case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2017-03-27 06:21 pm

[ SECRET POST #3736 ]


⌈ Secret Post #3736 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Star Trek: AOS (Reboot)]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Jake Lloyd, Star Wars]


__________________________________________________



04.
(A Little Princess, the 1995 Alfonso Cuarón version)


__________________________________________________



05.
[Detective Constable Katie Harford (played by Georgina Campbell) on Broadchurch (season 3)]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Naruto, KakaSasu]


__________________________________________________



07. [repeat]
[The Nosleep Podcast]










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 28 secrets from Secret Submission Post #533.
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.

[personal profile] fscom 2017-03-27 10:22 pm (UTC)(link)
04. http://i.imgur.com/xibwSsC.png
(A Little Princess, the 1995 Alfonso Cuarón version)
sarillia: (Default)

[personal profile] sarillia 2017-03-27 10:33 pm (UTC)(link)
This movie pissed me off so much when I was a kid.

Now I want to reread the book again.
tabaqui: (Default)

[personal profile] tabaqui 2017-03-28 12:06 am (UTC)(link)
You should! I re-read every year. :)
sarillia: (Default)

[personal profile] sarillia 2017-03-28 12:15 am (UTC)(link)
I actually did grab it off my shelf and start reading.
tabaqui: (Default)

[personal profile] tabaqui 2017-03-28 12:19 am (UTC)(link)
Yay! Enjoy!

(Anonymous) 2017-03-29 09:05 pm (UTC)(link)
Didn't Sara name her dolls something like Fauntleroy Cholmondeley or something to that effect?

(no subject)

[personal profile] tabaqui - 2017-03-30 03:54 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) 2017-03-27 10:53 pm (UTC)(link)
I dunno, why would anyone send a child they loved to a continent away from the one where a war was being fought?

I don't really like the movie or the book, but that part wasn't a plothole.

(Anonymous) 2017-03-27 11:02 pm (UTC)(link)
... you do understand that in the early 1900s, traveling overseas from England was complicated and rather dangerous, right? And that it was also an investment of time and money that most parents couldn't afford, no matter how much they loved their children?

Even in WWII (vs. WWI era where the movie was set), evacuating children from dangerous places usually meant from English cities to the English countryside, not overseas and certainly not to the U.S. - for the exact same reasons why this was not a practical solution in WWI.

(Anonymous) 2017-03-27 11:36 pm (UTC)(link)
Sara's dad was really, really rich at the beginning, though. Most parents couldn't afford half the stuff she got.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-03-28 00:17 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-03-28 03:42 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) 2017-03-27 11:47 pm (UTC)(link)
About 3000 kids were evacuated to the US during WWII, and another 7000 or so to Canada. The main reason they didn't send more was that the Germans were totally cool with torpedoing ships full of refugee children. The Brits pretty much decided to keep the kids in Europe after the Volendam went down.

With that said, child evacuation as a concept wasn't really a thing in WWI, and Captain Crewe joined up at the start of it when people were still mostly optimistic that it was going to be over quickly and fairly painlessly. Setting the movie in NYC was just silly.

(Anonymous) 2017-03-27 11:33 pm (UTC)(link)
Have you actually read the book or seen the movie? Sara was already in India, which is pretty far from where the major battles of WWI were fought. There was no need to move her to the U.S. for that reason and risk a long, potentially hazardous sea voyage to New York.

In other words, yeah, it was kind of a plot hole.

(Anonymous) 2017-03-28 07:17 am (UTC)(link)
Her mother went to the school, which is why Sara was sent there. There's a scene in which she sees her mother's photograph on the wall.

(no subject)

[personal profile] tabaqui - 2017-03-30 03:55 (UTC) - Expand
arcadiaego: Grey, cartoon cat Pusheen being petted (Default)

[personal profile] arcadiaego 2017-03-28 10:18 pm (UTC)(link)
Not a plothole exactly but weren't Sarah and her father Anglo Indian? Those children were almost always sent back to British schools.
tabaqui: (Default)

[personal profile] tabaqui 2017-03-30 03:55 am (UTC)(link)
Yes. And her mother didn't go to school in New York.

(Anonymous) 2017-03-27 11:32 pm (UTC)(link)
. . . I liked the "all girls are princesses" crap. It's one of my favorite parts of the movie.

I read the book before I ever saw the movie and I remember being a little annoyed with the changes, but I really liked it. I liked it way more than the Shirley Temple version and I used to be obsessed with her when I was a kid. As an adult, I can view it with a more critical eye, but I still enjoy it and it's one of the movies I watch when I'm sick or just need to have a restful day. I find it soothing, especially the soundtrack.

(Anonymous) 2017-03-27 11:54 pm (UTC)(link)
I remember loving this movie visually and for it's general feel, but the whole "all girls are princesses" crap made me so angry. I was an angry little kid, and the whole princess and pink thing would make me so mad. My mom told me once that apparently I'd throw a fit if anyone even called me a "little girl", I don't remember it at all but I do remember hating all things that were associated with being a girl: pink, delicate, dresses, princesses.

(Confession, I've never actually read the book.)

(Anonymous) 2017-03-28 01:09 am (UTC)(link)
She never, ever says "all girls are princesses" in the book; she makes believe she's a princess to remind herself to behave like one--i.e., with courage, sense, kindness, magnanimity, patience, courtesy. TBH, Sara is a damn sight more soldierly than her father, the army captain.

(Anonymous) 2017-03-28 02:43 pm (UTC)(link)
The "all girls are princesses" thing had nothing to do with pink or being delicate, though. I always understood it to mean being loved or precious or worthwhile, especially in the situation in the movie.
tabaqui: (Default)

[personal profile] tabaqui 2017-03-28 12:06 am (UTC)(link)
YES! I hated this movie so much. I wanted a reboot, because the original Shirley Temple is okay, but they changed the ending. This one is just a stinker.

(Plus i hated all that damn *green* everywhere.)

(Anonymous) 2017-03-28 12:10 am (UTC)(link)
The general hate for this movie makes me sad. And I say that as someone who grew up with the book. I guess I was kind of hoping for differences... I don't like 100% direct adaptations with no personalities of their own, because my own imagination generally does better for me.

I didn't mind what they did with Sara's character, I was actually happy about her dad being okay, I LOVED Becky (I was ambivalent to her in the book), and as you said, stunning visuals. I will admit the "all girls are princesses" thing was a bit hamfisted, though.
sarillia: (Default)

[personal profile] sarillia 2017-03-28 12:17 am (UTC)(link)
I'm generally with you on adaptations and I might have a different opinion now than I did when I watched it as a kid.
philstar22: (Default)

[personal profile] philstar22 2017-03-28 12:20 am (UTC)(link)
This secret could have been made by me. I agree with this so much.

(Anonymous) 2017-03-28 01:48 am (UTC)(link)
Finally, someone who feels like I do about that movie!

(Anonymous) 2017-03-28 07:19 pm (UTC)(link)
I remember the anime was pretty nice
arcadiaego: Grey, cartoon cat Pusheen being petted (Default)

[personal profile] arcadiaego 2017-03-28 10:16 pm (UTC)(link)
Lol I remember this was showing on a plane when I went on holiday to the USA when I was a kid and I got so freaking angry about it. My poor mum was just trying to sleep while I was offering a lecture about why the book was better.