[ SECRET POST #6203 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6203 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.


































Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 45 secrets from Secret Submission Post #887.
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)]

AYRT

A retcon really isn't good evidence that something's "objectively bad." It can be the result of laziness; of poor planning; of a desire to keep something "fresh," or to appeal to a new/different demographic. I'm honestly also skeptical of most claims that something is "objectively bad/good," because it usually means, "I need a post-hoc rationalization for why my completely subjective opinion is more correct than the completely subjective opinions of others." As with most things, the emotion comes first; the "reason" comes second, functioning as an excuse for the emotion.

In any case, this all just seems like gatekeepers being upset that OP has called them gatekeepers. Own your gatekeeping, if you think it's a good or necessary thing!

[(Anonymous)]

The retcon isn’t base proof, it was the result. TLJ was objectively bad. Yes it was also subjectively bad for the majority of the fanbase but that’s incidental. If you need help, dictionary.com can explain the difference for you between objective and subjective. And if you like TLJ, food for you! There’s nothing wrong with liking objectively bad media.

[(Anonymous)]

SA

*good for you. My phone thinks I’m still discussing tomorrow’s dinner plans.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

My skepticism isn't the result of not knowing the difference between "objectively" and "subjectively;" it's from seeing people claim the former when they mean the latter. People want their likes and dislikes to be objective, because that would lend them additional weight, and make them "correct." It's status-seeking, at it's base.

That's what you're doing, right now. You're trying to position yourself as greater in status than me right now, through smugness and veiled insult.

[(Anonymous)]

Nah there’s no smugness or veiled insult. I genuinely thought you might have reversed the meanings. TLJ as a whole is objectively bad. Star Wars has loads of objectively bad stuff but only one movie that is in its entirety. And it happens to be the one fans hate and also the subject of the secret.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

What makes something objectively bad or good?

[(Anonymous)]

Plotting, pacing, editing, lighting, and sound are the biggest metrics. TLJ failed the first three dismally. They did somewhat better with lighting and sound.
They hung the major plot on a faked death and allies not communicating with each other, and a lot of the movie was a pointless subplot that had no impact on the movie. The movie would have played out exactly the same if they took out the Finn and Rose Vegas Vacation scenes, meaning Rose had no point whatsoever to be in the film. That makes what Kelly Marie Tran suffered a million times worse. She really was included as Tokenism and then the director and studio just hung her out to dry when the predictable backlash turned personal, sexist, and racist.