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

[SomeRandom]

I remember Disney in its heyday. It was a rare special treat for me each week. My family got together, we all made a humongous bowl of popcorn had soda and sat around the television for the Disney movie.

Now I don't care if it goes out of business. It never was the same after Walt died.

Aww I quite like the Renaissance era of Disney. But immediately Post Walt was a dark time for Disney.
They've always struck me as kind of an evil conglomerate though.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

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.

Nostalgia Chick made similar points:

Metachlorians?! NOOOooo...

Midichlorians are just super-powered mitochondria, though.

Millions of people just love the movie version of The Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit. While approved by the Tolkien Trust, The only things recognizable from the books are character names and some of the characters themselves (Gollum was excellent!), geography and a smattering of details here and there. The only way I was able to enjoy it was to keep telling myself that "This is SOMEONE ELSE'S Lord of the Rings"...

Jim Henson wanted to make it but decided the puppetry involved would've been far too expensive.

I don't mind retelling of stories, but I think it's important to notably mention disclaimers like, "Based off the Original" or "A retelling of the tale". I'm like you on that I cannot enjoy it as a work of its original author, but rather may indulge another authors retelling as long as it's identified as a composition of the original work.

In the 90s X-Men cartoon, the X-Men give a portion of their souls or something to save the life of Jean Grey at the end of the Dark Phoenix Saga. It was only after I bought the book that I learned she actually shot herself with a massive ray gun and committed suicide.

Speaking of comics, hell, they can't go sometimes a single year without rebooting their OWN stories, so it's too much to ask that others are faithful to someone else's material.

Overt preachiness would only appeal to a very narrow niche.

There's an art to subtlety. I don't like "HERE'S SOME RELIGIOUS IMAGERY DOWN YOUR THROAT" type stories, especially when they don't take place in the times or places of the bible. To me, Harry Potter is better than the Narnia series PRECISELY because it uses a messiah-like plot but doesn't feel like someone just copy/pasted John or something and changed the names around.

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

And I like how the Legendary Universe did it even more and even BETTER put it in a version of the Toho Monsterverse.

It also skipped the Peter Jackson "spend hours walking around" stuff he loves to do.

(warning: language)

I remember liking it quite a bit. Meh?

I think Huck Finn was the only enjoyable thing I had to read in high school.

Sure, it was a horribly racist thing, but you can see that Twain wasn't the racist, his characters were. Besides, I love the challenge of writing in accents.

Mary Poppins ticked off the author so much she actually forbade the sequel rights.

And that's not lasting, 'cause they're making one.

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory also drew the ire of the author. Who similarly forbade the sequel rights.

LOL, I bet all the kids but Charlie died. What else is there to say?

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

Which is something that still sticks in George Lucas' craw.

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?

Indeed. The entire reason you go to the Wizarding World of Harry Potter at Universal instead of Disney is that Universal agreed to do things her way, which is why you can't buy Cokes or Dasani at that part of the park, only drinks mentioned in the books.

The Three Broomsticks makes good food, btw.

There are hints in the movie of romantic interest between Aragorn and Eowyn...and that somehow Arwen was willing to relinquish Aragorn and flee to the West, that she would accede to her father's preferences. An elf would not be so fickle, and neither would a Man of Numenor (also Aragorn). Yes, Eowyn fell for Aragorn, but it was not reciprocated.

I also learned from Nostalgia Chick that David Bowie was in the running for the elf king. *sniffle* I miss my Goblin King ...

Disney ruin virtually everything they touch, so why not this too?

Yes, God forbid the galaxy is filled with more than one or two females and POCs. Wouldn't want to hurt Grand Wiz ... Moff Tarkin by suggesting he work with Finn.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Aww I quite like the Renaissance era of Disney. But immediately Post Walt was a dark time for Disney.
They've always struck me as kind of an evil conglomerate though.

Agreed. I don't have the same rose colored glasses about 'old Disney' and I quite like a lot of their new material. But man Disney is a ruthless capitalistic monster which chews peons up and spits them out.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Aww I quite like the Renaissance era of Disney. But immediately Post Walt was a dark time for Disney.
They've always struck me as kind of an evil conglomerate though.

Like a lot of things it's become far too formulated with programming created around statistics and data rather than creative ventures. Profit over quality seems to be the evil juice they are drinking and getting quite drunk as well on profiteering. If there's anything really evil about Disney it's the fact that they are now a formulated recipe driven industry born right out of some business spreadsheet.

It's why every single Disney movie looks pretty much the same now. You can see it's formulated template playing out in virtually every Disney production and venture.

Contrary to the name I would say Disney is no longer the creative powerhouse it used to be. It's Magic, storytelling, and originality is long gone, and replaced with corporate generated mediocrity told through stupid wisecracks, passing gas, and the need to sing a song every 5 minutes.

At least there's retro. ;0)

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

It's Magic, storytelling, and originality is long gone, and replaced with corporate generated mediocrity told through stupid wisecracks, passing gas, and the need to sing a song every 5 minutes.

And that's why the fairy tale movies Disney did are verbatim of the Grimm's versions. Oh, wait, they aren't?

 

[Twilight Hue]

And that's why the fairy tale movies Disney did are verbatim of the Grimm's versions. Oh, wait, they aren't?

Hahaha. I'd say touche' as I enjoy Disney's versions and retelling of the Grim's Originals.

But once in awhile I do enjoy the good old-fashioned fright of the original work. Wouldn't ever want to see that go by the wayside.

I think I'll go and watch The Apple Dumpling Gang for the time being. ;0)

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

And that's why the fairy tale movies Disney did are verbatim of the Grimm's versions. Oh, wait, they aren't?

They would never be allowed to make faithful versions of those stories and market them to children because they were be rated R for all the sex and violence. They were very morbid and disturbing stories which no doubt reflected the state of society at the time - just depressing.

 

[SomeRandom]

Like a lot of things it's become far too formulated with programming created around statistics and data rather than creative ventures. Profit over quality seems to be the evil juice they are drinking and getting quite drunk as well on profiteering. If there's anything really evil about Disney it's the fact that they are now a formulated recipe driven industry born right out of some business spreadsheet.

It's why every single Disney movie looks pretty much the same now. You can see it's formulated template playing out in virtually every Disney production and venture.

Contrary to the name I would say Disney is no longer the creative powerhouse it used to be. It's Magic, storytelling, and originality is long gone, and replaced with corporate generated mediocrity told through stupid wisecracks, passing gas, and the need to sing a song every 5 minutes.

At least there's retro. ;0)

I would argue there's always been a formula to Disney films in general. It's just changed to fall in line with society over the years.

But I can't deny that a lot of Disney is just a cash grab for the sake of a cash grab. Example Mickey's once upon a Christmas, for a direct to DVD movie aimed at little kids surprisingly contains effort and heart. The sequel is just a soulless shell of a movie wanting easy money.

What's your take on their protege Pixar?

 

[SomeRandom]

Agreed. I don't have the same rose colored glasses about 'old Disney' and I quite like a lot of their new material. But man Disney is a ruthless capitalistic monster which chews peons up and spits them out.

They always kind of were. Walt seems pretty charming in his various appearances but the man was still a shrewd businessman and not without his darker side.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I would argue there's always been a formula to Disney films in general. It's just changed to fall in line with society over the years.

But I can't deny that a lot of Disney is just a cash grab for the sake of a cash grab. Example Mickey's once upon a Christmas, for a direct to DVD movie aimed at little kids surprisingly contains effort and heart. The sequel is just a soulless shell of a movie wanting easy money.

What's your take on their protege Pixar?

I think Pixar was marginally better. I did notice more storytelling and creativity with Pixar for which a number of films I've enjoyed had me looking for the Pixar name for future titles. Notably Monsters Inc and Toy Story. But it seems it floundered over their dispute with Disney, along with the death of Steve Jobs. It's a shame because I saw Pixar as a bright light of creativity earlier on that captured some of Disney's originality that made it such a loved company.

 

[SomeRandom]

I think Pixar was marginally better. I did notice more storytelling and creativity with Pixar for which a number of films I've enjoyed had me looking for the Pixar name for future titles. Notably Monsters Inc and Toy Story. But it seems it floundered over their dispute with Disney, along with the death of Steve Jobs. It's a shame because I saw Pixar as a bright light of creativity earlier on that captured some of Disney's originality that made it such a loved company.

Fair enough.
Can't deny I'm excited to see the Incredibles 2 despite being somewhat burnt out by superhero movies as of late.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Fair enough.
Can't deny I'm excited to see the Incredibles 2 despite being somewhat burnt out by superhero movies as of late.

Personally I would love to see a well-told Adventure movie.

 

[SomeRandom]

Personally I would love to see a well-told Adventure movie.

To me that would be Up.
But all companies have their waves, as it were.

 

[Shad]

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?

To me it is really about the contract between the company and author regarding an adaptation. If the author signed away rights without have control over the the story for the film that is the author's problem. Likewise if there no clause to maintain the original story as much as possible it is the author's problem. This makes it no longer right nor wrong in a strict sense. It become a question if it was a smart choice. Now given reviews have not been favorable and why the remove of the topic material was not a smart choice.

 

[bubbleguppy]

I have to say, the last time I read A Wrinkle In Time I somehow managed to miss most of this imagery? I'm somewhat confused.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@whirlingmerc - the book version of The Wizard of Oz was an allegorical polemic against the gold standard. The film adaptation stripped that aspect out, even replacing Dorothy’s silver shoes (meant to symbolize changing to a mixed gold/silver standard) with ruby slippers.

How do you feel about this? Do you feel as angry about this watering down of the author’s message as you do about A Wrinkle in Time?