[ SECRET POST #3798 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3798 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 38 secrets from Secret Submission Post #544.
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)]

Fine, if you want to whitewash history so that your racist little adventure narrative works, but don't expect most of the public to go along with it. The world has moved on.

[(Anonymous)]

It's not whitewashing history to have Indiana Jones not be a grave-robber. There are still other grave-robbing archaeologists in the world of Indiana Jones. You just make Indiana Jones not that.

And, again, I still really don't see how any of this affects other characters who aren't Indiana Jones.

[(Anonymous)]

#YesAllArcheologists

#YesAllAdventurers

You're still dealing with people who are racist simply due to operating in a world that is inherently racist and exploitative towards both indigenous peoples and black people. Unless you are going to put their racism as a key part of their character and not ignore it, it is done.

[(Anonymous)]

You're still dealing with people who are racist simply due to operating in a world that is inherently racist and exploitative towards both indigenous peoples and black people.

I mean, with respect, the same could be said for literally all movie-making as such.

I think the logical endpoint of the argument is that the only movies that it is moral to make are movies that are explicitly anti-racism and anti-oppression and revolutionary. I'm not trying to strawman there, and feel free to disagree if you think that's an unfair characterization. But if the existence of structural oppression is as central to and problematic for filmm as you're making it out to be, that would seem to implicate any film that's not explicitly and specifically political, because all films are made and watched in a world that's inherently exploitative in a myriad of different ways.

And I think that's a sensible point of view in many ways, and I respect it a lot, but I also strongly disagree with it.

[(Anonymous)]

Maybe you should go to the theater more, because movies set in the past have been making sure they mention and explore the problems of having white protagonists in time periods that are inherently exploitative and racist now. If you are going to ignore that social change and try to make an Indiana Jones or other era adventurer without addressing it too then you are a racist. The genre as you want it to be is dead, simple as and nuff said.

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry, are you making this as a normative claim, or a positive claim? Like, are you saying that the genre should be dead or that it is be dead? Because you seem to be wandering back and forth between the two.

From a normative point of view, I agree that it's important to do something to deal with the issue, but I don't think it's necessarily deadly for the basic concept, for all the reasons I said above. I don't think the genre is intrinsically or unrecoverably racist. It's a solvable problem.

From a positive point of view, I'm not sure how much of an impact it actually has on a film's financial prospects. I wish it had more of an impact! I think it's good that films try to deal with these issues. But I have to be honest that I haven't really seen any evidence that politically incorrect films are more likely to fail at the box office. I think mostly filmmakers try to grapple with those issues because they believe it's important to do so themselves.

[(Anonymous)]

It should be dead and it is dying, just vile little racists keep trying to revive it and ignore the implications.

[(Anonymous)]

Ah.

That does clarify things.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, yes we get it, we are all "vile little racists" for daring to like things you don't. Got it.

SIGH.

[(Anonymous)]

nyart

Assuming they're sincere, wanna bet they're totally fine with problematic elements in their favorite franchise because ~reasons~?

[(Anonymous)]

The trolls here are getting better, but they're still tipping their hand somewhat. 3/10

[(Anonymous)]

I dunno, I think both trolls did pretty well in keeping the other replying.

[(Anonymous)]

Of course, because all archaeologists are white! Certainly no-one goes and gets a university education so they can better understand their own culture's early history!

Now who's denying indigenous peoples their agency?

[(Anonymous)]

Nah, too obvious and too late. Try again next time.

[(Anonymous)]

In fairness, anon's account of the early days of archaeology - while vituperative - is not basically incorrect about what was happening in that era.