Case (
case) wrote in
fandomsecrets2023-06-12 06:12 pm
[ SECRET POST #6002 ]
⌈ Secret Post #6002 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.

__________________________________________________
02.

__________________________________________________
03.

__________________________________________________
04.

[Identity V]
__________________________________________________
05.

__________________________________________________
06.

__________________________________________________
07.

Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 31 secrets from Secret Submission Post #858.
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.

no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-06-13 12:47 am (UTC)(link)If you can only debate by putting words in my mouth, then your argument isn't terribly strong. But I suppose it's difficult to argue my claims about my own perception and expectations of a piece of media that I watched.
"You don't wanna run away and damn the rest of LITERAL EXISTENCE with someone you're just kinda friends with."
Did I say Crowley and Aziraphale were "just kinda friends" or are you trying to put words in my mouth again? And did I not just say that I found this specific example to be more obvious than the "too fast" scene? Spoilers: I did say that.
"You never describe someone going "too fast" for you outside of romance unless you're talking about their literal driving."
Your argument would be a lot stronger if the exchange in question didn't literally 1) take place in a car and 2) come directly after Crowley offers Aziraphale a lift. In the car they're both sitting in.
Look, I'm not saying that there's zero romantic meaning in both those examples. I said I picked up on it, after all. I'm saying that IMO, it's still very plausibly subtextual in the sense that not everyone is going to pick up on it. I'm not sure why fandom is 100% convinced that it's blindingly obvious, but I suspect it's got to do with fandom being an echo chamber that doesn't realize that the majority of people watching any given piece of popular media are going to be casual viewers and not hardcore fans.
Here's another example: there were people who watched The Untamed and were convinced that Wei Wuxian was pining for and would end up with Jiang Yanli, his adopted sister. That's the kind of viewership I'm talking about right there. Fandom sees the subtext as 3 foot high neon signs. Casual viewers don't necessarily do that.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-06-13 02:34 am (UTC)(link)OK, I get where you're coming from on this, but on the other hand, show runners are not obligated to aim for the dumbest possible audience. I know a lot of casual viewers who picked up on the subtext just fine, because it's not particularly subtle, especially since the actors have said they played it that way and the composer intentionally put romantic motifs into the score (particularly in the scene where Crowley saves Aziraphale's books in the WWII bit). There is no shortage of viewers who are NOT in fic-reading fandom circles who saw it.
Does everything need to be aimed at the viewers who need their hands held constantly?
no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-06-13 03:53 am (UTC)(link)No. And I never once said that such hand-holding was necessary. I said absolutely nothing about showrunners or writers being obligated to do anything, much less be much more explicit about m/m romance. I also did not say that no casual viewers picked up on the subtext.
You seem to be rebutting a whole lot of things I didn't actually say. Are you talking to someone else, maybe?
no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-06-13 04:27 am (UTC)(link)The only people not picking up on it are deep in denial and even kissing or declarations of love wouldn't get through to them. You holding them as the bar is disingenuous and makes you very much the "only making out on screen counts" kinda person.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-06-13 05:04 am (UTC)(link)I imagine this sounds like a really powerful argument to you that nobody in their right mind could ever interpret it as being about driving (in the car they're both sitting in) after Crowley offers Aziraphale a lift (as in, a ride in the car they're both sitting in) but... I'm not really sure it's as convincing as you seem to think. The point of plausible deniability isn't to obscure (this is your word, not mine, a recurring pattern with you), it's to offer a plausible degree of deniability. Which is what that scene is. It means that to some viewers, it's obviously about more than a ride in a car, it's about the speed/intimacy of Crowley and Aziraphale's relationship. Which is how I and many others saw it. To other viewers, it could very plausibly be just what it seems at face value - a man offering a ride in a car to another man, and the second man declining and getting out of the car in question. So even if it's not about a casual offer of carpooling, it could be, because the context is there and available to be interpreted that way. Not everyone picks up on undercurrents and metaphors, even if they're heavy handed ones, and I wouldn't call that scene heavy handed at all. I think it was poignant and wonderfully done.
"The only people not picking up on it are deep in denial and even kissing or declarations of love wouldn't get through to them. You holding them as the bar is disingenuous and makes you very much the "only making out on screen counts" kinda person."
Nope, it doesn't. Like I said several times, I picked up on it very easily. But to say that it's so obvious that everyone would do the same unless they're in denial is a bit silly. Lots of people watch media and fail to pick up on plot points and character relationships of every kind, romantic or platonic. It's because people are human, and quite frequently they will not "get" everything there is to get about a piece of media even if it seems very obvious.
I mentioned The Untamed as an earlier example. It, too, is fairly obvious to me and many others that it's a romance between two men, Wei Wuxian and Lan Wanji. But because it was made in China, where censors dictate that m/m romances are NOT to be portrayed in media, the people who made the show had to be somewhat discreet. There is no kissing, or sex. There are no declarations of love. There is, not unlike Good Omens, a lot of meaningful glances, playful banter, declarations of deep friendship and undying loyalty, there's romantic music and a lot of things that strongly signal what the show cannot come out and say - that two men are in deeply in love, will fight side by side with one another, defy authority for one another and even suffer and die for one another if necessary. And yet... not everyone got it. Because that's life, and human beings miss the point of things all the time.
And you're still trying very, very hard to put words into my mouth that I never said. And it seems to be upsetting you greatly that I'm not making those arguments you want me to make, which is peculiar. Remember - I am not the one saying that Good Omens isn't gay. I've never claimed that. I said that fandom's buzz and enthusiasm rather inflated my expectations of how gay it would be, and I found it to be less so than anticipated. I'm not saying it was a bad show. I said I enjoyed it, particularly Crowley and Aziraphale's parts. But I think fandom oversold it to me a little and for some reason, that really offends some people.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-06-13 05:10 am (UTC)(link)You know you're arguing with at least two different people here, right? I'm the anon who made the comment about aiming stuff at the dumbest possible audience member one or two comments up.
But I'm not the person who made the comment you're ranting about here, that's someone else who made related but different points entirely. This is just starting to sound like you can't handle people disagreeing with you, and you're doing as much putting words in other peoples' mouths as you think others are doing to you. Calm down.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-06-13 05:19 am (UTC)(link)It's also strange you're reading my words as a rant. It's just a response to a comment that was addressed to me, and it's quite civil and calm.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-06-13 06:49 am (UTC)(link)Well, that might be because you're not actually that good at expressing what you meant to say, clearly.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-06-13 07:08 am (UTC)(link)I think there's at least one anon who'd like to be able to accuse me of saying this or that unreasonable thing], which is a bit silly because all anyone has to do is look back over the discussion and see that I didn't. It's a bit puzzling that they're so insistent on trying to attach to me opinions that they disagree with so strongly, opinions that I don't actually hold. It's as if they're determined to have this fight with someone, and even though I'm not the right opponent, they're trying it anyway? Very odd.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-06-13 01:21 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-06-13 09:08 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-06-13 08:28 am (UTC)(link)SA
(Anonymous) 2023-06-13 05:13 am (UTC)(link)And yet... not everyone picked up on it. For some people, it was too subtle, maybe. But for whatever reason, the romance that was obvious to many was not obvious to all.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-06-13 06:18 am (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-06-13 06:35 am (UTC)(link)This is an incredibly harsh and unnecessarily rude response to a post that's pretty reasonable in how it discusses the issue even if I don't agree with the conclusions
no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-06-13 06:48 am (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-06-13 06:51 am (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-06-13 06:52 am (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-06-13 01:12 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-06-13 04:56 pm (UTC)(link)All types of people talk with detachment.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-06-13 07:09 am (UTC)(link)