fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #5068 ]

[ SECRET POST #5068 ]

⌈ Secret Post #5068 ⌋

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

01.

[19 Days]

__________________________________________________

02.

[Love is Hard for an Otaku]

__________________________________________________

03.

[The Three Investigators books]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Princess Weiyoung]

__________________________________________________

05.

[The Witches]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Watcher Entertainment]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Mike Chen/Strictly Dumpling]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Event Horizon]

__________________________________________________

09.

[19 Days]

__________________________________________________

10.

[The Killing]

__________________________________________________

11. [SPOILERS for Supernatural]

__________________________________________________

12. [SPOILERS for Supernatural]

__________________________________________________

13. [WARNING for mention of rape]

__________________________________________________

14. [WARNING for mention of underage fiction]

__________________________________________________

15. [WARNING for mention of underage fiction]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #725.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

05. https://i.imgur.com/aMXzjy4.png
[The Witches]

I get why people are upset, but I don't entirely agree. I know it's problematic but the design seems to be playing off a birdlike quality rather than anything purposefully offensive. Like there is a clear design in there, they didn't just remove fingers and figure that was good enough.

Eh. Even if they accidentally came up with a design that looks an awful lot like a real life congenital condition, I think people have a right to be upset that their condition is portrayed as something scary and the mark of an evil witch that needs to be hidden away so as to fool innocent people into thinking they're not evil.

They are right to be upset, but the claws and the teeth- I mean I get it, but yeah I guess I shouldn't have said anything.

You're welcome to your opinion. But I think the disability advocates have a point here. The book says nothing about bird-like claws or only having three fingers. That's something the movie decided to add, and frankly, I can understand why the advocates object to having their physical condition portrayed that way. But then, I have all my fingers, so I'm gonna let them make that call.

True, and they definitely do have all the reason and right to believe it. Especially since the book doesn't have those features in the first place. More or less, (and I know this wasn't asked and I'm being a little TMI in this explanation) I think I just have the instinctual reaction to look for other possibilities due to the heavy influence of it around me when growing up.

Like, honestly I've only read an article or two about how the use of their hands triggered and/or offended people with such disabilities. Along with this, and a previous secret's comment on it as well. But I think since it was clearly was not their intention to use the witches hands as a parallel to those with congenital conditions. I do believe they read about the original clawed hands, and decided to merge what else witches are known about- crows. The claws reflect the talons and the missing fingers are, a reference to a close creature counterpart which would be a crow. The thing about witches is that some drastic reveal would need to be obtuse in its presentation for a difference to be noticed. They couldn't have gone with society's classic example of wart-nosed, ugly, hunched woman- And adaptions don't expect most the audience to know the base material.

Yes that was a bad sign, yes people are allowed to be rightfully upset, but from what I read- the reaction of forced apologies and assumed guilt is not how to solve this. Especially when the actress herself if apologizing for something she could not physically have any fault in.
Explanations should have been made, those not accepting blame, but as reasoning for their choice and sincerity in announcing their regret that they offended any all all viewers.

Sorry for the long post, and I know that what I've said doesn't do anything but allow me to vent apparently, but being able to come to an agreement or find a middle ground is increasingly important when in the times so many people speak above others to force an issue before the ones who they're attempting to speak for can actually say their piece. Sorry again for my rambling!

Why does whether it's in the book or not give it a pass? You'd think people bald from chemo or medical conditions would be offended that all evil witches are bald, but I've only ever heard people complain about the hand thing.

....dude people become bald from a whole bunch of things, including deciding to shave their heads. Bad comparison.

I have to admit when I first saw the design I didn't think about this angle, but when the story started to break I did think...actually, I see why this would be upsetting. I don't know what it's like personally but I wanted to listen to people with the experience. I really don't think there's anything wrong with being more sensitive to how we can think about what we may be (even accidentally) implying.

And imo I don't know what was wrong with just keeping uber long nails or something simple like that if they wanted a claw-like look. I know that's what they went with in the 90s film and the new adaption was wanting to go all "our witches are different" but it's not like any one witch story has a monopoly on long nails.

Agreed. I think part of the reason why people are mad is that the book just says witches have long claws. There really wasn't any need to change that, much less change it to something that closely resembles a real physical disability.

I'm not sure what's funny about it? I'm also not sure if we're supposed to be reading this as an implication that the disability criticism has given them a free pass on any racism issues, as if there's a limit on what a movie can be criticized about? I don't know...this just reads to me like you're annoyed that disability critiques have taken away from something you consider to be more important or worthy of backlash.

I think you're bringing some baggage to this secret and reading things that aren't there, while ignoring evidence that doesn't support your theory. OP clearly says that they thought the racial issues were "equally stupid", so no, they're not more important. Maybe slow down, examine your shoulder for any chips and don't be so quick to jump to conclusions?

Not bringing any baggage at all, and also not jumping to any conclusions. The secret literally says "if it hadn't been for the funny (read: not to be taken seriously) complaining about the pointless hand thing, the movie would be getting deservedly criticized for racism.

You: "...you're annoyed that disability critiques have taken away from something you consider to be more important or worthy of backlash."

The secret: "equally stupid" (emphasis mine)

You: "The secret literally says "if it hadn't been for the funny (read: not to be taken seriously) complaining about the pointless hand thing..."

No, the secret does not "literally" say that. It says, "I think it's kinda funny". The difference is that OP isn't calling the complaints funny, they find the criticism the movie is receiving funny. Those are two different things.

It's a little easier to understand what the OP is actually saying if you stop ignoring or misquoting the text of the secret. The fact that you keep doing it makes it look like you've got some baggage you're not aware of, that's preventing you from actually seeing what's clearly being said.

Fine, take out "funny", as that word has many different meanings.

What's CLEARLY BEING SAID is:
QUOTE: If it hadn't been for the hand thing, they'd be getting reamed for [racial issues]...and deservedly so." END QUOTE

If you can give me some reasonable interpretation of this besides OP playing oppression Olympics and thinking race would and should be complained about more but it is being overshadowed by disability concerns... I don't know. Maybe you'd be able to, if you stopped trying to imply I have some sort of personal vendetta against the OP or something, or stopped focusing on one tiny phrase in the secret without reading the rest...

The word "funny" isn't the problem. The problem is you're quite stubbornly misapplying it to the wrong concept because you're still not slowing down and actually reading the secret. Note that it says, "... they'd be getting reamed for that AS WELL" - emphasis mine, because you keep missing the key bits of the text that don't support your pet theory. You also keep moving the goalposts each time I point out that no, what you claim the secret says isn't actually there.

I have no idea why you'd do this so vehemently except that you're determined that your negative interpretation is the correct one, despite the fact that there's no textual support, just your (quite frankly, a little paranoid sounding) assumptions.

My reasonable conclusion is that OP is saying that the hand issue is drawing so much press that people have missed out on the equally (Do you see me using a word that actually appears in the secret instead of making up stuff?) critique-worthy race issues. Because nowhere does it say one is more important than the other - even though you tried to previously claim this and were proven incorrect.

If your reading comprehension were better, you might not be quite so upset at the OP's perceived offenses. Or maybe that's the point?

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2020-11-21 22:50 (UTC) - Expand

I totally agree with this secret. I haven't watched it because it didn't need remade. Anjelica Huston OMG perfection. But I do think as someone who is disabled that this is the hill a lot a lot of people are willing to die on.

I also haven't watched it because of Anne Hathaway. I subscribe to the theory if you took her out of any movie and recast her roll with someone else it would improve the movie. Ann is talented but not THAT talented. She always reminds me of someone who starred in all her midwest high school plays and got a big head over it.

I also haven't watched it because of Anne Hathaway. I subscribe to the theory if you took her out of any movie and recast her roll with someone else it would improve the movie. Ann is talented but not THAT talented. She always reminds me of someone who starred in all her midwest high school plays and got a big head over it.

I've heard people same the same about Mark Walberg. Take any movie with Mark Walberg swap him out for any other actor and instantly you have a better movie.

I loved the original movie and the more I hear about this version, the less I want to see it....

Completely anecdotal but ever since I was little I always loved the villain character the most. As someone born with a limb difference ("Floating" thumb and malformed leg that was amputated when I was like 14 months old), I would have been stoked to see a bad guy who was kind of like me!

When I was a kid the closest I had was my boy skekNa *Points to icon* for amputee representation.

Would you still be stoked if your limb difference was treated like a horrifying deformity that had to be hidden away so it didn't frighten people?

Yes.

But maybe that's how I was raised? I never thought any of my deformities were scary or to be hidden away.

I had a supportive family and was part of a Canadian Organization called CHAMP where kids with limb differences and amputations got together at conferences and hung out. We were all very open with our differences.

Knowing me when I was a lowercase q I probably would have thought she didn't have to hide. And also she shouldn't turn kids into mice and squish them.

I don't think it's about being raised to view physical deformity as scary, it's about objecting to mainstream media treating it as such. Even if a person has this particular condition and grew up in a supportive environment, they might still logically object to having it vilified.

DA - yes, I agree with this. Anecdotal stories are anecdotal, but I have a condition that is only ever portrayed in TV/film/books as something tragic or as something to mock, especially because it often appears during early adolescence. My parents and family never acted like this and helped me develop a very positive attitude about it. So, I actually find it more annoying whenever I see it once again being treated the same boring way by Hollywood, and it's not even something that is used as a shorthand signal or "origin story" for villainy, as disability often is.

This looks like a weird drag parody of Lady Gaga

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only