[ SECRET POST #4697 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4697 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.
[Legend of Korra]


__________________________________________________



05. [SPOILERS for Death Note]



__________________________________________________



06. [SPOILERS for RWBY]
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #672.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

03. https://i.imgur.com/GKEsTbY.png

[(Anonymous)]

Yup. That was #RealDumb

[(Anonymous)]

I honestly thought it was a joke when I first heard about it happening.

OP

[(Anonymous)]

I really wish it was...

[(Anonymous)]

That entire movie was dumb as hell BUT I LOVED IT despite it really being utter trash. It was just so fun while being moronic. So bad it's good? I don't know. It worked for me.

Justice League, on the other hand, I couldn't stand.

OP

[(Anonymous)]

I really wish that I could enjoy it in that way, but ughh! I can't get past it!

[rosalinecapulet]

I mean the *actual* reason was that hearing his mother's name triggered Bruce into remembering how he felt when his parents were killed and that, combined with seeing Lois defending Clark, made him realize that he was about to kill an innocent and he stopped because he didn't want to become the same murderer of innocents that he fights against, but to each their own.

Not that it was done perfectly, as proven by the number of people who continue to not get it, but making fun of a character with ptsd for having trauma responses wasn't funny in 2016 and it's not funny now.

[(Anonymous)]

Or maybe making fun of bad writing and direction as it pertains to a ridiculous scene involving completely fictional characters is not actually indicative of how anyone feels about mental illness in the real world, you complete knob.

[rosalinecapulet]

It doesn't necessarily reflect real attitudes, but the refusal to let discussion of this scene go beyond "lol MARTHAAA" without getting defensive of the (tired a week after release and just groan worthy now, three years and an entire recast later) jokes and deciding that someone who wants to examine the reasons this discussion tone makes them uncomfortable is a "complete knob" is definitely worth talking about.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT, but I think the reason AYRT reacted so aggressively to your comment was because it seemed very aggressive too. You seem to imply that everyone who finds this scene ridiculous is some sort of unsympathetic monster who is mocking somebody's trauma, when the truth is that most people's thought process never when farther than "cringeworthy scene, let's laugh at it."

OP

[(Anonymous)]

I get that, but Batman's whole purpose is that he doesn't kill people because he knows what it's like to be the one left behind. He doesn't murder, he doesn't kill. Not to those who do wrong, and especially not to someone like Superman especially.
It's not about PTSD, or any kind of trauma. It's just a severe misunderstanding of the character and what he stands for... Not every victim needs to go on a murderspree to learn the value of life. Having a single name be that spectacularly stupid breaking point is the worst way to bring that narrative home.
Realistically, the moviemakers just realized both of their mother's had the same name, and wanted to show a 'hey guess what' moment in the most idiotic of fashion...
aka bad writing, with a topping of 'does not know the characters involved', mixed with a hard shot of premium bullshit.
There's having pure OOC fun, like with the Micheal Keaton movies. And there there's Batman Vs. Superman, where, honestly... What was even the point?

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

+100

Re: OP

[rosalinecapulet]

Honestly I kinda took a similar "pure ooc fun" angle with this movie because I went in knowing that this was an adaptation of specifically Frank Miller's Batman. So for me it's less "does not know the characters involved" and more "you've chosen to adapt what I consider the worst possible base version of the character but at least you're doing what you set out for I guess." (Which is also how I view the "especially not to someone like Superman" thing, which normally would be true but this version of Bruce does have a much more legitimate reason to think of Clark as a threat than most others, so stupid and contrived as it might be for them to have such instant hateboners, I do kinda understand through the lens of Batfleck's characterization.)

For me it also helps that it's called out in-universe a few times that the level of violence is unusual for this version of Bruce, which allows me to think of this movie as just one stop on what would've probably been a longer arc for Bruce with the original plan. Definitely not what I would've chosen for the character in a million years, but I was just glad they tried, both to give Bruce an arc in a movie this packed and to take his character somewhere new even if it's maybe not the best territory. Which I guess brings me to my real problem with this "their moms have the same names" line, it dismisses the idea that there could be something interesting going on here, or at least an attempt at something interesting.

[(Anonymous)]

1. clark is the first one who groans marthaaaaaa, so if any one character in the scene is being mocked (rather than the entire decision and production staff who set up this climactic moment of conflict and trauma and reconciliation to be this clunky and ridiculous) it's kinda him, not bruce

2. we all get it, it's about as subtle as an anvil to the head. that doesn't make it any more palatable for people who value execution in their entertainment along with vague thematic intentions. hell, the star wars prequels have rock solid thematic structure full of severe trauma and abuse and grooming etc. but the actual dialogue is hilarious and clunky and not remotely in the realm of how actual humans express extreme emotions, breaking the suspension of disbelief about all that serious shit. And that makes them pretty bad movies. same goes for BvS.

2b. It's So Sad People Don't ~Get It~, aka If You Were Smarter You'd Agree With Me, is basically never going to be a good look or get you anything other than pushback.

Like, don't get me wrong, there's stuff I think a lot of people are idiots about, but I don't put it that way in public forums when I'm trying to make a point that I think matters.

[rosalinecapulet]

1. I guess in theory that’s true? But most of the jokes I’ve seen have centered around Bruce’s “Why did you say that name?” response and how his mom’s name was the turning point for him, with references to Henry’s (admittedly rather awkward and hard to defend) delivery being used only to make it clearer what scene they’re talking about

2. As I said in the original comment, to each their own I guess. I thought the dialogue was no more unnatural than the “philosophy major writing their first script” style that everyone loved so much in the Nolan films, but that’s just kinda what I’ve come to expect from modern Batman movies so I have a degree of leniency that I know not everyone will give this movie.

2b. It’s not “you’re not smart enough to get it,” it’s that this movie is so often being analyzed using blatant untruths about the actual nature of its contents (which I’m sure will get the usual “it’s just a joke” response but I’ve seen a decent number of people who think that their moms both being named Martha is literally all that’s going on here, and that’s what “the number of people who still don’t get it” refers to)

[(Anonymous)]

1. fair enough, I guess we've seen different parts of the conversation.

2. I'm not in love with the Nolan movies myself either, and I don't disagree with your description, but I think there's definitely...different flavors and levels of unnatural writing? Like, for the most extreme possible example, all shakespeare is profoundly unnatural in its speaking rhythm, but the internal logic and poetry and precision of it (and well-trained delivery, otherwise oof) make it still evoke really engaging characters. And the nolan movies are definitely...like, pretentious and kind of cold, emotionally and philosophically shallow, but it's not the same kind of lurching, bloatedly absurd (and in the places where it almost should be, Heath Ledger mostly carries it). They're also both super bombastic about their own importance, but Zack Snyder has such a lurid visual style that the clunkiness of the writing clashes extra hard with the framing and the set-up, whereas Nolan makes cold puzzle box movies that have cold puzzlebox dialogue inside them. It might not be to my taste, but at least it's not as jarring, because it all goes together.

I'm not blaming this entirely on Snyder, btw - I think it's 95% certain that some of the dialogue was That Way in that scene because of studio mandates. But it's still the wrong payoff for the set-up. And it's supposed to be the payoff, the single most important emotional climax and reversal of the whole movie. And when you execute that badly, the disappointment and dislike is always going to be higher than a film that's consistently working at a particular level, where the setups and payoffs match.

2b. again, I guess we've just seen different parts of the conversation. but there's idiots in every conversation, and I just want to point out that even for the people who absolutely do get it, "we wanted to do something deep but ended up with this mess about names instead" just doesn't save it. And if there are people who are discussing the Names Things because that's all they bothered to put in the movie itself, you don't actually know every time whether they "get it" or not. They might "get it" perfectly well but discount it because, again, it's not actually in the work they're discussing.