Were you disappointed by A Wrinkle in Time or did you love it? Check out MojoTalks discussion on movies that didn't live up to the hype: ruclips.net/video/c2K_hrLX9ds/видео.html&t=
I disagree very much on your opinion on Aunt Beast. Meg's visit to Ixchel was crucial in her development. Not only was she infected by the Darkness, but she needed to come to terms with several things including her realization that her father isn't perfect and her sense of betrayal over the fact that he left Charles Wallace behind on Camazotz. It's also here that Mrs. Whatsit gives Meg her love, which is what leads to her realizing that her own love for Charles Wallace is what can defeat IT. On that note, another travesty in this movie is the change to Mrs. Whatsit's character. In the book, she was quirky, kindhearted, and believed wholeheartedly in Meg from the beginning. This movie's Mrs. Whatsit is snarky and sometimes downright rude to Meg. Also, the movie left out the fact that Mrs. Whatsit used to be a star, but sacrificed her life in that form to temporarily drive back the Darkness.
Completely agree with you, I enjoyed this movie, but Ixchel missing changed the entire movie for the worse. Disney changed the focus to be about self image, making the climax about Meg instead of Charles Wallace. Whereas Ixchel was where Meg's relation to her self was supposed to be dealt with and concluded, so that the climax can focus on her relation to Charles Wallace, applying what she learned at Ixchel to fight IT.
It sucks that the twins were left out because they are a lot more involved in the sequel novels, A Swiftly Tilting Planet and A Wind in the Door. The twins are actually the main protagonists in the latter novel.
Wrong. Aunt beast is 100% essential. When i read the books as a kid, Aunt beast and the healing process was one of the main things i remembered. Also the kid who drops the ball. Also wtf was the point of the adoption plot?
Yup, Disney made it all about self image, whereas self image was supposed to be a subplot that concludes with Aunt beast, allowing Meg to grow and prepare her for the real focus - her battle with IT and relation to Charles Wallace.
In my opinion, I believe they chose Charles Wallace to be adopted because they wanted an all-White male to play this part. If his character wasn't adopted, they would've had to pick another interracial kid.
I want aunt beast back! And why are people so afraid of Christian references? You survived Narnia. And Jesus was not the only religious figure stated. The point was that anything of the light would defeat the dark.
I don't believe it is so much a matter of being afraid of Christian references as not wanting to feel like one has to pander to the religion. There are many religions practiced in the United States, some Christian or Christian like but also non-Christian. In a way, it seems better to make the spiritual references more general.
I know, I was ticked. It wasn't like they just left out the Christian references (I think the book also mentioned Buddha, and a couple other religious figures), they completely changed the entire moral of the story. The point is that there is light and there is dark, and you have to choose a side. That didn't get across well at all in the movie.
@Andrew Ollmann Seriously? You mean we could've gotten an evil telepathic brain monster in an conflict with the likes of God, Jesus, Ghandi, Einstein, and few female celestial beings. And they gave us that shadowy blob tree thing? Why is the world being robbed of imaginative creativity? ;_;
@@christophersudbrink4946 As someone who has read the book and watched doctor who, I can give you confidence that I’m certain the Doctor would be up to the challenge, but I don’t know how far he’d go. I just know he’d give IT a decent fight as the Doctor would be amongst the greats in fighting the darkness.
Me: *watching seen near the end* Calvin: staring and smiling at meg Me: *crunches popcorn* KISS KISS KISS Calvin: *hugs Meg* Me: *sniffles* it's ok. It's not like I've been excited since the beginning of the movie to see that scene Im totally not going to cry. *5 minutes later* Me: WHYYYY *Sobs*
I haven't seen the movie, so I don't really know what they did or changed plot- or character-wise, but it kind of looks like they made everything WAY too glitzy compared to how I envisioned it in the book (which I've always really loved). Mrs Whatsit is emphatically _not_ meant to be beautiful or glamorous in any way, and I always felt that Mrs Which's incorporeality (is that a word?) and idiosyncratic speaking voice were pretty integral to her character. Also, I thought the whole point of Camazotz was that it could be any planet - including, eventually, our own - and that IT was just one facet of the greater Black Thing spreading across the entire universe.
The best thing I can say is that Madeline didn't have to endure this butchering of her work. She was known to hate the 2003 version and I'm sure she would think this was far far worse.
That is very correct. Oif as a musician. I wrote a song and some dumbass changed it id break my epiphone over thier head. I cant figure out why hollywood has to destroy works of art to put them on screen. I walked out of the shining.
*This Is A Story About The Fight Between Righteous, The Good THE LIGHT and The Evil The Bad The Darkness. I think they cut too many characters out, and they changed too too many things* *God and angels needed to be included!* Hello * ding ding ding... what the...? Sad 😢Face. Sigh. One of my FAVORITE Characters was Aunt Beast; I was seriously looking forward to her in the “new” movie. I think she was important. If Aunt Beast wasn’t important, she wouldn’t of been in the book!
Hewy Toonmore well, I think you're right, but that green creature still looked pretty cool, despite the fact that they took away some details from the book in that scene.
What the hell did they do?!? Disney, can you please stop F'ing with great stories and trying to make them "your own". If you want a diff story write one. Stop messing with something that's already great. *Okay, I'm done ranting*
I agree! When I first heard they were remaking this great book to the big screen, I was excited and I said "Finally!" But as soon as I heard Oprah was producing the project, I knew it would be a disaster, her touching it with "new age" hands! What a waste of a great children's book.
I grew up with all four books and then they continue under a different series and they kept me sane from the bullies and gave me somewhere to go. It was like I could have a cherubim as a friend or a unicorn. Or even go back in time to meet Noah and his family and really cute miniature mammoths. I felt like those books made me smart. I felt like I was so much like Meg. And my sons turned out to be like Charles Wallace. Some books are books, but there are those chosen few that are your friends.
Cool!!! This is the type of comment I like that is genuine and real - not a comment from prideful and tyrannical females who are trying to make me in thrall to and a slave to a church and dictating thst I can't like a movie because they "say so". This comment is genuine rather than loaded down with sycophancy towards a church. I liked several of L'Engle's books also including Many Waters , although for some reason still haven't manage to finish one that was not about the Murrys ( such as A Ring of Endless Light or The Young Unicorns). At any rate, glad to come across a comment from someone being genuine rather than in thrall to a church. Thanks
I completely disagree with them trivializing the changes. They are hugely important to the story line. They basically took out everything that made the story itself, and changed things that didn't need to be changed. This movie could have been great, and I just feel like it was handled badly.
I cannot tell you how much I hated this movie. that book was vital to me and I have given it and Recommended it so many times. it broke my heart to see what they did to it.
I was very disappointed in this version of my favorite childhood book. The "new age" premise of the movie completely erased the religious overtune of the original story (but what do you expect once Oprah got her hands on it?). I was very angry these people destroyed, in my opinion, a perfect children's story.
Love it, and highly prefer it to the new one. It was extremely cheesy, yes, but it was endearing, had heart, didn't cut things out from the book, and kept the essence of the story.
The numerous close ups of the character's faces, the whispy dialog, and the focus on visuals was a little grating. Otherwise its a nice "feel good" movie for kids.
Karen, to be honest there were parts of the movie I enjoyed. Since I have read the book at least 3 times I rather enjoyed the things that were different - some surprises on how they chose to do it. Charles Wallace was adorable and the boy who played Calvin was so cute and the visuals were good. Those things I did enjoy.
Religion doesn’t have to be involved to make a good adaption. Besides chances are if they kept it in the movie people would have complained because people are sensitive over every little thing now. Also it’s a Disney film the only time Disney used religion in a movie was Hunchback of Notre Dame. It would be a risky move on the company’s part.
Ravethecat12 well that’s their problem. We can’t force them to follow God only they can choose if they want to or not. Besides some of the best fantasy books involve some Christianity like Narnia, Harry Potter, & Lord of the Rings
RoseBookFan#7 Yes I know I was just saying that there was probably a way they could have done it better without adding the religious tones into it but played it safe. I mean I’m not saying it’s bad to add those things in there but Disney is very careful about that kind of thing because parents always have something to bitch about.
Really having Meg be biracial, and Charles Wallace being adopted weren’t big deal changes. But all the other changes totally destroyed what made the book impactful.
One of the differences I picked up on was the fact that the it wasn’t a brain on a pillow. It was more of a dark plant looking thing rather than a pulsing brain
Actually, IT was still a brain, but so big you couldn’t see it. The dark plant-like things were neurons. I thought that was rather clever. But I agree with the comment above that IT was just a small facet of the darkness.
I was so excited to see this movie, but I was disappointed like always. I have yet to find a movie adaptation of a book enjoyable. And that includes all of the Harry Potter movies. I would like to add that I haven't read the book (A Wrinkle in Time) in like 15 years, and yet I could still tell that big chunks were missing from the movie. Some things just didn't make sense.
The shawshank redemption. Easily as good as the short story. Different in some ways but equally good. The davinci code. Pretty much like a video book rather than an audio book. Angels and deamons was actually a bit better than the movie once the movie got rid of that stupid trench coat parachute scene at the end. I think they made a movie out of the book hatchet. It was pretty good. The problem is that lots of really good books dont translate well because theres a lot of internal dialog that cant easily be brought out but is important to the story.
I never read any of the books and I have no idea what's they're like. All I know is that when judged as a standalone film, the 2018 movie is terrible. The pacing is awful, the pretty-boy love interest doesn't add anything of value to the plot, the CGI environments made it look like the live-action characters stumbled into a Pixar movie, and the hero, Meg, is a passive and uninteresting character who doesn't make any proactive decisions until well into the second act. There's a prolonged sequence where the kids ride on the back of a flying leaf monster, and this scene goes nowhere and serves no purpose to the plot. I'm convinced the only reason it's in the movie at all is so they could put it in the trailer. I also found the pretense of Meg being some kind of physics expert insulting to my intelligence, especially when she and the boy hide in a hollow tree stump to save themselves from a tornado which proceeds to rip said tree stump out of the ground and throw it hundreds of feet through the air until it violently crashes into the ground, and the two kids get out completely unscathed. If your movie is going to make any kind of reference to real-world physics, it better not have scenes operating on Looney Tunes logic.
I absolutely loved the book. It was breathtakingly written, there was amazing character development, and the storyline was amazing. The movie was a HUGE disappointment. They took out every important detail and left it as some shitty Disney movie. I could sit here all day and type out every thing they changed to make it shitty but this comment is already long enough.
Haven't seen the new movie. LOVED the books and all of the series, A Wind in the Door and A Swiftly Tilting Planet too. Many Waters (featuring the twins) I loved a little less. But I do think that omitting Aunt Beast was not good. If she was important enough to be in Barlowe's Guide to Extra Terrestrials (check it out at Amazon), she is definitely important to the story.
Because I have been reading these chapters and I watched the whole movie including the plot of the film and the summary of the chapters like the characters and the incidents of the movie
I think the 2003 movie was better. It more closely followed the book. This one changed way too many things and left way too many important parts out. I was excited to see the remake, but was very disappointed in it.
I love how half of the comments are “I hated the new film,” and “the 2003 one is better.” Here’s the thing. If you were offended by this film, that’s fine. But can you please review the film less from a book adaptation and more as a “film?” Seriously, I’m always mad with the whole “this wasn’t in the book, so it sucks” argument. Movies shouldn’t be like the book, because books allow for you to envision this world, envision the characters. A film, you only have one form, and that’s what the filmmakers choose for this world. Listen, I understand liking the 2003 for being accurate, but it is still a very awful movie. I have never yelled so hard at a film before or after. The acting was atrocious, the VFX bad even for 2003 TV, and basic story beats were handled poorly. I liked the new film (notice I said liked. I had major problems as well, but there not nearly as bad as that of the 2003 one) because it took the story and made it feel real. I loved that they took the thing I always held from the book which was the message of accepting one’s self, and how Meg had to accept it in herself. The actors did pretty good across the board, and I felt like Meg and her father were a real family. Now, I’m not saying “Oh, you’re wrong. I’m an intellectual who understands Movies,” because no. I don’t. I like Speed Racer for how cartoonish it is, so don’t think I’m some idiot who thinks they know how films work. I just love movies and like talking with people about movies and see what they think of a film, whether I disagree or not. And I’m going to honestly say I too was saddened by some elements being taken out. I’m sad we didn’t get to see Aunt Beast and the centaur version of them as much as everyone else. I’m sad the twins weren’t there, or that they didn’t explain tessering as well as they should have. I’m sad a lot of the biblical references were taken out as well. I’m sad we didn’t get to see IT as a brain. But discounting this film because of book to movie adaptations shouldn’t be what complaints for the film should be based on, because if that were the case, every book adaptation would be considered terrible. And I’ve seen movies that are much better than the book (like Ready Player One). Now if you didn’t like the film, that’s fine. I know for a fact I hated the actor who played Calvin, but I’m sort of just a little annoyed by a lot of the hate this film has gotten. Plus, at least it didn’t have that stupid McDonald’s sign that said the word “IT” on it. That was definitely a rant mode out of me. I reacted quite similar to how most react to the Bat-Credit Card.
Okay I'll make it easy for you - the movie sucked. Period. As a side comment the book is amazing, my single favorite book of my entire life. The movie wouldn't be in my top 1000 favorite movies and was flat out, on it's own, stupid.
Christian Paystrup Thank you for an honest and unbiased review. I feel the same way you do. A movie can be good but also disappointing at the same time which is how I feel about a "Wrinkle in Time".
I agree with all those who think Aunt Beast is essential. It is while she is in Ixchel that Meg learns that it is not her father but she who must return to save Charles Wallace. In making that decision, summons the courage to confront IT, where she also learns of the remarkable power she has to overcome it. By leaving that scene out, we miss the internal conflict what was such a big part of the book, and the big payoff at the end.
I loved that movie The 2003 one sucks even if it does follow the book better it sucks I love the book But I love the movie and the book as two separate things You can’t always have the same development in movies as they do in books because it would make the movie long and annoying so if you want that in a movie go do a mini series on the book and you can develop the characters and the story as much as you want. I love this movie it had so many great lessons and yes I know it had missing pieces But if you want those missing pieces then go Read the book!
No. Fuck that. They butchered it. Like i robot. It bears very little resemblance to the book. The mr jenkins character is way underplayed. No twins. I dont think they even mentioned the dogs name. Calvin's family barely gets any treatment at all. The w's were all wrong. Too cringey and not strange enough. That flying carpet leaf thing is not what happened in the book. At all. Aunt beast? The idea behind camazots? A sim? The man with read eyes was a giant fucking joke. None of these things helped make the story more presentable. They were just lazy. The result of fear and over thinking. If they made the movie for people who READ the book, theres a prettt good chance they could handle a 2.5 hr movie. The base material isnt that long. It had already been done better. That one still sucked but was orders of magnitude better than this one.
Another example of a bad adaption. A great book was trashed.There's been too Many. I had issues with the complete secularization of the book and all the other issues you covered well.
While I thought the new one was really cool and colorful, I definitely had a lot of problems with it. I grew up with the older one, so I much preferred that one.
Quite a lot of these changes should not have been made. I’m not referring to Meg being biracial or where the film is but there are things that while seemingly unimportant like Aunt Beast, are actually necessary for the story. There is no reason for Charles Wallace to have been adopted, and the twins should be there. I own the whole series of books and read them from childhood on, and still occasionally go back.
When I saw the new one in theaters I thought it was cute now I hate it because I wanted it to have way more they cut so much out in the new one. And i prefer the 2003 version. Because it doesn't feel rushed and there's character development and action unlike the new one rushed and has no character development .
I believe 20th Century Fox could’ve done a better job with A Wrinkle In Time. After all, Fox was founded by a Christian, who isn’t afraid to show his religious side to the world, and Fox has taken quite a lot of risks in the last couple years (Deadpool, Logan). Disney, on the other hand, is far too concerned about being politically correct, and not favoring one religion over another, that it’s no wonder why A Wrinkle In Time sucked. I brought Fox into this because, as I’m sure most of you know by now, Disney is on the road to making a deal with Fox to merge their companies. One of the reasons for this merger may be so that Disney could produce adult content without it directly being under their brand.
The story didn't have wide appeal because they stripped out the key part, Christianity. Changing major elements of a story for pointless reason never leads to good things.
I thought it was cause they changed too many characters, had a fairly incoherent plot and changed the script in at least one instance just to make a casting change.
I gotta say I’m pretty disappointed that aunt beast didn’t make an appearance but apparently there’s a difference between the it! In the book, the it is like a brain ,while in the film it just looks like something really terrifying!
Yea. I don't really think you can really adapt this book. It's very metaphysical and strange (in a good way) that any adaption just makes it seem really cheesy. It's a very hard story to adapt into a film. I felt the same with Into the Woods. I love the original play but the way Disney adapted it into a film just didn't feel right. It's like the makers of these movies don't really understand the stories or what makes them likable.
@@TECfan1 I disagree as I think the 2003 one showed you could do a lot of the tough things cinematically. This one showed that effects could do it if you aren't inlcined to be a doof. The happy medium for instance could be done almost line by line. With a man or woman. Hell Laverne Cox has the chops to be funny and empathetic.
@@Pallidyne1 The 2003 film is pretty good overall. I feel like if they just updated what they did there and made it better it would have worked. This remake was stylistically strange and the director kind of turned it onto their own thing rather than trying to stay true to the source material.
If you think about it, Mrs Whatsit is the only of the Misses in the book, is the only one that could speak properly. Mrs Which stretches her words and Mrs Who only talks in quotes
I agree with the choices, just not the order. If the twins don’t exist, then the Madeline L’Engle book that the twins are featured in can’t become a movie. Although that was about Noah’s arc, they had the same love interest, and the love interest thought they were the same person.
I thankfully met Madeleine L’Engle. Sandy and Dennis! I don’t think Oprah EVER read the beautiful series. I have MANY issues with the two adaptations. I doubt L’Engle would approve. I certainly don’t.
Not sure if it is just me, but Aunt beast in my opinion was really unnecessary. I didn’t watch the video yet, but I am guessing aunt beast will be mentioned. And did anyone else hate meg? I don’t know why but she was always so unappreciative about her father. She wanted her father, found him, then got mad because he couldn’t help them? I also think the twins were kind of unnecessary because they were mentioned on like 2 pages. (Sorry I know no one asked for my opinion but) But I have to say that the book is way better than the 2018 movie. Edit: Oh no people actually like aunt beast.. I am probably not the best at judging a movies/books 😅 Aunt beast took care of meg, but I think there could have been another way for meg to be taken care of without adding an additional character. (Like a mood boosting place for example)
I did like a lot of the changes put to this one. The graphics were really cool but sometimes the script for the movie just seemed rushed, or, here, let’s just put this person here to move along the plot. The newest one felt underdeveloped, and while I know the 2003 one is not the best, in my opinion, it was more cohesive.
Were you disappointed by A Wrinkle in Time or did you love it? Check out MojoTalks discussion on movies that didn't live up to the hype: ruclips.net/video/c2K_hrLX9ds/видео.html&t=
I was disappointed by a wrinkle in time do to all the changes made to it , but hey that's just my opinion of it
I was pretty disappointed, I really wanted to like it.
I was really Confused on were they were going and the movie never stayed on topic🤔
Dogo Games same I was confused with the setting
I really liked it
I disagree very much on your opinion on Aunt Beast. Meg's visit to Ixchel was crucial in her development. Not only was she infected by the Darkness, but she needed to come to terms with several things including her realization that her father isn't perfect and her sense of betrayal over the fact that he left Charles Wallace behind on Camazotz. It's also here that Mrs. Whatsit gives Meg her love, which is what leads to her realizing that her own love for Charles Wallace is what can defeat IT.
On that note, another travesty in this movie is the change to Mrs. Whatsit's character. In the book, she was quirky, kindhearted, and believed wholeheartedly in Meg from the beginning. This movie's Mrs. Whatsit is snarky and sometimes downright rude to Meg. Also, the movie left out the fact that Mrs. Whatsit used to be a star, but sacrificed her life in that form to temporarily drive back the Darkness.
I just finished the book and i totally agree with you
I agree, also. Meg’s character development is greatly weakened by leaving out Ixchel and Aunt Beast.
Solora Goldsun well the movie actually did make a small reference to it, it's kinda hard to notice it though
Completely agree with you, I enjoyed this movie, but Ixchel missing changed the entire movie for the worse. Disney changed the focus to be about self image, making the climax about Meg instead of Charles Wallace. Whereas Ixchel was where Meg's relation to her self was supposed to be dealt with and concluded, so that the climax can focus on her relation to Charles Wallace, applying what she learned at Ixchel to fight IT.
Yah, I remembered one of the Ws giving Meg her love.
It sucks that the twins were left out because they are a lot more involved in the sequel novels, A Swiftly Tilting Planet and A Wind in the Door. The twins are actually the main protagonists in the latter novel.
Actually, it's Many Waters in which the twins are the protagonists.
Wrong. Aunt beast is 100% essential. When i read the books as a kid, Aunt beast and the healing process was one of the main things i remembered. Also the kid who drops the ball.
Also wtf was the point of the adoption plot?
Yup, Disney made it all about self image, whereas self image was supposed to be a subplot that concludes with Aunt beast, allowing Meg to grow and prepare her for the real focus - her battle with IT and relation to Charles Wallace.
The adoption was to justify diversity...or Mr. Murray was not too faithful...😆
well tokenizing, pushing diversity, and wanting to be politically correct all took a role in that.
In my opinion, I believe they chose Charles Wallace to be adopted because they wanted an all-White male to play this part. If his character wasn't adopted, they would've had to pick another interracial kid.
SERIOUSLY! we read the disney version of the book and see that he was adopted... We could not read further
I want aunt beast back! And why are people so afraid of Christian references? You survived Narnia. And Jesus was not the only religious figure stated. The point was that anything of the light would defeat the dark.
Apparently Aunt Beast was in the original script. According to writer Jennifer Lee, it was a last-minute decision to cut her out of the film.
I don't believe it is so much a matter of being afraid of Christian references as not wanting to feel like one has to pander to the religion. There are many religions practiced in the United States, some Christian or Christian like but also non-Christian. In a way, it seems better to make the spiritual references more general.
@@stefanieprejean6609 The novel also referenced Buddha, who was also cut.
Hinatachan360 I forgot that. That was in the part with the discussion about everyone who has been a light to humanity.
I know, I was ticked. It wasn't like they just left out the Christian references (I think the book also mentioned Buddha, and a couple other religious figures), they completely changed the entire moral of the story. The point is that there is light and there is dark, and you have to choose a side. That didn't get across well at all in the movie.
First of all, it’s not the IT....it’s just called IT in the book. IT’s a brain that has large telepathic/mind-control power.
In the movie I’m pretty sure IT just had like, five minutes of screen time. Rather disappointing.
@Andrew Ollmann
Seriously? You mean we could've gotten an evil telepathic brain monster in an conflict with the likes of God, Jesus, Ghandi, Einstein, and few female celestial beings.
And they gave us that shadowy blob tree thing? Why is the world being robbed of imaginative creativity? ;_;
I think you'll survive if they call it The It and not It.
Imagine if it had to face off against The Doctor.
@@christophersudbrink4946
As someone who has read the book and watched doctor who, I can give you confidence that I’m certain the Doctor would be up to the challenge, but I don’t know how far he’d go. I just know he’d give IT a decent fight as the Doctor would be amongst the greats in fighting the darkness.
Me: *watching seen near the end*
Calvin: staring and smiling at meg
Me: *crunches popcorn* KISS KISS KISS
Calvin: *hugs Meg*
Me: *sniffles* it's ok. It's not like I've been excited since the beginning of the movie to see that scene Im totally not going to cry.
*5 minutes later*
Me: WHYYYY *Sobs*
OH THAT’S TRUE! That was annoying! If there was a Top 15, this should be included!
I haven't seen the movie, so I don't really know what they did or changed plot- or character-wise, but it kind of looks like they made everything WAY too glitzy compared to how I envisioned it in the book (which I've always really loved). Mrs Whatsit is emphatically _not_ meant to be beautiful or glamorous in any way, and I always felt that Mrs Which's incorporeality (is that a word?) and idiosyncratic speaking voice were pretty integral to her character. Also, I thought the whole point of Camazotz was that it could be any planet - including, eventually, our own - and that IT was just one facet of the greater Black Thing spreading across the entire universe.
Top 10 differences between the book and movie of A Wrinkle in time
(1). Everything.
Agreed! I hate this version of my favorite book.
which movie the 2003 one or the 2018 one
@@ateezyaoi The Oprah version.
@@Sandra-wj4on ok that makes sense
its more of a summary than a movie tbh
The best thing I can say is that Madeline didn't have to endure this butchering of her work. She was known to hate the 2003 version and I'm sure she would think this was far far worse.
That is very correct. Oif as a musician. I wrote a song and some dumbass changed it id break my epiphone over thier head. I cant figure out why hollywood has to destroy works of art to put them on screen. I walked out of the shining.
It sucks they got rid of Sandy and Dennys they were my favorites
Yeah! The book even mentioned the twins, who are probably older than Meg!
Lmaooo
They also came up A LOT in later books
Pilar Cuervo did you read the book and no
WHAT? THEY DID? :(((
*This Is A Story About The Fight Between Righteous, The Good THE LIGHT and The Evil The Bad The Darkness. I think they cut too many characters out, and they changed too too many things* *God and angels needed to be included!* Hello * ding ding ding... what the...? Sad 😢Face. Sigh. One of my FAVORITE Characters was Aunt Beast; I was seriously looking forward to her in the “new” movie. I think she was important. If Aunt Beast wasn’t important, she wouldn’t of been in the book!
FOR REAL
I'm ticked they replaced the awesome winged centaur from the book with some generic looking plant alien.
Hewy Toonmore You haven’t seen the 2003 one, have you? Because after the nightmare fuel that was, I’m fine with the leaf thing.
It looks nothing like that in the book. In the book, she is an actual winged centaur!
Hewy Toonmore well, I think you're right, but that green creature still looked pretty cool, despite the fact that they took away some details from the book in that scene.
@@drymeee hey hey hey now, lettuce all have our own opinion
@@jaime779 It's not cool at all lol. It's literally just a giant piece of cabbage.
What the hell did they do?!?
Disney, can you please stop F'ing with great stories and trying to make them "your own".
If you want a diff story write one. Stop messing with something that's already great.
*Okay, I'm done ranting*
Sooo True
I agree! When I first heard they were remaking this great book to the big screen, I was excited and I said "Finally!" But as soon as I heard Oprah was producing the project, I knew it would be a disaster, her touching it with "new age" hands! What a waste of a great children's book.
Because Disney green lights filmmakers such as Ava, who influence the story with her personal opinions of how it should be told.
@@Sandra-wj4on Oprah wasn't the real issue. Ava D made some of the real bad decisions when directing
I grew up with all four books and then they continue under a different series and they kept me sane from the bullies and gave me somewhere to go. It was like I could have a cherubim as a friend or a unicorn. Or even go back in time to meet Noah and his family and really cute miniature mammoths. I felt like those books made me smart. I felt like I was so much like Meg. And my sons turned out to be like Charles Wallace. Some books are books, but there are those chosen few that are your friends.
There’s a 5th book too. It’s called “An Acceptable Time”
Yes. I kinda feel the same about these books. And the first movie was faithful enough, but not very good. They new movie though was awful.
Cool!!! This is the type of comment I like that is genuine and real - not a comment from prideful and tyrannical females who are trying to make me in thrall to and a slave to a church and dictating thst I can't like a movie because they "say so". This comment is genuine rather than loaded down with sycophancy towards a church. I liked several of L'Engle's books also including Many Waters , although for some reason still haven't manage to finish one that was not about the Murrys ( such as A Ring of Endless Light or The Young Unicorns). At any rate, glad to come across a comment from someone being genuine rather than in thrall to a church. Thanks
@@stefanieprejean6609 You can like what you like, but it doesnt make shit stink any less.
Why I prefer books and my imagination.
Here's hoping we get another adaptation later on that's actually more FAITHFUL to the book.
Hewy Toonmore a lot better than that dorky TV movie that came out in the 90’s
You mean 2003.
Hewy Toonmore Right, sorry.
Unlikely but I’m wishing the same thing
BigDaddyFoodReviews it's better than the original version made in 2003, though.
I completely disagree with them trivializing the changes. They are hugely important to the story line. They basically took out everything that made the story itself, and changed things that didn't need to be changed. This movie could have been great, and I just feel like it was handled badly.
I cannot tell you how much I hated this movie. that book was vital to me and I have given it and Recommended it so many times. it broke my heart to see what they did to it.
I was so sad they cut Aunt Beast!
I’m reading wrinkle in time novel book in school , it’s coming in our test ! Mrs whatsit is the prettiest !!!!!
On earth she's not supposed to be pretty.
I was just waiting for the kiss during the whole movie. Sad it wasn't in there.
TBH, me too. That would've made me feel better because I was sad on how the movie turned out
Tiffany Jian ikr
But I still loved the movie
They recorded it but deleted it
Tiffany Jian Ikr! I was watching the scene and I was so excited. Then they hugged instead of kissed and I cried
THE KISSSSSSS WAS LEFT OUT!
Anna Sanchez I know I was so sad!
The act that they hinted at it and then passed just was like yelling 'neener neener'
You guys probably don’t care, but I was very upset when they didn't give Calvin red hair
I was very disappointed in this version of my favorite childhood book. The "new age" premise of the movie completely erased the religious overtune of the original story (but what do you expect once Oprah got her hands on it?). I was very angry these people destroyed, in my opinion, a perfect children's story.
I didn't really see anything " new age" in it - after all, the Happy Medium was in the book ( if that is what this reference is to).
Agreed 💯%
I prefer dragonlance these days. Christianity leave a bad taste in my mouh and rightly so. Follow that religion at your own peril.
Am I the only one who likes the 2003 movie?
maverick fan2357 nope!
I loved it. It's cheesy but matches the times and Noel Fisher is in it so that's a plus when I rewatch it. ;)
Tori Anna and I was born then soo
No, I liked that movie. It was a part of my childhood. I thought I was the only one who liked it.
Love it, and highly prefer it to the new one. It was extremely cheesy, yes, but it was endearing, had heart, didn't cut things out from the book, and kept the essence of the story.
No I like the 2003 version too
I just want to thank whoever made this...finally someone gets it other then me and my teacher😍
The numerous close ups of the character's faces, the whispy dialog, and the focus on visuals was a little grating.
Otherwise its a nice "feel good" movie for kids.
I don't want to see Megs nose hair
True, Sandy and Dennys Meg's twin brothers don't appear much in the first novel, but the fourth novel is all about them.
When it was first announced as being made, I wasn't sure if I wanted to see it. The more I learn about it...the more I DON'T.
Karen, to be honest there were parts of the movie I enjoyed. Since I have read the book at least 3 times I rather enjoyed the things that were different - some surprises on how they chose to do it. Charles Wallace was adorable and the boy who played Calvin was so cute and the visuals were good. Those things I did enjoy.
@@SHEvans Calvins character was eviscerated. Wasn't the poor kid succeeding despite his family.
In other Words:
The 2018 Version is Just another 2018 Movie, 2003 Version did it Better, and The Book is waay Better
BIBLE is the greatest inspiration for the book series. If the author is alive, she would be terribly disappointed.
Paul Ramos She died in 2007. R.I.P.
Amen to that🙌🏼😆✝️
Religion doesn’t have to be involved to make a good adaption. Besides chances are if they kept it in the movie people would have complained because people are sensitive over every little thing now. Also it’s a Disney film the only time Disney used religion in a movie was Hunchback of Notre Dame. It would be a risky move on the company’s part.
Ravethecat12 well that’s their problem. We can’t force them to follow God only they can choose if they want to or not. Besides some of the best fantasy books involve some Christianity like Narnia, Harry Potter, & Lord of the Rings
RoseBookFan#7 Yes I know I was just saying that there was probably a way they could have done it better without adding the religious tones into it but played it safe. I mean I’m not saying it’s bad to add those things in there but Disney is very careful about that kind of thing because parents always have something to bitch about.
Really having Meg be biracial, and Charles Wallace being adopted weren’t big deal changes. But all the other changes totally destroyed what made the book impactful.
I thought it was. The amount of a big deal they make in whitewashing should be done in blackwashing also.
One of the differences I picked up on was the fact that the it wasn’t a brain on a pillow. It was more of a dark plant looking thing rather than a pulsing brain
Strangerthings28 I think part of it came from the fact that people would have been turned off by it, so they did something different.
Well first Camazots is said to be the Dark thing in the movie but it's just an effected planet also it's on a sundial not a pillow
Actually, IT was still a brain, but so big you couldn’t see it. The dark plant-like things were neurons. I thought that was rather clever. But I agree with the comment above that IT was just a small facet of the darkness.
It was still a big brain. They were just inside it. The "plants" as you say were neurons.
I am getting a degree in film, tv, and animation, so this is one I will redo in the future. Only, I will include the Bible verses!
Lord I was SOOOO HAPPY when I found out Meg was being portrayed as a biracial girl like me!!!
I was so excited to see this movie, but I was disappointed like always. I have yet to find a movie adaptation of a book enjoyable. And that includes all of the Harry Potter movies.
I would like to add that I haven't read the book (A Wrinkle in Time) in like 15 years, and yet I could still tell that big chunks were missing from the movie. Some things just didn't make sense.
The shawshank redemption.
Easily as good as the short story. Different in some ways but equally good.
The davinci code. Pretty much like a video book rather than an audio book. Angels and deamons was actually a bit better than the movie once the movie got rid of that stupid trench coat parachute scene at the end.
I think they made a movie out of the book hatchet. It was pretty good.
The problem is that lots of really good books dont translate well because theres a lot of internal dialog that cant easily be brought out but is important to the story.
I never read any of the books and I have no idea what's they're like. All I know is that when judged as a standalone film, the 2018 movie is terrible.
The pacing is awful, the pretty-boy love interest doesn't add anything of value to the plot, the CGI environments made it look like the live-action characters stumbled into a Pixar movie, and the hero, Meg, is a passive and uninteresting character who doesn't make any proactive decisions until well into the second act.
There's a prolonged sequence where the kids ride on the back of a flying leaf monster, and this scene goes nowhere and serves no purpose to the plot. I'm convinced the only reason it's in the movie at all is so they could put it in the trailer.
I also found the pretense of Meg being some kind of physics expert insulting to my intelligence, especially when she and the boy hide in a hollow tree stump to save themselves from a tornado which proceeds to rip said tree stump out of the ground and throw it hundreds of feet through the air until it violently crashes into the ground, and the two kids get out completely unscathed. If your movie is going to make any kind of reference to real-world physics, it better not have scenes operating on Looney Tunes logic.
The lead scene adds to the movie, it introduces Meg and co to the IT. The darkness where they’re father is within.
This is a remake. 2003 version was much better
Mimi Wilson I liked this version better
It was much better. Without actually being good.
Yea, it was extremely cheesy I will admit, but it was charming, a lot better acted and didn't cut much from the book.
Yep the new one is bad.
The biggest difference is that the book is good, but the movie is shit.
who else noticed the differences between calvin' s home life in the book vs the movie?
Calvin wasn't a supporting character in this film. He was an accessory like a watch.
WHY ARE THERE SO MANY CHANGES??? AAAHHH
Because they don't like the idea of good vs evil, which was the theme of the book. They like PC correctness so much better.
I absolutely loved the book. It was breathtakingly written, there was amazing character development, and the storyline was amazing. The movie was a HUGE disappointment. They took out every important detail and left it as some shitty Disney movie. I could sit here all day and type out every thing they changed to make it shitty but this comment is already long enough.
Haven't seen the new movie. LOVED the books and all of the series, A Wind in the Door and A Swiftly Tilting Planet too. Many Waters (featuring the twins) I loved a little less. But I do think that omitting Aunt Beast was not good. If she was important enough to be in Barlowe's Guide to Extra Terrestrials (check it out at Amazon), she is definitely important to the story.
The biggest difference of all, the book was actually good
The main difference is that the book isn’t crap
The book was… ok, I guess.
@@sobekmania I've got three generations of my family that would beg to differ.
Because I have been reading these chapters and I watched the whole movie including the plot of the film and the summary of the chapters like the characters and the incidents of the movie
Can someone else other than Disney adapt Wrinkle in Time? This movie is OKAY, but it could have been better.
Am I the only one who kind of...likes the movies?
I haven't watch the 2003 version, but I think I like it better.
I miss aunt Beast!
I think the 2003 movie was better. It more closely followed the book. This one changed way too many things and left way too many important parts out. I was excited to see the remake, but was very disappointed in it.
I love how half of the comments are “I hated the new film,” and “the 2003 one is better.” Here’s the thing. If you were offended by this film, that’s fine. But can you please review the film less from a book adaptation and more as a “film?” Seriously, I’m always mad with the whole “this wasn’t in the book, so it sucks” argument. Movies shouldn’t be like the book, because books allow for you to envision this world, envision the characters. A film, you only have one form, and that’s what the filmmakers choose for this world. Listen, I understand liking the 2003 for being accurate, but it is still a very awful movie. I have never yelled so hard at a film before or after. The acting was atrocious, the VFX bad even for 2003 TV, and basic story beats were handled poorly. I liked the new film (notice I said liked. I had major problems as well, but there not nearly as bad as that of the 2003 one) because it took the story and made it feel real. I loved that they took the thing I always held from the book which was the message of accepting one’s self, and how Meg had to accept it in herself. The actors did pretty good across the board, and I felt like Meg and her father were a real family. Now, I’m not saying “Oh, you’re wrong. I’m an intellectual who understands Movies,” because no. I don’t. I like Speed Racer for how cartoonish it is, so don’t think I’m some idiot who thinks they know how films work. I just love movies and like talking with people about movies and see what they think of a film, whether I disagree or not. And I’m going to honestly say I too was saddened by some elements being taken out. I’m sad we didn’t get to see Aunt Beast and the centaur version of them as much as everyone else. I’m sad the twins weren’t there, or that they didn’t explain tessering as well as they should have. I’m sad a lot of the biblical references were taken out as well. I’m sad we didn’t get to see IT as a brain. But discounting this film because of book to movie adaptations shouldn’t be what complaints for the film should be based on, because if that were the case, every book adaptation would be considered terrible. And I’ve seen movies that are much better than the book (like Ready Player One). Now if you didn’t like the film, that’s fine. I know for a fact I hated the actor who played Calvin, but I’m sort of just a little annoyed by a lot of the hate this film has gotten. Plus, at least it didn’t have that stupid McDonald’s sign that said the word “IT” on it. That was definitely a rant mode out of me. I reacted quite similar to how most react to the Bat-Credit Card.
Christian Paystrup wow dats a lot of typing
Sunshine Soup Yeah, I tend to do that sometimes. 😂
Okay I'll make it easy for you - the movie sucked. Period. As a side comment the book is amazing, my single favorite book of my entire life. The movie wouldn't be in my top 1000 favorite movies and was flat out, on it's own, stupid.
Ross Carlson that’s your opinion, man. I would never attempt to change it.
Christian Paystrup Thank you for an honest and unbiased review. I feel the same way you do. A movie can be good but also disappointing at the same time which is how I feel about a "Wrinkle in Time".
It has been many years since I read the book. I loved this movie though!
I agree with all those who think Aunt Beast is essential. It is while she is in Ixchel that Meg learns that it is not her father but she who must return to save Charles Wallace. In making that decision, summons the courage to confront IT, where she also learns of the remarkable power she has to overcome it. By leaving that scene out, we miss the internal conflict what was such a big part of the book, and the big payoff at the end.
Meg becomes this monolithic super woman rather than a vulernable girl who has to face her fears and find courage.
I FREAKING HATED THE NEW MOVIE SO MUCH
Natalie Swanson OH MY GOSH ME TO I LOVED THE BOOK SO MUCH BUT THE MOVIE WAS SOOOOO BAD
I loved it!
I loved that movie
The 2003 one sucks even if it does follow the book better it sucks
I love the book
But I love the movie and the book as two separate things
You can’t always have the same development in movies as they do in books because it would make the movie long and annoying so if you want that in a movie go do a mini series on the book and you can develop the characters and the story as much as you want.
I love this movie it had so many great lessons and yes I know it had missing pieces
But if you want those missing pieces then go Read the book!
Ah yeah read the book argument
No. Fuck that. They butchered it. Like i robot. It bears very little resemblance to the book. The mr jenkins character is way underplayed.
No twins. I dont think they even mentioned the dogs name.
Calvin's family barely gets any treatment at all.
The w's were all wrong. Too cringey and not strange enough. That flying carpet leaf thing is not what happened in the book. At all.
Aunt beast?
The idea behind camazots? A sim?
The man with read eyes was a giant fucking joke.
None of these things helped make the story more presentable. They were just lazy.
The result of fear and over thinking.
If they made the movie for people who READ the book, theres a prettt good chance they could handle a 2.5 hr movie. The base material isnt that long. It had already been done better. That one still sucked but was orders of magnitude better than this one.
Yea....no. The movie still sucked.
Fantastic
Another example of a bad adaption. A great book was trashed.There's been too Many. I had issues with the complete secularization of the book and all the other issues you covered well.
1. The book is good
I’ve never read the book but I watched this movie and it was a huge disappointment
The book won the Newbery Medal.
While I thought the new one was really cool and colorful, I definitely had a lot of problems with it. I grew up with the older one, so I much preferred that one.
But Meg and Calvins kiss wasn't there either 😭😭😭
My schools making us make a board game outta this book lol
Quite a lot of these changes should not have been made. I’m not referring to Meg being biracial or where the film is but there are things that while seemingly unimportant like Aunt Beast, are actually necessary for the story. There is no reason for Charles Wallace to have been adopted, and the twins should be there. I own the whole series of books and read them from childhood on, and still occasionally go back.
When I saw the new one in theaters I thought it was cute now I hate it because I wanted it to have way more they cut so much out in the new one. And i prefer the 2003 version. Because it doesn't feel rushed and there's character development and action unlike the new one rushed and has no character development .
I believe 20th Century Fox could’ve done a better job with A Wrinkle In Time. After all, Fox was founded by a Christian, who isn’t afraid to show his religious side to the world, and Fox has taken quite a lot of risks in the last couple years (Deadpool, Logan).
Disney, on the other hand, is far too concerned about being politically correct, and not favoring one religion over another, that it’s no wonder why A Wrinkle In Time sucked.
I brought Fox into this because, as I’m sure most of you know by now, Disney is on the road to making a deal with Fox to merge their companies. One of the reasons for this merger may be so that Disney could produce adult content without it directly being under their brand.
What about Warner Bros they've should done a better job with A Wrinkle In Time
Also, the IT was a giant brain in the book
The story didn't have wide appeal because they stripped out the key part, Christianity.
Changing major elements of a story for pointless reason never leads to good things.
Christianity isn't widely appealing....lol. Most people are not religious in the modern era.
I thought it was cause they changed too many characters, had a fairly incoherent plot and changed the script in at least one instance just to make a casting change.
I gotta say I’m pretty disappointed that aunt beast didn’t make an appearance but apparently there’s a difference between the it! In the book, the it is like a brain ,while in the film it just looks like something really terrifying!
it did, it was just a very short moment with the (now male for some reason) happy medium instead of a massive part of meg’s character arc
It made me sad Aunt Beast wasn't in it. She was so nice.
The book is great, both movies suck.
Yea. I don't really think you can really adapt this book. It's very metaphysical and strange (in a good way) that any adaption just makes it seem really cheesy. It's a very hard story to adapt into a film. I felt the same with Into the Woods. I love the original play but the way Disney adapted it into a film just didn't feel right. It's like the makers of these movies don't really understand the stories or what makes them likable.
@@TECfan1 I disagree as I think the 2003 one showed you could do a lot of the tough things cinematically. This one showed that effects could do it if you aren't inlcined to be a doof. The happy medium for instance could be done almost line by line. With a man or woman. Hell Laverne Cox has the chops to be funny and empathetic.
@@Pallidyne1 The 2003 film is pretty good overall. I feel like if they just updated what they did there and made it better it would have worked. This remake was stylistically strange and the director kind of turned it onto their own thing rather than trying to stay true to the source material.
Differences between the Love Simon movie and the book.
Calvin kissed meggggggggg (in the book)
I read the book and seen the 2018 movie. Somehow i didn't see aunt beast in the new one, i guess disney doesn't want to make the movie longer.
If you think about it, Mrs Whatsit is the only of the Misses in the book, is the only one that could speak properly. Mrs Which stretches her words and Mrs Who only talks in quotes
Disney tried it once, it was awful, they tried it twice, it was awful again.
Khalid Henry It wasn’t Disney who made the 2003 one. It was Dimension Films, the people behind Spy Kids and Sharkboy and Lavagirl.
Christian Paystrup Oh
@@christianpaystrup4427 Disney was still the producer of it. It aired exclusively on ABC's Wonderful World of Disney.
Eh the 2003 one wasn't that bad. At least it didn't change a million things from the book. It was just cheesy is all.
Calvin weird
I LIKE UR HAIR WHY 5 TIMES
tbh I think the 2018 movie is kind of boring (I considered exiting the cinema halfway of the movie).
Great
My least favorite changes are the removal of Aunt Beast and for some reason the change of "IT" to "The It". Why did they do that?
I agree with the choices, just not the order. If the twins don’t exist, then the Madeline L’Engle book that the twins are featured in can’t become a movie. Although that was about Noah’s arc, they had the same love interest, and the love interest thought they were the same person.
Anyone else get the feeling that Disney is racist against gingers?
Is this referring to Whatsit or Calvin?
I thankfully met Madeleine L’Engle. Sandy and Dennis! I don’t think Oprah EVER read the beautiful series.
I have MANY issues with the two adaptations.
I doubt L’Engle would approve. I certainly don’t.
Ava D claims that she did and loved it as a kid. Did a thing on the audio book for it. Made me sick.
Super Class 100%Super
Please learn how to pronounce “integral”. The first syllable is emphasized, not the second one.
exactly...
You can also stress the third syllable or first and third.
One's good, one is Hollywood. All you really need to know.
Leaving out the twins shows that Disney had absolutely no faith in this film. They have their own sequel book.
The villain is IT. Glad to see this spinoff of Stephen King’s IT.
Lol, A Wrinkle in Time was written over 20 years before IT.
@@TECfan1 no wonder why the tornado sounded like a dragon!
Not sure if it is just me, but Aunt beast in my opinion was really unnecessary. I didn’t watch the video yet, but I am guessing aunt beast will be mentioned. And did anyone else hate meg? I don’t know why but she was always so unappreciative about her father. She wanted her father, found him, then got mad because he couldn’t help them? I also think the twins were kind of unnecessary because they were mentioned on like 2 pages. (Sorry I know no one asked for my opinion but) But I have to say that the book is way better than the 2018 movie.
Edit: Oh no people actually like aunt beast.. I am probably not the best at judging a movies/books 😅 Aunt beast took care of meg, but I think there could have been another way for meg to be taken care of without adding an additional character. (Like a mood boosting place for example)
I did like a lot of the changes put to this one. The graphics were really cool but sometimes the script for the movie just seemed rushed, or, here, let’s just put this person here to move along the plot. The newest one felt underdeveloped, and while I know the 2003 one is not the best, in my opinion, it was more cohesive.
Aunt Beast and Ischtel exist in the movie. It was just deleted I guess.
I saw them both
I am not fan of Awrlklre in time but I enjoy it because I have a DVD off we are ok with it
The only similarity is that Meg leaves to save her father.
I liked the movie...
aunt beast is there but the scene its deleted
The book was brilliant and the movie was a mess
Who would’ve thought that the 2003 movie with worse acting and effects would be the better adaptation
Do u guys all ready watch A WINKLE IN TIME 2003 YET? It was very good