[ SECRET POST #4053 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4053 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 16 secrets from Secret Submission Post #580.
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

[jadeile]

No, I'm not making excuses to the people making the movies. I'm only saying that I find it annoying that people in here complain loudly about these things but have nothing to actually offer when they're asked how the movies should be portraying things to meet their (unspecified) criteria. Nothing in my post said anything about Warner Bros themselves.

[(Anonymous)]

Someone outright asked how people would do it just a little upthread from you, and some of the replies have been fairly direct. Sorry we didn't think to submit screenplay-ready scenarios conforming to industry-standards. We're just fans spitballing on the Internet here, not the people actually being paid to make this shit.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

My suggestion, skip Fantastic Beasts and check out any of the following:

* Mae West's The Drag
* Victor Victoria
* Broken Time Blues
* Professor Marston and the Wonder Women
* The Shape of Water
* A biography of George Washington Carver
* The Grand Budapest Hotel
* Winter's Tide
* Passing (Nela Larson)
* Some Like it Hot.

[jadeile]

I don't understand why you're being so snippy to me in particular about this, especially after I already cleared that I didn't even say what I assume you originally got angry about.
Anyway, I'm aware that someone asked, and back when I read the comment threads above this one there weren't any answers that actually had substance to them. Hence why I left my comment to support the person who had the same thoughts I did on the matter. If something has changed in the threads above in the last couple of hours (after I left my original comment), I'm not aware of it because I haven't gone back to read them, as I'm not quite that invested in the discussion.

And, for the record, I'm fully aware that people here can't really make a difference in this particular care, and are not the people being paid for this.

[(Anonymous)]

The fact that you and many others in this thread seem to believe that the only ways to portray gay Dumbledore are "Nicholas Sparks movie, but gay" or "hardcore gay pornography" or "lisping yet abstinent Dumbledore in Daisy Dukes and gay pride flag crop top" says a lot more about you than about the ~loud complainers~ who dare be dissatisfied with the scraps that are thrown at them.

[jadeile]

But I didn't say any of that? I literally said that "Gay people are regular-ass people who just happen to not find the opposite gender attractive", hence why I'm baffled as to how people figure he should somehow blatantly showcase his sexual orientation. And I said that people should give examples of it if they actually know of a way to do it. Because I sure don't personally know how to do it, as I have never met a gay man who somehow exuded his gayness for everyone to see (or maybe I just don't pick the signals cos it's not relevant to me). So if I were to do a movie (somehow without research for the sake of this argument) the character would be just like everyone else but just happen to also be gay, which may or may not show all that much unless it was relevant to the plot or I could think of a way to drop a hint somehow. That's it. I never said how Dumbledore should be portrayed.