Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Thu Sep 20 23:41:55 2018

Utopia Talk / Politics / OT- Wrinkle in Time
Aeros
Member
Sun Mar 11 21:50:32
God fucking damn it Disney.

Wrinkle in Time is NOT a Young Adult Adventure book. Its a horror science fiction. its not hunger games. Its Aliens. Fucking morons! Meg is not Katniss. She's Ripley.

Okay, fine whatever. The movie adaption does not even base its story in the correct genre. Like a film adaption of "Lolita" depicted as a Romantic Comedy. Whatever. Is the movie at least good?

No. No its not. The subject matter is not suited for the genre its put in. Tesseracting is fucking Vibranium. Convenient plot device. All the existential horror behind the act is gone.

The three spirit guides? Do they fill their roles as the archetypical representations of the Daughter, Wife, and Mother? Nope. They are comedic relief and exposition spouters with no point. I firmly believe the writers had no idea what they were supposed to represent because its not "woke".

For fucks sake is the love interest at least correct? Does Meg at least fulfill the partner aspect and give Charles meaning in his life? Nope. He's smitten with how beautiful she is and is a walking cock n' balls from then on. Also comic relief because lol men. The ultimate triumph love is completely flat. Lol men, needing to be saved. Meg is not a woman giving up everything for her future family in the moment of choice. She's superwoman saving the day.

The writers who created this abomination of avatars of IT.
Aeros
Member
Sun Mar 11 21:58:02
And I would not even be mad. Disney made Little Mermaid a happy ending story and all that jam, but the Little Mermaid was still grounded in the proper themes. The themes that gave the overall narrative power.

This abomination of a movie is worse then a deconstruction. They did not just change the story, they changed the themes. And without the themes the story is meaningless. The characters are just fucking golems spouting pointless lines, with a pointless message, and a pointless outcome. Nobody who watched it cared about what happened to them. Nothing that occurred was meaningful. A total exercise in mediocrity. With fancy visual effects.

Transformers movies are more impactful, in that at least they are true to their childhood toy narratives.
smart dude
Member
Sun Mar 11 22:51:23
You racist!
Aeros
Member
Sun Mar 11 22:59:53
This is the third time hollywood has failed to adapt this book.

I firmly believe this story will never be successfully adapted to film because the idiots in Hollywood are physically incapable of it. Men will never be able to adapt it because we can never understand the existential horror at the heart of womanhood that to create life their own life must be destroyed. Woke feminists will likewise never be able to write a good screenplay because they view motherhood as a double negative, and an expression of the penis pwning them of their potential.

A full time mother (incidentally, what the author of the books was) could write a screenplay. But they are too busy and not in hollywood.
hood
Member
Sun Mar 11 23:01:38
What blow to the head made you think the movie was worth watching?
Aeros
Member
Sun Mar 11 23:08:37
I wanted to believe.
McKobb
Member
Sun Mar 11 23:42:48
It Okra! Okra can't make bad movie. Okra woke!
Im better then you
2012 UP Football Champ
Sun Mar 11 23:52:53
You know this movie is for preteens girls who have an unshakable devotion to the ultimate white man Justin Bieber.
Dukhat
Member
Mon Mar 12 00:00:19
One of my favorite series as a kid. I haven't read or thought about it in 2 decades. Probably will reread it at some point.

Too bad hollywood is out of ideas and seems intent on destroying people's childhoods. No I don't want to see a remade willy wonka or star wars directed by someone who hates star wars. Stay away you douchebags.

That being said, I did enjoy the benji remake. Apparently it wasn't touched by hollywood and they sold the movie to netflix directly. This streaming thing might just be taking off.
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Mon Mar 12 03:04:14

I never heard of it.

murder
Member
Mon Mar 12 10:19:42

Anyone who gets this upset about a female empowerment movie aimed at young girls has some serious issues to deal with.

This Hollywood that you hold in such low esteem for this outlier movie, produces mostly films that are sausagefests in which women are few, an afterthought, and mostly around for the sex scenes and to be saved.

But this movie bothers you.

You may not be a Trump supporter, but give it a few years. You are well on your way there. That aggrieved and put upon white male is oozing to the surface.

Lol men!

hood
Member
Mon Mar 12 10:42:34
Pretty sure it wasn't the female empowerment issue, but the butchering of an established story. Hollywood can make plenty of female empowerment stories with completely original plots, and not shit on an author's work.
Seb
Member
Mon Mar 12 11:00:17
Murder:
Yarp.

Hood:

And hollywood would never, ever butcher a story. Or a historical event.

I am shocked, shocked...


hood
Member
Mon Mar 12 11:05:14
What?

Hollywood butchers source material all the time, so people couldn't possibly be complaining about it and MUST instead be secret women-hating assholes?

Sure thing.
Seb
Member
Mon Mar 12 11:14:32
Hood:

Did I say that? Your making things up! Lying!

Outrage! Outrage!


Rugian
Member
Mon Mar 12 11:14:39
"This Hollywood that you hold in such low esteem for this outlier movie, produces mostly films that are sausagefests in which women are few, an afterthought, and mostly around for the sex scenes and to be saved."

Seeing as how you're evidently stuck in 2005, could you please do this board a favor and burn down OMAC headquarters before it's too late?

(seriously what year are you in bro)
Seb
Member
Mon Mar 12 11:29:36
Aeros, I'm confused though.

In the book, i'm fairly sure it was her little brother that's trapped and whom she rescues with the power of love.

I don't recall a romantic love interest at all.

As for existential horror of dying to create life... I don't think many women I know consider it destruction of their life to produce a child. And as fairly radical feminists they certainly don't seem to have the views of rejecting motherhood you attribute to feminists here.

Is it possible, and I say this purely speculatively and not at all with the benefit of years of observational track record, you are perhaps (and this is a technical term so forgive me) makikng shut up?

Seb
Member
Mon Mar 12 11:30:21
I sort of think of Aeros as a sort of very angry Father Dougal.
Aeros
Member
Mon Mar 12 11:53:16
"As for existential horror of dying to create life... I don't think many women I know consider it destruction of their life to produce a child."

No, they don't. usually. There lives do change irrevocably though which is the origin of the archetype.

Take this portrait of Elizabeth I

http://mus...AE-Hamilton-Kerr-Institute.jpg

She is depicted wearing a heron brooch. In ye olden times, it was commonly believed that Heron mothers stabbed themselves to feed their chicks blood (they don't btw), and the story was used to illustrate the archetypical representation of the total sacrifice of the mother for the children. Elizabeth often wore heron brooches as it was a way of symbolizing her role as the selfless Mother of her country. She used the archetypical story as a means of political control. She was not trying to be a man, both the divine mother.

Its this theme that the Wrinkle in Time book tapped into. Modern writers don't like it because its an old theme that does not jive well with modern sensibilities, and more broadly because its a counter narrative to the idea women had no power or agency in western mythology to begin with. Which is absurd btw.

So no, I'm not actually making this shit up.

incidentally, I am mad about it being a bad film, and I am explaining its a bad film because it did not capture the themes of the source material. It has nothing to do with "REEEE Women and Minorities". For starters, Aliens is a great movie, and also has a strong female lead. It boggles my mind that people so easily forget all the great "female/minority empowerment" films of the last 40 years because its not current year.

Having women and minorities in your film is a not a shield for people calling your shit, shit.

Aeros
Member
Mon Mar 12 12:01:46
Also

http://ent...me-peppered-with-cr-1823656342
Rugian
Member
Mon Mar 12 12:02:00
*googles*

FWIW Seb, I'm not sure references to 1990s Channel 4 characters are going to be fully appreciated on this American-dominated board. Just saying.


Though as long as we're at it...I sort of think of Seb as a very young Sir Humphrey Appleby, with the sexual preferences of Sir Nigel Hawthorne.
Seb
Member
Mon Mar 12 14:44:23
Rugian:

Aww, you fantasize about me. Cute.
Seb
Member
Mon Mar 12 16:15:24
Aeros:

And yet the examples you claim of motifs in the novel arent as you describe and don't seem to illustrate the themes you suggest.

Aeros
Member
Mon Mar 12 16:17:36
Well, that's like, your opinion man.
obaminated
Member
Mon Mar 12 18:49:57
" Men will never be able to adapt it because we can never understand the existential horror at the heart of womanhood that to create life their own life must be destroyed."

Well that isn't true. The story of a woman dreading motherhood is pretty common. I mean even a simple comedy like Juno was ultimately about a young woman who was considering abortion because she didn't her life to change.

I mean this film was written and directed by women. The change probably has more to do with the fact that it needs to hit a mass young teen market and recoup a 100 million budget. That means it can't be controversial.
Aeros
Member
Mon Mar 12 21:03:52
Eh, I disagree. The "Wrinkle in Time" book is wildly popular across all age demographics and genders. You ask men who read it and they will usually be just as likely to love it as women. You ask them WHY they liked it though and the story will become wildly different.

The subject matter is inherently controversial, if we consider old archetypes to be controversial in the modern era. Hell, one of the spirit guides armed Meg with a quote from the bible before sending her off to do battle with IT.

So much could be read into this abortion of reading, how instead of confronting Red Eyes in the stale corporate environment Meg confronts him on a fucking beach. A BEACH. The confrontation between the Feminine and the Masculine in the corporate cubicle is absolutely central to the story, but the Woke idiots writing this abortion of a movie could not understand WHY.

The WHY is because in the themes of the book, the darkness is highly tied to the masculine propensity for order and routine at the expense of change and creativity which are archetypal feminine traits. Red Eyes is the literal embodiment of evil masculinity, but the "woke" writers could not see that because they want women to have "equal chance" to be red eyes too, in that drab cubicle commanding a drab corporation. So they changed that scene with one where meg confronts the "patriarchy" on a fucking beach.

But its not the patriarchy she confronted in the movie. It was a fucking caricature. A sad little sand man. Not someone in the fullness of their power sitting in the grey absolutism of institutional office, but an idiot in a bathing suit on a sunny beach.

Completely fucking missing the point.
Aeros
Member
Mon Mar 12 21:09:57
...I think I am honestly more furious about this then the Star Wars Movies. At leas the Star Wars universe was a blank slate for Disney to ruin. Wrinkle in Time on the other hand touches far more deeply into the sacred traditions of western culture. This "deconstruction" borders on heresy.
smart dude
Member
Wed Mar 14 10:19:43
Naturally, Seb is triggered because a white guy criticized a movie starring mostly black women.
murder
Member
Wed Mar 14 10:30:06

Naturally you'd be triggered by someone criticizing someone who criticized a movie starring mostly black women.

Take your cue from Steve Bannon and wear your racism proudly.
Seb
Member
Wed Mar 14 11:16:56
Smart Dude:

Nope, I'm just skeptical that Aeros would be so triggered about a bad film adaptation if he didn't attribute the changes he objected to to the evil social justice movement.

Particularly as some of the things he cites as high art criticisms don't seem to stack up.
E.g.

"Does Meg at least fulfill the partner aspect and give Charles meaning in his life"

In the book, Charles was her little brother!

I think aeros may be protecting his world view onto the book.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share