[ SECRET POST #4290 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4290 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 21 secrets from Secret Submission Post #614.
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)]

What? Why? I legitimately don't see the issue. Seems like a neat plot to me, and I love the actress they cast.

[(Anonymous)]

I guess maybe it's because they cast as Korean actress to play an Indonesian mythical creature of Hindu origin? Or whatever.

[(Anonymous)]

I mean, it's a snake morph though. No matter what the name was derived from. And I thought people were made that they dared cast a woman of color in a subservient role to Voldemort, I didn't get the sense it'd be any less controversial if they cast an Indonesian actress or something.

[(Anonymous)]

Right enough, I forgot about the subservient POC element of the wank.

[(Anonymous)]

... and it was a little more cringey because JKR tweeted that factoid like it was sort of mic drop moment.

[(Anonymous)]

Not OP but: it's dumb and bad. It adds nothing interesting in terms of depth to the series, and in fact makes the treatment of Nagini in the original series inexplicable and totally weird. Just make a different dark witch if you have to.

I don't object to JKR doing it at all, and casting a Korean lady instead of a South Asian one is a little silly but whatever. And I wouldn't say it's about "drawing a line" because I'm totally happy just ignoring it. But I don't think it's good, and I think the same is true for a lot of JKR's choices.

[(Anonymous)]

It's a funny old world. I'm like 100000000000 times more excited for this film now that I get to learn Nagini's backstory. Hell, I'm even more excited about Credence now that he has what appears to be someone who can meet him on his level.

[(Anonymous)]

I genuinely don't understand what's exciting about it

[(Anonymous)]

You aren't a little curious? About her curse, how she came to have it, how it parallels to Credence's obscurus, how it speaks to the theme of having darkness inside us that we struggle to control, how easy it is to let that take over, when and why she decided to let it take over for good? Boy howdy, I am! What a fascinating character!

[(Anonymous)]

I can see how those would be interesting character notes, but I think they would all be much more interesting and less bad in a character who wasn't Nagini

[(Anonymous)]

But I totally disagree. It's really interesting. Voldemort dehumanizing someone isn't really out of character, so I'm not sure how it makes the treatment "weird", just adds another layer to it.

Anyway, animal characters being actual humans absolutely does have a precedent so it feels completely on course for me. It's actually the only thing about the new films that is interesting to me, since I found the first film a little dull.

[(Anonymous)]

I just feel like the discrepancy between those ideas, and the actual original presentation of Nagini, is too vast for it to really make sense

[(Anonymous)]

Nagini literally cannibalized people for him. Neville triumphantly chipped her head off and we're supposed to cheer on him for doing so.

[(Anonymous)]

Eh. Seems like there are legit eyerolls to be had over Rowling's revision of the HP universe/characters to be more diverse than it initially appeared. I don't hate it, but I don't think it's amazing.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't get this. Being more diverse than it originally appears seems to only apply to two characters: Hermoine who could have been black and Dumbledore being gay. Neither appears in the original books that way. In neither case is it problematic. In the case of black Hermoine, while I think it's a stretch to say Rowling wrote Hermoine as anything other than a white English girl, it's not only acceptable that a black actress was cast in the play, it's pretty cool to be that inclusive. In the case of Dumbledore, sure, it'd be nice if she had explicitly made him gay in the narrative, but it also wasn't exactly necessary, either. Plus, apparently Dumbledore's homosexuality will be shown in the new movies after all, so, cool.

But what your criticism really sounds like to me is resentment that she's putting more POC into the universe at all, as though she should keep it mostly white because the original books were pretty white. How is that even fair? Rowling shouldn't be inclusive?

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think the criticisms are about Rowling being inclusive. They're about tweaking canon after the fact to seem more inclusive than it appeared originally.

[(Anonymous)]

DA but are the critics implying they would prefer JKR to keep being non-inclusive? Because... that's more true to her original series? Or something? I'm legitimately confused.

[(Anonymous)]

I think it's the attitude and framing of it that annoys people, where she acts like it was written that way all along even though it manifestly wasn't.

[(Anonymous)]

No, I don't think that's it. I'm skeptical that you're truly confused about that and not simply coming up with a totally unlikely and unreasonable strawman.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT but I don't understand the 'to seem more inclusive than it appeared originally' thought. Maybe she didn't have the thought Dumbledore was gay while writing the books (even though to myself and some others, it does read as that way), but stating that he is doesn't change how you or others interpreted the books. It doesn't make them retroactively progressive nor does it make them retroactively unprogressive imo.

[(Anonymous)]

Creators who use bullshit "word of god" statements to put spackle on holes that they failed to address through hundreds (or thousands for movies) of hours of development are a dime a dozen these days.

[(Anonymous)]

Making a snake an Asian woman is certainly not the way the character was depicted in the books

Also, did they confirm that Dumbledore was going to be explicitly gay in future films? I thought they were still dancing around it

[(Anonymous)]

http://fairytaleasoldastime.tumblr.com/post/178480355850/what-do-you-see-when-you-look-in-the-mirror-i

If this is "dancing around it," I can't wait until we get to the full on tango.

[(Anonymous)]

+1

[(Anonymous)]

I love Claudia Kim and I thought she looked amazing (and hot) in the trailer. That said for some people (including myself) it's a matter of things piling up.

Basing US magic schools on Native American culture and making it white, the analogy between Jewish people and the Gringotts goblins, defending Johnny Depp, pretty much throwing a gay Dumbledore away because 'it's not important to the plot' (or whatever)--I didn't like these things and I pretty much started ignored what JKR had to say a for a while now. But then suddenly a backstory for Nagini!

A South Korean actress playing the role of magic Hitler's pet! (Her role in the movie is okay, but did they forget to think ahead and realise what it might mean in the HP books canon? Or is it like 'Well Voldemort's fictional and even if we look at the analogy, it wasn't like Hitler personally made Koreans suffer during WWII because that was all Japan's fault'?)

I thought it was unnecessary and completely tone deaf. This could have been avoided in so many ways but they're not even trying. So nope, I also draw the line there.