|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 5, 2017 8:54:26 GMT -5
A proposed reboot of Lord of the Flies is in the works with a "clever" twist: all girls instead of all boys: The reactions to this have been...interesting. To be sure, there's been plenty of outrage "because Men!" There's also been some unhappiness--that I share--with rebooting a classic novel for the purposes of making quick buck. Mister Bovary wouldn't fly with me, either. But then, there's also been some of this: I'm aware of all of this because my eldest daughter--who is in film school--sent me links and, frankly, shares Ms. Gay's take on the project: that making it all girls undermines the point of the book and simply couldn't lead to the same sorts of scenarios. So how about that issue? How about the issue of the reboot/reboots in general? How about the fact that this reboot is being written and directed by two men? How about other stuff that I'm missing? |
|
|
|
Post by Don on Sept 5, 2017 15:56:00 GMT -5
This makes my brain hurt. The "different gender, same scenarios" foolishness may seem reasonable to a tiny subset of humanity... probably the same ones still wearing Che-shirts. The only way this isn't a flop is if they make it a satire and a comedy like Gilligan's Island.
|
|
|
|
Post by maxinquaye on Sept 6, 2017 1:50:17 GMT -5
That Guardian article made my head hurt, and my heart sad. Lord of the Flies is not about boys, nor is it about "masculine barbarism". It is about England, about purity, about civilisation, and how it's all a lie. It's certainly not about boys, or girls for that matter. It's not about individuals - it's about ideals who are rotten. Children, choir boys, even heroes like Ralph, and most certainly England despite the myths it told itself at the time.
When Ralph weeps on the beach at the end, he's not crying happy tears at the sight of the naval officer in the white uniform. He's weeping because the purity of England is a lie, and savagery lies skin deep even in that angelic form.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Sept 6, 2017 12:25:04 GMT -5
So we're told men and women should be treated the same, but at the same time, women are superior to men?
Young girls, trapped on an island fending for themselves wouldn't by their nature hurt one another? The most we could expect is sharing of feelings, and maybe a pillow fight. (Oh wait, not pillows.)
Considering that some colleges now teach Toxic Masculinity, I shouldn't be surprised.
I'm not a big fan of remakes, but let it happen. If it was okay for Ghostbusters, why not Lord Of The Flies?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2017 16:13:02 GMT -5
That Guardian article made my head hurt, and my heart sad. Lord of the Flies is not about boys, nor is it about "masculine barbarism". It is about England, about purity, about civilisation, and how it's all a lie. It's certainly not about boys, or girls for that matter. It's not about individuals - it's about ideals who are rotten. Children, choir boys, even heroes like Ralph, and most certainly England despite the myths it told itself at the time. When Ralph weeps on the beach at the end, he's not crying happy tears at the sight of the naval officer in the white uniform. He's weeping because the purity of England is a lie, and savagery lies skin deep even in that angelic form. Yes. Way too many people do not understand this about the book. They see it as an adventure story with a bitter-sweet ending, and the naval officers make everything better. Yeah, no. In fact, the naval officers are engaged in a battle that is spiritually similar to the ones the boys engaged in on the island, except with deadlier weapons. I cannot see the point of remaking it with all girls. If the girls do exactly what the boys did, it is not illuminating or empowering -- it is, at best, a statement that it is not just the male half of the human race that is inherently savage with evil at their hearts, but females too. And this helps feminism how? If the girls cooperate and do things according to Ralph's original plan in a nice orderly fashion, it is not the same story, at all. And the point would be -- what? That girls are better than boys? Well, OK, but it's not the same story, at all. It's an entirely new story with a new concept. As far as all the recent "look! it's the same thing, except with chicks!" things go -- A movie with a female superhero, absolutely. Go Wonder Woman! Ditto on the female Doctor Who -- the whole point of that character is that he/she/they regenerates and becomes a completely different personality with a completely different body. I can't see a reason in the world from the standpoint of the story that it couldn't be a woman. I'm looking forward to seeing it. I shrug at the reboot of Ghost Busters. I don't need it, but whatever. No reason there can't be female ghostbusters. It's just that I loved that original movie, and I hate remakes of movies I loved. But whatever. The female James Bond -- well, to be honest, I'd much prefer they just get a new female spy character with her own attributes, rather than taking the (IMO, inherently male and sexist yet fun) character of James Bond. I like some of those ideas better than others, obviously, but I at least see the point of them. But this Lord of the Flies with girls thing -- yeah, I don't see the point at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Angie on Sept 6, 2017 18:15:37 GMT -5
That Guardian article made my head hurt, and my heart sad. Lord of the Flies is not about boys, nor is it about "masculine barbarism". It is about England, about purity, about civilisation, and how it's all a lie. It's certainly not about boys, or girls for that matter. It's not about individuals - it's about ideals who are rotten. Children, choir boys, even heroes like Ralph, and most certainly England despite the myths it told itself at the time. When Ralph weeps on the beach at the end, he's not crying happy tears at the sight of the naval officer in the white uniform. He's weeping because the purity of England is a lie, and savagery lies skin deep even in that angelic form. Well, yes, but there's money to be made! Check mate, literature geeks! |
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Sept 6, 2017 19:04:58 GMT -5
That Guardian article made my head hurt, and my heart sad. Lord of the Flies is not about boys, nor is it about "masculine barbarism". It is about England, about purity, about civilisation, and how it's all a lie. It's certainly not about boys, or girls for that matter. It's not about individuals - it's about ideals who are rotten. Children, choir boys, even heroes like Ralph, and most certainly England despite the myths it told itself at the time. When Ralph weeps on the beach at the end, he's not crying happy tears at the sight of the naval officer in the white uniform. He's weeping because the purity of England is a lie, and savagery lies skin deep even in that angelic form. Yes. Way too many people do not understand this about the book. They see it as an adventure story with a bitter-sweet ending, and the naval officers make everything better. Yeah, no. In fact, the naval officers are engaged in a battle that is spiritually similar to the ones the boys engaged in on the island, except with deadlier weapons. I cannot see the point of remaking it with all girls. If the girls do exactly what the boys did, it is not illuminating or empowering -- it is, at best, a statement that it is not just the male half of the human race that is inherently savage with evil at their hearts, but females too. And this helps feminism how? If the girls cooperate and do things according to Ralph's original plan in a nice orderly fashion, it is not the same story, at all. And the point would be -- what? That girls are better than boys? Well, OK, but it's not the same story, at all. It's an entirely new story with a new concept. As far as all the recent "look! it's the same thing, except with chicks!" things go -- A movie with a female superhero, absolutely. Go Wonder Woman! Ditto on the female Doctor Who -- the whole point of that character is that he/she/they regenerates and becomes a completely different personality with a completely different body. I can't see a reason in the world from the standpoint of the story that it couldn't be a woman. I'm looking forward to seeing it. I shrug at the reboot of Ghost Busters. I don't need it, but whatever. No reason there can't be female ghostbusters. It's just that I loved that original movie, and I hate remakes of movies I loved. But whatever. The female James Bond -- well, to be honest, I'd much prefer they just get a new female spy character with her own attributes, rather than taking the (IMO, inherently male and sexist yet fun) character of James Bond. I like some of those ideas better than others, obviously, but I at least see the point of them. But this Lord of the Flies with girls thing -- yeah, I don't see the point at all. Well, Wonder Woman wasn't a female take on a traditional male character. She's always been a woman. (By the way, it's become the highest grossing origin superhero story. It's easily one of my favorites!) I don't see a point to this either. I don't look at females as superior, so I've no problem with the idea that they can mess up just as badly. But is that the only point? If they don't, then A) what the hell is the point of the movie and B) are they saying that only boys are capable of savagery? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2017 19:15:08 GMT -5
I mentioned Wonder Woman because it falls under the general trend of "You go, girl!" Movies. But IMO Wonder Woman does it the best way -- i.e., not with a character who is traditionally male but flipped to female just for the sake of doing so, but with a character who is supposed to be female. Which is why I'd rather see a new bad-ass female spy character with her own identity rather than Jane abond.
Plus, the WW producers apparently also made a good, fun movie people actually want to watch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Sept 6, 2017 19:27:55 GMT -5
Also, I don't have an issue with re-imagined stuff. For example, Battlestar Galactica. They made Starbuck into a girl, but they didn't just do it for the sake of doing it.
|
|
