[ SECRET POST #3378 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3378 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 053 secrets from Secret Submission Post #483.
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)]

DA but "I'm not going to root for the lesser evil as a hero just because it's the lesser evil" is a far cry from "I can't tell that this is a lesser evil at all herp derp"

Not about MMFR but arguing in principle: being a lesser evil doesn't make a character automatically personally compelling. Giving it nothing else but that is lazy writing. Plenty of stories, especially action movies, fail in the same way - by assuming the evil is heinous enough so that of course the reader is on the hero's side by default so they don't worry about making the heroes compelling on their own.

See: 90% of 30 y/o white male video game protagonists

[kallanda_lee]

The're not...evil, though? They're not actively saving puppies, but they just strike me as regular people trying to survive in a shit world.

I mean, if OP doesn't connect to them,that's fine, but evil isn't a word I'd use for them.

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry if I confused you, I was referring to your shades of gray statement, not making a moral judgment on the characters. Substitute lighter shade of gray for lesser evil then. The principle still applies.

[(Anonymous)]

OP here and yeah I think this is sort of it, like - I LIKED Furiosa being a woman, I think it worked for her, but I really struggled to get a sense of her character beyond 'what is happening is unfair and bad and I am leaving!1 also I am strong'. Which doesn't make her a bad character, but at the same time I just wanted - or expected - more.

Like just taking the 30 y/o white male video game protagonist and making them a woman instead does not make a story inherently more interesting. It's sort of, hey, cool, we went from a relatively flat guy to a relatively flat girl instead. I just feel like Mad Max Fury Road had a lot of wasted potential. Tossing women into things and throwing the ideas of themes around doesn't really mean much when those points aren't engaged with or really developed.

[(Anonymous)]

I just feel like Mad Max Fury Road had a lot of wasted potential. Tossing women into things and throwing the ideas of themes around doesn't really mean much when those points aren't engaged with or really developed

THIS. THANK YOU.

[(Anonymous)]

On the other hand, action blockbusters are a genre that doesn't tend to go overboard with characterization - there are plenty of flat protagonists in great explosion-flicks. So if you have to change that aspect of them just to have a female protagonist, then you're essentially freezing them out of the genre as it stands. Which I don't think is a positive thing.

[(Anonymous)]

Nicely stated. Action blockbusters aren't Casablanca, and they shouldn't have to be; they just need to be great action blockbusters. And having more female characters whose role in the film can't be reduced to the letters T and A is, imo, part of what makes a great action blockbuster great.

[(Anonymous)]

...Casablanca was a generic B-movie when it came out. It has a lot more in common with MMFR than you think.