351 posts
Randompurplekitty9 - RandomPurpleKitty9 - Tumblr Blog
GGs everyone!
What post Side Order does to you
Hi! I've seen you comment a bit here and there about Pocahontas. This movie has had this quite messy reputation attached to it since it came out and hasn't been able to escape from it since then. Personally, I've always liked Pocahontas, but I do acknowledge that it has its glaring issues, especially when it comes to the context of what actually went down and Pocahontas's true story. I'm interested in reading your thoughts on the movie and what Disney could have done better regarding the whole "diversity" and historical accuracy thing. I genuinely believe Disney had the best of intentions when it came to the themes, message and depiction of Native American culture, but the execution unfortunately did not seem the most appropriate at times. What do you think?
I don’t know. I don’t have a settled opinion on Pocahontas. I will say I really enjoy it, and I think maybe the aesthetics of the movie are what appeal to me the most because it’s the one I want to have on in the background most often.
When you say “what Disney could’ve done better regarding the whole ‘diversity’ and historical accuracy thing” and “did not seem the most appropriate at times,” I don’t know if I understand what you mean. I don’t know if I understand what anyone means when they say that.
There are almost zero cold hard facts about the historical Pocahontas that EXPERTS agree on. Almost zero. So when people say “oh no, it wasn’t historically accurate,” it’s like, “no, of course it’s not. It’s a fairy tale based on a historical person that we know very little about to begin with.” Seems like what they’re mainly mad about is that Historical John Smith’s version of Historical Pocahontas saving him is the framework for the animated film, and we all generally agree that his version was fake. And people are mad about that?
But…why? If it’s already supposed to be a fairy tale loosely inspired by a historical person we know very little about…I mean, nobody is furious with the Robin Hood stories and going “how dare you misrepresent Robin of Lockersley, 1160, and King Richard I!!” Because we all know that they’re stories loosely based on—anyway. You get my point. Why would you have beef about a fairy tale being based loosely? Moving on.
You can say “because now generations of kids are growing up thinking that’s the real story of Pocahontas!! What an outrage!”
…All right, well, then you’re doing a terrible job teaching your kids discernment as a parent. When kids I’m responsible for watch a movie, I tell them “it’s a movie. It’s not real.” If it’s a movie about historical events, I tell them, “If you want to know more about the real story, let’s learn about the real story.” It’s not on Disney to teach your kids that a fairy tale is a fairy tale, it’s on you.
Anyway, you get it. Moving on.
Thing is, the Pocahontas movie’s message is “Love tries to understand, not to possess.” Great message. Especially good when applied to the problem of prejudice.
So then, they just shift the events, the character motivations, and the depictions around as needed, like they would any fairy tale in order to send that message in the best way. And because it is a fairy tale, not a documentary, great. Do it.
If Historical John Smith’s fake story makes that message more compelling, great. Use pieces of it. Why not? After all, they never claimed that this was the true, accurate history of colonization, the Anglo-Powhatan war, or John Smith’s interactions with Pocahontas. If they had made that claim, sure, let’s talk about historical accuracy. But they didn’t, so let’s not.
That’s all I had to say about the “historical inaccuracies” thing. Now let’s talk about “representation.”
What is it that people have an issue with here? Did they really want Disney to animate hundreds of Powhatan’s people dying of disease? Did they want Disney to animate heads getting chopped off and women getting raped? What’s the argument? That Disney should’ve made the colonists the clear and undeniable villains, the monsters of history, and the Native Americans 100% pure and innocent, wronged victims?
They’re not mad that Disney did a bad job representing Native Americans in a movie that was supposed to be a fairy tale. They’re mad that Disney didn’t represent Native Americans the way they would’ve.
Far as my eyes can see, people who call Pocahontas racist or misrepresentative just don’t want the story to be “Love tries to understand, not to possess.” They want the story to be “White colonists were unredeemable racist monsters and sub-human tyrants who deserved to rot in hell, while the Native American people were entirely innocent victims who did nothing wrong.’
The problem is that’s just not a true, or even helpful message for any movie to have. Sorry. The statement I just typed out up there in bold is not a true or helpful statement. And thank God the Pocahontas movie didn’t make it.
There’s nothing racist being said in the Pocahontas movie. There are depictions of the sin of racism in the Pocahontas movie. There is a difference. Characters in the Pocahontas movie talk and sing about each other as if the other people group is sub-human. That is a depiction of racism. But the message of the movie, and the way it treats Native Americans, is to treat them like human beings. Therefore, the message is not racist.
In terms of who is good and who is bad, who is right and who is wrong, the movie very clearly shows that the Native American characters did not start the violence. The Native American characters did not want war. The Native American characters were willing to be friendly and willing to defend their land and each other. The Native American characters were the first to try and make peace with the colonist characters. And they were all (Kocoum included) entirely human characters. They were even the good-guy-coded characters, in the movie’s conflict. All of the Native American side characters are noticeably smarter, kinder, drawn more carefully, and are more heroic than the white characters. (When Thomas is thrown overboard the other white side characters leave him behind. In contrast, when Namonteck is shot the other Native American side characters rescue him immediately and fall back.) And, not a caricature among them. Meanwhile, Wiggins, Ben, and Lion are all drawn with exaggerated characteristics. The heroine is Pocahontas the Character, not John Smith the Character. So what is the issue you have?
What people think is racist is the “idealization” of a Native American woman falling in love—or, as they like to say now—“committing herself to a white colonist.” But that’s like…a gross oversimplification of the movie. John Smith (the character) committed himself right back to her, nobody wants to talk about that? Also, they low key didn’t commit themselves to each other at all costs—he tries to, at the end of the movie, stay with her or have her come with him, and she won’t leave her home and her people?? So what’s the argument?
Not to mention, why is anyone even upset that the character Pocahontas falls in love with a white colonist character? Are you saying that this sort of thing would never happen? That a young woman who’s people are embattled with and mistreated by invaders would never find one invader who comes to an understanding with her, and then they fall in love? You’re mad because that would never happen? Incorrect. It happened all the time in history. It happens all the time in other stories you love, like West Side Story.
Who the heck cares if it didn’t happen exactly that way (even though maybe it did) with the historical Pocahontas? We already established that this wasn’t supposed to be a historically accurate retelling, it was supposed to be a loosely-based fairy tale. And the message “Love tries to understand, not to possess,” works perfectly with a fairy tale where the girl from one side of a racially-charged hate war understands and falls in love with a guy from the other side.
I mean people who talk about Pocahontas, the historical figure, with reverence and respect, all usually agree on one thing: she did help maintain some kind of peace between colonists and Native Americans. Whether or not you think the colonists should’ve even been there in the first place is beside the point—sorry, but it is; they were there, now let’s deal with the reality.
So when Disney makes a movie where the goal is to tell the message “Love tries to understand, not to possess,” and they have to be true to the universally-agreed-upon “Pocahontas probably helped bring some peace…” in their fairy tale…why on earth do you have a problem with Pocahontas the Character falling in love as a reason for bringing about that peace?
It’s because you don’t find “falling in love” to be anything other than demeaning for a woman. And it’s because you don’t want John Smith, or any white colonist character, to be depicted as human. You want them all to be unredeemable racist monsters.
The goal is no longer to have movies that say what Pocahontas said. We don’t want movies where there’s messy racism, but then it ends with attempts at peace and understanding. We want movies where there’s entirely one-sided racism, and then revenge for that racism. That’s what we want. We want endless apologies and zero forgiveness.
And for better or worse, Pocahontas is not a movie about endless apologies and zero forgiveness.
IN CONCLUSION: 1. None of the “you” statements were directed at you, idiosyncraticrednebula. 🫡
2. Anyone who wants to teach me where I’m wrong is welcome to, but you have to show your work, and you have to be consistent, you can’t just say “lol imagine thinking Pocahontas isn’t racist. You are the problem.” and then block me. 🙄 all right, well, you can, but all you’ll get out of it is an echo chamber.
3. If you want me to talk about the art, the storytelling, the quality of the movie outside of all this (and it should be outside of all this, because this was a fairy tale, not a historically accurate documentary) it’ll have to be in a different ask, and I’m happy to.
4. Should Disney have made it more clear that this was a fairy tale, a stylized story based only loosely on historical events? …Yeah. Definitely should’ve done a Prince of Egypt-style title card or something. But they didn’t—so now show me why it’s racist or misrepresentative.
PSA for Switch owners
The latest 11.0 update means that Google Analytics is a thing on the switch and turned on. What that means is that Nintendo has a deal with Google to share with them your data for advertisement purposes.
To turn it off
go to the eShop
go to your profile where your funds and account info is
go down to the bottom of the page
there you will see “Google Analytics Preferences”
select the Change
select “Don’t Share”
Please spread the word. Really shitty of Nintendo to just quietly start allowing Google to spy on users for advertising.
I Hate How She Talks About Snow White
"People are making these jokes about ours being the PC Snow White, where it's like, yeah, it is − because it needed that. It's an 85-year-old cartoon, and our version is a refreshing story about a young woman who has a function beyond 'Someday My Prince Will Come. "
Let me tell you a little something's about that "85-year-old cartoon," miss Zegler.
It was the first-ever cel-animated feature-length full-color film. Ever. Ever. EVER. I'm worried that you're not hearing me. This movie was Disney inventing the modern animated film. Spirited Away, Into the Spider-Verse, Tangled, you don't get to have any of these without Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937.)
Speaking of what you wouldn't get without this movie, it includes anime as a genre. Not just in technique (because again, nobody animated more than shorts before this movie) but in style and story. Anime, as it is now, wouldn't exist without Osamu Tezuka, "The God of Manga," who wouldn't have pioneered anime storytelling in the 1940s without having watched and learned from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs in the 1930s. No "weeb" culture, no Princess Mononoke, no DragonBall Z, no My Hero Academia, no Demonslayer, and no Naruto without this "85-year-old cartoon."
It was praised, not just for its technical marvels, not just for its synchronized craft of sound and action, but primarily and enduringly because people felt like the characters were real. They felt more like they were watching something true to life than they did watching silent, live-action films with real actors and actresses. They couldn't believe that an animated character could make kids wet their pants as she flees, frightened, through the forest, or grown adults cry with grieving Dwarves. Consistently.
Walt Disney Studios was built on this movie. No no; you're not understanding me. Literally, the studio in Burbank, out of which has come legends of this craft of animated filmmaking, was literally built on the incredible, odds-defying, record-breaking profits of just Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, specifically.
Speaking of record-breaking profits, this movie is the highest-grossing animated film in history. Still. TO THIS DAY. And it was made during the Great Depression.
In fact, it made four times as much money than any other film, in any other genre, released during that time period. It was actually THE highest-grossing film of all time, in any genre, until nothing less than Gone With the Wind, herself, came along to take the throne.
It was the first-ever animated movie to be selected for the National Film Registry. Actually, it was one of the first movies, period, to ever go into the registry at all. You know what else is in the NFR? The original West Side Story, the remake of which is responsible for Rachel Ziegler's widespread fame.
Walt Disney sacrificed for this movie to be invented. Literally, he took out a mortgage on his house and screened the movie to banks for loans to finish paying for it, because everyone from the media to his own wife and brother told him he was crazy to make this movie. And you want to tell me it's just an 85-year-old cartoon that needs the most meaningless of updates, with your tender 8 years in the business?
Speaking of sacrifice, this movie employed over 750 people, and they worked immeasurable hours of overtime, and invented--literally invented--so many new techniques that are still used in filmmaking today, that Walt Disney, in a move that NO OTHER STUDIO IN HOLLYWOOD was doing in the 30's, put this in the opening credits: "My sincere appreciation to the members of my staff whose loyalty and creative endeavor made possible this production." Not the end credits, like movies love to do today as a virtue-signal. The opening credits.
It's legacy endures. Your little "85-year-old cartoon" sold more than 1 million DVD copies upon re-release. Just on its first day. The Beatles quoted Snow White in one of their songs. Legacy directors call it "the greatest film ever made." Everything from Rolling Stones to the American Film Institute call this move one of the most influential masterpieces of our culture. This movie doesn't need anything from anybody. This movie is a cultural juggernaut for America. It's a staple in the art of filmmaking--and art, in general. It is the foundation of the Walt Disney Company, of modern children's media in the West, and of modern adaptations of classical fairy tales in the West. When you think only in the base, low, mean terms of "race" and "progressivism" you start taking things that are actually worlds-away from being in your league to judge, and you relegate them to silly ignorant phrases like "85-year-old cartoon" to explain why what you're doing is somehow better.
Sit down and be humble. Who the heck are you?
That's a wrap for 2023! Thank you all for being part of such an amazing year. You all are truly our fast friends forever!
very good dex entry
Early visual development for Wish (2023) by Griselda Sastrawinata-Lemay and Brittney Lee.
An earlier version of the film saw Star take on a human form as a magical, glowing character inspired by Peter Pan. Ultimately, the creative team reconceptualized Star as an ethereal, playful entity resembling Mickey Mouse. "Now Star and Asha have an emotional journey. They are soulmates." -Allison Moore.
If you haven’t seen Wish yet and you love Disney, do not go see it. I am telling you now. It is ripping out the hearts of the Disney movies you love and then waving their corpses around as if celebrating those hearts.
I’ll explain why, again: the message of Wish? Awful. Anti-Disney.
But they've been doing this for a long time. Saying one thing with their movies, and saying another with their PR and Disney Parks Soundtracks.
I'll explain.
Main Idea of Disney's Wish (and the You Are the Magic theme park song and merch): "The power to make your wishes come true is in you."
≠
Most Disney Movies' Idea on How to Have Wishes: "Do what's right, (trust a higher power) and something even more wonderful than what you wished will happen."
Don't try to argue with me about this. You have to look underneath the slogans and the sweater designs and the song titles to what the stories actually support to acknowledge this.
Because you can’t say “do what’s right” has power unless you answer the question “who gets to decide ‘what’s right?’” (Which, coincidentally, is a question Wish brings up and then doesn’t answer.)
Audiences of Disney used to accept that wishing on a star was much like prayer; there’s something you long for, and it’s out of your hands, but you wish for it and you do what you know is right in the meantime. And you’re not crushed, you’re not downhearted, because somewhere in your mind you trust that the combo of those two things—wishing on a higher power and diligence to do what’s good—will be what makes your wish come true.
Trust in a higher power—COMBINED WITH:
—diligence to do what’s good.
The Blue Fairy (higher power) gave Geppetto his wish specifically because he had demonstrated commitment to do good, whether he got what he wanted or not. The Fairy Godmother (higher power) gave Cinderella her wish specifically because she kept on being kind and good to low creatures like mice and wicked stepsisters, whether she got what she wanted or not.
Do you know why that combo (higher power + diligence to do good) is impactful? Timeless? Important?
Because it’s selfless. You want something, but you’re not going to sacrifice doing the right thing to get it. You’re not going to focus so hard on making what you want a reality, on your own, that you miss out on things that could be more important than what you want. And, you’re not so self-focused as to believe that if you don’t do it, it won’t get done.
Jeez, that’s the whole point of The Princess and the Frog!
Tiana wishes to have her own restaurant, and she believes that only her own hard work will grant that wish. She misunderstands her dad’s advice before he dies. She isn’t willing to trust a higher power combined with her own diligence to do good—she only trusts her own ability.
It’s not until she realizes that Ray, the character of faith, was right all along that she learns—what she wished for was too self-focused. It wasn’t complete without love. Something bigger than herself. And getting that was never going to happen just based on her own hard work.
But you know what? It was never going to happen just by a “higher-power” flavored shortcut, either. Because Facilier offers her her wish if she’ll just trust him, no hard work needed. But what does she say?
Trust in a higher power + diligence to do what’s right = selflessness, and getting more than you could have ever wished for. And if your wish is selfish, doing those two things will change your wish into something selfless.
More examples? Get ‘em while they’re hot, in case Wish made you forget, just like the current #NotMyDisney executives have forgotten, what real Disney wishes are for.
Belle wishes to have adventures in the great wide somewhere--but when she's imprisoned and that chance is taken from her it's not reversed because she worked hard to make her wish come true. It's granted because she gave up her wish for her father: she just did the right thing, regardless of her wish. And in the end, she does get what she wished for, which is adventure in an enchanted castle...and much more, because she gets true love, a throne, and a castle full of friends.
How about the One Who Started It All? The one Wish is failing to pay genuine tribute to?
Snow White wishes for someone to love her, and he does--but when they're separated, she does not exercise power to make The Prince come back to her. Instead, she loves who she can where she’s at—the Dwarfs. In the meantime, she has faith that he will keep his promise, and that pure trust in a higher power outside of her control is a big contributing factor to why the Dwarfs come to love her, and learn from her...and in the end, even more than she could've wished happens. He does take her to his castle, but she also has seven new friends who also love her, and the Queen is dead. And she didn’t need to use “the power in her” to work harder and get it done. She just needed to not focus so much on herself at all.
How about a male main character? One who’s wish starts out selfish, but after learning to wish on a higher power and be diligent to do the right thing, gets more than he could wish for?
Aladdin wishes to be somebody different (somebody he believes Jasmine could love, somebody who lives in a palace and is respected and “never has any troubles at all.”)—but doing everything in his own power for that wish proves that it was selfish all along; so he switches to doing the right thing, regardless of if his wish comes true, and he gets even more than he could’ve wished. He gets real love with Jasmine, he gets his friend Genie, and he gets to be free from feeling “trapped” because he doesn’t have to hide who he is anymore.
Or Simba?
Simba wishes to get to do whatever he wants as King—but when Mufasa dies and he’s convinced it’s his fault, it isn’t for that wish that he goes back to Pride Rock to confront his past and his Uncle. It’s because he had an encounter with a higher power—his father—that helped him to realize his wish was selfish all along. He gives up the selfish wish, and he goes back to take his place as king, not so he can do whatever he wants, but so that he can take self-sacrificial responsibility that comes with ruling. And because he just does the right thing, finally, he gets more than what he wished for.
How about something more recent? Zootopia.
Judy wishes to make the world a better place by proving she can be what she wants to be and catching bad guys—but when she tries to make her wish happen on her own, in her own abilities, she fails and is forced to realize that she should’ve been looking for help by understanding “bad guys,” like Nick. It’s only after she humbled herself, admits she’s wrong, and changes her wish from “proving I can be what I want and catching bad guys” to “proving that understanding each other makes the world a better place” (much less self-focused) that her wish comes true—and so much more. She does make the world a better place, and she does get to catch bad guys, but she also gets to befriend one who was a good guy all along, and become all-around more effective at her dream job.
This is how Disney always has been. Because it’s at the heart of good storytelling, and even life (not to get too dramatic.)
The power is not in you. Because it’s not about you. Self-sacrifice, faith, and doing the next right thing regardless of if you get your heart’s fondest desire is what makes more than just your wishes come true. And there has to be belief in a higher power to make that message powerful.
But Wish?
Not only is it bad at showing instead of telling. Not only is it lazy and soulless.
But it’s characters rip the Star out of the sky and say “don’t wish on this. Wish on yourself, to get what you wish for. You don’t need a higher power. You don’t even need to sacrifice to do what’s good—whatever you do is good, because you are the one doing it.”
That is wrong. That is not true, and it is not powerful. There’s no sacrifice in focusing on or placing your trust totally in yourself, and it undoes every good thing Disney has done up until now.
And it undoes it on the 100th anniversary, and it flaunts Easter eggs of the very things it’s undoing.
There's no pinching yourself awake here! Dr. Eggman has trapped Sonic and friends in a bizarre dream, and it's going to take the entire crew to stop this dream from becoming a living nightmare.
Sonic Dream Team launches on December 5th, exclusively on Apple Arcade!
Pre-register now: https://apple.co/sonic-dream-team
Thank you again for draw my girl Mariposa :3
Artfight set 17!! So many different types of simple backgrounds here! Featuring:
Jen for @cinnamiim Nango for @pika1043 Mariposa for @randompurplekitty9 Hive for @thebutterscotchevoloon Marmol (left) and Mirasol (right) for @pocket-hidgens Daisy Buchanan for @cutegirl920 Lookie Flowers for @alreadyish Rin for @hexacryonic Rin for @scootzzzzzx Cody Mam-Goon for @crazymelimelo Gizmo (with Quarter and Mel headshots) for @mr-quarter Adelaide for @aniixor
Moar Art Fight Part 1: Since Art Fight is now over, now is good of a time to submit all the other attacks I made since my last Art Fight post! Since I kept getting errors from uploading too many images, I'll do this in a thread.
Characters are owned by ChuckChuckGoof (DeviantArt), W3 (only on ArtFight), and clibbersnibs (clippersnips on Instagram)
Again thank you so much! I really love this :3
Artfight 2023 - @randompurplekitty9
Here I am, I'm going to talk about one of the most wholesome potential sibling relationships in my opinion along with Shadow and Rouge 🥰🥰🥰:
Amy Rose 🌹 and Knuckles the echidna 🍇:
This 2 got really deep inside my heart as a really sweet brother and little sister relationship and unlike with Shadow and Rouge that despite consider them completely as siblings (big sis and little brother in that case, even with Shadow being 50 he is mentally 15 and Rouge is the one in the big sis role after all XD) i don't mind read and see fanart or fanfictions of them being a couple but for Knuckles and Amy is physically impossible to me 😂😂 i simply can't, feels so wrongly incestuos to me, and now my points:
1. First of all I just love that they have matching designs and in addition they both match Sonic's shoes 🤣🤣🤣 what do I mean? You see Amy first appearance had the same hairstyle as Sonic but the modern look she has her hair down like knuckles but shorter and also she wears red decorated with white like knuckles is completely red with a white waning moon in his chest that it's similar to the white collar of Amy's dress. This just makes me see them more intensely as siblings due that Amy's modern looks makes her looks like him.
2. Power characters: Amy in my pov should be seen as a power like character if she isn't seen as one already, i mean... She uses a damn huge hammer bigger than her head to fight, this shouldn't be even questioned. I really hated how in Sonic x her skill with the hammer was over all used as a funny gag of: ow look that crazy mad stalker whiny girl swinging a hammer like a psycho because she got mad sonic isn't paying attention to her how scary....🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄 I like the scary woman with a weapon gag but no If that mean making her look childish and obnoxious, and of course she wasn't allowed to fight big battles 😡😡, her childish personality in that show didn't make enjoyable her relationship with knuckles... Well sometimes, when she was normal and teased him but damn it that show didn't make her justice 😑😑.
Fortunaly things change with time and her current portrayal is a lot better! Starting with her classic self:
Come on, this was totally on purpose! SEGA sees them as siblings too!!! And look at her!! Smashing things with Knuckles YASSSS POWER SIBLINGS 😁😁😁 they are family your honor.
Also her love for boxing 🥊🥊 hello?
Whoever draw this, bless you. And you're so right 👌👌👌👌👌 ITS CANON, SHE LIKES BOXING another thing in common with Knuckles onichan 🧐🧐🧐 and recently and more important:
HE. FUCKING. TRUSTED. HER. THE. MASTER. EMERALD. 👌👌👌😖😖😖😖 , Of course he would trust that task to his worthy warrior little sister.
3. Dynamic: i can't say I'm satisfied with the portrayal of their relationship in the shows they appear together, Sonic X and Sonic Boom in one Amy was childish and obnoxious and in the other she treats Knuckles too condescending and critical of his lack of intelligence 😔😔 and no sorry no... With Sonic and Tails they manage to make it... Fun but with Amy is just mean... AND AMY SHOULDN'T BE MEAN! (Also they fucking flirt in the show! Joke or not Joke is a BIG NO🥲🥲)
I HATE THIS!!!
I'll talk about Sonic Boom another time... Fortunaly Archie fed me with what I needed and gifted us with this:
Amy being what she's meant to be: supportive, sweet and affectionate and I love his protectiveness with her 😭😭😭😭😭👌👌👌👌
Final thoughs... Wouldn't it be marvelous if Knuckles was like a protective big bro who doesn't approve any potential sister boyfriend?😏😏😏
Anyway I need more of this 2, in a way when they are separated from Sonic and Tails... They are just like Sonic and tails 🤣🤣🤣 i mean isn't Tails like a little brother to sonic?🤔😉
So SEGA please be kind and feed us with more POWER SIBLINGS scenes, wherever you want, videogame, comic, tv show I'll take anything.
AHHHH IT’S HAPPENING!! Ever since I was small I dreamed of making my own children’s book, and here it is! I am absolutely thrilled.
I Like You is a sweet little rhyming book that encourages kids to recognize their emotions and feel good about themselves, no matter what they’re going through.
I genuinely feel like this is the best thing I’ve ever created. Feeeeeeeeeeeeeelings.
If you’re interested in picking up a copy for a little one or yourself (honestly, I love reading through it and I am in my 30s) it’s available for preorder from retailers here.
I hope you enjoy! Thank you for reading!
new eevee evolution called ibuprofeon
A daily dose of a concentrated rush of nostalgia
nickmas christmas special 2002 (src)