[ SECRET POST #2181 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2181 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 100 secrets from Secret Submission Post #312.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 2 - too big ], [ 1 2 (again) - repeat ], [ 4 - trolls ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Oh man! I would love to see a movie about two princesses and how they're gay! Or maybe one with two princes who are gay. That would be such an awesome movie about how true their love is and how after they fail to produce an heir the entire country is torn apart by a succession war!

"Oh, but Anon, they could adopt!"

True. They could! And then, though the the commoners might like the idea of one of their own being uplifted to royalty (*snort* Yeah right, because that worked out SO WELL for Anne Boleyn) none of the other royal families would take that heir seriously and that heir would never be married to another royal. So... the country would be torn apart by a succession war!

Hooray! Sounds like a FABULOUS Disney movie!

To be honest, I would actually pay to see a Disney movie like that. But that's because I'm morbid.

I'm all for progressive thought and progressive movies, I really am (despite my sarcastic comment), but really, Disney's bread and butter is all about fairly traditional stories. "Princess/Prince meets Princess/Prince and they live happily ever after." It's fluff. It's a happy feeling. It's not meant to be taken seriously and it most certainly is not meant to be a social commentary.

[(Anonymous)]

... except you could easily have a movie where two princesses meet and fall in love and have it still be fluff? A lot of the Prince/Princess stories don't bother dealing with the aftermath of royalty marrying a commoner or whatever politics would have been involved in a real world context. Switching up who takes part in the romance doesn't mean you have to suddenly make things dark and brutal and ~realistic~. They're fairy tales - if they can have dragons and talking candlesticks and mermaids, they can have two people of the same sex in a relationship.

So, yeah, there's no reason you can't have a story that involves two female characters instead of a prince and a princess and not still make it a fluffy, happy Disney story. In fact, that would be kind of awesome, since so much of the discourse in the media about same sex relationships centers around how ~wrong~ they are and how society is always going to react badly to those types of relationships. Those kind of stories that discuss a lot of the bad shit that people have to go through for being queer are important, but I know I sure as hell would have loved to see a story when I was growing up with two girls falling in love where it wasn't shown as being somehow wrong or forbidden or angsty. It would have been really freaking nice to see it presented as normal and accepted that if you're a little girl who wants to date another princess instead of a prince, that that's okay.

[oroburos69]

WTF, man.

I don't find it particularly likely that Disney will ever make a movie with gay princesses, though they'd have excellent merchandising possibilities.

...seriously not getting your comment in the slightest. No one actually expects Disney to do this within the next twenty years unless they're 14 years old and on tumblr, you know that, right?

Though I have to say that 90% of all Disney films have involved commoner/royalty romances, so, uh...yeah.

Editing to add: Disney's not actually that traditional when it comes to stories. They may steal from fairy tales, but the adaptations are lightly based on them, not word for word. I also don't see why having gay romance in a story would exclude it from fluff and happy feelings. Hell, it'd give me twice as many fluff and happy feelings because Disney princesses are inevitably as cute as puppies and kittens, and I am not ashamed to say that I adore them.

[(Anonymous)]

Not going to comment much about the gay Disney couple thing except to say that it'd be nice to see and I hope it happens someday, the sooner the better, but as far as Disney playing fast and loose with stories, you're right. I never got the whole "fairy tales have happy endings" thing until grade school. I knew the versions from Grimm and Andersen and kept unintentionally freaking out the other kids by complaining that the Little Mermaid was supposed to stab herself to death, for example. I mean, I liked the Disney versions, they just weren't the ones I knew.

[(Anonymous)]

BUT BUT BUT CUTE FLUFFY KIDS MOVIES ARE TOTALLY SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT SOCIAL COMMENTARY. HDU SAY THAT WRITING A GOOD STORY SHOULD COME AHEAD OF CHECKING OFF ALL THE LITTLE BOXES. Although the story of Frozen seems like a giant and complete waste of Snow Queen imo. They shouldn't have tried to play it like it was a version of the original fairy tale, because it isn't.

[(Anonymous)]

But a lot of kids movies manage to be cute and fluffy and social commentary. Look at the majority of Pixar films. It's not like you have to go in with your SJ guns blazing and bash people over the head with IMPORTANT ISSUES, but pretending that movies for kids are meant to be nothing but dumb fluff is kind of insulting. In fact, most of the kids movies out there that are seriously terrible take that kind of "can't talk about anything too ~deep~ because this movie is just for kids" mindset. Kids aren't stupid, and they aren't the only ones who watch children's movies.

[(Anonymous)]

I was being OTT on purpose, but ia that you can have a somewhat deep message in a kid's movie and that makes it better. What doesn't make it better is putting issues in there just to have them in there, to check off the boxes of Required Diversity Level 5 or whatever. It's usually pretty obvious whether diverse elements are in a story because the creator felt that they belonged there naturally, or if they're in there because the author felt that they needed to Send A Message Of Great Importance. The former's awesome, the latter massively sucks. The problem is that a lot of people seem to feel that the latter is great as long as it's the issue they want to promote themselves.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree that it's best when things are organic, but my major problem wiuth that line of reasoning is that a lot of people seem to assume that people are always doing the latter anytime that they include anything remotely controversial or that could be viewed as a social issue in a children's film. Anything that doesn't fit the status quo is somehow people pushing their social agenda and messing with a good thing just to get their message across. So, I can agree with you in theory, but not in practice.

I think the real issue is more with how high-handed they get in how they portray the situation in the film, not with their reasoning for switching things up. If they get overly preachy and in your face and ridiculous in the film, that can definitely ruin things and I'd rather steer clear of that. But the fact remains that right now, if someone wants to make a movie with two princesses (or princes) instead of a prince and a princess people are naturally going to assume that it's because they want to Send a Message and they're never going to assume it's just organic, because so many people are stuck in the mindset that if anyone's going to fall in love in a fairy tale, it should be a boy and a girl and that's that. That attitude's not going to change until people actually take a risk and start making films that involve two princesses (or two princes) and it becomes less of an oddity and more of an accepted thing.

[oroburos69]

I was okay with it, but them I realized that Disney doing this version now means that we're probably never going to get a better version later (unless Dinsey starts rebooting stuff, which is actually pretty plausible).

[(Anonymous)]

I think that the AYRT's comment is more overbearing on the "social commentary" than a plainly-presented romance between two girls would be.

[deadtree]

LOL I like your enthusiasm for realism there anon, but I think it's a little misaimed. Ariel isn't even technically the same SPECIES as her prince.

Also, this: "It's not meant to be taken seriously and it most certainly is not meant to be a social commentary."
is exactly why your argument about the kingdom falling apart due to gay marriage doesn't float.

[(Anonymous)]

Lmao, what are you talking about? It's freaking Disney movies with anthropomorphic animal sidekicks, they don't actually have to have realistic consequences to all their whacky musical adventures. That is, in fact, the point of happily-ever-after, that everything turns out just fine no matter how illogical it would be in real life, unless you happen to have a fairy godmother and/or sword-wielding horse in your corner to help solve your problems.