[ SECRET POST #4511 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4511 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 34 secrets from Secret Submission Post #646.
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

[fscom]

05. https://i.imgur.com/wp62XrQ.png

[(Anonymous)]

I honestly don't understand what movie you watched, and I don't understand what you want, because in the movie I watched, it was crystal fucking clear that these two people used to be in love.

[(Anonymous)]

Did they say it though.

[(Anonymous)]

Is that what you wanted? You wanted Dumbledore and/or Grindelwald to outright say, "we were in love"?

[(Anonymous)]

It was the second of a five movie arc. Dumbledore was barely introduced in it. Give them time.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, this. I frankly don't know how else those scenes could have been read. It was obvious that Dumbledore was in love with him, the acting and directing was clear on that point without needing a narrator to clarify things.

[(Anonymous)]

Romantic love? I am genuinely asking as I haven't seen the most recent movie

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, thank god Jude Law is a good enough actor that we don't have to make anyone uncomfortable by stating that Dumbledore loved a man. Because, as we all know, the only way we ever know someone is in love is because of an awkwardly-inserted narration.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, the only way you could NOT catch on to the fact that they were in love was if you had your head buried completely in the sand. Even my grandmother picked up on it and she's generally totally blind to subtext.

[(Anonymous)]

Because you were looking for it, perhaps? Because we are fandom people and already know this was part of the character and so interpreted the scenes as (maybe) intended?

I'm a huge Potterhead. I watched this movie in theater. It was long and chaotic and chock full of storylines and characters careening from one end of the English Channel to the other. Scenes dipping into the past rifling through various characters' memories willy-nilly. Magical spells going boom and bang every couple of beats. I think Dumbledore appeared maybe three times in the movie, and when he talked about Grindelwald he said they were like "brothers". You get a flashback of their younger selves (played by different actors) doing some kind of blood ritual, which becomes a plot device.

None of those tropes are inherently or even specifically romantic. They've all been done before within the context of totally platonic relationships. An uninitiated viewer -- and these are the people we're trying to reach here -- will for sure miss the intent among all the flashing special effects and confusing new characters being shoved into the story. There's a time for a nuanced touch, and there's a time when you beat it over their heads, and considering the film this turned out to be, I know what would have been more effective.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm gay and frankly still baffled on what Rowling did wrong at all. I think it was awesome that she announced that Dumbledore was gay, and I have no reason to doubt when she said she had envisioned him that way when writing him. She's not obligated to stick in a gay romance, there's no quota or something. Would it have been nice if HP had some in-text nods to gayness? Sure! But it's not somehow homophobic that it didn't, and it's still a net positive that Rowling went on record with Dumbledore's sexuality.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think it was morally wrong but I think it was a little chickenshit, and it bothers me when people overstate how much she actually did do.

[(Anonymous)]

yeah, it's like a fic writer headcanon - it's there, in the writer's head as a character's background, and it doesn't /need/ to be in the text.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, a major character in a hugely popular series being gay is exactly the same as a character preferring black coffee in a fic. Yep. Totally.

[(Anonymous)]

For the new movies, it's not "sticking in a gay romance", it would literally just be stating that the existing romance, you know, existed. One memory/flashback shot of a kiss. A single line saying "I loved him". She doesn't need to retroactively insert a sex scene into the 6th Harry Potter book, but we're making new media now and she's running out of excuses.

[(Anonymous)]

It's not "wrong" so much as "tired." Tired of writers, directors, actors, and artists dropping gay headcanons on the interview circuit knowing that it will never go through the editorial and production process. Tired of being good enough for TV, comics, and novelizations but not for the big screen. Tired of fans making excuses for why Rowling held back when fucking Marvel beat her to it in a middle-grade imprint no less. Tired of Disney/Marvel/Lucasfilm saying "wait for the next movie" or "they're already here, just not explicit" for most of the last decade. Tired that we're still talking about Dumbledore and not the better characters and better stories.

[(Anonymous)]

The timing for this is genuinely hilarious to me - in the most recent episode of Arthur, a mainstream children's cartoon, the children's teacher marries another man.
But yeah, sure, Dumbledore saying "We were bros" is A+ representation. Definitely.

[(Anonymous)]

Group 1: We want Dumbledore to say, out loud, that he was in love with Grindelwald.
Group 2: But they made significant eye contact! SIGNIFICANT EYE CONTACT!!! What more do you want??? Them 69-ing on screen???

Folks, you can say as much as you like that you feel it was clear enough, but try not to be quite so goddamn disingenuous.

[(Anonymous)]

Fucking thank you

[(Anonymous)]

With all Hollywood films depicting gay people they now face an often impossible obstruction - they want to sell the films to China. All lgbt material has to be easily editable out without ruining the plot.

It's the moral cowardice of Hollywood you should be angry at here.

[(Anonymous)]

You say that as though there’s actually any significant lgbt content to be edited out in most mainstream Hollywood movies lol.

[(Anonymous)]

Are you saying that all the major movie production companies have to use China as a gateway to get anything done? No non-asian produced movies allowed? We're in a moral ghetto just because JKR didn't give out enough representation goodies last time anyone heard from her?

I'm sorry/not sorry, but that attitude reeks of entitlement. No one person is going to fulfill anybody's wish list - movie or otherwise - short of a telepathic link to the supposed collective mindset you're describing.

TL:DR Your laundry list of what the movie industry should be doing in the name of representation is long, contradictory, and confusing.

[(Anonymous)]

But that is what people are angry about. To whom are you directing this argument? Yes. The people making the movies don't want to have gay representation because they think it would cost them money. That's exactly the point.

[(Anonymous)]

I guess I just wish we could skip ahead to when gay characters didn't have to be as explicit in their text as straight couples on-screen. There are so many stories where it's understood that these two people are together and they never once have to say they love each other or things like that.

Signed, a big ol' lesbian

[(Anonymous)]

There are so many stories where it's understood that these two people are together and they never once have to say they love each other or things like that.

Are there though? Name a recent mainstream work where that's true.