Honestly, this movie pisses me off. I know it's only based on the book, but it changed a lot. Appearance wise, Ralph is blonde, Jack is a ginger, Roger has black hair (or dark hair, I'm not sure), and Simon has dark hair and is slightly darker than the other boys. While their hair colors may not seem like much, they are important because the characters are meant to be stereotypes. Ralph is supposed to the blonde charasmatic pretty boy and Jack is supposed to be the asshole ginger. Anyways, appearance doesn't matter that much. The only character I think this film correctly interpreted (better than the 1963 film, anyway) was Roger. Roger is meant to be a suppressed sociopath from the start, and that's exactly what he is. Ralph is also acceptable because he is a decent leader. However, Jack and Simon are the people who piss me off. Simon, who originally played a major role in the book, is just a side character. The main thing he contributes is dying. In the book, he represents inherent goodness and not just being good because of rules. They took away Simon's most famous quote(maybe just the most famous quote in general), "Maybe there is a beast, maybe it's only us' or something like that. That's literally the central theme of the novel. Also they took away the part when Simon shared his pork and picked up Piggy's glasses, which kind of annoyed me. Anyways, Jack is what is most inaccurate to me. In the book, Jack is depicted as a bratty, insecure, power-hungry kid. In the book, all Jack wanted was authority. While I do agree Jack is more bad than good, he does have redeeming qualities. In this version, he's just an all-around dick and more violent than necessary. He's completely evil from the start. He's sort of a sociopath, and everyone knows there's only room for one sociopath on the island (Roger). His descent into savagery also doesn't made sense. Overall, I would recommend the 1963 version because it follows the book more closely. The characters' appearances still aren't quite accurate, but it shows the theme of the book better. Jack has a realistic descent into savagery, and Simon plays his intended role (a christ-like figure).
@Dildo Insaney Yeah. He chose to make them English because at the time the English were considered super civilized and stuff. Plus, I cannot imagine Jack without a British accent lmao
Gli adulti fanno anche peggio in situazioni simili. Credo che di fronte all'istinto insito nell'essere umano a fare il male npn ci sia differenza d'età. "L'uomo produce il male come le api producono il miele". William Golding😢
I remember reading this is 9th grade English. Skimmed through the movie and compared to the book this is quite different than the book lol. I don’t recall Simon having a gosh damn lightsaber and the characters are weird too lol.
I wouldn't be surprised if parents started to give the author hate-mail, after the book!
I’m surprised you don’t get hate mail after the stupid comment
Seriously..what a douche..@@projectmoon13
Why would they do that?
Beelzebub.
The screenwriter and director should be the ones getting hate mail.
Honestly, this movie pisses me off. I know it's only based on the book, but it changed a lot. Appearance wise, Ralph is blonde, Jack is a ginger, Roger has black hair (or dark hair, I'm not sure), and Simon has dark hair and is slightly darker than the other boys. While their hair colors may not seem like much, they are important because the characters are meant to be stereotypes. Ralph is supposed to the blonde charasmatic pretty boy and Jack is supposed to be the asshole ginger. Anyways, appearance doesn't matter that much. The only character I think this film correctly interpreted (better than the 1963 film, anyway) was Roger. Roger is meant to be a suppressed sociopath from the start, and that's exactly what he is. Ralph is also acceptable because he is a decent leader. However, Jack and Simon are the people who piss me off. Simon, who originally played a major role in the book, is just a side character. The main thing he contributes is dying. In the book, he represents inherent goodness and not just being good because of rules. They took away Simon's most famous quote(maybe just the most famous quote in general), "Maybe there is a beast, maybe it's only us' or something like that. That's literally the central theme of the novel. Also they took away the part when Simon shared his pork and picked up Piggy's glasses, which kind of annoyed me. Anyways, Jack is what is most inaccurate to me. In the book, Jack is depicted as a bratty, insecure, power-hungry kid. In the book, all Jack wanted was authority. While I do agree Jack is more bad than good, he does have redeeming qualities. In this version, he's just an all-around dick and more violent than necessary. He's completely evil from the start. He's sort of a sociopath, and everyone knows there's only room for one sociopath on the island (Roger). His descent into savagery also doesn't made sense. Overall, I would recommend the 1963 version because it follows the book more closely. The characters' appearances still aren't quite accurate, but it shows the theme of the book better. Jack has a realistic descent into savagery, and Simon plays his intended role (a christ-like figure).
@Dildo Insaney Yeah. He chose to make them English because at the time the English were considered super civilized and stuff. Plus, I cannot imagine Jack without a British accent lmao
Lol did you pull out your 7th grade book report and copy and paste😂😂
@jonathongutierrez9889 hey at least YOU laughed..
@@jonathongutierrez9889 I'm not in seventh grade. And no, we did not have to write a report about why the Lord of the Flies movie is shit
Who in the Wolrd is Simon?... What's piggy real name, if he's got any.
My favorite teen movie
This is a hippie version of the story.
Gli adulti fanno anche peggio in situazioni simili. Credo che di fronte all'istinto insito nell'essere umano a fare il male npn ci sia differenza d'età.
"L'uomo produce il male come le api producono il miele". William Golding😢
0:11
I remember reading this is 9th grade English. Skimmed through the movie and compared to the book this is quite different than the book lol. I don’t recall Simon having a gosh damn lightsaber and the characters are weird too lol.
Yea and if Simon did he will kill all the hunters💀💀
HAHA its a glowstick
@@kennedybothe3693 where’d he get it lol
Your teacher should got the original instead the remake
Quello fedele al libro e il film del 1963.
Think I’ll read the book first.
Trailer is mid but the movie was great
Other way around
Not as great as the book though
@@cosmicurgencylmfao real
English Australia
I never knew Airsoft Fatty was a child actor?
You're a... son of a biscuit...
looks like exe complete kids of their family❤ 💃🏻🕺🏻
Beelzebub
This movie is exactly how I would expect wyt kids to act #savages
Lmao what try to build a society?
👀
Sus