So, with Narnia stalled out (and not funded/released by Disney in its 3rd film, for some reason), Disney has gone to another Christian fantasy property (albeit a much less obvious one, therefore one that can be manipulated more ::) ), L'Engle's
A Wrinkle In Time.
Heeere's the first trailer! It... has some potential. But.
1.) Not bothered by the modern day update (which Disney wanted to do with Narnia but got talked out of it by Douglas Gresham, iirc -- a very wise choice in that case). Nothing in the story really relies on the period setting of the original book(s), which were modern at the time.
2.) Not bothered by the racial change in cast, although I'm a little bothered that I think I'm supposed to count this as an "update", too.
3.) Kind of bothered by the randomness of the racial changes in the family. Or the not-randomness, perhaps? -- the well-meaning white father guy gets himself in trouble and needs help getting out. A help focused pretty much entirely, in the trailer, on his black (step?)-daughter, instead of all his kids.
Why not make the whole family black? Their race, especially in a contemporary setting, shouldn't be an issue at all, right? This seems like diversity for sake of checklisting and market testing.
4.) Maybe Oprah is involved because she loved this series, but I cringe now whenever she's involved with anything.
5.) I'd rather the adaptors not subvert L'Engle's actual beliefs for their own philosophical agendas, but I can't help but suspect this is going to happen. She was a Christian universalist (and a big fan of George MacDonald, also of Lewis, like myself in both cases), not a philosophical pluralist. Oprah being involved does not reassure me on this, and the trailer appears to be changing some relevant material. (That said, to be fair, the trailer opens with suggestions along this line. Incidentally, while a tesseract is a mathematic construction whose terminology she borrowed for her stories, I also use it in my books as a reference to teleportation in homage to her work.)
6.) There are a good 14 or 15 books or so which can be tied into a film series here if things go profitably. Hopefully Disney will keep them multi-generational thoughtful science-fiction fantasy pieces, and build an epic that way, instead of trying to foist epic battles into them. The Doctor Strange vibes in the trailer are probably a good idea.
was Oprah involved in financing / producing / green-lighting the movie?
that might help explain her presence
she's not a bad actress; her talk show is unwatchable
I say until Thor gets that whole thing with Loki straightened-out he should stay in Asgard dammit! I would be a total 'Follow-Closely' boy if Oprah wasn't there. Got to believe she's going to do commercials at some point for something political/racial/environmental/women's rights/all four. My 2 cents- I could be wrong. My wife tells me I am. A lot.
I have high hopes for this but for some reason that trailer didn't look so good. :(
The trailer's song, about cynical sexual misadventures, is massively inappropriate for the story. ::)
So there's that, too.
So, the review embargo to the spiritual prequel to Stephen King's
It (sort of ;) -- he homages the book occasionally), lifted today or yesterday, and the first videos and print reviews are arriving.
Currently the reviews sit at 44% on RT, but this is a tad misleading as a perusal of the reviews indicate the reviewers are skewing very meh, with general praise for the property in various regards but unable to get too far past problems in the film. So the score could fluctuate up and down within a range around 50%. (i.e. typically low fresh scores, typically high rotten. It isn't an extreme either way.)
Grace Randolph provides a pretty balanced overview in her early review:
You lost me at Disney.
I honestly forgot Disney was involved. :( I haven't seen any indication of that in reviews. Is it still true? ...was it ever true, and I made a mistake in attribution? (which definitely happens. :uglystupid2: )
I can't stand Oprah and Reese Witherspoon is all cheeks and ass ( I know that may sound redundant). I guess they musta ran outta room for Dr. Phil. I think I may be a grumpy old Mig now! Save your money and go see Jennifer Lawrence without any......oops, I mean Red Sparrow.
Not surprisingly MovieBob's review is pretty positive.
In the interest of fairness thus:
He confirms along the way that the creators essentially ditched L'Engle's more Christianity-based approach for a more New-Agey approach. This will, of course, only bother (1) certain fans of the book and (2) anyone who thinks that's generally a bad idea for our culture. (e.g. L'Engle's approach = love
other people more to win; this adaptation is more about loving
yourself more to win.)