Wrinkle in Time

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Wrinkle in Time

    Originally posted by UpandComing View Post
    From everything I've heard/read, the biggest changes to the story involved the removal and addition of certain characters, but those haven't been the main sources of criticism (among professional critics, at least). The biggest actual criticisms I've seen have been of pacing (too slow in first hour), of tone (too sappy/melodramatic/touchy feely), and visuals (too bright/colorful).

    Of course, if you can identify what the "massive" changes to the storyline were (and evidence that many fans are unhappy with them), I'm happy to hear them now.
    Well let's see. VOX, as well many others mentioned the movie completely removed any references to Christianity, which was a huge part of the book. That kind of changes things, don't you think? Maybe, just a teensy bit, at least?

    And this thread was started by "EdFury", who said:
    Holy crap. It actually hurt my eyes it's so bad. This is a book I love. One I would have loved to adapted. They took it and killed it.... can something be beyond dead? If what I overheard on the way out is any bell weather, the hate for it was visceral. So sad.
    So there's that too.
    "I just couldn't live in a world without me."

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Wrinkle in Time

      Originally posted by StoryWriter View Post
      Once again, you miss the point. If the whole family was black, it's still a family, few people would have cared. But when you take a story of a family and make the mother black, the father white, the daughter black, and the son is Filipino-American, that changes the story. It distracts from the original story. It directs the focus to where the focus wasn't directed in the book.
      Seriously? The father is white and the mother is black. The daughter is therefore biracial. The Filipino son is explained as being adopted. Not very hard to understand, is it? The fact is, there are many more interracial families in the U.S. than there used to be. The amount of diversity in this particular family may have been distracting at first, but once you understand the dynamics it shouldn't be something you're hung up on for the rest of the movie. Unless it bothers you, of course.

      Originally posted by StoryWriter View Post
      And your harping on race IS pounding people with a sledge hammer. Do you want to entertain or do you want to promote your agenda? (Or do both -- but it has to be subtle.) I can go to church free, why should I pay $10 at a theater to get a sermon?
      Geez Louise. The movie doesn't "harp on race." It doesn't mention race throughout the movie as if it's a plot point. It just presents a family's makeup as differently than people are used to seeing. The problem with guys like you is that you see art that reflects different realities as some kind of "agenda." No, it actually just reflects a reality that you're not used to seeing and therefore makes you uncomfortable. Deal with it.

      Originally posted by StoryWriter View Post
      So if you don't like the percentages -- change them. Start your own company. Cast who you want to cast. Is any law stopping you? None that I know of. Money a problem? It always has been in Hollywood, from the beginning. How bad do you want to make it happen? Then do it.
      People who want more diversity are starting their own production companies to tell their own stories -- numerous minority actors have done so. But they have every right to retell existing stories in different ways. This is not out of the norm of Hollywood -- the whole purpose of this current onslaught of reboots/remakes sequels is to approach old stories from a modern perspective. And if that means white guys aren't always at the center of (or dominant in) the narrative, so be it. Like I said, you sound very threatened by something that is so unthreatening.

      Originally posted by StoryWriter View Post
      Well let's see. VOX, as well many others mentioned the movie completely removed any references to Christianity, which was a huge part of the book. That kind of changes things, don't you think? Maybe, just a teensy bit, at least?

      And this thread was started by "EdFury", who said:
      So there's that too.
      You said that there were "massive" changes to the storyline -- and that's the only example you could come up with? Removal of references to Christianity? Maybe someone was exaggerating a bit. And no, I don't necessarily think that changes things a lot at all. Something can be spiritual in nature without making reference to a specific organized religion. You still haven't explained yourself how it impacted the actual storyline.

      As for Ed's review, he didn't say his qualms were specific to changes in the storyline; it could've easily been in reference to other things. I think it's better if he explains his view himself rather than have us interpret them.
      Last edited by UpandComing; 03-13-2018, 09:45 AM.
      "I love being a writer. What I can't stand is the paperwork.-- Peter De Vries

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Wrinkle in Time

        Originally posted by kintnerboy View Post
        These types of comments are uncivil and do more to hurt progress than anything else.

        I think the idea that anyone is 'threatened' by the incremental changes taking place in Hollywood is largely an invention of the news media, as it tries to stave off bankruptcy for another year by ramping up the outrage for ad clicks.

        The truth is that there is a lot of unarticulated frustration over the fact that the volume of the outrage is wildly out of proportion to the actual problem, but even more so over the blatant hypocrisy of the people who work in Hollywood (eg. someone like Judd Apatow speaking out about the lack of diversity among film directors, when he himself has never hired anyone but white males).

        And no one wants to be lectured about equality and inclusion by people who send their kids to private school.
        Wow, kintnerboy; a post where you actually sound less bigoted than usual. I'm impressed by the progress.

        Responses:

        *I don't think the threatened feeling discussed is an "invention" of the news media at all. Not when you had people going out of their way to give "Ghostbusters" a rotten score/IMDB score before the movie even came out. Not when you had people creating Facebook pages to boycott "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" because of its female and minority leads. Those are worthy new stories.

        *I actually agree with you that there is a lot of hypocrisy in Hollywood when it comes to discussing racism (or sexism, for that matter). And I am always happy when hypocrisy gets called out, no matter who the target is. That said, it's a better situation than if no one were talking about these issues at all. Sometimes you have to go with the lesser of two evils.
        "I love being a writer. What I can't stand is the paperwork.-- Peter De Vries

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Wrinkle in Time

          Originally posted by UpandComing View Post
          Wow, kintnerboy; a post where you actually sound less bigoted than usual. I'm impressed by the progress.
          Wow, UpandComing (doubt it), you're kind of a rude a**, aren't you? Isn't it possible that a movie could just be bad, despite the fact that it was "politically correct?" Or does being "politically correct" automatically make it "good," no matter how crappy it is?

          Personally I could care less one way or other about this movie. I didn't even know it existed until it showed up here in these discussions (which might indicate to you that Disney smelled a bomb from a mile off and decided it wasn't worth an advertising budget). I am, however, fed up with self-righteous, pompous asses thinking that anyone who dislikes a "politically correct" stinker of a movie should automatically be labeled a "bigot." Get over yourself. A crappy movie can be a crappy movie, no matter who directs it or acts in it? Hope this concept isn't too complicated for you to grasp.
          STANDARD DISCLAIMER: I'm a wannabe, take whatever I write with a huge grain of salt.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Wrinkle in Time

            Originally posted by Centos View Post
            Wow, UpandComing (doubt it), you're kind of a rude a**, aren't you? Isn't it possible that a movie could just be bad, despite the fact that it was "politically correct?" Or does being "politically correct" automatically make it "good," no matter how crappy it is?

            Personally I could care less one way or other about this movie. I didn't even know it existed until it showed up here in these discussions (which might indicate to you that Disney smelled a bomb from a mile off and decided it wasn't worth an advertising budget). I am, however, fed up with self-righteous, pompous asses thinking that anyone who dislikes a "politically correct" stinker of a movie should automatically be labeled a "bigot." Get over yourself. A crappy movie can be a crappy movie, no matter who directs it or acts in it? Hope this concept isn't too complicated for you to grasp.
            I don't think that is what he has said at all. He hasn't said that the movie isn't crap or that there is not plenty of room for legitimate criticism.

            His issue is with people who are saying things like -

            Maybe if the writer, director, studio or all of the above -- spent more time worrying about the story and less about leading a diversity parade, they might have told a better story.

            Whatever happened to subtlety? People can "get it" -- you don't have to beat them over the head with a fifty pound sledge hammer.
            I.E. The film sucks because the creatives involved were too focussed on inclusion and diversity. Which is straight up bigotry really.

            You're arguing against a strawman you built yourself. You are refuting a point that UpandComing never made in the first place.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Wrinkle in Time

              Originally posted by Centos View Post
              Wow, UpandComing (doubt it), you're kind of a rude a**, aren't you? Isn't it possible that a movie could just be bad, despite the fact that it was "politically correct?" Or does being "politically correct" automatically make it "good," no matter how crappy it is?

              Personally I could care less one way or other about this movie. I didn't even know it existed until it showed up here in these discussions (which might indicate to you that Disney smelled a bomb from a mile off and decided it wasn't worth an advertising budget). I am, however, fed up with self-righteous, pompous asses thinking that anyone who dislikes a "politically correct" stinker of a movie should automatically be labeled a "bigot." Get over yourself. A crappy movie can be a crappy movie, no matter who directs it or acts in it? Hope this concept isn't too complicated for you to grasp.
              Klazart actually just gave the perfect response to this comment, but I'll say it in my own words.

              You are putting words in my mouth, the way that people with weak debating skills are wont to do. I never once said that the movie was actually "good" -- if I did, please feel free to identify that quote here.

              I also never said that movies in general that reflect America's increasingly diverse reality (what you so bitterly call "politically correct") are "automatically" good or they can't just be bad. That is also another invention of yours.

              What I did say (which people with good reading comprehension clearly understood) is that The Federalist and certain commenters on here have been blaming the movie's poor box office performance and bad critical reviews directly on the fact that there were ethnic and gender changes made to the book (as the quote from StoryWriter above illustrates). There is absolutely no evidence of this. It is their own biased theory built upon their own bitterness toward the movie's portrayal of a family that isn't completely white (despite the fact that race is in no way central to the story's plotline).

              As for my kintnerboy comment, it was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it was making reference to the fact that he has indeed made disparaging comments about minorities and women in the past based merely on their minority/female status. I have no problem in reminding people of that kind of past.

              It is sad that people like you remain trapped in a bubble of fear and intolerance as the world changes. It's okay, it is moving along without you, whether you like it or not.
              "I love being a writer. What I can't stand is the paperwork.-- Peter De Vries

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Wrinkle in Time

                I haven't seen the movie, but I've read the book (a long time ago). And I've read these boards and a few reviews.

                I can't know what's in the hearts and minds of creatives as they do what they do, but certain things will make me raise an eyebrow at the fascinating ways in which they do it. A key thematic element involving the spirituality/Christianity is claimed to be absent from the movie. Why would that be? Is that a creative choice? To what purpose? Was it intentional and if so, isn't that, by definition, a form of passive aggressive bigotry since the book itself literally hinges on these themes?

                Who care who plays who? If you change a writer's message then you are doing far worse than recasting the leads. You are dismantling their soul (and claiming to know/be better). It's nothing more than low grade, half hearted, fan fiction.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Wrinkle in Time

                  Originally posted by ChadStrohl View Post
                  A key thematic element involving the spirituality/Christianity is claimed to be absent from the movie. Why would that be? Is that a creative choice? To what purpose? Was it intentional and if so, isn't that, by definition, a form of passive aggressive bigotry since the book itself literally hinges on these themes?
                  My guess is that the higher-ups at Disney wanted to refrain from alienating a non-Christian audience -- likely because this was a $100 million global play. So, more of a business decision than a creative one. It's not like it's the first time it's been done, as Hollywood is increasingly dependent on a non-U.S. audience for box office.
                  "I love being a writer. What I can't stand is the paperwork.-- Peter De Vries

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Wrinkle in Time

                    Originally posted by UpandComing View Post
                    My guess is that the higher-ups at Disney wanted to refrain from alienating a non-Christian audience -- likely because this was a $100 million global play. So, more of a business decision than a creative one. It's not like it's the first time it's been done, as Hollywood is increasingly dependent on a non-U.S. audience for box office.
                    Oh. I'm sure you are absolutely right. I always say, follow the $ if you want the truth of a matter. I still think it reeks of prejudice. It seems Disney is saying, we want the title and the nostalgia, but we don't want the baggage that might be associated with it. I think if we're going to live in a society where identity and thought is supposed to be worth something, we should treat it all like it's worth something other than a bottom line.

                    I'm a writer and I speak for (I assume) all writers when I say, we can still find a way to subtext the true nature of that story in thought provoking ways and not alienate an audience. In fact, the two way argument holds on both sides... if you're alienated, you might want to check your privelege. This fear of "alienation" is going to sap the purpose right out of literary style and thinking. It's a garbage mentaility that will eventually cost us a lot more than few dollars.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Wrinkle in Time

                      Originally posted by ChadStrohl View Post
                      Oh. I'm sure you are absolutely right. I always say, follow the $ if you want the truth of a matter. I still think it reeks of prejudice. It seems Disney is saying, we want the title and the nostalgia, but we don't want the baggage that might be associated with it. I think if we're going to live in a society where identity and thought is supposed to be worth something, we should treat it all like it's worth something other than a bottom line.

                      I'm a writer and I speak for (I assume) all writers when I say, we can still find a way to subtext the true nature of that story in thought provoking ways and not alienate an audience. In fact, the two way argument holds on both sides... if you're alienated, you might want to check your privelege. This fear of "alienation" is going to sap the purpose right out of literary style and thinking. It's a garbage mentaility that will eventually cost us a lot more than few dollars.
                      On some level I agree with you. But at the same time, I'm still yet to hear about the removal of Christian references as one of the main criticisms for why people don't like the movie. So it's hard to say if many of the book's fans really think that that was a major problem. It would be great if people who have both read the book/seen the movie could chime in.
                      "I love being a writer. What I can't stand is the paperwork.-- Peter De Vries

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Wrinkle in Time

                        Originally posted by UpandComing View Post


                        Here are some stats for you:

                        *White guys make up 31% of the U.S. population.

                        *White guys account for 71.7% of all speaking roles in movies.
                        And Blacks are 13% of the U.S. population, which means they're actually way over-represented in popular media as it is. Depending on the level of media consumption, the average foreigner probably thinks America is half black.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Wrinkle in Time

                          Originally posted by entlassen View Post
                          And Blacks are 13% of the U.S. population, which means they're actually way over-represented in popular media as it is. Depending on the level of media consumption, the average foreigner probably thinks America is half black.
                          Maybe you should actually do some research before spouting statements that are just based on your own prejudices.

                          Black people account for 13.6% of speaking roles, which is just slightly above the percentage they make up in the U.S. However, Latinos account for only 3.1% of speaking roles, despite making up 17% of the U.S. population (and overindexing when it comes to moviegoer attendance).

                          When I was talking about representation, I was not just talking about just black people. I know they're your favorite target, but there are actually other minorities.
                          "I love being a writer. What I can't stand is the paperwork.-- Peter De Vries

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Wrinkle in Time

                            Originally posted by UpandComing View Post
                            Black people account for 13.6% of speaking roles, which is just slightly above the percentage they make up in the U.S. However, Latinos account for only 3.1% of speaking roles, despite making up 17% of the U.S. population (and overindexing when it comes to moviegoer attendance).
                            There's no equal representation in any other industry. Why is equal representation important or even a good thing?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Wrinkle in Time

                              Originally posted by ScreenRider View Post
                              There's no equal representation in any other industry. Why is equal representation important or even a good thing?
                              Because movies aim for a higher purpose than other industries. They aim to serve as a mirror that reflects the world we live in (at least, that's what Hollywood keeps claiming they're supposed to do).

                              Beyond that, it just makes good business sense. People feel more motivated to see movies when they see people who look like them on screen. "The Fast and the Furious" movies have made tons more money than they would have with an all-white cast because so many Latinos and Asians turned out to see them. And "Black Panther" is now Marvel's second highest-grossing movie ever out of 18 films (and #7 of all time in the domestic box office) because so many black people were happy to finally see themselves as the hero (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchi...d=avengers.htm)

                              It would be stupid (and frankly, incompetent) to leave that much money off the table.
                              "I love being a writer. What I can't stand is the paperwork.-- Peter De Vries

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Wrinkle in Time

                                Originally posted by UpandComing View Post
                                Because movies aim for a higher purpose than other industries. They aim to serve as a mirror that reflects the world we live in (at least, that's what Hollywood keeps claiming they're supposed to do).

                                Beyond that, it just makes good business sense. People feel more motivated to see movies when they see people who look like them on screen. "The Fast and the Furious" movies have made tons more money than they would have with an all-white cast because so many Latinos and Asians turned out to see them. And "Black Panther" is now Marvel's second highest-grossing movie ever out of 18 films (and #7 of all time in the domestic box office) because so many black people were happy to finally see themselves as the hero (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchi...d=avengers.htm)

                                It would be stupid (and frankly, incompetent) to leave that much money off the table.
                                I understand the financial argument for diversity but obviously, your argument is in favor of the "higher purpose" of diversity rather than for the studios to make more money.

                                Regarding the first argument, are you really arguing that movies should reflect the world we live in? For example, do you think that characters in movies should reflect statistical reality? Should movie characters that are scientists or violent criminals reflect an average of the racial demographics we see in reality?

                                Would you object to a black woman being cast in a movie about a silicon valley startup because black women are so rare in the computer science field or would you find that choice of casting refreshing?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X