#caliban kin

[findinyourkin]

Hello. I am John Clare/Caliban/The Creature from Penny Dreadful, looking for anyone else who knew me. I am 26 years old, and would prefer only 18+ to interact. Please reach out....I miss all of you a great deal. Like or reblog this ask and I'll try my best to seek you out.

!!!!!!!!

[theology101]

Okay listen, I have no art skill (and far too many projects to start a new one) BUT AHHH I CANT HELP MYSELF! With DnD, I can pretend by making worlds or different character sheet and I want to do the same with Warhammer 40 while lacking the skill to do so

Also, while I normally dislike OCs as a concept, a setting like 40k is kinda built around it, my OC can be absolutely pivotal to this major battle… also completely irrelevant cause the Imperium already lost like, thirty other planets cause some bureaucrat misfiled a form 3 centuries ago

Anyways! Meet my OC!

The Noble House of Bicarmion was one of a dozen Knightly houses of located on the planet of Caliban, although the family’s Knight had a few… quirks. Despite being in perfect combat condition, the Knight had two machine spirits installed on it. Initially, this was a deteiment as not only did a pilot need to fight to maintain control, there were two possible options for causing braindeath instead of one. While the Bicarmions were infamous for their much higher rate of failure when it came to Knight mastery, this did not always stay the same. As time went on, and the Gestalt conscious of the Knights grew and expanded with each dead pilot - creating a harder and harder Machine Spirit to master - Bicarmion’s unique mutation proved its worth.

Instead of having a singular Mind that would merge with the Pilot, there were two - with the Machine Spirits allowed to communicate, they began to differentiate themselves and, as more kinsmen were added to the Gestalt mind, the Pilot found themselves not being a Component slotted into the Machine Spirit inorder to give it will, but rather a more conversational bent. It was not a new Pilot coming to master a Machine Spirit who had nothing to do but fight (even its newest pilot psychically), it would be a bickering couple being forced to cooperate by the youngblood

By the time of Lion El’Johnson’s conquest - the Bicarmion’s a proud member of the Order for centuries (actually cause none of the other guilds wanted a family with such a high washout rate, and by the time that was fixed the animosity had built) - found themselves swept up in the fervor when the planet was unified and then the Emperor arrived in person.

Unwilling to abandon their oaths to the Lion, the Bicarmion’s joined the Imperium but, like the other houses of Caliban, insisted on staying with the Lion and his Dark Angels. By then, the two Machine Spirits had been affectionately named “Grandfather” and “Grandmother.” The Machine Spirits were a combination of their ancestors, and having their deadkinsmen - thousands of years of them at this point - were practically family.

They’ve stayed loyal since the Heresy and, due to the family occupying a very priveledged, if not powerful, position in the Imperium meant that many Bicarmions would go on to be Rogue Traders and Inquisitors… but they would always seek out the Knight of the House, to seek Wisdom from the revered Machine Spirits of the Knight, who all the family view as Kin. Since the Heresy and Lion El’Johnson leaving, the House has spent much more time around said groups sparking some concern of their loyalty to the Empire as they seemed to only be honoring themselves. On top of the Dark Angels already mysterious nature, the Bicarmions became more isolationist. However, with the return of the Primarchs, the house has been revitalized

Anyways im going to try to draw this knight at some point - but with different colors and some more aestehtic variations. Like for one, probably give it an axe and a chaingun, take off the Chaos branding with the family Coat of Arms, the despoiler is just my favorite. I’m thinking the standard grey but with much more color painted on with the family coat of Arms. After all, the Bicarmions have had the same coat of arms for centuries! They respect the Lion, but they’re not going to rebrand just for him!

Current pilot is Juilette Katrin Schtark-Feld of the Knightly House Bicarmion, she had been a pilot for about a year when Guiliman came back and is currently doing everything in her power, with grandma and grandpa yelling at her to go faster, to find El’Johnson and help atone

[romanoffstarkovs]

WIP: The Throne of the Nameless

In the fantastical realm of Eldralore, Princess Leora Brightflame’s life takes an unexpected turn when she miraculously survives her family's attempt to end her life. Years later, a band of rebels led by the enigmatic Caliban Sorensen discovers her hidden existence. As the truth behind her assassination attempt is unveiled, Leora is faced with a monumental choice: to reclaim her rightful position as heir and restore her family's oppressive rule, or to join forces with the rebels in a fight against her own kin's tyranny.

Guided by their distinct abilities and convictions, the rebel group includes the ingenious Saorla, the conflicted siblings Wren, Rosina, and Orison, and the resourceful Darren. Amid battles, alliances, and a journey for justice, Leora trains alongside her newfound companions, honing her skills and forging deep connections.

As their mission to overthrow the tyrannical regime unfolds, Leora's relationships are tested, alliances are forged, and secrets are unveiled. The enigmatic Castiel and the determined Nellie further shape the rebels' destiny, while personal loyalties are questioned and betrayals threaten to unravel their cause.

In the midst of internal struggles, strategic battles, and a search for allies, Leora's journey leads to a climactic clash between her loyalty to family and her belief in justice. The choices she makes, along with the sacrifices of those around her, will determine the fate of the kingdom and shape a legacy that transcends the shadows of the past. "The Throne of the Nameless” is a tale of resilience, transformation, and the enduring fight for freedom in a world where darkness and light collide.

[kinhelping]

hey, this is a wolverine from the x-men film series. i guess i'd like to talk to anyone, but most of my memories are from logan & i really wanna find my caliban, xavier, and laura. i remember a couple of times when i'd get really drunk & rant half-nonsensically to caliban, & he'd just... listen. so we were a lot closer than we seemed to be in the movie, i guess. but besides that, there aren't many differences that i can recall. i'm 18+ but idc about age. like or reblog this post for a mssg.

[shittykinaesthetics]

Shitty Olivia Caliban aesthetic: i’m not even gonna get into the distinction between netflix and book olivia here, just... if you occupied the role of madam lulu this is for you

[sacidraw]

Here's team CMPG (Champagne), based on the four Chinese symbols and composed of:

- Nox Caliban, buffalo faunus (black tortoise)

- Marzia Plumeria (vermillion bird)

- Tiffany Periwinkle (azure dragon)

- Gwyn Sun (white tiger) and her semblance, Kin

Still have to figure out their semblances and how they work, but for now have some designs!

[stay-neurotic]

found this post on reddit, very well written and sums up my feelings perfectly about the tragedy of the jem'hadar. transcript under the cut

A Devil, a born Devil on whose nature, nurture can never stick, on whom my pain, humanly taken, all lost, quite lost. -Prospero, speaking of the monster Caliban, in The Tempest. -- My childhood boogeyman was the Borg. They'd make an appearance in late night syndication, and I'd be glued to the screen- but only through the holes in the blanket. They can still make me shiver, in the way that only childhood anxieties can. Body horror runs deep, and the Queen, in her first appearance- the devil given flesh as bondage temptress- is a delight.

But as an adult, among Trek's roster of villains, they aren't the ones who get under my skin and stay there. There's something hyperbolic about the Borg that makes it possible to set them aside. Metaphors for the all-consuming socio-political system of your particular nightmares aside, no ravening thousand-year-old robots are coming for my brains. The Borg are bad in a pure, Manichean sense- one imagines that whatever runs in all those extraneous tubes is some kind of spiritual ooze, black pile or demon tears or the agitated telekinetic snot from Ghostbusters II. They seem to have no conception of interacting with the universe save for the elimination of me-ness, via death or worse, and that's a proposition it's not challenging to morally frame. Picard's injunction that we not hesitate to fire at our formerly assimilated friends is naturally chilling- but also not a hard sell. It's the Jem'Hadar that have the power to unsettle me now. From one angle, this is a surprise. The Jem'Hadar are mooks, members of a class of character whose uniformity and separation from the business of living is purpose-built to ease the conscience of an audience watching their heroes gun them down in droves; death machines endowed an with unwavering loyalty to the bad guys that can only be cured with a ray gun. They're kith and kin to Imperial stormtroopers and Terminators- ugly mugs with bad aim. And yet. The writers were never more than an episode or two away from stripping away that balm, forcing characters and audience alike to stew in the unsolvable moral swamp of bad guys with worse parents, of good guys in the service of those who don't deserve them, of people bound to foul destinies, both by heritage and the conviction that heritage couldn't be helped on the part of those best equipped to help them. The Jem'Hadar have no one in their corner. The qualities that make the Jem'Hadar formidable- their easy devotion, their quick intelligence and curiosity- are rendered more valuable to the Founders because they have no intention of paying for them in the currency of social life in which they evolved. They are the plastic waste of sentient life, valued for a durability made more valuable to their owners by the ease with which it can be thrown away. They fight with the zeal and talents of people defending their families, their future, their ideals- but their lives, brief and uncultured and unsexed, have had those bits of autonomy excised. The only people who could help them are their enemies, and their efficacy in battle means those opponents have few opportunities to aid them amidst fending for their own lives. Assuming those opponents indeed cared to offer such aid. Feedback loops abound in the tragedy of the Jem'Hadar. O'Brien sees one infant Jem'Hadar filled with rage, and subsequently takes it upon himself to put an end to Bashir's experiments to free them from their white addiction- despite having an example in front of him suggesting both the biochemical possibility, and that Jem'Hadar so freed can at least contemplate a life without the Founders, with less casual brutality- a regime of self-destructive violence that Goran'Agar identifies as being the rules of the Vorta, and not their own. What would they be without the Vorta?

Nothing, of course, because no one would breed them. Rules seep in, and the Jem'Hadar, with no culture and no family, have none of their own to replace those of the Vorta. Conditioning is an inevitability. First Ramata'Klan can find no way to organize his short life around any notion but obedience to his Vorta, despite his full knowledge his contributions to the war are over, and the Vorta wants him dead, while Starfleet would let him live.

Assuming First Ramat'Klan believed the stories of Starfleet benevolence to people like him; it would be understandable if he did not. We saw a Jem'Hadar rebellion, attempting to secure an Iconian gateway, and our Starfleet crew, ostensibly heroes to underdogs elsewhere, instead saw a rabid beast off the chain, buying into a narrative that these were madmen securing a weapon of mass destruction, and not slaves securing the means to flee to freedom. And so they sign on with the slavedrivers.

Which was perhaps not an unreasonable play, given the view. Sisko and Co. spend a few days cuddled up with a Jem'Hadar squadron, and in that time they regularly threaten their rescuers, before murdering their commanding officer. Blood, at any price, it would seem.

Except, of course, when Ikat'ika refuses to beat Worf to death in 'By Inferno's Light' and is vaporized for his decency. He understood Worf, and there he found something kindred that he was loathe to destroy. History is replete with instances of fighting men coming to realize they share more in common with their opponents in the trenches than they did with their commanders- the WWI Christmas Truce comes to mind- and we see over and over the Jem'Hadar reaching towards the Klingons. Pity the Klingons never seem to reach back.

Much like the replicants of Blade Runner and BR 2049, their value to their captors is based around human qualities that, given a chance, would blossom into a longing for freedom and connection- but where would they find that chance, when their lives are so brief, and their ideas are not their own?

And that's why the Jem'Hadar bother me, now. My life is thankfully free of homogenizing swarms like the Borg. But the Jem'Hadar? They're a sci-fi amalgamation of every instance in life where a person who certainly deserves your humane pity may not deserve your trust- drug addicts and enemy soldiers and fellow citizens across political divides and family members in the grips of strange ideologies or mental illnesses, each with a laundry list of disadvantages and bad turns, heredity and circumstance and round and round. Those are adult fears, and adult problems, and adult sympathies.

And so, I watch on. What about you?

[findthebae]

Hi! I'm Olivia Caliban from Netflix's A Series of Unfortunate Events, looking for anyone but specifically anyone who remembers me being non-binary and bisexual, possibly dying later than I did in canon, and having an estranged elder sibling in VFD. I'm 22 and would prefer any Jacques and Esme kins to be 18+, but I'm cool with other people of any ages getting in touch provided they're comfortable talking with an adult. Kin blog is @fickin-hell.

! ! !

[encephalonfatigue]

capital and the plantationocene: faith or defeat

a review of Anna Tsing’s “The Mushroom at the End of the World”

Since my late undergraduate years, Donna Haraway has been a continuous figure of fascination for me. I always found her to be a very fashionable writer, maybe because I had a very unfashionable taste for 90’s postmodernism during my politically formative years. Around the time I started toying around with vegetable gardening in my backyard I began getting fairly interested in Haraway’s work on companion species and how species are mutually constituted by each other. Species (including humans) of course do not exist in a vacuum, but exist in relation to other species, and have been formed by the history of these other species with whom they have been interacting over vast periods of time, genetically and behaviourally adapting to what Haraway calls ‘kin’ — family. (Also Haraway references in Orphan Black only added fuel to this smouldering interest.)

More recently, Haraway’s Marxism has been more often foregrounded in discussions. I suppose this is simply a result of the political mood that has been surfacing over the past few years. But I listened to a podcast interview Haraway did with Jacobin on why using the term ‘anthropocene’ was inadequate for trying to understand the nature of the anthropogenic climate catastrophe currently underway. Many leftists use the (rather clumsy) term ‘capitalocene’ to signal that it is the specific political economy of capitalism and specifically the actions of the capitalist class — the wealthy few — that are driving this climate catastrophe. Haraway mentions she finds that term useful but more often refers to a term that her colleague Anna Tsing uses which is ‘plantationocene’, which signals the type of socio-ecological and political-economic organization that came to exist under colonialism that became the basis of capitalist production today — and how that was the driving force behind the ongoing climate catastrophe. This is how I first encountered Anna Tsing.

It is interesting how certain liberal science writers like Elizabeth Kolbert in The Sixth Extinction go out of their way to try and frame ecological destruction as an intrinsically human thing. Almost as if it is inevitable that humans as a species would cause mass extinctions either way — with or without capitalism. Ironically, this is a rather fascist idea behind a lot of eco-fascist calls for genocide. Haraway sometimes gets accused of this because she emphasizes population control as an important ecological tactic (with slogans like “Make kin, not babies”), even though she has been extremely critical of these sorts of fascist impulses in movements like deep ecology. Haraway’s emphasis on population control is inverted from the typical liberal one that carries deep anxieties over ballooning third world populations. Haraway claims that having a child in the highly consumptive environment of a Western ‘middle-class’ life is far more worrying than having a child as a third world family. I ultimately don’t really agree with Haraway’s emphasis on population as a primary mechanism of dealing with this climate catastrophe, but certainly I think it’s worth admitting that our planet can only sustain a certain number of human beings.

I want to point out though how radically different indigenous anthropologies are from the sort of picture Kolbert paints in The Sixth Extinction. For example, Leanne Simpson talks about how human abandonment is not the solution to environmental destruction but human care and responsibility:

“So when I think of the land as my mother or if I think of it as a familial relationship, I don’t hate my mother because she’s sick, or because she’s been abused. I don’t stop visiting her because she’s been in an abusive relationship and she has scars and bruises. If anything, you need to intensify that relationship because it’s a relationship of nurturing and caring.”

The botanist Robin Wall-Kimmerer also talks about finding this common notion among her ecology students that humans are not beneficial to ecosystems:

“One otherwise unremarkable morning I gave the students in my General Ecology class a survey. Among other things, they were asked to rate their understanding of the negative interactions between humans and the environment. Nearly every one of the two hundred students said confidently that humans and nature are a bad mix. These were third-year students who had selected a career in environmental protection, so the response was, in a way, not very surprising. They were well schooled in the mechanics of climate change, toxins in the land and water, and the crisis of habitat loss. Later in the survey, they were asked to rate their knowledge of positive interactions between people and land. The median response was “none.”

I was stunned. How is it possible that in twenty years of education they cannot think of any beneficial relationships between people and the environment? …When we talked about this after class, I realized that they could not even imagine what beneficial relations between their species and others might look like. How can we begin to move toward ecological and cultural sustainability if we cannot even imagine what the path feels like? If we can’t imagine the generosity of geese? These students were not raised on the story of Skywoman.”

I think what people like Haraway and Tsing offer is a framing beyond nature as something radically distinct from humans, as if humans are not part of nature or ecosystems. Their critique of rendering nature as something static or pure is also at the same time a critique of anthropocentrism. To recognize humans as a species formed in parallel together with all other species on this planet, and that we as a species affect other species just as other species affect us, and affect each other also. What we cannot lose sight of is the hegemonic influence the humans species (more specifically an elite subset of the human species) has had on all other species on this planet. We cannot divorce anthropocentrism and certain destructive humanisms from a proper class analysis.

Tsing actually works through a number of Marxist concepts throughout the book. She explores labour (wage labour and precarious gig labour), capital, privatization, alienation, and commodification. I think many on the left are quite impatient of postmodern sermonizing (maybe rightly so), yet Tsing is working in the tradition of Marx and has many worthwhile things to say. Some of Marx’s earliest articles as a journalist and editor of the German paper Rheinische Zitung was on the wooded commons. He wrote a series of articles on the ‘theft’ of firewood from German forests in the autumn of 1842, which many consider formative to his further politicization.

One of Tsing’s observations I found most useful was her exploration of capitalist co-optation which she terms the ‘salvage economy’ writing:

“In this “salvage” capitalism, supply chains organize the translation process in which wildly diverse forms of work and nature are made commensurate—for capital.”

Tsing elaborates:

“In capitalist farms, living things made within ecological processes are coopted for the concentration of wealth. This is what I call “salvage,” that is, taking advantage of value produced without capitalist control. Many capitalist raw materials (consider coal and oil) came into existence long before capitalism. Capitalists also cannot produce human life, the prerequisite of labor. “Salvage accumulation” is the process through which lead firms amass capital without controlling the conditions under which commodities are produced. ”

Tsing then turns to two very interesting literary examples of capitalist co-optation of indigenous knowledge by colonizers to generate capitalist wealth:

“Consider the nineteenth-century ivory supply chain connecting central Africa and Europe as told in Joseph Conrad’s novel Heart of Darkness. The story turns around the narrator’s discovery that the European trader he much admired has turned to savagery to procure his ivory. The savagery is a surprise because everyone expects the European presence in Africa to be a force for civilization and progress. Instead, civilization and progress turn out to be cover-ups and translation mechanisms for getting access to value procured through violence: classic salvage.

For a brighter view of supply-chain translation, consider Herman Melville’s account of the nineteenth-century procurement of whale oil for Yankee investors. Moby-Dick tells of a ship of whalers whose rowdy cosmopolitanism contrasts sharply with our stereotypes of factory discipline; yet the oil they obtain from killing whales around the world enters a U.S.-based capitalist supply chain. Strangely, all the harpooners on the Pequod are unassimilated indigenous people from Asia, Africa, America, and the Pacific. The ship is unable to kill a single whale without the expertise of people who are completely untrained in U.S. industrial discipline. But the products of this work must eventually be translated into capitalist value forms; the ship sails only because of capitalist financing. The conversion of indigenous knowledge into capitalist returns is salvage accumulation. So too is the conversion of whale life into investments.”

I cannot help but recall Caliban in Shakespeare’s Tempest crying out:

“...I loved thee

And show'd thee all the qualities o' the isle,

The fresh springs, brine-pits, barren place and fertile:

Cursed be I that did so! All the charms

Of Sycorax, toads, beetles, bats, light on you!

For I am all the subjects that you have,

Which first was mine own king: and here you sty me

In this hard rock, whiles you do keep from me

The rest o' the island.”

After the extraction of indigenous knowledge for capitalist gain comes the inevitable violent process of enclosure and privatization that dispossesses the colonized from their land.

Tsing is a Southeast Asianist and I think her writings on Southeast Asia are some of the strongest aspects of the book. The influence of Japanese capital for example in Indonesia was fascinating, and how the reinvigoration of Japanese capital after WW2 was largely a function of anti-communist foreign policy.

“American occupiers arranged for the rehabilitation of once-disgraced nationalists and rebuilt the Japanese economy as a bulwark against communism. It was in this climate that associations of banks, industrial enterprises, and specialists in trade formed again, although less formally, as keiretsu “enterprise groups.” At the heart of most enterprise groups was a general trading company in partnership with a bank. The bank transferred money to the trading company, which, in turn, made smaller loans to its associated enterprises… Trading companies advanced loans—or equipment, technical advice, or special marketing agreements—to their supply chain partners overseas. The trading company’s job was to translate goods procured in varied cultural and economic arrangements into inventory. It is hard not to see in this arrangement the roots of the current hegemony of global supply chains, with their associated form of salvage accumulation.”

Tsing also tells the story of Nike which started as a U.S. outpost distributing Japanese sneakers, and eventually moved to this model of heavily subcontracting every stage of production to the extent that one of its Vice Presidents remarked:  “We don’t know the first thing about manufacturing. We are marketers and designers,”

It is then interesting to see Tsing write about her first encounter with commodity chains as a Southeast Asianist was to observe how Japanese capital functioned in Indonesia by way of subcontracting not unlike the way Nike did:

“I first learned about supply chains in studying logging in Indonesia, and this is a place to see how the Japanese supply-chain model works. During Japan’s building boom in the 1970s and 1980s, Japanese imported Indonesian trees to make plywood construction molds. But no Japanese cut down Indonesian trees. Japanese general trading companies offered loans, technical assistance, and trade agreements to firms from other countries, which cut logs to Japanese specifications. This arrangement had many advantages for Japanese traders. First, it avoided political risk. Japanese businessmen were aware of the political difficulties of Chinese Indonesians who, resented for their wealth and willingness to cooperate with the more ruthless policies of the Indonesian government, were targets in periodic riots. Japanese businessmen evaded such difficulties for themselves by advancing money to Chinese Indonesians, who made the deals with Indonesian generals and took the risks. Second, the arrangement facilitated transnational mobility. Japanese traders had already deforested the Philippines and much of Malaysian Borneo by the time they got to Indonesia. Rather than adapting to a new country, the traders could merely bring in agents willing to work with them in each location. Indeed, Filipino and Malaysian loggers, financed by Japanese traders, were ready and able to go to work in cutting down Indonesian trees.

Third, supply-chain arrangements facilitated Japanese trade standards while ignoring environmental consequences. Environmentalists looking for targets could find only a grab bag of varied companies, many Indonesian; no Japanese were in the forests. Fourth, supply-chain arrangements accommodated illegal logging as a layer of subcontracting, which harvested trees protected by environmental regulations. Illegal loggers sold their logs to the larger contractors, who passed them on to Japan. No one need be responsible. And—even after Indonesia started its own plywood businesses, in a supply-chain hierarchy modeled on Japanese trade—the wood was so cheap! The cost could be calculated without regard to the lives and livelihoods of loggers, trees, or forest residents. Japanese trading companies made the logging of Southeast Asia possible. They were equally busy with other commodities and in other parts of the world.”

This habit of disarticulating production is the common experience of capitalist alienation. Ching Kwan Lee, who has done some remarkably important studies on Chinese investment in Africa made some very interesting remarks on subcontracting:

“The worldwide trend has been to use subcontractors who in turn offer minimal training to short-term contract workers. The use of casual and contract workers was equally prevalent in construction.”

She observed many mining companies backed by global private capital (e.g. traded on the London stock exchange) were far more likely than Chinese state-owned mining companies to engage in widespread subcontracting in their mining projects:

“CM was particularly notorious and ruthless in using competition among subcontractors to drive down costs, to the extent that there was an internal discourse among its own managers about the “tyranny of finance.””

Lee argues in one of her lectures on her book “The Specter of Global China” that subcontracting and the casualization of labour often significantly reduces the chance that workers will engage in strikes together, and consequently their bargaining power. She says:

“The more subcontracts you have, they fight more over things like equipment — it’s harder to manage. But on the books, you’re cutting costs by subcontracting… Why do I mention this as a very important feature? Because it has extremely important consequences for labour power — the capacity for labour to force the hand of management. Because if you only have one subcontractor, your workers are unified, because they just have one employer. But if you have many many subcontractors, your workforce is totally divided, and that’s why more strikes happen in the Chinese state mine, and they have to make more concessions to their workers because they care so much about.. smooth production.”

Lee’s point is that Chinese mining is less concerned about maximizing profits by selling minerals on a global market, than actually directly using those minerals for state infrastructure projects. This is the classical distinction between ‘use value’ and ‘exchange value’ (mentioned in both Adam Smith and Marx). But Lee emphasizes that this is only in the case of mining. Subcontracting is still very common in Chinese construction and the bargaining power of labour power in Chinese construction in Africa is sometimes even worse than construction undertaken by global private capital. So it cuts both ways.

I work at a small firm engaged in distributing and ‘integrating’ power engineering products and am intimately confronted by the bizarre world of a subcontracting and sub-subcontracting that happens in almost every dimension of the field. It’s remarkable how many middle people are involved in small value-adding steps and plastering their ‘brand names’ on goods simply manufactured in third world countries where labour is much cheaper.

Anyway, with these issues of mining and landscapes ravaged by capitalism, I think Tsing raises an obvious but important point that humans are not the only species that radically transform landscapes. She writes:

“Making worlds is not limited to humans. We know that beavers reshape streams as they make dams, canals, and lodges; in fact, all organisms make ecological living places, altering earth, air, and water. Without the ability to make workable living arrangements, species would die out. In the process, each organism changes everyone’s world. Bacteria made our oxygen atmosphere, and plants help maintain it. Plants live on land because fungi made soil by digesting rocks. As these examples suggest, world-making projects can overlap, allowing room for more than one species. Humans, too, have always been involved in multispecies world making. Fire was a tool for early humans not just to cook but also to burn the landscape, encouraging edible bulbs and grasses that attracted animals for hunting. Humans shape multispecies worlds when our living arrangements make room for other species. This is not just a matter of crops, livestock, and pets. Pines, with their associated fungal partners, often flourish in landscapes burned by humans; pines and fungi work together to take advantage of bright open spaces and exposed mineral soils. Humans, pines, and fungi make living arrangements simultaneously for themselves and for others: multispecies worlds.”

Tsing also mentions how

“Pines have made alliances with animals as well as fungi. Some pines are completely dependent on birds to spread their seeds—just as some birds are completely dependent on pine seeds for their food.”

Yet this interdependency is not isolated from ‘destructive’ human practices. Tsing points out that human deforestation also benefits pine trees in certain circumstances:

“Humans spread pines in two different ways: by planting them, and by creating the kinds of disturbances in which they take hold. The latter generally occurs without any conscious intent; pines like some of the kinds of messes humans make without trying. Pines colonize abandoned fields and eroded hillsides. When humans cut down the other trees, pines move in. Sometimes planting and disturbance go together. People plant pines to remediate the disturbances they have created. Alternatively, they may keep things radically disturbed to advantage pine. This last alternative has been the strategy of industrial growers, whether they plant or merely manage self-seeded pine: clear-cutting and soil breaking are justified as strategies to promote pine.”

I have mixed feelings about the emphasizing of this framing by postmodernists like Tsing and Haraway. On the one hand there is something dialectical to this sort of analysis. Yet also this reiteration of slippage and blurring of boundaries can obscure the real dominant power dynamics at play, and the clarity of the task before us. 

Catherine Liu did a really interesting interview with Jacobin criticizing postmodernism from a Marxist perspective. She mentions that most textbooks locate the pivotal turn to postmodernism as the destruction of Pruitt-Igoe (a social housing project in St Louis that ‘devolved’ into a hotbed of ‘gang violence’). This narrative framing was also the case of for me in a first year international development course, where this landmark moment in architectural history had resounding consequences in art more generally and philosophical and political currents. Liu claims that the postmodernist disdain for large-scale ‘alienating’ and ‘dehumanizing’ mass-produced social-housing projects and efficiently designed rooms like the Frankfurt Kitchen designed by the communist architect Margarete Schutte-Lihotzky dovetailed well with reactionary initiatives to dismantle social housing, which were largely used by poor working-class people of colour. Liu sees this as a defeatist impulse in postmodernist ideology. That grand projects to provide housing for all and not leaving poor racialized communities behind is seen as an impossibly utopic vision bound for failure. The failure of Pruitt-Igoe housing projects is not properly located within the active efforts of the rich white business class to stop public funding of social housing and providing adequate maintenance for it, but as the fault of modernism’s large ambitions and excessively managed ‘imposition’ of egalitarian ideas on normal people that cannot relate to these idealistic elites, and are too violent and ‘uneducated’ to take care of and maintain these unworkable projects of modernist monstrosity.

Each of these critiques Liu puts forward, I can see within the texture of Tsing’s book here. When I first picked up this book, roaming about a big box store book retailer (one I recently learned from a member of the United Jewish People’s Order is often subject to BDS boycotts because of its funding of the HESEG Foundation), I encountered Tsing’s mention of the anarchist pamphlet Desert, which basically asserts that stopping a climate catastrophe is impossible as is any effort to put an end to the global capitalist order, and that radicals should simply focus on how to better live in radical communities of mutual aid under the ruins of capitalist power. 

In many ways Tsing’s book is about how life has thrived despite the circumstances of capitalist destruction, and found ways to survive outside the orbit of typical capitalist modes of production. I tend to agree with Liu more that such defeatism is dangerous. Yet it should not be ignored wholesale. Questions of how to survive under capitalism are important. But being a person of faith, I do believe another world is possible and worth fighting for. Tsing talks about how ‘scalable’ operations of colonial plantations (e.g. those involved in the production of sugar cane) became templates of capitalist production today, yet also recognizes that scalability is not intrinsically good or bad, it just has certain consequences that one must properly consider. 

I think I’ve have spent many years believing in a vision that E.F. Schumacher put forward in Small is Beautiful, along with these critiques of technology and industry put forward by Ivan Illich (a Catholic anarchist of sorts) embraced by certain Latin American leftists. The Marxist historian of Southeast Asia, Michael Vickery in his 1999 introduction to his seminal text on Cambodia, fascinatingly mentioned a connection one of his acquaintances made between the ideology of the ‘Pol Pot regime’ and Ivan Illich, though Vickery thought Illich did not intend to be taken so literally or seriously. But this utopic agrarian idea of collectivization without the imposition of Western technology on peasants (as modernization is often framed as) is something that Vickery sees as part of the tragic ideology infused within Cambodian revolutionary society, even if they likely did not read Illich at all, but shared certain ideological impulses with him.

As migrants and refugees from Laos and Cambodia, as well as some Hmong immigrants constitute many of the matsutake pickers that Tsing spends time with and interviews, I found Vickery’s insights on Cambodian revolutionary ideology (which he does not really characterize as communist or Marxist) rather relevant to these issues of scale, modernization and progress that Tsing so strongly criticizes. I too had a certain disdain for notions of ‘progress’, but am coming to think I have been mistaken about them. The eschewing of ‘progress’ in many ways is defeatist as Liu suggests.

I think these are all very complex issues. What Tsing’s book did provide and one of my favourite parts of it involved these fascinating elaborations on pine and oak trees that for some reason provide a sense of hope. Some sense that out of destruction, life can still persist. In that sense it is not sheer defeatism. Tsing puts forward fascinating facts like “felled oaks (unlike pines) tend not to die; they sprout back from roots and stumps to form new trees.” The Asian history Tsing tells about pine forests is also fascinating:

“Long before they came to central Japan, Dr. Ogawa related, Koreans had cut down their forests to build temples and fuel iron forging. They had developed in their homeland the human-disturbed open pine forests in which matsutake grow long before such forests emerged in Japan. When Koreans expanded to Japan in the eighth century, they cut down forests. Pine forests sprung up from such deforestation, and with them matsutake.”

I think about the enormous white pine forests that covered the landscape of Mississauga once, and were wiped out in what Anishinaabeg ethnobotanist and Dalhousie professor Jonathan Ferrier referred to as a “genocide by sawmills”. Yet I recall Leanne Simpson speaking of Mother Earth recovering, and I think about the resilience of pine to thrive in the wake of human or more specifically capitalist destruction. Despite all the ruins of capitalism, beautiful things can still persist. That does not mean we should be resigned to the terms of capital. We must fight with everything inside us, and draw strength from the pockets of resilience that survive the destruction such an economy has sown. We need not feel embarrassed about the lines we draw in the sand, while still recognizing that ultimately we do things out of solidarity and love. We love our oppressors by speaking truth to them about their oppressive ways and moving them towards helping in the abolition of such relations of domination. Ecosystems are inevitably full of suffering and pain, certain species gaining from the downfall of another. Yet they are also full of examples of immense interdependence, mutuality, and cooperation. As Arundhati Roy has said:

“Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.“

The question is how she will look like when she arrives.

[asklionjonson]

Sir Jon'son, I heard of your name across the planes, and understand you are the most knightly of your kin, and that your sons shared this image once. As such, I make this humble request: do you have any equipment left over from your days as a knight that a knight from a feudal universe might obtain? Dragons are a pain to deal with, and my armour isn't enchanted in the way your sons equipment is. With Gratitude, Edward Marshal.

“In my years as a Knight upon Caliban I faced a number of “Dragons.” While not falling directly into the old terran mythology they were large reptiles covered in neigh impenetrable scales. When facing such beasts I found that generally slashing weapons lost most if not all of it’s usefulness. This is represented in a weapon I’m happy to see my Legion have continued to use to this day. Of course we are talking about the Corvus Hammer. Essentially a War pick made to tear through armor with heavy blows. So Spears, Lances (if mounted), Picks, Halberds, heavy bolts. Anything that you know has an easier time going through your armor is most likely a good choice. Now to my question. How the hell did you contact me?” 

[ethanalter]

Comic-Con 2017: 20 Movie Panels You Won't Want to Miss

The heroes of the ‘Justice League’ assemble (Photo: Warner Bros.)

Perhaps thanks to a few high-profile film fizzles, this year’s San Diego Comic-Con isn’t quite as crowded with major movie panels as past editions have been. Some big studios — including Paramount, Universal, and Lionsgate — notably are playing hooky over Comic-Con weekend, which runs from July 20-23. That said, there are still plenty of film-related events to thrill movie freaks and geeks. Here are our picks of the 20 can’t-miss film panels at Comic-Con 2017.

THE BIG THREE

The Avengers assembled at D23 Expo (Photo: Disney)

Marvel Studios Expect an infinity (war) of Marvel heroes as Kevin Feige anchors the studio’s annual all-star panel. That Avengers trailer that played exclusively for D23 audiences will likely get a re-airing — and maybe a public release? — with perhaps a bonus scene or two to make the SDCC crowd feel special. There’s also sure to be more glimpses at Black Panther and Ant-Man and the Wasp, and maybe even our first official look at Brie Larson in her Captain Marvel uniform. (Saturday, July 22, 5:30pm-7:00pm, Hall H)

Wonder Woman takes point in ‘Justice League’ (Photo: Warner Bros.)

Warner Bros. Pictures Presentation All eyes will be on new trailers and/or fresh footage from Aquaman and Justice League — along with new clues about Ben Affleck‘s solo Batman movie directed by Matt Reeves, and the next Wonder Woman adventure. But there’s more, much more, to Warner Bros. than the DC Extended Universe. The studio also will be presenting footage from Steven Spielberg‘s highly anticipated adaptation of Ready Player One as well as Denis Villeneuve‘s Blade Runner 2049. Expect updates on the second Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, as well as the Pacific Rim sequel, now with more John Boyega! (Saturday, July 22, 11:30am-1:30pm, Hall H)

Logan (Hugh Jackman) and Caliban (Stephen Merchant) in Logan. (Photo: Ben Rothstein/Fox)

20th Century Fox Wolverine may be gone, but the X-Men film franchise will definitely live on. Expect Fox to reveal details and footage about upcoming franchise installments New Mutants, X-Men: Dark Phoenix, and, of course, Deadpool 2. Perhaps we’ll also get a status update on the future of the dormant Fantastic Four franchise given that — as we learned at D23 — Marvel’s First Family isn’t headed to the MCU anytime soon. (Thursday, July 20, 11:00am-12:00pm, Hall H)

BATMAN

Batman: Mask of the Phantasm: Remastered and Ready for Blu-Ray (Warner Bros.) The best Batman movie you’ve probably never seen, Mask of the Phantasm began its life as a direct-to-DVD spin-off of the beloved Batman: The Animated Series (which celebrates its 25th anniversary this year), but thankfully received a theatrical upgrade. Like the series, Phantasm is distinguished from its Bat-brethren by gorgeously Gothic animation and surprisingly sophisticated storytelling. The movie will look even better in its long-overdue Blu-ray release, available July 25. Hear all about Phantasm‘s origin, and legacy, from the project’s dynamic duo Bruce Timm and Kevin Conroy. (Thursday, July 20, 4:15pm-5:15pm, Room 6A)

Watch the ‘Batman: Mask of the Phantasm’ trailer below

DC Universe Original Movies 10th Anniversary (Warner Bros.) After a few false starts, the DC Extended Universe is finally flowering with this year’s box office smash, Wonder Woman. DC’s animated realm, on the other hand, is doing just fine, thank you very much. For 10 years now, Warner Bros. has been releasing direct-to-DVD animated adaptations of popular graphic novels and comic book storylines, from Justice League: The New Frontier to Batman: The Killing Joke. (Look for a comprehensive box set collecting every previously released title later this fall.) For a 10th anniversary present, the studio invites luminaries like Bruce Timm, Alan Burnett, and Kevin Conroy — the longtime voice of the animated Batman — to discuss DC’s animated legacy. (Thursday, July 20, 2:15pm-3:15pm, Room 6BCF)

World Premiere of Batman and Harley Quinn (Warner Bros.) The Dynamic Duo of the Dark Knight and the Maid of Mischief go on a road trip to find Harley’s best bud, Poison Ivy, and get tangled up with Swamp Thing and the Floronic Man along the way. Kevin Conroy reprises his role as Batman, while The Big Bang Theory‘s Melissa Rauch becomes the latest voice of Harley under the direction of DC animated universe mainstay, Bruce Timm. (Friday, July 21, 7:00pm-9:00pm, Ballroom 20; Encore screening at 9pm)

UPCOMING MOVIES

Will Smith in ‘Bright’ (Photo: Netflix)

Bright and Death Note (Netflix) Netflix is getting into the blockbuster business in a big way with Bright, a fantasy-laced action film from Suicide Squad collaborators David Ayer and Will Smith. Both Smith and Ayer will be on hand to screen footage (and dodge questions about what happened behind the scenes on Squad) flanked by co-stars Joel Edgerton, Noomi Rapace, Lucy Fry, and Édgar Ramírez. The streaming service is also presenting scenes from its controversial Japanese manga adaptation, Death Note, which has already encountered some of the same “whitewashing” complaints that hit the live-action Ghost in the Shell. (Thursday, July 20, 3:15pm-4:30pm, Hall H)

Entertainment Weekly’s Women Who Kick Ass: Icon Edition with Atomic Blonde‘s Charlize Theron The star of the new Atomic Blonde takes the Hall H stage to answer questions about her newfound status as one of our best action heroines. If we’re lucky, maybe she’ll provide a live demonstration of her martial arts skills. (Saturday July 22, 2:00pm-2:45pm, Hall H)

The LEGO Ninjago Movie (Warner Bros.) The popular Cartoon Network series joins the larger Lego Cinematic Universe with a new voiceover cast — including Dave Franco, Jackie Chan, Kumail Nanjiani, and Justin Theroux — who will be present to screen footage and demonstrate their mastery of Spinjitzu. Ask your kids what that means. (Thursday, July 20, 6:45pm-7:45pm, Room 6A)

Wonderstruck (Amazon Studios) A hit at the Cannes Film Festival earlier this year, Todd Haynes‘s new drama takes the iconoclastic director into new territory: young adult fiction. Based on the book by Brian Selznick, Wonderstruck follows two youthful runaways in two different time periods. While Haynes won’t be present, Selznick — whose award-winning 2007 novel, The Invention of Hugo Cabret, was previously brought to the big screen by Martin Scorsese as Hugo — will provide sure-to-be fascinating accounts of its adaptation and production. (Thursday, July 20, 11:00am-12:00pm, Room 5AB)

Brigsby Bear (Sony Pictures Classics) Kyle Mooney becomes the latest Saturday Night Live star to try his hand at feature film stardom courtesy of this offbeat Sundance favorite. Made in close collaboration with his comedy troupe, Good Neighbor — which includes director Dave McCary and SNL co-star, Beck Bennett — Brigsby Bear casts Mooney as a victim of kidnapping as a child, who is finally freed as an adult and experiences a rough re-entry to the real world. Members of Good Neighbor and their SNL kin The Lonely Island (which produced the movie) will be on hand to present footage and provide presumably hilarious answers to audience questions. (Thursday, July 20, 12:45pm-1:45pm, Hall H)

STAR WARS

Carrie Fisher in ‘Star Wars: The Force Awakens’ (Photo: Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures/Lucasfilm Ltd.)

Princess Leia Star Wars Fan Club Tribute Presentation The dearly departed Carrie Fisher officially achieved Disney Legend status at D23. Now, the SDCC Star Wars faithful pay their respects to the fallen General with a sure-to-be-emotional farewell hosted by nationally recognized fan clubs such as Rebel Legion, Mandalorian Mercs, R2 Builders, and the 501st Legion. Show up to raise your lightsaber in salute. (Sunday, July 23, 10:00am-11:00am, Room 6DE)

An early ‘Star Wars’ Comic Con presentation (Photo: geektyrant.com)

Star Wars and Fandom: The Early Years Rewind the clock to 1976 when visitors to SDCC got their first glimpses of a sci-fi adventure called Star Wars, directed by the guy best known for American Graffiti. Former Lucasfilm fan relations director Craig Miller recounts those early close encounters between fandom and that galaxy far, far away with rare photos and press materials. (Friday, July 21, 4:00pm-5:00pm, Room 7AB)

HORROR AND MONSTERS

Reinventing Horror: What’s Next in Film and Comics! With the passing of scary movie masters like George Romero and Herschell Gordon Lewis, it’s important to continue cultivating a new generation of frightfully great horror directors. Several of the newest, and most talented, kids on the block will be at this panel, including Oz Perkins, whose chilling debut film, The Blackcoat’s Daughter, made Yahoo Movies’ list of 2017’s best movies so far; Roxanne Benjamin, part of the quartet that directed the Sundance-approved anthology feature, XX; and the Spierig Brothers, who will be re-launching the Saw franchise with Jigsaw, due in theaters on Oct. 27. (Friday, July, 21, 5:00pm-6:00pm, Room 23ABC)

Warner Archives Monsters From Hell It’s like Mystery Science Theater 3000 without the irony! Come celebrate cheesy monster movies from Hollywood’s B-movie golden age with other like-minded creature feature fans. When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth, Demon Seed, and From Hell It Came are only some of the classically campy titles on the menu. (Saturday, July 22, 11:30am-12:30pm, Room 5AB)

Troma Entertainment If you love Guardians of the Galaxy, you have Troma to thank. This proud purveyor of silly schlock like The Toxic Avenger and Class of Nuke ‘Em High was the first studio to recognize the demented genius of writer/director James Gunn, setting him on the long and winding road that led to Marvel Studios. Troma’s flamboyant founder, Lloyd Kaufman (who had a cameo in the first Guardians) brings fans up to speed on the studio’s upcoming productions, including Return to Return to Nuke ‘Em High at the Cannes Film Festival and an adaptation of William Shakespeare’s The Tempest. (Saturday, July 22, 9:00pm-10:00pm, Room 23ABC)

BEST OF THE REST

Ghostbusters 101: A Ghostbusters Panel of Biblical Proportions! One year after Paul Feig’s underappreciated Ghostbusters reboot, Ivan Reitman is ready to talk about the franchise’s past, present, and future, with the help of the comic book license holders at IDW Publishing, Erik Burnham, Dan Schoening, and Tom Waltz. Expect Dan Aykroyd’s since-retracted criticisms to come up, as well as questions about whether Kate McKinnon will ever be able to reprise her scene-stealing role as Dr. Jillian Holtzmann. Memo to Reitman: cross whatever streams you have to in order to make a Holtzmann/Venkman meet-up a reality. (Thursday, July, 20, 10:15am-11:15am, Room 6DE)

1987: Greatest Geek Year Ever At Yahoo Movies, we have celebrated the Summer of ’86. Allow folks like Thor screenwriter Ashley E. Miller and Agent Carter co-EP Jose Molina to argue that 1987 is actually the greatest year ever for geeky movies. Considering that the ’87 release calendar includes The Princess Bride, Predator, and RoboCop, they have a very, very strong case. (Thursday, July 20, 3:00pm-4:00pm, Room 5AB)

The Genius of Animation: Cartoon Legends and Game Changers Speak Here’s a rare chance to hear about some of the pivotal moments in contemporary animation history from the men and women that experienced them firsthand. The line-up of panelists includes a healthy mix of veterans like legendary Disney journeyman, Floyd Norman — the first African-American animator hired at the studio when its founder, Walt Disney was still alive — as well as more recently discovered artists like Victoria Ying. (Friday, July, 21, 2:00pm-3:00pm, Room 23ABC)

Hollywood Location Scouts If you love to travel and have an eye for picking the perfect setting, you might want to consider “location scout” as your ideal career path. SDCC brings together six of the industry’s top scouts, among them Justice League‘s Scott Trimble and Logan‘s Shani Ornoa, who should have some fascinating stories to share about finding the best possible location for, say, a superhero brawl. (Friday, July 21, 1:00pm-2:00pm, Room 9)

10 Amazing Gender-Bending Cosplayers From Previous Comic-Cons:

Read more from Yahoo Movies:

Lego Builds a Giant ‘Last Jedi’ Luke Skywalker to Wow ‘Star Wars’ Fans at Comic-Con

‘Justice League’ Batmobile Unveiled at Comic-Con: Here’s Your First Look

5 Comic-Con Faves That Fizzled at the Box Office

[yourlocalcanoncaller]

hello! this is jake english looking for dirk (who i dated and possibly married), and kanaya maryam who was a dear friend. no janes or caliborns please. check my blog for memories!

!!!

[fictionkinfessionsarchived]

@ ASOUE kin in 2019 "J.S.," my friend not only do I kin Olivia Caliban (Netflix version), in the rest of my system there is: a Violet Baudelaire kin, a Carmelita Spats fictive, and an Olaf fictive (they get along exactly as well as you might imagine). There are more ASOUE people in here than any other source, so much so that I've renamed us "A System of Unfortunate Events."

[chops911]

Above Us The Waves

Greek melodic death metal/hardcore band, ABOVE US THE WAVES, have released a new music video for 'Afterlife',  the track is taken from their sophomore album titled ‘ROUGH ON HIGH SEAS‘, contains 8 tracks and to be out on June 8th, 2018 via GROWL RECORDS a divison of ROAR! Rock Of Angels Records. The video can be viewed here: https://youtu.be/FbUMItpZH24

Tracklist:

1. Drowning Not Waving 2. Afterlife 3. Light The Flare 4. Seaside Junk 5. Still Rough On High Seas 6. Windcheater 7. Poor Man’s Monaco 8. Homefront

The album was produced by Jim Siou and ABOVE US THE WAVES. Engineered by Jim Siou. Mixed and mastered by Jay Maas (Defeater, Bane, Capsize, Counterparts, Dead Swans) at Getaway Recording, Boston USA. The album artwork was made by Manthos Stergiou. Pre-order is available here: http://roar.gr/product/us-waves-rough-high-seas-digipack-cd

Guests on the album are, Nick Pavlakis – Drums (ex-Kin Beneath Chorus) on Afterlife, Jay Maas – Vocals (ex-Defeater) on Homefront and George Sechlidis – Keyboards (the Dead Ends).

ABOVE US THE WAVES keeping the main characteristics of their riff oriented and melodic modern metal/hardcore intact, have moved to a more raw and organic sound, away from the repetitive and highly processed norms of modern day metalcore.

ABOVE US THE WAVES is:

Vangelis Papavasileiou – Vocals Vasilis Tsantalis – Guitars George Aslanis – Guitars Dinos Kontelas – Bass Stratos Kannos – Drums

ABOVE US THE WAVES is a five-piece band from Kavala, Greece. ABOVE US THE WAVES‘s sound contains elements of melodic death metal and hardcore focused on heavy riffing and strong melodies. The band was formed in 2009 by Vasilis (Guitars) and after a few member changes, Dinos (Bass), George (Guitars), Vangelis (Vocals) and Stratos (Drums) completed the current lineup.

Following a demo CD (2009), a promo EP (2011) and many live shows, ABOVE US THE WAVES released their debut album “Anchors Aweigh” via the Athens, Greek based label Spreading Dysphoria Industries. The album gained great reviews and was featured on Rock Hard, Metal Hammer and was also chosen as one of the top Greek metal release of 2013 by Sonik Magazine.

Their energetic live performances have gained them a growing following and many headline shows and tours around Greeceand South East Europe. They have also appeared as support act for well-established bands like Unearth, Comeback Kid, Caliban, Defeater, Rotting Christ and have appeared on festivals like Rock-Off (Istanbul, 2014) w/ Megadeth, HIM, Gojira, Amon Amarth and as a headline act on Greek festivals (Defcon, New Long).

2017 has found ABOVE US THE WAVES in the studio working on their sophomore album titled Rough on High Seas, scheduled for a release in June 2018 via Growl Records.

www.facebook.com/autwband www.autw.bandcamp.com

[kritikycz]

Logan: Wolverine

Příroda mě stvořila jako podivína.

Člověk ze mě udělal zabijáka.

A Bůh způsobil, že to trvá příliš dlouho.

Rozhodující kapitola ve filmové historii, příběh největšího komiksového hrdiny, jaký byl kdy stvořen, přichází do kin v režii vizionářského scénáristy a režiséra, Jamese Mangolda. Ve snímku Logan: Wolverine se Hugh Jackman  (nominovaný na Oscara) vrací ještě jednou a naposledy ve své ikonické roli jako Wolverine, tentokrát v syrovém, působivém a dramatickém příběhu o obětování se a vykoupení.

Píše se rok 2029. Mutanti jsou pryč – nebo téměř pryč. Osamělý, sklíčený Logan propíjí dny ve skrýši na vzdáleném konci mexické hranice a vydělává drobné jako nájemný řidič. Jeho společníky v exilu jsou vyhnanec Caliban a churavý profesor X, jehož výjimečná mysl je sžírána zhoršujícími se záchvaty. Ale Loganovy pokusy skrýt se před světem a jeho dědictvím náhle skončí, když se objeví záhadná žena s naléhavou žádostí, aby Logan doprovodil jednu výjimečnou dívku do bezpečí. Avšak brzy musí vytasit své drápy, když je nucen postavit se temným silám a ničemovi ze své vlastní minulosti. Během mise na život a na smrt se časem unavený válečník vydává na dlouhou cestu k naplnění svého osudu.

V hlavní roli Hugh Jackman jako Logan, spolu s Patrickem Stewartem (X-Men: Budoucí minulost), Stephenem Merchantem, Richardem E. Grantem a nováčkem Dafne Keenovou. Film režíroval James Mangold (Walk the Line, Wolverine); producenty byli Hutch Parker, Simon Kinberg a Lauren Shuler Donnerová; distributor 20th Century Fox. LOGAN bude mít světovou premiéru v kinech 3. března 2017.

Logan: Wolverine was originally published on Kritiky.cz

[fictionkinfessionsarchived]

The Monty-Klaus back and forth on this blog is... so wholesome. I love all ASOUE kin. - Olivia Caliban