[ SECRET POST #4192 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4192 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.



__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.



__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 49 secrets from Secret Submission Post #600.
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

[morieris]

I mean ... as much as a fuck up as the movie was, being in Happy Peppy Disney New Orleans, he's probably now the perfect partner.

Inb4 pissy anons thing I'm trying to stifle free speech or some shit, I feel like we talked about that but I don't remember in detail re: Naveen and his development. How much different from Eugene is he really?

[anarchicq]

We did talk about this already. I remember it clearly. In fact I think the text in this secret is from one of the comments in that conversation. I explicitly recall "a baby on one hip stirring gumbo while Naveen does nothing".

[(Anonymous)]

LOL, did someone really say you were trying to stifle free speech? Or did they point out that you were complaining about other people having a discussion that you weren't required to read or take part in?

[morieris]

Who said I wanted to stop anyone? I wasn't even complaining, just confused because I thought I saw it here before and, lo and behold, I had.

If you take that as "Everybody STOP", that's your problem.

[(Anonymous)]

Please actually read the comment you're replying to. Where did I accuse you of trying to stop people from talking? You seem to be defending yourself from accusations nobody has made and that's pretty weird.

"I wasn't even complaining, just confused because I thought I saw it here before and, lo and behold, I had."

Now I'm confused. Do you expect any given community to cover a topic once and then never discuss it ever again? That's not how community or fandom works, in my experience.

[morieris]

Now I'm confused. Do you expect any given community to cover a topic once and then never discuss it ever again?

Yes, I can tell that you are, because no where in my comment did I say "Only talk about things once."

I'll leave you to whatever you think because in the end, I'm not paid for any of it.

[(Anonymous)]

I only asked because I'm not sure why you'd be confused that a topic people have previously discussed has come up again. That's a very common thing in real life and fandom. Perhaps you can enlighten me why you found it confusing then?

But I see you're following my strategy of actually reading comments and holding the person who wrote them responsible for their own words. Very good. ;) I notice you couldn't actually cite anyone who accused you of trying to stop discussion, though. I hope you've realized nobody said that.

[type_wild]

I think the key is the difference between the work ethic that is the carrying pillar upon which Tiana is built, and Rapunizel's, well, boredom.

Rapunzel wanted to share Flynn's freedom. Tiana might want wealth like Naveen could offer, but she wanted wealth that was fairly obtained and fully deserved; not for no reason was Naveen the antithesis of her life philosophy. It's been years since I saw either film, but IIRC, Naveen never had to suffer the reality of poverty, of having to work yourself to the bone seven days a week with no end in sight. He minced a mushroom and was in a song number about love being more important than money? And the moral is that love is all you need, but unless he was doing dishwashing duty in her restaurant, I'm not buying that he ever learned any lessons about what labour truly is.

tl;dr Rapunzel would sympathise with Flynn's/Naveen's flightiness. I don't think Tiana would.

[morieris]

I'm not buying that he ever learned any lessons about what labour truly is.

Same.

I feel that they deserved a cartoon fleshing them out more than the Tangled characters, even though I like that movie way more.

[(Anonymous)]

I mean. It literally shows him helping build the restaurant.

It's not that he had no work ethic, or was lazy. It's that he was a guy scared to seem incompetent so he had an easy-going persona that seemed in control. (I mean shit, most people aren't gonna know off the top of their head the frogs produce mucus, and he rattled it off like it was nothing, so the guy clearly studies a hell of a lot.)

Tiana was good for him because she was willing to not walk on eggshells and actually teach him skills, and he was willing to go, "Tiana, you need a break for five minutes you have been up for 24 hours doing this"

+1000

[(Anonymous)]

THANK YOU, she NEEDS someone who is not a workaholic like her in order to have better balance in her life.

[rivulet027]

This!

[(Anonymous)]

unless he was doing dishwashing duty in her restaurant

Or he could actually do something that fits his talents and skillsets? Such as performing in the dining hall? It is a New Orleans restaurant. Why, I think the movie have actually shown this at the end there, imagine.

[type_wild]

Given that
A) No matter how purportedly "historical" in setting, Disney films are definitely modern in moral

B) They went out of their way to disconnect Tiana's poverty and gruelling workload from the background radiation of institutionised slavery within living memory of said historical setting

then yes, within the fairy-tale universe of the film, it's believable that Naveen will appreciate labour because he just needed to see that he could do it.

But if we make the musjudgment of looking at this through a real-life lens, I refuse to apply the description "labour" to the activity of performing a cherished hobby for a few hours every night. Certainly not if we take half a second to ask ourselves where Charlotte's family wealth came from and recall the economic system that replaced it. "Talents and skillsets" is the privilege of those who have enough money to turn down a job while looking for something cushier.

[(Anonymous)]

it's believable that Naveen will appreciate labour because he just needed to see that he could do it.

But if we make the musjudgment of looking at this through a real-life lens, I refuse to apply the description "labour" to the activity of performing a cherished hobby for a few hours every night.

These are essentially two separate points, and no amount of pseudointellectualism on your part will mash them into a coherent argument.

The two points you're trying to conflate are:

1. Did Naveen really learn to appreciate labor after his experience in the film? The film's straight answer is yes, but the audience might not be convinced by the evidence offered. That is fair.

2. Does an artistic pursuit even count as labor, even when performed for commercial purposes?

...to which your answer is appalling, and frankly offensive to the generations of musicians that made New Orleans their home. Have you ever even been there? Yes, let us take half a second to ask ourselves where Charlotte's family wealth came from and recall the economic system that replaced it. Yes, slavery built America, and capitalism is its reincarnation. We can accept all that and still celebrate the importance of music and its very prominent value in a city where the dinner is oftentimes quite secondary to the show.

At the end of the day, yes, it's a Disney film. Yes, it worked out very conveniently that Tiana's and Naveen's strengths and weaknesses complement each other so well, and that they can get their business off the ground so quickly. In "reality", Naveen would probably be forced to play on stage AND wash dishes. But he shouldn't have to, and since it's a cartoon, he doesn't. Do you want to criticize capitalism, or embrace it? Your cynical view of art seems to suggest the latter.

[type_wild]

The point I was hoping to make is that there's a bit of a difference between the existence where your survival is a matter of other people's willingness to pay for your performances, and being royalty with a trust fund who can perform purely because you enjoy it. If the point of the film was to teach Naveen a lesson about the value of effort, then let him feel the despair of his life and personal comfort being dependent on the heavy physical labour that was the lot of those who didn't have money to pursue their "talents and skillset". Let him face starvation and homelessness, let him toil with the sharecroppers, let him suffer something more than falling under a magical spell that is solved by getting the right girl to kiss him.

Of course, that wasn't the point of the film, and "you can do it if you just try!" is a valuable enough lesson for 21st century children in the west. Just... don't claim that Naveen playing in Tiana's house band is "work". Not when he's clearly back in his family's good graces and probably still the first in line to the throne. I'm a hobbyist who pay a bloody membership fee in an amateur orchestra, with several friends struggling with making a living as pros. Their uncertain income and their day jobs and their being incapable of planning life more than a month ahead is an admirable dedication to their art. It is also a life that is pretty far removed from Naveen's, at any point in the film.