Case (
case) wrote in
fandomsecrets2016-02-17 06:37 pm
[ SECRET POST #3332 ]
⌈ Secret Post #3332 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.

__________________________________________________
02.

(David Bowie)
__________________________________________________
03.

(Great British Bake Off for Sports Relief, Ed Balls)
__________________________________________________
04.

[Pokemon]
__________________________________________________
05.

[Star Wars: TFA]
__________________________________________________
06.

[Damian Lewis, Dick Winters, Band Of Brothers]
__________________________________________________
07.

[Daughter of the Lilies]
__________________________________________________
08.

[David Eddings]
__________________________________________________
09.

[Sengoku Basara]
__________________________________________________
10.

[JJBA]
__________________________________________________
11.

[Men In Black I, II, III]
Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 022 secrets from Secret Submission Post #476.
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.

Media whose existence you appreciate, but is not for you
(Anonymous) 2016-02-18 12:36 am (UTC)(link)Anyone else feel this way about a show/movie/book/whatever?
Re: Media whose existence you appreciate, but is not for you
Re: Media whose existence you appreciate, but is not for you
Re: Media whose existence you appreciate, but is not for you
(Anonymous) 2016-02-18 12:39 am (UTC)(link)I think they're the worst, most unfunny movies I've ever had the displeasure of watching, but I'm glad they exist and other people find them funny.
Re: Media whose existence you appreciate, but is not for you
(Anonymous) 2016-02-18 12:40 am (UTC)(link)On the other hand I loved movies like Bring It On, so it's not about the female cast. I hate the writing and unsympathetic characters of the first ones I listed.
Re: Media whose existence you appreciate, but is not for you
Hannibal in all forms. I just...cannot get into a cannibalistic character. I have no idea but the idea of cannibalism (even fake) completely puts me off the characters/show/movies.
Re: Media whose existence you appreciate, but is not for you
(Anonymous) 2016-02-18 12:41 am (UTC)(link)Re: Media whose existence you appreciate, but is not for you
(Anonymous) 2016-02-18 02:27 am (UTC)(link)Re: Media whose existence you appreciate, but is not for you
Re: Media whose existence you appreciate, but is not for you
(Anonymous) 2016-02-18 12:46 am (UTC)(link)I mean, as a gay liberal woman, I obviously support most of this commentary and if this media gets people fired up about certain issues, great. I just hate being preached to and I hate false characters that only exist as mouthpieces for an agenda.
Re: Media whose existence you appreciate, but is not for you
Re: Media whose existence you appreciate, but is not for you
I didn't enjoy Girls. Idk. I couldn't really identify with any of the 'girls'. It wasn't some enlightening feminist experience for me.
I struggle to enjoy anything without likeable or interesting characters. I've lost interest in Shameless completely because the writing is so terrible that all the characters are just horrible for no reason. I remember in the earlier seasons they would do a lot of shitty things, but everyone was trying to keep the bills paid and food on the table, and now they don't care about each other so I don't either.
Consistently interesting characters will keep me hooked. I've just watched five seasons of Justified and I'm still excited for season 6.
Re: Media whose existence you appreciate, but is not for you
I can take Broad City in small doses, basically when it's on in the background of me doing work/reading.
Re: Media whose existence you appreciate, but is not for you
I have a few shows like that. I'll watch it if I'm not just sitting there glued to the screen, but if I start paying attention I stop liking it.
Re: Media whose existence you appreciate, but is not for you
Re: Media whose existence you appreciate, but is not for you
Re: Media whose existence you appreciate, but is not for you
Re: Media whose existence you appreciate, but is not for you
Re: Media whose existence you appreciate, but is not for you
Re: Media whose existence you appreciate, but is not for you
Re: Media whose existence you appreciate, but is not for you
(Anonymous) 2016-02-18 02:33 am (UTC)(link)Re: Media whose existence you appreciate, but is not for you
Re: Media whose existence you appreciate, but is not for you
(Anonymous) 2016-02-18 06:58 am (UTC)(link)Painfully I can relate to having bad relationships with men, though not necessarily mirroring any of the relationships featured in the show. It's sad that I think Adam is really nice to her, isn't it? I don't even like the characters and even think some of the dialogue is borderline racist, but I do relate to the fractured relationships they have. I also think most people in their twenties are abhorrently selfish like they are.
Re: Media whose existence you appreciate, but is not for you
Re: Media whose existence you appreciate, but is not for you
Re: Media whose existence you appreciate, but is not for you
(Anonymous) 2016-02-18 01:32 am (UTC)(link)Re: Media whose existence you appreciate, but is not for you
(Anonymous) 2016-02-18 03:59 am (UTC)(link)Re: Media whose existence you appreciate, but is not for you
Re: Media whose existence you appreciate, but is not for you
Re: Media whose existence you appreciate, but is not for you
Re: Media whose existence you appreciate, but is not for you
(Anonymous) 2016-02-18 04:08 am (UTC)(link)Re: Media whose existence you appreciate, but is not for you
Re: Media whose existence you appreciate, but is not for you
(Anonymous) 2016-02-18 04:13 am (UTC)(link)