fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3510 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3510 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Stephen King]

__________________________________________________

03.

[John Green]

__________________________________________________

04.

[American Gods]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Charlie Hunnam in King Arthur: Legend of the Sword]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Penn & Teller: Fool Us]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Steven Universe]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Questionable Content]

__________________________________________________

09.

[Ghostbusters 2016]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 53 secrets from Secret Submission Post #502.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - 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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

... though I'm posting kinda late, so if it's too late I may repost tomorrow.

I don't know anything about this adaptation, so whether or not it's a modern one is beside the point... my point IS, however, that I don't understand modern adaptations with the original language. It takes me completely away from the films, and besides, often the script will be cringeworthy. Am I the only one?

Nah. I don't enjoy them either. I hated that Romeo and Juliet movie with DiCaprio.

AYRT - Me too! My literature professor loved it, as well as Titus. I wasn't about to tell him I hated both...

DA. Ah. I wonder if I should say then that that was the one I really liked. Admittedly more from being a Baz Luhrman fan than anything, although it's not his strongest film, but R&J was the play I did in school and one I've seen live as well, and I still enjoyed what the film did with it. I know it's very much love or hate, but it worked for me. The OTT-ness of the film in general made the language seem a more natural choice, and I liked the setting update and the 80s/90s feel. It might not have worked as well on a different play, but R&J has strong elements of melodrama and passion and OTT-ness anyway, and I thought the feud worked well in the updated context as well. A lot of the actors did quite well with the language as well, including Claire Danes who did a lot better than I expected.

But, yes. Very much a love it or hate it thing, I get that.

AYRT - Oh, I'm fine with you liking it! It was more that he was definitely an "agree with me, period" person. (Which made writing anything for him very frustrating.)

Meh, I love em. I thought Romeo and Juliet was beautiful.

It depends on the film though. Some of the themes really do not translate well to modern times. Much Ado About Nothing for instance, while my favorite play by far is really creepy in a modern setting. Then again, I've always thought that Claudio was an utter dick.

I think the intent, generally, is to provide a set of visual tropes, references, themes, aesthetics, etc that interacts with the text in an interesting way, that allows the viewer to pick out different things or get a perspective they otherwise wouldn't have.

So, for instance - and this is a pretty obvious one - the 1930s-fascist-Britain version of Richard III that Ian McKellen did is meant to take the existing themes of Richard III, and superimpose onto them a different, more contemporary set of narratives and styles of political power and political ethics, you know? So it'll be stuff like that.

And also, having an interesting visual aesthetic can just be interesting in its own right - having something visual interesting is good in and of itself, if you see what I mean.

I like it personally, I absolutely love the DiCaprio Romeo & Juliet.

I hate it too. I'd much rather modern adaptations BE modern like She's the Man or 10 Things I Hate About You.

Idk I feel like as someone who is more acquainted with theatre, it doesn't bother me. Theatre does it all the time - because the point of adaptation is usually not to accurately represent the text, but to interpret and analyze it. It isn't meant to replicate reality and doesn't assume the audience will even believe its reality, rather its trying to make the audience think about the message and draw parallels in their head. Like how, Hamilton is the new hot thing, it does the same thing. It isn't accurately representing reality, but rather asking the audience to recognize the parallels between the historical setting and modern day immigration. So Macbeth set in the Soviet Union for example isn't a straight adaptation obviously, but is drawing parallels between Shakespeare's text, which is about corrupt rulers, and the real life political climates of the USSR.

Its called the alienation effect or the distancing effect, and I am huge nerd for it. anyway. That is it I just love talking about it.

(Also I don't like Romeo + Juliet but thats cause I just don't think its a very good movie lmao)

I like the modern adaptations if they make sense. Romeo + Juliet was horrible, but the acting was a big problem (and I just hate that play - I often pretend that Shakespeare just lost a bar bet and had to write a 'star-crossed lovers' story in one day). Ralph Fiennes in Coriolanus was one of the best modern adaptations I've seen, and the setting made perfect sense.

[ SECRET POST #3510 ]

Based on #1/Modern Shakespeare adaptations

Re: Based on #1/Modern Shakespeare adaptations

Re: Based on #1/Modern Shakespeare adaptations

Re: Based on #1/Modern Shakespeare adaptations

Re: Based on #1/Modern Shakespeare adaptations

Re: Based on #1/Modern Shakespeare adaptations

Re: Based on #1/Modern Shakespeare adaptations

Re: Based on #1/Modern Shakespeare adaptations

Re: Based on #1/Modern Shakespeare adaptations

Re: Based on #1/Modern Shakespeare adaptations