[ SECRET POST #4274 ]

[case]

⌈ 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.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

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

[(Anonymous)]

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.