Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gizmodo)   "A Wrinkle in Time" trailer drops and looks gorgeous   ( io9.gizmodo.com) divider line
    More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

3681 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 20 Nov 2017 at 2:37 AM (9 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



62 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-11-20 01:16:36 AM  
It's too cerebral and thought-provoking.

Needs more car chases and explosions.
 
2017-11-20 01:28:59 AM  
That does look wonderful.

I hope it's a faithful adaption.

It's Disney, so you never can tell.
 
2017-11-20 01:44:58 AM  
Doesn't Meg meet the witches before she goes hopping around in space and time in the book though?
 
2017-11-20 01:53:00 AM  
Lets hope it works better than the first mini series version.
Which sucked .

The problem with bringing the book to screen is that it's complicated. Lots of twisty time and 'you must pay attention to this plot point' thing.

Nothing really blows up...and it's more a internal journey of subtle narrative points....l

It's going to have be one hella of a script to make that work in a 2 hour movie.
 
2017-11-20 02:17:04 AM  
So, it has come to this... Zach Galifianakis and Oprah Winfrey are in a movie together. Pretty sure that's one of the signs of the apocalypse.
 
2017-11-20 02:55:05 AM  
i0.kym-cdn.comView Full Size
 
2017-11-20 03:18:16 AM  
It stinks of Disney...
 
2017-11-20 03:25:37 AM  
If this can be made into a movie, than it is time to make a movie (faithfully following the source material) of Time and Again.  There have been a few attempts to get that going, but they never went very far.  In an age when hundreds of millions are spent on superhero movies, why can't we finally have an attempt to put this book on the screen?
 
2017-11-20 03:47:39 AM  
It reminds me of South Park's Imaginationland episodes. But for kiddies.
 
2017-11-20 05:27:52 AM  

optikeye: Lets hope it works better than the first mini series version.
Which sucked .

The problem with bringing the book to screen is that it's complicated. Lots of twisty time and 'you must pay attention to this plot point' thing.

Nothing really blows up...and it's more a internal journey of subtle narrative points....l

It's going to have be one hella of a script to make that work in a 2 hour movie.


Madelen L'Engle trades in sentimentality and religious metaphor masked in the illusion of semi-scientific concepts.  Kind of like CS Lewis but with more maudlin pretension.   Fans may appreciate how closely or not the film hews to the book but the fact of the matter is there's no more subtletly here than in any average episode of Dr. Who or an "I believe in Angels" bumper sticker.
 
2017-11-20 06:39:44 AM  

bonobo73: optikeye: Lets hope it works better than the first mini series version.
Which sucked .

The problem with bringing the book to screen is that it's complicated. Lots of twisty time and 'you must pay attention to this plot point' thing.

Nothing really blows up...and it's more a internal journey of subtle narrative points....l

It's going to have be one hella of a script to make that work in a 2 hour movie.

Madelen L'Engle trades in sentimentality and religious metaphor masked in the illusion of semi-scientific concepts.  Kind of like CS Lewis but with more maudlin pretension.   Fans may appreciate how closely or not the film hews to the book but the fact of the matter is there's no more subtletly here than in any average episode of Dr. Who or an "I believe in Angels" bumper sticker.


Edgy, very edgy.

Do you ever enjoy a cathedral, panting out of breath to race the steps with your love before the tour group catches up to you to share an illicit kiss at the tower top?

Ever go Carolling with a bunch of atheists you love? Or follow behind a Via Cruz or Novena?

Don't throw the baby out with the (nasty, genocidal) religious bath water.

I'm hard boiled, rarified vacuum atheist, sci fi junky since before I could swim. I'm not happy about Disney being in charge, but if they don't fark it up, I'll enjoy her pretension and leave my godlessness at the door along with my disbelief to partake.

Or just download it and watch it on laptop.

BTW this is my Boobies, first decent connection since Cat 5s Maria and Irma. The preview was a delight

¡Puerto Rico se levanta. Pa'lante !
 
2017-11-20 06:55:29 AM  
Her pseudo scientific writing with a religious bent might be interesting for 16 year olds, but that's about it.
 
2017-11-20 07:19:44 AM  
Huh.

I remember reading as a kid and not thinking highly of it.  Honestly, I can't even recall the plot now.

Suppose I should give it another try.
 
2017-11-20 07:37:18 AM  

ArcadianRefugee: Huh.

I remember reading as a kid and not thinking highly of it.  Honestly, I can't even recall the plot now.

Suppose I should give it another try.


Are you me? Came here to say exactly this. I know I read it but can't remember a damn thing about it now.
Anyways, the movie looks good and since I tend not to overthink...well...anything, I'll probably miss all the pseudo-religiousy stuff!
 
2017-11-20 07:47:41 AM  

Negative! I am a Meat Popsicle!: ArcadianRefugee: Huh.

I remember reading as a kid and not thinking highly of it.  Honestly, I can't even recall the plot now.

Suppose I should give it another try.

Are you me? Came here to say exactly this. I know I read it but can't remember a damn thing about it now.
Anyways, the movie looks good and since I tend not to overthink...well...anything, I'll probably miss all the pseudo-religiousy stuff!


There's nothing 'pseudo' about it, at least not in the books.  It's explicit.

Doesn't stop it from being a good junior/middle-years sci-fi novel though.
 
2017-11-20 07:59:46 AM  

Kurohone: Negative! I am a Meat Popsicle!: ArcadianRefugee: Huh.

I remember reading as a kid and not thinking highly of it.  Honestly, I can't even recall the plot now.

Suppose I should give it another try.

Are you me? Came here to say exactly this. I know I read it but can't remember a damn thing about it now.
Anyways, the movie looks good and since I tend not to overthink...well...anything, I'll probably miss all the pseudo-religiousy stuff!

There's nothing 'pseudo' about it, at least not in the books.  It's explicit.

Doesn't stop it from being a good junior/middle-years sci-fi novel though.


I suspect they will treat the religiousness of the books in pretty much the same way the did with Narnia.  Obliquely, and with more of a focus on the fantasy elements.  It's a movie.  It's not meant to be a strict retelling of the book, nor does it need to be in order to be entertaining.  I'm one of the few who actually think the LOTR movies were BETTER than the books by having left out all the unnecessary subplots and hobbit songs.
 
2017-11-20 08:01:37 AM  
Meh.  CGI can make any trailer look amazing.
 
2017-11-20 08:07:37 AM  
My son is pretty excited about this. I hope this is not a let-down like The Golden Compass was.
Kid has already learned that sometimes, not only is the book better than the movie, but sometimes the movie is just no darn good at telling the story at all.
 
2017-11-20 08:08:29 AM  
I liked the book as a kid, but this looks terrible.  It reeks of Oprah's quasi-inspirational bullshiat.  Also, where did all of this "Be a Warrior" nonsense come from?  I don't remember it from the book, but it's mentioned by Oprah multiple times just in the trailer and they even made it the tagline of the movie.  It just doesn't fit the tone of the book.
 
amb
2017-11-20 08:15:08 AM  
Wait til they find out the Tesseract is on Asgard.
 
2017-11-20 08:40:12 AM  

bigfatbuddhist: It stinks of Disney...


It's another CGI shiatfest, but it's got a "distinguished" cast and no car chases, so it gets a pass.
 
2017-11-20 08:48:39 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-11-20 08:49:50 AM  
I loved that book and hope the movie can remain faithful to the source material.
 
2017-11-20 08:52:45 AM  

ArcadianRefugee: Huh.

I remember reading as a kid and not thinking highly of it.  Honestly, I can't even recall the plot now.

Suppose I should give it another try.


It's another "love conquers all" book.
 
2017-11-20 08:55:27 AM  
I don't remember much about this book, but I remember really liking the ball bouncing scene and imagining the witches looking...more distinct from each other. Different heights, weights, less conventionally attractive faces (maybe even wrinkles). Eh, Hollywood.

Looks a little generic blockbuster children's fantasy, but so did the trailer for Bridge to Terebithia and that was apparently faithful enough (remembered enough of that book, at least). Might check this out, contingent on my wife's opinion-the series was one of her favorites as a kid. Then again, The Giver was one of mine and I still haven't bothered seeing the film.

/nobody fark with The Westing Game
 
2017-11-20 09:07:50 AM  
Looks interesting enough to go see.
 
2017-11-20 09:16:47 AM  

HedlessChickn: I hope it's a faithful adaption.

It's Disney, so you never can tell.


It's Disney, so you can definitely tell it won't be anything remotely like a faithful adaptation.
 
2017-11-20 09:19:45 AM  

Xyzzyka: I don't remember much about this book, but I remember really liking the ball bouncing scene and imagining the witches looking...more distinct from each other. Different heights, weights, less conventionally attractive faces (maybe even wrinkles). Eh, Hollywood.

Looks a little generic blockbuster children's fantasy, but so did the trailer for Bridge to Terebithia and that was apparently faithful enough (remembered enough of that book, at least). Might check this out, contingent on my wife's opinion-the series was one of her favorites as a kid. Then again, The Giver was one of mine and I still haven't bothered seeing the film.

/nobody fark with The Westing Game


There was already an ok low budget adaptation in the 90's. I wouldn't complain about a newer version as long as it's faithful to the book.

Get A Clue (Westing Game) 1997 Trailer
Youtube tv23hYgCNOk
 
2017-11-20 09:24:57 AM  

bigfatbuddhist: It stinks of Disney...


How many studios, distribution companies, or whatever those half-dozen or so logos that appear at the beginning of every movie belong to Disney?  Is there a "brand" I can look for if I want to find a movie that does not reek of Disney?

/Always on the lookout for illegal, non-Disney versions of studio Ghibli movies
 
2017-11-20 09:28:49 AM  

HedlessChickn: That does look wonderful.

I hope it's a faithful adaption.

It's Disney, so you never can tell.


Well, it's about as faithful as if they did the Harry Potter movies by setting them in Miami.

The cast is good, even great, but the CGI and the unnecessary setting change will ruin it.
 
2017-11-20 09:35:10 AM  
ummmmmmmm where's the pegasus-centaur-guy???
 
2017-11-20 09:37:59 AM  
Probably my favorite series when I was about 10.  Looks great.  I can't really say I remember the details of the series well enough to be critical of it though.  I wonder how they do the 2-dimensional world in the movie.
 
2017-11-20 09:52:04 AM  

CanuckInCA: Probably my favorite series when I was about 10.  Looks great.  I can't really say I remember the details of the series well enough to be critical of it though.  I wonder how they do the 2-dimensional world in the movie.


The 2-dimensional world was a brief "wrong turn" as they were tessering to somewhere else; leaving it out would be no great tragedy.
 
2017-11-20 09:57:25 AM  
I don't know.  Movie adaptations are never going to look like the pictures you had in your head of the book, but part of what I liked about the book was that the most bizarro things seemed fairly ordinary on the surface and were thus fairly plausible to my little-kid mind.
 
2017-11-20 10:01:03 AM  
Also, Meg was supposed to be going through her "awkward stage" in the book, which also made it appealing.  She was funny-looking and ungainly, yet still managed to be a hero.  The kid playing her in the movie is so beautiful and poised I can't imagine kids her age relating to her.
 
2017-11-20 10:28:24 AM  

ThurmanMerman: Also, Meg was supposed to be going through her "awkward stage" in the book, which also made it appealing.  She was funny-looking and ungainly, yet still managed to be a hero.  The kid playing her in the movie is so beautiful and poised I can't imagine kids her age relating to her.


This. Meg is supposed to be mousy at best. There's nothing mousy about the girl playing her. I understand Hollywood's going to Hollywood, but Meg looking that polished and pretty feels like a larger deviation from this story than it would in other stories.
 
2017-11-20 10:30:50 AM  

Count_Crackula: ThurmanMerman: Also, Meg was supposed to be going through her "awkward stage" in the book, which also made it appealing.  She was funny-looking and ungainly, yet still managed to be a hero.  The kid playing her in the movie is so beautiful and poised I can't imagine kids her age relating to her.

This. Meg is supposed to be mousy at best. There's nothing mousy about the girl playing her. I understand Hollywood's going to Hollywood, but Meg looking that polished and pretty feels like a larger deviation from this story than it would in other stories.


That's a costuming and makeup failure, more than the selection of actress. They really could have the look done right, instead it has to be the mastubatory vision of overwrought artistes.
 
2017-11-20 10:42:03 AM  

ArcadianRefugee: Huh.
I remember reading as a kid and not thinking highly of it.  Honestly, I can't even recall the plot now.
Suppose I should give it another try.


If you didn't like it as a kid, don't think of reading it now.  Critics aren't kidding about the wispy religious bits, and there is nothing else to the book.
/loved "Arm of the Starfish", at the time I didn't know it was the same author
 
2017-11-20 10:43:09 AM  

yohohogreengiant: bonobo73: optikeye: Lets hope it works better than the first mini series version.
Which sucked .

The problem with bringing the book to screen is that it's complicated. Lots of twisty time and 'you must pay attention to this plot point' thing.

Nothing really blows up...and it's more a internal journey of subtle narrative points....l

It's going to have be one hella of a script to make that work in a 2 hour movie.

Madelen L'Engle trades in sentimentality and religious metaphor masked in the illusion of semi-scientific concepts.  Kind of like CS Lewis but with more maudlin pretension.   Fans may appreciate how closely or not the film hews to the book but the fact of the matter is there's no more subtletly here than in any average episode of Dr. Who or an "I believe in Angels" bumper sticker.

Edgy, very edgy.

Do you ever enjoy a cathedral, panting out of breath to race the steps with your love before the tour group catches up to you to share an illicit kiss at the tower top?

Ever go Carolling with a bunch of atheists you love? Or follow behind a Via Cruz or Novena?

Don't throw the baby out with the (nasty, genocidal) religious bath water.

I'm hard boiled, rarified vacuum atheist, sci fi junky since before I could swim. I'm not happy about Disney being in charge, but if they don't fark it up, I'll enjoy her pretension and leave my godlessness at the door along with my disbelief to partake.

Or just download it and watch it on laptop.

BTW this is my Boobies, first decent connection since Cat 5s Maria and Irma. The preview was a delight

¡Puerto Rico se levanta. Pa'lante !


Welcome back!
 
2017-11-20 10:45:25 AM  
It looks like Transformers....
Jumpcuts, CG over CG over green screen, entirely too busy scenes, and my god the casting..
Seriously, those three for the witches? How trite...
And Meg is adorable, but she wasn't. She was awkward and mousy and a completely socially inept pre-teen.

And Calvin looks like Generic Love Interest White Guy.

Kids will like it, maybe.
I'm very rarely one to complain about book-to-screen-adaptation differences (usually, a new interpretation is good, like Dune), but this looks impossibly overwrought.
 
2017-11-20 10:46:52 AM  
I listened to this a few months ago as part of my "read/listen to top 100 sci-fi books" project. I found it charming.
 
2017-11-20 10:53:08 AM  

youre killing independent george: And Meg is adorable, but she wasn't. She was awkward and mousy and a completely socially inept pre-teen.


The story is told from Meg's point of view. Of course she was adorable, but she THOUGHT she was completely mousy and inept. Sound like any teenagers you've ever met?
 
2017-11-20 11:00:16 AM  

flondrix: Is there a "brand" I can look for if I want to find a movie that does not reek of Disney?


Miramax?

/Too soon
//They reek as well, just not of Disney
 
2017-11-20 11:23:52 AM  
POTENTIAL SPOILERS AHEAD


Being a big fan of the book, and having read it many times over the years, this looks like utter shiat and the only scene that is close to the book is the "ball bouncing in unison" one. Disney has done shiat like this before (they really farked up Lloyd Alexander's The Black Cauldron). This looks on the same level of "throw out the book entirely" as what the SciFi network did with their adaptation (snort, right) of Ursula LeGuinn's Earthsea series. The thing is, A Wrinkle In Time is a fairly low key story. Other than tessering and their encounter with the IT, especially when Meg goes back to get Charles Wallace (in the book IT is described as a giant brain), it's more about talking, plotting, etc. I suppose the meeting with the Happy Medium and when Meg is cured by Aunt Beast could also be viewed as "action" set pieces, but I dunno....this just looks all flash and no substance. Also, the three Mrs (Who, Which, Whatsit) don't look ANYTHING as they are described.

I really hate when this happens to favorite books of mine.
 
2017-11-20 11:52:06 AM  
AWIT is the first 'real' book I remember reading as a kid. I remember loving it.

...I remember nothing of the actual story, though. I should reread it.

/We're talking 45 years ago... gimme a break.
 
2017-11-20 12:06:13 PM  
My favorite character was always that one lady....ummm not Miss Which....not Miss Whatsit...the other one, Miss....Oh her name was on the tip of my tongue...
img.fark.netView Full Size

Oh yes, thanks.
 
2017-11-20 12:21:17 PM  
Well, it has the Inception BWONNNNG in it, so you know it's good.
 
2017-11-20 12:26:26 PM  
I'll admit it -- I read A Wrinkle in Time because most of the girls in my class liked it, and I liked girls.  It was 4th or 5th grade, I think.
 
2017-11-20 03:51:01 PM  

Petite Mel: AWIT is the first 'real' book I remember reading as a kid. I remember loving it.

...I remember nothing of the actual story, though. I should reread it.

/We're talking 45 years ago... gimme a break.


Be careful - sometimes you can't go back. I re-read it a few years ago and was like 'I don't remember this book being so in-your-face Christian'.  Didn't enjoy it very much.
 
2017-11-20 05:00:27 PM  

flondrix: /Always on the lookout for illegal, non-Disney versions of studio Ghibli movies


Ok, hold on.
What's wrong with the Disney versions of Ghibli films, outside of any dialog changes during the dub?
They didn't "Streamline" them.
 
Displayed 50 of 62 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report