[ SECRET POST #2436 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2436 ⌋

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

01.
[The Book Thief, The Days of the Deer, Neil Gaiman's Sandman]


__________________________________________________



02.
[Macklemore & Ryan Lewis]


__________________________________________________



03.
[The Glades]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Revenge]


__________________________________________________



05.
[The Killing (AMC)]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Star Trek]


__________________________________________________



07.
[TRON: Uprising]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Paul McCartney]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Les Miserables]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Mud by Yamashita Tomoko]


__________________________________________________



11.
[The Beatles]


__________________________________________________















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 036 secrets from Secret Submission Post #348.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 2 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

It's more that a bad movie adaptation doesn't somehow retroactively ruin the book version, not that there can't be bad movie adaptations.

[kelincihutan]

But that's assuming that the bad movie adaptation is not memorable and does not override your initially constructed mental versions of the book, which--for many to most people--is not a safe assumption. It may not alter the objective goodness or badness of the book but it can certainly wreak havoc on a lot of people's ability to enjoy that book, which is the tantamount to the same thing in practice.

da

[(Anonymous)]

agreed

to take one popular example, I can't see the characters I first imagined when reading the Harry Potter books; instead I see the actors for the movies, and their characterizations

like, now it really disappoints me when I get to scenes with Snape, whereas before I just thought "damn, this dude is nasty, poor Harry, okay, let's keep reading", now I think "he could have been a taaad more likeable and mature and still serve the same role, cannot unsee what could have been, thanks Rickman!"

[(Anonymous)]

No, it is not the same thing. If you're that irrational and weak-willed you shouldn't be allowed near anything in the first place.

[kelincihutan]

Same thing in practice is not the same as "same." If your reading comprehension is this poor, it's no surprise you prefer movies. Do you honestly know this little about the difference between how visual and verbal information is processed--not to mention memory formation--or are you some movie industry hack desperately trying to defend your involvement with the Percy Jackson franchise?

[(Anonymous)]

It is not the same, period. Maybe it's because I'm not so feeble-minded to let an adaptation OMG RUIN my imagination, and if you are, it is you who is defective. Also nice projection there, since I never said I "prefer" anything; for all your trying to sound academic you're just another prejudiced idiot.

[kelincihutan]

So, movie industry hack, then. I guess you've been burned at the box office lately. That must be tough.

(No, you don't get a real response. Someone know clearly knows so little about how the human brain functions but tries to engage in debates about it anyway does not deserve one.)

[(Anonymous)]

The typical idiot's response, "LALALA I DON'T HEAR YOU".

[kelincihutan]

It's important that you believe that. Ta.

[(Anonymous)]

Not as important as you believing your own baloney, it seems. Ta yourself.

[(Anonymous)]

I like how you jumped to the assumption that this person must prefer movies to books and must be an industry hack simply because they disagreed with you.

Sure, they give short shrift to how the brain processes information and they're over-the-top. But you've also responded in a completely irrational and over-the-top way and built a ludicrous strawman.

Neither of you should be debating, if this idiotic back-and-forth could even be termed a "debate." You're both incapable of entertaining the idea that you might be wrong, and you both act like children when confronted with someone who thinks differently from you.

[kelincihutan]

I'm perfectly happy to hold actual debates with someone who isn't acting like a belligerent idiot. But I'm hardly going to waste my time taking someone seriously when their opener is that anyone who doesn't agree with them is ripe for Jedi mind tricks.

[(Anonymous)]

Look, more strawmanning.

[(Anonymous)]

So, in other words, you wouldn't waste your time taking yourself seriously?