[ SECRET POST #3102 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3102 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Zack and Miri Make a Porno]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Video Games Awesome]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Steven Universe]


__________________________________________________



05.
[House MD]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Blazing Saddles]


__________________________________________________



07.
[My Love Story]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Gordon Ramsay, Kitchen Nightmares]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Robert Vaughn, Jack Lemmon, William Shatner]


__________________________________________________



10.
[MMOs]


__________________________________________________



11.
[Death Note]









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 019 secrets from Secret Submission Post #443.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, risks.

A children's cartoon film with a cantankerous old man as the lead character is a risk in ways that a film with Will Ferrell as a goofy supervillain is not.

[(Anonymous)]

The original Shrek was a pretty big risk too, considering the way it satirized the hell out of Disney movies.

[(Anonymous)]

Shrek was a great film but it's hardly a risk-taker akin to Up or Wall-E.

Kids eat up stuff with crude humor and fart jokes.

[(Anonymous)]

You do realize Shrek predates both of those films that are supposedly ground-breaking, right? I love Wall-E, but there's nothing really "shocking" or amazing about it.

[(Anonymous)]

WTF does it matter that Shrek predates them when they're completely different films? Are you indicating that Wall-E or Up was somehow inspired by Shrek?

There's almost no dialogue and no human characters in the entirety of Wall-E's first act. Do you not see how that's a pretty big risk for a mainstream film period, let alone a children's cartoon film?

[(Anonymous)]

Having no dialogue the first 20 minutes in an animated feature is not "shocking" or "amazing" but it IS risky. You have the right to your opinion but it seems like you really missed the point. Why would a Pixar movie be shocking if they want to appeal to a broad audience? If you didn't like it that's fine of course, but that's your opinion.

[anarchicq]

Hell, the 3 second sequence where it's discovered they can't have children is risky, in a children's movie. Heavy subjects indeed!

Also the message of Never Meet Your Heroes.

And there was something implied about the kid's dad, wasn't there?

[(Anonymous)]

Really?

I hardly consider that heavy to be honest.

I thought Treasure Planet's sequence of having Jim's father leave was MUCH tougher.

For a parent, it's MUCH easier to explain that some people simply medically can't have kids than the idea that a parent could abandon their child.

[(Anonymous)]

agreed

[(Anonymous)]

What would be risky would be for Pixar to start casting females in their leads more than once in a blue moon. In their leads and in their supporting roles. How come in every toy story movie every interesting toy not explicitly gendered had to be male? They're TOYS. Why does a talking pig have to have a male voice? They could have neutral voices, even.

No, Pixar doesn't take risks. It doesn't think that girls can be interesting to any audience. It thinks male ants do jack shit when in fact it's the female ants who are the workers and soldiers. Male ants mate with the queen and then die. Pixar thinks cars have to be male. It thinks monsters without genitalia also have to be male to be interesting to anyone. It's all MALE MALE MALE to Pixar. They bend reality and myth to suit their sexism.

Fuck Pixar.

[(Anonymous)]

Inside Out

But keep making it all about how super sexist Pixar is to stroke your hateboner because Dreamworks ain't much better

[(Anonymous)]

Oh yeah, great: there's this movie we have to make and it's all about inner squishy *emotions* so let's make the lead a girl! It can't possibly be a boy!

And that's still just 2/15, so when they actually make a film that isn't a princess being forced to be married or a girl's inner secret emotional life but is just plain the same as any other Pixar movie: a bat or a robot or a car or a lizard who happens to be a girl voice having an adventure, I will continue to believe that Pixar is a bunch of sexist jerks who can't see beyond their stereotypes.

[(Anonymous)]

Go away, redfem anon.

[(Anonymous)]

do you mean radfem? is it radically feminist to be frustrated that it took Pixar 18 years to come up with a lead role for a girl? and that their remarkably progressive and original idea was to make her a princess?

18 years. that's long enough for a little girl to grow up and start college. so yeah. radical.