fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3510 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3510 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Stephen King]

__________________________________________________

03.

[John Green]

__________________________________________________

04.

[American Gods]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Charlie Hunnam in King Arthur: Legend of the Sword]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Penn & Teller: Fool Us]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Steven Universe]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Questionable Content]

__________________________________________________

09.

[Ghostbusters 2016]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 53 secrets from Secret Submission Post #502.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - 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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

i think the main reason to see the movie is if you think it looks good, and the main reason not to see it is if you don't think it looks good

imo

This. I love watching trailers, but I honestly don't read any reviews at all. If I want to see a film because I think it looks like I'll enjoy it, why does it matter if someone else did or didn't enjoy it?

100% this. I saw the movie. It was fine. Nothing spectacular, but I enjoyed myself. And while I do think a lot of the initial outrage came from a place of sexism, I do think people also have valid reasons for not being interested.

Yup. If I like the look of a movie I'll go see it, if I don't I won't. It really isn't any deeper than that.

Usually that's what I do. But when they basically demand that a female-led movie can ONLY be judged by the genders of its main cast rather than anything relevant, and that honest thoughts on the content and look are somehow about said genders to the point where they erased comments that addressed the content itself, yeah, that's going to hamper my ability to enjoy anything.

Yeah, I guess, look - my point is still going to be: those ideas don't have to be associated with the quality of the movie. They are external to the movie. I mean I agree it's a stupid way to proceed but also, like, it does not effect the movie itself.

DA. I can see your point, but how many people here on FS admitted a week ago they wouldn't read or have anything to do with entertainers (fanficcers, for instance) who disagreed with them politically? How many people refuse to read Orson Scott Card because he doesn't like gays? (Something which as far as I can tell does not come at all through his books.) It doesn't effect the work itself, but oh yes, people care.

But I think the argument there is - or ought to be - that it does effect the work. I mean, OSC might not have any explicitly bigoted books, but the argument is that his books are bound up with his broader ethical point of view, and the point of view in question has to be evaluated in terms of those views. If that weren't the case, I think it would be a very bad argument.

And the situation with Sony and Feig seems to me - and maybe this is where I'm wrong - to be, at worst, a question of marketing.

Hi, me again. Yes it's a question of marketing. They marketed this movie as basically "it stars women and of you don't like anything about it at all them it's out of sexism". Fabricating issues like that distorts what feminism really is, and basically proclaims "screw equality, we're going to reduce this movie to the genders of its leads and ignore comments about every other element".

I agree that it's bad marketing, but it's marketing - which to me is distinct from the movie itself.

DA. But marketing the director actively participated in, and he did have direct (ha) creative control of the project. If OSC's opinions 'leak in' even in ways we don't notice, presumably so does the opinions of the director of Ghostbusters, per your argument.

Not quite, because the other part of my argument is that Card's views on homosexuality are an important and integral part of his broader philosophical, ethical, etc worldview.

If you could go through and say that the marketing campaign is representative of Feig's broader understanding of feminism, or make an argument that the things he said fit neatly into his wider worldview, then you would have a strong parallel. And, I mean, it's certainly possible that's the case, but I haven't seen it, and it's an argument that you actually have to make. And I think it has been made with regards to OSC.

Card's association with a right-wing hate group went well beyond, "doesn't like gays."

I didn't feel the need to go into a long essay about the specifics, considering he's only an example, and whatever you think of his views/activism/whatever it doesn't pop up in his books.

I'm sure a lot of authors I read don't like LGBTQ people that much, but don't go so far as to sit on the board of an organization that called for boycotts of LGBTQ-friendly media and used hate speech to influence election campaigns.

[ SECRET POST #3510 ]

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

op

Re: op

Re: op

Re: op

op

Re: op

Re: op

Re: op

Re: op

Re: op

Re: op

no subject