A Wrinkle In Time wil be on ABC Monday May 10, at 8/7c.
Just thought you Madeline L'Engle fans would like to know.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
A Wrinkle In Time, and it's on TV? Was time accepted into The Swan or something?
Posted by BYuCnslr (Member # 1857) on :
Grrr...I think I have a final then... Satyagraha
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
linky I never read the book. That should just be my Hatrack sig.
Posted by Eruve Nandiriel (Member # 5677) on :
Thanks for the link. (I knew I was forgetting something. )
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Despite the fact that I loved this book (actually, BECAUSE of the fact I loved this book) I fear this miniseries will be crap. Still, it's nice they were able to even get it greenlit.
On the other hand, it is a Canadian production. Maybe there's hope.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
It won best movie at the Totonto Children's Film Festival last year. That gives me hope.
On the other hand, the production of A Ring of Endless Light that aired last year was total crap.
I'm moderately optimistic.
[ May 03, 2004, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Oh! I thought this was tonight and I was going to have to miss it. But it isn't until next Monday...
Farmgirl
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ooh, cool! Thanks for letting us know, Eruve.
My oldest has been reading that series, and I've always loved them. I hope it's good!
Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
AHH! I get no reception on my TV and I'm too cheap to pay for cable or satellite. I may have to con a friend into recording it for me.
OOO! Maybe I can set up my school VCR to record it. But I'd have to find out what channel is ABC.
[ May 03, 2004, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: aretee ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I want to see it, but I do not get ABC.
Posted by dangermom (Member # 1676) on :
I'll tape it and watch it, but I'm trepidatious.
I enjoyed looking at the website; I saw in a couple of interviews that she was working on a novel about Meg in her 50's. It doesn't seem to have been published. Does anyone know anything about it?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I hope it is good, like the adaptation of King's The Stand, or IT...
But I heard bad things about ROEL last year too...
Good thing I have Mondays off!
Kwea
[ May 03, 2004, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by UTAH (Member # 5032) on :
This is great news. I have seen the trailers. I wonder why it is a miniseries and not a movie? I'll just have to record it (oh, poop, all those commercials!)
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Thank you for telling me!!!!!
I am going to have my daughter read it this week.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Oh no! Who will record it for me? I'll send you video tapes! Pretty please . . . . Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Shan, assuming I remember to tape it (good odds, I think), I'll be happy to make you a copy and send it. I have lots of videotapes that I buy on sale -- don't worry about it.
I will need your address though. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I wish I had a VCR or at least rabbit ear antennea. That series helped shape my paradigm.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
rivka!
I'll e-mail the addy -
Thank you so much!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I've had people tape stuff for me in the past, and I like to pass the favor on.
Posted by Scythrop (Member # 5731) on :
[This is Imogen. I really should stop doing this. Too lazy! ]
I saw it last year (wow, we got it first!) and I was unsuprisingly disappointed.
The special effects were just horrendous. They tried to do big budget special effects on what looks like $100 - and it shows. Mrs Who is just crazy, and the Aunts (the furry ones. I forget their real name) look like people in furry suits. Which they were.
Once they got to the bad planet and Charles Wallace was all evil-y, it got better.
Overall I enjoyed it - but don't expect great things. The book is WAY better. The only benefit is they are pretty faithful to the book and dialogue, which is nice. Though IIRC they left out the 2D planet, which was a shame. Though given the special effects budget maybe not - it could have been paper dolls.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
*glares at Imogen and puts fingers in ears*
I'm not listening!
How long is it, anyway? Is it just Monday night or will it be several nights in a row?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
*gentle reminder*
It's on tonight! Get your VCR's ready!
Farmgirl
Posted by Eruve Nandiriel (Member # 5677) on :
ACK, I forgot! Thank you!
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I want to see it : o(
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
We will definitely be watching this tonight at our place!
I will try to set my expectations at a level sufficiently low to enhance enjoyment of actually watching it.
Took Disney long enough to get this out - seems like they've been announcing the airing for years - or did I dream that?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I want to see this, but I'm at my parentd place tonight, and I'll be on the road when it finally airs. If anyone makes a tape of it, would you mind sending me a copy of it?
Kwea
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Thank you, thank you, thank you for posting this. And for keeping the thread alive. My Swiss cheese of a brain is surprised and excited each time I see it. If I had not seen it today, even though i saw it yesterday, I would have missed it.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Kwea, email me your address. I can make two copies as easily as one.
VCR is set and ready!
sndrake, when I did a search last week, it looked like it already aired in some markets (Canada? Europe? I don't remember) last year.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I am watching it now...it is not bad, the special effects are of course made for TV, but that is to be expected...it is enertaining so far. I loved the books when I was younger.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
rivka:
quote: sndrake, when I did a search last week, it looked like it already aired in some markets (Canada? Europe? I don't remember) last year.
Stupid markets! Stupid Canada! Stupid Europe!
Mostly, Stupid Disney!
We're watching it now - we like it so far. Neither one of us cares very much about special effects. Or, we care more about plot and acting than we do about special effects.
That value system was validated and reified during the last two Star Wars prequels. We'd preferred fewer special effects if they could have had a better script and better acting.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Well, it's 8:30 here in Austin, and that's where I'm startin. Hope I didn't miss much.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Well, as it continues, it gets worse. I really thought we were doing well for the first hour, a bit saccharine but otherwise very faithful to the spirit, if not the details of the book. Camazotz it really quite horrible. Actually it makes me want to rip my eyes out and throw them at the television. Camazotz isn't supposed to be the Matrix Reloaded!
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
I, uh, guess that works for me, too. I just kinda kept watching, but paid less attention to it. Also, I don't quite remember the weird eyeless wookie things.
[ May 10, 2004, 10:04 PM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Aunt Beast! She's in there. But there really isn't any effective way they really could have done it. I think I've changed my mind. I still really really hate the 1984 Camazotz, but the rest of it is pretty OK.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Am I wrong in thinking that they never really showed "It?" I don't recall too too much of the book, but I think they showed It.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I wasn't a huge fan of the climax, and REALLY wanted to see the brain in a jar, but I'll cope. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
It could have sucked worse.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
The special effects suffered from the same thing that seems to plauge all others: the CG gurus can't stand to not have their creations seen. They spend so much time making the stupid models and animating them, that they seem to not be able to give them up. They have to stand out so much from the rest of the scene, and can never be completely cast in shadow.
This same personal observation applies for almost every CG-heavy movie I've seen. I have yet to be fooled by any movie short of a few scenes in Final Fantasy that had me for a few split seconds.
Posted by fiazko (Member # 5812) on :
Hmmm. Either it's just been that long since I read the book or it's been so long since I've watched a TV movie that didn't involve some sort of disaster, but I was actually pretty impressed by the effects. I was picturing something along the lines of The Worst Witch or Legend. Yeah, the writing/acting wasn't spectacular, but I thought it could have been much worse. Of course I'll reread the book soon and understand what the rest of you are saying.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: Am I wrong in thinking that they never really showed "It?"
Well, they did show "it" (in the TV show) -- the writhing wormy mass in that one room -- was supposed to be an enormous brain. But that was much larger than what the book depicted.
So they changed some order of events, added a little more romance between Meg and Calvin, and left out parts of the book, but overall, it was a pretty good flick for TV. I'm glad I devoted my evening to watching it.
Farmgirl
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Also, wasn't It a clown that lived in the sewers named Pennywise? I get mixed up sometimes...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I second Farmgirl. I liked.
As to
quote: added a little more romance between Meg and Calvin
well, they DID get married and have a kid. And Ephram-- I mean, Calvin, even has blue eyes. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Um. . .
The Man with Red Eyes part was terrible.
Unforgiveable.
Really-- one of the most important parts of the story, and they mangle it.
He called Charles Wallace, 'Amigo.'
I went to bed after that. Nothing more to see.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
umm.. Scott...
How was that terrible (as opposed to other minor errors)? I mean, how was it different in the image in your mind and your reading of the book than what they showed, that made it seem so "terrible" to you? What should they have done differently?
Farmgirl
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Actually, I thought they nailed the Man With Red Eyes -- his condescension, his smarmy sarcasm, and his really obvious flattery coupled with latent hostility.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If I remember the book correctly, Mr. Redeyes tried to corrupt Calvin and Meg as well as Charles Wallace.
There was no teletikinetic trickery.
There was no cool banter from Redeyes.
Really, it was Redeyes' 'coolness' that bugged me.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Grr. Now I'm going to have to go back and read the book to assuage my ire.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I have to admit, I was disappointed they left out Meg's realization that the times tables (which, as every middle-schooler knows, are inherently and intensely evil) wouldn't work, and switch to the Gettysburg Address instead. Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Well, I really liked it, taking into account that it was a made for TV movie by Disney. If it had been released to theaters, I would have been disappointed. But I guess what I liked best is that I felt like they kept the theme, the characters, the general spirit of the book intact. I felt like they really captured that early teen awkwardness of Meg's that was so prevalent in the book. I remember so identifying with Meg.
Frankly, I was amazed it was a Disney movie, considering how faithful it was to the book. 'Course, it's been a long time since I read the book, and it was never my favorite of the series. My favorite was The Swiftly Tilting Planet.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
My favorite of hers was The Wind in the Door where Charles Wallace has to heal himself at the microbiological level....
Farmgirl
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Rivka --
no! No! She said (in the book) that she couldn't remember the Gettysburg Address, so she switched to the Declaration of Independence. That's where she got the revelation that "like does not mean equal" that she kept repeating...
Farmgirl
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
A Wind in the Door was my least favorite. But maybe that's just cause I found the whole biology of it unbelievable.
My favorite as A Swiftly Tilting Planet. It's really well written, and I like the way she wove the plotline between different times and locations.
The movie: I didn't watch the whole thing, was sort of in and out of the room during it, but what I saw wasn't as bad as I feared.
The special effects were overdone and cheesy I thought, especially that whole telekinesis bit.
I liked the rock that Calvin and Meg were sitting on at the end.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I enjoyed it greatly. One of the better things on TV in recent memory. I even gave up watching Monster House for it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: no! No! She said (in the book) that she couldn't remember the Gettysburg Address, so she switched to the Declaration of Independence. That's where she got the revelation that "like does not mean equal" that she kept repeating...
Oops! Ok, I have to go reread it again, clearly.
My favorite l'Engle is the sequel to Camilla -- title escapes me at the moment.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
A Live Coal in the Sea Posted by Jill (Member # 3376) on :
I hated it. I watched the first two hours, then turned it off when they made Aunt Beast look like Chewbacca. A complete waste of my time.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
dkw, that didn't sound right, but the summary on Amazon matches up with my memory. Weird.
Thanks! Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Wait a sec. DIDN'T Aunt Beast look like Chewbacca?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
My kids also saw the "Chewbacca" resemblence immediately and commented on it throughout that whole part of the show!
Farmgirl
Posted by Zevlag (Member # 1405) on :
Dang. I missed it. Any one know when it's goind to air again or have a digital copy I could grab?
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
quote:Newsweek: So you’ve seen the movie? Madeleine L’Engle: I’ve glimpsed it.
And did it meet expectations? Oh, yes. I expected it to be bad, and it is.
[ May 12, 2004, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: plaid ]
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
I watched it today a la VCR, and suspended disbelief (as well as some memory of the book) enough to enjoy it. I thought the effects were cheesy, but didn't expect all that much from a made-for-TV movie/miniseries/whatever they were calling it.
The thing I most noticed is that it didn't feel nearly as magical as the book, or at least as magical as my memory of the book (haven't read it since around 4th grade). I was disappointed that they didn't hit the 2D place (I've had dreams about it, where my heart was beating sideways), and Aunt Beast reminded me more of an overgrown dog show entry -- too brushed and shiny for Chewbacca.
Charles Wallace wasn't as cherubic (an odd choice of words considering the second book) as I had pictured him -- at bare minimum he should have had bright blue eyes -- and Calvin didn't look "cool" enough, but that could be because I did think of him as Ephram. Meg was just about right, though I pictured both her and Calvin as being a little older. But I also liked A Wind in the Door better and read it more often, so that could be why I think of them that way.
Oh, and Mrs. Which wasn't nearly as ominous as she should have been. I remember her words being very slow and drawn out in the book, so I pictured her as having a deep powerful rumbly voice.
Anyway, decent entertainment, probably excellent for younger kids and certainly not bad when compared to other TV options, but it didn't bring back the power of the story for me.
--Pop
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Why is it that every time they make a movie out of a book I like they always, always insist on adding a bunch of dippy, silly little things that don't make any sense and do nothing for the plot? Plus it was the details that bugged me. Little things like Meg not wearing glasses and Calvin not having red hair or CW not having bright blue eyes... Perhaps I am a bit too picky about things.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Dang, I hated this. Hated hated hated. We Netflixed it and rated it one star-- I LOVE the books, but we almost fell asleep during this. Twice. It took us three tries to get through it. Too many things were just wrong. And it didn't have the feel of the books at all; the Harry Potter movies approach the books in feeling if nothing else (well, maybe not the first one.) We rated it one star and would have given none if there was a way to do it.
And that quote from L'Engle doesn't match up with the cheery appearance on the DVD extras (possibly the best part of the DVD.)
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
syn, I also hate those things.
I really bugged in I, Robot that Bridget Moynahan (who's gorgeous) was supposed to be Susan Calvin (who Asimov explicitly stated was homely). Gimme a break.
[ November 22, 2005, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: El JT de Spang ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Alfrey Woodward as Mrs Whatsit was cool. Making these irratating little changes to the plot was NOT COOL, not one bit. Why do movies always DO that? Like having Charles Wallace know how to read and go to school or making the twins young and bratty instead of the way they were in the book, blonde, a bit older, with a garden. Normal and average boys, but nice kids none the less. But nothing could annoy me more than the movie version of a book called Rain. They didn't even get the same sort of feel of the book and made too many stupid illogical dumb changes.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Like having Charles Wallace know how to read and go to school or making the twins young and bratty instead of the way they were in the book, blonde, a bit older, with a garden. Normal and average boys, but nice kids none the less.
Not to mention the thing with her mom. She works in a lab that used to be a dairy. At home! And she doesn't act and dress like she's going off to be a secretary every day!
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
She also cooked meals using a bunsen burner which is rather cool. Another thing that rankled me. How could they have left out the turkey dinner scene? WHAT WHERE THEY THINKING??!?! That is one of the most important scenes in the whole movie!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Wrinkle in time made me hate fantasy when I was a kid, I just couldn't get over all the trampling on common sense or logic. Even thought the story is interesting enough... what the heck is a teseract??????????????
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I think it's actually something that exist. It's like traveling in the 4th dimention, or maybe the 5th, Iam not so sure. Basically there's a theory that there is more than one dimention. The first is like a straight line. ____________ Second is like a square or something, and it's flat, like two d animation vs 3 D which is what we live in, it's like drawing extra lines to make a cube. Then you have the fourth dimention which has something or another to do with space and time. So it's like a theory astrophysics or something. http://www.logic-alphabet.net/images/tesseract.gif http://scholar.uwinnipeg.ca/courses/38/4500.6-001/Cosmology/dimensionality.htm Posted by Nell Gwyn (Member # 8291) on :
It's an actual mathematical/physics idea, not just something L'Engle made up.
From the Oxford English Dictionary:
quote: A four-dimensional hypercube. Also fig. Hence tesseractica.
1888 C. H. HINTON New Era of Thought II. iii. 118 We call the figure it [sc. a cube] traces a Tessaract. Ibid. vii. 161 The whole of the 81 cubes make one single tessaractic set extending three inches in each of the four directions. 1919 R. T. BROWNE Mystery of Space v. 134 The hyper~cube or tesseract is described by moving the generating cube in the direction in which the fourth dimension extends. 1960Electronic Engin. XXXII. 347/1 Fig. 8..shows a four-dimensional ‘tessaract’ (the four-dimensional analogue of a cube). 1968Listener 15 Feb. 201 He likes to see A gulping of tesseracts and Gondals in Our crazed search. 1974 S. SHELDON Other Side of Midnight xviii. 332 For Catherine time had lost its circadian rhythm; she had fallen into a tesseract of time, and day and night blended into one.
In the book, IIRC it's in the fifth dimension rather than the fourth like the dictionary definition states. It's supposed to be an extremely higher-order theoretical physics idea that many people can't necessarily fully comprehend since they lack the math/physics background, but it how it works gets explained pretty well. I was able to grasp it with zero physics knowledge, anyway.
I must admit I'm confused as to how that would ruin fantasy for you. How is the apparent illogic in the tesseract any different from the illogic in whatever form "magic" takes in other fantasies?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
I may have to con a friend into recording it for me.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
rivka!![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
Oops! Ok, I have to go reread it again, clearly.![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
My kids also saw the "Chewbacca" resemblence immediately and commented on it throughout that whole part of the show!