[ SECRET POST #3207 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3207 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 020 secrets from Secret Submission Post #458.
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)]

Ok, You're usually cool, so I'm going to as politly as I can point out that you're being a jerk and clearly leaping to conclusions about me based on the fact that one line I said sounds like something the non-human scum says. It is uncool of you. And I'm not talking about pandering. I'm talking about making changes to existing franchises not because they serve to create better stories for the franchise or it's fans but because you have something to say and want to make the story about it. That something could be anything. You want to turn James bond into a hero of communism, I will complain just as hard. You think M should be a cyborg because you want to talk about trans-humanism? Get the fuck out of my media. This isn't a "Pandering is bad because women" argument. This is a "Respect the fucking story" argument.

My concern for the story of James Bond and my concern for the hypothetical alternative franchise that could be made with the actor is what I think you meant? Because I don't care about the actors so much as what they do in the media I enjoy. But you''re right when you say this concern is for my own personal reasons. My interest is only in having good things for me to watch and enjoy. As is yours as clearly demonstrated with the "I just want a female Bond for myself okay" line. Now where you seem to think it's more important that James Bond changes for your tastes I want James Bond to stay the same for my tastes because I think it is more valuable to everyone involved if more things are being made fresh, and would in particular quite like to see more Bond-esque properties being made in general.

But I do so love being called a sexist. That was a nice point. thanks for that.

[kitelovesyou]

Uhhhhh, I think I've said my bit already, we want different things out of a source material.

What is NOT cool of you and is pretty rude actually, is to insist that I want something to "make a statement", or want "something to say". That is what the pandering argument boils down to, that being more inclusive is not to make people enjoy it more for itself, but for an artificial ticky box. And I resent the fact that my very different but genuine and valid id, desires from yours are being dismissed, because you can't conceive that I'd just like that. It'd be fun and cool and sexy, base level stuff, no politics involved.

I also find it absurd how threatened you are by the very idea of some fan who doesn't see why an actor must always be cast with a penis attached. I just don't see gender as immutable and a ~big deal as you, and that's prrrreeetty much my feminism right there.

ETA: Anywayyyy, I did say sexism rather than sexist since one is a doing thing we all do sometimes and the other is being, but regardless, I apologise for saying you were, I was overly grumpy. It's not a nice thing to say about someone else especially a woman and there are much better ways to express disagreement. So, sorry :(

[(Anonymous)]

I would say that I was talking about why the movie makers would change Bond, and that I was not insisting any intention on your part, but That wasn't super clear, and to be honest I think I might have been jumping to a conclusions about your motivation as well. My apologies.

In my defence, this conclusions was based on the fact that it would be equally fun and cool and sexy in a new franchise playing a new hero without having to screw with an existing franchise. I admit can't see any value in changing Bond specifically over making a new character other than as a statement of some kind. Bond is not like the doctor. He is the same person who's supposed to have live the same live with the same experiences across all films changing from one similar dude to another is an easy suspension of disbelief that such a radical change from British white male to american hispanic female and believing the character has always looked like that... That's a big ask. The doctor changes in universe, Bond does not. So why make a change that alters them so entirely in the canon if not to make a statement? I am not trying to imply any intention on your part, I'm just interested in knowing why you favour changing Bond rather than having a new hero for Rodriguez. It's true I made an assumption about your reasons and I apologise, but am interested in knowing why a new hero would be less acceptable to you.

And in my shallow defense, you started and infact continue the trend of attributing meaning and intention to me based on your assumptions that I must be one of threatened by a lack of penis. (and all that other stuff in your first comment.) I am not threatend. Little pissed of about being spoken to like I'm one of the 4chan assholes of the internet because I share an opinion with them and the assumption that I too much just be one of the sexist masses because I don't agree with you about how immutable gender is to a persons experience. And the continued assumption that this makes me not a feminist? Or somehow a bad feminist? Sex is immutable to a persons experience, Race nationality and gender can and often do offer a different experience, particularly for the viewer who will not be able to separate their experiences of the real world with any attempt to ignore those experiences on film. Look at the scene in Skyfall, where the villian is being sexually intimidating to Bond. Are you saying that if Bond was a woman people would not have found that to be massively problematic? Maybe they'd be right to, maybe they'd not be right, but the fact is in this world Gender is a(n artificial) divide which frames things like that differently. There are changes that would be needed to be made other than just swap the gender and I can't see the value of having to make those changes, or the audience having to parse those changes within the context of canon compared to creating something new.

Anyway apology accepted where it was offered.

[kitelovesyou]

Wait... the "non-human scum"... really? really? now I know which anon you are, that's just fucking unnecessary. You're accusing me of being uncool? You dislike another signed-in user, try to be a fucking adult about it.

Yeah I'm pretty grouchy this morning, but that's the fun of being signed-in, it stays around in people's minds.

[(Anonymous)]

Ok, I don't know who you think I am or who you think I'm referring to, but "non-human scum" referes to the slime that seep out of 4chan's /b/ board and the like. The people who say things like "Bond can't be a chick, bonds a badass and chicks are all cunts who are just used for fucking" Non-human scum. I don't like being spoken to like I'm one of those types of people. My reasons make sense to me and havin nothing to do with being anti-social justice, or whatever these people claim their standpoint as.