fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #4892 ]

[ SECRET POST #4892 ]

⌈ Secret Post #4892 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 11 secrets from Secret Submission Post #700.
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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Are there any characters that you can't stand in some adaptation (book to movie, remake of a movie etc.) even if you originally liked them? I can't stand the GoT TV show version of Brienne. It's like they removed all her positive qualities and replaced her with some generic bitchy badass action woman.

(Not the only female character to suffer a similar fate in that show, but still).

Disney dulled down too many of the Alice in Wonderland characters.

True. I hate what they did to the little mermaid, even if I know that they were never going to have the original ending. Ariel isn't even the same character.

I love a lot of what Elementary did with the whole Sherlock Holmes thing, but I cannot. Stand. That they made Irene Adler and "Jamie" Moriarty the same character. Hate it, hate it, hate it. It almost ruined the show for me, but Holmes and Watson were good enough to save it.

I liked Irene Adler in the original story. I haven't seen a single version of her character that does her justice, but I especially hated what they did to her in BBC's Sherlock.

God, yes.

That was the first Sherlock episode I saw and it made it impossible for me to really like any other part of the series.

If she had won in the end, it would have been okay at least, even if not great. But she lost, and then he had to go save her, and it made everything all the stupider and grosser. Moffat's Sherlock had to be the indomitable ubermensch, and that made everything they did with Irene a nonstarter; she was never going to go toe to toe with him. She was always going to fail. She was written to fail.

The other issue, of course, was an issue of Moffat fucking up what he was insinuating in his writing. If-- if-- he had actually gone through with making Irene and John mirrors of each other (a gay woman with an exception; a straight man with an exception) then it might not have tasted as shitty for him to have leaned into the horrible lesbophobic trope of there always being at least one man that she'll go for. The framework was there. But then Moffat 100% doubled down on his het bullshit and denied any homosexual intent between Sherlock and John, which then also silently doubled down on having actually thrown a gay woman under the shitty trope bus.

LONG STORY SHORT I 100% agree with you and it breaks my heart because it could have been so much better.

Strongly seconding all of this. They had so many good ingredients there, but the way they used them was just insultingly horrible. I loved Irene, in all her vicious, brilliant, unapologetic, indomitable glory...until the writers threw her under the bus.

Personally, I loved her character in BBC Sherlock--I just hated how that episode played out.

Ruthless, cunning Dominatrix who's a genius at reading people and even better at manipulating them, introduced as the epitome of Neutral Evil, but may have the potential to be swayed towards True Neutral and even occasional acts of good? I am so here for it.

But then they had to go and make her "fall for" Sherlock, plus that stupidity with making the all-important password his name (JFC that's dumb), and then he bests her, and then he rescues her from certain death?! Yeah, ugh, giant NO to all of that.

I actually liked that he rescues her. I like Sherlock and I'm not too anoyed that he's overpowered, tho... him on the field with a sword? What a joke. I like the idea that they keep in touch and help each other. The password and falling in love so much that Irene does stupid thing, that one I hated. Irene is way cooler than that. Also they didn't even spend much time together.

Argh, yes! What is not interesting about her as-is? She’s shrewd and resolute, but that doesn’t cancel out her kindness and honor. She and Holmes find admiration or even some level of kinship in each other’s quick wits and ways of thinking, but she’s got her own life, y’know?

I haven't seen the Granada version in ages and don't remember it, but what bugs me about all other adaptations I know of is the insistence on creating a relationship, or even just a mutual attraction, where there is none in the original story. Holmes might brood over having failed to do what he set out to do, but there's never any indication that Irene is into Holmes at all. He's just a guy in her way.

That's what's cool about Irene Adler is the way she side-steps Holmes and keeps going, barely breaking her stride.

(Then she leaves and is never mentioned again for the whole rest of the canon - A Scandal in Bohemia was only the third Sherlock Holmes story ever.)

I know Holmes/Irene is as old as dirt, though, so *sigh.*

But she's not even in the original story. Oh, her name is important and the things she does are important, but she's not a character.

yeah, me too.

Almost every adaptions of Sherlock Holmes. I like the books. But I generally can't stand adaptions. I've caught a few episodes of Elementary and enjoyed them as their own thing though not as an adaption. But the other ones I've seen I haven't liked either on their own or as an adaption.

Anne with an E's version of everyone, but particularly Matthew and Marilla. Just wrong.

The Kili and Fili casting in the Hobbit because they looked and acted nothing like dwarves. Thranduil is complicated because he's fun as his own thing (he'd be a great Thingol adaption), but he's a terrible Thranduil. Afrid is something I'd just like to forget.

For LOTR, they messed too much with Faramir's character. And TBH I think they didn't do so great with Frodo. Some things about him they got right, but some they got wrong, and the bad casting choice messed them up from the beginning.

But my number one LOTR choice is Elrond. So much wrong with Elrond in those movies. And Hobbit too, though he's far less present. I love Hugo Weaving as an actor, but he was a bad choice. And they completely misunderstood who Elrond was. Elrond has been through more tragedy than almost anyone else, but he's so full of joy in the books. Missing out on that in the movies was a real tragedy.

For me, Anne With an E is the only adaptation that got it right. Especially Matthew and Marilla.

Agree with you about the Hobbit castings though.

Sorry, I think that came across as more combative than I intended. Never mind.

Edited 2020-05-29 02:00 (UTC)

Wanda Maximoff in MCU. She's too evil for me to like her. Sigh. I enjoyed her character in the comics.

Wait, what? Evil how? Her only concerns past Ultron are being helpful to Cap and being in love with Vision, as far as I can tell. Passive, uninteresting, confusing, underutilized...I'll give you all that, but...evil?????

ayrt
Sided with Ultron who's clearly 100% evil
Mind fucked people
Unleashed Hulk on innocent people
Hurt Vision for the house arrest
The explosion in Lagos - the whole floor. Captain America was useless there too, not even trying to shield the people
Never apologised for anything

I just don't feel redemption here

The tv version of Newt Pulsifer from Good Omens. Not only did they take out his best lines, they cast a bowl of soggy cabbage to play him.

Huh. You might be the first person I've ever seen in real life or online who didn't think "bowl of soggy cabbage" was a fairly accurate description of Newt Pulsifer.

In fairness my first interaction with Good Omens was the radio play, where he's voiced by Colin Morgan and actually charming. Also he's the most reasonable person in the book.

Re: Character adaptations that you hate

(Anonymous) - 2020-05-29 12:36 (UTC) - Expand

The TV version is basically how I envisioned him back when I first read the book. (Not the actor's specific face or anything but just the general character.)

Agreed! The actor was good but he was miscast here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only