[ 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

[(Anonymous)]

I didn't see any bonds formed in this movie. It was every man for himself.

And being told a story is now being called "spoonfed"? Instead of just bein called, I don't know, a plot?

[(Anonymous)]

*being

[(Anonymous)]

There was a plot. Did you not watch the movie?

[feotakahari]

I haven’t seen this movie, but every time I’ve seen the word “spoonfed” used in relation to fiction, it’s been part of a take that seemed unnecessarily self-congratulatory. Like, the way you consume fiction is not “spoonfed” and is therefore good, but the way this other person consumes fiction is “spoonfed” and therefore bad.

[sparrow_lately]

Idk where you’re getting all that, but all I meant was that there was no natural place in “Dunkirk” for backstory, nor did I need any to care about the characters and what they were doing. A flashback or expositional conversation would have felt forced and been immersion breaking IMO.

[(Anonymous)]

It was about both the formation and breakdown of human bonds in a crisis.