Lord of the Flies Remake Backlash (5 Viewers)

[Optimus Prime]

Interesting - I'm not seeing why it wouldn't work with an all girl cast
=========================================================

There is to be a new Lord of The Flies film with a twist - all the people stranded on the island will be female.

The adaptation of*William Golding’s 1954 novel has faced backlash on social media as critics have accused it of "missing the point".................

Feminist writer Roxane Gay commented that "the plot of that book wouldn't happen with all women".

In the book, boys stranded on a desert island try to create order and peace while they wait to be rescued, but they eventually turn to violence and murder.

Some have said the book is about "toxic masculinity" and therefore would not make sense with a female cast.

One critic wrote: "The female-led Lord of the Flies wouldn't ever happen because women would just branch off into their own respective groups peacefully"..........................

http://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/new...ke-that/ar-AAr159V?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

 

[Yeti]

All female Ghostbusters worked good right? Nope.

Stop remaking films. The End.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

All female Ghostbusters worked good right? Nope.

Stop remaking films. The End.

why do we prefer going to see the same 400 yr old plays over and over, but adapting decades old movies gets us in a lather?

 

[Arathrael]

Interesting - I'm not seeing why it wouldn't work with an all girl cast

I'm not either.

William Golding was asked why the book wasn't about girls and offered two reasons, one, that he was once a little boy himself, and two, that a group of little boys is more like a scaled-down version of a society than a group of little girls would be:

Girls say to me, very reasonably, 'why isn’t it a bunch of girls? Why did you write this about a bunch of boys?' Well, my reply is I was once a little boy — I have been a brother, a father, I am going to be a grandfather. I have never been a sister, or a mother, or a grandmother. That’s one answer. Another answer is of course to say that if you, as it were, scaled down human beings, scaled down society, if you land with a group of little boys, they are more like a scaled-down version of society than a group of little girls would be. Don’t ask me why, and this is a terrible thing to say because I’m going to be chased from hell to breakfast by all the women who talk about equality — this is nothing to do with equality at all. I think women are foolish to pretend they are equal to men, they are far superior and always have been. But one thing you can’t do with them is take a bunch of them and boil them down, so to speak, into a set of little girls who would then become a kind of image of civilisation, of society. The other thing is - why aren’t they little boys AND little girls? Well, if they’d been little boys and little girls, we being who we are, sex would have raised its lovely head, and I didn’t want this to be about sex. Sex is too trivial a thing to get in with a story like this, which was about the problem of evil and the problem of how people are to live together in a society, not just as lovers or man and wife.

It's an interesting argument (that a group of girls would be less representative of society). It's a debatable one, and I'd suggest it comes down to views on nature vs nurture. That is, how innate is society, and the behaviour of children raised in that society?

In particular, if it was true that a group of boys raised in a society were more representative of that society than a group of girls raised in that same society, would that always be the case, or would it depend on the nature of the society in question?

I'd be inclined to think that it wouldn't always be the case, it would depend on the society in question, and comparing now to the 1920s-1950s (when William Golding was growing up to write Lord of the Flies), it's at the very least less true that a group of boys would be more representative than a group of girls now than it was then.

I mean, I personally think a group of girls could have worked even in the 1950s, but I can see why many might argue otherwise. But that argument is a lot weaker in 2017 than it was in 1954.

All female Ghostbusters worked good right? Nope.

Mmm. Art, as a mirror to society, is a powerful tool for reflection, and contemporary remakes can have a particular role in that. That one remake doesn't have much merit doesn't mean all remakes don't.

That is, I'd say raising the question of whether a group of girls in 2017 can be held to be representative of society in a similar way a group of boys in 1954 could have been is a considerably more interesting question than, "Can women be ghostbusters?"

 

[CRESS_137]

Seems more about toxic humanity than intending to single out a gender.

Her opinion is one that should be tossed aside, like the notion that racism only exists in the South.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Seems more about toxic humanity than intending to single out a gender.

Her opinion is one that should be tossed aside, like the notion that racism only exists in the South.

2nd sentence does not help or support first sentence

 

[Tapxe]

I can't help but think of the role of Cersei in GoT. No one thought her capable, but it seems she's just as ruthless as she needs to be when it comes to it.

I think we'd need to look into the history of matriarchal societies to really get a clue. I don't have a deep knowledge of them, but would tend towards them developing along a similar arch as the goal is the same.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I'm not either.

William Golding was asked why the book wasn't about girls and offered two reasons, one, that he was once a little boy himself, and two, that a group of little boys is more like a scaled-down version of a society than a group of little girls would be:



It's an interesting argument (that a group of girls would be less representative of society). It's a debatable one, and I'd suggest it comes down to views on nature vs nurture. That is, how innate is society, and the behaviour of children raised in that society?

In particular, if it was true that a group of boys raised in a society were more representative of that society than a group of girls raised in that same society, would that always be the case, or would it depend on the nature of the society in question?

I'd be inclined to think that it wouldn't always be the case, it would depend on the society in question, and comparing now to the 1920s-1950s (when William Golding was growing up to write Lord of the Flies), it's at the very least less true that a group of boys would be more representative than a group of girls now than it was then.

I mean, I personally think a group of girls could have worked even in the 1950s, but I can see why many might argue otherwise. But that argument is a lot weaker in 2017 than it was in 1954.


Mmm. Art, as a mirror to society, is a powerful tool for reflection, and contemporary remakes can have a particular role in that. That one remake doesn't have much merit doesn't mean all remakes don't.

That is, I'd say raising the question of whether a group of girls in 2017 can be held to be representative of society in a similar way a group of boys in 1954 could have been is a considerably more interesting question than, "Can women be ghostbusters?"

Weird thing about Golding's argument is that he says he couldn't do justice to writing from a girl's pov bc he doesn't have one
then he pivots and says why it wouldn't work because of his insights into girls in society
pick one

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I can't help but think of the role of Cersei in GoT. No one thought her capable, but it seems she's just as ruthless as she needs to be when it comes to it.

I think we'd need to look into the history of matriarchal societies to really get a clue. I don't have a deep knowledge of them, but would tend towards them developing along a similar arch as the goal is the same.

male writers have seldom struggled with a Cersei type - essentially she's ruling like a man
what some have struggled with are roles like Ollenna or Margery or Sansa - i think those were far more impressive "from a woman's pov" characters than cersei

 

[El Caliente]

I actually didn't hate the All-Female Ghostbuster movie.

 

[cdogg]

I'm not saying in a Lord of the Flies scenario that if if was all females everything would be perfect, everyone getting along, no factions etc., but it does seem that makes would be more likely to get violent, attack another "clan", etc. Of course women are capable of that, but what happened in the book/movie seems more likely with males.

 

[cdogg]

I actually didn't hate the All-Female Ghostbuster movie.

Me either, except Chris Hemsworth character.

 

[Complex Kid]

I actually didn't hate the All-Female Ghostbuster movie.

Same here. And it didn't exactly bomb box office wise:

Ghostbusters (2016) (2016) - Box Office Mojo

Worldwide: $229,147,509
Production Budget: $144 million

 

[El Caliente]

Same here. And it didn't exactly bomb box office wise:

Ghostbusters (2016) (2016) - Box Office Mojo

Worldwide: $229,147,509
Production Budget: $144 million

Which is crazy right, because all of those Milo Yapanapapinapple (sp) fans said that they were going to boycott Leslie Jones' movie. https://www.amalanetwork.com/latest/2016/07/19/gamergates-war-against-ghostbusters-and-leslie-jones

Me either, except Chris Hemsworth character.

Me too, but he was put there to show a gender reversal where the man is now the sexy stupid assistant.

https://filmnerdsunite.wordpress.co...ear-inducing-gender-reversal-in-ghostbusters/

I also could have done without the ghost dance fighting at the end.

 

[RazorOye]

The new Ghostbusters film was much better than I was led to believe - expectations were rock bottom but the movie was actually pretty good.

Miles better than Ghostbusters 2.

As for LoF... it's interesting. One of the powerful things about that book is the weighty and overt symbolism related to gender.

You've got all the boys running around with phallic symbols, predating on animals and then one another as they try to assert power, culminating in quasi-orgiastic displays of strength and menace.

You've got the effeminate Piggy and the yonic (vaginally reminiscent) conch shell being the only feminine, nurturing elements on the island.

I wonder, from a semiotics point of view, what happens when it's girls wielding penises like a bunch of barbaric hunters.