[ SECRET POST #3471 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3471 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Brooklyn Nine-Nine]


__________________________________________________



04.
[1931: Scheherazade at the Library of Pergamum]


__________________________________________________



05.
[outlander, ontd-sassenach]


__________________________________________________



06.
(Voltron: Legendary Defender)


__________________________________________________



07.
[Michael Kamen]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Captain America (MCU), Daredevil (MCU), Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood, and Bleach]













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 27 secrets from Secret Submission Post #496.
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

Purist annoyances

[(Anonymous)]

Let's face it: even if you don't like to act in a purist way about adaptations vs source material, and are good at appreciating adaptations on their own merits in a vacuum, there are bound to be SOME occasions where you see an adaptation do something that makes no sense, or completely flies in the face of something established in the source material, and it makes you go "but that's just *wrong*!!"

What are some examples of this for you? The pettier/sillier the better!

Re: Purist annoyances

[philstar22]

The characterization of Sara in Cuaron's A Little Princess adaption just bugs me. Also, while I can live with the father being alive and the setting change to America during WW1, the whole police thing was annoying.

Wizard of Oz. The thing that bugs me most in the movie is the It is all a dream thing. Although Dorothy's characterization bugs me too.

For Lord of the Rings, I do love the movies, but there are little things that bug me. Like the "wood elves going to the sea" thing. No. It wasn't wood elves. Those are the ones who stay. Also, elvish characterizations, especially of Elrond. And the change about the destruction of the Ring. There was a whole point to the fact that in the book what happens is Gollum takes the Ring, dances for joy, and falls into the volcano. Having Frodo push him in changes that.

Re: Purist annoyances

[(Anonymous)]

Frodo didn't push him in though? Frodo attacked Gollum back after the finger-biting to try to get the ring again, and they both fell over the edge and Frodo grabbed the rocks just in time.

Re: Purist annoyances

[shortysc22]

Ugh, I can't stand most of the spinoff Wizard of Oz movies. (Legends of Oz the one with the annoying girl from Glee, Oz the Great and Powerful, and Wicked) but I do enjoy Return to Oz and the two cartoons I watched as a kid.

Re: Purist annoyances

[(Anonymous)]

I hated, hated, HATED Alfonso Cuaron's treatment of A Little Princess, and after his handling of Prisoner of Azkaban, I came to the conclusion that he should just never try to make a movie based on a book ever again, because he apparently cannot read.

Re: Purist annoyances

[(Anonymous)]

The characterization in the Hobbit and LOTR movies drives me batty.

For petty complaints, the dwarves in the Hobbit don't look like dwarves. Especially as they are Longbeards so they should all have long beards. Kili should be blond. Faramir and Boromir should have black hair. Aragorn's crown should look Egyptian. The landscape is all wrong.

I could go on...

Re: Purist annoyances

[(Anonymous)]

This wasn't so much about contradicting the original, but I still seethe about how little of the Half-Blood Prince movie was about the Half-Blood Prince story.

Well, and I guess I do hate that getting rid of the textbook became less about "Oh, shit! Have to store it somewhere, let me use the big ugly macguffin to remember where I put it!" and more about Ginny tying Harry's shoe in the most erotic way possible for teenagers in a PG movie.

Re: Purist annoyances

[sarillia]

I hate that polyjuice potion doesn't change voices in the Harry Potter films. I hate it any time someone switches bodies and the voice doesn't change. It makes no sense and I always get the impression that the creators just don't trust the audience to follow the story.

Re: Purist annoyances

[kaijinscendre]

I hated the last 20 minutes of The Martian because of the changes they made. I loved the rest of the movie, though.

Re: Purist annoyances

[(Anonymous)]

A SUPER DUPER petty one, because this probably wasn't even supposed to be a literal depiction of what was happening, just a symbolic image:

in the prologue of Lord of the Rings, that shot when Galadriel, Gil-Galad, and Cirdan are all together and wearing the three rings. Celebrimbor didn't give them the rings until after Sauron made the One ring, the elves never used the rings while Sauron still had the One ring, since this would have made them vulnerable to him, and Gil-Galad died before Isildur cut the ring off Sauron's hand. Meaning that particular shot was temporally impossible.

Re: Purist annoyances

[sparrow_lately]

ETA: biggest, dumbest one. I loved ÇA:CW, but what in the hell was Bucky doing dropping dropping three fucking dollars on carnival games in the thirties I mean REALLY

When I was a kid, I stopped reading The Boy in Striped Pajamas only a few pages in, because it bothered me so much that the book's POV character, a German-speaking child, consistently misheard things as English phrases (he mistakes Auschwitz for "Out-With"....wtf?).

Lack of historical realism tends to make me bitchy even about media I love.

There's a lot of relatively simple but enriching details about the HP universe the movies ignore or change, but mostly I'll never forgive them for doing away with how FUNNY Harry, Ron, and Hermione are as a trio when they get going. Or for what they did to Ron, generally. Or Harry! He's so funny in the books.

Also, they never actually explained, in the movies, who Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs were.

I also never saw The Book Thief movie because I knew I'd be an insufferable purist about it, so I skipped.

Re: Purist annoyances

[kallanda_lee]

The majority of characterization in X-Men: Apocalypse. Stornm as a street thug? Angel as a cage fighter? Apocalypse more like something out of Stargate than En Sabah Nur? Kill me now.

Re: Purist annoyances

[(Anonymous)]

The Cullens from Twilight. It was just poorly casted across the board (except for Carlisle). It didn't help that they kept on changing the character designs from movie to movie, so they would look completely different then they did in the last one.

Re: Purist annoyances

[(Anonymous)]

Is it considered a purist annoyance when you get annoyed that they can't keep the character's look consistent through every comic he's in? Because if it is, may I offer up Morbius the Living Vampire?

There's the issues where he's fairly normal looking and then there's issues where he looks like he got well acquainted with every branch of the ugly tree as he went crashing through it..

Re: Purist annoyances

[(Anonymous)]

I love Mara Wilson now, but I hated her as Matilda and hate that she's the version most people remember instead of the book's. Matilda is supposed to be a sweet girl who's only subtly snarky, not a smug know-it-all brat.

Re: Purist annoyances

[(Anonymous)]

This one's kinda stupid because it's not even out yet and, who knows, it might work with the movie, but I'm so pissed that Emma doesn't have her fire powers in the movie adaptation of Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children. I'm also pissed that Olive, who was the floating girl in the books, is now the fire maker.

Re: Purist annoyances

[(Anonymous)]

Still angry about Howl's Moving Castle adaptation all these years later. Which is dumb because I 1) love Miyazaki and 2) actually don't like HMC the book all that much. BUT STILL, IT'S THE PRINCIPLE OF THE THING.

Re: Purist annoyances

[(Anonymous)]

Everything about the Final Fantasy VII Compilation, but some of the big ones.

-Cloud's characterization. He was never emo and angsty. He was snarky, funny, and fairly social, even if he was a dick.
-Aeris's characterization. She wasn't a soft angelic innocent breath naive waif. She was funny, sassy, assertive, and brave.
-The implication that Zack is somehow "alive" as a spirit. No. When people die, they dissolve into the Lifestream and their energy separates, combines, and becomes loads of different things - trees, animals, people. That's a huge scene in the game. MAYBE you could handwave that Aeris is still around, being a Cetra. Zack is NOT still around. Frankly, I'm annoyed that Sephiroth is, too.

Re: Purist annoyances

[(Anonymous)]

Let me clarify a few things about Captain America's shield.

It is not made of vibranium.

It is not made of adamantium.

It is not made of layers of adamantium and vibranium sandwiched on each other.

It is not (quite) made of an adamantium-vibranium alloy.

Captain America's shield is a one-off anomaly, a perversely irreproducible result (not unlike the Captain himself). Dr. Myron MacLean was attempting to alloy vibranium with a certain extremely high-strength steel, and it simply wouldn't work. Then, one morning, it did. To this day, no one knows why or how. The resultant disc of metal was and is completely indestructible, invulnerable to all physical damage, and has physical and aerodynamic properties that are unusual in the extreme.

The years of frustration Dr. MacLean spent attempting to reproduce that impossible metallurgical accident did produce one decent spin-off product, though: a useful alloy called adamantium that, while nowhere near as indestructible as Captain America's shield, is more than indestructible enough for most reasonable purposes.

Re: Purist annoyances

[(Anonymous)]

Okay, I take it seriously--The Phantom of the Opera is not an adequate or okay singer. He's so talented that he's mistaken, by a musically gifted young woman, for a literal angel whose voice was so beautiful everyone who heard it instantly became musical prodigies themselves. And it wasn't just her who was affected; her boyfriend hated him and still thought he had the most beautiful voice he'd ever heard. Gerard Butler he ain't. It's no wonder his version of Christine is such a poor singer herself, though.

Re: Purist annoyances

[(Anonymous)]

The Hobbit movies, especially:
* Gandalf/Galdriel subtext
* the giant pool of golden cheese dip
* Legolas/Tauriel/whatshisname love triangle
* the trash-drag joke.

Re: Purist annoyances

[(Anonymous)]

It still bothers me (more than it should, honestly) that Hermione's dress in the GoF movie is pink while in the books it is blue. Like, Emma Watson would've looked stunning in blue. Why did the dress have to be pink???

Re: Purist annoyances

[sadiesockmonkey]

The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants movie changes the girls' birth order.

It also completely rewrites Lena's quarter of the story to make it a Romeo & Juliet deal when that's not what it was at all in the book.

But the changing of the birth order drives me crazy because the books repeatedly draw on how, despite all being born within a month or so of each other, their ages affect their personalities and their dynamic as a group.

Re: Purist annoyances

[fishnchips]

This is something most people here don't know, I guess, but: Everything about the movie adaption of Otfried Preußler's "Krabat". If they had just pretended that it's a very free adaption of the general legend, it still would have been bad, but as a movie adaption for the book, it was completely terrible.
Nothing was done well (except for the master of the mill, who would be impossible to do wrong). It was a disgrace and an insult for the book. They didn't even get the landscape and locations right (which is stupid as hell).

I'm still so bitter about this whole mess.

Re: Purist annoyances

[(Anonymous)]

This is incredibly petty (and not, strictly, over an adaptation), but.

Right-handed Doomguy.
Right-handed Link.

They're both originally left-handed, so why do the newer games make them right-handed?

(To add to the pettiness, I'm not even a lifelong Zelda fan, or much of a diehard fan of it at all. And Doom, while I did grow up with it, is mostly just about shooting demons in the face, it's not as serious as Zelda games. And I'm not even left-handed myself.)