He’s getting ready to go out, apparently.

He’s getting ready to go out, apparently.

Do you think Breaking Bad romanticized meth use?
Anonymous

gregxb:

Yes, things like Jesse’s meth addiction, Wendy’s grotesque appearance, Tuco beating his goon in a crystal induced rage, and that tweeker couple pretty much abusing their child totally made people wanna go do meth. 

ourobearos:

tophiebearrrr:

kaiju3:

The American Hogwarts Houses

Bear glove sounds like something a power bottom would name their butthole

Put on the Sorting Jock and see which house you are assigned to.

ourobearos:

tophiebearrrr:

kaiju3:

The American Hogwarts Houses

Bear glove sounds like something a power bottom would name their butthole

Put on the Sorting Jock and see which house you are assigned to.

brokendildo:

brightchimeradragon:

just-bx:

Just SCience

IT TOOK ME TWO TIMES TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS GOING ON, HOLY FUCKING SHIT MY SIDES.

I don’t get it

brokendildo:

brightchimeradragon:

just-bx:

Just SCience

IT TOOK ME TWO TIMES TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS GOING ON, HOLY FUCKING SHIT MY SIDES.

I don’t get it

dorkball-mcgee:

dorkball-mcgee:

Why did Stan Lee make a cameo in The Princess Diaries 2? Was this foreshadowing Disney buying Marvel? Is Princess Mia going to be an Avenger? So many questions

image

In case you though I was joking

"All my life I’ve avoided Europe and its multitudes of terribleness."

sosuperawesome:

Gemma Correll, on Tumblr

Shop

theangrymarshmallow:

justcashierthings:

temoreus:

yourcashierproblems:

kookie667:

I’ve heard this so many times it’s not even funny

Will there ever be a day I don’t hear this?

I’M SO CONFUSED
IS THIS AN INSIDE JOKE THAT 160K PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WTF WHERE IS THIS FROM I DON’T GET IT

the people above you literally explained the joke

The confused person has obviously never been a cashier.

A couple of months ago at Lowe’s, a cashier reversed this on me. A paint pan didn’t have a price tag on it, and I offered to run back and grab another one, and she said “Well there’s no price tag on it, I’m going to say you get it for free!” and let me leave with it. I’ve felt dirty and wrong ever since.

spankmehardbarry:

my cousin is literally the most boring person alive

spankmehardbarry:

my cousin is literally the most boring person alive

This is basically Portland in a nutshell.  (at Portland, Oregon)

This is basically Portland in a nutshell. (at Portland, Oregon)

edorazzi:

WHY IS FRED’S CHIN JUST GETTING BIGGER WITH EVERY NEW INCARNATION

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

THIS IS INSANE WARNER BROS. WHAT ARE YOU DOING WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO DRAW THE LINE

literarymagpie:

So, a few weeks ago I made a post with some thoughts on The Giver, which people seemed to like, and that’s great. However, I noticed that a lot of people tagged their reblogs with “This is why the book is always better,” and, well, I take issue with that. (Probably) not in the case of The Giverbecause as far as I can tell from the trailers, the book is better. However, I think a lot of times us more literarily-inclined* people like to pat ourselves on the back for having read the book (whatever book that might be) without thinking about what it means to adapt a story from one medium to another. 

Books tell stories with words. Movies tell stories with a combination of image, light, sound, and dialogue. Okay, so I know you know this, but think about it. Really think about it. A long interior monologue might work fine in a book; in a film, it may be condensed to a single glance or gesture. And it should be—what did you want, a voice-over? That could get cheesy if carried on for too long. A soliloquy? What are we, Shakespeare? The fact is, what makes for great storytelling in print often makes for lousy storytelling on film. Actually, even a play or a comic, both of which are technically visual media, don’t even tell stories in the same way film does. Very different, nuanced things make them tick, which is why there are a lot of terrible stage to screen adaptations and video game to film adaptations. 

So what makes a good adaptation? It’s not lifting the words off the page; it’s lifting the spirit off the page. What we’re seeing in YA-adaptation films seems to be an attempt to adapt a book so that the movie fits within a recognizable Hollywood trend. It’s a Dystopia? Make it look like the Hunger Games! It’s paranormal? Make sure the photography has the same color palette as Twilight! A very long time ago, someone tried to adapt the classic children’s book The Borrowers. Instead of paying attention to the source material, they tried to make it fit in with a bunch of popular slap-stick comedies such as “Mouse Hunt” (Mouse Trap? I don’t even remember). 

A bad film adaptation has nothing to do with cutting out material. Sometimes a book works better on screen if certain scenes are cut out because those scenes don’t translate. The problem is when the people behind the film aren’t focused on the source material, thinking about what the story does, why it does it, and how to translate that feeling to the screen. 

*It’s not that I don’t like film; I do. I just honestly respond to books more for reasons that I can’t figure out and have more to do with me than either medium.