fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3890 ]

[ SECRET POST #3890 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3890 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Harry Potter and Pretty Little Liars]

__________________________________________________

03.

[The Crown]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Me Before You (novel)]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Little Women, Jo/Laurie, Jo/Professor Bhaer]

__________________________________________________

06.

(Supergirl, Wynonna Earp)

__________________________________________________

07.

[The Defenders]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 28 secrets from Secret Submission Post #557.
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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Do you consider Dirty Harry to be a truly heroic character or a disgusting monster from a time that needs to be forgotten?

Would you watch a remake / sequel?

Dirty Harry as presented on screen would be a bad person; as a character he is representative of a number of extremely bad, toxic ideas and cultural norms about policing and violence and authority and law in America. The movies are still watchable because they're just very effective action movies, and very stylish, but I don't think there's much that's redeemable about Dirty Harry as a figure.

And I wouldn't really see the point of making a remake or sequel. Just... why? What do you possibly have to add, offer, or gain?

or gain

shekels my dude, shekels.

Well I mean that doesn't really matter to me personally, I know it's not like they're asking for my permission. I don't see how a sequel or remake would be good, interesting, or worth watching. Put it that way.

Same logic as the Death Wish remake, I suppose. New actor, modern setting, New audience. I'd probably give it a go. They'd need to do a damn sight better with the casting, tho.

Eh, he had good points (the desire for justice) and bad (the way he went about getting it). He's certainly a relic, and I don't know how he could be remade today without drastic changes, which would destroy the character.

I like to respond to everyone who takes the time to respond to me, but I really don't have anything to add here. This is pretty much word for word my thoughts.

Neither and no. I think having multiple movie genres based around suburban fears of urban life is tired and done, about like the anti-communist action film.

See, you say that, but I been reading and watching a lot of shit based around the Cold War, and I gotta say, I'm digging it at the moment.

Most of what I see today is: "spycraft was a dirty business" and less "I'm going to fix my Vietnam shame by stealing some weapons and graphically killing hundreds of communists in Cambodia, Afghanistan, or some fictional country that just exists for this movie." Rambo and Red Dawn are the best of a genre that's pretty unwatchable otherwise. (Red Dawn breaks out from the pack by being dystopian science fiction, sorta.)

At least part of the political subtext behind those movies was, "Congress is stupid for not giving more funding those freedom fighters who are bravely fighting communism." This doesn't stand up very well in hindsight, since those "freedom fighters" usually turned out to be mass-murdering strongmen or religious terrorists.

I don't think he's a character that should be considered heroic in the sense of being a role model - he reflects a lot of really horrific attitudes of the time, and while I wouldn't say they need to be forgotten, they do need to be discarded. I do think he can still be considered a heroic character because that is the role he fills in the story, and ignoring that feels a lot like trying to plaster over some of the more unpleasant aspects of media history.

I don't think it would be possible to do a remake without either completely reframing the story, or altering the character enough that it would essentially be a case of in-name-only revamp.

I'm pretty cynical about old white men remaking movies that glorify old white men committing lots of violence. So I'd want nothing to do with any of it. Then whining about how there's nothing original anymore (or how women are trying to ruin Hollywood).

Basically, violence sucks and I'm this close to hating all old white guys completely. So yeah. Not your target fucking audience.

Ok, so say they re-cast Harry to be played by Idris Elba? Would that change anything for you?

It might. But I still might not want anything to do with it. Would depend in that case on how well it was done. Maybe...

Actually now that I think about it, have you seen Luther?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #3890 ]

Dirty Harry

Re: Dirty Harry

Re: Dirty Harry

Re: Dirty Harry

Re: Dirty Harry

Re: Dirty Harry

Re: Dirty Harry

Re: Dirty Harry

Re: Dirty Harry

Re: Dirty Harry

Re: Dirty Harry

Re: Dirty Harry

Re: Dirty Harry

Re: Dirty Harry

Re: Dirty Harry

Re: Dirty Harry