[ SECRET POST #4410 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4410 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Tara Strong as Rikku (Final Fantasy X-2 & Final Fantasy X-2 HD Remaster)]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Stranger Things]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Ash and Alex on The Final Table]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Agatha Raisin mysteries]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Castlevania]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Jessica Jones]


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 10 secrets from Secret Submission Post #631.
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

[meredith44]

So that might tie back to what the other commenter said, about her being a manipulative thief character. Because I fully expect that type of character to have a million plans and contingencies, trying to account for every variable. Like the characters on Leverage. But the difference here, for me, is that in Leverage, those plans (or ending up flying by the seat of their pants) almost always ended up ultimately working out, but for Bela, they almost always didn't. And either the boys outsmarted her (rabbit's foot) or she ended up needing their help anyway (hand of glory). I thought the show actually went out of its way to show the guys were better than she was most of the time. Which I expected, as the show was about the Winchesters, but it made the claims of Bela always being better than they were really weird to me.

I guess I could maybe see it being a tell vs show disconnect? Bela had an attitude and was confident, so people picked up on that instead of the actual actions shown? Or maybe they often focused on the first actions (stealing the rabbit's foot and hand of glory) and either didn't ever want their favorites bested at all, even temporarily (although didn't that happen with other characters too? It's been awhile since I watched the show) or focused more on that than the ultimate outcome? (That's a lot of question marks. I'm obviously still in the confused and wondering stage. :P )

And also, I think the fact that she wasn't a straight-ahead antagonist hurt her in some ways.
I can absolutely understand not liking her character because she isn't black or white in terms of being on the guys' side or against them. That type of character (generally brash/confident often covering a wounded core who is never fully good or evil even if on the "good" side (see also Cara from Legend of the Seeker, Sawyer from Lost, Aeryn from Farscape, Duke from Haven, etc.)) is like catnip to me, and I'm well aware it isn't a type that always works for others. For me it is the Bobby-type character who bores me and I don't care for. But it seemed to go beyond the "I don't like this character/character type" and into a lot more vitriol. And a lot (to me) of ignoring what was actually shown on screen in order to justify the hate.

Also, I think she suffered a lot from being in the same season with Ruby, who has very similar issues in that season IIRC, I think possibly even worse issues.
That also makes sense. I know Ruby and Bela were announced as going to appear at the same time, and people started objecting to both immediately, so they could have been conflated throughout the season.

Thanks for responding. (I forgot to thank the other anon. Other anon, if you are reading, thank you too!) I think I'm going to chalk it up at least in part to the type of character she was, with the confidence and plans as a manipulative thief who was supposed to be a foil to the guys, and people not looking beyond that to see that the guys ended up coming out on top pretty much every time. With some other issues like being announced as a new semi-regular character coming (which a lot of people really didn't want), the writers strike shortening the season so there were fewer episodes to work with, and having Ruby introduced at the same time.

[(Anonymous)]

Bela had an attitude and was confident, so people picked up on that instead of the actual actions shown?

I think it's largely this, and also, like... even when she came out equal or behind, it usually felt like she was all "Ah ha! I'm the one who was victorious here!" So emotionally it rarely felt like those episodes ended on an equal footing.

I can absolutely understand not liking her character because she isn't black or white in terms of being on the guys' side or against them.

And it's not just that she's ambiguous, but that it lines up particularly poorly with being presented as cleverer and more tricksy and smarter than the protagonists. I like the character a lot but they did a reallllly poor job of getting across the "wounded heart" or "likable" or "fallible" ideas, even when the character did fail.

[meredith44]

I think it's largely this, and also, like... even when she came out equal or behind, it usually felt like she was all "Ah ha! I'm the one who was victorious here!" So emotionally it rarely felt like those episodes ended on an equal footing.

Except that is totally what I'd expect that type of character to be like? Acting like they came out on top and all was as they had planned even when it wasn't like that at all. Such as (to use an example of a similar character I listed earlier) Sawyer from Lost still being all cocky and brash in Confidence Man even while and after he was physically tortured and totally lost that round. I guess I just expect people to look at the actual events and not the words and attitudes. Maybe because I like that type of character so I see it a lot? Maybe because that is supposed to be one of the cardinal rules of writing, to show, not tell? IDK.


And it's not just that she's ambiguous, but that it lines up particularly poorly with being presented as cleverer and more tricksy and smarter than the protagonists.

This is where I disagree. I don't feel she was presented as "cleverer and more tricksy and smarter than the protagonists." I feel that the show multiple times presented the boys as being more clever and tricksy than she was. Again, she talked a good game, but they always won, as I would expect with the type of show it was. And yet the fandom was full of people saying that the show was trying to push Bela as smarter and better than the Winchesters and how dare TPTB do that. I do see some of where the disconnect happened with the explanations I was given, but I very much disagree that it was actually presented as such.

they did a reallllly poor job of getting across the "wounded heart" or "likable" or "fallible" ideas, even when the character did fail.
I don't think she was supposed to be seen as a wounded heart. Nor do I think she was necessarily supposed to be stereotypically likeable, especially in terms of characters in canon liking her. And especially given the way SPN presented other female characters. I can possibly understand how the fallible thing failed, though, as I said above, because people might have gone for the character's words rather than the actions. But I'm not sure I can put that as 100% the flaws of TPTB in presenting it poorly given they showed her fail multiple times (in fact, more often than not).

It just seems to be different expectations, viewing styles, and/or character-type preferences, I guess? Which is a better understanding than I had before, so thanks again for engaging with me.

[redclown]

I loved reading this thread and your thoughts about Bela so much that I felt the need to comment from The Future. Bela is the bomb and I wish she got more appreciation from the fandom.