[ SECRET POST #4246 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4246 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 27 secrets from Secret Submission Post #608.
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 you don't think they should have kissed, sure, fair enough, go off. I think it is kind of shoehorned in there.

But I don't think that you should treat the kiss as the point of the broader Finn & Rose storyline in the movie TLJ, and judge everything that they do on the movie on the basis of whether or not it adequately leads up to the kiss, because that's just not the point of what they're doing in the whole rest of the movie. The storyline is about something else, and happens to feature romantic feelings and a kiss.

[(Anonymous)]

Arguing that other people shouldn't develop opinions on a movie because they're not according to YOUR guidelines of how the movie ought to be judged us going to be a non starter.

[(Anonymous)]

I feel like you're completely misconstruing our complaints? Like. no, nothing they do beforehand leads up to the kiss, and it has nothing to do with the rest of their themes. Yes. Yes, that is exactly the thing I dislike. Because like it or not, a dramatic double-sacrifice, grand thematic one liner, and then a surprise kiss are all movie language for "this is the culmination of this whole thing." And it doesn't sit right.

I like the Finn&Rose subplot. I like it a LOT. I like that there's actual space to grow between 'cares about his friend' and 'cares about this wider cause' instead of there being only one homogenous 'not evil anymore therefore Good Guy' moral option, and that it gets explored. I like the casino as a new inverse hive of scum and villainy. I think DJ and Rose and Finn set up some great moral and thematic foils, and also that DJ is just incredibly fun. I love the shit out of the girl-frees-abused-wild-animal-rampage fantasy sequence, I think it's powerful and shameless and great and fun. I love the "rebel scum" moment. I like how all their failures combine to enhance the main theme.

It was a great adventure plotline. But it either was not a romance plotline/had romances chunks thrown in, or it was a great adventure plotline and simultaneously a really shitty romance plotline, and I think the difference between those two descriptions is almost entirely semantics. And either way, I wish they could have just let the great adventure plotline be itself with the shoehorned romance. Even if they're going to pick up camaraderie from the adventure plotline to develop into romance later, they shouldn't put romance in when they haven't developed it, and I think trying to do so actually weakens the strength of the adventure plotline, because it retrospectively makes me go...."did I miss something? was all that moral back-and-forth growth just supposed to be UST? what actually was happening here?"

And I think that's a shame.

[(Anonymous)]

I think, fundamentally, that it's a great adventure plot with an extraneous kiss in it. And I agree that the kiss is bad! But I don't think that you should ignore the good adventure plot, and it seemed like OP was writing off the actual plot elements that were there, and instead just evaluating them on the fact that they weren't romance elements. The fact that the movie tempts people to understand the storyline through the lens of the kiss is a problem with the movie, especially because that absolutely isn't the way that the storyline is actually set up.

To my mind, it's not a badly done romance at all, it's a well-done adventure storyline with a kiss in it. And I don't think it's a semantic difference *at all*, it changes the whole way that you understand and view the storyline. OP seems like they're approaching it like the problem with the story was that it wasn't romantic enough, and I just don't think that's accurate to what happened in the movie. The way to fix the issue is not to have more romance. The way to fix that is to have less kiss.

[(Anonymous)]

I think you're seriously reading this into the secret when it isn't there.

"What I hate is that this movie....seems to feel the need to include a romance in their action film, but they don't bother taking the time to write a decent one."

"the need to include a romance" and "not a decent one" are JOINTLY the problem. It could be fixed EITHER by better emotional development of the romance as a parallel or support to the adventure (which some movies can pull off! which some star wars movies have pulled off! YMMV by taste obviously).

"IF they're going to do it, at least do a good job, dammit..."

Nowhere in the secret does it say anything about the quality of the storyline otherwise. Because the secret's not about that! And TBH given the high pressure for four-factor appeal in blockbusters, they probably wouldn't be allowed to drop the romance element entirely. But I don't see anything in the secret that 1) denigrates the storyline in general or 2) would object to less kiss as the solution. It just sounds like they're resigned to kiss probably existing. And in that case it's perfectly reasonable to wish it were done better.