[ SECRET POST #2675 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2675 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 033 secrets from Secret Submission Post #382.
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

[(Anonymous)]

It never sat well with me that the movie made Rasputin, an actual historical figure, into a Satan-like demon trying to destroy Anastacia from beyond the grave. Never really had a problem with the rest of it though, because it was so clearly a confection. Plus, I would wager that it probably led lots of young kids to be interested in Russia and Russian history, and to find out the real story behind it all, so I can't be mad about that.

It also has my favourite song in any animated musical:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Bsdu57SFZc

(Once Upon A December of course, gorgeous.)

[(Anonymous)]

To be entirely fair, they had to come up with some reason why it took so much for him to die. And he really did take a lot. He was not a good man by any means.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

But... they didn't. They really didn't. And the antagonist could have been a supporter of his out to avenge his death who decided to use black magic to find Anastacia, and the film would have been basically the same.

DA

[(Anonymous)]

And then you'd have critics wondering why they didn't just use Rasputin given he'd have every reason to have a grudge against them and it would be far more personal.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

And the answer would be because he's dead???

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

DA

Come on. From a storytelling perspective, your suggestion just doesn't make sense. Nobody who sets out to tell an epic story with tragic historical figures ignores the obvious choices that audiences will expect to see in favor of an OC. You also seem to be missing the fact that Rasputin was dead makes him more a MORE attractive potential villain, not less.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

My suggestion was just one off the cuff alternate way they could have had a similar story and not written a story that portrays a real historical figure as a Satanic zombie. That does not mean it would be the only alternative.

In comparison, Mulan and Pocahontas both managed to incorporate magic realism into the story without making their antagonist supernaturally evil.

Sure, making the villain undead and have magic powers is attractive from a story-telling point of view. I'm making the argument that it's tacky.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

To be fair, disney made mulan and Pocahontas. They are a cash cow with more money to throw at writing. Which, is it tacky because he had children and grandchildren who were alive when this came out, or did you not think of that? Honestly, it was a cutesey fairy tale that like another person said, might have made one or more child interested in Russian history. I know this movie made me go out and research the Russian royal family.

I spent forever obsessing over the history of the titanic after that movie came out. They set up a villian in that too, Ismay, who is blamed for the ship not slowing down in the ice fields. But I dont see him being championed, or any other historical person who is villianized.

Let people make their takes on history, it is our responsibility as consumers of such to educate ourselves (and our children) about inaccuracies.

[(Anonymous)]

I was just coming in here to say that! I wouldn't have minded at all if they'd elided most of the history to focus on Anastasia. But adding Demon Rasputin to the mix (as the Romanov's sole antagonist, if I remember correctly -- though I might not be) was a mistake.

[(Anonymous)]

No, he was just the one who kept coming after Anastasia because his passing on peacefully required all of the Romanovs being dead. And she obviously was not.

It actually mentions at the beginning that there was a lot of unrest that was fanned into a flame.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, well, that's better than I remembered!

[(Anonymous)]

I will admit it was this film that introduced me to Russian/Romanov history, but knowing what I know now, I can't stand this film. Although, for me, it's more about how historical inaccurate it is ("Princess" Anastasia, the revolution happening four years too early, the ages of the kids, dream!Alexei being super active [which is probably nit-picking, but eh]

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

That's legit too. I still ain't even mad.

[ceebeegee]

Awesome. I actually wrote a LTTE to the Washington Post (and it was printed) in response to an article they'd run about Anna Anderson (recent DNA analysis had proven she was not Anastasia) and among other nitpicks I pointed out that Anastasia was not a princess, except in the general sense of "Princess of the blood"--she was a Grand Duchess. I was performing in Fiddler On the Roof at the time and used to sign my programs спасибо (thank you).