how both the other trilogies operated: by introducing a series of characters, and then subverting what we know about them by adding new information and context.  That route would probably “fix” the ethically dangerous subtext in TFA.

Three is that the rules stay the same, the characters stay the same, and Kylo dies.  Good defeats evil, the end.

I’m not naturally inclined to trust Hollywood or Disney around a feminine-coded male character, but the other Star Wars movies were profoundly deft with messaging.  My money is currently on some fantastic chimera of options one, two, and three that maintains three distinct morality-plays directed at three types of ideal reader.  Hmm maybe that is optimistic.  Well.  It’s early in the morning.

Physical Aspects of the Signs

Aries : Really intimidating because their bone structure is awesome! Usually dress really well and have perfectly styled hair. They’re also pretty tall and have a great build. They’re mysterious and intriguing in their looks, as well as their personalities. Extremely attractive and super intense!

Taurus : Really nice fluffy-ish hair! Their eyes are one of their best features, along with their near-perfect skin. They’re super cuddly looking and are a little more on the short and curvy side, so they’re perfect cuddle buddies! They’re overall cutie pies who we must protect!

Gemini : Usually on the shorter side, but not too small. They’re very outgoing with their clothing, makeup, styling, etc. They want people to know that they look good. They have really cute eyes and thin eyebrows!

Cancer : Cancers are usually medium height and are a little bit curvy! They’re super adorable and they have the cutest little noses! They have a little bit of a crooked smile (but in a cute way) and have a little bit bushy but really nice eyebrows. They were made for hugs. They’re so adorable omg!

Leo : These guys are so attractive like wow. Leos are very very devastating with their God-like looks. They have very nice bone structure and striking features. They don’t look too natural, they don’t have time for that. They are very classy and always look Vogue. They are always ready for the runway. Always.

Virgo : Virgos are nearly the opposite of Leos. despite Virgos being extremely attractive, they prefer the natural and simple look. Due to the Virgos’ minimalistic mindset, their clothes, hair, and makeup is very natural and simple, yet classic looking. They wear modest clothes. They are always very clean and have messy yet very soft and healthy hair. They’re usually tall and thin. 

Libra : These guys know style. Libras always have nice and matching clothes. They will spend two hours on their hair if it makes them look like the Victoria’s Secret model they are. They do their makeup a little more natural than Leos but more prominent than Virgos. They have very beautiful eyes and tend to be tall and fit. They’re always in style and they will always look naturally perfect! 

Scorpio : Usually known for their good looks, Scorpios have a specific physique. They tend to pull the ‘dark and mysterious’ look much farther than Aries’ do. They are either extremely tall or extremely short. They tend to look sensual all the time and in other terms : they look like sex.

Sagittarius : Slaying all the time! Sagittarius’ know how to pull the 'bitch’ and 'slay me’ look every day. They have a darker/gothic look to them, but tend to give off a more welcoming vibe. They have a body so good, it could start World War 3. They have perfect noses, like cartoon noses.

Capricorn : Capricorns tend to be minimalistic like Virgos’,but with more edge. Unlike the Virgos’ sense of 'light’, Capricorns have a sense of 'darkness’. They lean towards a classy yet dark style. They are usually quite tall and have perfect cheekbones (like how do you do that???). 

Aquarius : Aquarians’ have a unique sense of physique, making it difficult to describe. They are usually very tall and extremely thin, and have dark circles under their eyes. They usually wear cozy clothes all the time and have very messy hair. Their hands are quite long and skinny, which always reminds them of the 'aliens’ they 'saw’ that one time. They are quite pleasant-looking!

Pisces : These guys are classy about their looks. They tend to favor the petite size and have a small, yet perfect smile. When they talk their eyes become really wide. They wear cozy yet classy clothing and always have the perfect 'cute and messy’ look to their hair. Their eyelashes are so long and it makes everyone else jealous. 

Can’t We All Just Get Along? 

Alright, time to talk about the DC Extended Universe. “Wait What?” You’re probably thinking. Isn’t this blog about the Marvel Cinematic Universe and not the DC Extended Universe? Why yes, yes it is. That being said though, there are now three films in that later cinematic universe, which is a good sample size of the studio’s approach thereof, so naturally people are comparing the two universes, especially when one seems to be full of really great films and the other… well we’ll get into that in a bit. The title of this post is mainly addressing the fact that a lot of fans are placing themselves into two camps, those who like the Marvel movies and those who like the DC films, much in a similar way to how comic book readers have been picking companies to follow in their readings for decades now.

This notion of Marvel vs. DC has been around for quite a long time, but there are in fact people out there who like aspects of both, as well as groups of people who don’t really care a whole lot for either. The superhero/comic book adaptation genre of films has now become a pervasive part of cinema, and will not be going away anytime soon. When you have two very distinct approaches to making these films going on simultaneously however, it will undoubtedly invite comparisons between the two, and thus spark all kinds of debate over which is better.

What are these approaches exactly? Well given the nature of this blog, it only makes sense that I address the MCU first. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is developed by Marvel Studios which is a division of Marvel Entertainment. In its early stages of development (Phase 1), their films were distributed via Paramount Pictures (and Universal Studios in the case of The Incredible Hulk).

Not too long into it though, Marvel Entertainment was acquired by Disney, and thus thereafter, future MCU films (with the exception of the upcoming Spider-Man: Homecoming) would be distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, and after a corporate shake-up in 2015, Marvel Studios head Kevin Feige would now answer directly to Walt Disney Studios chairman Alan Horn instead of Marvel Entertainment CEO Ike Perlmutter.

From the get-go, it was clear that the execs at Marvel Studios had a clear vision of what they were setting out to accomplish, even if we couldn’t fully envision it in the same way they did. In 2014 Feige was quoted as saying that they’ve had plans for things as far forward as 2028 (twenty years after the release of the first Iron Man movie), and this year was quoted as saying they have a film roster currently plotted out up to 2025.

This shows that since day one, they have had a big picture map laid out, and that they approached each film with the mind set of: how can this film fit on that map, and is there anything in this film that will require us to make adjustments to that map. They were clearly playing the long game, and were making sure that each film would not only stand on their own, but work together as a collective unit, hence the idea of a shared cinematic universe involving multiple sub-franchises was born.

Moving on to the DC Extended Universe, things look a bit different. First there was the non-starter in 2011 that was Green Lantern. Ryan Reynolds as Hal Jordan was the brightest day in the blackest night that was this over CGIfied mess of a film. However, that doesn’t change the fact that it was Warner Bros. attempt at creating a film that could potentially bring us a shared universe, but due to the film’s track record that never came to be, and we could say that that’s a good thing or a bad thing.

On the one hand, if they were going to treat all their DC properties in a similar way, it’s best that Green Lantern didn’t blossom into a cinematic universe, but if it was treated with care and respect, we could’ve gotten an awesome film that would’ve kickstarted a cinematic universe that might’ve even come to rival the MCU.

Ultimately, what’s been happening at WB in this instance has been more like what has been going on at Fox for almost two decades now: DC Comics has simply been a property whose film rights have been owned by the studio. There has been no DC Studios as it were, it was simply Warner Bros., and they have been making adaptations of DC Comics properties and their subsidiaries (e.g. Vertigo) for quite some time. With the success of Marvel Studios and the MCU however, WB felt the need to compete with Marvel and Disney in a fighting-fire-with-fire type scenario.

As such, in 2013 we got our first official DCEU film, in the form of Man of Steel. The film was met with mixed reception from critics and audiences alike. Many saw it as the “Nolanizing” of Superman, that is to say, giving gritty realism and darker tones to what some felt should’ve been a brighter film, both in visual tone, and in the context of the story.

Now while Marvel was expanding their MCU into the world of the small screen through shows like Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and Daredevil, WB chose the multiverse route, keeping their TV shows (Arrow, The Flash, etc.) separate from their movies, but creating connected universes within each.

This would be a double-edged sword, in that it allowed their shows to not be reliant on the events of the film to further their plots, but it also meant that the movies wouldn’t be able to benefit from the awesome storytelling structures the folks in TV land were offering; which caused the shows to thrive while the movies have been floundering.

Furthermore, instead of plans to release another film in 2013, or even two more films in 2014, and/or another two in 2015, they waited three full years before releasing their next DCEU films. This is largely due to the fact that, again, at the time, DC Comics was just one property, among various properties, that WB was releasing movies for, so their focus on creating a well connected cinematic universe was being treated as merely one project amongst many, which frankly is no good.

Marvel showed that a cinematic universe with multiple sub-franchises can work, but only if that is the sole focus. Marvel Studios was an entity solely devoted to creating and developing the MCU. That’s all they were doing, and that’s all they needed to do. Disney owned Marvel Entertainment at large, but left them to their own devices for the most part, and simply let the profits come through via distribution rights, and it’s worked out quite well in their favour, to the point that they’re now doing a similar thing with LucasFilm, creating a cinematic universe out of the Star Wars franchise.

Due to the lack of focus and devotion, we ended up with an approach to the DCEU that looked more like a game of darts than a well laid out map. They approached each movie one at a time, making adjustments as they went along based on events of and audience receptions to previous films, along with focus group screenings, the filmmaking landscapes, etc.; you know, the typical studios executive approach to film making. This approach frankly doesn’t work if you’re trying to be innovative in the way Marvel Studios has been. Man of Steel was honestly nothing more than okay, and failed in a lot of ways, even as a standalone outing.

Worse though, there was no real hint that Man of Steel was a part of a grander cinematic universe until three years later when they released Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, which was a film that frankly leaned heavier on the Dawn of Justice part of the title, but from a marketing standpoint used Batman v. Superman as a branding tool more than a plot driver (which made it slightly ironic that Batman literally branded criminals).

Both BvS and Suicide Squad placed the focus on too many things, and incorporated superfluous elements into their movies, mainly because, again, Warner Bros. was trying to compete with Marvel Studios instead of sharing the superhero genre corner of the market. They’re all superhero movies, people will go see all of them regardless of studios.

Instead of taking their time and building up the universe to the point where they could’ve released BvS and Suicide Squad without feeling contrived, they stalled out on making DCEU films for three years, leaving them with two movies back-to-back that tried to be too many things far too early in the scheme of this cinematic universe.

BvS was trying to be a Man of Steel sequel, a Batman setup film, a Justice League setup film, and a tool to be a comparison to/competition for Captain America: Civil War, given that both films share very similar plot elements and themes. The problem for BvS was that Civil War was the thirteenth MCU film, and executed those plot elements in a much more cohesive way, and while not perfect, honoured the source material well enough that you didn’t care about the minor plot holes.

BvS was only the second DCEU film, and a lot of the plot elements and character developments didn’t make sense because they were inconsistent; Batman showed powerful deductive reasoning, but not when it counted most; Superman showed that he had near godlike powers, only to not use them when it counted most. Civil War earned a lot of its plot elements and themes over the course of the past eight years, and used them consistently. The only consistency in the DCEU’s three films to date, was their inconsistency with their character motivations.

Suicide Squad had a generic third act plot point and a forgettable villain. It felt tonally, Like BvS, as though it was several films at once (the Harley/Joker origin story, the Deadshot origin story, throwing in backstories for most of the other Squad members, etc.), and it felt like at times it was trying to emulate Guardians of the Galaxy and/or Deadpool. The beauty of both GotG and Deadpool, was that while they were set in their respective cinematic universes, they were not beholden to them. They were made in a way that they didn’t rely on them; they stood more alone than most of the other standalone films from their respective universes.

While all three of these aforementioned films technically fit into the anti-hero category, they do so in different ways. Deadpool chooses to do good, but on his terms with questionable methods that you typically wouldn’t see a hero use. The Guardians of the Galaxy are outlaws, who are really good at heart, that choose to do good because they all have a common cause of not wanting to be out of some kind of employment/wanting to be alive. Taskforce X (a.k.a. the Suicide Squad) are villains and criminals, straight up, and they are forced against their better judgement to do heroics.

The former two lend themselves to more lightheartedness which is why those films had a slightly sillier, comedic edge, with a sprinkle of dark elements here-and-there since they are still anti-hero films. Suicide Squad should’ve been a darker film with its villainous characters, sprinkled with comedic moments to humanize them a bit because they’re still technically the protagonists of the story. However, in trying to be similar in tone to films like GotG and Deadpool, there ended up being too much comedy, making them feel like one big joke. Deadpool and Guardians of the Galaxy both knew how to balance the comedy with the darker and more emotional moments. Suicide Squad had tonally clashing moments throughout.

Now I’m not saying I hate the current DCEU films. If anything they were decent, but only to an extent. Unlike the MCU films, there’s nowhere near as much re-watch value. The problem is that Marvel Studios has given us a winning formula. Sure even they’ve had their misses (The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2 & 3, Thor: The Dark World), but even those films have been fairly enjoyable or largely forgettable in the grand scheme of things.

The DCEU is just starting out and it might be a little harsh to be judging them so much this early in the game for their development, but they’re coming into it at such a late hour in the game with film quality equal to or lesser than that of those Marvel films I just mentioned. The MCU had such a strong opener with the first Iron Man film, and the first Thor, Captain America and Avengers films were all major highlights; the DCEU is frankly off to a very rough start.

Marvel Studios has been developing the MCU for eight years now. They’re releasing Doctor Strange, their fourteenth film on November 4, 2016, and they have eight more films slated for the rest of their Phase 3 (present-2019). They have clearly established their universe, so anyone wanting to do the same now has two options: follow the same formula and take their time to create a longstanding cohesive through-line narrative across multiple standalone films in various sub-franchises, or get as much material out as quickly as they can, and hope something sticks. The later is the choice Warner Bros. has taken, and it’s not working.

There is hope though. In May 2016, following the criticisms of BvS, WB announced that a new DC Films unit was being established within the studio, and that it would be headed up by Geoff Johns and Jon Berg, the former of which is basically the current king of DC. He has been the Chief Creative Officer at DC Comics since 2010, and has had major writing credits in comic book arcs such as Brightest Day, Flashpoint, the New 52 runs of Justice League, Shazam! and Aquaman, and he collaborated on the graphic novel Batman: Earth One. He has also served as a writer and producer on the CW shows Arrow and The Flash. He was also an executive producer on BvS so he’s already in the mix of it, but given his track record…

Geoff Johns is a man who clearly cares about the comics and honouring the source material in his adaptations. Zack Snyder clearly does not. Snyder is a man who favours style over substance. Yes that worked for Dawn of the Dead and 300 because those had source materials that fit into his wheelhouse of visual spectacle storytelling. Watchman, Sucker Punch, Man of Steel and Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice… not so much.

Watchman was a cometary on a lot of the tropes in superhero comics, Snyder glorified the things being satirized thereof. Sucker Punch was meant to be an intricately told story that got bogged down by flashy special effects and poor pacing. Man of Steel and BvS followed their source material at a base level, but when it counted most, that material was ignored for the sake of spectacle.

Clearly Snyder was not the best choice to be involved with these pictures. This is a man who can’t take costumed heroes/vigilantes seriously, and that says a lot. Geoff Johns on the other hand has done great work in comics and the Arrowverse on television, so he’s versed in the source material and cares about it. He’s invested in these characters and he takes them seriously.

The signs clearly show too. Right from the get go, people had reservations from the trailers for MoS, BvS and Suicide Squad. However, when the trailers for Wonder Woman and Justice League dropped at this year’s San Diego Comic Con, people went crazy for them; clearly Geoff has gotten right to work and is starting to fix things for the better; the fact that Ben Affleck has been made executive producer on Justice League say a lot towards that too.

Several of the cast members expressed some reservations during interviews for BvS, whether verbally or through body language/facial expressions. However in recent interviews from the set of Justice League, all the cast, and especially Ben Affleck, have been highly praising Geoff Johns for his hand in the film and have shown great excitement making it. This all tells me that Wonder Woman will likely be a better solo outing than Man of Steel, and Justice League will be much more exciting than BvS, and that the DCEU will finally be moving in the right direction.

But is it too little too late at this point? It’s hard to say right now. Clearly they have an uphill battle, and they did shoot themselves in their feet with a poor opening approach to this cinematic universe, both from a creative stand point, choosing style over substance, and from a logistical standpoint, waiting three whole years between their first and second film releases, plus creating a lot of hypocrisies in their narrative.

However, since Justice League will probably be the last Zack Snyder directed film in the DCEU (at least for a good long while), allowing for a more diverse team of directors to be culled, and since by the sounds of things Snyder is being reigned in a little bit on this one, plus the fact that Geoff Johns and Ben Affleck are co-writing a script for a solo Batman film that will be produced and directed by Ben Affleck, I would say there’s still hope for the DCEU.

Does that mean, in the end that everyone is going to come to love the DC films the same way they’ve come to love the MCU movies? If we go by just the first three films to come out so far, probably not, but that isn’t exactly the fairest assessment. I think in the end Marvel and DC can work in harmony; it’s just a matter of the DCEU being able to hit its stride, and when it does, we’ll start to see the dynamic of the superhero genre shift dramatically.

In the end, DC will just have to blaze their own path, just as Marvel has done with the MCU. We can only hope that someday, the thoughts of bad DCEU films will be a distant memory. I for one believe we all can get along, because in the end, if all the superhero movies can be good, than we win. But as always, I want to know what you think. Let me know in the comments how you feels about the DCEU so far. What are you most looking forward to with the MCU and the DCEU? Also, as always, please like and reblog, and be sure to follow Me, You & the MCU.

On the island of Malta is a prehistoric underground megalithic structure known awesomely as the Hypogeum of Hal-Saflieni, which sounds like the title of Terry Gilliam’s next movie. It was discovered by accident in 1902 when some workers were digging a hole and broke through the ceiling. Oh, and they also found about 7,000 skeletons all clustered near the entrance. So, that’s creepy.

Since most humans inherently lack common sense, the workers decided to take a look around, instead of fleeing from whatever it was that 7,000 people clearly died trying to escape. Luckily, rather than having their faces melted off by some Indiana Jones MacGuffin, they found something truly astonishing.

The three-level underground structure is made entirely out of megalithic stones, and was built who knows when. What surprised people even more was when they found out that male voices could reverberate throughout the entire complex if the person was standing in a certain spot. But here’s the kicker – the effect only worked if the speaking voice was in the 95 to 120 Hz range, so women’s voices don’t usually generate the same effect. Whoever built the Hypogeum actually invented sexist architecture.

It gets weirder: If you’re a man chanting at roughly the 110 Hz frequency, the entire temple complex turns into this bizarre trance-inducing room that seems able to stimulate the creative center of the human brain.

5 Shockingly Advanced Ancient Buildings That Shouldn’t Exist

Legend of Korra, "seven more"

Summary: AU. Snapshots of Mako watching Korra through spring, summer, fall, and winter. Continuation of this. (Be the Peaf Prompt #65- Comeback)

Rating: T (tw for panic attacks)

Pairing: Makorra


It was a bright spring Saturday, Mako’s allergies were killing him, and he was currently wearing the most embarrassingly small pair of shorts he owned in order to impress the pretty girl across the park. Again.

Six months into this strategy of seduction, one would think that Mako would have grown disheartened. But, no. Colossally embarrassed by the amount of soccer moms and teenage boys staring at him as he stretched, maybe, but nowhere near giving up.

Or near, you know, actually approaching the girl herself.

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

Serious Question: Will you dedicate the month of October to the skeleton, the 'spookiest' of our organ systems?

Dawg how is the skeleton the spookiest of our organ systems? It’s structural, and awesome, and super understandable! Buuuut…I will, if someone reminds me to.*

Originally posted by panikfaze

*Reminder must come to inbox as I am suuuuuper bad at actually getting on my dash and looking all the way back