[ 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

[(Anonymous)]

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

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, actually. It would take all of a single second, presumably while they're already discussing their history with each other. Or would that that be absolutely impossible?

[(Anonymous)]

It would be unbelievable to me if either of them openly discussed their history with each other.

I know you don't agree. I know you don't care. I know you want your representation no matter what. I don't. I want believable characters and a slow reveal. So it feels pointless to discuss further.

[(Anonymous)]

You're damn right I want my representation no matter what, because right now I have to beg for scraps. But so sorry, pardon me for thinking "I loved him" is a believable thing for a person so say in a movie full of magical creatures. My bad.

[(Anonymous)]

Why do you think it would be unbelievable?

[(Anonymous)]

They're both private people, Dumbledore especially. They both regret and resent the relationship. They are both trying their best to forget they ever had those feelings at all - and failing spectacularly, as the film showed us, in what I consider an organic and remarkably clear and undeniable way.

[(Anonymous)]

And there's no way that you could have an unambiguous reference that worked with those factors? It's literally impossible?

[(Anonymous)]

Again, I do not understand what movie you watched because there was nothing ambiguous about the relationship in the one I watched.

[(Anonymous)]

So your take is that it is not at all open to interpretation?

(also, for the record, I'm a different anon than the other anon)

[(Anonymous)]

Obviously every detail of media is up for interpretation.

In this case, if the viewer fails to interpret the relationship as romantic, I think they have willfully missed some clues. Anvil-sized clues.

[(Anonymous)]

This. If one of them were a woman, everyone would be talking about how obvious the ship was.

[(Anonymous)]

DA but one of them is not a woman, and there is no actual queer representation in this series.

[(Anonymous)]

But if people would be agreeing it were a canon relationship if it were straight, then wouldn't it be just as much queer representation if it's queer?

[(Anonymous)]

No, because gay relationships don't have the body of text that make subtext like that useful. Gay relationships have ALWAYS only been subtext, not actual canon. This is a canon relationship that has every reason to NOT be subtext and yet here it still is being kept on the DL. It's not the same at all.

[(Anonymous)]

I think what people want is gay relationships that are as shoehorned-in and sloppily portrayed as het relationships. Their bar is low indeed.

[(Anonymous)]

You know, I'll settle for a shitty gay romance if it means we actually get to see one in a major movie.

[(Anonymous)]

Fair.

I won't.

[(Anonymous)]

So you'll settle for no gay relationships on screen? Good for you, I guess.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

Grow up.
Escapism willfully mixed with realism is what was being aimed at in this movie.
If you can't stand two grown men in a painfully uncomfortable social situation pointedly NOT talking to each other, you're going to find numerous movies "problematic" and awful.
If you want genuine gay characters relating to each other on screen, you must understand that they are going to have multiple points of view, multiple ways of coping with their desires and actions, and multiple resolutions to their story arcs.
Your bizarre insistence that there are only a few ways of getting this done is limiting your ability to look at gay characters in fiction, period.

[(Anonymous)]

Gotta keep the gayness out of family friendly movies! Think of the children!

*Even though Crimes of Grindlewald had implied rape and baby murders

[(Anonymous)]

What I'm saying is, the characters themselves think their relationship is strange. It makes THEM uncomfortable. That's why they don't talk about it in explicit terms.
This isn't about censorship.
Besides, if you had a stupid ex that was trouble from the very start, would you confess about it in gory sensationalist detail to anyone?
I sincerely doubt it.
But I guess you don't think gay characters deserve any character development, do you?

[(Anonymous)]

How is something as simple as "I loved him" gory or sensationalist? It's a statement of fact.

None of this is about character development, especially not in THIS franchise, god

[(Anonymous)]

In context of what has actually been said in text and onscreen, JKR has been far less coy about Aberforth’s goat fetish than Albus’s entirely consensual relationship with another human being. But sure, it’s all about avoiding that nasty sensationalism.

[(Anonymous)]

Why not? If neither of them actually said that they were in love in the movies people can argue that they’re heterosexuals.

[(Anonymous)]

Ding ding, there it is!