[ SECRET POST #4570 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4570 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.
[Stranger Things]


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.
[venruki]






Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 10 secrets from Secret Submission Post #654.
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]

02. https://i.imgur.com/nNU1ceI.png

[(Anonymous)]

It's a Disney remake of a classic film, they were going to make money regardless

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah but they're still going to spend money on advertising it, so clearly the marketing stuff does have some impact on how much money they make

[(Anonymous)]

Sure, but let's not act like Disney isn't interested in maximizing their profit whenever possible.

[(Anonymous)]

ssssh don't point that out, people 'round these parts don't like admitting that these remakes make a shit-ton of money.

[(Anonymous)]

$$$$$>$$

[(Anonymous)]

No rich corporation ever is okay with making a large amount of money if they can get away with making a larger amount of money. Disney will never go, "Oh it's okay, we can just make 200 million dollars, we don't have to do the thing that will possibly earn us 800 million dollars".

[(Anonymous)]

So does her race affect the story or not? If not, then who cares who the director it is.

[(Anonymous)]

This is the dumbest thing I ever heard.

You: "Cast more people of color!"

Them: Casts a woman of color.

You: "You didn't do a good thing!"

Them: .....

I'm neutral on race-bending, but when I first saw a picture of the actress playing Ariel, I was like, wow, that's perfect casting.

[(Anonymous)]

They did a good thing, but they did it for reasons other than it being good, and we shouldn't celebrate them as the driving force of woke progressiveness or anything like that

[(Anonymous)]

I could be wrong, but all those little girls out there who are going to get to see an Ariel who looks like them don't give two fucks if the diversity is just for the money.

[(Anonymous)]

Not gonna lie, I'm guessing this is actually an economic trend. McDiversity. If they cause controversy or make a shit film, they get free publicity, and get to call critics racists or misogynists, regardless of their actual reasons for disliking the works themselves.

Nevermind if the story or work itself is actually good or bad, I see a lot of companies making a point that they're *diverse*, while either rehashing or making a shit story, making the entire point about diversity moot.

The problem with it, is that as soon as it stops becoming lucrative, they will toss all pretense of diversity out the window.

[(Anonymous)]

Let's hope this one and the Mulan remake kill these live actions movies forever.

[nightscale]

Of course it's not done for an entirely genuine reason, they're a multi-billion dollar corporation, turning a profit is always their main focus.

But that doesn't mean that people, little black girls especially, can't like the casting because of it. I'm not going to praise Disney 'till the cows come home for this, but I am happy that black girls and women are getting something potentially positive from it.

Just in general why does this argument only come up when it's a woman of colour(and non-white films as well, I remember seeing this exact same shit said about Black Panther before it came out) being given a role? And never for films like say, Captain Marvel, which were done for the exact same 'trying to make money by appealing to a specific demographic' reasons?

(Whether it's alright on the writing side of things given that it's white directors/writers remains to be seen, but I'll give it that chance before writing it off).

Edit: words

[(Anonymous)]

It means a hell of a lot to a lot of people that a WOC is cast as the titular character in a major film. Of course it's a calculated move by Disney! It doesn't change the fact that we're finally seeing more diversity on screen. I'm just sick of everyone saying that's a bad thing either because they're racist pieces of shit or they're Woke AF who have never lacked representation in media and think they're doing the poor unfortunate minorities a favor by accusing others of not being as woke as them.

[(Anonymous)]

agreed tbh. i would much rather see them do more things like princess and the frog or coco, where the diversity was organic and an actual part of the story rather than just a 'look how progressive we are for casting a black actress as this character.'

[(Anonymous)]

I really do not give more than maybe a tenth of a shit why a business/organization/corporation does a good thing, as long as it's good. If they claim to be doing a good thing, but it turns out to actually be harmful or done with active and discernible ill intent, that's different. But as long as the action appears to be good and the outcome is overall positive and constructive, the motivation really isn't very important to me.

They can have my cookies. They're metaphorical cookies; they're really not hard to make more of; I don't see any reason to be miserly with them.

[(Anonymous)]

Disney is risking the large Chinese market with this casting. I think it's less of a marketing stunt and more of a situation where an in-house actress earned a huge break.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't care why they cast her. She is adorable and has a beautiful voice and I can't wait to see the movie. I will be thinking of the cute little black girl I overheard the other day telling her mother's friend she likes mermaids. Honey, just you wait.

[(Anonymous)]

Not to mention that Disney still has a past of sex abuse scandals, poor treatment of employees, disrespect for fan artists and their gross obsession with getting their hands on everything possible.

So yeah. I still find this "diversity" thing, very superficial as well, anon.

[(Anonymous)]

Who cares. WHO CARES. Are you seriously saying "Disney should have stuck with casting white actresses as white Disney princesses because they're clearly using diverse casting as a marketing tool, duh! We shouldn't look forward to the Little Mermaid movie because Disney didn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts u_u" because that's dumb as fuck.

[(Anonymous)]

Most all inclusion is done superficially nowadays. People will always argue for and against it, but having 'one of' a certain sexuality or race seems to be the norm now rather than for 'true' diversity sake.

[(Anonymous)]

I personally think they have made the wrong choice in making Ariel black, and I think it is 100% only because they are trying too hard to be diverse. Ariel has always been white, all the way back to the blood soaked original tale, and imo always will be.

[(Anonymous)]

Meh, so long as they can stick a red wig on her, who cares.

[caerbannog]

Superficial diversity paved the way for more diversity. No diversity achieves nothing.

I’ll take it. Plus she has a lovely voice.