Roald Dahl Children's Books Being Rewritten

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

So we are both in agreement that changing books is not such a splendid idea?

You clearly haven't bothered to read my posts. That explains why your responses feel so disconnected. You reply to a random post and then bloviate.

Maybe now I should climb up on my soapbox and spout my opinions rather than reading and considering your posts and engaging in a conversation with you.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by DNSB

Much like The Bridgertons where one friend of mine from England commented on the lack of historical accuracy in the racial mix in the ballrooms.

Are you talking about the Bridgerton TV series?

[hildea]

Originally Posted by DNSB

I ran into one item that caused me a bit of a laugh. There was a group trying to raise money for a remake of Gone With The Wind but they ran into the issue that they would not be allowed to have even a small majority of the slaves played by persons of African descent.

Huh, I find that hard to believe. Who had the authority to "not allow" it?

There's no ban (either legal, cultural, or practical) against films where all enslaved characters are played by Black actors.

Or do you mean that they couldn't find investors? And that this difficulty may have been (in part) because of how the book portrays slavery? That's a lot easier to believe.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DNSB

I ran into one item that caused me a bit of a laugh. There was a group trying to raise money for a remake of Gone With The Wind but they ran into the issue that they would not be allowed to have even a small majority of the slaves played by persons of African descent. Much like The Bridgertons where one friend of mine from England commented on the lack of historical accuracy in the racial mix in the ballrooms.

That story sounds too good to be true. Like schools having litter boxes for kids who identify as cats.

Both confirm people's opinions of 'the other side' in almost cartoonish ways. One is just completely untrue and the other... likely untrue.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

That story sounds too good to be true. Like schools having litter boxes for kids who identify as cats.

Both confirm people's opinions of 'the other side' in almost cartoonish ways. One is just completely untrue and the other... likely untrue.

I'm interested in the cite; I searched around a fair bit and could find nothing.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

You clearly haven't bothered to read my posts. That explains why your responses feel so disconnected. You reply to a random post and then bloviate.

Maybe now I should climb up on my soapbox and spout my opinions rather than reading and considering your posts and engaging in a conversation with you.

??

The post I quoted and replied to had you saying, and I paraphrase what I got out of it is this: most old books stay as they been published, maybe minor fixes related to misspelling or changed spelling over time, but some of the variety that get bad press from overreach are few. I am not a mind reader, so you can have meant that the bad press is justified, or that describing it as overreach is wrong.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

That story sounds too good to be true. Like schools having litter boxes for kids who identify as cats.

See Is (In USA:Is Underground) by Joan Aiken.

Many remakes are stupid and simply Holywood laziness. I can't really imagine a remake of "Gone with the Wind". I bought a 2nd hand DVD of True Grit in CEX and was annoyed it was a remake. Maybe I'll have to buy the original.

There are books that are spoiled by being movies, books done badly, remakes that are poorer than originals and movies (remake or not) that maybe should never be shot.
But you don't have to watch them.


Was thinking only one guy still using actual film. Most Cinema is digital now too. Musing: is cinema purely social now with big screens affordable at home? At home you can pause for a toilet break and no-one is sitting in front or otherwise being annoying. Usually no rats either.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Many remakes are stupid and simply Holywood laziness. I can't really imagine a remake of "Gone with the Wind". I bought a 2nd hand DVD of True Grit in CEX and was annoyed it was a remake. Maybe I'll have to buy the original.

There are books that are spoiled by being movies, books done badly, remakes that are poorer than originals and movies (remake or not) that maybe should never be shot.
But you don't have to watch them..

This subthread isn't about whether or not remakes are a good thing. It's about the veracity of this:

"There was a group trying to raise money for a remake of Gone With The Wind but they ran into the issue that they would not be allowed to have even a small majority of the slaves played by persons of African descent."

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by meeera

Are you talking about the Bridgerton TV series?

Yes, that's the one.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by hildea

Huh, I find that hard to believe. Who had the authority to "not allow" it?

There's no ban (either legal, cultural, or practical) against films where all enslaved characters are played by Black actors.

Or do you mean that they couldn't find investors? And that this difficulty may have been (in part) because of how the book portrays slavery? That's a lot easier to believe.

As far as I remember from the item, the major issue was the investors having qualms over the portrayal of slavery in the book preventing the movie from being able to reach profitability. The colour green rules!

[meeera]

Originally Posted by DNSB

Yes, that's the one.

The casting in that series was entirely deliberate, not done out of historical ignorance.

In addition, 100%-lily-white casting in historical European settings _is_ historically inaccurate (but rarely criticised as such).

Lastly, all modern-era Regency Romance is fantasy. The lack of TB and smallpox and cholera and paedatric death is historically inaccurate; so is all the clear skin and great teeth, etc etc etc.

[hildea]

Originally Posted by DNSB

As far as I remember from the item, the major issue was the investors having qualms over the portrayal of slavery in the book preventing the movie from being able to reach profitability. The colour green rules!

Ah, yes, that makes sense. This very different from what you wrote at first:

Originally Posted by DNSB

There was a group trying to raise money for a remake of Gone With The Wind but they ran into the issue that they would not be allowed to have even a small majority of the slaves played by persons of African descent.

Originally Posted by DNSB

The colour green rules!

Um, yes, obviously, in this context? If I ask you to invest in a business venture, and you think my venture won't make money, you're hardly going to invest, are you?

You do know how slavery is portrayed in the book? Slavery is shown as good. Slaves are happy and loyal. When they are freed they stay to work with their previous masters (if they are good people), or turn into troublemakers or criminals if they decide to live on their own. Black people are compared to animals and to children. KKK is described as a group of gentlemen who heroically maintain law and order. Ashley (one of the heroes of the book) is a klan member, and is injured while lynching Black people. I could go on.

I loved this book and film as a teenager -- it was balls and big dresses and war and drama and heroics, and a female protagonist who was good at maths and not very good at understanding people (so despite all the vast differences between me and Scarlett I felt kind of seen?). I didn't notice or think of the racism at all. When I reread parts of it now (because of discussions like this) I cringe.

Do you think making a film based on this book would be a good investment today?

This is such a good example of why these kinds of discussions annoy me.

1. Someone makes a business decision about an old work of art. The decision is based on the fact that norms change. Things which would make money fifty or seventy or a hundred years ago won't necessarily make money today without changes.
2. [Edit.] Some scary, shadowy "they" are forbidding freedom of expression!

---
Added a bit later: I'm probably unfair to you, DNSB, in my last paragraph. You're not (as far as I remember) close to the most hyperbolic poster on this issue.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by DNSB

As far as I remember from the item, the major issue was the investors having qualms over the portrayal of slavery in the book preventing the movie from being able to reach profitability. The colour green rules!

Oh wow. That's 100% different from the original claim. Doesn't even bear any resemblance.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by DNSB

As far as I remember from the item, the major issue was the investors having qualms over the portrayal of slavery in the book preventing the movie from being able to reach profitability. The colour green rules!

Originally Posted by meeera

Oh wow. That's 100% different from the original claim. Doesn't even bear any resemblance.

Really? Perhaps my wording could have been better and I could have used they were unable to find the funding required for the remake due to the portrayal of slavery in the book and/or remake. Perhaps a multi-page spewing of how the portrayal of the slaves in the book and original movie as being basically stupid and childish who needed their masters to take care of them like members of an benevolent extended family? A few more words on the subject of the positive portrayal of the Ku Klux Klan in the book? Great Ghu alone knows how many words have been used in discussions of the inaccuracies in the original book and movie.

The item I read was short and, as usual these days, seemed to oriented at those who lack the attention span to read more than 100 words.

My personal favourite theories were in no particular order:

• That the people attempting to raise money for the remake were going to make a more historically accurate version where the slave owners would be from the Simon Legree school of slave owning. More Roots than Gone With The Wind.
• That the cost of the movie if they included such scenes as the escape from the burning of Atlanta would make it a very risky proposition.

Edit: And yes, allowed was a poor word choice.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by hildea

Um, yes, obviously, in this context? If I ask you to invest in a business venture, and you think my venture won't make money, you're hardly going to invest, are you?

Here, it is starting to get one step further by being marked as unsuitable for the original movie. One step closer to getting it banned. Ban this, ban that, but nobody objects to violence in general as long as it doesn't involve bullying, sex, or racism.


‘Gone With The Wind’ To Get Trigger Warning For “Hurtful Or Harmful” Aspects Of 19th-Century Slavery