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

Who does this gender-bender gimmick even appeal to? Fans of the book are going to be upset, it's not going to draw people in who already dislike the book or have no interest, and if it's meant to appeal to women or feminists than they should feel patronized. As a one-off comic book or something I could see this gimmick being fun -- but as a big budget adaption from a major studio? What's the point? I just don't understand how it's supposed to get the public interested in any way, but people seem to think it's a good idea lately.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52636805]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:[B] Great Gatsby[/B], Catcher in the Rye) that I ended up reading maybe 10 pages [/QUOTE] I actually agree when it comes to Lord of the Flies but pump your brakes on the Great Gatsby, that shit is great.

Arguably part of the point of the book was the concept of masculinity and how it can go terribly wrong. Why would they replace the boys with girls? [editline]1st September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=TacticalBacon;52636491]Well let's see 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 [/QUOTE] They act the way they're written to act because they're [I]characters.[/I] Or do you think the original lord of the flies was a carefully measured simulation of what would actually happen should a plane full of children crash on a deserted island?

[QUOTE=Radical_ed;52638011]Arguably part of the point of the book was the concept of masculinity and how it can go terribly wrong. Why would they replace the boys with girls?[/QUOTE] I [b]know[/b] this isn't the reason, but just to be a devil's advocate: Perhaps as a counter to the point the book was trying to make. Lord of the Flies was a commentary of the inherently self-destructive (or I guess more accurately, socially destructive) nature of boys and masculinity. Or, rather, that was the position the author took and argued through the novel. A particularly astute individual, with a flair for cheeky satire, though, could not only critique the novel [i]with itself[/i], but use that same metacommentary to shut down the point altogether, by having the same scenario play out with the masculinity removed. By having a point-for-point recreation of Lord of the Flies, but with all girls instead of boys, then the commentary being made would basically drown out the original author's in the noise. The commentary goes from "boys are naturally shitty" to "[b]people[/b] are naturally shitty." This astute satirist would find this one of the most poetically beautiful ways to reject the author's argument that masculinity is inherently destructive, and instead replace it with a more universally Hobbes-ian argument that humanity [i]as a whole[/i] is inherently destructive. I do not expect that the writers behind this film are in any way astute satirists, though.

[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;52638245]I [b]know[/b] this isn't the reason, but just to be a devil's advocate: Perhaps as a counter to the point the book was trying to make. Lord of the Flies was a commentary of the inherently self-destructive (or I guess more accurately, socially destructive) nature of boys and masculinity. Or, rather, that was the position the author took and argued through the novel. A particularly astute individual, with a flair for cheeky satire, though, could not only critique the novel [i]with itself[/i], but use that same metacommentary to shut down the point altogether, by having the same scenario play out with the masculinity removed. By having a point-for-point recreation of Lord of the Flies, but with all girls instead of boys, then the commentary being made would basically drown out the original author's in the noise. The commentary goes from "boys are naturally shitty" to "[b]people[/b] are naturally shitty." This astute satirist would find this one of the most poetically beautiful ways to reject the author's argument that masculinity is inherently destructive, and instead replace it with a more universally Hobbes-ian argument that humanity [i]as a whole[/i] is inherently destructive. I do not expect that the writers behind this film are in any way astute satirists, though.[/QUOTE] I really think if you're going to do something like that you should probably retitle it. Otherwise it seems just a bit hypocritical that you would write this scathing commentary on something that you think is flawed, but while doing that also attempt to profit off that same brand by keeping the name. Elric of Melnibone was written in response to flaws that author Moorcock perceived in Conan and Lord of the Rings, for instance, but he still made it his own thing without relying on those titles to prop his work up. Similar with how Predator was a response to hyper-masculine 80s action films, or Spec Ops: The Line to modern military shooters, or Blake's 7 to Star Trek. Just my 2 cents, I realize you don't actually believe that's what they're doing.

[QUOTE=Segab;52637609]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.[/QUOTE] I don't know, drawing from personal experience sure helps when writing about something. Writing a character that happens to be a woman is one thing but writing young girls acting among themselves in a way that's believable sounds trickier for a grown man to do.

[QUOTE=Kljunas;52638392]I don't know, drawing from personal experience sure helps when writing about something. Writing a character that happens to be a woman is one thing but writing young girls acting among themselves in a way that's believable sounds trickier for a grown man to do.[/QUOTE] It's certainly possible, and lots of guys have experience among girls of that age. I was the one boy in my group of friends in middle school/early high school, people with sisters at that age have seen first hand how they behave with their friends, and if you have a background as a teacher or something that would help too. It won't be 100% accurate, but unless you're writing exclusively about yourself and your own life experiences nothing is going to be that accurate.

[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;52638245]I [b]know[/b] this isn't the reason, but just to be a devil's advocate: Perhaps as a counter to the point the book was trying to make. Lord of the Flies was a commentary of the inherently self-destructive (or I guess more accurately, socially destructive) nature of boys and masculinity. Or, rather, that was the position the author took and argued through the novel. A particularly astute individual, with a flair for cheeky satire, though, could not only critique the novel [i]with itself[/i], but use that same metacommentary to shut down the point altogether, by having the same scenario play out with the masculinity removed. By having a point-for-point recreation of Lord of the Flies, but with all girls instead of boys, then the commentary being made would basically drown out the original author's in the noise. The commentary goes from "boys are naturally shitty" to "[b]people[/b] are naturally shitty." This astute satirist would find this one of the most poetically beautiful ways to reject the author's argument that masculinity is inherently destructive, and instead replace it with a more universally Hobbes-ian argument that humanity [i]as a whole[/i] is inherently destructive. I do not expect that the writers behind this film are in any way astute satirists, though.[/QUOTE] I have to agree with your assessment that the corporate manufacture of this film would not be critically self-reflective, I mean hell, they already announced that the cast will be all girls- that, to me, implies a total lack of care for the actual film. They probably just want to make money from controversy, just like ghostbusters and any other film that is "X but with girls this time!"

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52636805]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[/QUOTE] This explains so much.

I mean if memory serves there was another film adaptation that had the pilot land completely alive and he wound up rescuing the kids, so as long as they don't go that route I think this won't be the worst adaptation of the text by default.