fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #6234 ]

[ SECRET POST #6234 ]

⌈ Secret Post #6234 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

[Cyberpunk 2077]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 20 secrets from Secret Submission Post #891.
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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

01. https://i.imgur.com/aZfbwba.png

Spoilers for The Malta Story, I guess.

You're so cool and above it all for calling it "the boat movie!"

God forbid anyone attempting to have fun with anything.

I thought it was funny

It was funny

Not OP but I was struggling to think of which movie they meant because there's so many boat movies. It wasn't until I came to the comments that it clicked that they meant Titanic. Er... I am assuming they mean Titanic?

They gotta get the female audience by putting one women in there somehow, and for hollywood women are for romance. They're certainly not going to do any movies about what women did during the historical event in question. Even though they spied, and murdered, and were heros and were pirates, and led troops, etc etc etc.

I don't know how strongly that formula holds today (pretty strongly apparently), but MGM head Irving Thalberg sure did believe it. He even added romantic subplots to the Marx Brothers movies they did for the studio (some of their Paramount films had such subplots too but they were generally more throwaway than in the MGM films).

But like.

A lot of women *did* go see Titanic. Mostly for the doomed love plot. And they liked it a lot. They literally made it one of the most successful movies ever!

Why exactly are we sneering at that?

I'm not sneering at the audience, I'm sneering at hollywood. I wouldn't care if they threw a romance over a historical event every so often and it made a billion dollars so long as that's not the only female representation we get. There are a lot of badass historical stories about women that have yet to be made. Because they want to throw a romance over the male story and call it good.

It was also considered an excellent piece of cinema until everyone realized it was popular with women (and even worse... TEENAGE GIRLS!) because of the romance. Then it was terrible and overrated and omg how did this shit win an Oscar?

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2024-01-31 13:02 (UTC) - Expand

There's also Gone With The Wind.

Ehh I think it depends on execution. Most of the time, yes it's pretty tacked on.

Funny enough, the last historical movie I watched was killers of the flower moon and I thought they did "doomed love story" extremely well though I suppose I can't quite call it a romance subplot.

The 'romance' wasn't the point and the whole relationship was more or less used as a metaphor for the bigger themes in the film about exploitation and morality. I'm not sure if it actually counts as romance subplot tbh...

Their relationship is also a major part of the actual, real-life story off which that movie is based. To leave it out would make no sense.

That’s how I’ve always felt about Casablanca.

Well, it wasn't exactly a historical event in that case. It was very much contemporary.

Also, Casablanca is textually aware that the romance plot is less important than the surrounding historical context. Very explicitly so.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2024-02-01 15:42 (UTC) - Expand

Agreed!

If Titanic hadn't had the love story, it would've needed to be a completely different movie. The love story was the main point, setting it on the Titanic was a secondary choice. Maybe some people don't like that, but I wouldn't say that counts as a lazy version of "tacking on" a love story to a historical movie.

(I don't know the other movies so I can't judge those.)

You got that so completely backwards that I can’t stop laughing!!! They wanted to do a movie about Titanic, specifically showcasing it sinking and do a cinematic reenactment of Ballard’s discovery. But no one would have watched just that, footage from Atlantis had been aired on television countless times in the previous ten years. They needed a story to frame those events so they went with some generic fluff.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2024-01-31 03:30 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2024-01-31 07:31 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2024-01-31 15:36 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2024-01-31 04:21 (UTC) - Expand

i think it is extremely not lazy to have to tack on a plot to your historical documentary and actually write it well. that's literally not lazy. writing good plots, characters, and themes is hard. it is not lazy to do. and it's especially not lazy when you clearly just want to show off your boat footage. leo almost didn't get the part because cameron refused to be lazy about it.

eta: ~and another thing~ i think it is really easy to see creative compromises for money as a detraction for true creativity, but that's a very unnuanced perspective to goal achievement. if you want people to care about history, making it human for them is pretty key. giving a shit about your audience isn't lazy and is an essential and necessary part of the creative process.

Edited 2024-01-31 06:43 (UTC)

"the boat movie" - you are my mother, and I claim my five pounds

Clean and hoover your bedroom, and wash the dishes, and then we can talk about your allowance.

LOL @ "that boat movie"

I agree with this secret. It's straight-up lazy.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only