[ 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

[(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)]

+ Infinity

[(Anonymous)]

NA

Let me put it this way: imagine you're consuming a romance story - be it a book, a movie, or a comic, and you love the main couple. You find them cute, wholesome and hold them up as an example of your personal relationship goals. And now imagine that a sequel comes out, where it's revealed that actually the woman was under mind control by the guy the whole time, and was merely brainwashed to appear happy, while suffering immensely and being raped repeatedly. Can you really still squee over the wholesomeness of the romance in the original, knowing this information from the continuation? If so, then I congratulate you the ability to compartmentalize, because I sure wouldn't be able to, and neither could a whole lot of other people. I can ignore a reboot changing the details while posing itself as an alternate universe, but a recontextualization in a canon continuation ruins the canon for me.

[(Anonymous)]

"ruins canon for me." That's not the problem with what you posted. Ruining it for you is a personal thing, doesn't mean it is ruined for everyone. And It certainly doesn't mean that the creators who did that are the same as actual rapists, and fuck you for making such an awful comparison.

[(Anonymous)]

Maybe stop fucking putting words in my mouth and learn to read the actual comments you're replying to, you dumb shit?

[(Anonymous)]

*watching the above dumpster-fire with amazement and popcorn*

[greghousesgf]

passes you some butter

apologies to sensitive person for how many times I'm about to have to type 'rapists', but...

[(Anonymous)]

Maybe do a much better job of articulating your point if you're going to compare media updates you don't like to rape cases and you don't want people to get fucking offended.

I take it from your outrage that anyone could imagine you were equating a bad update to literal rape to mean that what you're actually trying to say is that you can't go back and enjoy things made by people you later found out were rapists, much as you can't go back and enjoy original canon when additions have been made that you dislike, but... my dude, you were really not clear enough about it to be throwing a tantrum. And honestly, you had to know that invoking the names of rapists and pedophiles would lead to hurt and upset in people just trying to debate fandom stuff. You do not have the moral high ground you think you do. You've been a dick and just as no one can force you to shut up, you can't force them not to tell you to shut up because you're being a horrid little ass.

Re: apologies to sensitive person for how many times I'm about to have to type 'rapists', but...

[(Anonymous)]

Or maybe you should learn what NA means before you start throwing 'fuck you's at people, dipshit?

Re: apologies to sensitive person for how many times I'm about to have to type 'rapists', but...

[(Anonymous)]

Unless I'm mistaken, it sounds like those are two different anons.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't feel sorry for your fandom experience being ruined, because you seem like a rude jerk.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't feel like being polite to a person, who says "fuck you" to me over a strawman.

AYRT

[(Anonymous)]

I'm genuinely sorry for you if that's the case, because there's plenty of dumb shit that creators do in canon. But I can say in all honesty, no, the sequel being awful garbage would not affect my enjoyment of the original, and it honestly is hard for me to understand why it should matter at all. Or - to use another example that comes up a lot - I honestly do not understand why the EU being decanonized would affect one's enjoyment of the EU books one whit.

But regardless of that, I stand by saying that it definitely is possible in theory to continue liking new things even if retcons change it later. It's absolutely not true that bad reboots or retcons make it impossible to like the original thing. And I definitely still don't agree with the broader argument that this somehow justifies being a grognard fighting wars in fandom spaces about how new things are awful and fans who like them are dumb.

Re: AYRT

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

I'm sure that it's possible to continue enjoying new developments, or the originals, or even the retcons. But there is something deeply frustrating about hearing about a sequel to your favourite canon, waiting for it impatiently, sharing every piece of news about the sequel with a group of other fans, getting hyped, making fanworks, imagining hat the sequel was going to be... and then when it comes out, not only is the new story disappointing, but it also contains elements that recontextualize the old story in a way that makes it feel like you can't really enjoy it anymore for what you thought it was, because what you thought it was is fake even within its own universe. And if someone has invested emotionally into a work for a long time only to be met with such a massive disappointment, obviously they're not going to be quiet about it, because that's years of their life that now feel wasted.

AYRT

[(Anonymous)]

I agree that it sucks when anything you want to be good is bad. It definitely does suck. I don't think there's anything wrong with criticizing things you think are bad, either.

What I do think is bad is yelling at it so loud and hyperbolically that you take over fandom spaces and turn them into nothing but endless griefing about who's right and who's an enemy of the fandom, or yelling at fans of the new stuff for liking the wrong things, or drowning out the possibility of any appreciation of new stuff in the fandom. Or to use another example, I think there's a difference between talking about your problems with new adaptations or sequels, and comparing new adaptations to child sexual abuse.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, I can enjoy the original. Because it is a work of fiction, and at the time it was written, there was no sequel. The mind control literally did not exist yet. The characters were not secretly doing anything we didn't know about, because they are characters in a story, and characters lack the secret inner workings of real human beings. The motive of whatever real human writer made the sequel should be considered over treating the characters as if they were real and the male character had been doing whatever they did in the sequel all along, and that motive is most likely "let's be shocking and edgy!" Which is frankly stupid and a bad writing decision which can and should be ignored at liberty.

[(Anonymous)]

How far can you take this ideology though? Does it only go for sequels written by another author, or by sequels written by the same author? How about comic issues or cartoons spanning multiple seasons? When in the original Spiderman cartoon it turned out that the MJ Peter married was a clone and not the "real" MJ, is it still canon when the reveal happens in another season? Is it more canon if it happens in the last episode of the current season? Or how about if it happened at the end of the same episode, where the "switch" happened? If you're going to go out of your way to ignore certain parts of canon, why not go further and stop caring about what is and isn't canon at all and just accept fanon as your personal canon? Do we need queer representation in the canon, when we can just make the leads gay in our fanfiction and it's equally as valid?

I understand and respect that different people relate to fiction in a different way, but I expect the same understanding and respect for the way that I - and vast majority of other fans - view canon as it's own established universe with its own established story and details that cannot be changed by personal interpretation. Once some detail has been canonized, it's set in stone to us, especially if it continues to be referenced in the future continuations. Take Captain Marvel's mind-control rape storyline, which was written in the 80s but still remains canon. I can watch Captain Marvel in the MCU, because it's a separate universe, but I can't really pretend it never happened in the comic universe, especially given that it's still referenced to this day.

[(Anonymous)]

I take it as far as I want to, case by case. If something I don't like happens once and is never brought up again, and generally doesn't align with what's in-character, I pretend it didn't happen. That's the beauty of nothing really being real!

[meadowphoenix]

It's very disingenuous to suggest that learning background information, especially horrific background information, of the creation of public media is the same thing as someone proactively and deliberately changing the public media itself. While your view of the creator might affect your view of the media, that doesn't mean you can logically conflate the two.

And while I too think you should at least have a care before you enlarge a canon in a way that affects previous canon information, this is not relevant in the secret-givers' point which is adaptation, not new canon.

[(Anonymous)]

Saville didn't recontextualize anything. He was a sexual predator all along and then after his death other people investigated and publicized the accusations (and we shouldn't be mad at those people because they were just reporting on pre-existing facts, not making up a new story that they could have chosen to have gone another way). Obviously that makes everything unenjoyable now but it's not the same thing as a retcon within a completely fictional story where nothing HAS to happen a certain way.

[(Anonymous)]

The public revelations about him certainly recontextualized it in the minds of the viewing public.

[(Anonymous)]

+1

Well said.