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

[whirlingmerc]

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?

 

[Aldrnari]

It isn't often when anything coming out of Hollywood accurately, or even remotely, preserves historical or religious contexts for any book/event covered in it's movies. One has to remember that it's just the director's vision, and serves as nothing more than entertainment.

 

[whirlingmerc]

It isn't often when anything coming out of Hollywood accurately, or even remotely, preserves historical or religious contexts for any book/event covered in it's movies. One has to remember that it's just the director's vision, and serves as nothing more than entertainment.

I think many of the viewers had hoped to see some of the original shine through... but it seemed dislodged and possibly since Oprah doesn't think much of the Bible and was a significant player... that had something to do with it?

 

[BSM1]

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?

It's their circus, they can dress their monkeys anyway that suits them (see what I did there?).

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Why does a movie have to follow a book?

Isn’t something original more beneficial and beautiful?

Creativity is better than a copy.

Just read the book if you want that story.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Had to read it in school. Thought it was boring.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Oprah

She was neither the writer nor the director. What would she have to do with it? Or are you just looking for a way to bash?

 

[Twilight Hue]

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?

Leave it to some people on a ridiculous crusade to artificially change historical literature into their own personal version of what it should be.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

No tears shed here. Along with C.S. Lewis's work, Wrinkle in Time was boring pandering for me, and I was Christian when I read it. The most interesting fantasy with Christian allegory is the one most removed, Lord of the Rings. Consequently much more popular and much more successful. Because it had its own mythos and world building and didn't really come off like a proselytizing pamphlet.

It's academic though. Like The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe movie series, it's bombing.

 

[sayak83]

No tears shed here. Along with C.S. Lewis's work, Wrinkle in Time was boring pandering for me, and I was Christian when I read it. The most interesting fantasy with Christian allegory is the one most removed, Lord of the Rings. Consequently much more popular and much more successful. Because it had its own mythos and world building and didn't really come off like a proselytizing pamphlet.

It's academic though. Like The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe movie series, it's bombing.

Lord of Rings forever. Pity he did not make Silmarillon into a readable form.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Leave it to some people on a ridiculous crusade to artificially change historical literature into their own personal version of what it should be.

And why shouldn't retelling of stories change with the society it's in?
Hunchback of Notredam was heavily criticized by some because it was no longer a tragedy and all of the characters lived in the end. But the first person to make a optimistic Hunchback story was Victor Hugo himself in a later play right after the original novel. And he commented on how stories should grow and change suit to the time and audience it's being told to for maximum effect. Which is something that has been done with stories passed from generation since time immemorial.

All traditionalism serves is stagnation.

 

[Twilight Hue]

And why shouldn't retelling of stories change with the society it's in?
Hunchback of Notredam was heavily criticized by some because it was no longer a tragedy and all of the characters lived in the end. But the first person to make a optimistic Hunchback story was Victor Hugo himself in a later play right after the original novel. And he commented on how stories should grow and change suit to the time and audience it's being told to for maximum effect. Which is something that has been done with stories passed from generation since time immemorial.

All traditionalism serves is stagnation.

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

 

[ADigitalArtist]

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

And?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

Meh. I’m more upset about the travesty they made of the film version of Johnny Mnemonic from what was actually a pretty good short story.

Edit: IOW, the line for people annoyed about film adaptations that weren’t true enough to the original book forms to the left... and it’s pretty long already.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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?

They have yet to make just one movie that is based on a Stephen King book that doesn't totally suck and/or isn't way off from what happens in the book. And you expect better from them?

 

[Twilight Hue]

And?

Jim Smiley and his Jumping Frog.

 

[Aldrnari]

Meh. I’m more upset about the travesty they made of the film version of Johnny Mnemonic from what was actually a pretty good short story.

Edit: IOW, the line for people annoyed about film adaptations that weren’t true enough to the original book forms to the left... and it’s pretty long already.

Imagine if it were a star wars movie?

Metachlorians?! NOOOooo...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Meh. I’m more upset about the travesty they made of the film version of Johnny Mnemonic from what was actually a pretty good short story.

Edit: IOW, the line for people annoyed about film adaptations that weren’t true enough to the original book forms to the left... and it’s pretty long already.

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?"

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Jim Smiley and his Jumping Frog.

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

There is no such thing as a new idea. It is impossible. We simply take a lot of old ideas and put them into a sort of mental kaleidoscope. We give them a turn and they make new and curious combinations. We keep on turning and making new combinations indefinitely; but they are the same old pieces of colored glass that have been in use through all the ages

-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.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

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?

I don't know but why does Oprah look like she gonna use a Supersaiyan?

Trash Panda on Twitter