case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2015-03-10 07:09 pm

[ SECRET POST #2988 ]


⌈ Secret Post #2988 ⌋

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: 02 pages, 050 secrets from Secret Submission Post #427.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 1 2 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

(Anonymous) 2015-03-10 11:20 pm (UTC)(link)
Seriously, though, why do they keep making new versions of Peter Pan

(Anonymous) 2015-03-10 11:28 pm (UTC)(link)
Trying to get it right?
philstar22: (Sirius)

[personal profile] philstar22 2015-03-10 11:32 pm (UTC)(link)
Personally I think the 2003 version got it pretty right.

(Anonymous) 2015-03-10 11:58 pm (UTC)(link)
+1

(Anonymous) 2015-03-11 12:44 am (UTC)(link)
I'll agree. I even cried. And I don't care for Peter Pan, but that version was on point.
dahli: winnar @ lj (Default)

[personal profile] dahli 2015-03-11 12:52 am (UTC)(link)
+2

That was a good movie and a good adaptation.

(Anonymous) 2015-03-11 01:51 am (UTC)(link)
It wasn't afraid of the weird pubescent erotic subtext, either.

No, not saying I want to fuck 12-year-olds. Saying that other 12-year-olds are getting interested in the idea, and that's always been a big part of the subtext of the story, if you read the original.
kittydesade: (Default)

[personal profile] kittydesade 2015-03-11 12:29 am (UTC)(link)
More like trying to keep the rights, is my guess.

(Anonymous) 2015-03-11 01:13 am (UTC)(link)
It's in the public domain. So, even better, all the notoriety and it's free!
kittydesade: (Default)

[personal profile] kittydesade 2015-03-11 02:43 pm (UTC)(link)
I know the text is, are the film rights encompassed in that? 'cause if so I got nothing, then, probably just moneymoneymoney.

(Anonymous) 2015-03-10 11:48 pm (UTC)(link)
Because it's awesome. Also, this is a prequel.

(Anonymous) 2015-03-10 11:49 pm (UTC)(link)
Because it's a classic childrens' story that can be marketed to the whole family. You might as well ask why Disney keeps making adaptations of fairy tales.

(Anonymous) 2015-03-11 12:16 am (UTC)(link)
They do it because: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoYWdHe4tQ4

I've been waiting to use this clip forever.
othellia: (Default)

[personal profile] othellia 2015-03-11 05:39 am (UTC)(link)
GDI WAS THAT THE TOM AND JERRY MOVIE

(Anonymous) 2015-03-11 05:49 pm (UTC)(link)
Yes, yes it was =D

(Anonymous) 2015-03-11 12:28 am (UTC)(link)
It's peanutty?

(Anonymous) 2015-03-12 02:09 am (UTC)(link)
Because it's public domain and they don't have to buy the rights each time.