[ SECRET POST #3192 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3192 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 018 secrets from Secret Submission Post #456.
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.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Soo because they're muppets its okay if they do something fucked up?

Why don't we give cartoon characters a pass for horrendous shit because they're cartoons.

"Oh we shouldn't use the word 'abuse' to describe Peter Griffin. He's a cartoon character! A drawing!"

Actions speak louder than words.

[(Anonymous)]

To a certain extent, yes. That's why Gonzo hasn't been arrested on bestiality charges and Animal hasn't been charged with destruction of property, and nobody's calling the Health Department on the Swedish Chef.

[(Anonymous)]

So they can't be actually held responsible. But that doesn't mean their actions cannot be criticized or people can't use certain words to describe them.

If a person thinks that the behavior isn't funny that it's abusive, than that's their right.

If someone regularly slaps punches and kicks the person they're in a relationship with for upsetting them , I'm going to call that person abusive. I don't think the fact that they're muppets means it's "sad".

[(Anonymous)]

You do you, anon. But realize that because a lot of people don't see the Muppets as real and therefore believe that any harm inflicted onscreen is also not real, then they're not going to feel the same way about it. It doesn't mean they believe that hitting your partner is okay, it just means that in this context, it's not something that bothers them. Just like how people don't get alarmed about self-harming when a muppet pulls off their ears and nose while singing a cheery song.

[(Anonymous)]

"Why don't we give cartoon characters a pass for horrendous shit because they're cartoons.[sic]"

Most of the time we do, I thought.

[diet_poison]

I'm having trouble finding the right words, but I think it's a little different with, say, Peter Griffin because Family Guy was never intended to be slapstick. It's slapstick humor that likens the Muppets to, say, Looney Tunes, and the violence in those is so over-the-top as to be basically something else, which is the point.

[(Anonymous)]

DA. There's definitely a scale in how realistic something is versus how much it will bother your average person, even in animation. Everyone has their own place on the scale but it's why in general the further you are divorced from reality the more you can do with a character without the bulk of your audience blinking an eye.

I'd say Family Guy is not drawn or animated realistically but it is written like a sitcom, so it's closer to real life the Looney Tunes would be. So I kind of have your same feeling where I don't know that I'd compare Family Guy with most of the history of the Muppets.

[diet_poison]

Family Guys is also arguably not as cartoonish as Looney Tunes or The Muppets. It features humans (and a talking dog, there's that I guess) who clearly look cartoonish but aren't super extreme as far as cartoon proportions and cartoony style. and yeah, it's sitcom-y and deals with adult situations that are emotional for a lot of people, whereas Looney Tunes, for example, is just silly-looking animals doing silly things and blowing each other up.

I honestly don't remember where the Muppets falls on that scale - it's been a long time since I've seen the show myself.

[(Anonymous)]

So if Kermit slapped miss piggy you'd right it off as slapstick? Or would that make you very uncomfortable?

[(Anonymous)]

It would be startling because it's out of character, not because it's sexist, if that's what you're getting at. I'm trying to restrain my eyerolls here, because we're talking about a show in which muppets regularly blow up other muppets, eat them whole, insult them, shoot them out of canons, perform dodgy medical experiments and surgery on them, etc. Those are all examples of things that would unacceptable to do in real life, but the reason why people don't get riled up is because we know it's not real.

You're having a difficult time with this, I can tell. But it's a bit weird you're only focused on the one example of negative behavior above all others. You're not seeing the big picture, which tells you that this is fantasyland and that's why people accept it without too many issues. THEY KNOW IT'S NOT REAL AND NO REAL DAMAGE IS DONE.

It doesn't make them bad people even though they *le gasp!* disagree with you. It just means you see this show very, very differently.

[diet_poison]

it would need context, but in general, yes, I would write off puppets slapping each other as slapstick. they are PUPPETS.