Case (
case) wrote in
fandomsecrets2015-08-13 06:46 pm
[ SECRET POST #3144 ]
⌈ Secret Post #3144 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.

__________________________________________________
02.

__________________________________________________
03.

[Grace Kelly, Judy Garland]
__________________________________________________
04.

__________________________________________________
05.

__________________________________________________
06.

__________________________________________________
07.

__________________________________________________
08.

__________________________________________________
09.

__________________________________________________
10.

__________________________________________________
11.

__________________________________________________
12.

__________________________________________________
13.

__________________________________________________
14.

__________________________________________________
15.

[Soragumi, Shizuki Asato]
Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 020 secrets from Secret Submission Post #449.
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.

no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2015-08-13 10:58 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2015-08-14 01:03 am (UTC)(link)(no subject)
no subject
no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2015-08-13 11:14 pm (UTC)(link)For my part, I can usually roll with or make allowances for most things in older shows, I'll admit to a sneaky fondness for the shoddy special effects you get with old SF in particular (Classic DW and Blake's 7 were formative influences, plus they remind me of stage effects), and I think I actually prefer the pacing on older shows. Modern shows are so frenetic and wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am a lot of the time, I like the way many older shows went and took their time with things.
no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2015-08-14 09:15 am (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2015-08-13 11:18 pm (UTC)(link)To my surprise I really enjoyed it. On occasion, the cheap sets/SFX and ridiculous stunts can be cheesy, but I liked the characters and most of the stories were very engaging.
I also tried to watch the first few eps of classic Doctor Who and that was just so slow it got on my nerves. I'm currently watching The Man from UNCLE which looks better, but sometimes does suffer from pacing issues and I definitely miss a bit of character development.
Anyway, guess I'm saying that in this case I disagree, but I can totally see where you're coming from.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2015-08-14 05:58 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2015-08-14 06:00 pm (UTC)(link)https://youtu.be/o-GmH8eFJFU
no subject
no subject
I watched...idek, years ago (before the reboot), but frankly I was surprised at how much it didn't bother me. Like, I genuinely thought it was going to be an issue but somehow the terrible effects and the cheesiness were just endearing and fun, and the series was charming in a way I didn't expect.
However, I wouldn't judge you harshly for not being able to get into it. There are plenty of things I haven't got into (for one reason or another).
no subject
(no subject)
no subject
(Anonymous) 2015-08-13 11:26 pm (UTC)(link)What I can't get over is the dated sexism every time Kirk goes near a female character.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2015-08-13 11:58 pm (UTC)(link)TOS Kirk really isn't the womaniser he's portrayed to be, I think. He definitely likes women, and he has a tendency to end up in romantic subplots. There is a definite element of 60s sexism in how he's written. But the man himself isn't really more than mildly patriarchal and protective towards women, and willing to accept physical pleasure if it looks to be coming his way (barring that it's detrimental to the mission). He doesn't demean women (well, talks down to them a bit when they're scared sometimes), doesn't have any problems with women doing their jobs around him, doesn't expect them to drop everything for him. For the time the part was written in, he sure as hell could have been a lot worse.
(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2015-08-14 00:10 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2015-08-14 03:47 (UTC) - Expandno subject
(Anonymous) 2015-08-14 12:02 am (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2015-08-13 11:30 pm (UTC)(link)It's sci-fi, give yourself a handwavy explanation.
(Anonymous) 2015-08-13 11:39 pm (UTC)(link)Re: It's sci-fi, give yourself a handwavy explanation.
(Anonymous) - 2015-08-14 00:28 (UTC) - Expandno subject
(Anonymous) 2015-08-14 12:17 am (UTC)(link)I\ike it when stuff set in the future is really dated. I like seeing how people from the Sixties, or the Thirties, or the Eighties imagined "the future," and how it reflects prevailing aesthetics (or doesn't), whether it's aspirational or fearful or whatever.
Right now I'm kind of annoyed when The Future looks like the Apple Store, but give it 10-15 years and I'll probably start finding that charming, too.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2015-08-14 12:19 am (UTC)(link)(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2015-08-14 00:29 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
(Anonymous) 2015-08-14 12:58 am (UTC)(link)Soo...
(Anonymous) - 2015-08-14 01:15 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2015-08-14 11:52 (UTC) - Expandno subject
It's not dated, it's vintage. Furthermore we had a comeback for trousers that don't cover up the ankle. Why, the starfleet uniform is almost modern!
(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2015-08-14 05:28 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
no subject
(Anonymous) 2015-08-14 08:53 am (UTC)(link)