[ SECRET POST #4258 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4258 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________




















03. [SPOILERS for Netflix's Death Note]



__________________________________________________



04. [SPOILERS for Room]



__________________________________________________



05. [SPOILERS for Hap and Leonard season 2]

[Tiffany Mack]


__________________________________________________



06. [SPOILERS for Banana Fish]



__________________________________________________



07. [SPOILERS for Queen of the Sylphs]



__________________________________________________



08. [SPOILERS for Cloak and Dagger]
[WARNING for discussion of sexual assault]



__________________________________________________



09. [WARNING for discussion of suicide, sexual assault, #metoo]

[Anthony Bourdain, Asia Argento]


















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #609.
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)]

Thanks. But, another Robin Hood? How many versions do they need?

[(Anonymous)]

It kinda looks like they are trying to do something very similar to the latest King Arthur movie. And it looks ridiculously bad.

[morieris]

Nothing annoys me quite like people in medieval times wearing suits.

[(Anonymous)]

It looks like they are playing really, REALLY fast and loose with time period/historical accuracy. It also looks like Kingsman: Pseudo-Medieval Fantasy Edition.

[(Anonymous)]

They're trying to make a Guy Ritchie movie without Guy Ritchie.

[(Anonymous)]

That's not really that hard

Guy Ritchie is not that good of a director

[(Anonymous)]

No but that's the point: they're trying to imitate a not-even-that-great director's style for their weird fantasy/grungy/whatever adaption of a classic when that didn't even really work when the not-even-that-great director himself did it.

[(Anonymous)]

IMO that's actually a smart move! Because the fact that Guy Ritchie isn't a great director means that there's room for improvement, and an obvious way to make improvement happen by just getting a more competent director in.

Obviously that uhhhhhh doesn't seem to have happened but I respect the intiative

[(Anonymous)]

I thought it looked fun. But then again, I enjoyed the new King Arthur movie so I don't know what that says about my standards, lol. (Terribly low if you ask my bff.)

[(Anonymous)]

Aw, no. I didn't bother watching the King Arthur movie because the trailer was so bad. :(

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, maybe I should watch it then. I loved that King Arthur movie. :)

[(Anonymous)]

Hollywood sees public domain stories and just completely loses its collective mind about not having to pay licensing fees

[(Anonymous)]

As many as it takes to wipe away the stain of Kevin Costner's bad accent?

[(Anonymous)]

The accent was shit but I still love that movie.
(I blame the fact that I only watched it dubbed for many years and also my teen crush on Christian Slater okay?)

[(Anonymous)]

He had an actual accent different from his normal speaking voice? I didn't notice.

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt

He tried in some scenes, but mostly it wasn't there.