fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2744 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2744 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

16.

__________________________________________________

17.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 059 secrets from Secret Submission Post #392.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I guess I just hate it when people try to dismiss criticism by pointing to supplementary materials. In Trek 2009, for instance, there's Nero's backstory and what the crap he was doing for 25 years. And don't even think of bringing up any criticism in regards to the romance.

I agree with you on Order of the Phoenix -- it made sense on its own -- same with Lord of the Rings. Which is why I feel like original movies don't have an excuse.

In the case of the Star Trek movies, that attempt to dismiss criticism carries double-irony for me because most of my issues with movies don't get cleared up at all with the tie-ins, anyway. :D

[ SECRET POST #2744 ]

Re: They're probably missing the point of "tie-ins".

Re: They're probably missing the point of "tie-ins".