case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2017-08-11 07:40 pm

[ SECRET POST #3873 ]


⌈ Secret Post #3873 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


















03. [SPOILERS for Okja]



__________________________________________________



04. [WARNING for possible discussion of child abuse]

(Top of the Lake)

__________________________________________________



05. [WARNING for discussion of rape]
http://i.imgur.com/is8E7se.jpg
[Twin Peaks 2017, linked for TV-sex]

__________________________________________________



06. [WARNING for possible discussion of abuse]



__________________________________________________



07. [WARNING for discussion of abuse]

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #554.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

[personal profile] fscom 2017-08-11 11:43 pm (UTC)(link)
04. [WARNING for possible discussion of child abuse]
http://i.imgur.com/zuIYJxd.jpg
(Top of the Lake)
morieris: http://iconography.dreamwidth.org/32982.html (Default)

[personal profile] morieris 2017-08-12 12:02 am (UTC)(link)
I have nothing to say about the show itself but if Hollywood doesn't want to pay to take chances, why should I take a chance with my money and a stupid tentpole?

Maybe instead of dropping 200 million dollars on old concepts no one wanted, give midbudget projects a shot or a sequel.

(Anonymous) 2017-08-12 12:09 am (UTC)(link)
Agreed. Hollywood doesn't seem much interested in taking even lower budget risks these days, though. But on the bright side, I think it's interesting that TV has stepped in to take up some of that slack. There are projects like Game of Thrones or American Gods that would've never worked as a movie.

(Anonymous) 2017-08-12 12:20 am (UTC)(link)
They do make them. All the f'ing time. Go watch them.

And they drop 200 million on the old concepts because EVERYONE wants them. Have you seen how much all the Disney movies have made?
morieris: (Azula - Amoenus)

[personal profile] morieris 2017-08-12 12:28 am (UTC)(link)
A) I do B) 200 million dollars worth of people certainly did not want King Arthur.

(Anonymous) 2017-08-12 12:30 am (UTC)(link)
They don't make as much midbudget stuff as they used to or as they should. That's an actual trend that exists.

(Anonymous) 2017-08-12 01:18 am (UTC)(link)
Go where to watch them? Some are getting made but it's fewer than ever before and they aren't getting distributed. People want those mid budget films in their local cinemas and it's ridiculous for you to suggest they're already there. It doesn't make sense for Hollywood to make them anymore because people will balk at paying blockbuster prices for mid budget films. It's not like the studios, distributors, and cinema chains are suddenly going to agree to lower ticket prices. And those ticket prices have proven that profits can continue to break records despite less people buying the tickets than ever before. So we're left frustrated with little recourse but to voice our complaints.

(Anonymous) 2017-08-12 12:09 am (UTC)(link)
Haven't heard of Top of the Lake but generally people mean more than the basic premise when they call something clever. I usually hear it to mean something well crafted (acting, imagery, editing, plot are all amazing and all come together perfectly or very nearly) that delivers an emotional impact.
rosehiptea: (Farin Urlaub)

[personal profile] rosehiptea 2017-08-12 12:15 am (UTC)(link)
Top of the Lake did that for me. I really thought it was something different and I enjoyed it, though I can't disagree that certain plot twists were probably put in at least partly for shock value.

I think that was a pretty pretentious thing for Jane Campion to say though.

(Anonymous) 2017-08-12 12:44 am (UTC)(link)
Oh I definitely agree it's pretentious! I was reacting to the way OP made it seem like the basic premise of the show meant it couldn't be clever. I think that would sometimes be true but most times it would only be a small factor if at all.

(Anonymous) 2017-08-12 12:19 am (UTC)(link)
Except she is entirely wrong? Just because YOU have only noticed the blockbuster movies, doesn't mean they are not being made. Pay more attention.

(Anonymous) 2017-08-12 12:42 am (UTC)(link)
Yeah she's wrong, but it's easy for audiences to forget that. The clever movies only get a very limited release in maybe a couple cities around the world or they're straight to DVD. No one is going to buy every indie film on DVD and rental places have gone the way of the dodo. The blockbusters are all most people have available to them. And TV. Just about everybody can watch TV.

(Anonymous) 2017-08-12 05:36 am (UTC)(link)
Netflix and similar streaming services are great for this, though! Netflix started in my country this year and I've seen more indie films this year than in the last decade, for exactly the limited release reasons you say.

(Anonymous) 2017-08-12 03:24 am (UTC)(link)
I watched this and it was... good, kind of? I don't know. Sometimes when the subject matter of a show is really grim, I have a difficult time "enjoying" it no matter how well done the writing and cinematography is. The New Zealand landscape is beautiful, though. But I didn't think it was particularly daring.

(Anonymous) 2017-08-12 08:08 pm (UTC)(link)
Top Of the Lake was SO dull.
arcadiaego: Grey, cartoon cat Pusheen being petted (Default)

[personal profile] arcadiaego 2017-08-14 09:04 pm (UTC)(link)
China Girl was absolutely awful.