[ SECRET POST #6692 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6692 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Xenoblade Chronicles X]



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________





















04. [WARNING for discussion of fictional incest]




__________________________________________________



05. [WARNING for discussion of JKR and related topics]




__________________________________________________



06. [WARNING for discussion of Neil Gaiman and rape/sexual assault]

























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #956..
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/aND31K8.png

[bannedbookweek]

This is a good point, I think modern internet criticism videos made an impact as well. Not necessarily in the sense that productions are scared that they'll be blasted online (though I'm sure this is true for at least some of them) but that now it's normal to overthink everything. Mediocre movies that are made for the sake of fun can't fly anymore because now Hollywood is nitpicking it because they have brain worms from Cinema Sins and other associated channels.

[feotakahari]

There are definitely still mediocre movies, though I don’t know if they’re mediocre on purpose.

[(Anonymous)]

Not sure I entirely get the distinction between “movies that are more fun than coherent” and “movies you can kind of follow using only half your brain”.

Is there a difference I’m missing there or is it more that big-budget superhero movies seem to have crowded out other silly fun movies?

[(Anonymous)]

Same. I'd say that big budget superhero movies are supposed to be the "movies that are more fun than coherent”. For me, they're not. But I think that's one of their goals, and it seems supported by the fact that the special effects budget and fight scenes get lots of attention, but characterization and the script doesn't.

[volkameria]

This is a phenomenon that's really difficult to put into words, because there's definitely a difference between a mediocre movie and a mid movie. There's something to be said about a film with interesting ideas, or that was clearly made with passion and fun, but just doesn't quite stick the landing in some aspect.

[(Anonymous)]

100% this. There are some mediocre movies that are genuinely fun and enjoyable to watch! But then there are also ones that are just... meh. They're two completely different things and can't really be compared.

[(Anonymous)]

Wait, which is which?

For me, “mediocre” and “mid” are pretty close synonyms.

I do make a distinction between flawed movies that tried to do something interesting or seem to have someone’s passion behind them and flawed movies that just seem tepid all the way through.

But I don’t think “mediocre” vs “mid” captures that contrast well. I’d be much more likely to say “fun/interesting but flawed” vs “mediocre/mid/middle-of-the-road”.

same anon

[(Anonymous)]

I guess the difference is whether something averages out to medium quality because it has highs and lows or whether it’s just solidly middling throughout.