[ SECRET POST #6235 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6235 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Arcane/LoL]



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.

































Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 13 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.

Comments

[fscom]

01. https://i.imgur.com/TKrJ6dI.png

[(Anonymous)]

I miss my old style nature docs that were slow and full of simple informative narration. I feel like not only do they like to spice it up with anthropomorphizing, they have a lot more flash and fast cutscenes. Just set the camera up and tell me what I'm seeing!

[(Anonymous)]

Yes! I loved the nice, sedate nature of the old programs -- even as a kid! They seem to think kids need frenetic cuts to stay interested, but that's not true at all.

[greghousesgf]

Attenborough doesn't anthropomorphize. Neither did Jacques Cousteau.

[(Anonymous)]

In what reality Jacques Cousteau is modern?

[greghousesgf]

you have a point, although he was very influential

[(Anonymous)]

I learn better with a story. Tell me facts and dates and they go in one ear and out the other.

[(Anonymous)]

The old style ones had a story, it was just the story of the animal's life. It wasn't humanized, but it also wasn't just a list of facts.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, it was different from "The lioness sees the new lion killing her cubs so she can be in heat as soon as possible" to "Sarabi cannot do much, except for the new Mufasa killing her cubs so she can be sooner the new queen. You can see in her eyes the pain for the cubs being killed for just being cubs".

[greghousesgf]

considering how inaccurate the Lion King was I'd think nature documentaries would want to avoid referring to it.

[(Anonymous)]

If the old style ones had a story, what is the secret talking about? Since it says documentaries "don't need to assign a 'storyline'... to everything".

[(Anonymous)]

fuckin' cosigned. the first whiff of a "plotline" and I'm out. doubly-so anthropomorphising and claiming you know what the animal is feeling. back in my day if the lion was going to attack the gnu it just happened, it wasn't implied by editing shots of lions and gnus and narrating as if that's the story.

[(Anonymous)]

On the plus side, no one's driving lemmings off of cliffs anymore.

[(Anonymous)]

Are you the same person who didn't want tacked-on storylines in historicals yesterday? If so, I respect your drive to make non-fiction non-fictional!

[(Anonymous)]

I know the plot's aren't real and they're just hacking clips into a vague shape of a storyline. I hate. The plots either need to be *way* more entertaining or stick to some facts.

[(Anonymous)]

The problem is if you just tell facts and don't try to shoehorn in some kind of twee small-scale storyline, you're just going to be telling everyone about how all ecosystems are in dire trouble due to human choices and depress the hell out of your audience