[ SECRET POST #3528 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3528 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 15 secrets from Secret Submission Post #504.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 1 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Because....they're not the people making the movies? The movie adaptation of a book is simply a different piece of work, because movies and books are different. It makes sense to have a different creative team in charge of making the movie (emphasis on *team*, because one person can write a book, but you can't put a single person in charge of making a movie, whether they wrote a book or not).

[(Anonymous)]

You still can't intentionally ignore the wishes of the author. It would change nothing on the part of the studio or publisher to have the author consulted about decisions like casting and stuff.

[(Anonymous)]

But authors are consulted on a lot of decisions. And you literally *can* ignore the wishes of the author, because they truly don't matter much when you're making a movie based on a book. Honoring authorial intent is not a human right, anon.

[(Anonymous)]

Uh, yes, you can. Are you not aware that authors sell movie rights to their work tgat usually says they agree to give up creative control in exchange for money?

[(Anonymous)]

Spoken like someone who's never had to deal with writers professionally. Or with anyone. The more people you give veto power over a thing you're doing, the less likely it is that the thing will ever, ever get done.

[(Anonymous)]

This. I'm surprised this isn't more obvious to the ayrt.

[(Anonymous)]

THIS.

First, the phrase "too many cooks" applies here. An author writes books, but doesn't necessarily know jack shit about making movies. And nothing is more obnoxious than a self-obsessed writer who insists that every little detail is ~so important~. Movies pace differently than books, things that work in books don't always work in movies.

And to some extent, movie companies DO have to think about what's going to sell, because movies are really fucking expensive to make and they can't afford a flop just to follow an author's vision (no matter how well-intentioned). Obviously, this can go too far - I don't agree with whtiewashing at all, but there may be some financial truth to the fact that booking Scarlet Johanson is going to guarantee you more profit than if you book a no-name non-white actress.

And I am reminded of 50 Shades of Grey. From what I hear, the director tried to make a lot more changes, to make the source material less... awful and cringey. But the author kept rejecting it all, demanding to keep it as accurate as possible. As I recall, the director ended up leaving the project and a lot of the original crap stayed. Sure, the author (forget her name) is the one who created the material and maybe deserves some say, but in this case, you're adapting niche mommy porn to the big screen for a mainstream audience. Changes can and do have to happen.

And sometimes those changes suck. This is 100% true. That's when whitewashing and gay erasure happen. But the answer isn't necessarily "always do it like the author wants".

[(Anonymous)]

You honestly sound about 12.