[ 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)]

Not caring about historical exactitude is a choice.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT—and in my view, not caring about historical fact—not even necessarily exactitude, but just basic shit like “no new world crops in Europe prior to 1492” is lazy unless the creators have a creative/artistic reason beyond “eh we dgaf.”

[(Anonymous)]

You don't have to enjoy it but it's not an objective fault with the work, it's something that you personally dislike.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT—we’re talking about film here. What in your view constitutes and objectively faulty movie? If you (is it you?) keep saying that the only purpose of film is to entertain, and I’m not entertained by a film, is it only not bad if someone else enjoys it more than I disliked it?

If you hated a movie for being ridiculously scrupulous about dye colors and period background music and appropriate livestock and period-accurate given names etc, and I loved it because I found it entertaining and you found it a snoozefest, would it be a successful movie?

[(Anonymous)]

In general, I think the closest thing to an objective standard to evaluate movies is how well the movie achieves the aesthetic goals that it sets out to achieve. If accuracy and realism are aesthetically important to what the movie is trying to do, and the movie fucks it up, then in those cases, it would be a reasonably objective critique to point it out (obviously, it's also difficult in practice to determine what a movie is in fact setting out to accomplish). It's when the lack of realism is an aesthetic problem that interferes with the larger creative thrust of hte movie.

Then on the other hand, you can also critique what a movie is trying to accomplish aesthetically, what its goals and its creative purpose is - but at that point, it's really a subjective critique.

And I think usually, when people make this kind of argument, they're usually doing the second thing - critiquing a movie for being unrealistic when it has no bearing on what the movie is actually trying to do creatively. So I would consider that subjective. And sometimes a person will hate a movie even though it's creatively successful (this is how I feel about most Kubrick movies, for example), or like a movie even if it creatively fails. So to answer your question -

If you hated a movie for being ridiculously scrupulous about dye colors and period background music and appropriate livestock and period-accurate given names etc, and I loved it because I found it entertaining and you found it a snoozefest, would it be a successful movie?</i? You loving it and me hating it, both of those are subjective reactions that don't have a bearing on whether the movie was successful or not.

[(Anonymous)]

+1