[ SECRET POST #3809 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3809 ⌋

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

01.
[Solstice]



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.
[Martin Starr, Spider-Man: Homecoming]


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.
[MacGyver (2016)]











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 12 secrets from Secret Submission Post #545.
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)]

1. Depending on who you believe her victims weren't completely innocent (she always claimed self defense)

2. American's have been romanticizing real life criminals and murders since at least the early 20th century so its not actually that unprecedented

[(Anonymous)]

She claimed self defense SOMETIMES. But the evidence and her own words show that except for maybe the first one, they were mostly innocent people. She was certainly no noble vigilante.

Her own words: https://youtu.be/3yi2dbaQ3mM

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT but do you have a response to the other point, or

[(Anonymous)]

Americans have largely romanticized criminals like the Mafia and rarely specific people. It is usually the idea of mobsters or outlaws that is romanticized. And when they are, it is usually historic figures like Jesse James or Billy the Kid.

I cannot think of anyone romanticizing real life serial killers (or spree killers) beyond some fringe groups (generally women) who latch on them because they think they can be the one who can fix "the poor serial killer".

Looking at a list of some movies based on RL serial killers, none of them romanticize or rationalize what they have done.

[(Anonymous)]

With respect, that seems like a very thin branch to hang the argument on. They've idolized real people with real victims, and they've romanticized (to some extent) fiction spree killers. It's hard for me to look at that and say that something like Monster is unprecedented and beyond the pale.

[(Anonymous)]

I can't find any other movie about a real life serial killer where they sympathized with the 'oh so sad past' of the murderer. Can you?

[(Anonymous)]

But my point is that I'm not sure that's a useful metric or point of specificity to get hung up on.

[(Anonymous)]

How else can we judge whether or not a certain group of people are being romanticized in a mainstream way (such as the movie Monster)?

[(Anonymous)]

My point is about whether or not there's other mainstream media that specifically romanticizes real-world spree killers. The question to me is whether romanticizing killers like this is unprecedented, and I think that romanticizing groups of people who are quite similar, even if they're not exactly similar, serves as a precedent.

[(Anonymous)]

Then you haven't looked very hard.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0285728/

[(Anonymous)]

That is about as romanticizing or sympathetic as Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer.

[(Anonymous)]

So you didn't think the flashbacks made him sympathetic?

[(Anonymous)]

Michael Rooker was fairly sympathetic there.

[(Anonymous)]

TheYoung Poisoner's Handbook is HIGHLY sympathetic to Graham Young, a British serial killer and poisoner. He's a more minor killer than most, and the movie is a dark comedy as opposed to a serious drama, but the movie still goes way out of its way to sympathize with him largely based on a possibily abusive childhood.

So it has happened before.

[anarchicq]

Karla. About Karla Homolka, starring the chick from That 70's Show and Orange is the New Black.

[(Anonymous)]

How is romanticizing the likes of mobsters, who probably kill just as many if not more innocent people than many serial killers, any more acceptable though?

[(Anonymous)]

Why are historical figures acceptable? American history is so short compared to my own country's that this just seems weird to me.

[(Anonymous)]

"In a pivotal scene, Broomfield, pretending that the camera is switched off, asks Wuornos whether the killings were in self-defence. She whispers that they were, but explains she can no longer bear the misery of life on death row."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/3606954/I-cant-stand-being-in-here-its-just-too-awful.html

[(Anonymous)]

Neat. Too bad she changes whether or not it was self defense during every conversation. Thankfully the evidence backs up the notion that she was a horrible person who took advantage of men's generosity towards her to rob and murder them.

[(Anonymous)]

Whatever helps you sleep at night, Jeb.

[(Anonymous)]

I sleep quite well knowing that she (like other serial killers) can no longer harm innocent people.

[(Anonymous)]

Because she would still be harming people if they had put her in a psychiatric institution instead?

[(Anonymous)]

I am totally against the death penalty (if you note I said nothing about being glad they are dead). I'd have preferred she got life in prison. I'm actually not sure what this has to do with the argument of whether or not she just killed to rob people.

[(Anonymous)]

So it was just a coincidence that her first victim was a convicted rapist?

[(Anonymous)]

No. Her first murder may have been self defense. But the rest of them? The evidence (both victim history and physical) says they were murdered in cold blood.