Tuesday, October 21, 2014
classictrek:

In November of 1980, Bennett wrote his first outline for a Star Trek sequel, War of the Generations. While en route to a rebellion on a Federation world, the Enterprise rescues a woman that Admiral Kirk had once been in love with and discovers that their son (whom he had no idea existed) was one of the rebel leaders. He arrives at the planet and is promptly captured and sentenced to death by his progeny before the audience learns that the mastermind behind the whole planetary conflagration is Khan.
Once Khan’s identity and motives are revealed, Kirk and his son team up against the genetically augmented leader and after defeating him, the younger man joins the crew of the Enterprise.
While War of the Generations bears almost no resemblance to the final movie, some themes and elements were carried through multiple drafts: Kirk met a son he never knew, Spock was preoccupied with death and McCoy had feelings for a younger woman — someone who had made it clear that she was also interested in the doctor.

classictrek:

In November of 1980, Bennett wrote his first outline for a Star Trek sequel, War of the Generations. While en route to a rebellion on a Federation world, the Enterprise rescues a woman that Admiral Kirk had once been in love with and discovers that their son (whom he had no idea existed) was one of the rebel leaders. He arrives at the planet and is promptly captured and sentenced to death by his progeny before the audience learns that the mastermind behind the whole planetary conflagration is Khan.

Once Khan’s identity and motives are revealed, Kirk and his son team up against the genetically augmented leader and after defeating him, the younger man joins the crew of the Enterprise.

While War of the Generations bears almost no resemblance to the final movie, some themes and elements were carried through multiple drafts: Kirk met a son he never knew, Spock was preoccupied with death and McCoy had feelings for a younger woman — someone who had made it clear that she was also interested in the doctor.

Monday, October 20, 2014
classictrek:

After Paramount Pictures rejected Gene Roddenberry’s initial proposal for Star Trek II (in which the Enterprise crew went back in time to ensure that John F. Kennedy’s assassination was not foiled by Klingons), the Great Bird was relegated to the rule of “executive consultant” and Paramount TV executive producer Harve Bennett was called in to right the ship. He was given an initial budget of just over $11m (around a third of what Star Trek: The Motion Picture's original budget had been) and told that there needed to be a Star Trek movie in theaters in the summer of 1982. In addition to the budget, though, Bennett had another consideration: despite making a ton of money, Star Trek: The Motion Picture was not viewed as very Trek by many fans and Paramount staffers and he was under instruction bring back some of the magic of the original series to the films.

The only problem with that was that he’d never seen an episode of Star Trek and his first exposure to the franchise had been the first movie, which he thought was ponderous and boring. He made up for this by getting a screening room on the Paramount lot and working his way through the series. That’s where he was introduced to Khan Noonien Singh and found something he felt the first movie had lacked and needed desperately: a villain.

Now he had to come up with the rest of the movie.

classictrek:

After Paramount Pictures rejected Gene Roddenberry’s initial proposal for Star Trek II (in which the Enterprise crew went back in time to ensure that John F. Kennedy’s assassination was not foiled by Klingons), the Great Bird was relegated to the rule of “executive consultant” and Paramount TV executive producer Harve Bennett was called in to right the ship. He was given an initial budget of just over $11m (around a third of what Star Trek: The Motion Picture's original budget had been) and told that there needed to be a Star Trek movie in theaters in the summer of 1982. In addition to the budget, though, Bennett had another consideration: despite making a ton of money, Star Trek: The Motion Picture was not viewed as very Trek by many fans and Paramount staffers and he was under instruction bring back some of the magic of the original series to the films.

The only problem with that was that he’d never seen an episode of Star Trek and his first exposure to the franchise had been the first movie, which he thought was ponderous and boring. He made up for this by getting a screening room on the Paramount lot and working his way through the series. That’s where he was introduced to Khan Noonien Singh and found something he felt the first movie had lacked and needed desperately: a villain.

Now he had to come up with the rest of the movie.

truncheonthing:

 (Leda and the Swan, Paul Cézanne (1882, oil on canvas)

truncheonthing:

 (Leda and the Swan, Paul Cézanne (1882, oil on canvas)

Sunday, October 19, 2014
hugsndrugz:

spankmeagainplease:

Feel free to sexually harass me if you’re male. You know what they say “Boys will be boys.”. Although I’m not sure any of you will want to do that since I’m not very modest, therefore not attractive.--------The new principal at my school used two phrases while addressing new dress code rules to a class."Modest is hottest." and "Boys will be boys."He should have said something more along the lines of: “The school dress code was established to provide our students with a safe and orderly learning environment that is free from distractions.”Let’s start with the phrase “Modest is hottest.” Shall we?Modest-Having or showing a moderate estimation of one’s own talents, abilities, and value.If modest is hottest, then it’s not modest.You are literally sending the message to young girls, who are already struggling with self confidence, that hiding their body makes them more attractive. You are establishing a sense of shame in these young, developing minds and bodies. A human has the right to wear whatever they feel comfortable in. Showing less skin doesn’t make you any more attractive. Showing more skin does not make you any less attractive. When someone calls you attractive that just means that they are attracted to you.At what point in your career did you find it appropriate to define my “hotness”? Why are you at all concerned with how “hot” I am? You are teaching us, through modesty, to be objects of sexual arousal. I’m sorry, but I don’t dress myself to look “hot” for anyone. I dress myself as a way of expressing myself and my body. “If covering up my body is supposed to make people sexually/physically attracted to me, then how would those people feel if I decide to have sexual relations with them, without clothes on?” “How am I supposed to love and feel proud of my naked body and develop a sense of sexuality when exposing my body is deemed shameful and unattractive?” Since when should being “hot” be my concern. I don’t want to be with someone who just thinks I’m hot. I want to be with someone who loves and respects all the parts of my mind, personality, and body. THAT’S what you should be teaching, not “How to be hot.”.My body is not a sinful temptation that needs to be hidden. My body is not your personal, sexual object. My body does not overshadow my character. My body is not any more sexual than a man’s body. My body is not here to look “hot” for you.Next up is “Boys will be boys.”Being a boy refers to your gender. That’s all.It does not make you constantly sexually aroused, animalistic, or sexually uncontrollable, but for some reason society has come to the conclusion that you are this stereotype. This is extremely sad. This gender stereotype is unfair to all men. By telling them who they are as a man you are absolutely taking away their moral agency. “But he’s a teenager. He’s raging with hormones.” You don’t think I’m raging with hormones as well? Believe me I am. Men are not stupid. They are not unable to see when someone is not consenting to sex. It’s not ‘in their nature’ to rape because they are a man, it’s not ‘in their nature’ because IT’S WRONG TO RAPE SOMEONE. Raping someone is a cognitive choice. (how modestly the victim dresses does not affect them being raped). When the few people that do sexually harass people happen to be male and you use the excuse “Boys will be boys.” you are not only excusing their behavior, you are condoning it. It’s this “Boys will be boys.” mentality, culture, and attitude that condone sexual assault. Whenever the excuse “Boys will be boys.” is used, it’s just an exercise of male privilege. It’s this attitude that condones sexual assault. You are giving them a free license that makes it okay for them to be sexually violent, that says “Well I’m a boy, it’s just who I am.” Sex needs to stop being about “no no no bad dirty gross shameful” and start being about “Yes. Let’s have consenting sex because I want to.” Consent. THAT’S what you should be teaching, not “Well you know how they are… Boys will be boys!” Boys are not sexually uncontrollable.Boys do not have a genetic, animalistic, violent nature.Boys are not born with a natural desire for destruction or control.Despite what society and culture keeps trying to cram down everyone’s throat, having a penis doesn’t make it okay to sexually harass someone. The false idea that men can’t control themselves is so unfair and completely ridiculous.


—————————————————————————————————————————————-


The next day He called me down to his office to discuss my concerns. (Students and teachers told him about it, which I expected)




I spent a good hour and a half arguing with the principle about his comments when he called me down to his office, today. I offered to send him what I posted if he was interested in reading it. He said “No, that won’t be necessary.” I explained to him that I wanted him to read what I wrote and I would appreciate it if he did. He said “No, I don’t really care to read it. That’s okay.”I asked him what he meant by the phrase “boys will be boys” and he explained that if a girl is inappropriately dressed that it can lead to inappropriate, sexual touching and staring (sexual harassment). If a boy chooses to sexually harass someone, it’s his choice no matter what his gender is.He explained to me that boys are more “wound up” than girls are. I didn’t quite understand what he meant by that so I asked him for a different adjective and after a minute of mumbling he chose the word “aggressive” but then followed that up with “…well I don’t think that’s the correct word to use…”. I agree, not the best word to use, eh? I asked him to explain why boys are different than girls in this regard and he said “Well to start, all boys are attracted to girls…” I interrupted with “No. There are actually boys who are attracted to other boys.” He laughed and said “Oh, yes of course!”… I guess that part must have slipped his mind.I asked him, in general, what the difference is between girls and boys. He said that boys “misbehave more” and are “outgoing”. He said that girls are “reserved”. That’s all. That’s the word he used, “reserved”. Boys and girls are different because they have different organs and hormones. Being a girl doesn’t automatically make me reserved. Just like being a boy doesn’t make you automatically misbehave. I explained to him that by using the phrase “Boys will be boys.”, he is excusing and condoning bad behavior from boys, such as sexual harassment and rape. “But that’s not reality, that’s your opinion.” he said. He explained that his daughters “behave” and that his nephews were disrespectful… because they are boys. I said “That has nothing to do with their gender. They act that way because of how they were raised, the environment they are living in, and the choices they make.” I told him that the phrases he used were sexist and stereotypical and unfair to all genders. I explained to him that many students and people of society were offended by what he said and the phrases he used. I told him that I thought he should apologize for what he said and explain to students and society that this kind of message is not okay or appropriate.He said he wouldn’t apologize for that, but he would give me an apology, which was “I’m sorry you feel that way.” After he dodged almost every question I asked by sharing his plans to improve LHS, he decided that he had had enough of not being able to answer my questions or concerns and ended our discussion by saying “I’m going to end this discussion.” and I was sent back to class.




Yes. This needs to go viral.

hugsndrugz:

spankmeagainplease:

Feel free to sexually harass me if you’re male. You know what they say “Boys will be boys.”. Although I’m not sure any of you will want to do that since I’m not very modest, therefore not attractive.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

The new principal at my school used two phrases while addressing new dress code rules to a class.

"Modest is hottest." and "Boys will be boys."

He should have said something more along the lines of: “The school dress code was established to provide our students with a safe and orderly learning environment that is free from distractions.”

Let’s start with the phrase “Modest is hottest.” Shall we?

Modest-Having or showing a moderate estimation of one’s own talents, abilities, and value.

If modest is hottest, then it’s not modest.

You are literally sending the message to young girls, who are already struggling with self confidence, that hiding their body makes them more attractive. You are establishing a sense of shame in these young, developing minds and bodies. A human has the right to wear whatever they feel comfortable in. Showing less skin doesn’t make you any more attractive. Showing more skin does not make you any less attractive. When someone calls you attractive that just means that they are attracted to you.

At what point in your career did you find it appropriate to define my “hotness”? Why are you at all concerned with how “hot” I am? You are teaching us, through modesty, to be objects of sexual arousal. I’m sorry, but I don’t dress myself to look “hot” for anyone. I dress myself as a way of expressing myself and my body. “If covering up my body is supposed to make people sexually/physically attracted to me, then how would those people feel if I decide to have sexual relations with them, without clothes on?” “How am I supposed to love and feel proud of my naked body and develop a sense of sexuality when exposing my body is deemed shameful and unattractive?” Since when should being “hot” be my concern. I don’t want to be with someone who just thinks I’m hot. I want to be with someone who loves and respects all the parts of my mind, personality, and body. THAT’S what you should be teaching, not “How to be hot.”.

My body is not a sinful temptation that needs to be hidden. 
My body is not your personal, sexual object. 
My body does not overshadow my character. 
My body is not any more sexual than a man’s body. 
My body is not here to look “hot” for you.

Next up is “Boys will be boys.”

Being a boy refers to your gender. That’s all.

It does not make you constantly sexually aroused, animalistic, or sexually uncontrollable, but for some reason society has come to the conclusion that you are this stereotype. This is extremely sad. This gender stereotype is unfair to all men. By telling them who they are as a man you are absolutely taking away their moral agency. “But he’s a teenager. He’s raging with hormones.” You don’t think I’m raging with hormones as well? Believe me I am. Men are not stupid. They are not unable to see when someone is not consenting to sex. It’s not ‘in their nature’ to rape because they are a man, it’s not ‘in their nature’ because IT’S WRONG TO RAPE SOMEONE. Raping someone is a cognitive choice. (how modestly the victim dresses does not affect them being raped). When the few people that do sexually harass people happen to be male and you use the excuse “Boys will be boys.” you are not only excusing their behavior, you are condoning it. It’s this “Boys will be boys.” mentality, culture, and attitude that condone sexual assault. Whenever the excuse “Boys will be boys.” is used, it’s just an exercise of male privilege. It’s this attitude that condones sexual assault. You are giving them a free license that makes it okay for them to be sexually violent, that says “Well I’m a boy, it’s just who I am.” Sex needs to stop being about “no no no bad dirty gross shameful” and start being about “Yes. Let’s have consenting sex because I want to.” Consent. THAT’S what you should be teaching, not “Well you know how they are… Boys will be boys!” 

Boys are not sexually uncontrollable.
Boys do not have a genetic, animalistic, violent nature.
Boys are not born with a natural desire for destruction or control.

Despite what society and culture keeps trying to cram down everyone’s throat, having a penis doesn’t make it okay to sexually harass someone. The false idea that men can’t control themselves is so unfair and completely ridiculous.
—————————————————————————————————————————————-
The next day He called me down to his office to discuss my concerns. (Students and teachers told him about it, which I expected)
I spent a good hour and a half arguing with the principle about his comments when he called me down to his office, today. I offered to send him what I posted if he was interested in reading it. He said “No, that won’t be necessary.” I explained to him that I wanted him to read what I wrote and I would appreciate it if he did. He said “No, I don’t really care to read it. That’s okay.”

I asked him what he meant by the phrase “boys will be boys” and he explained that if a girl is inappropriately dressed that it can lead to inappropriate, sexual touching and staring (sexual harassment). If a boy chooses to sexually harass someone, it’s his choice no matter what his gender is.
He explained to me that boys are more “wound up” than girls are. I didn’t quite understand what he meant by that so I asked him for a different adjective and after a minute of mumbling he chose the word “aggressive” but then followed that up with “…well I don’t think that’s the correct word to use…”. I agree, not the best word to use, eh? 

I asked him to explain why boys are different than girls in this regard and he said “Well to start, all boys are attracted to girls…” I interrupted with “No. There are actually boys who are attracted to other boys.” He laughed and said “Oh, yes of course!”… I guess that part must have slipped his mind.

I asked him, in general, what the difference is between girls and boys. He said that boys “misbehave more” and are “outgoing”. He said that girls are “reserved”. That’s all. That’s the word he used, “reserved”. Boys and girls are different because they have different organs and hormones. Being a girl doesn’t automatically make me reserved. Just like being a boy doesn’t make you automatically misbehave. I explained to him that by using the phrase “Boys will be boys.”, he is excusing and condoning bad behavior from boys, such as sexual harassment and rape. “But that’s not reality, that’s your opinion.” he said. 

He explained that his daughters “behave” and that his nephews were disrespectful… because they are boys. I said “That has nothing to do with their gender. They act that way because of how they were raised, the environment they are living in, and the choices they make.” 

I told him that the phrases he used were sexist and stereotypical and unfair to all genders. I explained to him that many students and people of society were offended by what he said and the phrases he used. I told him that I thought he should apologize for what he said and explain to students and society that this kind of message is not okay or appropriate.

He said he wouldn’t apologize for that, but he would give me an apology, which was “I’m sorry you feel that way.” 

After he dodged almost every question I asked by sharing his plans to improve LHS, he decided that he had had enough of not being able to answer my questions or concerns and ended our discussion by saying “I’m going to end this discussion.” and I was sent back to class.

Yes. This needs to go viral.

(Source: brunette-nymphette)

comicsalliance:

‘BIRDMAN’ DIRECTOR SAYS SUPERHERO MOVIES ARE ‘CULTURAL GENOCIDE’
By Matt D. Wilson
Birdman, the movie in which former Batman actor Michael Keaton stars as an actor who rose to superstardom playing the titular superhero, comes out today, and it looks to be a pretty strong dark comedy.
If you’re looking for a little context before you head off to see it, the movie’s director, Alejandro Gonzalez Iñárritu, minced no words when asked about his opinion of superhero movies in a Deadline interview this week. The key soundbite would be “cultural genocide.” There’s a little more to it than that, though.
READ MORE

comicsalliance:

‘BIRDMAN’ DIRECTOR SAYS SUPERHERO MOVIES ARE ‘CULTURAL GENOCIDE’

By Matt D. Wilson

Birdman, the movie in which former Batman actor Michael Keaton stars as an actor who rose to superstardom playing the titular superhero, comes out today, and it looks to be a pretty strong dark comedy.

If you’re looking for a little context before you head off to see it, the movie’s director, Alejandro Gonzalez Iñárritu, minced no words when asked about his opinion of superhero movies in a Deadline interview this week. The key soundbite would be “cultural genocide.” There’s a little more to it than that, though.

READ MORE

Tuesday, October 14, 2014
wolkin:

my shining moment in the sun

wolkin:

my shining moment in the sun

jaskneves:

inktober 14: leg lariat

jaskneves:

inktober 14: leg lariat

arcaneimages:

Paul Lynde

arcaneimages:

Paul Lynde

Saturday, October 11, 2014
truncheonthing:

Danny Kaye sure looked swank in a turtleneck and safari jacket.

Missed this the first time. Just look at those roiling matrices of cinematic mirth.

truncheonthing:

Danny Kaye sure looked swank in a turtleneck and safari jacket.

Missed this the first time. Just look at those roiling matrices of cinematic mirth.