[ SECRET POST #4048 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4048 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Transformers]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Boku no Hero Academia]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Star Wars: The Last Jedi]


__________________________________________________




















05. [SPOILER for The Shape of Water]
[WARNING for gore and animal cruelty]



__________________________________________________



06. [SPOILER for Assassination Classroom]
[WARNING for abuse]



__________________________________________________



07. [WARNING for incest (and underage?)]

[Chronicles of Narnia, Peter/Susan]


__________________________________________________



08. [WARNING for discussion of sexual harrassment]


















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #579.
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)]

Plenty of fiction can justify the circumstances in which a beloved pet is killed on screen. But being able to justify the circumstances doesn't protect it from seeming like cheap drama. Killing off pets is low-hanging fruit for thrills and horrors, and I guarantee in the case of most shows, killing pets isn't done because the writers thought long and hard about realism and what events the narrative and characters necessitate happening. It's done as black comedy or a quick way to try to tug at audience emotions before moving on without thought to long-lasting consequences in a way that you can't get away with if you, say, kill a child on-screen.

I am not saying it's impossible to have a scenario where a pet dying works. But again, low-hanging fruit, cheap shocks.

[ninety6tears]

This isn't comparable to the monster or whatever danger there is in a horror film killing off a pet instead of a kid, though. That comes off as cheap usually because the creature would violently kill a person but the significant characters get plot armor.

Not to mention there are plenty of shows/movies where pets survive against the odds.

[(Anonymous)]

As someone who normally cringes at pet deaths for shock value or whatever, but I’d say that this is one of the very few movies where that’s not the point. The way the creature and Giles, the owner of the cat, react to what happens shows a lot about both characters and allows them to grow. It’s not played for laughs or cheap drama or a jump scare. It’s a sad misunderstanding.

[(Anonymous)]

^ As someone who's also seen the movie, I 100% agree with this. There's nothing cheap about that scene, and it leads to better understanding on the part of both Giles and the Asset.