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

[whirlingmerc]

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

Is it honest though? The list of hero's included atheists... Madeline L'Engle herself would not have agreed with the hollowing out of the Christians portions. Ironically if the movie was a bit more faithful to the original essence of the book it would have been a more commercial success and drawn in more viewers.

 

[David T]

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?

well christianity very rapidly did exactly the same thing to narrative history before christianity. So I would say they are being really Christian or superficial. So is their superficiality worse than Christian superficiality? That's like asking is superficial Christian music worse than superficial secular music?. Please don't confuse depth with christianity that's like comparing two quarks to a single quart and complaining that a single quark is much smaller than two quarks. Now the text oh my totally different. Not superficial at all it's just read that way.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

Indeed. I like how the Jack Black version of King Kong got rid of the overt racism of the original.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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?

There have been a lot of King novels made into stinker movies... but at the same time there have also been some excellent adaptations. The Shawshank Redemption and the Green Mile are two superior movies in my opinion. Did they follow the books precisely? No, but they certainly captured the gist of the story.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Madeline L'Engle herself would not have agreed with the hollowing out of the Christians portions.

And D.W. Griffith would have absolutely hated the 2016 “Birth of a Nation.”

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Ironically if the movie was a bit more faithful to the original essence of the book it would have been a more commercial success and drawn in more viewers.

Not necessarily. The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe kept all the preachiness and still bombed.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yes it does. What's wrong with that?

Nothing if your honest about disclosure and not taking credit away from it's orginator.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Is it honest though? The list of hero's included atheists... Madeline L'Engle herself would not have agreed with the hollowing out of the Christians portions. Ironically if the movie was a bit more faithful to the original essence of the book it would have been a more commercial success and drawn in more viewers.

If we were talking about an historical event then you could talk about the 'honesty' of the film. But this is fiction... it's ALL made up. The author of the book had a certain vision of this fantasy, while the creator of this movie had a different vision of this fantasy. As for it's success, the only way to tell if it would have been more commercially successful would be if a Christian version were to be made and you'd compare the box office receipts.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

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

The clincher is that people who refused to serve in a military capacity would be second class citizens (not even really citizens.) And military was government paramount which means the seeing of every problem as a nail to be hammered could certainly have happened. Not helped by reducing wartime opponents to faceless monsters which exist to give the military based society purpose. Which is satirize by the movie making the bugs defensively responding to Earth's military incursion, which is dismissed with propaganda.
So the movie is essentially saying that protesting an unjust war (you know, the majority of them) would mean you'd be amputating your rights in Heinlein's world.
Which is poiniant.

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

Pullman wrote His Dark Materials. The first being The Golden Compass, as a reprisal to C.S. Lewis. The movie wasn't that great but the books were.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Nothing if your honest about disclosure and not taking credit away from it's orginator.

I'm quite certain that the movie indicates that it's based upon a novel by Madeleine L'Engle and that the movie version was written by someone else. Nothing at all dishonest about that nor does it take away any credit for the book from the author. Now if the movie claimed to be an EXACT adaptation of the book in every detail then you might have an argument, but I guarantee you that it does not.

 

[Jumi]

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 have no comment on the rest, don't know the movie or the book, but have you considered that the inner self is close to God, getting there is much of the journey..

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

One must remember that at least in the US, and I suppose most other nations as well, a person who writes a story and publishes it retains rights to film and stage and other adaptations and uses...sometimes they sell those rights and completely lose control over their work (it happened with Stargate, for example, and in fact the Three Stooges), or they may retain some rights and have a say in the productions based on their work. I have no idea of which rights she may have retained in regards to the movie rights.

 

[Skwim]

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?

Probably not wrong, just unaware of how movie making works. It has an overriding goal of making money, and as much as possible. To that end it has to appeal to the widest audience possible within its genera, which means it cannot focus too much, if at all, on the doctrine or counsel of any one religion.

.

 

[YmirGF]

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

I remember liking it quite a bit. Meh?

 

[SomeRandom]

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?

Disney's pretty religiously neutral on a good day. So I don't know why you'd be surprised they went for a religiously neutral route.
Most beloved movie adaptations change the content drastically. Especially from Disney.
Mary Poppins ticked off the author so much she actually forbade the sequel rights. There was even a dramatised movie version of the events made by Disney themselves. Although maybe she mellowed out or the copyright expired since a sequel movie is set to be released soon.
The MGM 39' Wizard of Oz took a road trip book and morphed it into a three act structure.
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory also drew the ire of the author. Who similarly forbade the sequel rights.
With Harry Potter the movies were a bit hit or miss. Mostly because they started to release them when the 4th book was just being published. So the overarching threads that weren't even revealed yet had to be hastily retconned or added into the movies as the series went forward. Although the first 2 were almost verbatim, to their own detriment (even as a purist I can admit that.)

A movie has to make money. Appealing to a wide audience is a popular strategy, especially from Disney.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Disney's pretty religiously neutral on a good day. So I don't know why you'd be surprised they went for a religiously neutral route.
Most beloved movie adaptations change the content drastically. Especially from Disney.
Mary Poppins ticked off the author so much she actually forbade the sequel rights. There was even a dramatised movie version of the events made by Disney themselves. Although maybe she mellowed out or the copyright expired since a sequel movie is set to be released soon.
The MGM 39' Wizard of Oz took a road trip book and morphed it into a three act structure.
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory also drew the ire of the author. Who similarly forbade the sequel rights.
With Harry Potter the movies were a bit hit or miss. Mostly because they started to release them when the 4th book was just being published. So the overarching threads that weren't even revealed yet had to be hastily retconned or added into the movies as the series went forward. Although the first 2 were almost verbatim, to their own detriment (even as a purist I can admit that.)

A movie has to make money. Appealing to a wide audience is a popular strategy, especially from Disney.

Taking artistic license is one thing... carving out the pumpkin and putting grren cheeze in it;s place is another... it's no longer a pumpkin. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[blü 2]

The book was filled with scripture quotes and the author one of the inklings, a group that included CS Lewis and Tolkien.

I recall our kids reading and moderately enjoying 'A Wrinkle in Time'. If I recall aright, the plot has numerous similarities to Jack Lewis's Space Trilogy. (The most interesting theological insight in those Lewis books is that you get rid of evil by literally killing evil people.)

Enter Hollywood and Oprah and the end product has lots of clever special effects,

But that's the whole point, isn't it? The holders of the copyright have given Disney the right to use the story to make a buck. If they'd wanted to use the story to spread the Christian message instead, they'd have declined the Disney offer, no?

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.

What was the 'original intent' except a good v evil tale?

Her opinion on a Harry Potter book she had read was, "It's a nice story but there's nothing underneath it."

Very odd. The Harry Potter saga is subtly but definitely Christian. Sirius is Harry's godfather, for instance, and Harry's parents are buried in a Christian church cemetery. And what Christian could fail to make a moral about Harry having to die before he could live without his evil side?

I'm not out of sympathy with the point you make, though. If one's fond of a tale, it's disappointing to see it re-done in a way that doesn't match one's affectionate image of it.

But maybe I'll see the remake one day and form a view of it as a stand-alone work.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

They obviously did it for financial reasons. If it had religious content, atheist groups would complain and boycott it.So sad that they have so much influence.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

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.

Was that the only Christian content? Seems a very minor thing to cause concern that it was cut.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

They obviously did it for financial reasons. If it had religious content, atheist groups would complain and boycott it.So sad that they have so much influence.

So sad that some Christians think that they should have so much influence, too. Unless it's a movie/book/whatever ABOUT a religion, I'm all in favor of toning it down.