[ SECRET POST #2532 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2532 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.



__________________________________________________


11.


__________________________________________________



12.







Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 065 secrets from Secret Submission Post #362.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[cassandraoftroy]

Yes, how dare people choose not to see a movie that has content that will annoy them! You'd almost think that people's recreation time and money was limited and they wanted to restrict their use of it to things that they will enjoy!

You also seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that all "talking animal characters" are created equal. You don't see people complaining about Meeko and Abu being annoying, because they don't annoy most people. They are not obnoxious, overbearing characters with stupidly "funny" voices and ridiculous-looking character designs. On the other hand, I hate, detest, abhor, despise, and revile the gargoyles from HoND. They bother me. (Djali the goat, however, does not -- because not obnoxious.) By acting like all "talking animal characters" are the same in terms of annoyance potential, you're essentially asking why people are annoyed by Jar Jar Binks while saying they like Chewbacca, and claiming that nostalgia goggles for the original trilogy is the only difference.

[(Anonymous)]

"Obnoxious" is in the eye of the beholder.

[cassandraoftroy]

What an astute observation.

[(Anonymous)]

u seem pressed

[cassandraoftroy]

u seem to have missed the point of this comm

(Hi OP)

[(Anonymous)]

(Djali the goat, however, does not -- because not obnoxious.)

Djali may be my favorite animal sidekick ever. I went through a major purge of my giant stuffed animal collection several years ago and donated basically everything that hadn't either been handmade by a family member or been by my side since before I can remember. Djali was one of about four critters that didn't fit into one of those categories but got to stay anyway, because I just love that damn goat.

[cassandraoftroy]

Djali was adorable. I find I almost always like the animal sidekicks that don't actually talk in words; they just seem cuter. I also like some of the ones that do talk, but they're more hit-or-miss.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, the not-talking definitely helps. In addition to being cuter, I think part of the reason it works better is because there are fewer links in the chain and fewer chances for it to fail. With a talking character, you have someone setting the scene, possibly a different someone writing the actual dialogue, someone delivering the lines, someone storyboarding/animating the scene to match the lines, and all of the editors and directors giving their input. With a nonverbal character, you have someone setting the scene and just handing it straight to the artists whose entire job is "make this non-human thing seem alive/human" and then passing it to the editors and directors.

[othellia]

I used to love the gargoyles from HoND as a kid, and now I'm just like "WHY. WHY DISNEY. YOU COULD'VE MADE SUCH A DARK MASTERPIECE."

I feel kind of the same way about Timon and Pumbaa tbh, but the tone whiplash is much higher with the gargoyles.

[cassandraoftroy]

I can certainly see that with Timon and Pumbaa; I don't think they really bothered me that much, but they weren't among my favorite characters either. You're right that there's less tone whiplash with them; they seem to "fit" the movie they're in better, both visually and thematically. (I could've done without the bathroom humor, though. I never found that kind of joke funny, even as a kid.)

[iggy]

Have you seen Frozen? Olaf isn't the best thing ever, but he's not near as intrusive and obnoxious as Hugo was.

[cassandraoftroy]

My point is, I don't think anyone should feel obligated to go see a movie featuring something they believe will annoy them, just to find out if it really will annoy them as much as they thought. If someone wants to take a chance on it, that's fine, but if someone decides to pass on a movie because they think one of the animated characters looks unpleasant, and save their limited entertainment funds for something they think they'll have a better chance of enjoying, there's nothing wrong with that -- and OP seems to think it's not only wrong, but "overreacting and being childish." In fact, OP didn't even seem to be saying, "the snowman isn't that annoying," they seemed to be saying, "of course the snowman is annoying; suck it up and watch the movie anyway." Which, wtf?

[mimi-sardinia.livejournal.com]

And these days DVDs/Blu-rays come out in only a few months, so they can wait and hire the movie, or download it for a hell of a lot cheaper than the cost of a cinema ticket.

[cassandraoftroy]

Good point. If someone gets that curious about it, they can just wait and get it from the library or borrow it from a friend.

OP

[(Anonymous)]

I haven't seen the film yet, so I don't know if the snowman is annoying or not.

I meant more that the people who have been screaming that the snowman means the whole movie is the worst piece of shit ever since the first trailer came out are being babies. Not people who just aren't interested in seeing it.

But really, even if the snowman does suck, it doesn't necessarily mean the whole movie does, so I think it's weird of someone to refuse the see the film based solely on the chance that a (presumably minor?) character will annoy them.

Re: OP

[cassandraoftroy]

It's hard to tell, based solely on the trailers, how significant a role the snowman will have in the movie. But being sufficiently annoyed by one character or aspect of a movie is often more than enough to turn someone off on the whole thing -- we get secrets every day about people disliking or not enjoying media for much more frivolous reasons than that.

And honestly, most of the people I've heard who have been disappointed by the movie trailers and refuse to see Frozen have disliked a lot more about it than just the snowman; for many of them, the snowman himself was just the shitty icing on an already terrible cake. Maybe there are a lot of people out there who just took one look at the snowman and went "Nope!" and I just haven't seen them, but honestly? I think that's as good a reason as any to take your movie-going dollars and use them to see a movie that doesn't contain something you know is going to annoy you before you even walk into the theater.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes and how dare they make a children's movie with children in mind instead of catering to the opinion of adults on the internet.

And how would anyone know they are going to hate the snowman if they don't see the film?

[cassandraoftroy]

Yes, and how dare adults decide not to go see a children's movie if they think it looks like something they won't enjoy?

People quite reasonably make decisions about what movies to see based on trailers all the time; it's why movie trailers exist. If a person hates everything they see of the snowman in the trailer and it sours them on the rest of the movie preview, what possible reason would they have to go see the rest of the movie? Do you make a habit of going to see movies whose trailers annoy you, just to find out if you were right in being annoyed?

[(Anonymous)]

If there were a movie I wanted to see and then there was one thing I didn't like in the trailer, I wouldn't probably still see it, perhaps after checking some reviews to see how much screentime was used on the thing I didn't like. I wouldn't write it off completely just because one part of it wasn't exactly how I wanted it.

"Do you make a habit of going to see movies whose trailers annoy you, just to find out if you were right in being annoyed?"

No. But I don't go on the internet before the release and yell that anyone who does want to see it is an idiot and that the movie shouldn't exist because I don't like it. Why are you intentionally misunderstanding? I don't care if people don't like or don't want to watch this film, the secret was addressed to the small(ish) group of people who have been wanking about how it's the worst movie in the world JUST because of the snowman ever since the first trailer came out.

[cassandraoftroy]

I'm not "intentionally misunderstanding" anything. If the secret was intended to target only people who were contributing to wank on the internet about the snowman, rather than people who didn't want to see the movie for reasons that included the snowman, then it was a badly written secret. If the text of the secret had spent more time talking about internet wank and less time going on about how dare people be annoyed by something annoying, it might've been more clear.