[ SECRET POST #4244 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4244 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.
[Jane Austen's Emma]


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________


















05. [SPOILERS for The 100]

[Monty Green/Harper McIntyre]


__________________________________________________



06. [WARNING for discussion of incest]

[The 100]


__________________________________________________



07. [WARNING for discussion of fictional shota/bestiality/rape]























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #607.
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

Transcript by OP

[fscom]

This is nothing more than a historical reenactment made with your really rich friends.

It's not a movie. It's not a story. It doesn't make any particular point. It doesn't make you care.

If it had entirely focused on the civilians in the Little Ships, now that would have been a movie.

Or how about the female nurses? Why wasn't one of them a main character?

The only good thing about it was the soundtrack.

Re: Transcript by OP

[(Anonymous)]

Your suggestions don't really make sense. If the movie had focused on the civilians or the female nurses, but been directed in the exact same frenetic, action-oriented way without making any changes to the storytelling, then by your metrics it still wouldn't have been a movie. How would swapping out the set of players change anything when the fundamental complaint is about narrative style?