posted
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.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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...
posted
I enjoyed it greatly. One of the better things on TV in recent memory. I even gave up watching Monster House for it.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 274 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dang. I missed it. Any one know when it's goind to air again or have a digital copy I could grab?
Posts: 2102 | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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??????????????
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.htmPosts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 952 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[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!
