[ SECRET POST #4681 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4681 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 17 secrets from Secret Submission Post #670.
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)]

We're not talking about documentaries here, we're talking about fictional movies.

[(Anonymous)]

Fictional movies can do what they want. In real movies that claim to be about real people like, for example, William Wallace, historical inaccuracies are objectively flaws. The number and type of flaws that make a movie bad is subjective.

[(Anonymous)]

Even if it claims to be about a historical person, it's still a fictional movie about that person. Filmmakers may choose to go away from the historical record for all kinds of creative reasons and that's a perfectly valid thing for them to do. It's unfortunate that a lot of people get their historical knowledge from movies but that doesn't change movies' ability to do whatever makes most sense creatively.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT, but fictional movies based on a historical time period aren’t usually presented as “writer and director so-and-so’s historical AU,” even when they should be.

[(Anonymous)]

They're fictional movies set in a historical time period or about historical people. They're not ever going to be the literal historical truth. That doesn't make them an AU.