richard on

Things I want now that Disney has the rights to the X-Men and the Fantastic Four:

- WWII flashbacks with Steve, Bucky and Logan

- SPIDEYPOOL

- Erik trying to stop Bucky’s assassination of JFK

- “You couldn’t stop a man with a metal arm?”

“Shut up, Charles.”

- Tony Stark and Reed Richards being sarcastic super geniuses and Bruce wrangling them like a soccer mom

- Basically Reed joins the Science Bros.

- the Illuminati

- Spider-Man and Deadpool team up

- Avengers vs. X-Men

- Avengers and X-Men team-ups

- A quality Fantastic Four movie

- Chris Evans playing Johnny Storm again and everyone commenting on how similar he and Cap and they study each other and just “I don’t see it, guys”

- Wade Wilson. Peter Parker. On screen. Together.

- Deadpool cameos in like, every movie. I don’t even care if he’s out of focus in the background I just want to see the red suit in the back and flip my shit.

- Wade waiting for the perfect moment to drop the one f-bomb permitted in a PG-13 X-Men and Avengers team up movie and absolutely losing his shit when Wolverine beats him to it.

-Hulk and the Thing

-Groot and the Thing

- more Badass female superheroes getting on screen together.

- Doctor Doom. Just yes.

- Galactus done RIGHT

- LETS GOOOOO ULTIMATE HERO TEAM UP TO TAKE HIM DOWN

- Ryan Reynolds and Tom Holland starring in a movie together.

- Just Logan and Rocket. I don’t know why but I need it.

- Bruce Banner and Hank McCoy my soft science babies on screen together

- Erik to be HAPPY FOR ONCE with his children (idk how they’re fixing or explaining that fiasco but like it’s totally chill with me I love both quicksilvers)

- Thor and Charles sharing tips on how to deal with people who habitually betray you but you love them anyway

- Did I mention Spideypool?

Feel free to add, guys!


Edit following some confusion: When I say Spideypool, I mean it in a platonic sense. The friendship between Peter and Wade is one of my absolute favorites and I just want to see these two characters on screen together, as friends. I want to see a team up.

9

moodboard: Blue, Gansey and Henry’s travel

                                   “It was better with company. It was better with three.
                                                   They were free, free, free.”

2

Okay, but can we talk about this reveal?

Yes. Again.

Up until this scene, this one character, who we loved to encounter in every one of his iterations, goes from being the charismatic and snarky little shit we’re used to seeing, to being the weary and poignant celestial entity I had read so much about as a child… and it happened in a matter of moments and the ENTIRE episode (and series) completely shifts in tone.

The acting and direction is so unreal.

I have NEVER been so captivated by a character the way Gabe captivates me.

….let me stop before this turns into a Master’s thesis.


TLDR: GABE NEEDS MORE LOVE. SP8 IS GR8

Welcome, naughty children, to my latest Richard III rant! This time, we’ll be talking about how I think Richard III is usually played way too old and why I think his youth is an important trait to depict onstage!

So, Richard III is usually played by older actors. It makes sense, in a way- it’s a very major and challenging role that dominates his play, so of course theatre companies would want to cast an experienced actor, especially one who will likely sell a lot of tickets. And as a character whose perceived ugliness is important to the storyline, it’s a good opportunity for those who have aged out of young leading man roles like Romeo and Hamlet. Ian McKellen was in his fifties when he played Richard, Laurence Olivier in his late forties. But I don’t think that’s the most authentic way to portray the character.

First of all: history. Obviously Shakespeare plays fast and loose with historical fact, but the real Richard died at the age of 32. Yes, that’s right, he was younger at the time of his death than Richard II, who is usually played as very youthful, younger than Eddie Redmayne. In fact, Shakespeare’s histories truncate history somewhat, portraying the play as occurring only slightly after King Henry Vi’s death (his coffin is on display when Richard woos Anne. The real Richard married Anne at around age 20. If Shakespeare is condensing 13 years into this play, does that mean Richard is really only in his twenties?

Second of all: Continuity and context. In Shakespeare’s Henry Vi part 3, Richard’s role as the youngest brother is emphasized. He’s referred to as a “prodigy,” called “Dicky, your boy,” and a reference is made to his cracking, adolescent voice. Richard gets along well with his older brothers as they fight in war together until they begin settling down, getting married, and starting families; that is when he realizes how different his path must be from theirs, that at an age when other young men are pursuing love, he can only pursue power.

On top of that, Richard’s brother, Edward, is portrayed as a charismatic, swaggering young man in Henry Vi part 1 but is dying in Richard III. Most stage productions, divorced from the context of Henry Vi, imply that he is an old man whose death was sad but expected, but actually, Edward was only 40 when he died of a sudden illness. The frantic confusion surrounding his death is important to the play- a clear plan was never put into place about what would happen if Edward died while his sons were still children. He made Richard the lord protector in a last-minute deathbed decision.
That takes me to another facet of Richard’s characterization in the play: his intense disdain for Queen Elizabeth, his brother’s wife. Elizabeth was about 6 years older than her husband with grown children from a previous marriage. That makes her about 15 years older than Richard, who constantly makes snarky references to her age, referring to her “experience” and her advanced age both to her face and behind her back. He continually puts down older women and thinks of women as useful for nothing but their wombs and property claims, even killing his young wife in the hope of obtaining an even younger one, but it is three older women- his mother, Queen Margaret, and Elizabeth– who give him the real psychological snack down. Elizabeth absolutely destroys him in their scene together, a powerful matriarch who has seen right through him from the start. Why do I always see an older Richard dominating a young and vulnerable widow Elizabeth onstage?

Third of all: original performance. Shakespeare’s leading man, Richard Burbage, most likely originated the role of Richard. He would have been in his twenties when first playing Richard– younger than when he played those famous “leading man” roles, Romeo and Hamlet, that most actors tackle before “aging into” Richard today.

Fourth of all: modern day resonance. Yes, this is all very well and good, you might say, but nowadays, we want to see a Richard who reflects our political reality. He should be a stand-in for whatever old sleazy dudes are in power in America at the moment.

Maybe. But Richard on the page reminds me of another kind of dangerous man altogether. A young man born into privilege and fortune, but with a deep-seated sense that life has been unfair to him, an obsession with violence, intense misogyny and hatred of men who are more successful with women, and a predilection toward long soliloquys detailing his twisted world view? That reminds me of infamous mass-murderer Elliot Rodger, who killed 6 people and injured 14 at UC Santa Barbara in 2014. Rodger uploaded a long video explaining his motivations. Wikipedia says, “He explained that he wanted to punish women for rejecting him and that he envied sexually active men so he wanted to punish them for their sexual activity.”

In Richard III’s own soliloquys, he plots to destroy those who preoccupy themselves with love and sneers at those who caper in ladies’ chambers and make their heavens in ladies’ laps. He plots to conquer women who detest him and destroy men who trust him. There is a specific, deadly kind of self-pitying rhetoric seen in online forums dedicated to “incels”– men who are involuntarily celibate– like Elliot Rodger. They overemphasize their concepts of female shallowness, believing that bodily and facial proportions and physical attractiveness are the most important thing to women, that those who fall short of these standards are seen as “subhuman” and cursed to never know love. The idea that it is their behavior, not their appearance, that makes them repugnant to women never seems to occur to them, or to Richard.

Elliot Rodger was not a bad-looking man, but he was a reprehensible one. In our modern world, I’d like to see more Richards portrayed as less literally physically deformed and more preoccupied with the idea of being seen as deformed or otherwise untouchable, getting revenge against a world that he sees as having rejected him.

What do you think?

You bought me a rose quartz ring, and you told me it was because you knew how much the men in my life up until now had hurt me, 

you slipped it onto my finger, and told me that it was a healing stone, that it was supposed to nurture a broken heart

You said that you knew I didn’t believe in things like magic or stones with healing properties, but if there was even a one in a million chance that this would help me, you would take it.

—  I don’t believe in magic, or stones, or incantations. But I will always belive in you, Richard A.

anonymous asked:

There's a thing in the squid group, where someone yells the floor is lava and everyone has to madly battle each other for being the only person off the floor. So one time Jake yelled "THE FLOOR IS LAVA" in the middle of class and you wouldn't believe how quickly Rich jumps on top of his desk and literally shoves Jeremy off. And the whole class is like ????? (Idk it was much funnier in my head 😂😂)