A Wrinkle In Time's COLLAPSE is COMPLETE

Hoping it's a disaster. Ava bugs the shit out of me.

If you don't love this movie, you are ipso facto a racist, misogynistic hater.

Madeleine L’Engle’s classic young adult novel “A Wrinkle in Time” is the latest victim of diversity-deranged stunt casting in which no respect is paid to the race or sex of existing literary characters. But that’s only one reason why this frustrating fiasco is such an embarrassing failure. Director Ava DuVernay (“Selma”), who has no feel at all for the material, seems more interested in promoting colorblind multi-culturalism than producing an entertaining adaptation that is worthy of its much-beloved source.

Although movies featuring original characters whose physical attributes have been unspecified elsewhere are legitimate equal-opportunity roles for any actors, deviating from already established characters turns a project into either a sort of alternative-reality racelifted remake (the black-cast versions of “Annie” and “Steel Magnolias”), a re-imagined novelty (“The Wiz”), comic exploitation (“Blacula”) or a display of randomly colorblind inclusiveness (a black Human Torch in the most recent “Fantastic Four”). All of those swaps are distracting enough to seem like gimmicks, even if an appearance-miscast actor gives an otherwise adequate performance.

Teenage Meg Murry and her mother, both white like the rest of their family in the 1962 “A Wrinkle in Time” novel, are portrayed in this film version by black actresses Storm Reid and Gugu Mbatha-Raw. Dad is played by Caucasian Chris Pine. Because Meg’s precocious younger brother Charles Wallace is played by Filipino-American Deric McCabe, this results in the absurdity of the character now being identified as adopted, presumably because it would be hard to believe he could be the product of Mbatha-Raw and Pine’s union. Two twin brothers from the book are missing entirely from the movie, which may be a blessing, considering that political correctness probably would have dictated they be played by a Native American dwarf and a disabled transsexual.

The irony of making changes like these to a book in which Meg herself states that “like and equal are not the same thing at all” apparently was lost on those responsible. (Then again, the line does not appear in the movie, possibly because the filmmakers knew they had sabotaged said theme.) Also, it’s unfortunate that the film eliminates the novel’s references to Christianity that resulted in it being banned from some libraries. Inclusion apparently has its limits.

Changing Meg and her mom’s race may have been DuVernay’s attempt to promote the illusion of a universe in which such changes don’t and shouldn’t matter, but that aim is subverted by moments that take on unintended meanings in this new context. Meg’s white friend Calvin (Levi Miller) twice mentions that he likes her hair, which is a huge explosion of curls. Coming from a white boy to a black girl, the compliment has a different implication than if both teens were white. Similarly, when Meg is shown a vision of an idealized makeover of herself that she could become if she gives in to nefarious temptation (a scene not in the book), the fact that her doppelganger’s hair is unnaturally straight and flat comes off like a racist insult to the hair she was born with.

It's Oprah... Surely she's bigger than Black Panther.

I’m still sore about what they did to “Harriet The Spy”. Fucking ridiculous. I’m glad I didn’t love this book.

My daughter does, and she wants to see it. I’ve explained already that Hollywood usually screws the pooch on literary adaptations. She said “I know, I know.”

Damn! I was rooting for this film, but the reviews are not good. : (

Rotten Tomatoes strikes again.

Like Legally Wrinkled!

R3 I got that same vibe from "Greatest Showman"

The Man in the High Castle was the only thing I've ever seen that was better on TV than the book. That wasn't even a movie, but I can't think of any other adaptation that worked better than the original. Even The Joy Luck Club, which was a highly acclaimed movie at the time - was still not as good as the book.... though that was probably the closest.

r2's review is from The Federalist, which is mostly a conservative snowflake whining about casting. Who cares if Meg is mixed-race? (Apparently The Federalist does.)

My problem with what I've seen is that AWIT is a moody, delicate book about coming of age, as well as an unusual religious-science parable. This just looks like a CGI whirligig designed for endless promotional tie-ins — A Wrinkle in Time Shamrock Shakes, etc. etc. etc.

I’ll stick with the tv version that came out several years ago with the luscious Gregory Smith.

Read book as a kid. I remember the ladies as plain and messy and disheveled... why elaborate costumes for Oprah et. al.

But this review seems like right wing whining.

Cuz it's a stupid stunt, r9. They also changed the appearances of the various Miss characters from the book to make them younger or whatever else.... like r11 said, like Oprah with her drag makeup on - which they were not in the book.

I enjoyed the books as a child.

And I've also argued on numerous other threads (from the Star Trek Discovery thread to the Edward Albee thread on casting approval for Virginia Woolf) that stunt casting solely for diversity shouldn't happen if it changes the story - which for many stories it does.

However, making Meg's mother black and her bi-racial a particularly big deal. It's a bigger deal the have her bother be adopted - THAT change is unacceptable as it fundamentally alters the story.

A Wrinkle in Time is one of those stories that is impossible to adapt well (until someone does it, of course - see Lord of the Rings). It has enough going against it that it ought not also have to carry water on both shoulders. A great adaptation with a well-paced, interesting story should have sufficed.

A half-black Meg would be fine - if she were Meg in all other aspects.

Color-blind casting doesn't always work. It can be distracting more than anything else.

I didn't say it was from The Federalist, R9, because then the entire thing would be dismissed as "right wing whining" - but thanks for googling the text and finding it and reporting me to everyone! You Got me r9!

Here is the whole review.

And yes, thank you r14. It's just bizarre.

Btw, who is this red haired lady?

I was going to mention the TV version, r 10, but it was a lot longer than "several" years ago and aired on ABC with little promotion or fanfare...now I wonder if it was made just to keep the rights from expiring.

Anyway, it was a favorite of mine and I remember writing a book report on it in 4th grade, and making a big point of the excellent science behind the story (as if I knew anything about science then or now).

I hope it isn't as bad as this thread title suggests. The book deserves to remain a classic.

But I've always wanted to see Oprah in Rick James makeup and Goth armor cast as Mrs. Which!

What competition does it have except Black Panther? So the racists will have no joy either way.

did they put some trans BS in this shit show too??

No, that's why I liked the review at R2 - since he even points that out, despite being a "conservative site"

[quote]Two twin brothers from the book are missing entirely from the movie, which may be a blessing, considering that political correctness probably would have dictated they be played by a Native American dwarf and a disabled transsexual.

If Oprah is in it....pass. Shes not the actress she thinks she is.

The thing is, the casting wasn't colorblind, it was deliberate colorwashing--and that turns out to have issues similar to whitewashing--it treats the original work with a kind of disrespect. DuVernay did it not because it would make a better movie or because it's how she'd always pictured the book (She didn't read it as a kid.), but because she wanted to make a BIG statement about empowering girls of color. In the midst of doing so, she ignored the book's quirky vision and subtlety. She neutered it because she didn't respect it. I called her a hack in another post and that's what I think is the real problem--the colorwashing is just emblematic of that. A better film maker would have either looked for a work to which she felt more of a connection or, if you're someone like Akira Kurosawa, used it as a jumping-off point to make something truly original. WiT is clearly neither.

If Ava DuVernay wants to only make films about black people that's totally cool, but she should use source materials that work with that quest.

That said, after this hack job, I'm worried about what she'll do to Octavia Butler's Xenogenesis trilogy. Butler was a tough, sharp writer.

One could say this is just another flavor of cultural appropriation, but these days that is strictly viewed as a one-way street.

Figures Datalounge's conservotards would take offense with any creative liberty taken to this piece of reactionary wogwash (oooooh,, Godless Communism, scaaaaaaary)

I haven’t read the book and I have no real opinion about the cast or crew but the trailer makes the story look very confusing. Lots of concept and special effects and not a lot of character and plot.

Not surprised that it’s considered to be a muddled mess.

Hopefully the director will get another chance at a big budget movie.

ava fails

While the overall score is low, there are a number of very positive reviews from top critics. Most of the bad notices are from people most of us have never heard of.

R24, my voting record is hardly conservative or reactionary, but nice way to go for the knee-jerk response. I don't like washing in either direction for reasons I've pointed out. I think SyFy shouldn't have whitewashed Ged in the Wizard of Earthsea, either.

R27--several of the pans are from known critics, including Aisha Harris at Slate.

Amazing how despite a plethora of examples, that reviewer at R15 couldn't cite one film whose whitewashing of characters harmed it.

I suspect because the reviewer doesn't find whitewashing distracting at all, whereas "colorwashing" is so infuriating that he can't get over it, hence it ruins the movie, even though it changes nothing significant. OMG THE BROTHER IS ADOPTED NOW??!! is a stupid complaint.

For example, while the reviewer cites Annihilation as a movie that was criticized for whitewashing the leads, his own review of that film doesn't mention it at all.

He's also one of maybe 5 critics who didn't like Black Panther or Wonder Woman. Coincidence I'm sure.

Having watched a preview, I can tell you the fault is with the casting of Reese Witherspoon. She has never been able to project true vulnerability on screen. Everyone knows she is smug and phony once the cameras are off. I didn't buy her role for a minute.

Oprah was good, the best of the three actually. Mindy was pretty good as well. Ava puts a unique spin on the movie. It's not classic, but it's not a bomb either.

[quote] [R24], my voting record is hardly conservative or reactionary, but nice way to go for the knee-jerk response. I don't like washing in either direction for reasons I've pointed out. I think SyFy shouldn't have whitewashed Ged in the Wizard of Earthsea, either.

Yes, well said R28.

R29 he wasn't complaining that the brother is adopted. The whole context makes his issue clear. Is he racist? Maybe. But it just adds strange dynamics and distractions that aren't in the book & don't need to be in the movie... unless it improves the movie. But it sounds like it does not.

Reese Witherspoon is annoying as fuck. She only delivered in Legally Blonde because that's basically all she can do. I cannot stand her.

I like Reese when she plays a bitch--Election, Freeway are great Reese Witherspoon films. It's the sweetheart stuff that's cloying.

Eliminating the characters of the other Murry brothers seems an odd choice if Disney is planning on sequels; they're the main characters in one other AWIT novel.

"Also, it’s unfortunate that the film eliminates the novel’s references to Christianity that resulted in it being banned from some libraries."

Such an odd tangent to nowhere in the review...and a little too revealing of agenda.

Another potentially great movie ruined by this shit. Now I know I will never see it -- and I loved the book as a kid. Don't fuck with the classics, people. Honor them.

R30, If the film was working, the casting of the Three Mrs. wouldn't be a big deal, they are very much supporting characters. So, not buying that this is on Reese Witherspoon. This is about the director not having a feel for the book and trying to ramp up the visuals as compensation.

R35, only the book's neo Christianity is pretty central to it. Same way you can't take out the antagonism toward organized Christianity out of The Golden Compass and make it work.

You all have very good memories. I read this when I was 10 or 15 or maybe both... and I am now almost 40 and have NO idea what happens in the book. I DO remember the scene where they all come outside of the houses and dribble the ball for 5 minutes simultaneously and go home. For some reason, that stuck in my mind (and was in the preview - which was crazy to see). I remember almost nothing else.

Early dementia?

My point, r37, is the reviewer doesn't actually make that point or indicate why Christianity is essential to the story. He just uses it as a moment to bitch about the book being removed from some libraries. (Overlooking the fact that the book was banned BY CHRISTIANS as often as by non-Christians.)

R35 I don't recall much "Chrisitanity" in this book. Especially not the deplorable fundamentalist mumbo jumbo hate-filled variety.

R31, yes he was. It's "absurd" that the brother is adopted and that he "has to" be adopted because of the casting. Why? Seriously, WTF difference does that of all things make?

If his problem is he wants strict adherence to the book, very few films would be up to par.

He's a deplorable who cares more about his agenda than films.

Isn't she the director who re-wrote the civil rights movement in her last movie to make Johnson out to be a bad guy?

As a longtime WGA member, I have a major prejudice against Ava based on how she handled the writer on "Selma" -- and on how she kept the film non-union when it would have been so simple to make it a WGA signatory (which would have meant it'd be eligible for WGA awards on its way to Oscar, which didn't happen). It seemed like such an amateur move. And then she threw the writer under the bus and bitched that she herself didn't get credit for all her work on the script -- the oldest shit in the world, the reason the WGA was invented in the first place.

Fuck her.

[Quote]You all have very good memories. I read this when I was 10 or 15 or maybe both... and I am now almost 40 and have NO idea what happens in the book. I DO remember the scene where they all come outside of the houses and dribble the ball for 5 minutes simultaneously and go home. For some reason, that stuck in my mind (and was in the preview - which was crazy to see). I remember almost nothing else.

Well, you remember more than I do, and I only read it for the first time about 5-6 years ago.

I think r43 just explained why Johnson suddenly became a bad guy in the movie.

The Victim Cultures have destroyed the future of American Literature.

Now they are destroying its past.

R43, Wow. Not totally surprised--she seems to have an enormous ego and sense of entitlement. She's canny about using race as a means of guilt-tripping people to get what she wants.

But it's damn hard to escape responsibility for making a piece of crap.

R31, yes, he's probably a Deplorable, but that doesn't mean DuVernay's colorwashing and treatment of the book aren't problematic--they are.

But just watch these cunts crap out a sequel in "A SWIFTLY TILTING PLANET."

Cunts ruin everything. Largely because they lack taste and they don't understand the art they savage for their own one-note agendas (trying to hide the money factor at play, as always).

A glimpse of the previews indicates a real disaster.

The money I save not paying to see this piece of shit will be spent buying the DVD of "Call Me By Your Name" when it comes out next Tuesday. Win/Win.

Just think, R47, the writer of a film that was nominated for Best Picture has not gotten ONE PENNY in residuals since -- because Ava and her producers didn't make it a WGA production. Almost unheard of except for films shot and produced in other countries that make their way over here.

[quote]The Victim Cultures have destroyed the future of American Literature.

There are none who love to play victim more than those who bitch about "victim cultures," "virtue signaling," etc. The whole wide world is against them, and they define themselves in opposition to it.

Healthy people look at this and go "Could be good" or "Meh." Those obsessed with "victim cultures" and the rest look at it as an opportunity to be oppressed and offended.

I don't know why they and the SJWs hate each other so much; they're the same stupid kneejerk animals.

This book was seminal to sparking my interest in hard science fiction (there is neat science in the book) AND science fantasy, but as soon as I saw the trailer, my heart sank.

[quote]There are none who love to play victim more than those who bitch about "victim cultures," "virtue signaling," etc.

Typical Victim Culture response. You think because you have an answer, it's the right one.

Does the movie take place in 1962 too? Because if it does the black wife and white man would have been arrested. Or worse.

Publicist turned filmmaker? No. Just no. #soulless

[quote]Typical Victim Culture response. You think because you have an answer, it's the right one.

Sweetheart, I'm no one's victim. Nor am I in a twist over casting in a Hollywood movie I'll never see.

R50, Amazing how this aspect of DuVernay has been buried under all the "visionary filmmaker" crap.

Re: victim culture. Oh, for pete's sake, the book will be just fine. I will be happy to see the film tank because I kind of hate it when a Disney version of a story takes over the collective unconscious, but a good book is resilient.

Black Panther being a big success and WiT being a flop seems about right to me.

r56 is preparing to ejaculate into the nearest potted plant.

R43, interesting. Let's see if she throws this writer under the bus and blames the script for any issues people are complaining about.

Why is Oprah in this again?

R60 Oprah is RICH!

3 kicks in the cunt for Miss Ava !!

It's still early yet, but I'm guessing if this movie was really a hit, they'd have released it in the summer when kids are out of school. As it is, they are dumping it in March when most of the country still experiences bad weather and quite often can't get out of the house to go to the movies even if they wanted to. This can't be a good sign. Ditto for Tomb Raider. That should be a summer popcorn flick and it's being dumped in March. I'm guessing both of them are stinkers.

It's to funny to me that cunt reese who is one of the biggest bitches in Hollywood wants to act all let's hold hands and sing kumbaya.

The strangest thing is that it wouldn't have even cost very much to make it a WGA signatory; it wouldn't affect the price paid for the script and it even would have allowed the WGA to step in and do Arbitration to see if Ava's contributions merited a screen credit. Mostly it would have insured that the original writer got set residuals, health care, etc. once the film was out, especially if it did well and played on TV, cable, etc. Instead, he got zippo -- and then a public bashing from the director too. Not cool.

It looked very strange to have a major movie with big names in the cast and in the producers ranks too (that's you, Oprah) -- on a non-union film. A major reason for the poor showing, save for Best Picture (no small thing, of course) at the Oscars that they all complained about, Ava's lack of nominations included.

The Federalist was on the pro-gay side of the trans intrusion.

DL was not.

This is unfortunate. It was a really good book.

If you are someone who strongly prefers faithful adaptations, then it only took a few seconds of watching the trailer to see that the movie was not going to be faithful. I don't care to see modern, bizarre reinterpretations of classic works. If it had been a movie with a new title that only borrowed some plot devices from the novel that inspired it, that might have been a different story.

R63 = idiot

March is a huge month for movies

R49 = Kevin Spacey

When are they going to do "Diamond in the WIndow"?

I actually ordered the book off Amazon for $7. I want to read it again now - I remember loving that book - when I was 10. I hope it isn't a strange experience to read as an adult. I also remember not understanding A Swiftly Tilting Planet ... I think that one was too complicated for me back then. Hopefully I'll understand it now.

Just the trailer is enough to realize how tacky the whole thing is.

[quote]That Witherspoon looks like a toga party keg-stand champion befits DuVernay’s modern vision of a paperback classic bedazzled to within an inch of its life. (Maybe even closer to death than that – I wouldn’t want to be within a mile of Oprah Winfrey when she realizes her sequined eyebrows just look super silly.) The costumes are at once cluttered and vacuous. The design decree is: “More!”

[quote]Winfrey alights in Meg and Charles Wallace’s backyard as though astrologically assured that she’s the star of the film. Twice the size of everyone else and with her hair curled into an interplanetary fleur de lis, she looms and bobs and radiates love upon all the lesser beings onscreen and in seats.

[quote]The film has the feel of an iPad video pawned off on a toddler so Dad can make comforting mac and cheese – here’s a bite-sized lesson about loving yourself and a jumble of pretty colors.

[quote]Most of the shots are close-ups of the characters’ faces framed so large you can’t see the terrible CG backdrops behind them, and edited together without intent.

[quote]Jennifer Lee and Jeff Stockwell’s script is strung together word-clumps from characters standing around reciting stiff, informational speeches as though they beamed in from a video game cutscene. As they chant earnest thoughts about embracing your faults, the camera continually cuts from one warm smile to another like an anxious puppy desperate for reassurance.

[quote]You can only see DuVernay carving her initials into the corners of the film, adding deeper layers to Meg’s insecurity about her curly natural hair, trumpeting her delight in presenting a young, black, female heroine whose greatest strength is parabolas.

I think when this project was originally announced, there was a lot of goodwill surrounding it. But it became apparent that Ava was not the right choice and has been mentioned several times, she didn't seem to have an understanding or appreciation for the source material. Ava worked in PR and she's very visible on social media, but I've rarely seen her tweet about the book, why the story is so great, etc. It's all about her, retweeting people who praise her, or tweeting or retweeting being the first black female director to helm a $100+ million project. She has never displayed a connection to the material.

Both Ava and Oprah have been exhibiting a smugness that is going to blow up in their faces. It's the attitude of "You HAVE to see this movie because I directed it and Oprah is starring in it". I think they assumed everyone would be championing them but I've heard zero buzz for this movie (aside from Oprah and Ava). It's also a reminder that Oprah is not a film star and she's always struggled to establish herself as a heavyweight in the film industry (remember Beloved?). Both Ava and Oprah have hyped up this film but every time I've watched a trailer I'm like, 'Where is the excitement? What is this about?" It's just a collage of CGI colours, and bad make-up on Mindy, Oprah and Reese. There's no sense of wonder.

With kids off for March Break, they'll be going to watch Black Panther again, which is exciting and has a sense of wonder.

She should never have chosen something tricky like this to adapt for her first blockbuster. Glad she didn't get Black Panther, though...

Back to indies.

Black Panther will beat it at the box office this weekend.

Whaleprah is a smug fat bitch, this will send her fat as that doesn't walk back to t.v. packing. 😂And back to indy films for you ava, shitstain has been embarrassingly licking her asshole, taint and cunt for months on end for nothing.

What a thoughtful commentary on the film, R78.

[quote]But it became apparent that Ava was not the right choice and has been mentioned several times, she didn't seem to have an understanding or appreciation for the source material. Ava worked in PR and she's very visible on social media, but I've rarely seen her tweet about the book, why the story is so great, etc. It's all about her, retweeting people who praise her, or tweeting or retweeting being the first black female director to helm a $100+ million project. She has never displayed a connection to the material.

It’s time to give Hacky the sack.

It looks as tacky as that recent peter pan movie with rooney mara as tiger lily and that Oz movie with james franco. Glossy, shiny, star-studded and forgettable.

OPRAH looks hideous in every gettup they put her in in this film, looks like the drag queens that you see at cheap gay clubs that make 12 dollars per performance. Ava must secretly hate big o.

R81, the reviewer at R15 loved Pan. And made no mention of whitewashing in that film.

Pan was a boring mess of a movie and this one looks to be much the same but more cringe inducing.

Wouldn't it be nice if it really was to bomb ala "Through the Looking Glass"? I was thinking it would get bad reviews but still clean up at the box office, the way Disney does (most of the time).

This thread is all kinds of crazy.

I think the movie will get decent reviews like Ghostbusters 2016 but just like that film face backlash for being too PC and straying too far from the source material. It's also likely to bomb financially given its budget. It doesn't help that Oprah is hated by the right, who despite their bitching about Hollywood, represent a sizable enough audience to make movies like American Sniper a hit.

You on crack R87? It's getting trashed by critics.

It really looks awful!

[quote] But just watch these cunts crap out a sequel in "A SWIFTLY TILTING PLANET."

That's the second sequel. The first is A Wind in the Door.

The budget wasn't THAT big either, r87. $100 million is pretty low considering.

R75, yes.

It really doesn’t matter what the reviews say. If people don’t like it, they don’t like it, r87.

Well, the crappy 50 Shades and Twilight never got good reviews.

Who wants to see a movie with a bunch of schvartzes in it?

Now she'll never be President. SAD.

Sounds like you're making excuses for it failing already, r87.

And so far the film is NOT getting decent reviews. it's at 44% on rotten tomatoes.

[quote]Amazing how despite a plethora of examples, that reviewer at [R15] couldn't cite one film whose whitewashing of characters harmed it.

r28 was completely correct.

The whitewashing of Ged in Earthsea was ridiculous - especially since being white in the story had an actual meaning - Kargad Empire folks were white. It wrecked the story - then again, the script did that without the casting choice. Ghost in the Shell - please explain how a white girl was the daughter of a Japanese person?

You are sadly out of touch if you believe that there are no examples of whitewashing wrecking stories.

Reese is on Colbert or one of those tonight. A warning to all epileptics. Her voice seriously sends me into potential seizures.

[quote]I think the movie will get decent reviews like Ghostbusters 2016 but just like that film face backlash for being too PC and straying too far from the source material.

The original Ghostbusters was a piece of shit, IMHO, so I wasn't surprised that the remake was an even bigger piece of shit.

Whenever I see Oprah in a movie I just see Oprah, not a character. She completely takes me out of the film.

Cameron Crowe's "Aloha" was another movie wrecked by whitewashing--Emma Stone was playing a character who was part Chinese and Hawaiian. Yes, the character was also white, but Stone doesn't come across as any kind of mixed race or anyone who lives in Hawaii without getting skin cancer.

Not sure what was going on with casting Rooney Mara as Tiger Lily--it's all sort of make-believe, but seriously?

I'll give Natalie Portman in Annihilation a pass since the character's part-Asian ancestry isn't mentioned until the second book and Portman could conceivably be part Asian. The whitewashing was unintentional.

Ghost in the Shell is tricky--there have been successful adaptations of Japanese movies--like The Ring with American casts--but GITS was probably too specific and iconic for that to work. GITS either had to be more faithful to the original and have an Asian cast or go a lot farther away, take some of the ideas, but really Americanize it--no New Tokyo, different characters. GITS was kind of the worst of both worlds.

And Patty Jenkins would have been a better choice for Wrinkle in Time--more sombre sensibility.

Jesus who the fuck cares that they changed the races of the characters? Well obviously somebody does. The question is, WHY DO YOU CARE? And saying “because it’s annoying” is just begging the question.

Is the race of the main character so central to the story that changing it guts the story? No? Then shut the fuck up already.

Jewy r102

Haha. I truly do hope the movie is a huge flop.

When has that fat-ass EVER had a box office winner??

Her movies suck and obviously no one wants to see them. She throws good money after bad. Bitch just save your money for your old age.

Who are you talking about, R14? Ava or Oprah?

I mean, R104.

Sorry to disappoint you, the “the Jews” troll r103, but I’m not Jewish.

r103 must be "episcopalian"

R102, Because fidelity to original material matters. Or do you think White Panther is a viable option?

Oprah.

A White Panther would make r102 ejaculate into a potted plant.

The Benetton casting really was a mistake.

Oprah's already eaten 5 boxes of Mac and Cheese to ease the pain of bad reviews.

The problem isn't the casting. The problem is the cheap garish over-saturated CGI.

Problems go deeper than CGI--it's the overall conception of the film--which led to the bad CGI , the bad casting and the bad script. Mrs. Whatsit went from looking like an old-lady hobo to Reese Witherspoon in whacked-out evening wear.

If you're familiar with the book, the look of the film is all WRONG, as has been stated by posters who are familiar with the book. The movie is this huge garish Instagram color-saturated shitfest, and that is the total opposite of the book. The movie is some uplifting "empowerment" bullshit, and the book is darker.

I wish they'd just left the whole thing alone if they weren't going to be faithful to the source material. The book is wonderful, and has been a favorite of many, many people for generations.

Also, who the fuck wants to look at Mindy Kaling's face on a giant screen? She's uglier than a dog's asshole.

[quote]The Benetton casting really was a mistake.

reviews aren't in agreement with that one

Are reviews ever in agreement about everything?

We care because we love movies and the diversity craze is ruining some.

Mindy was being interviewed about her new role which she said wasn’t as glamorous as her other roles. * snicker * she thinks she is glamorous.

R9, your post reminded me of Gentlemen Prefer Blonds, which really should be a classic novel, but rarely makes lists. The author, Anita Loos was thrilled with Thomas Lederer's (*also Marion Davies's nephew) film adaptation. It contained almost nothing from the original novel, save characters, but pleased the book's author by capturing the spirit of the characters and novels.

I know this will suck, and I adored this book so very much as a boy.

why is ofra in did mess????

I remember one of the first times I just laughed when they forced diversity into a movie. Does anyone remember the horrible sequel to Jurassic Park where Jeff Goldblum ended up on the island with his daughter? This is a picture of Jeff Goldblum and his supposedly biological daughter in the movie. It's just preposterous looking. Why not just cast a black character and his daughter if they wanted to increase diversity and just have Goldblum hang out with Julianne Moore and chase dinosaurs through LA?

There is this brief shot in the trailer of Mindy attempting to run in a field of grass, or something, and she's making these tiny steps (because of the costume?). It's looks utterly ridiculous.

Mindy is a dog faced, FAT bitch.

How much cpuld a billionaire like oprah get paid for a film role like this? No matter the amount she likely makes that just by lying in her couch and stuffing her fish licker with O' that's good mashed potatoes.

Race doesn't matter when casting novel adaptations?

Then how about a black Scarlett and a white Mammy? Would that work?

Wow, came her expecting the fun butchiness and got a lot of nasty bitchiness from people who don’t like to see blacks in screen. Not really a surprise given DL these days.

Further proof that being gay does not, by default, make you respect other minorities.

The casting director should never be hired again. And not because of the color blind approach, but for hiring 3 actresses that are so insanely distracting. Reese, Mindy and Oprah are personas at this point, with the latter, in particular, building her entire billion dollar mega-brand on being “everywoman.” I can’t go from watching her throw a Freestyle fajita party in her kitchen to doing whatever the fuck she’s seen doing in this trailer. It pulls me right of the movie and I think “Oh my God Oprah, what are you doing????” It’s like - Mom, take off that makeup! You’re embarrassing me!

I bet the first time each of them saw themselves in the full regalia and makeup they thought “I am so firing my agent.” BIZARRE

[quote]The casting director should never be hired again. And not because of the color blind approach, but for hiring 3 actresses that are so insanely distracting. Reese, Mindy and Oprah are personas at this point, with the latter, in particular, building her entire billion dollar mega-brand on being “everywoman.”

Yeah right. Like RW, MK, OW needed to AUDITION for their roles in front of a casting director.

R130 - touché. Good point. Well someone should never work again!

I think the problem is whoever hired the director. She had no business doing the movie. Wonder if Oprah put some of her money into it.

Well, people finally see that Ava DuVernay is a terrible director.

Selma was interesting because of MLK, but the movie itself was very very bad.

Didn't ava get a barbie made of her? Hell not even taylor swift has a Barbie made of her, Disney really was prepping her as the visionary artist of the new generation. How sad.

The problem with pushing the hype train is that, eventually, you need to deliver.

I can't believe anyone at Disney saw Selma and thought "Yeah, that's the director we need for epic fantasy movie".

DuVernay is good at promoting herself, but that's all.

[quote]Disney really was prepping her as the visionary artist of the new generation. How sad.

That’s why in the trailer it says “from visionary filmmaker Ava DuVernay.”

There is nothing wrong with having diversity in casting. Inclusion rider, people!

The only time I’ve felt it was wrong was when they made The Human Torch Black. Johnny Storm is this blue-eyed blond haired boy that’s iconic from the comics. That’s like making Superman Black or Wonder Woman Black. People would revolt at that and rightly so.

R136, in fairness, the actors, directors, producers, writers, etc., who are good at promoting themselves are more likely to get jobs. Very few Hollywood people can sit on the sidelines waiting for projects to come to them.

She's right to promote herself, but it's not a reason to give her a job she's unfit for.

Disney wanted to be woke and give a big budget movie to a black woman but being a black woman is not enough to be a good director.

Yeah, R131., Casting Directors are the bottom of the entertainment food chain. They bring in actors, mostly for the smaller roles, and then others make the decision. They don't sit around and decide Molly Ringwald will get the role in "Breakfast Club". Which is what makes their arrogance so infuriating. Their only power is to keep aspiring actors OUT, no small thing and they know it. So they are sucked up to by obsequious actors all the time.

Talk about a gross power imbalance. But they are pretty worthless in general. No way should there be an Oscar for Casting as they keep trying to get. Might as well have one for Best Production Secretary (which is, no doubt, a harder job).

[quote] She's right to promote herself, but it's not a reason to give her a job she's unfit for. Disney wanted to be woke and give a big budget movie to a black woman but being a black woman is not enough to be a good director.

What about the poorly received movies directed by white men.? Do you also conclude that they are given opportunities solely based upon their race and the "good ole boy network"? We've all seen mediocre - incompetent white men rise to the highest heights through the "good ole boy network". We've all had the displeasure of working for or with good ole boy recipients. But we don't talk about that. Black people have to be twice as good to get 1/2 as far.

Plenty of white men have been put in Movie Jail for making crap movies and spending too much money making them. Michael Camino ruined his career that way, for one. The hotshot kid who directed Prince in "Purple Rain" led the way with his craptastic Mitch Gaylord movie, "American Anthem". Happens to lots of people.

Rule of thumb: black or white, don't make a piece of shit. Especially an expensive piece of shit.

I always pictured The Three W's as severe Michfest-style crones, not the Season 9 Drag Race queens.

R144 WW

[quote]I always pictured The Three W's as severe Michfest-style crones, not the Season 9 Drag Race queens.

I always pictured them to be more like versions Clotho, Lachesis, and Atropos - all looking radically different reflecting their natures. Of course, none of those natures were that of Drag Queen, as r144 noted.

R142 So the problem is giving jobs to mediocre white men. But giving jobs to mediocre black women is not the answer.

You can't say, "yeah, she sucks at her job but white men too so everything is good and well". It should not be like that.

Even Jamie Foley (alleged drug dealer turned director) flamed out after way too many chances. It happens. $$$ talk.

I will give Ava this; at least she didn't make the age old mistake of waiting too long between movies like most female directors do when they hit it big. I worked for one and she was the perfect example. A cheap indie that got everyone's attention, even put her in "Vanity Fair" at at CAA, signs on for a big movie with a lot of female stars, chickens out at the 11th hour, waits too long and someone else younger and hotter comes along and she is old news. You wouldn't know her name if I mentioned it. Some say it is cliched female indecision but I am not sure. Fear of having it all taken away for sure.

Speaking of... what was the name of that black female director who did the South African movie back in the 80s with Sarandon. Brando was up for an Oscar for it, in fact -- and then went on record as HATING the director. I don't think she ever worked again.

Later, Dawn Steel said, regarding Brian DePalma's new girlfriend, "At least I won't have to make this one's movie." I always wondered if that was the same woman director.

[Quote] The only time I’ve felt it was wrong was when they made The Human Torch Black. Johnny Storm is this blue-eyed blond haired boy that’s iconic from the comics. That’s like making Superman Black or Wonder Woman Black. People would revolt at that and rightly so.

Yeah that would be [italic]really[/italic] terrible🙄

Already happened. Long ago.

[quote]Speaking of... what was the name of that black female director who did the South African movie back in the 80s with Sarandon. Brando was up for an Oscar for it, in fact -- and then went on record as HATING the director. I don't think she ever worked again.

A Dry White Season directed by Euzhan Palcy

[quote]I can't believe anyone at Disney saw Selma and thought "Yeah, that's the director we need for epic fantasy movie".

That's not fair. The director of Black Panther directer two small films before he took on a blockbuster. You never know what someone can pull off.

R152 Perhaps that director did two GOOD small films before, not an insipid snoozefest like Selma.

[quote]Plenty of white men have been put in Movie Jail for making crap movies and spending too much money making them. Michael Camino ruined his career that way, for one. The hotshot kid who directed Prince in "Purple Rain" led the way with his craptastic Mitch Gaylord movie, "American Anthem". Happens to lots of people.

Well, you had to go pretty far back to find some examples of white male directors whose careers were ruined by one film.

These do not prove a system that punishes white male directors when they lose money on a film.

Your bias shows.

Do not google "Mitch Gaylord".

r152 Ryan Coogler co-wrote and directed Creed which was a box office hit and received critical acclaim. Coogler proved he could make a crowd - pleasing film with exciting action sequences (the boxing scenes) and strong characters. So, no surprise that Black Panther turned out to be a terrific film.

[quote][R152] Perhaps that director did two GOOD small films before, not an insipid snoozefest like Selma.

I haven't seen Selma, but the film got a lot of attention and that's all it takes in Hollywood.

And ADV will move onto another big film. That's how it works. It works with white male directors and it will work with a black woman director.

Totally agree, R141.

once enough 'diverse and inclusive' films tank, they'll go back to casting who they want; it's about social justice for so long then it's about money

Again, R156, there are many examples where directors with not so much experience take on big films. Some fail, some do well.

There are also examples of experienced directors taking on big films and failing. There is no recipe for a guaranteed success.

The failing of this film is not a Hollywood anomaly, like some people here claim it to be.

Martin Brest never directed another film after the abomination known as Gigli.

R157 Selma got attention cause it was about Selma, civil rights and MLK, made by a black woman.

The interest was politic, but as a movie it was mediocre at best.

So of course you give a movie like A wrinkle in time to a mediocre director, it's a failure.

Looks like this Duvervay chick doesn't have what it takes. It's a goddamn business baby, not a charity. If you can't deliver a hit, you're drummed right out of Hollywood on your ass.

Prediction: A Wrinkle in Time will end up opening in the 50 -55 million range. It will top out between 125 - 150 million domestic.

R154, only because directors these days, especially of blockbusters, seem anonymous, like more and more of it is a studio creation and not a director's vision. Plus that period is when I was first working in the film business and much more passionate so I know all the names and players and what happened. I'm sure I can find some currently in Movie Jail if I really had to (who directed the dismal 2nd "Alice in Wonderland" for starters).

And thanks upthread for "A Dry White Season". Just ordered it on ebay to check it out myself, very belatedly. Can't believe it's still on DVD cheap and not out of print.

[quote][R154], only because directors these days, especially of blockbusters, seem anonymous, like more and more of it is a studio creation and not a director's vision.

Yes, that too. It was easier to make an example of someone like Cimino back then, because he was mega successful and people knew his name. He was also difficult in a way that today's directors are not (he went way over budget and over schedule).

[quote]I'm sure I can find some currently in Movie Jail if I really had to (who directed the dismal 2nd "Alice in Wonderland" for starters).

It seems to me that it takes more than one box office failure before a director's career is derailed these days.

Are you R143? Hard to know who one is responding to...

Except r160 Coogler proved that even with his short resume, he was the right fit; Ava wasn't.

It is not just experience but the right fit for the material.

Yeah, I am R143 and R154. And I am WGA Guy from those posts too about Ava and how she treated her writer. Will try to remember to sign more posts.

Maybe the fact that so many hands are on the final product, especially the blockbusters, keeps directors from having careers aborted as early. But majorly expensive bombs still have to hurt, wouldn't you think? "Alice 2" certainly counts (unless they really want a few bombs for tax write-offs, also possible).

There really aren't many auteurs these days. Darren A seems to be the last really famous director with a signature style out there. I would never have known Ava was director of this one without threads like these. It looks nothing like her work.

(Jordan Peele could turn out to be one, though, especially if his style includes black leads in interesting situations -- and his appeal remains so widespread).

R154, I came in here to argue that I didn't think that's fair because it's not like anyone is keeping a list of white male directors who fade into oblivion, probably because there are so many of them, no one bothers. And because it takes a couple of years to figure out whose career suffered, we're not gonna find very recent examples. I went to box office mojo and picked some box office disasters at random and looked them up. The guy who directed City Slickers and Tremors, had his career derailed after directing $100 million flop, Pluto Nash, the guy who directed $100 million flop, Prince of Persia, has also faded away, but then I decided to google the biggest movie bombs of the last 10 years. I've provided the link below. Almost every one of those directors (the ones who had a "name" like Ava does) all got to direct again after those major bombs. So...I don't know. We'll have to wait and see what happens to Ava. The one good thing I noticed is that DL has had many threads here trashing those directors for their flops at the link, so there's that.

Ava is good at PR and clever.

She gonna go back to indie movies and play the victim card as much as she can for sympathy.

Thanks for that link. I guess my point is the "Good Old Boys" network has some power, granted, but not enough for anyone to keep losing folks money. Sooner or later, the jig is up (unless you are Woody Allen and spending little).

Speaking of, one of the worst debuts I ever saw as a director was Helen Hunt's. It looked like she literally kicked the camera across the room and shot wherever it landed. No pizzazz, no vision, no style. All very much like one of those 1975 movies one sees on Telemundo. But it didn't cost much and she got another shot -- and apparently her surfer movie was much better. So I guess there is a learning curve too. Not that the surfer made much money either though. We'll see what is next. Episodes of "Orange is the New Black"?

R154, actually your bias is showing.

Ever hear of Carl Rinsch? No? Not suprised. He was a white guy who was handed $175 million in 2013 to make a movie that B.O.M.B.E.D. He's made one short since.

The problem with your question is that nobody remembers these directors because nobody remembers the movies they made.

Sure white guys like Ridley Scott and Speilberg have room to make a bomb or two given what they achieved during their early careers. I'd even wager that Duvarney has a bit more wiggle room in making films that bomb because she's not only a POC but also a woman. I'd bet she's more likely to get another chance moreso than a Carl Rinsch.

[quote]Mrs Whatsit is first described as a very old woman wrapped in layers of clothes with a jacket

[quote]Mrs Who is described as a plump woman with spectacles.

[quote]Mrs Which's physical appearance is not set; she appears as a shimmering light most of the time. However, she does once take on the appearance of a traditional witch, complete with black hat and broom.

Ava can ride the goodwill of people who want to see more diversity in movies, but she needs to still make a good movie.

People here tend to forget that the buzz around Selma wasn't that great. It was more known for re-writing history and casting non-Americans to play iconic Americans. It wasn't known as a great movie and it showed given that it didn't preform that well at the box office.

[quote] [R154], actually your bias is showing.

[quote] Ever hear of Carl Rinsch? No? Not suprised. He was a white guy who was handed $175 million in 2013 to make a movie that B.O.M.B.E.D. He's made one short since.

[quote] The problem with your question is that nobody remembers these directors because nobody remembers the movies they made.

How is my bias showing?

Plenty of white guys, name or no name, got opportunities to make big movies (as you show with your example). Quite a few of those films fail, if not at the box office, then critically. It seems to me that in the past there we consequences for those who failed (Renny Harlin and Jon Amiel come to mind), but not so much today.

All I'm saying that in that sense ADV is not an exception.

I'm not discussing her talents here, because I have nor seen Selma. But she would not be the first director to build a career on hype more than talent.

[quote]Speaking of, one of the worst debuts I ever saw as a director was Helen Hunt's. It looked like she literally kicked the camera across the room and shot wherever it landed. No pizzazz, no vision, no style. All very much like one of those 1975 movies one sees on Telemundo. But it didn't cost much and she got another shot -- and apparently her surfer movie was much better. So I guess there is a learning curve too.

Heh, I remember watching Helen Hunt's "She Found Me" on LIfetime and thinking it was pretty good for what it was, but I guess that goes to your point about it looking like a tv movie.

[quote]Almost every one of those directors (the ones who had a "name" like Ava does) all got to direct again after those major bombs. So...I don't know. We'll have to wait and see what happens to Ava. The one good thing I noticed is that DL has had many threads here trashing those directors for their flops at the link, so there's that.

Thanks for looking up those films that flopped.

Any director who works for a studio today must be good at diplomacy. Or have good managers/agents. It may be what keeps them going after they fail.

Directors of the past often had big personalities and were their own worst enemies when it came to dealing with studios.

DuVernay is not untested or inexperienced. She's had a bunch of film and TV directing credits over the past decade. This is just her first mega-budget film.

And as several have pointed out, there have been plenty of directors who got as big if not bigger budgets with far less experience. R173 mentioned Carl Rinsch. He got 47 Ronin with NO prior full length film directing experience. And the budget for 47 Ronin was almost twice that of AWIT. DuVernay is unique because she got this opportunity DESPITE being Black and a woman, but she put in more time than many of the white men who get these kind of films did. If you're faulting some version of affirmative action for giving her this opportunity, well you're precisely the reason it's necessary.

[quote]I'm not discussing her talents here, because I have nor seen Selma. But she would not be the first director to build a career on hype more than talent.

Yeah, in a way it's very smart of her to have carved out a media presence for herself. A known entity is more likely to get a another shot because if there is some level of fame, the director will have more access to media opportunities to promote the movie and these days getting any attention for a movie is half the battle.

Marvel has made previously bad directors into good ones. Remember Green Arrow??

Even if this doesn't do well domestically, there is always the global market. It does have Disney behind it.

It won't do well globally cause people don't know the book outside the US.

Pretty funny, one of the directors on that list of Biggest Bombs directed me in an episode of "Stranger Things" (and, no, I am not a fucking extra) -- and was one of the very nicest men with which I have ever worked. I bet that helps with career recovery too. He was a sweetheart, one of those nobody would wish to have failure. (An Oscar or two in his possession helps as well).

R184 You don't think Disney can sell American crap to the world?

Usually Disney's movies are about stories everybody know or are critically acclaimed. This one will be neither.

The premise that drives much of this thread--that an adaptation needs to be extremely faithful to the original book-- seems wrong on its face. A lot of wonderful movies completely transform their source material. "The Wizard of Oz" (of all things) is a great example of this. (In fact, the movie arguably alters the meaning of the book.) Now, this particular film, standing on its own, may not be very entertaining, but it should be judged on its own, not whether it violates someone's assumption that the characters in the book were white.

R177, your bias is showing because it was you who made this into race. You asked for the names of white directors who failed and never got a second chance. You got an answer and it didn't satisfy you. It was you who came back and wanted more recent examples. You got them. The truth is white guys who made bad movies have in fact not received second chances. It's a fact.

And ADV can even blow this one and she'd still be given a chance that white men won't get because race and women empowerment are hot button issues in Hollywood right now. You may have had a limited point two years ago, but not today.

Again, it is you who is biased.

R180, you are incorrect. Carl Rinsch did make a few movies before 47 Ronin. The Gift being one of them.

I’d rather watch this for 2 hours.

The Good reviews seemingly talk about historic milestones, diverse casting, DuVernay's vision, the multicultural soundtrack, etc. The BAD reviews just talk about whether it's a good movie. Even in several of the GOOD reviews, once they get past all of SJW agenda, and once they shift to the actual building blocks of a movie (script, pacing, production design, CGI) the opinions drop considerably. Many of the GOOD reviews seem to be saying it's a movie that should be good for all of the SJW reasons but falls apart because of mediocre film making.

We heard it before with the Ghostbuster Gals and we're sure to hear it with Ocean's 8.

Lol r191

Ava DuVernay will get other opportunities, but lower budget and more narrow. She's basically pigeonholed herself as a Black director only interested in Black issues. Which is fine, but those aren't big-budget projects for the most part. Coogler, on the other hand, can write his own ticket for the next couple of films.

DuVernay's supposed to be working on a TV version of Octavia Butler's Xenogenesis series, so that might be her ticket out of this current mess.

Re: extreme faithfulness to the book. No, it didn't have to be extremely faithful, but it had to work. In this case, the deviations from the book clearly harmed it. DuVernay doesn't have the creative depth for that kind of departure. She didn't understand what made the book work and flattened it out--turning it into a feel-good polemic with garish CGI.

Howl's Moving Castle by Miyazaki is very little like Howl's Moving Castle by Diana Wynne Jones. I think the book's a little better balanced, but the movie is wonderful in its own way.

[quote]It won't do well globally cause people don't know the book outside the US.

And they hate blacks. The Asian market is notorious for this.

R195 No, they don't hate blacks, but there is a bias so a white face does help with promotion.

A Pickle in Brine

I toook my 14yo nephew to Black Panther. (He thought it was good, he said, but he seemed bored the entire time and forgot about it as soon as we stood up to leave—and a giant lady sitting alone made the biggest deal about having to move so we could get by and I only mention it because she was black and such a big deal was made about it being a black movie to the extent that some white people were questioning whether or not they should see it opening weekend lest they suck “black joy” out of the theater!)

After the trailer for Wrinkle came on, I asked if he thought it looked good. He laughed and shook his head like I asked him if he wanted to eat dog shit. The trailer indeed did the film no favors. Looks like a hot mess. Can’t take Oprah seriously in a zen role as we all know she’s a disaster who is so insecure she eats burnt hot dog rolls covered in syrup, can’t take Mindy seriously in that hideously goofy getup running through CGI fields, can’t take Reese at all because DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM.

Missed the book as a kid but read it in my 20s. I remember thinking it was a good read but it didn’t leave a big impression on me. Shame this movie is a flop.

Never saw Selma because I read an article about it villainizing Johnson and her screwing the writer over. Two big turn offs, not to mention I was already so sick of the THESE ARE RACIST TIMES IN CURRENT YEAR. What I cannot understand for the life of me is that this project was greenlit without a director at the helm who had a connection to the novel. Crazy bad decision.

Also, on the topic of acclaimed black directors, I thought Get Put was crazily overrated and Black Panther was just another cookie cutter Marvel movie, which hasn’t interested me since Avengers 1. Its a shame that like Ghostbusters 2016 some reviewers are giving a bad film a good rating because identity politics.

r192 that's one of the things that annoyed me about the Black Panther reviews. I saw it and thought it was a formulaic movie with ok dialogue, stiff fighting scenes, and a convenient plot. But the reviews all focused on how empowering it was for black people and mostly glossed over the actual basic movie ingredients being fairly mediocre.

[quote]You asked for the names of white directors who failed and never got a second chance.

Nope. I said white MALE directors. Go back and check.

I have never intended to make this about race.

But go ahead and twist what I said, R189.

[quote] You asked for the names of white directors who failed and never got a second chance. You got an answer and it didn't satisfy you. It was you who came back and wanted more recent examples. You got them. The truth is white guys who made bad movies have in fact not received second chances. It's a fact.

I never asked for any examples. People voluntarily gave them, not to me specifically, but for everyone participating in the conversation. I also, acknowledged, as did others, that in the recent times directors get more chances than they used to get in the past.

The history of what I said here should not be hard for you to figure out. It's why I sign my posts.

R190, do you understand the difference between a short and a full-length film? Or do you just not read carefully?

R189, who are the white guys not getting the chances you assume DuVernay will be getting assuming this film flops?

Penny Marshall once said something like Big doing well gave her three more chances. Big was a huge commercial success. Critical successes that don't bring tons of money seem to result in a couple of chances. It is easier for a white guy to get a shot at a tentpole movie after a successful smaller film.

Ava DuVernay hasn't been treated unfamiliar--she's had a better time of it than most women directors--she's better at politicking and PR for one thing. But at the end of the day, the bottom line matters. You can't spend a ton of a studio's money, make a flop (not that we know WiT will be a floop) and expect the studio not to notice.

Brad Bird made the flop Tomorrowland after a big string of Pixar hits and an entry in the Mission Impossible franchise. What happened to him after Tomorrowland--he's back directing Incredibles II--because he needs to make up for Tomorrowland by bringing in what will be basically a guaranteed money-maker. Once he does that, he might be allowed to do another live-action film. Maybe.

Andrew Stanton, another big-time Pixar director, bombed with John Carter. Guess who had to make a sequel to Finding Nemo? He was last seen directing a couple of episodes of Stranger Things.

There are a lot more people who want to direct than there are greenlit films. Directors with a good track record are more likely to get those jobs. Selma pulled in $66 million--fine for a lower-budget film, but that's not the kind of BO that pays for big fantasy films.

Floop!

How did Ava become a director?

But second chances after flop film are not the only measure, R204. Again, people were complaining here that DuVernay somehow isn't qualified to do a big budget film--that she ONLY got it because she's a Black woman (as if). In reality, she has a lot more experience than many white male directors who've been given big budget films as their first or second full-length feature. The fact that people misperceived her as inexperienced compared to other directors who get these kind of films and assumed she only got the job because of her race and sex is part of the problem.

🍞 [bold] I LOVE BREAD !

I love bread with a bowl of hot stone soup.

[quote]Marvel has made previously bad directors into good ones. Remember Green Arrow??

???? There was never a Green Arrow movie. And Green Arrow is DC, not Marvel.

"The premise that drives much of this thread--that an adaptation needs to be extremely faithful to the original book-- seems wrong on its face."--R188

It was described as "CRINGEWORTHY" in a review.

😸 I'm no expert, but I don't think that's good.

R207, I think the issue with DuVernay doing a big-budget film wasn't lack of film-making experience, per se, but lack of experience in making a fantasy film or a film with kids. To me, the issue wasn't that as much as she didn't give a damn about the source material and it showed.

It's ironic--women directors have complained about not getting opportunities to direct larger-budget films or non rom-coms. DuVernay gets a big film, but doesn't really want to make films that aren't about the black experience. She turns out to be someone who doesn't have a big range as a director. It's telling that the Aunt Beast sequence was cut--because Aunt Beast is an eight-foot, multi-tentacled monster who is also a profoundly loving and kind being with whom Meg bonds--the book is far more radical in a way than the film.

It will be interesting if DuVernay gets the Xenogenesis series off the ground. Black author, black female lead--and DuVernay sought it out, so it might be more in her wheelhouse--but it's a dark series and people don't triumph in it--they just learn to survive at a pretty high cost. I wonder if she'll manage to stay true to Octavia Butler's vision or whether she'll feel compelled to *empower* the characters somehow.

Butler was way too sharp to be big on empowerment.

That too, R203.

I notice on Rotten Tomatoes all the negative reviews, with one exception, are from men.

All the positive reviews are from women.

Hmm.

Box Office Guru picks Black Panther over AWIT - $40 mil to $32 mil this weekend.

Box Office Mojo has AWIT beating BP - $42 mil to $38 mil.

Hollywood Reporter - BP over AWIT $39 - $33 mil.

If these numbers pan out, this will be disastrous for AWIT.

[quote]It's ironic--women directors have complained about not getting opportunities to direct larger-budget films or non rom-coms.

The assumption that once more women start to direct there will be better films is, of course, silly. But why wouldn't women directors be allowed to fail where so many white men have failed for decades? We learn by failing and trying again. Let's give women directors the chance to do the same.

Wonder Woman was a success. So occasionally, a woman director will deliver a big Hollywood film.

[quote]Brad Bird made the flop Tomorrowland after a big string of Pixar hits and an entry in the Mission Impossible franchise. What happened to him after Tomorrowland--he's back directing Incredibles II--because he needs to make up for Tomorrowland by bringing in what will be basically a guaranteed money-maker. Once he does that, he might be allowed to do another live-action film. Maybe.

Still, that's a pretty incredible career. He'll get a big, fat check for directing Incredibles II. Hardly a punishment.

[quote]Andrew Stanton, another big-time Pixar director, bombed with John Carter. Guess who had to make a sequel to Finding Nemo? He was last seen directing a couple of episodes of Stranger Things.

Agree, that is a downgrade.

Let's not forget that some film directors do commercials in between film projects. And that most commercial directors are men.

So, if this bombs, Ava has to make Selma 2?

^ Wait a minute, that's totally misleading. Brad Bird was already slated to do Incredibles II after Tomorrowland. Disney announced it long before Tomorrowland was released and Bird himself had been promising for years it would happen once he got the script right. So no, that wasn't some penalty.

R215, the Guardian pan (one of my favorites) is by a woman. Aisha Harris at Slate is a black woman and gave it a kind, but negative review.

Amusingly, after tons of puff pieces Jezebel/The Root/i09 have gone radio silence on WiT.

R218, My point about Brad Bird, who is an extremely successful director, is that even guys like him have to go back to a cash cow when he has a flop. He's doing Incredibles II because he did Incredibles I.

The other option is that you go back to lower-budget films--like Woody Allen--that don't have to make back big bucks. I'm thinking that's where DuVernay will end up--or television/Netflix/cable.

I dont watch Disney movies anyway, but the movie screams: WE MADE THIS MOVIE JUST FOR THE POLITICALLY CORRECT AND THE MONEY !!!

I don't have a problem with the change for it to be a mixed face family as long as the personalities are true to the book. The girl playing Meg looks like she could be decent casting. I might have a little more of an issue with Charles being adopted, because I thought he and Meg shared some abilities (his more overt) that would make more sense if they had the same genes. But maybe they just needed a strong sibling bond, which you don't need to be biologically related to have.

My issues from the trailer is that it seems to be all CGI and not a lot of heart.

Has anyone read the sequels? I did not know they existed when I was a kid, and I am kind of tempted to check them out.

The sequels go down in quality as the series progresses and get more overtly Christian. The second one's not bad and I can't even remember the third one.

As for the colorwashing--it's not that she colorwashed, it's why she colorwashed. If DuVernay had loved the book as a kid and pictured Meg as a brown girl like her, I'd have more sympathy for it. It would be a creative vision thing, but this making a big statement while not respecting the source material.

A POC friend of mine said that what bothered her about it is that there are plenty of YA fantasy books with brown girls as heroines by POC authors--if you want to make a statement about diversity really do it.

I think Ava is really talented but she's like Nolan in that the cult around her is so fucking obnoxious.

[quote]My issues from the trailer is that it seems to be all CGI and not a lot of heart.

Yep. It looks like a late-Tim Burton—which is NOT good.

R226 Yeah, too much like wacky Tim Burton reimagining of the source material. But I think Disney has something to do with it, too. They probably want to make a garish amusement ride out of this if it catches on.

I'll only watch it if Levi presents hole.

Well at least Johnny Depp isn't playing the father.

Oops. I meant Green Lantern. Of course I know it is DC but I thought it’s director went on to do a well-received Marvel movie. Never mind.

I love Reese

R231 = Mindy Kaling, hoping for party invites

God, Mindy Kaling and Reese Witherspoon in the same movie. An assault on both eyes and ears.

The NPR "Fresh Air" reviewer (forget his name, Bob something?) gave it a good but not great review yesterday. He said the casting was laudable, raved about the girl playing Meg, and opined that dumping the book's Xian v Commie subtext was wise. But he said the movie got twisted up with too much CGI in the second half, and that he wasn't the target audience so his only liking it doesn't mean the kids won't love it...or something like that

[quote]he wasn't the target audience so his only liking it doesn't mean the kids won't love it

I never buy this argument. Truly great children's movies are also great to an adult—as classic Disney, classic Pixar and Studio Ghibli all show.

The movie is full of stupid SJW

is it normal for a director to retweet randoms praising her movie on Twitter? a page out of the DJ Trump playbook?

Only desperate directors. Retweeting praise is tacky.

[quote]I notice on Rotten Tomatoes all the negative reviews, with one exception, are from men.

I SMELL CHEMTRAILS ON THIS MOVIE, FELLOW GAY FROGS!!!

Is that what she's doing R238?

R141/Taylor Hackford, why the fuck has Helen Mirren stayed with you so long? Is it because you have a huge dick or because you’re a cunnilingus prodigy? In any event your views on casting directors are so last century.

Yes R240 just go on her Twat profile. All RTs of compliments

"This pretty movie feels more convenient than meaningful."

I'm waiting for Queen of Cunts Rex Reed's review. You know he's going to trash it.

And then there's some giant woman with fake diamonds all around her eyes and some glowing, greyish Nike swoop of a hairstyle...it will be copied in drag queen pageants forever.

And I was just begging for a real star like Bette Davis or Faye Dunaway to walk in, make a smartly-written remark, and tear the whole thing down with her real voice and her normal-looking eyes.

I have not enjoyed Ava on her promotional tour. She was kind of a snooze on The View and I turned off her interview with the wonderful Bevy Smith because it was so banal. She’s not for me. The vocal fry, the arrogance... she’s patently unlikable. I applaud her for being a woman of color getting it done but I don’t think she has the charm for press. And that’s fine. That’s what Oprah and the rest of the cast is for.

I love the book and went to see it today. The movie strayed from the book somewhat, but was a solid 3.5 star movie.

I didn't find it SJW, instead it felt too literal-minded. The original novel said more with less.

3.5/10, r247?

I haven't seen the movie but hope there's a visual of how the "wrinkle" could work. I remember drawing a crude little sketch in my 4th grade book report.

The girl looks like she was manufactured in a Benetton factory. Huge casting mistake which will cost the film millions at the box office.

3.5 out of 5.

The girl who played Meg made it work. And yes, Ava bugs me and I was a skeptic.

Reese was fine too and I usually hate her.

^^r247 is r251

Saw Ava and Storm on The Talk today. If you didn't already know the film was based on a book, you wouldn't have found out in their interview. I'd never seen either of then speak, let alone do an interview. The little girl is fine, she mentioned it was her first tv interview, and Ava was introduced as a visionary. It bugged me they didn't mention the book, but neither left much of an impression. Ava spoke of LoTR, and other fantasy films and how none of them were directed by a woman.

Personally, I don't care who or what directs a movie, as long as it's good. But I guess progress is progress, and a more diverse group people getting chances is a step in the right direction I guess.

Baffling that people would be rooting for this movie to fail.

[quote]Ava was introduced as a visionary

Why is visionary attached to her name all of a sudden? From the trailers to articles to talk show introductions, she is always introduced as “visionary director Ava Duchovny.” Did she choose this adjective herself and demand it be used every time?

R255 she learned from watching visionary Lee Daniels as he negotiated the titles of Lee Daniels The Butler, Lee Daniels Empire, Lee Daniels Star...

Oprah is going around saying this film is an amazing experience for families and Ava is the visionary and legendary director of our time. So, they are basically saying this movie is better than Lord of the Rings and Peter Jackson. I do not think anyone should say this sort of thing. I do not know why anyone would say anything close to this, before the films comes out and is a big hit with audiences and critics?

It looks like shit to me, but we shall see.

I do not get the Ava thing either. I think she should be able to direct, but she has a lot to learn still. Actually, I do like that there are diversity in films and films with different ethnicities and languages being made. Some of my favorite films are foreign films.

The minorities chosen by Jews tend to be stupid. For talent, find the ones that are being bullied.

She's an insufferable phony, as are Oprah and Daniels.

Pride is not talent and noise is seldom evidence of intelligence.

R185, HEY!

I saw it and yes it’s as bad as they say. 2/5 is a generous rating.

Colour blind casting only goes one way

It's true we don't have much white people in tv shows and movies.

The book has a tone of loss, darkness and lonely sadness even with its positive outcome, and that remains part of its pull. Del Toro at his best gets that sort of thing. ADM on the other hand seems tone-deaf to these motifs, and has come up with a candy-colored My Little Pony toybox of pop-psych "affirmations" and SJW cheerleading.

The frequency is love! It's love!

R264, I was thinking Del Toro might have been able to pull Wrinkle off--he's directed children (Pan's Labrinth), has a sense of the fantastic and he would never have left out Aunt Beast. The Missuses would all have been appropriately strange and a bit creepy.

good lord

ava how could u waste so much $ on this goofball junk.

mindy yes do make us ill wid dat face oh no doubts...

The best of the Mrs is Oprah only because of her woodeness. It’s a relief from the hamminess of Reece and the awkwardness of Mindy who has no idea what to do with her role.

I thought the director hadn't read the book as a child?

"DuVernay got to make the movie she wanted from a literary property she’s cherished since childhood."

The whole time this film has been in production, it's received more attention as an Ava Duvernay project rather than an adaptation of Madeleine L'Engle's book. She was getting far too many kudos for taking this on before anybody saw the final project. I think it's fine if she wanted to mix up the race of the caharacters; it's not the first adaptation even but when a still relatively new director with only a hdnsful of films in her repertoire, it can be dangerous to be anointing her so early. It's brave to take on WIT but the book is fantasy without the fat. Too many eyes have been on this project on the start and too amny people were all certain it would be huge. No project needs so much positive, helicopter parenting from Hollywood.

THEY LEFT OUT AUNT BEAST???????????

I applaud her for being inclusive and casting all shades of the rainbow and not just being white and black cast and calling it a day. But she should have focussed on trying to make a good film first.

Del Toro could have done this movie so much better, and it wouldn't have looked like a Tim Burton castoff.

All colors of the rainbow? She didn’t cast any Asians.

In our current environment, the knee-jerk reaction is to praise a movie or television show for the level of "inclusion", which, of course, has nothing to do with the actual quality of the final product.

While I don't have any personal axe to grind with the director or performers, there's a part of me that's happy to see the film get roasted by the critics because it's evidence that whether the final product is good *still matters*; that it's not deemed good just based on the race/gender/religion/sexuality of the crew and performers.

What was the point of doing Oprah's look like a drag queen? Was she supposed to have mystical powers or something - because she looks more like Latrice Royale than an ethereal being.

They are sky deities or something, and their true form is half horse half women. I kid you the fuck not.

[quote]half horse half women

Why isn't SJP in this then?

I've read reviews about how, despite the $125m budget, it looks like it was shot on the cheap - I'm guessing it's because of high salaries. And one reviewer panned the screen wrinkle effect when they tesser as being predictable and boring. I tend to agree.

It’s mostly only women seeing this. Men are staying away! 70% of the audience is women-identifying.

DuVernay had mentioned at screenings and the premiere that A Wrinkle in Time was squarely made for kids, and the under 18 bunch at 31% and the under 25 set at 39% are giving the pic an A- per CinemaScore. Females repped close to 70% of Friday night’s audience. With an overall B CinemaScore, who is dragging down Wrinkle‘s grades? Why that would be adults overe 25 who turned up at 61% and graded the pic a B-.

I think the "made for kids" thing is a cop-out she's using as an excuse for why adults hate it. "Oh, you wouldn't understand it, you're too old!"

There are a lot of movies made for kids. That doesn't mean adults are incapable of assessing the quality of the movie.

Olds wouldn’t understand this movie. Too confusing for them.

Why are the ads, makeup, costumes, sets for this movie so schlocky and cheap-looking? When I first saw an advertisement, I thought I was looking at an ad for a new Disney Channel/Nickelodeon/CW TV show.

Nevermind, just saw R279's post.

If women and kids are the primary audience, the look of the movie is perfectly fine. Women don't care about special effects and whether the tessering looks cheesy.

The "being" that Mrs. Whatsit becomes to carry them is interesting.

Empowering people with little power bothers the people on this site. Why? It is getting really old.

The film being for kids only is such a lame excuse. Paddington 2 is geared for younger kids than AWIT and is being hailed by adults as a masterpiece. Kids don’t have quality standards for movies is what that means.

I took a 6 year-old to Paddington. We both hated it.

What the hell is R286 on about? And why is it simultaneously virtue-signaling AND making gross generalizations about half of the population (women don't care about special effects and will happily consume visually unappealing, substandard schlock?)?

R82/R276 thanks for the laugh. Her look is almost as awful/unpalatable as Johnny Depp's Mad Hatter from those shit Alice movies. Sad that they had to be Alan Rickman's final roles.

Everyone in hollywood is sick of the attitude and hubris of Oprah, shonda rhimes and Ava DuVernay. I think they just gave them the bloody total creative control they have been bitchy about and let them hang themselves. Shonda is next via netflix.

Dry those tears. Rickman was in neither "Alice in Wonderland" film.

r289 that is pretty hilarious. The poster's like "Why are you so sexist? Chicks don't care about that shit, they just want pretty colors!" and it seems to be intended completely unironically.

Maybe the "Women Don't Care about Special Effects" Channel would get better ratings than what it is presently called: Lifetime Movies.

WDCSFX, brought to you by Febreze and Nutri-System

R291 you're kidding, right? He did the voice of the caterpillar for both films. Through the Looking Glass was his final role.

Isn't it Christian propaganda like the Chronicles of Narnia?

It's not "politically correct" and you'd have to be a nasty racist to hate it for conservative reasons.

KEEP DESTROYING YOURSELVES, CONSERVATIVES. Always a pleasure to watch.

I hate all movies that change white characters into "diverse" characters on principle, just as other people do if the reverse happens. Thanks for the review, R3. This line made me laugh:

[quote]Two twin brothers from the book are missing entirely from the movie, which may be a blessing, considering that political correctness probably would have dictated they be played by a Native American dwarf and a disabled transsexual.

The truth is if the film had a diverse cast; but with a competent director, this film could have been amazing.

i stand corrected, R294, wasn't thinking of voice work. (And I even love those movies, flaws and all. They look amazing).

Anytime a film or tv project is adapted from a beloved source material, there is negative press. Look at Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones. What you do is wait until the project comes out and the audience see it? if the audience loves it, then the critics will change their minds. I don't know why ava always goes batshit nuclear.

How much screen time does Levi Miller get?

Okay Ava, i will send my kids with a babysitter to this movie bc I cannot possible understand it as an adult. And if i don't do what you say, I am a racist.

It is possible to make a great movie that is very different from the popular novel the movie is adapted from.

There are countless examples, but two of my favorites are "East of Eden" from Steinbeck and "Jaws" from Benchley's bestseller. Both diverged a good deal from the source material. I think the very many versions of "A Christmas Carol" would also qualify. Dickens may have loved or hated some of them.

I haven't seen AWiT yet but loved the book as a kid. It's hard to believe it's taken so long to get it to the screen. I hope it is better than the worst of the critics here are saying.

Oprah and ava are now blaming everyone else for this disaster other than themselves. They are real going nuclear batshit. Just let the film come out and let people see it for themselves. If the audience loves it, the critics will change their tune.

Ava really has no mainstream appeal. She's very niche.

R299, both GoT and LoTR got good reviews from the get-go. There were some uber-fan quibbles, but Fellowship of the Ring has 91 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

R269, the big Time cover story on Wrinkle specifically says that neither DuVernay nor Oprah read the book as kids, so I'm guessing Deadline is wrong since the Time piece was bigger and more researched.

And it's stupid to claim that Wrinkle in Time could only be understood by kids when the book is actually more of a YA book and Meg is a quintessential angry adolescent. She wants her father back, but is then angry and disappointed with him when he turns out not to be able to fix everything--but book Meg's actual character seems to be one of the things left on the cutting-room floor.

Thing is, book Meg is not likeable or spunky the way Disney heroines are--and, I suspect, that her unlikeability was toned down because of that--instead of getting into fist fights over her brother, she's presented as withdrawn and bullied by mean girls. Book Meg is more of a misfit than that.

DuVernay and Disney just kind of decided to ignore what the book was about. And, yes, this is why the stunt casting (not just Meg-as-brown-girl, but also bringing in Chris Pine to glamorize Mr. Murry and the big three personalities as the Mrs. Ws) is just all sorts of wrong. Yes, a brown Meg could work if that was genuinely how Ava had always seen the character or Storm Reid was just the best for the role, but she cast it that way because of a particular agenda she had.

Good, sick of smug Oprah and Reese

Yeah, people need to learn not to go onto the Golden Globes and give silly rabblerouser speeches. It seems to start the backlash that continues with glee. Be humble. Be quiet. Shut up and do your work.

It's not about the speeches--it's about a crap movie. The only speech I hold against Meryl is the one where she called Harvey Weinstein a "god."

[quote]people need to learn not to go onto the Golden Globes and give silly rabblerouser speeches

Political speeches have always been prt of award season, since they were created.

The film is just a crap movie because the director didn't understand the source material. Why is it so hard to just say that the director was just incompetent.

Ava is STILL retweeting praise from people with 50 or 100 followers. She's been at it for hours.

She's shook.

ABOUT GOT:

What Critics attack grrm, hbo, dan and dave, many of the cast members, the directors, etc? But, the show is loved by the audience, so the papers and some of the critics had to change their tune.

Ava attacking her audience again; claiming if they do not go and LOVE IT, they are racist seems completely batshit.

Ooh, boy, the Rotten Tomatoes rating is at 42 percent, but the audience rating is at 32 percent. Average audience rating--2.3/5. In other words, critics have been kind. Sounds like a clunker.

The real test of this movie is next week, after the opening week-end and first week. Are parents and grandparent who saw it want to take all their children, other grandkids, and other kid family members to this movie? Also, will children who saw it, want to see it again?

ava is saying this film is geared for families, so this is the test.

White male directors know how to develop a story and screenplay that you can actually follow.

The test is the first weekend. This isn't a sleeper film, there's been a ton of publicity. If it doesn't open big, it's not going to develop legs. Disney needs to make way more than $100 million to break even on it, given the marketing/PR push.

Weird thing about the big-name casting--I'd classify Chris Pine as the only box-office draw and he's not a very big one. Isn't there some young teen idol who could have played Calvin, say?

I was underwhelmed by Selma but people didn't dare not praise the distinctly mediocre Du Vernay.

Not surprising.

This is Hollywood once again mistaking people trolling for likes and faves on social media with their “woke” ideals but not having any interest in putting their money where their mouth is.

You may get the approval of blue haired non-binary (aka heterosexual) girls on tumblr. But there aren’t that many of them ultimately and they don’t see movies in theaters. Boys do though. You know? That gender that you’re constantly calling “toxic” and who account for most of the viewing audience.

Good luck shitting in your own bank vault, Hollywood.

R318 Yess 👏 this types of movie were made only for political views.

There are plenty of movies made for male audiences, R318--Black Panther, for one. The problem with Wrinkle in Time isn't that it's geared for girls (so was Frozen, which made major bank). The problem with WiT is that it's a bad movie.

R318 How DARE you insinuate that Tumblr appeal isn't the same as real world appeal!

This movie was not made for the Dl audience. It is a family film. We shall see if children like it? Children want to see the films they like over and over again.

It look like crap to me, but I am not really going to see it anyways.

R320, movies made for men make money. Movies made for women make money. Movies made for SJWs, with a geographical chart for casting and an air of superiority, don’t.

The thing about niche and minority representation in films is that, unless you have a good hook for a general audience, it’s largely ignored by the majority. And if your message includes that the film is somehow better because it’s not about men or white men, you’re not going to get their dollars. Simple as that.

And the fact that a 100 million dollar movie has never been made by a woman of color is 100% Hollywood’s fault and not our own. So the fact that they want to be celebrated for finally breaking an easily breakable barrier in 2018 is a major turn off.

It will be sad if Hollywood does not make/support diversity, African American, women-made and foreign films, just on the performance of one movie. I do not want this to happen at all.

It is on Ava and her skills as a director only. It is not her gender or ethnicity.

Maybe kids and families will enjoy this film. Who knows? Let's wait and see?

Dave Poland is getting roasted on Twitter for daring to suggest Ava hasn’t proved that she is above a tv director level competency. He’s right though. One of the worst things about AWIT is the constant closeups of all the actors. It creates quite a feeling of claustrophobia TBH.

R323, Don't disagree with you. Just took a look at the WiT Twitter--tons about empowerment and how WiT is good for you. Not much on it being a good movie.

And, in this case, the niche/minority representation came at the expense of respecting the source material, which irritates book fans like me. You need a strong artistic reason to veer off..

On the other hand, I might see Black Panther because it looks kind of cool and the reviews are consistently good in a way that makes me think I'd enjoy wasting two hours and $15 to watch it.

Which is really what it's always going to come down to? Is it worth my time and money?

R324, Black Panther guarantees that there will be other films that support diversity. As for Ava's gender and ethnicity--tell it to Ava--it was her choice to make this a film about gender/ethnicity. I think, in general, she has real issues with seeing shades of grey--thus her mangling history in Selma because MLK couldn't be beholden to LBJ, even though, as president, yes, LBJ really did have the power.

R323 Very well-written. Still can't believe that the filmmakers can't realize how silly, disconnecting and condescending it is to cast a family with a white father, black mother, black (not even biracial) daughter, and Filipino (seriously?) son. They should've just made the entire family black, or have black and white parents with visibly biracial kids, which would've actually been a great choice in this day and age.

On a positive note, Storm Reid is adorable.

[quote]Oprah and ava are now blaming everyone else for this disaster other than themselves. They are real going nuclear batshit.

I'm hearing Ava is going a little crazy on Twitter, retweeting every positive review, but what is Oprah doing?

It does not matter what some jackasses' thesis is on the underlining themes of this movie is, especially if the person/critic is a fucking racist and sexist. Nor does it matter what some film school drop out assesses her director skill by some sort of arbitrary, fake and highly biased rating system.

What matter is, do kids like it? If kids like it they will want to see it again and again. If they do not like it, well, it will crash and burn.

Oprah looks ridiculous with blonde hair.

Kids LOVE political messages about the self-imposed societal barriers of only a few years back, R329.

[quote] All colors of the rainbow? She didn’t cast any Asians

Mindy Kaling is South Asian and the son is Filipino.

WHAT ABOUT KOREANS?!?! OR CHINESE!!?! OR JAPANESE?!?!

Ava DeMornay’s lack of representation of them is LITERALLY KILLING THEM.

Chris Pine could never father a child that fucking ugly.

The casting wasn't the problem. Not even Oprah Winfrey, who can act when she wants to.

It was the director's assumption that she could ignore the theme and characterizations in the novel and not completely fuck it up.

[quote]One of the worst things about AWIT is the constant closeups of all the actors. It creates quite a feeling of claustrophobia TBH.

And a feeling of being violently ill when the close up is on Mindy Kaling.

A phalanx of Ava stans are trying to drive the audience rating up on Rotten Tomatoes by giving it 5 stars. Meanwhile I cannot get signed up to post a rating. I enter all my info or try to sign up with Facebook and nothing happens.

On Metacritic, WIT is barely in the yellow with 52, while the user score is a lousy 3.3.

Only going to make around $32 million this weekend, well behind Black Panther which has been out for weeks.

It'll make some money this weekend, and drop into mediocre numbers over the week then the abyss by April.

Children really drive a kid's movie. If kids like it, they will want to see it again. If the adult who takes them hates it, well they are not going to take someone else, another kid.

If people are going to spend $15 to sit in the dark with rude strangers for two hours, they want to see a movie. Not a political statement.

This just made me realize how fortunate we are that The Lord of the Rings movies were made before all this PC idiocy really kicked into gear. You just know they would have shoehorned a few black people into Tolkien's European Middle Age inspired fantasy world if they had been filmed today.

We have a but-if-children-like-it troll. No, children don't drive movies--their parents have to be willing to pay for it and sit through it multiple times. Frozen was huge because it was a kids movie that adults didn't mind sitting through. Same with Moana, Zootopia and pretty much all of Pixar.

A movie that's visually annoying to watch with poor pacing won't fall into that category.

Basically, a film needs to make 2.5 its budget from its theatrical release to be seen as a hit. If it's not even the top film its opening weekend, there's an issue. If a tentpole can't nab the top spot from a movie that's been out for three weeks, there's a problem.

Wrinkle in Time won't be one of the all time disasters, but it's on its way to being a disappointment.

Do people real hate this film, just because there are African Americans in it? You cannot hate on a movie bc of the gender or ethnicity of the cast or film makers. I am so depressed now.

People hate on the film because it FUCKED UP.

You fuck up too, and we'll take care of you, as well.

No, I dislike film-makers who screw up movies because they care more about their agenda than making a good movie or understanding why a book is good.

I don't like washing in either direction--there are excellent fantasy/SF books that feature nonwhite leads--adapt them.

Ava DuVernay is just one more Hollywood hack--there have been lots of them. Which is okay, but she's being promoted as a "visionary" film maker and she isn't.

And, yes, there are some racist trolls on this thread--but that's true on most DL threads.

Right, R345. So I'm sure you've never hated a movie because there were too many white people in it, and that you've never tacitly approved of other people hating movies that had a lot of white people in them.

This isn't an issue of a movie having African Americans in it. This is an issue of a movie completely ignoring the source material so they could cast a bunch of African Americans.

My issue with it is, it’s simply a bad film.

Just wait until the garish colors cause seizures in some of the kids.

Whoever said she is a TV-type director has a good point. Based on the trailer, the framing of shots is very pedestrian and not cinematic.

I LOATHE Ava Duvernay with the heat of 1,000 suns, such a phony - but wow is she good with Twitter. What a kiss-ass. Anyway, I bet she hates that black lesbian who did a decent (not great) job directing Mudbound.

Seeing as Latinos are the largest box office demographic in North America, you would think they used a token Latino somewhere in the cast. Maybe Paco the custodian...at least throw them a bone.

But then again, they are not the "chosen" minority for mainstream America.

Michael Pena appears in the film. He appears in the trailer.

R353, but they are chosen...to be the housekeepers to all the leads in the movie, people terrified of immigration law changes that could require them to pay someone a living wage.

[quote]This just made me realize how fortunate we are that The Lord of the Rings movies were made before all this PC idiocy really kicked into gear. You just know they would have shoehorned a few black people into Tolkien's European Middle Age inspired fantasy world if they had been filmed today.

In the recent remake of Murder On the Orient Express, one of the characters was an African-American doctor. They had to take an entire scene to explain how and why that could've happened in the 1930s, and it ground the movie to a halt.

They are fucking fake characters they could be played by purple people for all i care!!!

But it doesn’t matter what you care, R357. You need to celebrate and support this movie for all its diversity, or else you are a racist and sexist monster. Didn’t you know? This is 2018.

Remember when Disney did this colorblind casting twenty years ago with Cinderella? But I guess that doesn’t count because it wasn’t 100 million dollars and it didn’t pay the salary of its insanely rich stars with a bloated paycheck.

[quote] Whoever said she is a TV-type director has a good point.

I believe it was Tarantino who said that Selma looked like a TV movie. Later her admitted that he hadn't seen the film.

He was properly chastised for criticizing ADV.

He must be laughing now.

r343 in the recent remake of Murder On the Orient Express, one of the characters was an African-American doctor. They took an entire scene to explain what he was doing there in 1930s, and it took you right out of the movie.

Nobody is box office these days. Being famous or winning major awards means nothing box office wise. The movie has to be good enough for me to make the effort to see it despite all the negatives with seeing a movie now days even if it is a nice theater. Seeing someone interviewed telling a funny story or on the cover of a magazine does not sell tickets.

Besides, the commercials all looked like Oprah spouting a bunch of nonsense platitudes while wearing cheap and gaudy makeup. Where was the script?

The new Superheros are FIERCE!!! 💅🏻🙌🏼🙌🏼🙌🏼

Peeps at Twitter are saying that if you don’t want to see “Wrinkle” or don’t like it, you’re a racist or a sexist. They’re slamming any white critic that gives it a bad review. Good god. A turd is a turd, people. You can dress it up with glitter and wrap it in SJW platitudes, but it’s still a turd.

My favorite are the people saying please buy tickets to “Wrinkle” and sneak into the movie you really want to go see to support “the community”. They’re also asking Movie Pass people to go check in and get tickets even if they don’t have the time or want to attend Wrinkle. They’re trying to do anything to pump the numbers because of Ava’s involvement here. This is progress?

Reply

So Mindy Khaling's OFFICE pal BJ Novak tweeted this.

Is she a success for this or not?

Kaling used to bang Novak. She is a success for that.

Did she really? How did they both end up on The Office?

BJ's career went nowhere and Mindy is costarring with fucking Oprah in a movie!

Plainly a rejection of the Benetton casting, the lead being the most egregious.

Mindy also has had a fairly successful tv series, "The Mindy Project", is starting another one featuring a young gay kid called, "Champions". and is in, "Ocean's Eight".

It's a puzzlement why she's so popular, because she plays the same character in everything- herself.

I always liked Mindy until she said she was purposefully going to have a baby without having the father around. Sick and irresponsible.

"They’re slamming any white critic that gives it a bad review."

They are slamming - and listing - male critics as well, as if Pauline Kael would have given this POS a rave.

I hope Rex Reed reviews this, the old cunt.

I'm still just trying to wrap my head around why AWiT's costume designer wouldn't go more for Galadriel from LOTR or the Childlike Empress from Neverending Story, instead of "Drag Queens at a Mardi Gras parade."

r374 two words: Inclusion Rider.

Mindy is successful.

She's an Indian woman who doesn't look like Miss Universe but still works as an actress. That's a success in my book.

[quote]I always liked Mindy until she said she was purposefully going to have a baby without having the father around. Sick and irresponsible.

MARY!

Black Panther had honest casting and is a huge success. You don't need to change and distort the characters' race and gender to have a billion dollar movie.

I will see this regardless because it's important to support a film with such a diverse cast and crew. I refuse to see movies that don't support the inclusion of all. Like in "The Smurfs Movie" there was not a single African American or Latino Smurf, and it was heavily male. Disgusting.

I had the same problem with "Dunkirk" r379. Not a single POC or transgendered person in the whole movie. The fighter pilot was almost played by Laverne Cox, but at the last minute they replaced her with a cis white male, Tom Hardy, as the hero. This whitewashing of history has to stop!

As a black female I sometimes get fed up of those sjw, all they do is bitch and ruin an enjoyable experience. I am not a huge fan of inclusion pc overload if the material suck. I am a fan of seinfeld because it is very funny and it makes me laugh. If a diverse cast of a project is good I will support, what I won't do is support because all race gender orientation is involved if the project is terrible.

Black Panther proves that a movie with a black cast can be highly successful, as long as the movie is good.

Right, Ava?

The diversity casting of AWIT doesn’t affect the quality, it’s purely bad writing, bad directing, bad editing, bad acting, etc. This movie is actually as bad as legendary stinkers like Howard the Duck and Ishtar.

The races of the characters was fine. It was the pussywhipping that bothered me.

[Quote] This just made me realize how fortunate we are that The Lord of the Rings movies were made before all this PC idiocy really kicked into gear. You just know they would have shoehorned a few black people into Tolkien's European Middle Age inspired fantasy world if they had been filmed today.

Just wait. The NETFLIX TV show is coming.

I reread the first 50 pages. Meg's brother is described as blonde. Meg's mom has red hair & many comments about her being attractive are in the book. Mrs. Whatsit is kind of a mess - an old lady with grey hair and a dozen scarves, mismatched socks, round little nose. Mrs. Who and Mrs. Which are not that different, really.

I guess the race of the family is irrelevant, but the 3 women were sort of supposed to be like old wise women elder types... not drag queens. Perhaps Beatrice Arthur could've been Mrs. Which, not Drag Oprah Winfrey.

This movie is for CHILDREN. Why is this even on Dler? If you do not want to see it, they do not go. ENOUGH with the racism and sexism. I like that there are diversity in films. I love foreign films.

Distracting to who, r14?

Good review

R388, the film has been heavily publicized--huge marketing push behind it--so, no, not just for children. Oprah, Reese, Mindy--that and the increased prominence of the Missus W characters are all intended to bring in the adult female audience.

Ironically, an older woman friend of mine was getting all ready to see it. So she thought she'd read the book first, since she hadn't read it as a kid. She read the book and decided there was no way she was seeing the movie, because the film had clearly taken such big liberties with the book. In her case, she was angry out how the religious aspects and subtleties of the book were flattened out into some message about self-esteem.

So, now she's looking forward to seeing Ladybird instead.

R388 most of us read it as CHILDREN and liked it a lot. It left a positive affect on many CHILDREN who are now adults. So, large alterations to the movie will affect the CHILDREN. It's not just racial things that were changed.

Yep, even DuVernay hadn't colorwashed, the film would be getting even worse reviews because there's be less concern about being labelled a racist. The film, from the sounds of it, is really that bad.

Looking to make <35mil on its opening weekend.

If you do not want to see the movie, Don't.

If you want to see the movie, Do.

It is just a movie people.

Do you think Ava regrets turning down Black Panther to make this shit? She could have made history with Black Panther as the most successful black movie ever and most successful Marvel movie, four weeks at #1, and critically acclaimed. She would have made hundreds of millions in the backend of Black Panther's box office. Instead she threw all that away for this flop.

Did anyone here who is criticizing the movie, ACTUALLY SEE this movie?

R396 now you know why she is frantically retweeting everything positive said about her.

I saw it. It’s pretty bad, primarily because it’s just incredibly ugly. I don’t fault any of the actors, even the ones I don’t like all that much otherwise, because the makeup and costuming are so garish. Beyond that, I just didn’t care. It’s very much a kid’s movie that’s just not good enough to interest adults.

And they actually hired the wrong black woman. She hasn’t worked that much, but “Eve’s Bayou” proved that Kasi Lemmons is great with child actors and can work with fantastic elements. I would have loved to see her version.

r396, her version of would have not been as successful- she's not as good a director as Ryan Coogler, but she probably thinks she's better. I would have liked to have seen Alfonso Cuaron's version of AWiT.

If a white guy had directed this movie, the critics wouldn't be holding back at all, it would be a bloodbath.

Ava's Blank Panther would have been better because she would have brought a feminine touch to the macho-nist of it all, and she would bring more diversity to it instead of an all black cast. Plus Lupita's role would be played by Oprah and that would be fierce. Reese would play either Martin Freeman's agent role or Andy Serkis's role. Mindy Kaling would obviously play the kid sister and Chris Pine could be T'Challah.

Bravo, r402, bravo.

[quote]Plus Lupita's role would be played by Oprah and that would be fierce.

No, Oprah would've played Wakanda.

Why wouldn't Oprah play Angela Bassett's mother role?

Not even $35 million and a CinemaScore of B.

THe movie is not made for you, R406!

No one ever had to make that excuse with Frozen, R407

r407 = Oprah at home eating chips.

The "B" Cinemascore is actually pretty shocking. Films aimed at families almost always get A/A-'s, while films aimed at black audiences almost always get A's. Almost every Tyler Perry movie has gotten an "A" from Cinemascore.

And unlike Rotten Tomatoes' audience score and IMDB ratings, it can't be affected by trolls.

Sorry if I missed this being mentioned, but EW gave the film a C. That is like a F- from any other publication because EW softballs all of their reviews for fear of alienating the industry.

Someone else said that the art direction and marketing for this film are similar to Burton’s Alice movies, and that is so true. I was at the mall today and it was carpet-bombed with posters and video ads for A Wrinkle; they were all garish, visually loud and context-free, just like those hideous posters of Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter with the pink contacts and red fright wig. Just really fucking ugly and unappealing, and EVERYWHERE.

I saw a trailer for the all female Oceans 11 today. I like Mindy Kaling and am glad she hit the big time, but the woman cannot move her face. She has so much botox that she looks like a stroke victim. Can she eat without drooling?

It's a chick flick.

Disney will have to try to sell this overseas to make their money back.

The book isn’t well known overseas though, so I doubt it will be a huge moneymaker. Unless France decides to declare it a masterpiece as they do with random American oddities from time to time.

R414 The Disney brand is well known enough that they can sell it as a "Disney" movie independent of its source material. In a way, the movie has strayed enough from the book that foreigners not knowing the book might spare it unflattering comparison overseas.

It’s. A. Fucking. Awful. Movie. It’s not being faithful to the original material is the least of its problems. If it were in any way, even passably competent, not being faithful is a credible excuse because it’s been regarded for 60 years as unfilmable. Few would have a problem accepting the change in the cause of making it film worthy. But. It’s. A. Fucking. Awful. Film.

R416 Marketing is not dependent on the quality of the movie. If that were the case, there wouldn't be endless sequels to The Fast and the Furious.

R416, Did you see it? What in particular makes it truly terrible?

Of course I saw it. It’s horribly directed, miscasted, written, conceived and acted excepting Chris Pine. The cgi criticism seems rite because it’s actually quite good and provides the only other enjoyable moments in the film.

Did YOU see it r418?

Why did you waste your monies to see it if you knew it was going to be horrible?

Any of the three Mrs W's outfits would get you immediately booted from "RuPaul's Drag Race."

If RuPaul was a Mrs., which one would she be?

Is the SERIOUS Answer Issues thing new here at DL?

Never saw that before when something is lined out.

SERIOUS Anger Issues is what I meant. And it's in RED!

By the time Ghostbuster Gals movie came out, the critics were so terrified of being labeled as misogynist, they gave an otherwise ordinary/sub-par movie rave reviews. It was nice to see the critics were not going to let themselves be bullied about AWIT. Of course the NYT and WaPo kvelled about the "visionary" director, the "creative" casting, the multicultural music, and the bit about DuVernay's historic helming of a $100 mil. movie. All of those thing may have been true, but none of those things either in itself or combined will make a good movie.

Counting down to Ocean's 8, oh I can't wait for those reviews.

I think the diversity stunt casting is coming to an end. Annie fizzled, Ghostbusters 2k16 flopped, Wrinkle in Time weak, and who knows about Ocean's 8 but the trajectory doesn't seem positive. The comic book publishers noticed that hiring untalented "activists" to create "woke" comics was a disaster, the movies should be next to follow.

Muriel is on fire, and good for her.

Red tags are a throwback to old DL days.

One thing I've noticed that many of the thumbnails for Youtube AWIT reviews feature facepalm...like 75% of the thumbnails I've seen. The disappointment in this reviewer's voice is so palpable, he really doesn't mince words. And many other reviews start out warm/lukewarm but eventually go Jeckyl/Hyde with multiple criticisms on the backend...

People really wanted to like this movie, but it's just impossible.

R426 is a fucking racist and I hope you're gay bashed real soon . You don't deserve to live.

r430 wow, you really are angry.

The answer is love, people.

R430 Is a homophobe, get out from here

Hollywood Reporter: Wrinkle, which cost $103 million to make before marketing, is the first major miss domestically for the studio since The BFG and Alice Through the Looking Glass in 2016.

The diversity angle doesn't seem to be paying big dividends:

According to comScore/Screen Engine, Wrinkle's audience was 17 percent African-American. Caucasians made up the largest share of the audience (56 percent), followed by Hispanics (20 percent), Asians (5 percent) and Native American/other (3 percent). Nearly 60 percent of ticket buyers were female, while a hefty 57 percent were under the age of 25

Great, oprah will have to move oversea to try to sell this movie. Looks like it will have to be a full time job. Is she the ex producer?

I saw the movie yesterday.

The book is really a philosophy book, and it doesn't make sense on the screen.

Oprah is basically playing herself, spouting all the "Love yourself" stuff.

Is it in Ava's rider that she MUST be introduced as 'visionary director?'

She was on Van Jones' show last night and of course that was the introduction.

[r438] Pure Narcissism

R419, No, haven't seen it--it sounds all sorts of wrong. You just sounded so emphatic that I was wondering what things about were the worst.

R435, Interesting. Goes with neither DuVernay nor Oprah having read the book when they were younger. It's not a book black kids all know and love. Wrinkle in Time, in some ways, is a very WASPy book. Black audience went back for another round of Black Panther

If anything, Black Panther and Wrinkle in Time should tell Hollywood that movies with more diversity are fine, but stunt diversity casting is not. And being preached at really is not.

I never saw Frozen either bc I am a ADULT. But, kids love them some Olaf.

R428 that reviewer HATES it, lol!!

If you want to skip over the prelude he starts the actual review around six minutes in, and then trashes the movie for the next ten minutes.

[quote]According to comScore/Screen Engine, Wrinkle's audience was 17 percent African-American. Caucasians made up the largest share of the audience (56 percent), followed by Hispanics (20 percent), Asians (5 percent) and Native American/other (3 percent).

Why do Asians and Native Americans hate A Wrinkle in Time? Why can't they support a movie about diversity and love ❤️?

Well it is official. people who love Disney movies, do not like this one.

This was a Disney movie? Didnt look like it.

It sucks!

I enjoyed the movie alot. I just watched 2001 A Space Odyssey for the first time last week and Wrinkle felt similar. Very trippy and disorientating. It was a very weird movie.

But it felt refreshingly different from the ordinary movie. I’m surprised she would take such risks (the use of extreme close ups, the lack of cute fuzzy characters for the little kids, the refusal to explain the rules of almost anything that happens).

R447 It makes you mindful of 2001? It refuses to explain anything thta happens? That just sounds like shit storytelling That makes me never want to see a childrens film, that is reminiscent of 2001. Good job putting me off

R447 that’s a ridiculous comparison. You’re a troll for sure, trying to compare this shitfest to 2001. And it not giving answers isn’t a choice because in other parts of the film, it over explains or tells rather than shows. This movie is an incomprehensible mess

I hope this puts an end to Reese Witherspoon for a while. She is so over the top about everything and she's not fooling anyone with her #metoo bullshit while living her life up CAA's ass.

So, a film with frantic cutting and lots of close-ups is similar to a film known for extended, long shots. Okay . . .

R450, Ah, I like Reese, she's my favorite bitchy star. I don't really think she's responsible for this particular mess.

[[[Do you think Ava regrets turning down Black Panther to make this shit? She could have made history with Black Panther as the most successful black movie ever ]]]

Good bet she would have ruined that just like she ruined AWIT. Just saw BP. Didn't mind the "non-diverse" casting given that it was, after all, set in Africa about African characters, and though the cheesy crack about whitey they apparently just could not hold themselves back from including in the dialogue was upchuck-worthy, it was plain old fun, E-ticket, popcorn blockbuster. Very well-done acting-wise, casting-wise, script-wise, story wise. . . within the parameters of a comic-book blockbuster, that is. Akin to Wonder Woman last year. Didn't feel robbed that WW did not get a Best Picture nomination, feel the same goes for BP. The overblown overkill in some quarters about this film is mind-boggling,---already dreading the tantrums next year at Oscar time.

Marvel would not let her have creative control over black panther. She was never offer the black panther movie.

What is happening over at Disney right now? They must be PISSED.

It is hard for me to think of an actor whose work I have loved so much in the past ("Election") and whom I literally can't stand even to look at now. Reese really needs to go away and, for that alone, I am thankful for "A Wrinkle in Time". If it helps get her and her sickening voice away from me. We'll see.

I love the interview posted of her and others on one of these threads: "We're wearing black to support Times Up and pay equality, not just in our business but in all businesses..." (I alway want to add) "But ESPECIALLY in our business...," since you just know that is what the twit is thinking.

It's Disney's responsibility just as much as ADM. Who approved that mess of a script?

R452, I suspect BP will get a nomination just to keep the SJWs quiet. Won't win though. A well-made popcorn flick has its place--and that's what Wonder Woman was as well--I saw at a drive-in, which was just the venue for it.

You people are so angry, it wounds.

It reminds me of 2001 because they both delightfully weird and other worldly. Both movies approach storytelling in a similar way: the focus is on mood and theme over plot.

Wrinkle also reminds me of Tree of Life for this same reason. All three of these movies gave me the same feeling of leaving the ordinary movie behind, empathetic, floating in outspace, dream-like, and deliciously strange.

Comparing A Wrinkle in Time to Kubrick and Malick is more desperate than Ava retweeting all the positive notices about her flop.

R458 FFS it is a childrens film, how about thrills and chases and fun? A Kubrick/Mallick 'childrens' film would lead to mass suicides ya twerp

👁

If Mallick did this film, all the kids would be cut out and they would find out about it at the screening.

Malick would have gone completely off book. If you're mad at ava, you would be damn right pissed at malick.

R462 LMAO!

"Oprah is an overgrown, sparkly, Cookie- Monster" LOL

[quote]It is hard for me to think of an actor whose work I have loved so much in the past ("Election") and whom I literally can't stand even to look at now.

She was good in Election and even better in Freeway. Then she got big, and her true ambition revealed itself: to star in mindless big budget movies. I can’t say it’s a waste because I never liked her much to begin with, but whatever made her even marginally interesting evaporated long ago. At least she’s getting paid I guess.

There’s a conspiracy theory that Disney buried AWIT scene explaining the tesseract to protect the Marvel universe own version of it.

Another bad review from an angry white man who can’t handle strong women or black men being successful!

People on social media are really insufferable about this movie underperforming. As in, you can't say that its performance was a disappointment or subpar without people coming after you with DON'T PIT THE TOP 2 MOVIES AGAINST ONE ANOTHER!!!

It is totally accurate that Black Panther being #1 and AWIT being #2 is historical, but it's also true that AWIT opened below expectations.

Hollywood Reporter's Twitter was accused of racism all weekend just from reporting the numbers like they do every single weekend.

Another example is this Buzzfeed article:

[quote]Hollywood Reporter's Twitter was accused of racism all weekend just from reporting the numbers like they do every single weekend.

Who didn't see that coming from a mile away?

I'm tired of fantasy/superhero movies

"biggest opening of any other film to come out THIS MARCH." um, it came out in the FIRST WEEK OF THE MONTH.

How many legitimatedirectors re-tweet good reviews of their movies?

All directors and producers have to promote their movie. Please?

Hell, how many directors get think pieces written that are essentially excuses for why they fucked up? This is fucking ridiculous, and I say that as someone who wants more diversity in filmmaking. But that doesn't mean they should be rewarded just for being a black woman behind the camera, they should be rewarded for making a good fucking product. This whole 'you just don't get it' 'white people are jealous wah wah' and 'it's the PATRIACHY' bullshit people are pulling out of their assholes is embarrassing. Should minority filmmakers be excused from the same scrutiny the white guys get? I mean, what is the desired outcome here? To bully everyone with an opinion you don't like into silence?

But most of all - it helps literally NO ONE if you fail to admit somebody made some shitty product. Equality doesn't mean everyone kissing your ass - it means everyone should get their shot. Well, Ava got hers and it didn't work. It happens. Trying to bully everyone into agreeing it was actually totally genius is pathetic.

[quote]Equality doesn't mean everyone kissing your ass - it means everyone should get their shot.

Agree 100%. Equality should mean equal opportunities, and not equal results. Applied to everything in life, not just Hollywood.

another day, another tweet praising brave visionary Ava shared on her timeline.

I find that tweet pretty innocuous though.

I don't have a problem with Ava promoting her work. I don't have a problem with her liking and retweeting positive tweets.

I don't appreciate her insinuating that the film was made for children so adults don't have the capacity to accurately review the film. If that's the case, the same theory holds for adults that gave positive reviews.

I am irritated by her tweeting things like "You were the first Caucasian journalist to see it, understand it (Meg's insecurities about her hair)..." Does she have a giant scorecard where she's tracking the race of every reviewer, and categorizing their comments? What is the purpose of her remark - should other journalists have had the same experience? She could have effectively expressed appreciation for that journalist's perspectives without mentioning other Caucasian journalists and their "failure" to understand her messages.

Ava and Lin-Manuel!

Ava or Lin-Mauel? I wonder which of the two is the most obnoxious.

I want to see this movie. Mainly, to show it is just a movie (entertainment) and I want to get back at all those racist a-holes who are telling me not to see it. Though, I am concern this is the sign that fucked up oprah is looking for to run for president.

What should I do?

She’s been blocking people who tweet negative comments about AWIT. Don’t disturb her with negative vibes

R481 another racist rant to encourage you to see it

No amount of reparation praise is going to make people like the movie. Films are beloved and adorned on their merits; how it made people feel.

Let the debate rage on. Its legacy will unfold eventually.

With every Tweet it just becomes clearer that Ava didn't give a damn about the book except to appropriate it for her cause. Problem is it's not a book cherished by black people (cuz it's lily-white) and only a limited number of other people are interested in hearing an SJW lecture.

What got lost in all of this was actually making a good movie. Fortunately, I do think Hollywood's progressed enough that other black female directors will get a chance to prove themselves--and some of them will be bound to be better artists than DuVernay. Meanwhile, Black Panther really does make a difference--a huge blockbuster with a black cast. That will do way more for blacks in Hollywood than any number of lectures by Ava. Money talks.

I feel so bad for the little kid actors. Shut Up. Do not be a racist. Actually, I am starting to fell bad for Ava too.

I think people have tried to soft-peddle their criticism of the child actors, though it kind of comes out that their performances weren't great. So, I don't feel sorry for them, per se, but I also wish them luck in their careers.

Ava, on the other hand, deserves every bit of criticism she gets. She had the power here and she blew it.

Just like a bunch of white male directors for whom I also don't feel pity.

wow...just wow...

That is what is known as Failing Up (2018 TimesUp edition).

So direct a big movie flop = A list.

Why dc will never best marvel.

Look as it from child-you's POV when you watch it. They've had to condense so much into 109 minutes, and it's still absolutely made with kids in mind.

There are changes from the book, most which I didn't mind, one which I preferred the book's version.

I loved it. ❤️🙌🏼

Ultimately, just watch it and decide for yourself. Just remember--it was made for kids in mind. Enjoy yourself. <3

The problem is that the cast is not white. If they were white, it would be as good as the tv film of the book made about 15 years ago.

Given how DC has fared recently, I'd say hiring her seems just about right.

Well, at least with DC, expectations stay low.

R493, the TV version also sucked, though for different reasons--deadly dull--but it's less obnoxious because no one pretended that it was going to be a mind-blowing movie made by a Visionary (TM) director.

Wonder if the DC deal was signed before WiT was revealed to be godawful.

She makes Zach Snyder look like Kubrick.

Ava will soon be brought on to direct a new Stonewall movie, with Oprah starring as Marsha P Johnson.

A WRINKLE IN TIME tumbles 50% to 16m in week 2. Loses to a shitty Xian movie.

What do I know about this movie? Oprah and Reese and Mindy are in it. Some grandiose black woman directed it. Haven’t heard a goddamn word about the kids who are (I think?) the actual leads.

I truly believe that if these attention-whoring do-goody heifers hadn’t done all that obnoxious promotion, the move would have done better.

The sanctimonious director and great-aunts sucking all the air out of the room killed it.

R500, in other words, if it had been a different movie . . .

So, now it's simply a question of which is the bigger flop? WiT or Red Sparrow? I'm thinking Wrinkle--Red Sparrow's made about $40 million over three weeks with a $69 million budget--so, a flop, but it could potentially do okay foreign BO and do okay on streaming/DVD. WiT may do okay streaming, but has an overseas issue since the book's not known.

WiT--$100 million budget, brought in $60 million--wider release than RS and bigger marketing budget.

Re: Tomb Raiders--Alicia Vikander's a capable actress, but despite Harvey Weinstein's best efforts, she's not a star as far as box office appeal goes. People don't want her replacing peak Angelina .

I know it's a reach but maybe, just maybe, this will be a step back from all the bullshit tentpole franchise movies that keep being foisted on the public -- who are expected to go whether they are bad or not. I doubt we'll ever see the '70s again, pre "Jaws" and "Star Wars" (though both were great), when movies could be adult AND box office, not one or the other. But every time one of these pieces of shit bombs, it gives me some hope.

We really needed yet another "Tomb Raider"? This is why I only go see movies at Oscar season and, even then, they are free since I'm in the business.

(I bet Harvey and his track record is already looking better now too).

R501 WIT. Red Sparrow is actually doing okay overseas.

And why do people keep linking Vikander to Weinstein? Vikander's breakout roles were Ex Machina (A24), Testament of Youth (SPC), Man From U.N.C.L.E. (Warner) and Danish Girl (Focus Features). None of those had anything to do with Harvey. She did one movie with him - Tulip Fever - and it was a flop that was bounced all over the release schedule. Well, and Burnt, but she was barely in that.

Tomb Raider actually did really well overseas this weekend, enough that its poor domestic performance probably won't matter in the end.

My understanding is that they do remakes of the franchises because the studios lose their rights to a given franchise if they don't make a movie from it within a given time frame. So it's endless Spiderman remakes until a studio's convinced no one wants to see Spiderman ever again.

Disney execs have got to be pissed with Ava DuVernay for screwing up WiT, which, since it's the beginning of a series of books, had franchise possibilities.

R504, I thought Vikander was more linked to Miramax than that--my mistake. I'm not surprised to hear Red Sparrow is doing okay overseas. It just seems like a film that would. It seems to be one of those movies that didn't get great reviews, but is liked well enough by people who actually went to see it. (80 percent viewer approval on Google v. 42 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes.), whereas WiT is less liked by audiences than critics and the critics don't like it.

Whoa, you weren't kidding about the overseas markets--WiT--$3.2 million; while Red Sparrow's overseas haul gets its BO take to $66 million.

And, yes, Tomb Raiders is going gangbusters overseas over $100 million--so no end to franchising in sight.

r502 I agree with you. I would love to see more intelligent movies for adults year-round, instead of just a few crammed in at the end of the year.

Tomb Raider has already recovered its production budget. WiT is still at least 30 million away from breaking even with little promise in the way of international markets.

[quote]Disney execs have got to be pissed with Ava DuVernay

Why is it her fault when they were the ones who hired her?

R508 is completely wrong. People sound so stupid when they make ignorant posts like. Studios only get half of the earnings they make in the states and even less overseas. The theatres are not a charity. That does not even cover marketing expenses which were high for both movies, especially for AWIT. So neither movie, which has production budgets of $100 million, are sitting pretty critically or financially.

Although we may well be in the age of peak television, we are definitely in the day of doldrums film.

R509, because they hired her to make a movie that would make a profit and the reason it's not going to do so are largely because of choices that DuVernay made. This isn't a case of where the director made a good movie and the studio sliced it to hell--DuVernay seems to have had pretty free reign and this is the mess she produced.

And, no, it wasn't meant to be just a kid's movie. Just-for-kids-movies don't get $100 million budgets. It was supposed to be a family movie that adults would want to see.

[quote] Tomb Raider has already recovered its production budget. WiT is still at least 30 million away from breaking even with little promise in the way of international markets.

Agree w/ R510. I get so fucking tired of seeing posts like this from people who either don't know what the fuck they're talking about, or have seen the dozens and dozens of posts from others explaining how recoupment works and are willfully obstinate and refuse to listen. A five year old's logic will tell you that exhibitors don't show movies out of the goodness of their own hearts.

I don't know why they rebooted Tomb Raider. The second film Cradle of Life starring Angelina was a box office disappointment back in 2003. I just don't think there was enough demand.

I blame Jada.

Plus the movies - both of them - stunk. It had good elements and might have been great under a good director. I mean, how hard is it to fuck up a female Indiana Jones and a huge special effects budget? And they at least had the body type right then, with Angelina's padded bra.

Why should the theaters get 50% of a movie's earnings? That's grossly unfair. Black Panther made a billion dollars and the theaters get $500 million for doing nothing. My rinky dink rundown theater does not deserve those millions.

R517, knows nothing about business and how incredibly expensive it is to start and run one. These are not little popup joints. The overheard alone is bone crushing. Why do you think AMC stock was plummeting last year when ticket sales went down? Why do you think they hate Netflix? God, glace at the business section once in a blue moon.

My neighborhood little theater does not deserve $30 million just for showing A Wrinkle in Time. They can't even keep the floors clean or the popcorn hot!

It wasn't funny the first time, R519

[quote] Why should the theaters get 50% of a movie's earnings?

They don't. It's a sliding scale based on how long the movie plays in the theater. In the first few weeks when the theater may be packed, the movie company gets 75% to 80% of the ticket price. If the movie plays longer, the theater can finally get 45 to 50% of the ticket price, but at that point the attendance may be down or way down. The theaters really, really rely on overpriced concessions to make money.

(This info comes from a google search that turned up info from 2013.)

How can theaters only rely on concessions to make money when a blockbuster movie will net them millions? Sure there could be slow weeks, but once a Black Panther or Avengers comes along, they are set. Even getting 20% of $700 million is a lot.

[quote]Even getting 20% of $700 million is a lot.

Yes, but shared amongst thousands of theaters.

If they do a sequel, they can bring in a new director. They can also age up the Misses as in the book, so they can dump anyone that does not want to come back.

Next up. A visionary reboot of Giligans Island. Oprah IS SKIPPER

Gilligan - Riz Ahmed

Ginger - Laverne Cox

Mary Ann - Mindy Kaling

The Professor - Spike Lee

Mr. Howell - Michael Douglas

Mrs. Howell - Glenn Close

You don't do sequels to a movie no one went to see. There might be, down the line, another shot at Wrinkle--but it will be a different cast, different take, different universe.

Here is a more recent and easy to follow article about the movie and studio ticket split, which is 60%, at the most, for the studios. That 80% percent is some bullshit Google search.

[quote] which is 60%, at the most, for the studios.

But with this important aside for potential blockbuster films (like Black Panther?)-

[quote] That figure varies according to the usual supply and demand principles — an extremely hot first-run movie may start out with distribution fees up to 90 percent (in other words, 90 percent of the fees during that time are going back to the studio). As the film stays in distribution longer, the fees go down since demand goes down until eventually the theater replaces it with a different film

[quote] In aggregate across all films and all times, 60 percent is a reasonable estimate.

New moniker... former visionary now lousy filmmaker

Saw it and it's entertaining in a hate watch kind of way. Costumes and makeup are out of Ru Paul's drag race, very sparkly and hot gunned to death.

Each of the witches play into whatever biases you have Yes, Oprah is the size of giant and spouts New Age tropes. Mindy Kaling talks like a baby and showcases her obesity. She has some fixation on showing off her bare upper arms which are huge, and not in a bicep curl manner. I normally can't stand Reese Witherspoon but she reverts to her Legally Blonde persona, and even turns into a giant flying piece of kale.

Won't get into the horrible child actor who plays Charles Wallace. Now an adopted Filipino kid. Or the science that was in the book that's now Oprah's Super Soul conversation. There are worse ways to spend an afternoon.

r531 well, that makes we want to run out and see it now.

How is the 3D? Is it worth watching in 3D?

I felt claustrophobic with all the giant closeups in 2D. I can’t imagine what terror 3D would produce.

The excuse making for this catastrophe is vomit inducing. They didn’t hire Oprah, Reese, Mindy and Chris Pine for the kiddies. They were hired to bring the adults in.

Looking at the box office tallies, I was shocked to see The Greatest Showman has made $170 million. That's amazing. Nice to see a movie with legs that builds, unlike all those front-ended box office hits. Even Black Panther continues to have legs, being number one at the box office for 5 weeks.

A Wrinkle in Time will not have legs. A 50% drop is not a good sign for enduring box office.

Has Ava been fired from making that DC movie yet?

[quote]The excuse making for this catastrophe is vomit inducing. They didn’t hire Oprah, Reese, Mindy and Chris Pine for the kiddies. They were hired to bring the adults in.

How can the executives over at Disney's be this out of touch with reality?

R531, Well, Reese is a vegetarian. Otherwise she'd have been a flying piece of ham.

But I'm a visionary. America is too stupid to understand my movies.

[quote]Well, Reese is a vegetarian. Otherwise she'd have been a flying piece of ham.

Oprah got that role.

Actually I thought Oprah was pretty good in the movie. Yes, I saw it. For my sins. I thought it was pretty bad. I felt a little bad for the director at points, because the script was awful. It becomes downright incoherent for almost ten minutes when they get to Camazotz, and even at its best it was never more than serviceable. People talk about DuVernay not having a feel for the material, but that problem is rooted in the screenplay.

Not that DuVernay's direction is good. Her camerawork is weird, the editing is weird, she was not able to get good performances from the more, ah, talent-challenged members of the cast...the kid who played Charles Wallace was quite terrible and the older kids were just okay.

It's astounding that someone can be called a visionary when her imagination is the size of a 32" television screen.

But...but...but...what about diversity? Inclusion?

It was one of my favorite books as a kid, so I decided to reread it. I swear I had reread it as a young adult and thought it held up, but it is not as well written as I remembered. It is not bad and I am enjoying it, but some of the writing and dialogue is a little clunky and the characters more two dimensional. Maybe post-Harry Potter, the kid books that came before it seem a little more simple.

So who was the DP or the cinematographer--I wonder why no one warned DuVernay about the plethora of mega-close-ups. Or maybe they did . . .

R543 I just read this last week in preparation for the movie and it's awful in every sense. Stilted dialogue abounds, as do extremely vague descriptions, dated scientific explanations, a whiny main character, and a climax that's incredibly cliched even for its time. I honestly don't get what the big deal was with this book.

Yes R545- sadly I have to admit you are right. I loved it when I was ten or 11, and whenever I reread it (maybe 14 or 15)., but I am surprised at how whiny Meg is and annoying Charles is (although he might have bugged me even when I was ten). Even Calvin, who I suspect unknowingly had a crush on the first reading, comes off as not a real character.

R544 the original cinematographer was replaced and the commenter on twitter saying it was NOT an upgrade. I’d love to know the scoop on that.

So it's now officially a box office bomb?

Spring break is coming., two weeks of vacation. And all the little kiddies are going to demand to see A Wrinkle In Time!

now they are really getting to desperate to fill seats!

Interesting r550- they're taking a note from, "The Passion of the Christ" 's page (is that even the correct punctuation?).

I don't think this is going to work--that sort of thing only works if there's good word-of-mouth--and the best things I've heard about WiT is that it's enjoyably terrible instead of terrible-terrible.

I think Selma was a great movies with excellent performances. This may be a misfire for her but Ava will still work. She has talent.

Selma was salvaged in the editing room. Ava’s very odd camera angles were a stain on that one as well. And most professional actors don’t need a great deal of direction. The exception being fantasy characters like Wrinkle and child actors in anything. That’s why all the stars excepting Pine floundered. His role was the most ordinary.

r549 = Ava

I will have to watch Selma again as I thought it was pretty good! I mean she has to be responsible for some of its quality?

The book, which was bizarre and all over the place, would have been hard to make into a movie in any case. It looks like this attempt failed.

I'm waiting for the remake of "Gone With The Wind" with an all African-American cast. It could definitely happen.

I think an African American version of gone with the wind is a really good idea actually. Yes it’s a re-make of a classic but in the right hands could work. Purists would hate it though and you can understand that in a way. Who could play Vivien Leigh’s character?

Selma’s March scenes are the best thing in it but they also look straight out of Coke commercials

R556 she was responsible for turning LBJ from the 2nd most important president for civil rights into an opposition stance on it.

That one girl in white seems to be hit with the growth hormones. So awesome for Zandela to do this and give millions of these girls hope. Why doesn’t the so called Secretary of Education, who has millions of dollars do this? Screenings for all.

I liked Selma. I love Queen Sugar. I think Duvernay can be quite good with smaller, intimate stories and scenes. But spectacle is not her forté. Nothing wrong with that, not all directors are good at all kinds of films. Wrinkle in Time seems like an expensive lesson she and Hollywood would have learned from, but the fact that she's slated to direct New Gods means nobody's willing to admit the obvious.

I guess black film makers should not come up with original ideas. The black version of Annie is a lesson learned when the movie did not do well. If black panther a movie created for black people can do well it shows there is a need for authentic black stories not remakes of white movies with black faces.

R563 = contrarian

Hollywood has such a foul history of whitewashing movies. Roles meant to be portrayed by people of color were either made white or played by white actors in make-up to make them look like the ethnicity of their characters. Was anyone upset then? Renee Zellweger 's character in COLD MOUNTAIN was supposed to be a mixed race woman. THE LAST AIRBENDER primary leads were supposed to be non white, bit were made all white by the producers. HUD with Patricia Neal? Her character in Larry McMurtry's novel was a light skinned black maid. And what was this movie with Kevin Spacey about the math students who found a way to beat the casinos at their own game? Based on a true story??? All of them were Asian-Americans!! Did anyone complain? Some white people are just clueless, insensitive or just plain stupid when it comes to issues of race on film.

THE LAST AIRBENDER primary leads were supposed to be non white, bit were made all white by the producers. HUD with Patricia Neal? Her character in Larry McMurtry's novel was a light skinned black maid. And what was this movie with Kevin Spacey about the math students who found a way to beat the casinos at their own game? Based on a true story??? All of them were Asian-Americans!! Did anyone complain? Some white people are just clueless, insensitive or just plain stupid when it comes to issues of race on film.

I didn't know Dev Patel and Aasif Mandvi were white. You might want to let them know.

Do you really think that Hollywood in 1963, in a mainstream movie, was going to show sex between a white man and a black woman?

As for 21, please go out and find a financing entity that's going to fund a $35m movie (with $25m P&A) that stars six asians and Kevin Spacey. We'll wait.

R566, you are an ignorant piece of shit. So as long as a film makes money, it's okay to lie? Put white people in roles that were supposed to be Asian? Go kill your mother. She deserves the death penalty for giving birth to your funky ass.

R565, Actually plenty of people did complain about the whitewashing in several of those movies--you conveniently forgot Scarlett Johanssen in Ghost in the Shell--complaints about whitewashing and the lack of authenticity helped it tank.

It doesn't actually say in Cold Mountain what the Zellwegger chaaracter was, though I agree she's not lily-white. I read it and couldn't figure out if the character was part black or part Native American. It's definitely ambiguous.

I'd like to see less whitewashing and colorwashing, period. There are wonderful fantasy stories that feature non-white leads--those are the stories to make.

[quote] [R566], you are an ignorant piece of shit. So as long as a film makes money, it's okay to lie? Put white people in roles that were supposed to be Asian? Go kill your mother. She deserves the death penalty for giving birth to your funky ass.

You do know that 21 was based on the book Bringing Down the House, by Ben Mezrich, and that the book was a hybrid fiction/non-fiction accounting of the particular story you're screeching about, and that nearly all the characters in the book were white and only ONE of them was actually based on a single person?

No, you didn't. Because you get all your information from tweets and decide what to get outraged about from them. Asshole.

Only on Datalounge would a response in a thread about a movie version of a beloved YA novel start

YOU ARE AN IGNORANT PIECE OF SHIT

[quote]You do know that 21 was based on the book Bringing Down the House, by Ben Mezrich, and that the book was a hybrid fiction/non-fiction accounting of the particular story you're screeching about, and that nearly all the characters in the book were white

Oh, so this piece of shit author decided to whitewash the book and that's okay?!?

Oh, you're a troll. Never mind.

the stupidity of the "WHITEWASH!!" claims for some of these, like Ghost in the Shell, is that they were originally written/created in JAPAN where the majority are JAPANESE. It would be like complaining about a Japanese adaptation of West Side Story "yellow washing" by not hiring white actors.

Why was Ghost in the Shell "white washed"? Because in many markets, including China, a bankable star was required to get people in the seats. Didn't work out great, but hard to imagine the movie doing better with an unkown Asian lead.

Are you kidding? It would have been amazing with an Asian lead. All the fans of the anime and books would have gone to see it. It would have created a star too much like Harry Potter and Hunger Games created Daniel Rattcliffe and Jennifer Gardner. But all the fans refused to see it because it was unauthentic and it bombed.

I think Ghost in the Shell needed to be more than an American adaptation of a Japanese anime to have worked. The adaptation tried to have it both ways, which made the whitewashing an issue. Very different from The Ring, which was also an Americanized version of a Japanese film, but the story was changed enough that the casting wasn't an issue. ScarJo needed to not be called Major Kusanagi.

I was *certain* that the #metoo movement was proof that Hollywood had fixed all it's social injustices, and could return to lecturing me about my values and beliefs. I am paralyzed to learn that this isn't the case. Where, oh where, can I find my moral guidepost?

And for most of 2017's Ghost in the Shell, she is NOT called Major Kusanagi but Major Mira Killian, R575. To the film's credit, she starts out as an ethnic Japanese and is *literally* whitewashed into a caucasian. Yes, it is having your cake and eating it too, but I give them credit for trying to do something interesting with it. The filmmakers didn't have to set it in Japan, they could have switched it to New York as the long-aborning Akira live-action film did, and just forget about her being Japanese. Instead, the image of caucasian beauty represented by Johanssen is turned on its head, becoming symbolic of encroaching anglo-saxon standards of beauty and identity and the consequent degradation of other ethnicities. It's actually the only really interesting part of the film. The real problem with the live-action GITS is the implementing of the Robocop-style "We Remade You" story element, and the positioning of the Major as the first of her kind, thereby eliminating everything special about the original storyline.

[quote]Where, oh where, can I find my moral guidepost?

I am here to make your moral guidepost great again!

Fair enough R577, but my point about GITS is that, yes, indeed, there are complaints about whitewashing. Personally, I gave it a shrug because the Japanese, themselves, didn't give a damn. They figured that an American adaptation would feature American actors. It was really one of those SJW things along with Asian-American actors who do, indeed, tend to not have a high profile in Hollywood.

Made $8m in its third week and is losing screens. It's at $73m. It won't get to $100m domestic.

I’m astonished how many articles are still being written about it. Ava and Oprah cashing in those IOUs

The new talking point is it’s the biggest box office take for a black female director. Topping the Herbie the Love Bug remake. Not how much it will lose overall

Well can't say they didn't try their hardest to make this movie happen. But with Ready Player One being released this week, another Christian movie next week, then the John Cena comedy, followed by The Rock's monster movie, then Super Troopers 2 (so excited), and finally the new Avengers. It's going to get real busy at the movies, and AWIT will be forgotten, and people finally won't be afraid to call it a flop.

Third weekend for WIT dropped down to 8 million down nearly 50 percent from the week before, which was down 50 percent from the week before that. That's called sinking like a stone. Not doing well overseas, either.

Red Sparrow, meanwhile, has hit $120 million, with $76 million coming from overseas. It's made less money domestically than WiT, but the difference in overseas BO more than makes up for it. WiT still has yet to break $100 million (It's at $88 million), so it's still not making back its production costs, let alone anything spent on marketing.

Tomb Raider's another one making overseas bank while having a mediocre performance domestically--it's pulled in $211 million total, but only $41 million domestically.

So, JLaw and Alicia Vikander still have careers, Ava, on the other hand, needs that DC film to make bank if she's going to work on big films. Honestly, I think she'll end up in television/Netflix/Amazon.

The level of desperation people are sinking to in order to make this sound like it's a hit is just unreal.

Gotta love people in the thread pointing out basic facts and then being shot down.

IT WAS stupid to scrub the movie of the Christian content in the book. The book’s most ardent fans now don’t want to see the movie because it looks like it disrespected the source material.

Unfortunately they gave Ava the reins too soon. I did not see any great vision from her in her previous work so I was surprised that she was given a film of this magnitude. This kind of thing is not her wheelhouse, Queen Sugar is very good, at least the first season was. Stick to TV Ava quit reaching beyond your what you are good at.

Between what Ava did to Selma’s screenwriter and then to AWIT, she clearly doesn’t respect writers and I’m surprised she can get any to work with her. The one that is writing the New Gods hasn’t sold anything in 10 years or so.

Did she do anything to the AWIT script? Because there have been complaints that the script is terrible--and wonder why that is.

I wonder if AWIT is a big enough flop to get "What went wrong" piece somewhere.

Not sure why anyone thought DuVernay would be a good choice for a fantasy film--I don't think any of her previous work indicates a style or interest in that genre.

Well, I wouldn't have gone to see it anyway(s).

They should have gotten the Juno chick to write it.

Unfortunately, the Asian countries don't really care to watch films with black actors, and they are now the biggest consumers of American films. It's not right, but that's just the way it is.

Hilarious that Team Ava's new talking point is that this film is a huge success because it beat 2005's HERBIE FULLY LOADED!

Excuse me, r592?

Yeah, they're making such a big deal about it being the biggest grossing film from a black woman director. Wow, of all five of them?!

R592 That's actually completely untrue if you do some simple Google research. Movies with black leads do fair or do extremely well in Asia: The Karate Kid (2010), Black Panther, Think Like A Man, Girls Trip just to name a few. Out of all the Asian countries South Korea, Thailand, and Japan really soak it up. China is a hit and a miss while India, they tend to not do good at all.

I never read the book but way past halfway in the movie, I thought that Charles Watson-Wallace-Whomever was the main character. After the three Missuses left the in the middle of the movie, when the brainy chick was on her own, boy, did someone need to bring in a rewrite. There was no tie in to the little girl's mathematical "brilliance" and what actually happened. Did she figure out the Matrix of the It? So retarded. No CGI could make me see it.

The litany of Earthly warriors was kinda lame. If they were such great warriors, why didn't THEY come back to Earth? Certainly It threatened them as well?

But I feel the same way about AWIT and BP as I do about Neil Degrasse Tyson; there should be more of them.

In the book, Meg is mathematically talented (and bad at the humanities), but she's not portrayed as a genius--but lopsided. She's in the slow lanes at school and her mathematical abilities are just one more thing that make her a misfit. She doesn't solve things. Charles Wallace is taken by IT midway through the book and should disappear as a character. The Missus are guides, but supporting rather than main characters. It's very much Meg's story and, in the books, she's a sympathetic, more than likeable character--which is part of the book's big draw. Meg's imperfect the way real girls are--she's moody, she complains, blames--it's actually a good portrait of an adolescent--which is another issue with the film, they seemed to have aged down Meg a couple of years and there's less of Meg's teen moodiness as a result. Makes for a less dynamic main character.

Ava was probably expecting to make all the books into movies and have her own Harry Potter franchise to milk. Looks like that's shot to hell!

Even Chris Pine couldn't get me to watch this movie, and I would normally watch him in anything.