[ SECRET POST #2426 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2426 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 080 secrets from Secret Submission Post #347.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

08. http://i.imgur.com/Ye01Ncl.jpg

[dreemyweird]

You might have been a bit Cap Obvious-ish here, but the second part got me interested. IIRC, the creators of the film!canon didn't change much about the facts of Snape's biography, and I can't see how the interpretation of his personality alone could have made a significant difference. I can't even guess whose guilt you deem more expiatable. Film!Snape, perhaps?

[(Anonymous)]

not op, but film!Snape didn't have as many moments of dickishness piled on one after the other like the books (most likely due to the time constraints when adapting, to be fair), and Rickman's performance was more subdued and less aggressive than book!Snape often behaved- it even had a dignity of sorts to him, while book!Snape was childish and petty all through

as in, film!Snape was this bitter dude who still held onto some shreds of dignity despite his dickishness, which seemed more of a "for god's sake stop being idiots", if very disproportionate to the offenses and the ages of the students, but you could see with book!Snape how he delighted in torturing his students and insulting them over and over and over and picking and digging at all their insecurities just because he didn't like them

[(Anonymous)]

^this

[(Anonymous)]

Yes. Not to mention his most spectacular freak outs, like the one in the Shrieking Shack in PoA, and again after Sirius escaped, were toned way down.

[tree_and_leaf]

Yes, that's spot on.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't agree because I pretty much entirely disregarded the movies, at wrt canonicity and, I guess, general seriousness.

Is that weird

[transcriptanon]

[Picture is Severus Snape as portrayed by Alan Rickman, from the movie adaptations of the "Harry Potter" books. He is a middle-aged man with light skin and black hair reaching his jaw. He looks like he's seen better days and has this kind of forlorn look to his gaze.]

I feel that movie Snape and book Snape are two very different characters with different redemption potential.

[(Anonymous)]

Someone's supposed to come in and say it's just because Alan Rickman is hot, right?

Anyway, OP, more details, right now I don't know why I should care.

[diet_poison]

Huh. Why?

[(Anonymous)]

because movie!Snape is sexy and book!Snape isn't.

[(Anonymous)]

I know what you mean. The Snape from the movies might have had a shot at redemption, especially with Harry, had he not died, but the one from the books seemed more likely to just cling to his wounded pride and keep shutting everyone out forever and being a hurtful person.

[ninety6tears]

To me it's the same character but very editorialized, so that I can imagine someone who hasn't read the books getting a pretty different idea about who the character is.

[(Anonymous)]

The movies legit changed some of his worst moments, though. In PoA, instead of being batshit crazy with rage and nearly sending two innocent people to a fate worse than death without listening to any ounce of reason, the film Snape was relatively clam and collected and protected the trio from a werewolf. In the films you never see him bullying his students, and the small hints at it are played off as humorous (like him smacking Ron in the head with a book), rather than... you know, sending kids crying. In the The Prince's Tale in the book, there's a long list of ways Snape was shown to be fucked up (which is why Lily ended the friendship), but in the film it just showed him as a cute little innocent kid who then jumped to "save them all!" (when in the book he would've gladly left James and Harry to die).

It's not just about leaving things out; they really did gloss him over and change scenes/lines to make him look nicer and more sympathetic.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree. Film!Snape didn't have as many horrible person moments in the present that book!Snape did throughout the series.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't mind Alan Rickman and all, but I still don't get why they hired him in the first place. It's like they cast Snape's dad in the role.

[(Anonymous)]

Didn't they cast before the ages of the characters were made cannon or announced in the books?

[(Anonymous)]

Minerva McGonagall was described as having dark hair in the very first book, but I am a-okay with Dame Maggie Smith playing her so *shrugs*

[seventh_seal]

*canon

And they never gave a fuck about the age of book characters.

[poisonenvy]

Harry's dad in the photos. D= Uggghhh.

[seventh_seal]

Yeah, all the adult characters are about a generation older than they should be. They just wanted to get all the famous British actors into the supporting roles --- so they did.

[(Anonymous)]

They would've known, since JKR knew and was consulted on occasion. Plus there's some obvious hints that he wasn't that old, like the fact that James and Lily were the same age and they probably weren't having their first child mid-40s during a war.