fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #4419 ]

[ SECRET POST #4419 ]

⌈ Secret Post #4419 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Roxane Gay (author)]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Pokemon]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Jonathan Groff in Mindhunter (formerly King George III in Hamilton)]

__________________________________________________

05.

[The ABC Murders]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Zac Efron as Ted Bundy in Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil, and Vile]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Marcus Wareing, Gordon Ramsay - Burning Point (documentary)]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Parks and Recreation, Ben/Leslie]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 51 secrets from Secret Submission Post #633.
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

I'd welcome your interpretation!

"Contributes to the problem" - one factor out of many, I'd assume. The phrase definitely doesn't indicate that it's the sole cause, or even the main cause. I wrote another comment that listed some well known serial killers who enjoyed the fame they received from their crimes. Glorifying serial killers by touting their cleverness, their seeming invincibility, their catchy names, etc. would likely appeal to people with a narcissistic streak. Will it cause people to go out and commit multiple murders if they see a depiction like that? No.

But when you see that some serial killers clearly enjoy their interactions with the media and police and enjoy the public attention, it'd be naive to think that fame isn't a factor.

I'm still so confused as to how a film contributes to serial killing, and it's really frustrating that no one will give me a straight answer.

You've been given plenty of straight answers. Clearly they don't gel with your initial misreading of the secret though, and I suspect that's the real problem, in your view.

DA

Hmm... would you say that, for example, a movie that portrays the Columbine kids or the guys involved in the Bundy standoff or Islamic terrorists as potentially badass, wouldn't lead some crazy people to be like "wait, hey, I could do that?" and do copycat crimes?

Cause copycat crimes are a thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_crime

Granted, these aren't sane normal people in the first place, because no movie or video game or book or whatever drives normal people to kill others. But the glamorization of such people definitely does lead some messed up people to be like, "hey, I could be famous too" in ways that a documentary about what a sad and kind of pathetic thing it was to do, wouldn't, because generally messed up people who want to be famous don't want to be remembered like that.

And you could argue those people were messed up in the first place, but not every messed up person, for example, shoots up a school. But I'm willing to bet one or two might, if such a Columbine movie starring some famous movie stars and looked fun and cool and exciting were made.

Thank you for actually engaging with me instead of just calling me a dumb troll.

I think where I am confused is that I don't see this portrayal as a glamorization or romanticization, and I can't think of any other portrayal I would call a glamorization. Fight Club maybe? American Psycho? They had the same feel as the Bundy trailer, but the message was clearly that these guys were losers behind a hip, shiny facade. Not that say that idiots out there WON'T use the portrayals to glamorize the behavior, but as you say, these aren't normal, sane people to begin with. And I don't think we should refrain from portraying things in entertainment media just because a tiny percentage of the population will miss the point and use it as an excuse to commit atrocities. Although I can see that, yes, this is probably one of many, many contributing factors to why insane people do insane things.

Yeah, that's the thing. Idiots will use this as fodder because they're idiots. Fight Club and American Psycho at least had the facade of being fiction, so these were idiots glamorizing fictional characters... and there is evidence that people did do just that.

But when you apply the same potential baddasery that to a real person who killed real people it gets a lot more set in, well, reality, where messed up people really do go "hey... I could do that in real life, some other real person did it too," you know what I mean? Even if it's because they're idiots and they miss the point that it's supposed to be pathetic.

Yeah, I understand that this film crosses a line for lots of people because the subject is a real person. It does seem they've taken liberties with his story almost to the point of fictionalizing it, but the point remains.

I still don't agree that we should not portray things or only portray things a certain way because otherwise it might give a few idiots bad ideas.

Personally, I don't think things like that should be banned, but I also have no problem with tons of people having a problem with it. I'd feel the same about a film that portrays the Columbine kids as avenging badasses on a cool mission, fwiw.

If they were aiming to make Bundy look pathetic with the trailer, well... they obviously failed to get that message out to a lot of people. And even if they did mean for it to be pathetic, if it left so many people questioning, at what point is it the trailer or filmmaker's fault for failing to communicate their intentions clearly?

I'm reserving full judgment until the movie is actually out and there's a clearer picture of how they do portray the story, but the trailer isn't doing them any favors regarding how people see their taste right now.

You know, I almost have to wonder if that failure was an intentional attempt to generate hype in a cultural environment that thrives on moral outrage...

I'd feel the same about a film that portrays the Columbine kids as avenging badasses on a cool mission, fwiw.

Somehow when you put it that way, I can see your point. Columbine is a lot closer to me than Bundy, I guess. Too soon.

Idk, maybe it was intentional. The movie was bound to be controversial in the first place. On the other hand if the trailer doesn't reflect the content of the movie at all, that would also be weird, so... I don't know.

Like with the Columbine thing, you could argue that avenging cool badasses was how the kids saw themselves, and you'd have a point. If you said it'd be important to show that part, how they built themselves up, that'd be a point too. If someone gave artistic license as a reason for portraying that part and focusing on it in the trailer for shock and hype and marketing then I can't really argue logically against it, that kind of thing isn't illegal and I'd still say that kind of thing shouldn't be banned. But I can't find it unreasonable that a bunch of people would be up in arms, or that they'd be worried it might influence kids who saw it.

What I wonder most about is Bundy being so far back in the past, at least to people born in the 80s and later, after he was dead. People know of him as "one of those serial killer guys" but generally don't seem to know the details of what he did any more. Maybe the point of the movie is to get people to watch it, thinking it'll be fun, and hit them with all the horrible stuff? It's just hard to imagine how it'll be.

Having just watched the trailer, I would say that the main takeaways I got from it were that Ted Bundy was cool, charming, hot, and the protagonist of the movie. Not that he was secretly a loser. Maybe the movie will be different, but based on the trailer, I 100% get why people have a problem with it.

OK, well I think this is a very simplistic and literal way to view it, but you do you.

What do you mean

I mean, yes, that is what the trailer is giving you on the surface. But within the context of the subject they're portraying (a serial rapist/murderer), it appears there's more there.

BUT HEY WHAT DO I KNOW. Maybe you guys are right, and the whole movie will be about how cool and awesome Ted Bundy was for raping and killing a bunch of women.

If so, I gotta say the bowtie alone was an interesting choice.

Even if the movie is totally different, releasing a trailer for it that's cut to give that impression is still very fucked up and worthy of criticizing

Cool, enjoy your criticizing!

I will, you enjoy being edgier than everyone else

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2019-02-09 22:53 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2019-02-09 23:01 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2019-02-09 23:14 (UTC) - Expand

Ted Bundy was cool, charming, hot, and the protagonist of the movie.

Well, yes, that was how he lured his victims: he was a good-looking, polite, charming guy. That was how he got so many women he didn't know to go with him willingly. That was how he avoided suspicion for so long. That was how he had women sending him fan mail while he was in jail.

DA

Hannibal Lecter is supposed to be good-looking, polite, and charming too, and they get that across in the TV series without having him seem like the Bundy trailer though.

I get your point that Bundy is supposed to come across as harmless and nice to his victims and society around him. But portraying him that way to the audience, without adding in the meta story, is a different thing.

But that's just it - we don't KNOW that he's going to be portrayed to the audience that way. All we have to go on is a short trailer, and trailers often leave out important aspects of a film or overemphasize some parts.

Obviously this person who murdered multiple people is neither harmless nor nice. I think the audience can deduce that much for themselves just from the things he did.

DA but you don't have to think that the movie is going to be like the trailer, or that the trailer is going to confused audiences into thinking Ted Bundy actually was a good guy, to think that it was in bad taste.

"Thank you for actually engaging with me instead of just calling me a dumb troll."

/eyeroll

I've and been remarkably patient with your misreading and curious failures to understand points that contradict your claims. If I doubt your sincerity, it's because I have reason to wonder if you're actually for real. FS has been plagued with argumentative trolls lately and every last one of them smelled like this conversation.

It's great someone else was nice enough to humor you, though.

a documentary about what a sad and kind of pathetic thing it was to do

The world needs way more of this for the simple reason that it's more interesting than a serial killer movie that plays out exactly like a "rise and fall" rock-star bio-pic.

Da Glamourizing the behavior and presenting a serial killer in a relatable “outsider” light does feed into mental illness and could legitimize and exacerbate deluded, obsessive thoughts or help incentivize thrill killers. There’s been school shooters who specifically want that blaze of defiant “glory” and attention.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only