[ SECRET POST #3632 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3632 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 27 secrets from Secret Submission Post #519.
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

Re: Petra Pan

[(Anonymous)]

Peter has been played by a woman since the very first production in 1904. And if you read "Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens" it's very clear that Peter is actually a dead baby who tries to return to his mother only to find he's been replaced by a new baby and forgotten. Peter Pan is great stuff, but cute and fun? Sure about that?

Re: Petra Pan

[crossy_woad]

I never read the original, just enjoyed adaptations as a kid. Children's books, movies, you know. I really don't want to hear your critiques of my taste, thanks.

Re: Petra Pan

[(Anonymous)]

I gave you some brief info about the original works (which were written for children, as it goes - you're not having your cosy kid-lit bubble burst here). Sorry you're not interested in learning more about the origins of your favourite character - other readers might be, so feel free not participate further in a discussion you started, but allow for the fact that it may well interest others. It's entirely your loss - the best and most enduring works for children have a streak of darkness in them.

Re: Petra Pan

[(Anonymous)]

this comment is so condescending, I love it

Re: Petra Pan

[(Anonymous)]

TY - I meant every word ;)

Re: Petra Pan

[(Anonymous)]

It also has nothing at all to do with the OPs comment, so it's kind of pointlessly condescending. She was talking about the gender of the character, they fixated on the fact that she called the CHARACTER (not the story) fun, and started lecturing her. Just so that they can go off about how she doesn't want to learn and they are smart and notice when things are dark, which is all that is important, really.

Re: Petra Pan

[(Anonymous)]

Now who is not reading responses properly. The OP described the casting as shitty because it didn't conform to her preferred casting, nevermind that it's traditionally a female role. She's holding other people responsible for her discomfort and gets uptight, defensive and, frankly, abusive when she can't dictate the terms of the conversation.

Peter's not especially fun in any iteration anyway - anarchic and wild, yes. Honestly, where she got cute and fun from in the first place is a bit of a mystery.

Re: Petra Pan

[(Anonymous)]

Not really abusive, but I can see why she would feel defensive given the condescending attitude.

Re: Petra Pan

[(Anonymous)]

I mean, I can see how a little kid would consider "anarchic and wild" to be fun? Isn't that usually why anarchic and wild characters appeal to kids?

I wouldn't say a character can't be "fun" at the time the story takes place simply because said character had a tragic origin story, either.

Re: Petra Pan

[crossy_woad]

your favourite character

Not my favorite character, an early crush. I think you're a troll tho.

Re: Petra Pan

[(Anonymous)]

A debate/discussion/disagreement/call it what you will doesn't become trolling simply because you got a little bit schooled and didn't like it.

Re: Petra Pan

[(Anonymous)]

+1 and it was a proper, literary schooling, too.

Re: Petra Pan

[(Anonymous)]

More like a chance to drag the comment off topic and be condescending.

Re: Petra Pan

[(Anonymous)]

Not really, since they had to change the topic from the character's gender to the sad backstory, which the OP did not seem to have any problem with.

Like, how did anyone get that OP has an issue with sad stories, just because she was disappointed that the character she liked was played by a woman??

[(Anonymous)]

They have a point, however, even if you may not like it. A lot of stories you think of cute Disney stories are quite dark in their original tellings.

In Cinderella, the stepsisters literally cut off parts of their feet to fit them into the slipper.

In the Little Mermaid, Ariel is in intense pain every time she walks with her new feet and in the end, commits suicide.

[crossy_woad]

but i wasn't discussing that.

[(Anonymous)]

They were pointing out that you're being an idiot by wanting to stick your head in the sand about learning about your favorite story just because you don't like it. And they weren't wrong. You don't have to like aspects of the story you like but they are still there. It's not 'critique'.

I also couldn't pass up the chance of potentially ruining more of your disney favorites.

[(Anonymous)]

Now this's just mean spirited. Sometimes I despare at fs community.

[(Anonymous)]

"A lot of stories you think of cute Disney stories are quite dark in their original tellings.

In Cinderella, the stepsisters literally cut off parts of their feet to fit them into the slipper"

It sounds like you're talking about the Grimm brother's version, which is one version but not "the original" (the oldest known version is possibly one from Ancient Greece). The Disney movie is based on Charles Perrault's version, which doesn't include the stepsister's cutting off their feet.

Re: Petra Pan

[(Anonymous)]

"Sorry you're not interested in learning more about the origins of your favourite character - other readers might be, so feel free not participate further in a discussion you started, but allow for the fact that it may well interest others. It's entirely your loss - the best and most enduring works for children have a streak of darkness in them. "

What was the point of this (other than condescension)? She didn't start a conversation about the origins of the character.

Re: Petra Pan

[(Anonymous)]

She doesn't get to control a conversation just because she started it. The information is interesting and it's genuinely a shame that she's not interested but, fair enough, it's not compulsory. So, no, she doesn't have to be interested but she's not entitled to shut it down.

Re: Petra Pan

[(Anonymous)]

Oh yeah, well you're a big meanie-mean so there.

Re: Petra Pan

[(Anonymous)]

Eh, if you want someone to be interested in what you're saying, maybe don't present the information as some rebuttal to something they didn't actually say? Especially if you're going to make a point of using the most patronizing tone possible.

Re: Petra Pan

[(Anonymous)]

Wasn't the actress who played Mrs. Darling originally supposed to play Hook? I know it's always been the actor who plays Mr. Darling, but I know I read that somewhere.

Also I'm a counter example to the person with the Peter crush; little me gave no shits about cartoon Hook but I remember I found Dustin Hoffman's Hook fascinating. And then of course when I was already an adult there was Jason Isaacs' Hook, but I have a hard time imagining anyone anywhere wouldn't find him attractive in the role. But even little me didn't expect to find every iteration of my fictional crushes attractive; hell, OUAT's Hook makes my skin crawl even though the actor is handsome and seems like a nice guy.

Re: Petra Pan

[arcadiaego]

I absolutely love Hook and the whole Mr Darling dual role thing; I think he's such a fascinating character. They did it very well in the 2003 movie, which is probably the best screen adaptation so far, and certainly the most faithful. (And yes, OUAT Hook has nothing whatsoever to do with the Peter Pan character.)