Next for SJW’s to ruin: “A Wrinkle in Time”

Okay, if you don’t know “A Wrinkle in Time”, it’s all white people (here is my retrospective). The main characters have the last names of “Murry” and “O’keefe”. The protagonist, Margaret “Meg” Murry, is red-haired and freckled.

Now let’s see the casting of the movie. We have:

  • Oprah Winfrey, Mindy Kaling, and Reese Witherspoon as the witches. Black, brown, and white, when the characters described are obviously white. Also, the casting is terrible. None of the three are a remotely good fit.
  • Storm Reid as Meg Murry. Black.
  • Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Meg’s mother. Black.
  • Chris Pine as Meg’s father. White. Interracial marriage for the win! You know how common those white man/black woman dual scientist marriages are, so kudos for finally portraying one on screen! At least he’s actually a pretty good fit for the role.

If there was ever a movie to boycott, that would be it.

Why is this here and not on Superversive SF? Because frankly I really am not in the mood to spend time making the case and arguing about why this is obviously SJW stunt casting in order to virtue signal. I think most of my readers here can see it pretty clearly.

Though to be fair, the leftist and feminist L’Engle probably would have wanted it this way anyway. But it’s still bullshit.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Next for SJW’s to ruin: “A Wrinkle in Time”

  1. John says:

    ”The main characters have the last names of “Murry” and “O’keefe”. The protagonist, ”

    Is the O’Keefe guy’s first name James by any chance?

  2. Zippy says:

    Wrinkle is actually rather subversive and leftist. (I say that as someone who cherished it as a kid).

    Meg realizes that the one thing she has that IT does not have, is love. Fantastic epiphany.

    Then she invokes the power of her discovery by reciting (IIRC) Thomas Jefferson or something. Liberalism is Good Incarnate.

    I loved the books, and that is precisely why they should be burned.

    • That’s an interesting case. But you’re remembering it wrong.

      Meg realizes that the one thing she has that IT does not have, is love. Fantastic epiphany.

      Not exactly; Meg needs to be the one to rescue Charles because she’s the one with the strongest personal connection with him. It’s love, but there’s logic behind it: Individualism over collectivism. Meg loves Charles Wallace the individual, which is what breaks him out of the collectivist trap from IT. His own father couldn’t do it because, having been trapped away from home for so long, he simply didn’t know him long enough. Remember, it’s a children’s book. The message is a fine one, if cheesy.

      The Declaration of Independence scene is earlier; she recites it to hold off IT’s mind control, and while it works for a bit, the heavy implication is that she had to escape RIGHT THEN or she’d be trapped too. The message is that the philosophy is all well and good, but it’s the actual, concrete actions of Meg that really matter.

      The scene you’re thinking of involves Meg coming to the realization that “equal” does not mean the same thing as “same”. In other words, it’s the words of someone “half out” of the mind trap; they realize there’s a mind trap, but doesn’t recognize the Declaration is perpetuating it. The specific message of individualism over collectivism is pushed very clearly.

      Properly done, the scene would have Meg come to the horrified realization that IT was actually the logical conclusion to the idea that all men are created equal – but that she recognizes the problem is itself a good message.

      So I don’t agree.

      • (“A Wind in the Door” was also the first book to introduce to me the idea that love was not an emotion, which was a paradigm-shifting thought for ten year old me, and I still think remarkable to see in a children’s book.)

  3. Lorraine says:

    I completely agree with you. It is complete and total bullshit to make all of the Murry’s minus Mr. Murry black. In doing this it will completely change the story and if they decide to continue the saga it will dramatically change those story’s as well.. The fact that they are changing there race will completely rewright every single book.. All of this black people are minorities and there needs to be more black leads in movies is discusting, white people are now becoming the minority,. And changing basically the entire book to make black people happier is bullshit! If you want a movie about a black girl who travels through time and space then write a new book do not drag an amazing classic through shit. Megs red hair and fair skin hold huge importants through out the series of books. This can not happen!

  4. Melba Marie says:

    I just saw the trailer, had the exact same thought; then, I went searching the internet to see if I was the only one disgusted by liberals hijacking another classic story in order to push their agenda.
    The SJW phrase “colorblind casting” makes me want to scream every time I hear it because it is an outright lie. It’s not casting without regard to race; it is merely inserting Black actors into historically and traditionally White roles.
    Yeah, I’ll buy into colorblind casting and invest my time and money into this latest Lefty propaganda as soon as someone remakes Alex Haley’s “Roots” with an all White cast.
    Until then let’s just call it what it is, anti-White social conditioning for the masses.

  5. Crude says:

    It’s more than virtue-signaling. It’s anti-white hostility. Part of the selling point of a movie like this is to give SJWs the opportunity to lecture and berate any white person who sees the hypocrisy, or who complains. Hell, the very idea that “white people, particular white people who have no racial shame and thus are likely to be on the right, will object” make people giddy. (Notice how the news about Dr Who was expressly billed as “They made a casting choice with Dr Who which will piss off the people leftists hate!” More than anything else.)

    What’s changing is I’m now seeing more people willing to talk about things being anti-white, which was a far bigger taboo as recently as a few years ago. And I mean people saying that and thinking it’s rotten.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s