In 6th grade (1963-64), a few fellow students actually adapted a portion of 'A Wrinkle in time" as a stage play. They made that section a dream sequence. That was my first encounter with a bad adaptation, but at least they were pre-adolescent. And they did love the book.

I have no idea what this new adaptation is like. There would be challenges. The vision of a shadowed Earth would have to be explained differently now. And, all titillation aside, Calvin and Meg's relationship might have to be handled differently because of shifts in mores.

But since L'Engle disliked it, I suspect that the big problem is that the video makers lost track of the moral core.

And that is so important. My 6th grade friends and I were entranced with "Wrinkle" when our 5th grade teacher read it to us. (Do they still read books to kids that age in school, or are 5th graders at the computers?) I don't know if they or I understood how much of its richness came out of that core. But I think I disliked their play because the end invalidated the experience.

I wonder if the producers of the new version understand that core. I doubt if I will tune in to find out.

The movie was as bad as I feared: it felt like an after-school special, and even though the producers tried to stick to the book's moral core, the script just ended up feeling like it was loaded with platitudes. That's especially disappointing for an adaptation of A Wrinkle in Time; the book was a quirky story touching on issues like individuality and conformism, but when you give these themes the after-school-special treatment, the story loses its own identity and sense of itself. Luckily, I only found the movie unintentionally hilarious two or three times.

I'd probably have more to say about it if I remembered the book better, but I don't think I've looked at it since 1989. Perhaps it's time to hunt down a copy...

I wasn't paying a lot of attention to the movie, but it seemed to deviate significantly from the book. And (most annoying to me) they misdefined "teratoma" in the part where Charles Wallace is looking at the giant books.

How might the relationship between Charles and Meg that might be treated differently? I loved the book as a kid, but like Ed, I haven't looked at it since 1989. I was probably too naive to appreciate why contemporary readers might look askance at the relationship.

The movie screams divine feminine after reading The Da Vinci Code. Is is just me? Teratoma? Equal parts male and female? Meg's got it hard. She's not one thing or another.

Please check the sites about loans loans http://www.fidelityfunding.net/ ...

Hello folks nice blog youre running

buy stock newsletter
from our secure server! get next day delivery free! and save over 70% on all of our popular brand name medications. Delete if you dont like it.

Good Point. Anyways, this was where i met her. You can join for free as well www.redtricircle.com

You may find it interesting to check the pages about internet pharmacy internet pharmacy http://internet-pharmacy.buy-2005-top.com/ pharmacies pharmacies http://pharmacies.buy-2005-top.com/ brooks pharmacy brooks pharmacy http://brooks-pharmacy.buy-2005-top.com/ on line pharmacy on line pharmacy http://on-line-pharmacy.buy-2005-top.com/ discount pharmacy discount pharmacy http://discount-pharmacy.buy-2005-top.com/ tramadol tramadol http://www.buy-2005-top.com/ generic propecia generic propecia http://generic-propecia.buy-2005-top.com/ ...