[ SECRET POST #7025 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #7025 ⌋

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


01.




__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.
[Multifandom fanwork exchanges on Dreamwidth]



















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 18 secrets from Secret Submission Post #1003.
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]

03. https://cdn.imgchest.com/files/c86a5955475c.png

Transcript by OP

[fscom]

When people refuse to admit a dated thing is dated, I stop trusting their taste. By dated, I'm talking about media that's like 20+ years old, here. 1990s and 2000s stuff.

I understand that at some point, these things were bold for their time. Or unique for their time. Or progressive in various ways, for their time. And it's good to give credit for that.

But when people refuse to acknowledge they're dated in ANY way... they're either one of those people who haven't actually watched the thing they claim to love in years and/or are willfully in denial, or they're one of those old people that think everything in their teens/20s was peak and have refused to move on. Or both.

Re: Transcript by OP

[(Anonymous)]

I'm a huge X-Files fan. Is it dated? I really don't care.

I guess Scully's suits are dated. Whatever.

[(Anonymous)]

I mean, something from 20+ years ago that was progressive for its time CAN still be progressive for this time-- seeing things regress in real time makes me appreciate that when I see it.

Something being of its time might date it, but doesn't necessarily affect how well it holds up, and something can be (and remain!) progressive in one respect but NOT hold up to modern progress in others.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, I was coming here to say that - something from 20+ years ago can be extremely progressive in some ways and very much not in others.

[(Anonymous)]

And some things are just timeless, like Casablanca.

[iff_and_xor]

I’ve started to think that part of the issue is using “dated” in a way that implies a negative by default.

“Dated” really just means that it reflects a culture from the past. The same way a movie or show or book from another regional culture could be hard to get into or to agree with some of its social norms.

If it was a more value-neutral word, I’d hope that people might use it more appropriately.

[(Anonymous)]

That's true. For example, if a piece of media is treating MySpace as a relevant thing in people's lives, it's dated. That doesn't mean bad, though.

Or...

[(Anonymous)]

They have a different definition of dated than you. It can mean different things.

[(Anonymous)]

Make this point again when modern networks aren't cancelling shows left and right after half a season for being too "woke".

There is media from 20+ years ago that is more relevant today than it was when it was made, and media created today that is so brutally censored it might as well have been made in the 1950s.

"Older than OP" does not automatically translate as "dated".

[iff_and_xor]

It sounds like you define “dated” as “not relevant to the present”. Is that fair or do you have a better definition for how you use the term?

[(Anonymous)]

That word does not mean what you think it means.

Creative work doesn't need to be bold, innovative and progressive.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't know, while it might be true that all media made 20-30 years ago shows its age in some way, as someone who regularly watches media from the 1980s, 90s, 00s, etc. for the first time without knowing much about it, I've definitely noticed there is a huge range in how dated or how much/little media from the same time period holds up. That basically includes along any axis you can think of -- aesthetics, cultural references, politics, etc.

Some things made in the 90s still feel bolder and more progressive than average media being made now; some you could not air now because of how racist/sexist/rapey/creepy/containing-slurs it is.

Some movies in the 90s look INCREDIBLY 90s to the point of being distracting. Some have a more generic aesthetic that doesn't really ping one's radar of this being a super 90s film.

Things like cinematography and pacing are probably the things that date media the most, I'm guessing, but even then, there's such a wide range.

Basically, I probably agree with you that it's impossible for works to not show their age in SOME way, for a work to not be inextricably a product of its time, but I think the extreme range in "datedness" that two media from the same era can exhibit to me makes it useful to point out when some media is VERY dated/doesn't hold up/will be difficult for a modern audience to appreciate vs. ones that largely hold up and in fact might be refreshingly progressive compared to our own time, as you can find media from the same era falling into both categories. It's in fact a huge range and I think it's useful to use terminology in a way that can make that distinction vs. a way of defining terms such that the obvious statement (that all media is dated/a product of its time in at least some way) is always true and we lose the ability to make distinctions.

[(Anonymous)]

Why do I get the feeling that by "dated" they mean cringe?

Ugh, *waves fist at sky* This younger generation is the wooorst!