[ SECRET POST #5469 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5469 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 40 secrets from Secret Submission Post #783.
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]

04. https://i.imgur.com/WBi6v68.png

[(Anonymous)]

Well I wish the new fans wouldn't barge into the places old fans hang out to scream about why we are wrong. Let us quietly ignore the new material in peace, and we'll let you enjoy it in piece. And the same goes for creators, if you want us to just shut up and enjoy the old stuff, then stop shredding the old material with your new material. There is a trend in fandom right now for creators to be so worried that people will just stick to the old material and not pay attention to the new material, that they feel they have to overwrite it or jam their new material into the old canon so that people who rather would just quietly stick to the old stuff cannot do so without encountering the new.

The old stuff will still be there for you to enjoy, they say, but lets face it; Jimmy Saville's old shows are still there too, but you can't look at them without knowing what he did. So fuck you Chibnall and Kurtzman, fuck you in the face with Jimmy Saville's dead dick.

[(Anonymous)]

Thank you. I am so tired of being dictated to about what and how I should feel about new stuff. Or being told to be quiet if I'm not gushing and exploding positivity about the new stuff because we can't be nEGatIvE.

[(Anonymous)]

How did Chibnall stop anyone from enjoying older Who? Who canon has changed all the time. I don't necessarily like some of Chibnall's changes, but this seems like such an extreme reaction for something that basically every Who showrunner has done.

[(Anonymous)]

shut up, Bill Cosby.

[(Anonymous)]

WTF? What on earth does Cosby have to do with Chibnell?

[(Anonymous)]

DA, but the fuck is your problem?

[(Anonymous)]

Well I wish the new fans wouldn't barge into the places old fans hang out to scream about why we are wrong. Let us quietly ignore the new material in peace, and we'll let you enjoy it in piece.

In my opinion, general fandom spaces are better by far when they're not full of endless edition-warring over which version is right. That doesn't mean that there can't be any criticism ever, but nothing is worse than when a general fandom space gets overrun with people bitching about how They Changed It And Now It's Bad. It destroys all productive conversations for everyone. The best is when people can be reasonable and just allow each other to have different opinions on what's good and what's bad. And absolutism about how the new version is garbage and everyone who likes it is a dumb idiot babby is completely incompatible with that.

Sometimes the volume of discussion of new stuff is overwhelming and so it makes sense to have a devote fandom space for new stuff. But if you really want a community that's devoted to hardline opposition to any new stuff, and you can't coexist in a fandom space with fans of new stuff, you should probably make a separate fandom space for that and not try to keep the fandom space exclusive to old fans. And I say this as someone who has been on both sides of this thing. It's completely ridiculous to think that you have an absolute right to keep fans of the new version of the thing out of the fandom.

The old stuff will still be there for you to enjoy, they say, but lets face it; Jimmy Saville's old shows are still there too, but you can't look at them without knowing what he did. So fuck you Chibnall and Kurtzman, fuck you in the face with Jimmy Saville's dead dick.

I can't comprehend any part of this. I cannot comprehend the idea that, because someone made Star Trek Into Darkness, you can't go back and enjoy Star Trek TOS the same way you could before. Literally nothing about the existence of Star Trek Into Darkness effects your enjoyment of the original stories in any way. There's no reason they should even have to enter your mind at any point. The things are wholly unconnected. If you really have such a grudge against the new Star Trek movies that they enter your mind unbidden when you go back to watch Space Seed, I really feel like that is a very personal problem and not a general thing.

And I really don't understand, and I have to assume you don't mean, that anything Chibnall or Kurtzman did is comparable to what Jimmy fucking Saville did. I mean, god damn.

This.

[(Anonymous)]

All of this.

[(Anonymous)]

They did the same thing Savile did. They recontextualized the past with new information. That recontextualilzation means that just going and ignoring new stuff and enjoying the old is no longer possible. So requests to just go and enjoy the old and ignore the new, when they specifically set out to make that impossible by recontextualizing that old material, is really fucking disingenuous and you fucking know it. So take your bad faith arguments and get bent.

[(Anonymous)]

They did the same thing Savile did. They recontextualized the past with new information.

One, that's not really what Savile did. Savile did much worse stuff than that. You keep framing this argument in a way that seems to directly equate Jimmy Savile sexually abusing hundreds of people with Star Trek Into Darkness being an extremely bad movie. I assume that this isn't what you mean, but it's what you keep saying and it's a very fucked up thing to say.

Two, to respond to what I think you do mean - there's a huge difference between the kind of recontextualization involved in the two cases. There's a huge difference between knowing that someone involved in a work did incredibly evil things in real life that hurt real people in real life, and knowing that there are other, later, different versions of the same story, or sequels to the same story, in other fictional works. There is a difference in scale and in essence.

That recontextualilzation means that just going and ignoring new stuff and enjoying the old is no longer possible. So requests to just go and enjoy the old and ignore the new, when they specifically set out to make that impossible by recontextualizing that old material, is really fucking disingenuous and you fucking know it.

It literally is possible; I know that it is possible because I can do it. I am watching Star Trek: TOS right now despite knowing that they made Star Trek Into Darkness (one of my most hated movies ever). It absolutely is possible to enjoy the old stuff even knowing about the existence of later bad stuff. I don't see any reason that the new context of new versions of the same characters is inescapable and all-powerful and has to prevent you from enjoying the old. Anymore than bad episodes of original Star Trek, or bad Star Trek original flavor movies, stop me from enjoying the episodes of original Star Trek that are good. STID is only one of many contexts that you can use when watching the original series.

[(Anonymous)]

+1

Well said.

[(Anonymous)]

Let us quietly ignore the new material in peace, and we'll let you enjoy it in piece.

I was going to say "that hasn't been my experience at F!S" but your typo kind of makes it true.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

The issue with my fandom is that the fans of the new material won't let the fans of the old material ignore the new stuff in peace.

[(Anonymous)]

So pissant bitching is your happy place. Got it!

[(Anonymous)]

I couldn't agree more

[(Anonymous)]

My problem with adaptation is the lying. Like when Lauren Hissrich was swearing up and down in every tweet and interview that the new Witcher will be a word-for-word adaptation of the books, and then created a show, which bears little to no resemblance to the books, and changes not only the story, but also backstories, personalities, arcs and relationships of major characters.

Or when the creators of the new Masters of the Universe reboot released a trailer that made it seem like it's about He-Man, but when the actual cartoon came out it turned out to be about a new character, with He-Man only playing a supportive role.

In both of those cases, had the creators been upfront about the changes, the fans of the original would have raged at first, but they'd have eventually accepted the fact that the show was never intended to be for them. But nobody likes to feel baited into raising awareness and hype for an adaptation that only pretends to be made for them. It shouldn't be a surprise that this kind of advertising tactic ends with a massive disappointment.

[(Anonymous)]

If Smith had just said his MoTU show was another new take, or was a continuation of the 2002 show, then nobody would have cared what he did. It was the way he said it was the OG continuation that hacked everyone off. In truth he pretty much killed his show's chances with that one. People liked the OG show because of its campiness and contrivances, not in spite of them. It was the absolute wrong show to bring his usual semi-trolling the audience style of filmaking all over.

[(Anonymous)]

This for the Witcher. :0( I'm a huge book series fan, and I was overall fine with the changes to s1 (I only had issues the changes to Cahir) because changes are necessary in adaptions to a different medium. But s2 was just...so so different from the source material, and for no purposeful reason that I could find. Which would be fine, I would have just not watched it, but they really sold the series as being faithful to the books. It was very disappointing, especially as the changes made were to make it even more bleak and more like GoT at the expense of characterization.

[(Anonymous)]

Calling it lying is a bit of a bad faith way to look at it. Did Lauren Hissrich make those tweets early on? Maybe originally the plan was to make the show faithful to the books, and it changed as production went on. At best, you could say she should have tweeted that things had changed and that the old tweets about being faithful were no longer relevant, but not making those tweets doesn't make the old ones suddenly lies. What makes a lie a lie is that it's deliberate. Things changing so something that was once true is no longer true doesn't make the old statement a lie.

[(Anonymous)]

People would absolutely still be mad about it and hold grudges about it however it was marketed. Maybe less, but they should still have been mad.

[(Anonymous)]

Timing, though. Be upfront early and by the time release comes around the grumpy bears are just background noise that everyone ignores. Have everyone find out at release and the critical noise will be a crescendo, overwhelming the fans and tainting enjoyment. Now obviously timing that crescendo for release is great for publicity. That is why they all do it. Dozens of articles, lots of traffic being directed, but it is bad for fans who just want to enjoy and discuss a show in relative peace. Any creator who says they consider themselves a fan of the property but plays that game is a lying sack of shit who has just detracted from their own work. Controversy is good for corporate, but bad for fans.

[(Anonymous)]

Thanks for doing my secret!

(The graphic design looks really nice.)

[fizzyrose]

I dislike major changes to canon and redos and adaptations almost explicitly because then there is this wank in the first place :P

[(Anonymous)]

I hate how adaptational changes echo back into the original in fandom's mind. I especially hate it when the original is ongoing and starts incorporating elements of the adaptation into itself (lookin' at you super hero comics). I really really REALLY hate it when I go to an area that's supposed to be all about the original and people act confused that we're not talking about the adaptation. The worst offenders are on Reddit. "Our show is getting remade, should we create a different subreddit?" Yes, yes you fucking should because otherwise it's going to be nothing but "The new show sucks compared to the old show" because we're all here as fans of the old show! It's NOT HARD omg.

But credit where credit's due, I think the new Dune movie adapted out some of the unnecessary and needlessly unpleasant elements while keeping the story coherent and damning Hollywood pacing expectations.