[ SECRET POST #2193 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2193 ⌋

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

01.
[GunnerKrigg Court]


__________________________________________________



02.
[The Avengers]


__________________________________________________



03.
[French & Saunders]


__________________________________________________



04.
[X-Men/Marvel Universe]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Tron: Uprising]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Kagaku Ninjatai Gatchaman]


__________________________________________________



07.
[How I Met Your Mother]


__________________________________________________



08.
[The X-Files/Fox Mulder]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Homestuck]


__________________________________________________



10.
[True Grit]


__________________________________________________



11.
[Saya no Uta]


__________________________________________________



12.
[The Silmarillion]


__________________________________________________



13.
[Homestuck]


__________________________________________________



14.
[Supernatural]


__________________________________________________












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 015 secrets from Secret Submission Post #313.
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

[intrigueing]

Well, actually, he was pretty popular ever since the first Iron Man movie came out in 2008, when he was just a random bit character and before anyone thought that he was going to become likable enough to effectively kill off in that manner.

Also, "manipulated like that"? Uh, sorry to burst your bubble, but ALL fiction is manipulative to some degree. It's the definition of fiction. They're fictional events told in a manner calculated to get a particular reaction out of the audience. Eliciting unintentional reactions different from what was intended is a sign of crappy storytelling.

So...yes? You're right? I mean, of course he was given more screentime so you'd feel worse when he died. Duh. That's pretty much a no-brainer. It's the whole point of fiction -- create characters you are familiar with and like so you feel it more when stuff happens to them rather than to Faceless Drone #12864. It would be pretty shitty storytelling if the writers gave him less screentime than before, then killed him, and then told you that you should feel bad for him.

I suppose there are more subtle ways to do it, but eh, it's a superhero movie full of OTT-ness and explosions and fight scenes and larger-than-life characters. Subtlety was probably not high on the producers' agenda ;)

[elaminator]

Nicely worded, and I 100% agree.

(Though I have to chime in with all the others saying: "Old, seriously?" I understand it's a matter of opinion but lol.)

[(Anonymous)]

Well, sure, all fiction is manipulative, but I think it's understandable to feel different about it when you can clearly see the strings.

(Not OP btw)

[(Anonymous)]

But...can't you always see the strings? Movies aren't rocket science. A lot of them follow the same basic formula based on genre. It's pretty easy to see what they're trying to get you to feel.

I guess maybe if you mean it feels forced? Over-selling it, or the like. Then, yeah I can see how that would be annoying.

[(Anonymous)]

da

Yep, I can always see the strings. It's only a problem for me when ALL I can see are the strings.

[kamino_neko]

Yeah, blatant 'I can actually see what you're doing' manipulation is one of my pet peeves.

The end of the Futurama episode Jurassic Bark is pretty much the ultimate example of this for me. It didn't make me sad. It just made me annoyed.

[(Anonymous)]

da personally it made me feel sad AND annoyed

[(Anonymous)]

I don't agree that it was an example of this at all. Of course it was obviously meant to be sad, but the twist was also at the same time so woven up in the logic and established characterization of the backstory that it was a horrifyingly natural and organic turn of events because that ending, given the events that preceded it, was so damn plausible. Not inevitable - if it was completely inevitable with no possible alternatives, it would have felt artificial - but so plausible, and not by chance or by specific events designed conveniently for the purpose of that particular outcome.

Basically, a lot of things could have changed in the plot, and the ending could have still just as easily been exactly the same, because it was dependent on the general personalities and relationship of Fry and Seymour, and on the effect one single incident - Fry being frozen - not dependent on a series of specifically-constructed plot twists. That's what made it feel natural and non-manipulative and genuinely sad for me.

[(Anonymous)]

tbh honest it didn't feel natural to me


I wanted to yell at my tv screen


dammit, fry, you didn't know for sure the dog didn't want to see you or whatever

you are not a mind magician

[(Anonymous)]

no, he's not a mind magician, but he IS a rather kind, optimistic, stupid fellow with low self-esteem, so it makes sense for him to assume his dog would live a good life without him.

[(Anonymous)]

was he that selfless, though?

[(Anonymous)]

It doesn't matter if he's selfless because thinking your dog wouldn't care about you isn't a selfless or a selfish thought.

[kamino_neko]

It introduced a 'character' we'd never heard of before, made him central to Frye's life, despite that lack of mention, entirely for the purpose of making us cry with the 'Hachiko' montage. That's not natural, that's a classic ''Long Lost Uncle'.

[(Anonymous)]

....wait THAT'S your complaint? It's not super-original and new-fangled from a writing point of view? Because it's "classic" instead? Ignoring the fact that that's NOT a bad thing? Your complaint seems to be that because it doesn't follow some rules you've heard about how innovative writing should be done, the actual fictional events don't really matter and that you apparently are incapable of appreciating what happens to fictional characters if the writing methods aren't avant-garde.

I see. We seem to have very, very, VERY different ideas of what is important in a fictional narrative. Talking two different languages. So lets not talk past each other anymore.

[kamino_neko]

THAT'S your complaint? It's not super-original and new-fangled from a writing point of view? Because it's "classic" instead?

...

No. That's not even within the same ballpark as my complaint, which is laid out before I used that word - which you have seriously misinterpreted. I was using adjectival definition 1b. Other on point definitions are adjectival definition 2b, and noun definition 4. You appear to be using noun definition 6.

Again: They introduced a 'character' and insisted he was a vital part of Fry's pre-cryo life, despite the fact that he didn't exist before that episode, so that they could try to twist the knife with the ending.

That is not 'a natural progression', that is crappy writing.

To quote the Agony Booth, as quoted on the TV Tropes page I linked:

And really, what did you expect them to do? Kill off Skippy? Or take time out from earlier episodes to throw in some random friend named Greg, just to give his death some meaning? Come on, it was the ‘80s. That time was much better spent on original songs by Tina Yothers.

And the same criticism holds for Seymour as holds for Greg - they didn't take the time to properly set up the situation so that it actually made sense.

[intrigueing]

Oh certainly IA, but as I said -- he was popular long before The Avengers and had a specific role other than That Guy Who Dies in the pre-Avengers films. It's not like he appeared out of thin air in The Avengers itself and was developed for absolutely no reason other than to be offed.

That, combined with the fact that what's "clearly seen" to one viewer is highly subjective and may not be nearly as clearly seen to another, means I can't help but raise my eyebrows at the claim that it was completely artificial from an objective point of view. I mean, if the OP feels that it was manipulative nothing wrong with it - it wasn't exactly exquisitely subtle or anything - but saying "omg you wrote him like that so I'd feel bad!!11" makes me laugh because the only response is "well, no shit, Sherlock. Did you think we wrote him like that so you'd party instead?"

[penoftruthiness]

A response to the Coulson Lives campaign - Coulson Died and I LOVED IT.

[kamino_neko]

Eliciting unintentional reactions different from what was intended is a sign of crappy storytelling.

Nah.

A certain portion of the audience will always react differently than you intended - often exactly the opposite way. Quality of writing can only adjust those numbers so much.

I don't think many people will argue that Watchmen was crappily written, yet a significant portion of the readership disagreed with Moore's intended reading of Rorschach, and found him admirable, even actually likeable.

[intrigueing]

Well, I don't mean that anything that causes anyone to have unintended reactions is automatically bad, I mean that when your intended message clearly failed to produce something in the range of the intended reaction in the vast majority of your readership, then either a) your ideas/logic, b) your writing, or c) your conception of who your target audience is and what they're capable of comprehending is off the mark.

c) technically still counts as flawed storytelling, because you're communicating ineffectively with your audience, but that brand of flawed storytelling tends to age very well.

And oh, yeah, sizable contingents who are morons don't count ;)

[(Anonymous)]

Bertolt Brecht had terrible problems with that. People kept sympathizing with characters who were supposed to be horrible illustrations of... whatever.

[(Anonymous)]

Another great example of this: Walter White on Breaking Bad. Brilliant show, but some people refuse so acknowledge his decent into villainy.

[(Anonymous)]

Sure, fiction's intended to manipulate people to feel one way or another, but being too obvious or ham-handed about it is also crappy storytelling. Pointing that out is a valid observation.

[intrigueing]

Oh no, absolutely, I was just chuckling at the OP's ~outrage that the movie was ~daring to try to make him/her care about a character so s/he'd care when he was killed. Because, um, every single movie who kills a character in a way the audience should empathize with kinda does that. Maybe I just interpreted the OP's wording a bit literally?

[truxillogical]

Well, there was everything I was going to say. +1


(Heck, for me his death even came as a surprise, if only because Clark Gregg had said in an interview that Coulson survived the movie. Filthy, adorable liar.)