Signs as Old Disney Shows

Aries: Hannah Montana
Taurus: Lizzie McGuire
Gemini: The Suite Life on Deck
Cancer: Lilo and Stitch
Leo: Sonny with a Chance
Virgo: That’s So Raven
Libra: Even Stevens
Scorpio: Kim Possible
Sagittarius: Phil of the Future
Caipricorn: Cory in the House
Aquarius: Wizards of Waverly Place
Pisces: The Suite Life of Zack and Cody

toggle-woggs:

cloperella:

I was thrilled to pieces when I saw this scene. Disney could have written Gideon off like some bully character who never really amounted to anything, or got what was coming to him like a lot of those characters do in their movies. 
Gideon made something of himself. He’s a pastry chef, something that’s not traditionally a job for men in media. And as soon as Judy speaks to him, he immediately apologizes to her. He doesn’t try to shrug it off as no big deal, or say that it was just boys being boys or whatever; he knows he hurt her, and he owns up to it. And Judy immediately forgives him. 

Well done, Disney. 

Also the language that he used is not something that he would have most likely grown up hearing/using. Describing his failings as self-doubt that manifested into “unchecked rage and aggression” sounds SO MUCH like therapy speak. So he’s either gotten counseling to help him with some of his problems, or sought out literature to help himself. A++ disney 🙂

theamazingladygeek:

0ffbeatt:

I DON’T FUCKIN UNDERSTAND DREAMWORKS MAN.
THEY CAN MAKE SHIT LIKE THIS:
imageimageimageimageimageimage

AND THEY HAVE LIKE REALLY NICE CHARACTERS AND IT’S A GOOD STORY AND IT LOOKS SUPER PRETTY, BUT THEN LIKE EVERY OTHER YEAR OR SO THEY COME OUT WITH LIKE A REALLY WEIRD LOOKIN MOVIE WITH WEIRD CONCEPTS AND SHIT LIKE THIS COMES OUT:

imageimage
imageimage
image

AND I’M JUST SO CONFUSED LIKE WTF MAN WHAT IS YOUR ANIMATION STUDIO WHAT IS YOUR ANGLE I DON’T GET IT.

shush you, Shark Tale was a wonderful movie

what she says: I’m fine
what she means: There was literally no narrative coherency or internal logic to Spider-Man being in Captain America: Civil War and you could have easily removed him from the plot without any impact. Why does Tony, who wanted accountability because of his guilt over innocent people dying in Sokovia, whose catalyst for siding with the government was that a grieving mother blamed him for her son’s death, recruit a child to fight in his war? Where is the narrative logic that leads him to go to a high school teenager and ask him to fight in a war he has no stakes in, implement him with his own ideals before Peter has a chance to form his own opinion, and tell him to go up against a bunch of super-powered adults? Why does no one call him out on how reckless and selfish this is? Why doesn’t anyone point out the hypocrisy of asking for accountability, then secretly recruiting a child behind their parental guardian’s back? How can the narrative paint Tony as the reasonable and responsible one in context of this? Isn’t it disrespectful to Peter’s character that he only exists to act as a snarking comic relief without any emotional impact on the plot and to disappear when the story has no longer any use for him? We could easily have allocated that screentime to focusing more on the other characters, like giving Natasha, Sharon and Wanda a proper ending to their arc, focusing more on Sam, or just working on concluding the movie in a meaningful way, instead we just get a lazy promo for the third iteration of Peter Parker’s Groundhog Day Loop from Hell.