[ SECRET POST #4073 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4073 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 21 secrets from Secret Submission Post #583.
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)]

If a plot is too contrived, the way characters act make no sense, that's bad writing.

How do you tell when a plot is objectively contrived, or the way that characters act is objectively nonsensical?

And it's also an assholish way to argue that people who dislike certain things are just too dumb to "get it" or know why the director did it, yet that's exactly what you did and what plenty of fans of the movie are doing.

I... hadn't previously posted in this subthread, so I'm really not sure where you're getting the idea that I personally did that.

And I think "the movie is objectively bad and you are dumb if you like it" is exponentially more assholish than any post disagreeing with you in this thread, and also more assholish than the original secret. I mean, that's just an extraordinarily strong and assholish take.

[(Anonymous)]

If things happen in a movie just to move it along and not because it made sense (like why the codebreaker was in jail when Finn and Rose arrived even though he could have left any time) or characters suddenly have romance plots without any real build-up just to pair the spares ( like with Rose and Finn).

And sorry, I was assuming you where Airt. Who actually did what I said yet I don't see you taking an issue with that. And I don't have a lot of posts in this thread. Not to mention there are quite a few assholish replies from the movie fans ITT but you conveniently ignore those - which isn't even a little surprising.

[(Anonymous)]

And sorry, I was assuming you where Airt. Who actually did what I said

I don't think this is close to being true. AYRT did not say that everyone who dislikes the movie is dumb or that it was objectively good, which would be the equivalent of what you said in your reply to them. They were criticizing specific things that people say about the movie, not people who dislike the movie point blank, and I thought they did a pretty fair job of maintaining that distinction.

[(Anonymous)]

"It's dominated by people saying "it's OBJECTIVELY BAD WRITING because I was SURPRISED and therefore the director MUST be doing smug gotchas" " is exactly the same as saying "Most people are just too dumb to GET it" and is immensely condescending.

[(Anonymous)]

It is not at all the same.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT
Ummm...yeah. It is.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

You might be a whiny pissbaby if you think this discussion is polarized into two sides and are keeping score.

It's a movie, no one of importance really cares if you dislike it.

[(Anonymous)]

Do you even read the bullshit you write before posting or...?
Try a little harder putting words in my mouth that I never said.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

"Not to mention there are quite a few assholish replies from the movie fans ITT but you conveniently ignore those - which isn't even a little surprising."

That's keeping score. (Particularly ridiculous when you don't even know who you're responding to, or what their opinion on the movie is.)

[(Anonymous)]

It's not "keeping score" it's disagreeing with someone who said "nobody of the other side here was posting assholish comments" which simply isn't true.
It's ridiculous that you accuse me of the exact same thing you do yourself. Get your head out of your own ass and practise what you preach, how about it?

[(Anonymous)]

And I'm out. This is too ridiculous.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Let's be clear about this, you're trying to play gotcha on the fact that an unidentified and anonymous person has not equally addressed unspecified, uncited, unquoted, and unlinked "assholish" comments by unidentified and anonymous persons who, nevertheless are on the "other side." This is a classic tu quoque, made even more ridiculous by the fact that none of the parties or posts in question have been identified beyond mere innuendo.

It's not the same thing at all to point out that your stated argument is bullshit.

[(Anonymous)]

As long as you believe in it and it makes you happy.

[(Anonymous)]

it's disagreeing with someone who said "nobody of the other side here was posting assholish comments" which simply isn't true.

I never said that. I said that your comment was much more assholish. That none of the comments were as assholish as your comment. Because you said that the movie was objectively bad and that you have to be dumb to think that it was good.

[(Anonymous)]

Only I didn't say that. I said that there are things that generally can be considered bad writing and that the people who say "you're just too dumb to get it" might be the dumb ones for being so overly impressed by not very well executed twists.

[(Anonymous)]

You're the one who talked about "objectively bad writing" and you're the one who said that "Just because you are dumb enough to find a contrived "twist" that's just there for shock value omg such great writing, much clever! doesn't mean everyone has to she your thoughts."

[(Anonymous)]

I only did that in response to some other anon who brought this up in the first place!
But whatever. I'm out.