[ SECRET POST #6904 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6904 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.
[One Piece]
























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 30 secrets from Secret Submission Post #986.
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: Defining “adaptation”

[(Anonymous)]

Idk I think the word adaptation has a lot of room inside it.

Like there are some things I've watched/read that are most certainly adaptations of a certain thing, but very loosely, as in the characters are the same, the plot is largely the same but the tone or structure is different enough that it's not an entirely faithful adaptation. And this doesn't mean bad, it just means that it's doing something different but it's still an adaptation.

A homage is more something that is inspiring the feel of a work but isn't taking anything more than that, so the difference between Sherlock and Psych for instance. Sherlock is a modern adaptation, Psych is a modern homage to the Holmes character, it has some of the trappings but isn't actually trying to be a proper adaptation.

That's where I see the distinction at least.

Re: Defining “adaptation”

[philstar22]

I'd call both Psych and Sherlock homages. Only thing Sherlock really shares is character names. It isn't adapting anything.

Re: Defining “adaptation”

[(Anonymous)]

See I'd disagree with Sherlock because it literally does adapt the book cases, not well imo, but it's doing more than just taking the names. I'd consider it to be a loose adaptation if we're hemming and hawwing it all, but it's certainly an adaptation in the way that Psych is not.

Something doesn't have to be a good adaptation to be one after all.

Re: Defining “adaptation”

[philstar22]

Hmmm. I guess for me, setting and characters are two keys to anything, and if your adaption doesn't have at least one of those, it isn't really an adaption? Like, lots of things take the plot lines of some other famous work and redo it in a new setting and with new characters. I wouldn't call those adaptions. And Sherlock is basically that, they just used the same character names as well.

Re: Defining “adaptation”

[(Anonymous)]

DA and I hate Sherlock but it’s absolutely an adaptation. They have the characters and the cases. They genderbent some characters and mushed some others together. They did a pretty awful job on just about everything in the show but it is very clearly an adaptation of ACD’s works.

Re: Defining “adaptation”

[philstar22]

Okay. I could be wrong. I never watched more than a couple episodes, and I don't even like the original Sherlock Holmes. It just seems to me like the characters are so completely different from the book ones in the parts I've seen that they wouldn't be recognizable if they didn't have the names.

Re: Defining “adaptation”

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT.

To echo the other anon, yeah it really is an adaptation even if it isn't a good one, like it literally adapts actual ACD books. Again: not well but that doesn't stop it from being an adaptation.

It uses far more than just the character names for it to be a homage, it just tries to import the canon into a modern setting, but that doesn't make it not an adaptation. Things like Psych and House are homages as they take inspiration from Holmes but aren't trying to do a full on adaptation which Sherlock absolutely was.

Re: Defining “adaptation”

[philstar22]

Okay. Not an opinion I'm that invested in, and I haven't watched much of the show. Just was stating the impression I had from what I had watched.