[ SECRET POST #3591 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3591 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 29 secrets from Secret Submission Post #513.
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

[(Anonymous)]

tbf, it's a little different with comic books than it is with novels/plays because a ton of people have written, for example, The X-Men. And a lot of those writers interpret the characters differently, which often causes characterizations to shift depending on who's writing. Just ask Magneto fans.

[(Anonymous)]

There's a lot of room for interpretation in Shakespeare too, though. Every single actor who takes on an iconic role like Hamlet or King Lear generally has to consider past performances when they decide how they're going to do it.

[likeadeuce]

That's still an interpretation of a single text, though. Comic book adaptations don't have a core text, and some of the texts contradict each other. If a director is using a specific comics story or run for inspiration, it makes sense to say the actor would benefit from being familiar with it, but that's not always the case -- especially if you're dealing with a character like Batman or Spider-Man that has many different interpretations over the years.

[otakugal15]

Yes, but it'd still be beneficial to the actor to read a sampling of said material, maybe even from various runs, to get a base idea of said character and then, if they end up liking a particular run, they can base their performance off said run. Granted, it may not be the most beneficial to the FILM, but at least the actor can say they had an idea after having read some of the core material instead of going in blind...like the dude who played the second Dumbledore. Hence why we got raging "DID YOU PUT YOUR NAME IN THE GOBLET GRAAAAA HARRY" as opposed to quietly fuming Dumbledore.

[arcadiaego]

Richard Harris certainly didn't read Harry Potter either but aside from that, it could well have been a directorial choice. That's what happens in adaptations.

[otakugal15]

Hmm, even if he didn't, he still fit the bill FAR MORE than Michael Gambon. Dear GOD did I hate his Dumbledore....

[(Anonymous)]

That's true, but even in a single text, there's a LOT of room for interpretation. That's how Shakespeare is. It's why no two performances of the same role are exactly alike, and why there are so many adaptations of each play. And Hamlet's been around a little longer than either Batman OR Spider-Man...

[kallanda_lee]

Yeah, came here to say. I feel like...either you'd have to read a LOT of the anon, from a lot of different writers, or you just...don't. If you only read a bit, you might end up with an interpretation of the character the creators are not going for.

[(Anonymous)]

Ang Lee's "Hulk" for example. A movie that actually got a lot right from the comics over the years, but missed that all people really wanted was "Hulk, Smash!" and basically the TV series. Of course that is a director rather than an actor, but the same principle. Without the pop culture familiarity, Lee picked up the wrong things.

You either have to be Deadpool level immersed in the role and familiarity, or just go with the script and whatever few scraps of pop culture you're bumped into.

[kallanda_lee]

You know, I sort of liked parts of Ang Lee's hulk, but looking at it from this angle...it makes so much sense.

[(Anonymous)]

People don't give Lee enough credit, he actually did go and read as many of the comics as he could get his hands on. He really did do the background reading. It is just a shame that he picked up on the wrong bits, but how could he know that? Fandom is a fickle thing. On the other hand the old tv-show didn't give a rat's ass about the source most of the time, they were ripping off The Fugitive and The Invaders for most of it, and all they picked up was Banner (David, not Bruce because Bruce sounded a bit gay) turns green and strong when angry and then Hulk smashes. And it was a real hit.

[(Anonymous)]

I demand Deadpool level immersion. For all my nerdy needs.