[ SECRET POST #4016 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4016 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Intelligence, The Romeo Section]


__________________________________________________



03.
[American Vandal, Sara Pearson/Mr. Kraz]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Winona Ryder]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Doctor Who]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Bring It On]


__________________________________________________



07.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 28 secrets from Secret Submission Post #575.
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)]

I don't see it, either. In all honesty, I think slash shippers do on accusation queerbait themselves where they see a gay relationship that no one on the creative staff intended to make and then they blame The Powers That Be for it. I'm not saying this happens all the time or that creative staffs have never played with slash shippers feelings like with BBC Sherlock but half the time, no one is messing with the slash shippers and they need to stop blaming the writers for their own personal interpretation of a TV, movie, or whatever. Subtext is not representation.

Bring It On gives Kirsten Dunst's character a love interest because she's the protagonist! Most Hollywood movies puts in a romance even if it's needed or not. Hell, sometimes it would have been better if the romance was cut out entirely but hey, Hollywood. There's really no deeper reading you need to do of Bring It On.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, I mean, let's be clear about what we're saying here. Shippers saw a lot of chemistry in Bring It On. The intent of that chemistry, whether it's subtext, whether it's intentional, whether the het romance in the film is shoehorned in - those are questions that exist on top of the chemistry. That stuff, you can argue, maybe, that people are reading too deeply into it. But I don't agree that people who see romantic chemistry in the movie are reading deeper than they need to, or making things up.

NAYRT

[(Anonymous)]

But I don't agree that people who see romantic chemistry in the movie are reading deeper than they need to, or making things up.

There's chemistry there. But if people are seeing it as romantic, it's because they're bringing a romantic reading of that chemistry to the table. Yes, it's possible the writers secretly intended for Torrance and Missy's chemistry to be romantic in nature, but IMO that seems far more unlikely than not.

And I say that as someone who actually would prefer if Torrance/Missy had been canon.

Re: NAYRT

[(Anonymous)]

OP

That's my whole point. The natural evolution of the film literally requires zero insertion of the m/f romance angle. You could literally have the entire plot without it and lose none of the flow.

If more directors and writers were open (like Bryke) to these sorts of natural evolutions they would probably find their movies and TV shows getting stronger and better-structured for it.

Re: NAYRT

[(Anonymous)]

The natural evolution of the film literally requires zero insertion of the m/f romance angle. You could literally have the entire plot without it and lose none of the flow.

Except for the part where it's Cliff's gift of music that inspires Torrance to rethink her entire plan and go on to Nationals instead of forgoing that year and giving up the Captainship.

Re: NAYRT

[(Anonymous)]

Which could just as easily have been Missy's.