A Wrinkle in Time (2018)

Starting this thread since principal photography for it in New Zealand finished a while ago.

We got photos.

And yes, it is Hilarious in Hindsight since there was a TV movie for A Wrinkle in Time that was also produced by Disney back in 2003, but that apparently wasn't very good.

Meanwhile, this will evidently be much bigger than that since it's notably being directed by Ava DuVernay, which makes her the first woman of color to direct a live-action film with a production budget over $100 million.

The cast includes:

• Storm Reid as Margaret "Meg" Murry
• Oprah Winfrey as Mrs. Which
• Reese Witherspoon as Mrs. Whatsit
• Mindy Kaling as Mrs. Who
• Levi Miller as Calvin O'Keefe
• Deric Mc Cabe as Charles Wallace Murry
• Chris Pine as Dr. Alexander "Alex" Murry
• Gugu Mbatha Raw as Dr. Kate Murry
• Michael Peña as Red
• Andre Holland as Principal Jenkins
• Zach Galifianakis as the Happy Medium

Bellamy Young, Rowan Blanchard and Will McCormack also appear in undisclosed roles.

EDIT: It's coming April 6, 2018.

edited 15th Mar '17 9:39:54 AM by TargetmasterJoe

I still dislike the casting, especially for the three ladies. Those actresses are way too good looking, I would have put someone into those roles who is able to look weird. Emma Thompson for example.

I think it's a great cast, and I'm extremely excited for this movie.

I've seen the 2003 one. It really is terrible.

To be fair, the Tesseract effect looks pretty good, and some of the acting isn't bad, but the movie as a whole is just not very good. Some of it was budget, but they tacked on a weird happy ending that wasn't there originally. In the book, IT isn't defeated, just weakened enough that the people of Camazotz have a chance of defeating it. In the movie, IT dies and Meg gives a terrible speech that somehow convinces everyone on Camazotz to all be individuals. There's also some terrible puns on Camazotz which are incredibly out of place. There's a movie theatre in one scene and the movie titles all involve IT in some incredibly stupid way. Like Casablanc IT. Like, really?

I am really looking forward to this one though. There was news a few years back that Disney was making this for 30 million dollars, but I'm guessing someone with passion for the book got involved. It would be pretty funny if they decided to do sequels...and then saw how weird the sequels actually got.

edited 15th Mar '17 5:26:59 PM by Zendervai

I wonder how they'll treat the Christian themes of the book. The past adaptation tossed them all out; the beings of Uriel singing from Psalms in the book was genericized to Charles saying "it's about joy", and Jesus was also cut out from the kids' naming of individuals who fought against Earth's evil.

The film's release date has been moved up to March 9 2018.

"The only thing faster than light is darkness."

Holy shit, that trailer looked really good.

Eh...it looks too....big....I know this sounds strange but the story isn't really about big action scenes, it is more about the wonder of discovery.

But then, the song they picked is very distracting for me because I associate it with Grimm and there it was used way, way better.

The trailer for A Wrinkle In Time, now in embedded form!

I don't remember the witches having such over elaborate outfits

I await with bated breath how Hollywood fucks this up.

Well, they do have elaborate outfits in the books, but more in a Mrs. Weasley kind of way...you know, mismatched clothes, quilted stuff, with a lot of colours thrown in.

Honestly I HATE how the three look. That is exactly what I feared when I read the casting that they would go for beautiful instead of capturing the whole "odd but warm and inviting" vibe they are supposed to have. A female director should know better than going so...Hollywood with those three.

That's... a bit of a broad statement. Just because the director is a woman means she has to do things a certain way or can't be fallable in your opinion?

Even then, the shot ot one of the witches at the :50 second mark looks pretty quilted and warm, even if just maybe a bit shinier than I remember her book description. I always mix up which witch is which though so don't ask me why I'm not using names. Its been ages and I can't remember all of the book.

I don't exactly mind the costume changes because I feel like I need to see the execution first. It looks like each of them is going to have a stronger color/style association with Red, Blue, and White.

I just kind of expect a female director, especially one which is open critical of certain Hollywood standards, to be similar critical when it comes to the idea that females in movies have always to be ridiculous good looking. I still don't get why they didn't cast actresses which are more...homely...for those roles but went all Hollywood glam.

First things first: Directors are not the only people behind who is in a movie. Producers and the studio have a say in that.

Secondly, the women in question are all decorated actresses, one Oscar winner, one Oscar nominee, and one two-time SAG award winner. So maybe, you know, their talent had something to do with it.

Third, of the three woman, only one would be considered "Typical Hollywood" which is to say she's a beautiful white woman. The other two are a 63 year old black woman, and a woman of Bengali and Tamil descent who is also not the typical thin Hollywood standard.

Fourth, and most importantly, if you ever see a movie and say "it would be better if the women looked different" there is an 83% chance you are wrong, wrong, wrong.

There are a number of movies which don't work because a character has been miscast NO MATTER how famous the actress in question was. And there are a number of movies where the choice of the costume department is either distracting or at least not true to the spirit of the source material.

Look, the movie might end up good, but those three really, really bother me in the trailer (along with a few other choices which could work but might backfire badly).

This is sounding just like the doom and gloom predicted for Pete's Dragon, and then the movie turned out fine.

It turned out to be a run-off the mill movie which had NOTHING of the charm of the original and better stays forgotten for butchering one of the most lovable animated characters in its CGI version. Oh, and it disappointed in the box office exactly because of this.

You know, a month or to ago someone put forward that perhaps one shouldn't be too harsh on an upcoming movie of a specific studio because it might actually end up better than expected...I pointed out that the trailer did look like the movie would be a knock-off of better movies and that the track record of the studio in question is so bad, that there is no reason to expect anything positive this time around. The Studio in Question? Sony Animation. The Movie in question? The Emoji movie!!!!

While the Disney live action movies are rarely bad, they are also rarely good, they tend to be "meh" with a few gems in-between. And I didn't get the impression that this one will be any different.

edited 2nd Aug '17 8:34:56 AM by Swanpride

The original had way less charm and was way too long but that's for another thread. Regardless the remake was not a disaster like one was hyping it to be. Fine is fine.

The original also had an international cut which removed a lot of the filler scenes which made the American version so unbearable long and the result was a very entertaining and unusual movie, which is vastly superior over another Jungle Book knock-off.

And I don't disputant that A Wrinkle in Time might end up "fine". But this material could be challenging and unusual. "Fine" doesn't cut it.

edited 2nd Aug '17 8:48:33 AM by Swanpride

Interesting Camazotz looks like a False Utopia in this one rather than the outright dystopia of the previous movie version.

It's closer to the book. I think Camazotz is supposed to be the worst of Soviet Communism fused with the worst of 50s American suburbia. Like, weird on the surface because everyone acts in complete unison and really creepy underneath, not a weird obvious dystopia with stupid movie puns. (Casablanc IT anyone?) Granted, the book describes Camazotz as kind of dour and grim, but I think unnaturally colourful and fake like the movie appears to be going with is a pretty good interpretation.

Can I just say I genuinely love how colorful the film is so far?

I don't know. I know someone says that every time a movie comes out with a really vibrant palate, but its true. It feels like most films have very darks and greys and browns and it gets hard to tell one movie apart after awhile.

This one has such a beautiful palate and good sence of complimentary and contrasting colors.

I will state there were things I liked about the '03 version, though: in particular I think the confrontation between Meg and Mrs. Which in the ice cave (which wasn't in the book from what I remember) was pretty well done. You've got an immortal witch with an Omniscient Morality License squaring off with an emotional teenager who just wants her kid brother back, and how they offered their perspectives on the exact same situation was quite interesting.