[ SECRET POST #2925 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2925 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 046 secrets from Secret Submission Post #418.
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

Re: Good Adaptions

[philstar22]

I think there are a couple things that are important to me: understanding the world of the thing you are adapting, and understanding the basic things the author was trying to get across.

And this is where I like the Hobbit adaptions for the most part and hate basically all Wizard of Oz adaptions. All of these change a whole lot. But I feel like the Hobbit understands Middle Earth and for the most part understands what Tolkien was about (even making it more action-oriented didn't bug me because I think it fits within the larger world). On the other hand, making it all a dream or making the witch the hero and bringing the new author's own pet messages like animal rights into things misses everything about the Oz books and just ruin things in my perspective.

Re: Good Adaptions

[shortysc22]

Ugh don't get me started on Wizard of Oz adaptations. I think the only "faithful" one was the 1980s/90s Japanese television show that aired on HBO when I was kid. I think there was also a Japanese musical animated movie that was dubbed in English that was also more accurate to the book, but ugh Oz the Great and Powerful and Wicked are not my cup of tea since I love the books so much.

I like the MGM movie but only because it's a classic movie but I take the book and movie to be very separate things.

Re: Good Adaptions

[(Anonymous)]

...But the animal rights thing wasn't literally about animals, but a huge metaphor for racism. We saw it with Elphaba and the munchkins, too. If you weren't like Glinda, you were discriminated against.

As well, Wicked wasn't about literally making the witch the hero, it was about how perspectives alter things and that behind every villain there's a story in itself. how she became the wicked witch was a story in itself, and I found Wicked interesting in that sense. It showed Dorothy as a little girl caught up in something she didn't understand fully. you know, like she actually was.

Re: Good Adaptions

[philstar22]

Okay, but the point still remains. Taking someone else's world and completely changing it in order to get your pet message across still makes for a bad adaption. In the Oz book, there was no hint of that racism against animals. It was added into Wicked.

I'm all for giving villains a background and making them more complex, but not if you change the setting and the way things work in that world in the process. It is totally possible to give a villain a backstory without doing that. And I personally have a big problem with published authors taking that much liberty with someone else's world and characters.