lol this scene!

Theory : Who was at Utgard?

aka The Rise of The Canned Herrings, again!

Wow what an episode! I am still having chills… Also a warning, manga spoilers.

Unlike some part of the fandom was afraid to be, we get our canned herring also known as you gay // lol you gay scene. While watching this episode, something I don’t remember happening in manga took my attention. No, I am not talking about poor Nanaba.

I am talking about the scene Gelgar found his soulmate, aka alchol.

That is some nice sake you got there Gelgar, what does it says on it?

And of course you can’t read it.

I assume secret language of alchol bottle and the secret language of canned herring are the one and same. Anyone that was born and raised within the walls can’t read it.

Ymir, who was born at the mainland and Reiner, who was born at same country can read it well. Reiner said he can’t read it but i think that was partially because he was under the control of his warrior persona, after looking at it a little he also read some as well it as well. Also remember, it has been longer than five years since little boy Reiner left Marley and started to live with Walled People so it is okay little boy Reiner to forget some of the language. If we do not use something we learn like language we might start to forget it.

So… Where did these come from? Who brought these to the Utgard? Was it really bandits? Maybe.

But I bet my money on something else. 

What if Zeke, our monkey trouble, was at Utgard before taking his way to Ragako village?

Here is how I think things went:

  1. Zeke arrived to Paradis with one of Marley’s ships.
  2. He reached the Walls like Grisha did before, since he also can manipulate Titans in his strange way, this was not that much of a struggle for him.
  3. He turned to a Titan and passed through Wall Maria and reached Wall Rose.
  4. He camped at Utgard who is located quite close to Wall Rose, enjoyed his drink, ate some herring.
  5. He took a lovely trip to Ragako village, do something there, like screaming like a mad man, and turned it’s citizens to Mindless Titans.
  6. He left his supply at Utgard, since he was busy with commanding a Titan army and chatting with common folks like Mike, he was kinda busy.
  7. SC reached Utgard.
  8. He also reached Utgard to enjoy some drink but SC was there enjoying his stuff. Like Nanaba said, it was like they were the bandits there. 
  9. He got mad to these userpers, unleashed his titan army with his mighty roar and throw some rocks at them, who can blaime him?

And that is how his and SC’s roads crossed.

I assume the secret language of herring might be Marleyan and that is why nobody but Eldians who lived at Marley was able to read them. Maybe that is why Zeke asked Mike whether or not he is speaking the same language with him.

But of course, this is just a theory. Hope you enjoyed as well, thank you for reading!


“The defenses that we were lacking, you’re more than making up for it with your omnidirectional mid-range defense! That’s amazing, Tokoyami!” 

anonymous asked:

I think the thing that bugs me most about the 1996 film was the fact Juliet never got to say her famous last words before she died. I always thought they were awesome, and it's driven me NUTS for years, you know what I mean? >_<

Absolutely! I wrote quite a long analysis on the way Luhrmann filmed Romeo and Juliet’s deaths here, but to sum up, I’m not happy with most of the decisions that he made—like making Juliet wake up before Romeo’s death, or removing Friar Laurence’s entrance. But indeed, the worst part about this scene is the fact that Juliet doesn’t say a word after Romeo’s death. It’s a pity that the intrepidity of her last words is lost in the movie. Moreover, her killing herself with a dagger was a very masculine kind of suicide, and one replete with sexual innuendoes. “O happy dagger! This is thy sheath: / There rust and let me die” (“die” also meaning “to have an orgasm”). By introducing Romeo’s dagger into herself she’s claiming her right to be sexually active.

Overall it seems like directors have a tendency to moderate the fierceness of Juliet’s suicide, which in many ways is a subversion of gender roles. Let me share this paragraph from Romeo and Juliet: A Critical Reader because I think it illustrates what I want to say perfectly:

Such changes partly derive from a desire to curb the radical agencies of Shakespeare’s play, especially when it comes to Juliet. In Shakespeare’s script, Juliet’s suicide is subversive of her expected gender role in that it is unprompted in any way by Romeo’s words or story. The Juliet of Garrick’s play, or the Maria of West Side Story, barred from such destabilizing actions, is thus recuperated to a more traditional gender position, responding rather than acting. Even in Luhrmann’s film, where Juliet does not throw the gun aside (pointedly unlike Maria), the violence of her death is tastefully obscured by switching to a long shot and positioning the bodies of the dead lovers so that no blood is visible. Even versions that reject such revisions to the text often find ways to minimize or contain Juliet.

I totally agree. When Lord Capulet enters the scene in the original text, he points at her blood, which may symbolize her sexual freedom among other things: “O heavens! O wife! Look how our daughter bleeds!”. It is as though the sight of her blood made him suddenly realize how terribly, how painfully he destroyed his daughter. Because that’s what he did.

But I noticed that the death scene is not the only part of the movie where Luhrmann reduces the her protagonism. As usual, she was cut out most of the lines from the potion solilloquiy… “What if it be a poison, which the friar / Subtly hath minister’d to have me dead?” The friar is literally the only human being who has agreed to help her escape from forced marriage, and yet she is sharp enough as to doubt his intentions. “My dismal scene I needs must act alone"—she is so courageous. She is ready to do anything in order to escape from a destiny she didn’t choose for herself. (“O, tell not me of fear!”).

Another thing I dislike about Luhrmann’s decisions is that he seems to have removed the parts where Juliet claims her freedom most directly. He cut out the well-known line “my bounty is as boundless as the sea” (it would have been wonderful to hear her use that metaphor in particular, since the scene takes place in a pool), as well as most of the other lines where she openly admits she’s too lively to accept her parents’ strictness (i.e., “Bondage is hoarse and may not speak aloud, / Else would I tear the cave where Echo lies…”). She, like Romeo, is pure energy. Both of them represent the restlessness of “warm youthful blood”. (Juliet is even repelled by the lack of vitality of old people: “But old folks, many feign as they were dead; / Unwieldy, slow, heavy, and pale as lead.”) I’ve always thought that a good production of Romeo and Juliet should make them run around the stage, scream and laugh like the young kids they are—the young kids who are brave enough to reject their parents’ ideology and build a new world on their own.

I would say that Luhrmann did a good job in showing the innocent, blushing Juliet, but I missed the other sides of her personality. She is sharp, eloquent, protective, enthusiastic, stubborn, rebellious, impatient, deliciously witty (sadly Luhrmann also cut out some of her wittiest moments, i.e., the dialogue she shares with her mother after Romeo’s departure in act three—she keeps speaking with double entendres so that she makes her mother believe the opposite of what she really means; or the way she confronts Paris in the friar’s cell. She literally says, “What I spake I spake it to my face” aka this is none of your business.) She’s not only an adorable, beautiful girl, but also one that’s too indomitable and intelligent to let her parents command her life. She’s not easy to play because she’s complex, and that’s the beauty of her character. (I wrote more about my love for Juliet here.)

I feel like the movie doesn’t center around Romeo and Juliet equally. It seems to explore Romeo’s character in depth while giving a more limited reading of Juliet’s part.

I’m really hoping some of my favorite blogs I follow will comment on This (rather than me sending a bunch of asks) lol

So this is a scene from the halloween eposode in Season 2. In this flashback episode we see Ali telling Hanna and the boy she’s babysitting about the twins Whom fought, killed the other and was sent to an insane asylum… until yesterday!! We also later see a Radley car parked outside this abandoned house…..

Thoughts? Ever since we found out about Uber A, I have thought that this was Uber A…. prior to that, I thought it was CeCe but with Uber A I the picture I am convinced this was Uber A.

I also kind of feel like this house is maybe where the twin story actually took place or holds some significance.

All roads lead back to Radley!


anonymous asked:

Blarkes are literally the biggest bunch of whackjobs ive ever come across in fandom. Do you know how next level ugly you gotta be to say the crap they do? They've tried every excuse under the sun to invalidate the love scene lol. From Clarke saw Octavia and was reminded of B, so she went and made love to Lexa.. cuz reasons! To oh it was just a dream, because look how pretty it was! To.. it was clearly forced, it was rape, didn't you see Clarke resisting? Blarkes are a constant stream of bullshit

Ugh they’re the worst.


“Love actually” + 13 years later

Now this just hurts me physically >.<


If the boys’ volleyball uniform is like the girls’ volleyball uniform

*edited noya’s*


I don’t have an excuse for uploading this. I just want your eyes to hurt.

*edited noya’s*

(recolored anime screencap)