[ SECRET POST #6071 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6071 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.
[The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock]



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.
[The Beach]
























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 48 secrets from Secret Submission Post #868.
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)]

*looks at Barbie*
*looks back at OP*
*looks at Oppenheimer*
*looks back at OP*

[(Anonymous)]

Would you like to explain your point in a way that explains your point?

[(Anonymous)]

Ah, you've been living under a rock. I will explain.

OK, so there are two movies that have been released recently. Neither of them are remakes or set in universes already established by previous movies. One was even directed by a woman and starred mostly women and was very feminist. The other was an historical biopic. They made a fuck ton of money.

Hope that helps!

[(Anonymous)]

Ah, so they were both movies derived from things that already exist

[(Anonymous)]

I would love to see a movie that doesn't derive from things that already exist....
??????

[(Anonymous)]

Uh? They do? Unless you're going by "there's only four/ten/whatever stories that everyone retells, plenty of movies that were only ever movies get made. Sometimes they get adapted to other mediums later, or get sequels.

[(Anonymous)]

Not according to AIRT. Oppenheimer only "derived from things that already exist" in that there was a dude named Oppenheimer in real life. He wasn't a character that is being rebooted or sequel-ed. If that is AIRT's criteria for "remakes of old favorites or set in the same universe over and over again" then I have to wonder at them ever thinking themselves seeing anything original at all.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

These things already exist but not necessarily as media franchises or anything of that sort.

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt but are we really going to pretend like the Barbie movie didn't have some significant momentum behind it as a successful brand over decades?

[(Anonymous)]

What does that have to do with the secret? It specifically says "so much focus on media that is either remakes of old favorites or set in the same universe over and over again". Which one of those is Barbie? It's not a remake of a previous movie, it's not a sequel to a previous movie, it's not a tie in with other movies. So which one is it?

[(Anonymous)]

You don't think decades of a wildly popular line of toys with its own TV shows and movies counts as an "old favorite", or holds significant nostalgic value for a certain percentage of the movie going audience? Really?

[(Anonymous)]

I love how the anon above you tried to go after Oppenheimer, because movies should never reference anything that actually exists otherwise it's derivative. And you go after Barbie because the dolls have a history.

I did provide two prongs of my argument, and I'm not gonna get into the history of Barbie with you because I never saw any Barbie media (after my time), but did see the Barbie movie. So I'll let you have Barbie, because we ALL expected a movie about girl dolls that girls played with when they were girls emulating female power staring women and directed by a woman was SURE to make a lot of money. Hollywood pumps those out all the time. They're definitely a safe bet. Yawn.

So, why did Oppenheimer do so well? Don't remember a whole lot of Oppenheimer tv shows.

[(Anonymous)]

I am just loling at the image of cute Oppenheimer TV adventures. Thanks anon