Was it right for Disney to cut all the Christian content from 'A Wrinkle in Time'?

[ADigitalArtist]

Or Starship Troopers, which I found out by just now reading the Wiki article was not originally based on the Heinlein novel of the same name. They changed the name of the movie, worked some of the characters from Heinlein's book which was more about a different approach to society than the actual problem with aliens, and made a theatrical bomb as a result. The director actually never read the book and disliked the little that he did.

Now an example of a science fiction writer whose work has made several classic movies, all with changes of course, was Phillip K. Dick. Who has not watched "Do androids dream of electric sheep?"

I actually prefer the film's angle in ST. The book was military utopianism, and the movie heavily satirized that.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I doubt Twain would have much cared, being no stranger to adaptation.
-Mark Twain

Similarly, I doubt you much cared when he little mermaid didn't throw herself into the sea to become sea foam or that Marvel's Thor bears little resemblance to the Scandanavian legend.

Honestly I think people would ain lot more if they stopped trying to judge narratives by their predecessors, especially in whole different mediums which necessitate different construction, let alone long spans of time.

From what I hear, I don't think Twain cared for it too much, but it was a success all the same.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

It warps originality and hearing/seeing a story through the eyes and perspective of its author.

Millions of people just love the movie version of The Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit. While approved by the Tolkien Trust, The only things recognizable from the books are character names and some of the characters themselves (Gollum was excellent!), geography and a smattering of details here and there. The only way I was able to enjoy it was to keep telling myself that "This is SOMEONE ELSE'S Lord of the Rings"...

But few movies are ever very close adaptations of the books or stories they are based on...

 

[Aldrnari]

I doubt Twain would have much cared, being no stranger to adaptation.
-Mark Twain

Similarly, I doubt you much cared when the little mermaid didn't throw herself into the sea to become sea foam or that Marvel's Thor bears little resemblance to the Scandanavian legend.

Honestly I think people would gain lot more if they stopped trying to judge narratives by their predecessors, especially in whole different mediums which necessitate different construction, let alone long spans of time.

Avengers would have been so much better if Loki had shape shifted into a mare and given birth to an 8 legged horse... Comon, Marvel!

 

[Twilight Hue]

Millions of people just love the movie version of The Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit. While approved by the Tolkien Trust, The only things recognizable from the books are character names and some of the characters themselves (Gollum was excellent!), geography and a smattering of details here and there. The only way I was able to enjoy it was to keep telling myself that "This is SOMEONE ELSE'S Lord of the Rings"...

But few movies are ever very close adaptations of the books or stories they are based on...

I don't mind retelling of stories, but I think it's important to notably mention disclaimers like, "Based off the Original" or "A retelling of the tale". I'm like you on that I cannot enjoy it as a work of its original author, but rather may indulge another authors retelling as long as it's identified as a composition of the original work.

That way I can accept the variation and changes and enjoy it in its own way.

I frown on deceptive storytelling because it dilutes its originality and even it's historical origin worthy of preservation in cases of tales of antiquity because it's the only window we have to peer back into time to capture a stories true flavor through the eyes of its original author.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I actually prefer the film's angle in ST. The book was military utopianism, and the movie heavily satirized that.

It was a complete strawman of the proposed society. There were plenty of arguments that could have been made against it, but falsely representing the idea only attacked a book that the director admittedly does not do his side any good.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Millions of people just love the movie version of The Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit. While approved by the Tolkien Trust, The only things recognizable from the books are character names and some of the characters themselves (Gollum was excellent!), geography and a smattering of details here and there. The only way I was able to enjoy it was to keep telling myself that "This is SOMEONE ELSE'S Lord of the Rings"...

But few movies are ever very close adaptations of the books or stories they are based on...

I felt the same way. At times the director of the Fellowship tipped his rather heavy liberal hand.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

It was a complete strawman of the proposed society. There were plenty of arguments that could have been made against it, but falsely representing the idea only attacked a book that the director admittedly does not do his side any good.

I don't expect satires to be representational of what they're poking fun at. Hyperbole and exaggeration is kind of what they're there for. I also don't think the society in Heinlan's story out into practice becoming a military facist state is unreasonable. In fact I don't think that society is tenable, which makes the movie even more amusing to me.

Phillip Pullman's work cranking up the political symbology of CS Lewis to 11 then turning it on its head is another example of much the same.

 

[sun rise]

I felt the same way. At times the director of the Fellowship tipped his rather heavy liberal hand.

True - he did not say how Sauron was going to Make Middle Earth Great Again.

 

[sun rise]

As far as the OP goes, I'm a bit torn. The movie never matches the book - that's impossible to do because they're different mediums. But I appreciate it when the movie is faithful to the spirit of the book. I've not seen this movie so I can't comment on the details.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@whirlingmerc - have you seen Netflix’s Dirk Gently series? It bears almost no relation to the books, but it’s still pretty good.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't expect satires to be representational of what they're poking fun at. Hyperbole and exaggeration is kind of what they're there for. I also don't think the society in Heinlan's story out into practice becoming a military facist state is unreasonable. In fact I don't think that society is tenable, which makes the movie even more amusing to me.

Phillip Pullman's work cranking up the political symbology of CS Lewis to 11 then turning it on its head is another example of much the same.

It was supposedly not large scale fascism, like that of Germany or Italy, it was a small scale one. The basic premise was that the right to vote had to be earned. Not altogether bad concept. It was not a once size fits all service. A quadriplegic could serve just as a fully able bodied person could. The concept was that the service would be something that that person could do but was guaranteed to be difficult for that person. The fifty percent voting rate of registered voters tells us that our own system needs some work. If one had to earn the right to vote the odds are that one would not waste it. Also hopefully the idea was that one would not vote just for one's own self interest, though it was clear that that was not a perfection of the system.

Was Pullman's work the big releases of the Aslan series? I saw the first, it was not bad. But my Seventh Day Adventist brother and his family were not fans at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@whirlingmerc - have you seen Netflix’s Dirk Gently series? It bears almost no relation to the books, but it’s still pretty good.

Not who you addressed but I have both the books and some of the series recorded. I have not sat down to watch it yet. Does it matter where you start?

 

[Subduction Zone]

True - he did not say how Sauron was going to Make Middle Earth Great Again.

Or portray him with orange hair. But the eye was close!

 

[Subduction Zone]

As far as the OP goes, I'm a bit torn. The movie never matches the book - that's impossible to do because they're different mediums. But I appreciate it when the movie is faithful to the spirit of the book. I've not seen this movie so I can't comment on the details.

I do remember that some of the reviews of the first of the Harry Potter series complained because it was too close to the book. But it did turn me on to a children's series that I totally ignored until then.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not who you addressed but I have both the books and some of the series recorded. I have not sat down to watch it yet. Does it matter where you start?

I’d suggest starting at the beginning. Definitely not partway through a season. Each season is its own story, so you should be okay if you start at the first episode of a season... though some stuff carries over.

 

[Father Heathen]

Strictly from a marketing perspective, making an adaptation that's palatable to a contemporary audience makes sense. Overt preachiness would only appeal to a very narrow niche.

 

[QuestioningMind]

The book was filled with scripture quotes and the author one of the inklings, a group that included CS Lewis and Tolkien. Enter Hollywood and Oprah and the end product has lots of clever special effects,

Creative and clever it was. It was sad that the Christian content was pretty much completely removed. While the original book was filled with scripture quotes and many literature quotes given in this version, the original intent disappeared. Her opinion on a Harry Potter book she had read was, "It's a nice story but there's nothing underneath it."

Madeline L'engle criticized Harry Potter as not having enough of a point and substance, but she might have stronger striticism of this movie. This movie misses the point of the original and passed over the Christian content more in favor of Oprah's views even writing in her hero Maya Angelo and skipping over the original Christian intent of the book

In the original, the father reminds his daughter 'All things work out for good to those who love God' but this version puts the emphasis not on God but on your inner self.

Am I wrong?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the version they made. If you want to make a version with all of the Christian aspects to it, go for it. That's the wonderful thing about art. Parts of the book can stand out as important to one reader, while other parts of the book are what stand out as important to another. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

it certainly was a looooonnnnngggg stretch from the Damon Runyon short story to the musical Guys and Dolls...

 

[QuestioningMind]

It warps originality and hearing/seeing a story through the eyes and perspective of its author.

Yes it does. What's wrong with that?