fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #4311 ]

[ SECRET POST #4311 ]

⌈ Secret Post #4311 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 23 secrets from Secret Submission Post #617.
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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

02. https://i.imgur.com/s9ZKe35.jpg

I'm not a fan of that trope, either. It's just... too real to be funny for me, and I think it does enforce that it's normal for men to be relatively un-involved fathers.

Hard same, OP.

I thought the movie did well considering it being a sequel and the massive time between films.

I don't like the trope either, but I feel like to be fair to this movie it's a minor subplot that had a lot more going on around it than just dad learning to parent, and aside from Dash's part, the problems with the other two kids would have troubled the mom just as much if she was there instead.

It's not a perfect movie or anything, and definitely not a necessary addition, but I did enjoy it a lot.

So, the cliché of the dad learning how to stay-at-home parent works for me. Some of Bob's behavior in both movies would be a lot harder to take for me if it was supposed to be set in a modern era.

Do they also feature other historically-realistic attitudes and realities from the period, or just the ones about sexism?

ayrt

Sort of. I mean, the 60s had a mixture of progressive and regressive attitudes that sometimes sat side-by-side with each other and the movie kind of has that too.

How, exactly, do you mean that they sat next to each other in the movie?

Do they have any characters who call MLK a rabble-rouser inventing problems and complaining about desegregation?

Re: It does take place in, like, 1962.

(Anonymous) - 2018-10-24 00:31 (UTC) - Expand

Re: It does take place in, like, 1962.

(Anonymous) - 2018-10-24 01:00 (UTC) - Expand

Re: It does take place in, like, 1962.

(Anonymous) - 2018-10-24 03:18 (UTC) - Expand

Re: It does take place in, like, 1962.

(Anonymous) - 2018-10-24 03:42 (UTC) - Expand

Re: It does take place in, like, 1962.

(Anonymous) - 2018-10-24 23:42 (UTC) - Expand

It does?

1. It does?
2. If so, it's still a 1962 with superheroes and supervillains with advanced technology. The "historical accuracy" argument works as well here as it does with, say, Game of Thrones.

1. Yes.

2. I don't buy that having advanced technology or superheroes or magic means that you have to change certain attitudes and behavior of the era you set it in. Those things can be part of what helps define your setting. I'm fine with Stranger Things being set in the 80s and having the attitudes and behaviors that go along with that and them also having monsters from other dimensions. I was okay with them having super-serum, alien tech, and advanced tech in Agent Carter and there still being attitudes and behaviors from the 40s.

It's just interesting you're willing to suspend disbelief for some things, but not others, is all I'm saying. There's absolutely nothing about this movie series that says "historical accuracy!" or even "real world!" Attempting to justify that it makes sense to have these sorts of storylines in a cartoon about superheroes is a STRETCH.

By the way, it in fact does make sense to have such attitudes and behaviors in Agent Carter because that was the whole point of her arc, particularly in season 1. I have never seen Stranger Things so I can't comment on it. But I honestly am having one hell of a time coming up with any REASONABLE, NECESSARY plot or characterization purpose for misogynistic/patriarchal attitudes in the Incredibles.

Re: It does take place in, like, 1962.

(Anonymous) - 2018-10-24 02:49 (UTC) - Expand

1. Yes
2. You should read some comics actually written in that era. They're full of superheroes and supervillains with advanced technology. And at the end of the day, Western society at large still pushes back against the "stay at home dad" concept. If the movie was set tomorrow, that part of it would still be "historically accurate." Breaking down and normalizing dads as the at-home parent, particularly in entertainment directed at children, is important in the same way that other types of representation are important. Doesn't mean you have to watch it, but it still serves a purpose.

Re: It does take place in, like, 1962.

(Anonymous) - 2018-10-24 23:04 (UTC) - Expand

yeah, I'm tired of that cliche too

Don't worry, 'non. You're not missing anything. That movie was literal shit on a cracker. I can't believe I wasted money going to see it in cinemas.

Ehh, "housewife" is kind of an annoying trope, too, from the first film.

You’re not missing anything. The movie was about as interesting as watching paint dry and telegraphed its twists so hard even a two year old could see it. All it really showed me was that syndrome is really what made the first movie so great.

They both seemed about the same level to me, honestly. Fine films. Not amazing, but fine. I'm guessing if you grew up with the first one and feel loyalty toward it, you'll be biased against the second, but imo it's plot isn't any stronger than the second's.

NAYRT and I haven't seen the second one yet, but I am surprised how... cultish peoples' affection for the first one is?

I mean, I enjoyed it, it was cute. I would happily watch it again, but it's not... ~amazing~ to me?

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2018-10-24 16:20 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

philstar22 - 2018-10-24 16:59 (UTC) - Expand

DA - Agreed. It wasn't anything special, but neither was the first one. And I actually thought the animation was somehow worse.

The Parr family is annoying and dysfunctional AF. I have never been able to figure out why people loved the first one so much. It was basically an hour plus of irritating people shrieking at each other. I can have that experience at Walmart any day of the week for free.

I'm not a fan of that trope either, but I honestly did enjoy the sequel.

Most guys I know find that trope offensive because they know perfectly well how to change their own kids' diapers and so on. It's too outdated to be funny anymore and is just irritating.

As a man whose wife just died, and has to bring up a 7 year old on his own, I really liked that part of the movie. Parenting is hard, and having had to switch to being more and more the major parent as my wife tried to defeat her leukemia was hard as well.

So... it's cliched to you, but for me it's the cliche I'm living.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only