The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
I don't think I've ever heard that the movies were that bad. What diverts from the books so much so that they're practically different things?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Was it right for Disney to cut all the Christian content from 'A Wrinkle in Time'?
- Thread starter whirlingmerc
- Start date
-
- Tags
- wrinkle in time
Adaptations run the gamut. Some are so painstakingly faithful it's literally the book in visual form. Often easier to do with young children's books. Like the 90s Peter Rabbit show was literally the books in animation. But they had like 5 pages each book so ehh.
Sometimes it works against it, like the aforementioned Harry Potter.
Some are so far removed that you wonder why they bothered getting the rights at all.
Some are good and some are bad, not always a reflection on how accurate they are.
Most Disney adaptations are not that accurate, but are so ingrained in pop culture that their version is often the first thought of.
It just depends on how much of the spirit is captured not how accurate it is to the source material.
Despite my loyalty usually belonging to the books, I do have to admit that there are unfaithful adaptations that I do enjoy. Some faithful adaptions I do not care for.
It just depends on the movie and book in question really.
Lol reminds me of the meme
"You're a Jesus, Harry."
Did I say they were bad? I had a load of fun watching them...they just weren't the story that Tolkien told, except in the broadest of senses. Very much, the movies were not his story of Middle Earth.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
I mean "bad" in terms of grievances against the original plot, not quality. How were they not his story?
Buddha Dharma
Dharma Practitioner
I don't care very much for what their motivation probably was in doing so. That they figured non-Christians wouldn't appreciate the Christian elements. Doesn't it seem likely to folks that was the logic behind it?
IMO being shielded from ideas you don't want to consider, or never having to be met with them is another form of promoting societal ignorance. Because you're kept from having to critically examine your views placed next to any others.
I think the Christian elements should have been retained. I say that as a non-Christian. However, I know the producers ultimately had the right to make what they were going for.
IMO being shielded from ideas you don't want to consider, or never having to be met with them is another form of promoting societal ignorance. Because you're kept from having to critically examine your views placed next to any others.
I think the Christian elements should have been retained. I say that as a non-Christian. However, I know the producers ultimately had the right to make what they were going for.
Are there stories that haven't changed?
In the old days of oral storytelling, that was positively expected.
Yeah, I'm fine with Christian symbolism, or whatever. And I deliberately seek alternative views to challenge myself.
Still, I generally chuckle when Christians complain about removal of Christian symbolism.
As I said, broadly it follows the story line, but Jackson constantly changes characters, dialog, and events, and does cheap tricks for drama or laughs...and if he can think up some CGI...here, let's have elephants 60 feet tall! And then Legolas can go swinging around on it and kill 30 orcs or Southrons with a single arrow! And orcs that can climb on walls and ceilings...or catapults can can launch entire stone buildings at the walls, not just single large stones...
The Free Peoples of Middle Earth, in the movie, are not just being outgunned and outmanned by an enemy that is playing a long game...they're all pissed at each other over issues that weren't really issues in the books...and can barely band together at all. The council of Elrond devolving into shouted arguments? How unlike ANY of the characters or races. No, in Tolkien's story, there are ancient disagreements between the races, but they would not be so rude to their host as to start shouting at each other.
While Boromir would eventually succumb to the desire for the Ring, it was obvious from his first appearance that he would, unlike in the books--how unlike a Man of Numenor, which he was. Somehow, just in the nick of time, either Aragorn or Gandalf manages to convince Elrond's council, or King Theoden, or whomever to work together. In perhaps the most offensive segment, Pepsi and Moxie...eh...Pippin and Merry have to TRICK Fangorn and the Ents into attacking Saruman.
There are hints in the movie of romantic interest between Aragorn and Eowyn...and that somehow Arwen was willing to relinquish Aragorn and flee to the West, that she would accede to her father's preferences. An elf would not be so fickle, and neither would a Man of Numenor (also Aragorn). Yes, Eowyn fell for Aragorn, but it was not reciprocated.
Neither, even under the spell of the Ring, would Frodo trust Gollum over Sam. Hobbits are not that fickle, nor stupid, and Gollum was not that good at manipulating others. Nor would Faramir take Frodo and Sam almost to Minas Tirith before realizing that he must let them go on their mission--again, he was a Man of Numenor...and was a better man than his brother, Boromir.
And for some of the really neat special effects, he could have used actual suspense...in the books, no one was ever close to the Nazgul for more than a few moments...but them magically hovering on their flying steeds, descending to the walls of Minas Tirith to grab people and drop them? Stupid, special-effects driven storytelling. Their main use in the books were their psychological oppression, which could have been easily created by having them scream, far above the city, and men blench and looking scared in response...but I guess that would require acting, and they couldn't spend millions and millions on cgi for some really nifty special effects...
You haven't seen the director's cut then?
I'm not familiar with the story the OP is talking about, but my feeling on movie adaptations of popular literary works is this: do whatever you want with it, BUT LEAVE THE MESSAGE INTACT! The author was trying to say something when he sat down to write this story, and if all you're doing is hijacking a recognizable name in order to sell what would otherwise be an unrecognizable story, then you're a thief, a con man, and (in most cases) a gave-robber.
Which isn't to say that that formula hasn't resulted i a few really good movies.
(I was a huge fan of Robert E. Howard's Conan the Barbarian novels, but I also really like the movie Conan the Barbarian (1982) - Full Cast & Crew - IMDb even though Howard's Conan and Arnold's Conan wouldn't have recognized each other).
Which isn't to say that that formula hasn't resulted i a few really good movies.
(I was a huge fan of Robert E. Howard's Conan the Barbarian novels, but I also really like the movie Conan the Barbarian (1982) - Full Cast & Crew - IMDb even though Howard's Conan and Arnold's Conan wouldn't have recognized each other).
To me the bigger difference was the Hobbit movies than Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit was a children's story. Trying to turn it into a serious, high stakes epic high fanasy is like trying to do the same with My Little Pony.
...not that some fans haven't tried.
To me the bigger difference was the Hobbit movies than Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit was a children's story. Trying to turn it into a serious, high stakes epic high fanasy is like trying to do the same with My Little Pony.
...not that some fans haven't tried.
I would so watch that movie.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
I can think of Arwen and the Flight to the Ford, Haldir at Helm's Deep, and Treebeard saying Tom Bombadill's line to Old Man Willow, but off the top of my head that's about it. To me, adding spectacle isn't divorcing from the core of the story just because it wasn't found in the books.
As you mention, there were age-old mistrusts that many at the Council actively remembered. No one trusted Men. The Dwarves hated the Elves for Erebor, and the Elves hated the Dwarves for the closing of Moria, and further back for technically being the first peoples.
And with the Council of Elrond, while much of the long-winded histories was cut out (and justly so; that would not translate well to a film at all) Boromir still selfishly vied for the Ring to be given to Gondor, and even looking to Aragorn with doubt. To which Frodo even gets annoyed. Gandalf speaks the Black Tongue, and Elrond even admonishes him for it. Gloin and Elrond even argue about the Three Rings, Boromir almost mocks Bilbo, and no one could come to agreement with what to do with the Ring due to mistrust. The film simply shows the division that Sauron sowed in a much briefer span, but doesn't really add anything (besides temper) that was not already there. A "shouting argument" is unlike any of the characters and races only because that wasn't proper in the 1940-50's. Had the time that LotR been written been different, they would most certainly be fighting beyond veiled insults and witty barbs.
No, right from the Council we see Boromir doubting Aragorn, not treating the Ring as the threat that it is, and blustering about the "strength of men" after Galadriel put the test to him.
No, Frodo - in both the book and the film - settles the Council. I will grant you that the Beacons of Gondor replaced the Red Arrow, but consider that the Beacons require much less explanation. Théoden still needed convincing via the summons to muster to Gondor's aid.
I do grant you that the Rousing of Fangorn was far different in the books.
In the films Aragorn - as in the books - respected Eowyn, but didn't reciprocate her affections. It is also written in Appendix A, V "The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen" that Elrond was quite upset about Arwen's choice, and basically told Aragorn that unless he was a King, Arwen would never marry him. In the films, she didn't really accept her father's choice, but was loyal to him as his daughter; him sending her away brought her nothing but grief.
I grant you Sam; that was different than the book. As well as Faramir, though through the addition of letting Frodo go after temptation of the ring, the film showed that Faramir was better in a way that would translate well to screen.
Which did happen. But if you've just got screaming from the clouds... How are viewers to know what is going on?
From my understanding, much of the Hobbit trilogy was brought in also from "A Quest for Erebor" (which was basically The Hobbit from Gandalf's perspective, bringing the children's tale - in which the Ring wasn't even the One Ring - up to the more adult theme of LotR) as well as events explained and laid out in the Appendixes of the LotR books, like Sauron's occupation of Dol Goldur.
I disagree. Fight me!
No really though. I really think the world was a better place before copyright where information and story could be appropriated and changed at will to reflect new angles or even more accurate reconstructions than the originals (ala True Grit).
Disney ruins everything. (More on why copyright sucks the life from creative narrative evolution another time.)
But just think about how much the story of Frankenstein, Romeo and Juliet, Hunchback of Noterdam, Dracula, even Star Wars and Star Trek have changed over the years and constant retelling under those names. Some of them wildly different.
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine would make Gene Rodenberry roll in his grave but I believe it's the best one.
There's bound to be some muck but that's already true of any genre. Hey look a cool looking new sci-fi dystopia!
Oh nevermind, it's another teen Hunger Games clone.
But I think we shouldn't let us keep viewing titles as "AUTHOR WISHES ONLY NO ADDITIONS OR SUBSTITUTIONS." xD
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
Psh... Æon Flux did it before them.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
It's down to a 4.0 on IMDB, no doubt in part due to a Christian negative reaction. They took out the Christian stuff that a lot of people wouldn't have wanted to see, and replaced it with a touchy-feely politically correct Oprah cult that was going to keep even more people away--which sounds like a win-win to me. I may have to watch it just to confirm my suppositions. And what the hey, they've got another God's Not Dead sequel coming so what's the beef, unless Oprah's in that too.
And what the hey, they've got another God's Not Dead sequel coming so what's the beef, unless Oprah's in that too.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Typically, Hollywood movies have character arcs where characters repent and change their minds and behaviors, while replacing God as Savior. Many films have just one person rescuing everything/everyone rather than relying on God or communing with God's people as a team.
That is reaching, IMO.
I doubt Oprah has that much influence all by herself in such a movie. Sometimes the obvious explanation is indeed the most accurate one - and in this case, it is that biblical references just aren't very appealling these days. Particularly when it comes to commercial reach, which is always a main concern for Disney.
I understand that some people may feel disconfort at it, but the fact remains that the current cultural climate (IMO wisely) emphasizes inclusiveness over Christian pride. It just isn't very realistic to expect Disney to ignore that reality.
I enjoyed "Argo", but I wish it had less of an action movie feel and represented the political facts somewhat more accurately. That would make it a far better and more engaging movie to me, perhaps a masterpiece even.
No one cared. There is no reason to believe there was an agenda involved, either.
On the other hand, "The Walking Dead" is usually far weaker when it attempts to be true to the comic books. I love the comics, but the weaknesses and strengths of the two media do not coincide at all, and the stories are much better when suited to the specific medium. And the Marvel movies stray decisively from the comics, yet no one seems to be much bothered by that.
Last edited: