fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #4274 ]

[ SECRET POST #4274 ]

⌈ Secret Post #4274 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 33 secrets from Secret Submission Post #612.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 2 - 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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

What was bad about the movie? I mean, besides the CGI Beast face. Prosthesis would have been so much better.

Here, watch Lindsay Ellis' 35 minute take down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpUx9DnQUkA

Okay I tried, but five minutes in she's still bitching about how dare Disney want to make money.

Ok, so basically the feminist stuff is ill fitting, like, there were many female writers so women reading wasn't a thing.

The Beast never rises up to Belle's level, he was always just there. He's also a literary snob, so they don't bond over that, he just poopoo's her taste in books, then goes "Fuck it, here's better books in my library." instead of "I want to something nice for her, here's a gift"

The servants feel guilty that they didn't raise that boy right and so they deserve to be punished, too.

There's a magical book that takes them to anywhere IN SPACE OR TIME!

I guess? But to me it wasn't a bad movie, because the feminist 'stuff' was like, one line/scene that didn't seem jarring in the context of it being a remake wherein the original Gaston does make fun of her for reading.

It was a little different to me from the original, but to be honest I liked it more because it DID seem weird to me that an 11 year old boy who was probably raised to be a snob gets cursed for... being a snob. This wasn't an adult that should have known better like in the remake.

And I liked the book, tbh. It was a cute addition to me and also kind of cruel to the beast that he could go to these places and stuff, but he'd still never fit in so it didn't matter that he could, he could never get away from his present/situation.

It was a big thing in small, rural areas, tho...... Like. That's why Belle loved the city--it wasn't frowned on. (Hi, I have researched this extensively for roleplay and my own writing! Women writers were often from city or higher-class families, not girls on farms or in small towns where everyone had to work to make things run.)

But is that a gender thing, or a social class and wealth thing? How many male writers from poor, rural families were there? I don't think it was a lot.

Yeah, but women weren't supposed to be reading. That was a Man's Thing in rural towns, women were too busy doing their work around town and caring for the kids. If she was reading, then clearly she wasn't doing enough whereas a man had to read because of multiple reasons, including he would be the one in charge of family finances.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2018-09-17 12:35 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2018-09-17 20:45 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2018-09-17 21:05 (UTC) - Expand

you know, i checked the video out because that didn't sound right and it's not. it's just factually incorrect.

so i kind of suspect you've got some form of bias?

Maybe I do? I dunno, I glazed over when she started talking about CEOs and direct to VHS, and making money.

If you're going to make a video about what you think is wrong with a movie (which is fine, opinions are cool), what on earth does a company's stance on making entertainment have to do with that individual movie, imo.

well you can't not watch the video and then say "well it didn't make any sense!". because she literally explains why she talks about those things.

Disney's financial incentives -> choices about how to make movies

therefore, understanding the financial strategy will help to illuminate what is going on in those movies

It’s laying out background and establishing context in order to better buttress arguments made later in the work. It’s a pretty standard rhetorical technique in academic criticism to lay out the foundation of your position and the background of a work through your particular critical lens before getting into the individual arguments you’re presenting. It gives those individual arguments a stronger base and shores up the overall criticism you’re presenting as compared to waiting to bring that foundation up until after presenting the arguments; people who would reject your basis would reject it regardless of when it was presented, and people who wouldn’t may reject the arguments before hearing their underpinning due to disagreement with the conclusion.

Auto-tuned Emma Watson, Belle's ballgown, first Disney-acknowledged gay character gets maybe one second of dancing with his love interest, Dan Stevens and Emma Watson don't have chemistry, etc.

I'll agree on the dress and her singing. I don't think she's a TERRIBLE singer (certainly better than me, but that's a super low bar, lol) but because the ensemble cast was SO MUCH better than her, her lack of talent in that respect stood out to me even more.

I can't do more than shrug at the dancing thing because he's hardly a main character. They only showed other characters dancing together for a brief moment too.

The point about the dancing thing isn’t just that he didn’t get much time, it’s that Disney leaned heavy on it in the marketing beforehand when it was such a brief, missable moment in the movie. It’s the kind of bait-and-switch inclusion you get _all the time_ when it comes to LGBT representation; it’s a way for studios to have their cake and eat it too, by marketing incredibly minor moments like that to the LGBT community while simultaneously not needing to worry as much about it turning off more regressive people through the work itself, since there’s a good chance it won’t even register to them. It’s basically faux inclusion, like a half-step above queerbaiting.

If it hadn’t had such a marketing push, it probably wouldn’t have been an issue. The issue is that Disney all but bragged about a moment that’s barely even noticeable.

Ah, that's fair enough then. I honestly don't pay attention to marketing before I watch stuff, but if it was marketed as "HEY LOOK HOW INCLUSIVE WE ARE!" and then they only dropped that 0.5 seconds of representation, I could see why people would be upset.

They made a huge song and dance about "omg look we have a canonically gay character in this movie!" which then not only turned out to be the general dumb and ridiculous comic relief character, it was also a "blinknand you'll miss it" thing.

The Gaston song was blink and you miss it?

(no subject)

philstar22 - 2018-09-17 01:24 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2018-09-17 23:07 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2018-10-09 08:27 (UTC) - Expand

They didn't use it in the marketing. The director mentioned it in an interview because he was excited, and it blew up from there. Disney wasn't going around talking about it.

And LeFou being in love with Gaston was a pretty big part of his storyline.

>>And LeFou being in love with Gaston was a pretty big part of his storyline.

Was it, though? I mean, it helps give a little oomph to his motivations for semi-blindly hero-worshipping Gaston, but his actual actions throughout the film aren't so different from the animated version (in my recollection, anyway -- I remember watching for impact and being disappointed).

I love Luke Evans. If you don't mind horror films, watch No One Lives. It's so dark and he's just amazing.

MTE

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only