🔥 Popular | Latest

feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was.  When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical:  When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x) Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor.  “We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x) Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak just to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior.  What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman.  Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man.  So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder?  He makes her Thor.  Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words.  What a photo. What a film. What a man.  : INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL SAN DIEGO AN DIE ECON CONCON CON INTERNA INTER INTERNATIONAL 1N DIEG0 OIEGO SAN DIEGO CON OUG NO CON DIEGO CON INTERNATIONAL ONAL INTERNATIONAL IN E WATIONAL TERNATIONA SAN DIEGO CON SAN OIEG0 0 93 eONCON CO SAN OIEG N OIEG CO INTERNATIO COMICE CO OM feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was.  When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical:  When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x) Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor.  “We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x) Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak just to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior.  What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman.  Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man.  So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder?  He makes her Thor.  Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words.  What a photo. What a film. What a man. 
Save
ebonyheartnet: jewishdragon: feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was.  When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical:  When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x) Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor.  “We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x) Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior.  What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman.  Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man.  So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder?  He makes her Thor.  Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words.  What a photo. What a film. What a man.  Wiatiti And Portman are also BOTH jewish! Jews lifting up Jews! : INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL SAN DIEGO AN DIE ECON CONCON CON INTERNA INTER INTERNATIONAL 1N DIEG0 OIEGO SAN DIEGO CON OUG NO CON DIEGO CON INTERNATIONAL ONAL INTERNATIONAL IN E WATIONAL TERNATIONA SAN DIEGO CON SAN OIEG0 0 93 eONCON CO SAN OIEG N OIEG CO INTERNATIO COMICE CO OM ebonyheartnet: jewishdragon: feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was.  When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical:  When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x) Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor.  “We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x) Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior.  What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman.  Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man.  So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder?  He makes her Thor.  Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words.  What a photo. What a film. What a man.  Wiatiti And Portman are also BOTH jewish! Jews lifting up Jews!
Save
feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was.  When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical:  When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x) Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor.  “We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x) Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior.  What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman.  Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man.  So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder?  He makes her Thor.  Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words.  What a photo. What a film. What a man.  : INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL SAN DIEGO AN DIE ECON CONCON CON INTERNA INTER INTERNATIONAL 1N DIEG0 OIEGO SAN DIEGO CON OUG NO CON DIEGO CON INTERNATIONAL ONAL INTERNATIONAL IN E WATIONAL TERNATIONA SAN DIEGO CON SAN OIEG0 0 93 eONCON CO SAN OIEG N OIEG CO INTERNATIO COMICE CO OM feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was.  When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical:  When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x) Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor.  “We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x) Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior.  What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman.  Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man.  So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder?  He makes her Thor.  Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words.  What a photo. What a film. What a man. 
Save
boopifer: governmentputa: beigency: 2 0 1 6 (insp.) This year was wild af wow Pretty sure this is the sequel to ‘we didn’t start the fire’ : OZONE LAYER IS REPAIRING ITSELF STRANGER THINGS LEMONADE LEO'S OSC TIGER, MANATEE,& PANDA NUMBERS ARE GROWING. NEW HARRY POTTER BOOK AND PLAY GAGA'S RETURN POKEMON GO FINDING DORY AND ZOOTOPIA HAMILTON DEADPOOL CIVIL WAR COLUMBIAN WHITE TAILED DEER HUMPBACK WHALES, & FIRST EVER FLOWER GROWN IN SPACE JUNGLE BoOK RIO OLYMPICS EEN SEA TURLES NO LONGER ENDANGERED OANA THE X-FILES' RETURN FRANK OCEAN DAMN DANI MICHELLE OBAMA'S CARPOOL KARAOKE HARRIET TUBMAN FOR THE $20 BILL TED CRUZ IS THE ZODIAC KILLER PAPAW'S BURGERS TEEN BIRTH RATE AT AN ALL TIME Low CUBS WON THE WORLD SERIES LA LA LAND GLENN FROM TWD Memes ELECTION MEMES CHEWBACCA LADY MELANIA'S SPEECH GRA FINALE Be like Bill RUNNING MAN CHALLENGE BLURRY MR. KRABS DAT BOI ARTHUR'S FIST PETTY SKA JACKSON BONE APP THE TEETH GAVIN PETTY BEYONCE BOTTLE FLIPPING THE FUCKING BEE MOVIE EVIL KERMIT OBAMA AND BIDEN PEN PINEAPPLE APPLE PEN JUSTIN BIEBER PUNCHES FAN MANNEQUIN CHALLENGE JOANNE THE SCAMMER THE Mej SPONGEGAR OR PRIMITIVE SPONGE THE EMOJT MOVIE WAS ANNOUNCED BROCK TURNER VINE SHUT DOWN 17 KANYE WEST BITCHES THE POWERPOFF GIRLS ABOUT EVERYTHING YET AGAIN KIM KEXPOSED TAYLOR DABBING REBOOT RSSowHITE L POLICE BRUTALITY 1.KİLE ACK LTVES M R CLOWNS LEPPO CHRISTINA GRIMMIE'S DEATH TRUMP'S WIN/ DUMP TRUMP ORLANDO SHOOTING HARAMBE ISTANBUL AIRPORT ATTACK DAVID BOWIE'S DEATH BRUSSELS BOMBING PRINCE'S DEATH GEORGE MICHAEL'S DEATH BASTILLE DAY ALAN RICKMAN'S DEATHTERRORISTATTACK MUHAMMAD ALI'S DEATH DALLAS POLICE SHOOTING RIE FISHER'S DEATH BREXIT ZIKA VIRUS OUTBR rt boopifer: governmentputa: beigency: 2 0 1 6 (insp.) This year was wild af wow Pretty sure this is the sequel to ‘we didn’t start the fire’
Save
w1n5t0n-m1k3y: mayberachel: bad-ass-strigoi-hunter: jingle-fox: animalbks: awesomegirlystuff: What the fuck? Whitewashing? It’s a danish fairy tale! You can’t just throw in diversity for the sake of it. It has to make sense, thats like if people were like “Why are there only Chinese people in Mulan?” Because it takes place in fucking China before anyone immigrated there! THANK YOU THANK. “typical light hair, fair skinned, blue eyes" The only other Disney princesses that fits that description all the way would be Cinderella and Aurora. The only other one close is Rapunzel. Disney does extremely well with making the animated princesses fit the time period and area they are from. Let me show you a thing. Alright this is Snow White. The whole reason this is her name is because her skin was as white as the fucking snow. She had hair as black as a raven. And lips as red as a rose. Snow White was originally a GERMAN fairytale. Ya know what color they are in Germany? White…. Now this bitch right here is Cinderella. This movie was made in 1950. Ya know what was going on in 1950? Segregation. So I doubt that in 1950 they would make some black fairytale princess considering Walt Disney was white and all the employees at Disney were white, and I’m sorry but in the 1950’s all the white people were racists. Yes, Walt Disney was fucking racist. But that’s because of when he grew up and how things were. He was actually a pretty loving and kind man and I’m sure that he would’ve had an open mind to ending segregation if he had grew up different. FYI Cinderella is French. French people be white.This chick right here. Her name is Aurora. Her movie was made in 1969. There were still racist little bastards then. But ya know what, she’s also freaking French. And in her original fairytale her hair was the color of sunshine gold, and lips that shamed the red red rose.Now meet Ariel. She is often times many people’s favorite cause she’s fun and quirky and her hair looks like a fucking fire truck. Her fairytale is Danish. Danish people are white. The Danish fairytale though? It’s actually based off of stories sailors told of seeing this girl with bright red hair and the tail of a fish. Idk, but have you ever seen a naturally red headed black woman. Cause I haven’t…. Now Belle here is the frenchiest of the French. Her story is actually based in France. Not just a nice fairytale that was made in France. Again, French people are white. But you see light hair on her. No. She is brunette! And she has brown eyes. Nuff said. Now this…. this is Jasmine. She is not white, she does not have light hair, and she does not have light eyes. She is brown. And beautifully so. And she’s not so sweet and fragile either. She is independent and don’t need no man.She is Arabic and she looks like it. I don’t see any white washing here. See this is where white washing would ACTUALLY come into play. If they made Princess Jasmine, based off of Princess Badroulbadour from an Arabic folk tale, and made her white. A white girl in Agrabah. Nope. My personal favorite. Pocahontas. Again. No white washing. She is nice and brown, and has nice Indian features. Thing about her? She was a real lady. In fact her sequel actually told her story better than the first one. Meet mulan. She’s Chinese. She saved China. Nuff said. This lovely lady is Tiana. She made a lot of ground as being the first black Disney Princess. She was from New Orleans. She’s american. This movie was based in the 1920’s and they did her right because she was a waitress, working 3 jobs just to make a few dollars a day. She lived in the slums/the ghetto with all the other colored folk. They kept it right to the time period they were representing but they also made her fa-boo! Now this chicky is my girl punzy. She is the first Disney Princess since 1991 that was white. I think 20 years time is a good amount of time to bring in another white Princess. Disney had wanted to do Rapunzel for a long time. She’s one of the classic fairytale princesses. Everyone know who this chick was, but there was no Disney movie about her. The reason why they didn’t she make her movie in the 90’s was because she was white. She was just another, golden haired, fair skinned, damsel in distress. I am soooo happy they waited on this one too. Cause after being in the works for so long they took this story about a chick with long hair being rescued by a Prince, and they made her this barefoot, rebellious, bad-ass, sweetheart, that was magical and already a Princess. In fact her “prince” wasn’t a prince. He was a thief. And the coolest thing, so that she wasn’t just a typical blonde princess, they cut off her hair and it turned brown. So now she’s this edgy but sweet brunette, short-haired, girl. Also, the original fairytale is German, so Disney stayed true to it’s roots and kept her in a German setting. This is Princess Merida. She is Scottish. Technically white. But still not just some American accent, blonde, white girl. She made a big leap in the Princess world because unlike all the others who are all strong too, she didn’t even find love in the movie. Who knows, maybe they’ll make a sequel a few years later where she’s older and more grown up and she gets married. Fun fact, Brave is loosely based around Scottish folklore of King Fergus.So yeah, white washing would be if they made the beautiful ethnic ladies here just white. Alot of fairytales come from mainly white countries. Disney is just trying to tell a good story. Maybe they should look more into some Arabic fairytales, maybe some African ones. But all they’re doing is staying true to stories and lands. I love you. Reblogging again for the comments : After Disney unveiled images of its latest lead, Elsa the Snow Queen in the upcoming Frozen, fans decided hey had had enough of the typical Disney princess, so they made her over. Elsa, per Disney's usual whitewashing (Cother lead character Anna is also very white), falls in line with their typical fair skinnned, light hair, blue eyes always wearing a glamorous but impractical gown. ELSA ELSA FROZEİ FROZEN COMING SOON TO CINEMAS IN 3D COMING SOON TO CINEMAS IN 3D w1n5t0n-m1k3y: mayberachel: bad-ass-strigoi-hunter: jingle-fox: animalbks: awesomegirlystuff: What the fuck? Whitewashing? It’s a danish fairy tale! You can’t just throw in diversity for the sake of it. It has to make sense, thats like if people were like “Why are there only Chinese people in Mulan?” Because it takes place in fucking China before anyone immigrated there! THANK YOU THANK. “typical light hair, fair skinned, blue eyes" The only other Disney princesses that fits that description all the way would be Cinderella and Aurora. The only other one close is Rapunzel. Disney does extremely well with making the animated princesses fit the time period and area they are from. Let me show you a thing. Alright this is Snow White. The whole reason this is her name is because her skin was as white as the fucking snow. She had hair as black as a raven. And lips as red as a rose. Snow White was originally a GERMAN fairytale. Ya know what color they are in Germany? White…. Now this bitch right here is Cinderella. This movie was made in 1950. Ya know what was going on in 1950? Segregation. So I doubt that in 1950 they would make some black fairytale princess considering Walt Disney was white and all the employees at Disney were white, and I’m sorry but in the 1950’s all the white people were racists. Yes, Walt Disney was fucking racist. But that’s because of when he grew up and how things were. He was actually a pretty loving and kind man and I’m sure that he would’ve had an open mind to ending segregation if he had grew up different. FYI Cinderella is French. French people be white.This chick right here. Her name is Aurora. Her movie was made in 1969. There were still racist little bastards then. But ya know what, she’s also freaking French. And in her original fairytale her hair was the color of sunshine gold, and lips that shamed the red red rose.Now meet Ariel. She is often times many people’s favorite cause she’s fun and quirky and her hair looks like a fucking fire truck. Her fairytale is Danish. Danish people are white. The Danish fairytale though? It’s actually based off of stories sailors told of seeing this girl with bright red hair and the tail of a fish. Idk, but have you ever seen a naturally red headed black woman. Cause I haven’t…. Now Belle here is the frenchiest of the French. Her story is actually based in France. Not just a nice fairytale that was made in France. Again, French people are white. But you see light hair on her. No. She is brunette! And she has brown eyes. Nuff said. Now this…. this is Jasmine. She is not white, she does not have light hair, and she does not have light eyes. She is brown. And beautifully so. And she’s not so sweet and fragile either. She is independent and don’t need no man.She is Arabic and she looks like it. I don’t see any white washing here. See this is where white washing would ACTUALLY come into play. If they made Princess Jasmine, based off of Princess Badroulbadour from an Arabic folk tale, and made her white. A white girl in Agrabah. Nope. My personal favorite. Pocahontas. Again. No white washing. She is nice and brown, and has nice Indian features. Thing about her? She was a real lady. In fact her sequel actually told her story better than the first one. Meet mulan. She’s Chinese. She saved China. Nuff said. This lovely lady is Tiana. She made a lot of ground as being the first black Disney Princess. She was from New Orleans. She’s american. This movie was based in the 1920’s and they did her right because she was a waitress, working 3 jobs just to make a few dollars a day. She lived in the slums/the ghetto with all the other colored folk. They kept it right to the time period they were representing but they also made her fa-boo! Now this chicky is my girl punzy. She is the first Disney Princess since 1991 that was white. I think 20 years time is a good amount of time to bring in another white Princess. Disney had wanted to do Rapunzel for a long time. She’s one of the classic fairytale princesses. Everyone know who this chick was, but there was no Disney movie about her. The reason why they didn’t she make her movie in the 90’s was because she was white. She was just another, golden haired, fair skinned, damsel in distress. I am soooo happy they waited on this one too. Cause after being in the works for so long they took this story about a chick with long hair being rescued by a Prince, and they made her this barefoot, rebellious, bad-ass, sweetheart, that was magical and already a Princess. In fact her “prince” wasn’t a prince. He was a thief. And the coolest thing, so that she wasn’t just a typical blonde princess, they cut off her hair and it turned brown. So now she’s this edgy but sweet brunette, short-haired, girl. Also, the original fairytale is German, so Disney stayed true to it’s roots and kept her in a German setting. This is Princess Merida. She is Scottish. Technically white. But still not just some American accent, blonde, white girl. She made a big leap in the Princess world because unlike all the others who are all strong too, she didn’t even find love in the movie. Who knows, maybe they’ll make a sequel a few years later where she’s older and more grown up and she gets married. Fun fact, Brave is loosely based around Scottish folklore of King Fergus.So yeah, white washing would be if they made the beautiful ethnic ladies here just white. Alot of fairytales come from mainly white countries. Disney is just trying to tell a good story. Maybe they should look more into some Arabic fairytales, maybe some African ones. But all they’re doing is staying true to stories and lands. I love you. Reblogging again for the comments
Save