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

[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;52635877]This is on the same level of 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 go champ.[/QUOTE] That's my thing. If I could be absolutely sure that this will still be a scathing critique of the human nature, especially human nature as it applies to young girls, then I would be totally for it. Instead, as others have pointed out, this seems to be another Ghostbusters in the making. Mean Girls was a fantastic fucking film because it did provide a shit ton of social commentary, especially on one of the biggest issues facing teenagers today: bullying. If this movie isn't going to do that, they can fuck right off.

[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;52635877]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.[/QUOTE] is this real please tell me it isn't and if it is give me a source if you would

[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] The thing is, people are not pessimistic about it because it's a re-adaptation, it's because it's a shitty re-adaptation. If somebody wanted to make a new adaptation of The Evil Dead where the main character is a woman, they can totally do that because the original movies had basically nothing to do with gender issues. And look, somebody did that. And look, it was an all right movie. If somebody wanted to adapt Heart of Darkness so that it takes place in Vietnam during the war, they can totally do that because the specific location wasn't critical to the overall story. And look, Apocalypse Now was great. But you wouldn't re-make Schindler's List as a comedy, because that stands entirely against the subject matter. And you don't make an all-girls Lord of the Flies because the whole point is to be about how horrible little boys are. And another thing: It's ok for the Evil Dead remake to be called "Evil Dead" because the changes that came about in the new movie weren't a fundamental alteration to the source material. But you'll notice that Apocalypse Now, with its huge setting change, isn't called Heart of Darkness. I could see somebody arguing that the idea of British imperialism spreading into Africa was a crucial part of Heart of Darkness, but because Apocalypse Now leaves those themes out in exchange for others, you can no longer say that it [b]is[/b] Heart of Darkness, hence the name change. Just like why O Brother Where Art Thou isn't called The Odyssey. So, by all means, people can re-adapt Lord of the Flies into something new, and make it this whole deep thoughtful examination of what happens to [b]girls[/b] when all authority vanishes... But if they are going to do that, then what they're making is not Lord of the Flies, it's a new creative idea, and anybody actually proud of their creative work would not want it to be called by some pre-existing title. So the fact that they're calling it "Lord of the Flies" tells me that they're [b]not[/b] making something great or creative, but that they [b]are[/b] just hoping to make a few more dollars from name recognition.

[QUOTE=EpikEnvy2.0;52636046]is this real please tell me it isn't and if it is give me a source if you would[/QUOTE] I swear to god the first copy of the book i read is where that happened, and not Winston happily being escorted to the re-education room after the bit in the cafe. And someone in my family had to explain to me that the real ending was as it is. There's also another issue, in that the second and third editions of the book rewrote the ending so winston subconciously writes "2+2= ", as opposed to "2+2=5", suggesting that the party's control isn't absolute. Which also basically destroys the meaning of the book. And that revising was done by orwell himself, ironically enough. [QUOTE][h=3]1984 (2019)[/h]In March 2012, it was announced that a consortium of Hollywood production companies including Imagine Entertainment was set to reboot, and make another feature film based on the novel.[1][2] Reportedly the consortium has secured rights from Orwell's estate. However, no further developments were revealed for some time. In November 2015, Paul Greengrass was attached to direct, with Scott Rudin and Gina Rosenblum producing, and James Graham writing the screenplay. Rudin and Greengrass had also previously worked together on Captain Phillips. Michael De Luca will oversee production of the upcoming 1984 film, for the studio.[3] [/QUOTE] Oh for fucks sake

I already smell the pitchforks and fire over the parade of showing young girl characters murdering each other. And I can hear them saying: "girls that young would never do those things!"

[QUOTE=SebiWarrior;52634313]But then it isn't Lord of the Flies, it's something else Then why does it don that name? Money.[/QUOTE] On the other hand if they called it something else people would be like "wtf this is just a Lord of the Flies ripoff". "Lady of the Flies" as suggested above sounds like a good idea though.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;52635899]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.[/QUOTE] It depends on whether you subscribe to sex differences, I think. If you believe that there's no significant difference then there should be no issue :buddy: In all seriousness though, unless they [B]majorly[/B] change it, it's just going to portray whatever group stars in it as really terrible. There's some leeway regarding whether they go with stereotypically boyish/male friction like the original does or replace it with the female version, but I don't think this makes a huge difference regarding who is going to have an issue with it.

To me it seems like Lord of the Flies is already way too brutal in its original form to really be adapted into a film and expect mainstream appreciation without having to severely cut down on the gruesome aspect of the story and the events that unfold, and now on top of it they're making it an all-female cast, and mainstream media tends to be extremely averse to violence done to women for some reason, like plenty of people find it harder to stomach violence/brutality/gore if it involves women so good luck making a film about girls caving each other's heads with rocks and making it appealing to a mass audience all at once.

[QUOTE=RedBaronFlyer;52635628]That sounds hilarious. What is the show called?[/QUOTE] Did some quick googling, has to be this one: [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/3cswfp/in_one_season_of_the_dutch_version_of_survivor/[/url]

An island full of stranded girls that bicker, fight and kill each other, barely survive, and then get rescued by men is sexist. This movie is going to get railed by everyone.

[QUOTE=Penultimate;52635908][B]That's my thing. If I could be absolutely sure that this will still be a scathing critique of the human nature, especially human nature as it applies to young girls, then I would be totally for it.[/B] Instead, as others have pointed out, this seems to be another Ghostbusters in the making. Mean Girls was a fantastic fucking film because it did provide a shit ton of social commentary, especially on one of the biggest issues facing teenagers today: bullying. If this movie isn't going to do that, they can fuck right off.[/QUOTE] What has indicated that this isn't doing that? We've seen literally nothing other than 'Lord of the Flies but with girls' and everyone is assuming the worst. You'll have plenty of time to hate the film once you actually know if it is bad or not, you don't have to start now.

[QUOTE=Antimuffin;52636291]I already smell the pitchforks and fire over the parade of showing young girl characters murdering each other. And I can hear them saying: "girls that young would never do those things!"[/QUOTE] "People who getting angry at films having mostly all-female-casts because they're sexist!" *movie shows up with 8 to 12 year old girls killing each other* "Oh my god, this movie is sexist and violent!"

[QUOTE=squids_eye;52636436]What has indicated that this isn't doing that? We've seen literally nothing other than 'Lord of the Flies but with girls' and everyone is assuming the worst. You'll have plenty of time to hate the film once you actually know if it is bad or not, you don't have to start now.[/QUOTE] Well let's see 1. Telling us absolutely nothing about the work other than "But girls this time" 2. Being written and directed by two men who probably have not the first clue what it's like being a young girl and how they'd act 3. Hollywood's track record on "Let's re-adapt something but with girls this time" movies and movies about women by men

Wait [QUOTE]It is a great adventure story, real entertainment[/QUOTE] Admittedly it's been a long time since I've read the book but that's not really the impression I remember having from it. Also [QUOTE]Mr. Siegel told Deadline, which reported the news, that they intended to do “a very faithful but contemporized adaptation of the book.”[/QUOTE] sounds like a much worse idea than reimagining the thing from the ground up from a girl's perspective.

I think it's also worth noting that if we look into the previous work of the writer/directors, their filmography is somewhat mixed. Of the movies they've written, 2/3 are considered good and for just directing adaptations of existing books they've had one good and one bad. Not exactly the best track record for people adapting such a meaningful work.

[QUOTE=Kljunas;52636538]Wait Admittedly it's been a long time since I've read the book but that's not really the impression I remember having from it. [/QUOTE] "Look everyone, girls can kill eachother on an island too!"

[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] Apocalypse Now is a retelling of Heart of Darkness that completely omits the latter's central theme of slavery and human trafficking. Despite 'missing the point entirely' it's a pretty damn good movie. Not that I expect this film to be Coppola-quality, but it's extremely short-sighted to dismiss an adaptation solely because it doesn't reflect the same themes as the original material. Another example- Dawn of the Dead. The original is about zombies, but it's first and foremost a commentary on consumerism. The 2004 remake largely omits the consumerist aspects in favor of more typical zombie horror tropes, yet it works. It's not a spectacular film by any means, but it's entertaining enough despite not directly replicating the key theme of the original story. When you look at Lord of the Flies I think most people would name the central theme as man's inhumanity to man, not the oppression of male culture. As long as an adaptation preserves that core theme I think it can work in spite of secondary changes.

[QUOTE=Steel & Iron;52634263]Make something new and interesting instead of circling the drain with an existing thing but with a gender bent twist. Ghostbusters didn't fare well, and I don't have high hopes for Ocean's Eight.[/QUOTE] Ghost busters looked like shit, but Ocean's 8 looks cool to me (It has a cool cast IMO). I don't see the problem with Lord of the Flies with girls. Is the gender of the kids important somehow? [editline]1st September 2017[/editline] [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] Or the remake will offer a secondary opinion on the matter. Saying "here's what would happen if you put a bunch of girls on the island instead"

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52636776]Ghost busters looked like shit, but Ocean's 8 looks cool to me (It has a cool cast IMO). I don't see the problem with Lord of the Flies with girls. Is the gender of the kids important somehow?[/QUOTE] If you read the thread then you would have figured out that yes the gender of the kids played a large part in the original story.

"Rose, I want you to draw me like one of your French boys..."

[QUOTE=Bazsil;52636780]If you read the thread then you would have figured out that yes the gender of the kids played a large part in the original story.[/QUOTE] I never read the book. It was assigned in highschool but it was so fucking boring (just like every other book they assign in highschool: Great Gatsby, Catcher in the Rye) that I ended up reading maybe 10 pages [editline]1st September 2017[/editline] Might've googled a synopsis on wikipedia

[QUOTE=RedBaronFlyer;52635628]That sounds hilarious. What is the show called?[/QUOTE] Here you go. [video=youtube;tqfAt7TshLw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqfAt7TshLw[/video]

I know someone mentioned this before but an all female Lord of the Flies really does just sound like Mean Girls now that I think about it lol.

I love Lord of the Flies but it's really hard to just genderswap and roles and leave the story intact. Like the boys later become obsessed with hunting and exploring, they treat it like a game and devolve into a violent war culture eventually. I can't see little girls acting the same way when it comes to that because most girls wouldn't really play war games or pretend hunting. That doesn't mention the absurd amount of weird nudity issue there would be, would they all just wear tshirts for months on end?

Honestly, it doesn't even matter if the movie [I]might [/I][I][B]maybe[/B][/I] [I][B][U]possibly[/U][/B][/I] be any good. It's a cynical corporate move just like the new Ghostbusters was, and that's enough to dismiss it. If they had any artistic merit to them, which I'll bet money on that they don't, they wouldn't be talking about "what if we did literary classic Lord of the Flies... WITH GIRLS????" in the first place.

[QUOTE=Bertie;52636990]Honestly, it doesn't even matter if the movie [I]might [/I][I][B]maybe[/B][/I] [I][B][U]possibly[/U][/B][/I] be any good. It's a cynical corporate move just like the new Ghostbusters was, and that's enough to dismiss it. If they had any artistic merit to them, which I'll bet money on that they don't, they wouldn't be talking about "what if we did literary classic Lord of the Flies... WITH GIRLS????" in the first place.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't be surprised at all if this movie was conceived due to a bunch of faulty consumer data. Like maybe some kind of executive producer somewhere saw that thousands of teenagers have read Lord of the Flies, but didn't realize that it's because it's required reading in hundreds of schools. Then they said "Teenagers loved The Hunger Games with its strong female lead in a life-or-death survival setting! Now what if we do ALL females?" The fact that they're apparently calling it this great entertaining adventure story makes me think they're going to go full "How do you do, fellow kids?" and try to give the movie an edgy Hunger-Games-esque angle.

[QUOTE=Sableye;52635731]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] I sure as hell didn't play it when I was attending something, birthdays or otherwise. I played it when there was literally nothing to do.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;52634265]All female cast for no reason and written and directed by dudes.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=TacticalBacon;52636491]2. Being written and directed by two men who probably have not the first clue what it's like being a young girl and how they'd act 3. Hollywood's track record on "Let's re-adapt something but with girls this time" movies and movies about women by men[/QUOTE] The fact that it's written by men has no significance. Good writers can write believable characters that have struggles even if they're the opposite sex. If this adaptation is stupid it's not because it's made by 2 guys. If it was made by 2 girls it wouldn't automatically make it better.

How cynical of them to exploit the retarded political climate to stifle criticism if the movie winds up being shit.

I don't know, I'm tentatively interested. I think the fact that having a survivor group of all girls is so much different from the entire premise and purpose of the original book makes me wonder how it will all go down and turn out. It's an interesting premise and challenge that will really be defined by execution. Quite frankly though, I think that having it titled as "Lord of the Flies" betrays the unique feeling this movie should be giving off and ultimately might just have been done for marketing purposes. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt though and say that making this an adaptation as opposed to its own thing might be a good thing, as the comparisons that it inspires might change the way that we view the film in the first place and give it the experience that they're going for intentionally.