The ABC movie of Madaline L’Engle’s A WRINKLE IN TIME has been promised for the past two years. Finally, Monday May 10. it’s airing. Why did it take so frikkin’ long?
Long delays usually indicate a higher-than-normal level of suckitude.
I didn’t realize this was going to be a made-for-TV movie; I thought it was going to be a theatrical release. Humm. Maybe I’ll tune in out of morbid curiousity, but I’ve had grave reservations ever since I heard it was in the works. I hate seeing beloved novels ravished and murdered by movies 
Perhaps the cannisters of the finished product were whisked away by IT in a tesseract leap and were lost for a while in an existential void – only to be recovered when an ABC junior executive of pure heart took the leap into the unknown and redeemed it by insistently declaring her uncompromised love for it.
Recites multiplication tables to keep herself occupied until release
It probably will suck, but, out of a deep love of the books, I’ll at least give it a chance.
I’m going to watch it because I read A Wrinkle In Time, and quite frankly I did not understand what was going on at all. Hopefully the movie can explain this better.
What’s it about? I"ve heard of it, but don’t know much about it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4926262/
The woman sounds like a real character.
Well, I see a huge problem with it before I’ve viewed a single frame.
In the promo stills, Meg is not wearing glasses. Now, I’m not just upset about that on principle, although that’s part of it. If you’ve read the book, you know that a plot point hinges on her exchanging her own specs for someone else’s.
Perhaps they will work that in. Or not. But it also means we’ll lose the tender little moment when she cries, takes off her glasses, and is told by Calvin (paraphrasing), “You’ve got dream-boat eyes…No, keep them on: I don’t want anyone else to notice!”
:::rassin’-frassin’ anti-glasses prejudice::: The female lead in my novel wears her specs with pride!
The promos look terrible. Gah! I don’t think I’ll watch it.
As I said in my redundant thread (sorry), it has been 20+ years since I read the books, so I don’t know if I would be able to spot any differences.
I do however, remember that Meg had glasses…
Brian
She would SOOOOO fit in here!
Huh. Mrs. Which kinda reminds me of Glinda, the Good Witch of the North.
Well, of COURSE Meg (AND her father) don’t wear glasses in the movie! They are the heroes! And only NERDS wear glasses. Haven’t you people seen any movies at all?
I’ve watched a total of five minutes of this piece of crap.
Let’s say we all chip and hire Mike, Joel, Tom Servo, Crow, Gypsy, Dr. Forrester, TV’s Frank, Pearl, Bobo, Observer, Dr. Erhardt, Torgo, Patch, Santa, Mr. B. Natural, and every other character who’s ever appeared on MST3K to gang-riff this hideous sack of garbage.
If L’Engle were dead, she’d be spinning in her grave.
It was kinda like watching the Redskins these past few years. Like when they’d drive down the field, looking real good? Then the moment they got inside the 20, into the red zone, they’d find a way to screw up.
It didn’t bother me that they de-Christianized it when they turned it into a TV movie; I more or less expected that. But it bothered me that they did it so clumsily, turning L’Engle’s underlying belief system into a kind of meaningless New Agey hodgepodge.
But the key scene in the book isn’t when Meg rescues Charles Wallace; it’s right before then, on Ixchel, when she realizes she’s the only one who can. And that’s when they fumbled the ball.
And it went downhill from there: Meg can’t just save her baby brother (and did that part go on and on and on, or what? You could tell they were missing the point); she’s got to save the whole planet. I had this vision of an Onion headline: “Adolescent Saves Planet from Eternal Damnation”.
And then of course at the end: there’s really no need for a whole long appearance by Who, Which, and Whatsit once they were back in Connecticut. Even the actors playing Mr. and Mrs. Murry were looking like, “Excuse me, could you just leave?? We’ve got some catching up to do.”
Oh yeah, and better that they would have just shot the Happy Medium, than re-cast the character like that. S/he’s above minor things like male and female, but has the sense of humor (and the overall sensibility) of a four year old with ADHD. Sheesh.
Gotta agree with Madeleine L’Engle. But then, I almost always have.
Phone call to my mom at about 9:30:
Mom: Hello?
Me: Mrs. Which did not look like Faye Dunaway!
Mom: What?
I guessed they’d leave out stuff like the stop at the two-dimensional planet. I figured they’d tone down the math aspect. Hell, I even assumed they’d figure a way around showing a giant brain on a pedestal, considering its Disney and all.
But damn, did they have to neuter the story so badly that they turn Mrs. Which into Glinda the freakin Good Witch of the North? Damn. I refuse to admit I even saw what second rate Nathan Lane they turned the Happy Medium into.
Ms. L’Engle, your story deserved better.
Reading this thread I’m sorry I taped it instead of CSI:Miami.
It was awful – mediocre, boring, uninvolving and cheesy.
I tuned at 8:30 and then switched to The Restaurant at 10 with no regrets.
I desperately want to go and reread the fabulous original for the hundreth time but I can’t find it.
Phooey.
Was the book supposed to be an allegory about communism? Or was it meant to be accepted literally?
Actually, I was on board until just before 10. The kids were well cast, and good actors, I thought. Some changes, some cheesiness (the Happy Medium and the special effects Spinx, for example), but not too untrue to the book in spirit.
Then came the giant books and the cosmonaut, come on.
FWIW, I was wishing they had the scene where Charles Wallace says that Meg has it hard, she’s not quite one thing or the other, and the tesseract explanation with the squares, not just the wrinkle. But I was willing to ditch that if it had kept the spirit better.
Oh well, they had a decent first half, then blew it bigtime. As already stated, not unlike the Redskins…