A Wrinkle in Time is taking a beating in early reviews.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Casting the best person for the character is not "political." Casting a person for any other reason than they are best suited for the character is "political."
But who would know? A director casts who they want because "best" is up to them. There is simply no way to decide if it is political or not. A director has a vision. If the vision is for the lead to be a minority, you screen minorities. If the vision is ambiguous, you screen anyone that meets the requirements. If it's for a white kid, maybe that's all you screen.

It's a dang movie. If we all sat through Jack Mathew Lloyd as Annakin Skywalker I think we can agree that, especially with kids, "best" isn't easy to decide on. Sometimes I think a cardboard cut out or a muppet would have been better than what came "best" in that role.
 
Those must have been the days before we had thousands of websites and networks who bent over backward to preach to their constituency in the interest of gaining clicks, views and shares. I don't find movies to be any more political today than they were decades ago. What has changed is that anyone who wishes to politicize such things by applying their left/right-leaning slant now has a soapbox on which to do it, financial incentives and a flock of waiting followers.
That's true to a large degree, but in the case of this film the genesis of the "filter" that people are applying to the film came from some of those directly involved with the creation of the film... others have only taken that ball and ran with it.
 
Maybe I live in a box but I don't personally know 1 single individual who will not see a movie because of color or gender of the actors. Hollywood is the ones making the big deal out of everything. Average folks like us just want to spend honest money on a good movie. But to be honest, I didn't know the Oscars was all white till a big deal was made about it because I refuse to watch crappy award shows.

See, I have had discussions with other people, people who are part of a minority group - vs me, a straight, white, male - and they do notice when casts are more diverse and are more likely to support it. I think when it is something that impacts you and you now can see a reflection of yourself on screen it is meaningful and to a much greater degree than to those that aren't in that position can understand
 
See, I have had discussions with other people, people who are part of a minority group - vs me, a straight, white, male - and they do notice when casts are more diverse and are more likely to support it. I think when it is something that impacts you and you now can see a reflection of yourself on screen it is meaningful and to a much greater degree than to those that aren't in that position can understand
I definitely agree on this. I've had several minority friends and acquaintances that have seen Black Panther 3 or more times. All expressed something along the lines of they weren't sure when they would get to see a major tentpole movie, with a cast almost completely reflective of them, again. I kind of laughed and said that with the success there is no way a sequel won't happen, to which they all agreed but the point seems pretty fair. To me, I enjoyed Black Panther but not fanatically so. I'll probably stream it again someday, but I certainly am not paying for another ticket.

I'm not going to begrudge them for feeling this way. And I certainly don't have their experience. If I had a tween daughter (instead of an 8 year old), I'd probably take her to Wrinkle. I have no idea if I had a minority or mixed race family if I would run out to see it just to see it. But since I don't have those experiences, and I am a straight, white guy married to a white woman with a daughter and 2 sons, I'll stand by my original statement.

For me, it's about entertainment. Wrinkle doesn't seem worth it, Black Panther was. Neither because or in spite of the casting decisions (although I would have boycotted a Black Panther movie with a white guy in the lead because that would have been wrong. Really, really wrong. Epically wrong.)
 


Wow. y'all have a broad definition of "political." It's a movie. Of an iconic book. How is the ethnicity of the actors "political"?

I don't see it as the movie itself being political - more the director choice and then the choice for actors and just being so diverse ... AND then pushing that aspect in the promotion of the movie and highlighting these facts (like that this is the largest budget a black female director has ever had, etc.)

And therefore if the movie fails at the box office it will lessen other studios willingness to repeat this and give such a budget out like this again and if it does well it will support that is provide more opportunities. So the fact some people are going to see it (and some articles are pushing people to see it) for the color of the skin of the actors, I think gives the whole thing a political (or "cause") angle to it - more than the film itself
 
I didn't think Black Panther was all that political except for the motivations of the main villain (which he seems to have borrowed from his father), which the heroes were like, we can't let that happen. I'm talking about the movie itself and not the buzz around the movie or the personal politics of the people who are responsible for the movie.
 


I adore the books, but the trailers for the movie just make it look like they tried to make it a kid's movie (which is what the reviews seem to be saying). Less about trying to actually bring the book to life, and more about trying to make cool 3D effects and stuff like that. I'm so over super CGI films that I didn't even like Guardians of the Galaxy (shields self from tomatoes). I'll probably watch it on Redbox, but after seeing the trailers I had no interest in forking over $20+ to see it in theaters. Nowadays I actually hope they DON'T make my favorite books into movies, because they rarely do them justice anymore.
 
I didn't think Black Panther was all that political except for the motivations of the main villain (which he seems to have borrowed from his father), which the heroes were like, we can't let that happen. I'm talking about the movie itself and not the buzz around the movie or the personal politics of the people who are responsible for the movie.

well, the character of Black Panther in the comics, dating back to when Stan Lee and Jack Kirby created him was very political - just the idea of a black man that is smarter, richer, more technologically advance than western/"white" society was pretty shocking and bold at the time. So it is almost impossible to have a Black Panther movie that doesn't carry some political aspect to it

Then throw in the whole topic around welcoming refuges and "building bridges rather than putting up walls" and you are covering some topics that are very political in today's America - so I did see a number of political angles to Black Panther
 
well, the character of Black Panther in the comics, dating back to when Stan Lee and Jack Kirby created him was very political - just the idea of a black man that is smarter, richer, more technologically advance than western/"white" society was pretty shocking and bold at the time. So it is almost impossible to have a Black Panther movie that doesn't carry some political aspect to it

Then throw in the whole topic around welcoming refuges and "building bridges rather than putting up walls" and you are covering some topics that are very political in today's America - so I did see a number of political angles to Black Panther

Interestingly, the actual political message in the Black Panther movie was probably not what a lot of those who made the movie political would probably agree with. Killmonger was the bad guy after all! I found the movie to be very even handed in those regards though.
 
Interestingly, the actual political message in the Black Panther movie was probably not what a lot of those who made the movie political would probably agree with. Killmonger was the bad guy after all! I found the movie to be very even handed in those regards though.
One of the most sympathetic bad guys I can remember. Killmonger has legitimate complaints and causes and really is a "bad guy" based on methods, not necessarily ideas, as the movie's conclusion demonstrates. Killmonger is one of the more clever parts of Black Panther. The stereotypical bad guy is really Klaw.
 
When the base unit in the film is a family, and that family has four distinct ethnic groups, and the story line has to change to allow the "new" family group to fit the narrative, then the casting decisions that were obviously politically based ruin the film. When attempts to be inclusive override the story, then the film has become too political. Especially when these casting and story challenges affect the outcome by disrupting the flow of the tale.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/07/a-wrinkle-in-time-is-a-disastrous-adaptation-of-lengles-book/
 
One of the most sympathetic bad guys I can remember. Killmonger has legitimate complaints and causes and really is a "bad guy" based on methods, not necessarily ideas, as the movie's conclusion demonstrates. Killmonger is one of the more clever parts of Black Panther. The stereotypical bad guy is really Klaw.

He's not really that sympathetic and his ideas are pretty out there. He didn't want to use the Wakandan tech in a positive way, but rather lead an armed uprising with himself as the warlord. That is quite different from the tact T'Challa takes at the end. Certainly T'Chaka is treated as a wise king and his views were quite different on the matter. The movie is very even-handed in presenting the various points of view, on refugees, etc., without presenting one is "right" which of course is not going to sit well with some who feel that there is a correct side. There have already been a few articles about this aspect of the film.
 
He's not really that sympathetic and his ideas are pretty out there. He didn't want to use the Wakandan tech in a positive way, but rather lead an armed uprising with himself as the warlord. That is quite different from the tact T'Challa takes at the end. Certainly T'Chaka is treated as a wise king and his views were quite different on the matter. The movie is very even-handed in presenting the various points of view, on refugees, etc., without presenting one is "right" which of course is not going to sit well with some who feel that there is a correct side. There have already been a few articles about this aspect of the film.
Yes. And I don't want to get into it here because I don't want to put up spoilers for anyone who might not have seen it yet, but I certainly see him as more sympathetic than you do, but I do fully agree he is a villain and his methods are intended to be pretty extreme and generally unrealistic. But he is a much more nuanced and valid villain, in my mind, than the general Hydra bad guys we've gotten in the rest of the MCU. Killmonger certainly has reason to be angry and to act the way he does and worked hard to develop the skills to attempt what he attempts.
 
Yes. And I don't want to get into it here because I don't want to put up spoilers for anyone who might not have seen it yet, but I certainly see him as more sympathetic than you do, but I do fully agree he is a villain and his methods are intended to be pretty extreme and generally unrealistic. But he is a much more nuanced and valid villain, in my mind, than the general Hydra bad guys we've gotten in the rest of the MCU. Killmonger certainly has reason to be angry and to act the way he does and worked hard to develop the skills to attempt what he attempts.

I think that to me, having a tragic backstory does not justify ones actions or make me sympathetic. I think he was a great, fleshed out character though, but I don't agree with any of his attitudes or methods.
 
I think that to me, having a tragic backstory does not justify ones actions or make me sympathetic. I think he was a great, fleshed out character though, but I don't agree with any of his attitudes or methods.

You aren't supposed to agree with his methods, but his point that Wakanda's isolation has been/is harmful (which Nakia was also telling T'Challa) was valid.
 
You aren't supposed to agree with his methods, but his point that Wakanda's isolation has been/is harmful (which Nakia was also telling T'Challa) was valid.

and in some ways, the whole conflict was ultimately led to T'Challa changing his attitude, etc. and could prompt the question: "do the end results justify the means?"
 
See, I have had discussions with other people, people who are part of a minority group - vs me, a straight, white, male - and they do notice when casts are more diverse and are more likely to support it. I think when it is something that impacts you and you now can see a reflection of yourself on screen it is meaningful and to a much greater degree than to those that aren't in that position can understand

Thank you for recognizing this!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!











Top