[ SECRET POST #4268 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4268 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 28 secrets from Secret Submission Post #611.
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

[fscom]

01. https://i.imgur.com/MmCcNLm.png

[rudehannibal]

Didn't they just release a reimagining of Little Women?

(As I post this, a commercial for the movie comes on the television.)

BBC did a miniseries.

[(Anonymous)]

With Uma Thurman's and Ethan Hawke's daughter as Jo. It aired here in May.

But there's also a modern retelling with Lea Thompson as Marmee that will be released later this month.

The one in the secret is still in pre-production, but has Timothée Chalamet as Laurie, Saoirse Ronan as Jo, and Meryl Streep as Aunt March, plus Emma Watson (I don't think she's a great actress, but I do think the Meg role sort of fits her.)

Re: BBC did a miniseries.

[rudehannibal]

I believe it's the 150th (?) anniversary of the novel so I guess everyone's trying to get their share

Re: BBC did a miniseries.

[philstar22]

I don't understand why they have to keep adapting the same books when there are a lot of classics who have no adaptions or maybe one done a long time ago.

Re: BBC did a miniseries.

[(Anonymous)]

I mean I definitely agree that there are a lot of great classic books out there that could become movies, but I think it's pretty clear why Little Women in particular has a lot of appeal for audiences, actors, and directors alike.

(1) Lots of good female roles in an ensemble cast, so makes it easier to attract "stars" which makes studio heads more likely to pick it up.

(2) Proto-feminist and obliterates the Bechdel test but does so without being "controversial" in a way that could alienate audiences (and honestly, the audience it might alienate is straight men, who probably weren't going to see a movie with "women" in the title anyways)

(3) Has appeal for female-identifying people of all ages. Like it's totally a movie that you could hit up w/ your mom and grandma and little sibling and potentially all enjoy it.

(4) Literary appeal and prestige but is in public domain (so the film makers don't need to pay for royalties).

Re: BBC did a miniseries.

[(Anonymous)]

Are there, though? Are there that many classics that...

* haven't been done before or recently
* can be written into movie length screenplay format without too much abridging
* are feasible to film, i.e. not too expensive
* still have name recognition and/or applicability to a modern audience

What Little Women has going for it is that it's still a well known work with lots of nostalgia behind it, there are lots of female roles, the themes of family are also classic and applicable, it's very family friendly and virtually all of it can be filmed inside a studio or in reasonable settings without big outlay for special effects, etc.

[(Anonymous)]

That seems like a pretty indifferent swap to me, tbh, but I also wouldn't have seen the movie in a billion years regardless.

(I also have a hard time looking at pictures of Emma Watson's face without getting momentarily distracted by how pretty she is so)

[(Anonymous)]

(that is an adorable aside)

[(Anonymous)]

I was already on the fence about it, cause like I like Emma Stone, but I feel like she's too recognizable at this point and I'd feel like I wasn't watching the March girls, I'd be watching "Emma Stone in a Period Drama."

But like...Emma Watson is just the same issue-times infinity, especially given that she's not as good an actor as Stone. And just thinking of all the Drama she caused and all the changes she forced on Beauty and the Beast...and how self-righteous she was about how "progressive" she was being. Just...urgh...

I trust Greta Gerwig to make a faithful but nuanced and quietly feminist version anyway. I don't need Emma Watson bossing the director and cast and crew around to "make it more progressive" and then congratulating herself for taking yet another female character who was already a decent role model and "fixing her" (see also: Belle and Hermione).

Also, they'd been speculating that Emma Stone was gonna be Meg to Saorisie Ronan's Jo, which I had doubted but would've been here for. And I just KNOW Emma Watson's "gold star white girl feminism" isn't going to LET her play anyone except Jo. (Unless she really rewrites the script).

* Runs off to watch the 1995 version. And the Katharine Hepburn version. And read the book instead*

[(Anonymous)]

I'm mildly interested in this, just to see what they do with Bhaer this time... Also while they announced certain characters, I think it's still unsure for some who of the people cast plays them?

[(Anonymous)]

The best guess I've seen for everyone so far is:

Meryl Streep - Aunt March
Laura Dern - Marmee
Emma - Meg
Saoirse Ronan - Jo
Eliza Scanlon - Beth
Florence Pugh - Amy
Timothee Chalamet - Laurie
James Norton - Mr Brooks
Louis Garrel - Bhaer

That's still somewhat speculation, though.

[(Anonymous)]

SA

I've seen the same list, but till they announce it, I don't want to hope for Garrel as Bhaer. Cause I really want it and the universe usually isn't that kind to me. Watch him be that teacher who marries Meg or something.

[(Anonymous)]

I just don't understand how Emma Watson still gets work. She's a terrible actress.

[(Anonymous)]

She's famous and pretty and her name recognition means that any project she's attached to gets headlines.

[(Anonymous)]

More like you don't know shit what you're talking about.

[(Anonymous)]

Settle down, Potterhead.

[(Anonymous)]

She's a pretty white woman with a giant box office pull because she was a part of a beloved childhood movie franchise. Sure, she's terrible at acting but kids won't notice stuff like that.

[(Anonymous)]

Noo! There's only a few actresses I won't watch and she's one of them. I love Little Women and was looking forward for more adaptations. :(

[(Anonymous)]

I will forever yearn for the Little Women remake that a) casts/writes Brooke, Bhaer and Laurie all well and b) tells the story of four sisters' lives and not Jo March's Life co-starring three other girls.

Something tells me this isn't going to be it.