In ‘Lord of the Flies’ Remake, Girls Survive Instead - Sensationalist Headlines

I don't really have a problem with it. I've only seen what I assume to be an older film adaptation of the novel back in highschool but Lord of the Flies came across as rather sexist. Assuming Jorori's presumed paraphrasing was accurate, it just backs up my assumption that the author has a very narrow view of the differences between sexes. It feels like he has some form of bias against his own sex for whatever reason. In reality if something like the plot of the novel were to happen I feel like it would make very little difference if the inhabitants of the island were solely male or female. What matters more would be the character of the inhabitants and not their sex and/or gender. There are shitty people on either side and to say that one is superior to the other in a broad sense is the very definition of sexism. That's always been my problem with the novel and the main reason I never bothered to read it after seeing the older film adaptation and reading various synopsis'. That said, though, I've never read the book and it's been ages since I watched the film, so I could very well be talking out my ass, that's just the message I get from what I do know about it. At the very least they should change the title, though. Lord of the Flies implies a male cast.

Even more shitty rehashes and sequels. [video]https://youtu.be/Ut5sk0RUlS4[/video] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Reaction video" - Novangel))[/highlight]

Will there be tiddys?

Piggy will have double titties

[QUOTE=J!NX;52634361]Cant wait until anyone that calls the movie bad is only doing it out of being sexist[/QUOTE] Can't wait until anyone who criticizes the movie for ignoring its original purpose for the sole reason of being a forced, unwanted remake that does nothing but simply switch the genders is called a sexist by unimaginative people who have nothing else to counter with. Who in their right mind thought this was a good idea at all?

It doesn't matter what the premise for a movie is. As long as it's executed well, I'll go watch it.

[QUOTE=G-Wash;52634937]It doesn't matter what the premise for a movie is. As long as it's executed well, I'll go watch it.[/QUOTE] will you also eat from a bucket placed in front of you if it smells good

Hopefully it ends better than that one Survivalist series where they had a team of women and team of men on a deserted island, and it devolved to the women destroying all their supplies and fighting constantly while the men made a thriving camp setup. IIRC, that show ended with them actually taking three men from the all-male team and gave them to the women, and the women effectively refused to do shit while the men busted their asses to prevent everyone from starving.

[QUOTE=Boaraes;52634898]Can't wait until anyone who criticizes the movie for ignoring its original purpose for the sole reason of being a forced, unwanted remake that does nothing but simply switch the genders is called a sexist by unimaginative people who have nothing else to counter with. Who in their right mind thought this was a good idea at all?[/QUOTE] I think my post is being misunderstood, i misworded by not adding quotes around sexist People shat on ghostbusters for missing the point / being bad and were just ignored by everyone who justified the genderswap with the piss excuse of "they just hate it because they are SEXIST" We are going to see that dumb argument pop up again and it bothers the fuck out of me. James Rolfe as just a singular example was called a sexist for the sake of crybaby bullshit.

[QUOTE=J!NX;52635067]I think my post is being misunderstood, i misworded by not adding quotes around sexist People shat on ghostbusters for missing the point / being bad and were just ignored by everyone who justified the genderswap with the piss excuse of "they just hate it because they are SEXIST" We are going to see that dumb argument pop up again and it bothers the fuck out of me. James Rolfe as just a singular example was called a sexist for the sake of crybaby bullshit.[/QUOTE] Oh ok, my bad.

[QUOTE=OneFourth;52635014]will you also eat from a bucket placed in front of you if it smells good[/QUOTE] If it smells good, I'd probably taste it before complaining that it's shit.

Just keep rebooting and remaking things endlessly with pointless changes forever, and ever, and ever... And don't forget to call people sexist/racist/homophopic/insert scapegoat here, when your remake that will inevitably miss the point, tone, feel of the original flops super hard and nobody likes it. Blame all your problems on somebody else, that's the hollywood way! Oh whats this, some young talented writer has a new movie idea? FUCK THAT, THROW THAT SHIT IN THE TRASH WE GOTTA MAKE EMOJI MOVIE 2 AND GET STARTED ON OUR CINIMATIC UNIVERSE. Fuck movies.

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;52635234]I don't entirely disagree, but you're being incredibly idealist if you don't think there will be legions of petty idiots who will shit on the movie [I]purely[/I] for having women in lead roles without having watched it or even read a plot synopsis. There were people non ironically calling the force awakens a SJW conspiracy because Disney was bold enough to do something as mundane as having a black person and a woman in lead roles.[/QUOTE] To be fair those idiots exist in 100% of everywhere sadly [editline]31st August 2017[/editline] I wouldnt pay too much mind to that minority, they are trash, abd many times just trolling

[QUOTE=madmanmad;52635211]Just keep rebooting and remaking things endlessly with pointless changes forever, and ever, and ever... And don't forget to call people sexist/racist/homophopic/insert scapegoat here, when your remake that will inevitably miss the point, tone, feel of the original flops super hard and nobody likes it. Blame all your problems on somebody else, that's the hollywood way! Oh whats this, some young talented writer has a new movie idea? FUCK THAT, THROW THAT SHIT IN THE TRASH WE GOTTA MAKE EMOJI MOVIE 2 AND GET STARTED ON OUR CINIMATIC UNIVERSE. Fuck movies.[/QUOTE] Is it not better to do adaptions with a twist than straight remakes if you want more originality in films?

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;52635234]I don't entirely disagree, but you're being incredibly idealist if you don't think there will be legions of petty idiots who will shit on the movie [I]purely[/I] for having women in lead roles without having watched it or even read a plot synopsis. There were people non ironically calling the force awakens a SJW conspiracy because Disney was bold enough to do something as mundane as having a black person and a woman in lead roles.[/QUOTE] While there will always be people who do that, i think as of late its a case of some people abusing what they see as an easy way to get good publicity and shield from criticism, and in doing so the methods they employ to do that are looked at universally with more scrutiny and doubt as a result. Even if the intention is pure, people will be more likely to wonder about possible ulterior motivations. You know what they say, one bad apple spoils the bunch. I seriously dont remember it being this bad a couple years ago. [editline]31st August 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=squids_eye;52635280]I get your point but this isn't a reboot or remake, it's an adaption.[/QUOTE] There have been prior adaptions so it counts as a reboot. If we go by that definition, all the comic book reboots arent actually reboots.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;52635287]While there will always be people who do that, i think as of late its a case of some people abusing what they see as an easy way to get good publicity and shield from criticism, and in doing so the methods they employ to do that are looked at universally with more scrutiny and doubt as a result. Even if the intention is pure, people will be more likely to wonder about possible ulterior motivations. You know what they say, one bad apple spoils the bunch. I seriously dont remember it being this bad a couple years ago. [editline]31st August 2017[/editline] There have been prior adaptions so it counts as a reboot. If we go by that definition, all the comic book reboots arent actually reboots.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't consider two things based on the same source as a reboot, it isn't trying to overwrite the canon of the previous adaption, it's just an alternative interpretation.

[QUOTE=squids_eye;52635307]I wouldn't consider two things based on the same source as a reboot, it isn't trying to overwrite the canon of the previous adaption, it's just an alternative interpretation.[/QUOTE] That kind of muddies the definition a lot.

[QUOTE=Jorori;52634293]Wasn't Lord of the Flies a critique on boy-only spaces like private religious schools (and by extension male-dominated spaces) and how the sexist culture that surrounds them is inherently selfdestructive and poisonous? I recall the author of the book saying something like "Girls are superior to boys because they'd help each other and survive instead of competing against each other and fighting to death over pride, dick-measuring contests or other petty shit" If so then this remake misses the point of the book entirely[/QUOTE] If anyone has seen Bear Grills The Island (yeah i know) then we have seen that this really does not apply, and the same shit and more goes down regardless of gender.

[quote]This time, the island will be full of girls[/quote] but thats like 90% of the book's charm, having a bunch of basically psychotic boys.... not that you couldn't pull it off with girls but why not just stick to the source material [editline]31st August 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=squids_eye;52635280]Is it not better to do adaptions with a twist than straight remakes if you want more originality in films?[/QUOTE] lets do a gender switched great gatsby while we're at it, wait, that's Sex and the City.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;52635056]Hopefully it ends better than that one Survivalist series where they had a team of women and team of men on a deserted island, and it devolved to the women destroying all their supplies and fighting constantly while the men made a thriving camp setup. IIRC, that show ended with them actually taking three men from the all-male team and gave them to the women, and the women effectively refused to do shit while the men busted their asses to prevent everyone from starving.[/QUOTE] That sounds hilarious. What is the show called?

[QUOTE=_charon;52634343]easy, risk-free money except i don't know if this is even risk-free, is Lord of the Flies [I]really[/I] that big?[/QUOTE] We [I]had[/I] to read it in school. Emphasis on 'had' because it's really not something I want to revisit.

[QUOTE=squids_eye;52635280]Is it not better to do adaptions with a twist than straight remakes if you want more originality in films?[/QUOTE] If they wanted to do it "with a twist", then why not modernize it? Make it a commentary piece on how children in society can't function when certain aspects of their lives (mobile devices, etc.) are removed from them. That's a fair bit more interesting a twist while still staying true to the original material and message than just Rule 63'ing it for the sake of it.

God forbid you try and re-adapt something. I cringe whenever someone puts forward the opinion that stuff like this will only be notable because of the gender-swap. Doubly so when they preempt the inevitable criticism they'll get (notwithstanding the stupid accusations of 'sexism!'). The movie ain't even out yet. They could do something quite interesting in the adaptation. Wait and see ffs!!

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;52635683]God forbid you try and re-adapt something. I cringe whenever someone puts forward the opinion that stuff like this will only be notable because of the gender-swap. Doubly so when they preempt the inevitable criticism they'll get (notwithstanding the stupid accusations of 'sexism!'). The movie ain't even out yet. They could do something quite interesting in the adaptation. Wait and see ffs!![/QUOTE] what is one genderbent adaption that ended up adding onto the original premise and actually being a worthwhile movie, though it's fine to criticize a piece of media for the conditions in which it is conceived, you know.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52635655]If they wanted to do it "with a twist", then why not modernize it? Make it a commentary piece on how children in society can't function when certain aspects of their lives (mobile devices, etc.) are removed from them. That's a fair bit more interesting a twist while still staying true to the original material and message than just Rule 63'ing it for the sake of it.[/QUOTE] That sounds even lamer tbh. Would be like the same nonsense that the media spouts when they talk about how millennials are in love with their phones, internet, tablets, etc and they miss the reason that we use those things in the first place lol I dunno I think all girls Lord of the Flies kind of... misses the entire point of the book, but hey I ain't no Hollywood man ! ! Guess we'll see what happens when the reviews come out.

[QUOTE=Pascall;52635699]That sounds even lamer tbh. Would be like the same nonsense that the media spouts when they talk about how millennials are in love with their phones, internet, tablets, etc and they miss the reason that we use those things in the first place lol I dunno I think all girls Lord of the Flies kind of... misses the entire point of the book, but hey I ain't no Hollywood man ! ! Guess we'll see what happens when the reviews come out.[/QUOTE] They're not entirely wrong, though. My 11 year-old nephew came down for his birthday party last year, and the kid looked naked and lost without a phone in his hand. His mom took him and his sister all the way to Bumshart, NM so they could be with family [I]for his birthday[/I] and it seemed like he wanted nothing to do with anything other than that damn phone. I grew up in the Gameboy years, but I knew when I needed to put it down. Now imagine stranding a bunch of kids on an island with even one or two kids like that. Would they be the ones that get pushed around, or would they try to assume some leadership role, poor or otherwise? How would they fair?

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52635722]They're not entirely wrong, though. My 11 year-old nephew came down for his birthday party last year, and the kid looked naked and lost without a phone in his hand. His mom took him and his sister all the way to Bumshart, NM so they could be with family [I]for his birthday[/I] and it seemed like he wanted nothing to do with anything other than that damn phone. [B]I grew up in the Gameboy years, but I knew when I needed to put it down.[/B] Now imagine stranding a bunch of kids on an island with even one or two kids like that. Would they be the ones that get pushed around, or would they try to assume some leadership role, poor or otherwise? How would they fair?[/QUOTE] ya when the sun went down and you ran out of AA batteries, and you know you've already put them in backwards so you know you're really done.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52634596]Wonder how they'll do the part where one of the kids gets [sp]fucking brained with a rock[/sp] But I bet they'll cut to just gross noises in the background while people make a " :( " face[/QUOTE] It was even worse in the book, if I remember correctly most of his body just gets turned to mush. It's fucked up.

[QUOTE=zizzleplix;52634233]that they intended to do “a very faithful but contemporized adaptation of the book.”[/QUOTE] The whole point of lord of the flies is that it's a study on sort of a Hobbes model of men/boys when outside of a higher social structure, and the inevitable tribalistic chaos that ensues. To look at that and think "yup, let's just gender swap this because we can turn the feminists into free marketing tools" is on the same level of fucking soulless hackery that's occupied by editions of 1984 that ends with winston escaping to the "countryside" with whatserface, and everything is then fine forever the end. Like, a bunch of morons who fundamentally fail to understand the book go in and fuck with it, and just ruin it at the most basic level. Way to fucking go. What's next, a movie adaption of Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich that's a ringing endorsement of communism? Because that's basically the level of fundamental incompetence and utterly cynical trend chasing hackery we're at here. [QUOTE=Scot;52634311]I guess it just wants to explore the idea of how events would differ if the group were girls. If that's what it's going for then I think it deserves a place. though we already have Mean Girls[/QUOTE] Well there was once a sort of Men vs Women season of survivor or some similar show where the men made a functioning little society with a hierarchy manifesting basically within a few hours, as well as shelter, hunting parties etc. And the women did so bad they actually had to send a few men from that camp to the women's island, who found that they had no shelter, ate all their food and had basically spent the entire time bickering over who should do what. So if that's in any way accurate, a female version of lord of the flies is "and then they all failed to establish a functional society and authority hierarchy and starved to death. the end"

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;52635683]God forbid you try and re-adapt something. I cringe whenever someone puts forward the opinion that stuff like this will only be notable because of the gender-swap. Doubly so when they preempt the inevitable criticism they'll get (notwithstanding the stupid accusations of 'sexism!'). The movie ain't even out yet. They could do something quite interesting in the adaptation. Wait and see ffs!![/QUOTE] I havent gotten around to reading the book myself yet, but from what i've heard this is a case where the base concept doesnt lend itself to this kind of thing.