How did such a good book make such an awful movie?
Thread title
shareIncompetent people made it.
share
MovieChat Forums > A Wrinkle in Time (2018) Discussion > How did such a good book make such an aw...
I came here to ask the same thing. Such an interesting concept turned into such a bland movie.
shareBecause PC liberal idiots (particularly the producer) made it.
shareI remember liking the book as a kid. But I also remember it being the first time I thought that the whole "love is the answer" message was on the weak side. As a message, it is fine but as a strong plot conclusion, it is weak cheese.
Wind in the Door was OK and recall not liking Swiftly Tilting Planet.
Swiftly Tilting Planet was my favorite of that series.
shareDiversity casting. The reality is when a book is written where the author takes the time to create characters down to the level of their racial identity or god forbid details which gender they are... well that was done for a reason. Now when diversity casting comes along and start changing these things as if they can easily be interchanged, those swaps start causing problems. This all started with the main character that is no longer has a real parent but is now adopted because even SJW know that black kids have to have black parents in the real world... then you add in stunt casting to try and generate interest in the film... eliminate some character from the book and you have a recipe for a box office bomb.
In the end the biggest sin was not being true to the book. When movies are made that think they can just use the title of a book and the names of the characters but shake things around freely the outcome is usually crap.
Sadly agree. I'm all for diversity in films & welcome new characters of any & every background as long as the resulting film is solid work. But retro-fitting diversity doesn't always work well; it certainly didn't in this case, I'm sorry to say. Because it's a wonderful & could have made a wonderful film. But for anyone who did read the book, Meg is & always will be a gawky, skinny, red-haired girl. That's a big part of what makes her Meg.
shareIf the movie stuck to the original plot it would have worked out no matter what race was used.
shareWhy should diversity casting make any difference? That's really a comparatively minor change, the important thing is that Meg is an awkward, nerdy, highly intelligent, fatherless girl in her early teens, who feels out of place and unworthy in her own life. How the hell does casting a girl of a different race really change who the character is, except to a person who loses their shit at the sight of an unexpected black person?
Frankly, casting a beautiful girl as Meg is a much bigger change to the character than making her biracial, and so is glamming up the three Mrs. W characters and giving them lots of screen time to show off their spectacular costumes and backup effects, as if the director was more concerned with sucking up to two of the most powerful women in Hollywood, rather than keeping the film running at a good pace.
The 2003 film had the better casting because it didn't pander to wokesters looking for a diversity quota that made no sense. As for Meg, the 2018 film didn't have a beautiful girl it had a token black girl that wasn't right for the part and only ticked a box for gender. The film was the typical woke shit show that no one other than ignorant wokesters wanted which is why it failed at the box office.
shareIT WAS A TERRIBLE FILM...THE COLOR OF THE CAST'S SKIN HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT THOUGH.
shareAgreed that diversity rarely, if ever, makes a film *bad*. Changing a character from white to Black doesn't mess up a story (unless the character is, say, a Nazi and thus defined by their race).
What does screw up a film is when filmmakers believe that diversity is *all* they need to justify a film's existence (in other words, by all means, cast more diverse actors, but don't think that it's 'job done' simply for being virtuous/'woke'; you still have to make a decent film). I feel this was the case with 2016's Ghostbusters attempted reboot. Making the lead characters women wasn't a problem. Thinking that it was all that was needed to justify the film's existence, and failing to equipt those women with a decent script or direction, was the problem.
It didn't. This movie is great.
shareDisney seems to think it can tell a story better than its authors. I'm glad it never got its teeth into Harry Potter.
shareWell, the director knew nothing about pacing, suspense, or drama, and who thought it was fine to have nothing but special effects on the screen for half an hour straight after the first tesser. But the most irritating thing about it was the three "Mrs." actresses, who were having FAR to good a time with constant makeup and wardrobe changes, they were too much fun playing dressup to think of characterization or acting, and the painfully slow pacing gave the viewer plenty of time to speculate about talks where the big-name actresses were lured into small roles by promises of X-million dollar wardrobes, and which of their favorite designers would be asked to create a fantasia of fluff that would have five minutes of screen time, and all the faaabulous things the film's makeup designer wanted to try. And oh yeah, sorry but there would be this little loser girl around during their scenes. I mean, SO much time and energy was wasted on special effects and wardrobe for the "Mrs." ladies that I sat there thinking it'd have been a much better film if the budget had been cut by 75%!
Please note that none of the above had anything to do with diversity casting, but it's what sunk the film.
💯🧨
shareIt's as if the director thought that kissing up to two of the most powerful women in Hollywood would do more good to her career than in making a good film...
Maybe she was right!