[ SECRET POST #2273 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2273 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10. [repeat]


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.


__________________________________________________



18.


__________________________________________________

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 05 pages, 117 secrets from Secret Submission Post #325.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 2 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - posted twice ], [ 1 2 3 - trolls ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

04. http://i.imgur.com/yRiF76A.png

[shinyhappypanic]

I never really understood the issue at all. I always thought this movie sounded pretty interesting.

[(Anonymous)]

That's a fair complaint.

[(Anonymous)]

SA

Actually, I take it back, it's not, because as someone explained below, Wicked is billed as a subversion and the wizard movie as a straight prequel.

[forgottenjester]

Huh, I thought people were pissed off because they made a female driven story about a man? At least, that's why I heard everyone was upset. Also because the director said something about there being enough stories about lead women and what we really needed was a good story with a male lead.

But I have not heard this complaint yet. Maybe some of the people who are upset with the things I just said are trying to make their argument for not liking it stronger by adding that? Kinda makes it weaker, in my opinion, but maybe that's it? Dunno.

Ah well, so it goes.

[writerserenyty]

yeah, the "we need more male leads in fairytales" bit was the thing I heard the most, and also the fact that the three female leads revolve around the man, or something (haven't seen the movie, so I have no idea if this is true or not).

[(Anonymous)]

There was wank from the SJWs about it being about a guy but there was also wank from people going "but the Wizard is a prick! Why is he a good guy?"

[miarrow]

That is pretty much the reason I didn't go see and hate it's existence. That quote didn't help.

[(Anonymous)]

Because the stories are being written in the context of a sexist society, As soon as there are enough stories about women to go around, it will no longer be fucked up to take the stories that are about us and rewrite them to be about men.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't understand why people act like the original story was so wonderfully woman-centric.

[dancing_clown]

Christ on a cracker. The story of THE WIZARD COMING TO OZ is not a story about a woman. It is a story about a canonically male wizard. Who comes to Oz. If you want to complain that they didn't make a movie about other canon characters who are female, complain about that, but stop trotting out this "They took a story about a woman and made it about a man!!!!" nonsense.

[(Anonymous)]

My problem without having seen the film, is that it seems like they are trying to gloss over the fact that the wizard is an incompetent jerk when he meets Dorothy.

[silverr]

good point.

[wldcatsprstr_14]

It's simple.

Because Y chromosome.

The people who are upset it's about a dude, OK I may not agree but I kinda get it.

The ones who are upset about the whole Oz/Wicked Witch backstory snafu, I agree with.

The ones who are all "BUT HE WAS A DOUCHE AND THEY MADE HIM A HERO AND BAAAAW!" Yea, they can suck it.

[visp]

Well, offhand, I'd say that the former went against an integral concept of the Author's universe and the creators publicly talked about how they were doing just that, while the latter was more of an Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead "what if" and those are traditionally more appreciated by fans. Sort of like how no one minds when the Red Queen is made more of a villain in Alice in Wonderland adaptations, but when they made that one movie where the whole point of Wonderland was so that Alice could Learn a Valuable Life Lesson, the fans collectively shat themselves. Plus the societal implications of this particular change.

Also, it was a musical, and terribly catchy.

[meadowphoenix]

It's the difference between a straight adaptation and subversive adaptation. WWoO is going directly on WoZ. It's a straight prequel in the same timeline, and the WoZ is a straight adaptation. WoZ is supposed to be in keeping with Baum's original stories (even if you don't think it is), and therefore WWoO is supposed to have the same vibe too. Therefore the Witches are exactly like they are in the Wizard of Oz by the end. However, hero-izing the Wizard does the exact opposite. If you're going to do that, don't market it as a straight prequel.

Wicked is not, and it isn't supposed to be. It isn't saying, "here's how you got to what what you know," it's saying "everything you know is wrong." Therefore completely revolutionizing what you know about the characters is the entire point. It's intent is to change how you think about the characters and to change your perspective on the entire work.

Also it's the difference with taking an already main character and changing your perspective on their motives and taking a side character and making them essential to the action. The latter is always going to be self-indulgent.

[(Anonymous)]

The answer to your question is "Because the Witch is a woman and therefore she is considered automatically incapable of doing anything bad unless it is a man's fault."

[(Anonymous)]

I didn't really have issues with this film until I read this quote from the producer, "And the second reason was -- during the years that I spent running Walt Disney Studios -- I learned about how hard it was to find a fairy tale with a good strong male protagonist. You've got your Sleeping Beauties, your Cinderellas and your Alices. But a fairy tale with a male protagonist is very hard to come by. But with the origin story of the Wizard of Oz, here was a fairy tale story with a natural male protagonist. Which is why I knew that this was an idea for a movie that was genuinely worth pursuing."

That quote alone made me want to boycott the movie, so I haven't seen it.

[ladysugarquill]

I had a "friend" going "why did they change Elphaba's name?". I could only facepalm.

[(Anonymous)]

Eh, I imagine I'll rent Wizard one of these days, but I really just wanted it to be the Wicked movie already. Broadway's not a possibility for me, and I can only watch so many grainy YouTube clips. I want Elphaba's story in this high res over-saturated technicolor glory, darn it. T^T

[(Anonymous)]

I'd guess because at least in Wicked [I assume that's where the bit about the witch is from] she's still technically *doing* what she's said to do in the original. It's just shown from a different angle that makes it look much more different than it does in the original series, where as the new movie completely deviates from that, from what I've heard.

-shrugs- Personally, I've only read [and seen the play of] Wicked, but I think the movie sounds pretty cool too.

[(Anonymous)]

On the very slim chance you're not a misogynit troll, let me try and give you a clue:

One is a story about how powerful females are vilified by men in power.
The other is a male power fantasy.

[oftheark]

Basically? Because one is about a female protagonist (even though is horrifically deviated from its own source material) and one is about a male protagonist. And on internet fandom circles, option B is Bad because omg mens get everything!

[katekat]

because the first one is an unintelligent and banal adaptation and the second one is actually a really interesting way to reimagine a universe from someone else's perspective?

Oh god the wizards face

[mentalguru]

Basically people more eloquent then I have stated why I don't care for this movie (complete with the idiotic quote being discussed!) and yet can enjoy certain aspects of Wicked (I wouldn't say it's perfect? But let's face it, even on PAPER with just their concepts, Wicked just seems more interesting to me I guess- Wicked had some interesting world expansion in any case).

Regardless, my favourite oz exploration is namesake the webcomic in my case.

But...

Oh god, the Wizard has the sterotypical dreamworks face- which granted even in dw's case hasn't always meant the movie sucked (I'm kind of loving how many great one's dw has churned out in recent years) but ugh. He looks like a smug jackass. It makes me want to see the movie even less now. It seems like with that plus trailers it really IS going to be as awful as people fear.

Still, I actually possibly might see it- if the ~power of friendship~ overcomes me if someone I know wants to truly desperately want to see it.