Ranjhna Naa Aaya Mera

Pedro Pascal at the star ceremony for Willem Dafoe (January 8, 2024)

BRENDAN FRASER

95th Annual Academy Awards (March 12, 2023)

KE HUY QUAN wins Best Supporting Actor for WAYMOND WANG in EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE | 2023 Oscars

i love disabling notifications i love turning off autocorrect i love turning off autocaps i love appearing offline i love not syncing contacts i love not signing up with my phone number

Oh In-joo, while naive in the context of the story we are being told, is not an idiot. In the first few episodes In-joo is established as someone who is resourceful, competent at her job, and a good sister. She always makes sure there’s a roof over her family’s head, food in their bellies, and tries to make sure that they’re (mainly In-hye) safe and happy. In-joo is really good at being poor. Which is why I don’t understand all of the comments I keep seeing calling In-joo an idiot or complaining that she’s too stupid so the show is “un-feminist” (whatever that means [does that mean women aren’t allowed to be a little dumb sometimes? Seems pretty un-feminist for women to be put into a box like that…]). Like, why the fuck would someone who has been dirt poor all their life suddenly be amazing in the world of money, murder, and politics? The first thing In-joo did with 2 billion won was buy name brand ice cream. That’s how poor she’s been throughout her life, corner store ice cream was her big first splurge (and it was on sale!). Some of her scenes have been played to add a bit of levity to such a dramatic show, the “hands up” scene is one of my favourites, but again, those scenes are of her experiencing situations that she’s never had cause to even wonder about before. I’ve certainly never thought about the bounds of plastic surgery, and if faced with a gun, I fully believe I would wet myself. But In-joo, someone who is earnest and takes things at face value, is somehow managing to survive in this world of lies and backstabbing she’s been thrown into. Some of it is dumb luck, some of it is Do-il saving her neck, but some of it is her. And I don’t just mean her badass moment in Singapore. Her resilience, her earnestness, her optimism and kindness. Every choice she’s made has contributed to the fall of the Jeongran Society. Her additions to their rag-tag team go largely unnoticed since she’s not unearthing the story behind it all like In-kyung, or a former inside man like Do-il, but In-joo is the one who has the mastermind behind all of this shaken. And it’s not just because this all started with Sang-a’s obsession with In-joo. Sang-a thought she knew In-joo, but like a lot of viewers, she didn’t know who In-joo would become. She thought In-joo would do anything for money, but instead In-joo would do anything for her family and her best friend, even after learning that their friendship was a lie. She didn’t know that behind her naivete In-joo was strong; stronger than her. Sang-a may be more confident, conniving, and quick-witted, but she can’t handle things not going her way. In-joo on the other hand, has never had anything go her way and as a result is more adaptable and quicker to bounce back.

This entire show is about classism and the ways that it divides us, schooling and intelligence is one of them. Without Hyo-rin’s family In-hye wouldn’t have had the opportunities they gave her. Without their great aunt, In-kyung wouldn’t have gone to university. But In-joo didn’t have anyone to give her a helping hand. People who are looking down on her character for being an “idiot” are only proving one of the points the drama is trying to make. If you’re poor, you’re considered unintelligent, if you’re considered unintelligent then people can treat you like garbage and get away with it. But Oh In-joo is done letting people get away with it.

"spam liking will get you blocked" spam liking will get you a kiss on the mouth

There is nothing better than opening notifications and finding out that several days of your bullshit just made someone's day because they liked and reblogged everything on your dash. I would bake you cookies too if i could

It absolutely boggles my mind that in the year 2022, people still choose to be critical of fully realized and flawed female characters.

Yes, this is about Little Women.

The most impactful aspect of this amazingly written (by a woman) and strikingly directed show (by a woman) is that we have characters with distinct personalities and flaws.

In Joo- great with numbers but gullible and easily swayed by others

In Kyung- a black and white sense of justice paired with a brilliant, intuitive mind

In Hye- the most realistic of the three sisters who uses the situation to her advantage

What’s so great about these characters is that we are watching their journeys and character growth and that gives much more tension and realism than them being caricatures of women. 

This makes for great storytelling. Complex female characters who you root for but also curse out because of their choices. The suspense is present in who these characters are and it grips the audience to see where their journeys will take them. 

As  side note, not only are the three main characters fully realized, but so are the rest of the characters. There are bad people, but even they have a backstory and are much more than one dimensional, mustache twirling baddies. That’s what makes this show so impactful. 

LITTLE WOMEN (2022) dr. Kim Hee-won

i just watched"not okay" and i hate y'all just talking about dylan o'brien and how good he was and how good he looks. he does look good but he's barely in the movie and his character is really NOT important. why is no one talking about zoey deutch?? or mia isaac??!?! she killed it, her performance was so good and i've seen zero people talking about it. on tik tok is all about dylan. like??? have you learned nothing from the movie??

The New Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1988)

I love you pre-Autumn. I love you first chilly night after a hot day. I love you first crunchy leaves on the ground while the trees are still green. I love cicadas. I love you crickets. I love you dusk sneaking in earlier for the first time. I love you deep sigh of relief after summer.

The thing about car-dependency is that… it sucks for people without a car. Big news, right. But, it’s not like that incentive curve is something we can just ignore. When our desire or ability to leave our house at all is conditional on being in a car, that affects all of our behaviour on every level.

Kids are the prototypical ‘person without a car’, and in a car-dependent area, they become dependent on their parents. In a normal, walkable city or suburb, children walk on their own to school, they cycle, they take the bus. Instead of needing to get parental approval - and enough enthusiasm to dedicate the time - to be shuttled around to any given activity, children walk to the park, or to a friend’s house. Even in rural areas, with the infrastructure, children will cycle to school. In a car-dependent suburb, a child is trapped in a single-family McMansion on the edge of town, forced to beg their parents to be able to go anywhere, always under supervision - is it any wonder they’d rather stay inside?

Even in a city, if it’s car-dependent, this is still an issue. When the roads are 100-decibel, 6-lane monstrosities, with cyclists expected to intermingle with traffic, and the busses stuck in the exact same jam, kids aren’t going to be able to get anywhere, assuming their parents even let them cross the street. This isn’t just about proximity, it’s fundamentally related to safety. Car-dependent places are a lot more dangerous to be in, on account of all the cars, so parents feel it’s safer for their kid to be in one of those cars. To boot, when everyone’s in a car, there are less people around, less people who can notice someone in trouble, less people who can help. When places are built with the assumption that everyone will have a car, they become places for cars, which humans can stupidly venture into.

This doesn’t just apply to children. We are all, at some point or another, a ‘person without a car’ - in fact, we’re a ‘person without a car’ most of the time, until we get into one. A lot of people would prefer to remain that way; driving a car is stressful, it takes a lot of effort and concentration, and not everyone likes it at 6AM. But, when your environment is built with the assumption you’re inside a soundproof, crash-proof metal box, that becomes a requirement. The second you’re outside of those conditions, scurrying across deafening, hot tarmac, and dodging heavy-duty pickup trucks (carrying solely one guy and his starbucks order), of course you’d decide that not being in a car sucks. But, the thing is, it’s designing for cars that made it suck, even for the car-drivers.

A place designed for cars, a place that people cannot walk, or cycle, or take public transit through, is a place full of cars - you are not stuck in traffic, you are traffic. Studies have shown that the average speed of car traffic, over sufficient time, is completely unrelated to the thoroughfare of roads. Eventually, because of induced demand, the new seven-lane arterial road will have exactly the same congestion as the two-lane it replaced. The one factor that sharply determines how slow road traffic gets is, listen to this, the speed of non-car travel. It is solely when alternatives become faster that people stop driving and free up traffic. Shutting down main street, only allowing buses through, would drastically increase the speed of the rest of the road network - because each of those buses is 40 cars not in traffic. If you like driving, you should want as many people as possible who don’t want to drive to stop doing it - and whoever you are, you should want to be able to travel without depending on cars.

When I was in the biggest depressive slump of my life, and I could barely get out of bed, I still went shopping for food nearly every day, and even traveled to visit my partner. The supermarket was 10 meters out the door of my apartment, and I could walk five minutes to either train station if I had to. It was peaceful and quiet outside. My disabled mother doesn’t like living in cities, but she loves public transit, and will always take a train ride over a long, tiring car journey - and when every store doesn’t need a parking lot twice as big as itself, whatever walking she does have to do is over a much shorter distance. When I’ve had to call an ambulance in a ‘car-hostile’ place, it has arrived inconceivably faster, on those clear roads, than when sitting in the traffic of the highway-lined carpark that makes up so many cities.

Car dependency sucks for everyone, including car drivers, but it sucks the worst for people already suffering. It strips you of independence, and forces you into a box you might not fit in - and I haven’t even touched on pollution. Car-dependency makes cities and suburbs into dangerous, stressful places, devoid of everyone except the most desperate. The only people it benefits are, really, the CEOs of car companies.

Yeah, this looks like the Doctor alright

hottest girl in the grocery store (one of the only ppl wearing a mask)