That’s a good point. To clarify, I think they’re using the tools of that machine to criticize it. I mean, “He exploits the story but fails to take advantage of the true identities of each character.” is going out of its way to use language so that people who have not read the book(s) will ascribe malicious cultural…
My issue is that two different groups accused the film of whitewashing by utilizing kneejerk, nuance-free outrage in a way that distracts from the true systemic issues with representation.
To further defend your point, the headline for the article contains the word “accusations,” indicating SOMEONE is upset. Therefore, your original snark stands on its own merit.
incredibly frustrating to me the way this is being played out. every article has a click bait headline to grab people’s attention and make them assume the worst - which is then negated by the actual content of the article which clearly states this is not something specified in the first book. furthermore, it’s a…
The worst thing about A.V. Club comments are the people who insist “I’m no mad, YOU’RE MAD!” I’m not aggressive (well I kind of was to natureslayer, but that was just now and because natureslayer’s being willfully obtuse, which can be frustrating to deal with).
The only question this raises to me is why didn’t VanderMeer say anything. Unless I missed that part. The only thing I saw was from the Deadline article (which is better than both the I09 one and this one, so read that) …
Just remember folks: When we complain about the AV Club’s lax journalistic standards, it could be worse
I’m sympathetic to both parties in this situation.
“Why limit your information this way?”
It’s pretty common. A lot of directors prefer their actors don’t read the book or watch an original movie at all. A movie stands apart as its own artform, so being beholden to a completely separate type of narrative expression is something that an artist would likely avoid.
Again some aren’t. But there’s as much…
Seeing as it’s very unlikely we’ll ever get a sequel, treating the film like a stand alone was probably a good bet.
Annihilation works on its own.
Weird, you can recognize that a statement from Manaa (that weirdly enough they haven’t linked to) that they’re not mad, but somehow think pointing out that the allegations feel counterproductive makes me “offended”.
It seems like a strange move to not read the other two books in the series (or at least have someone on staff read them) before making a movie of the first book. Why limit your information that way? Plus runs the risk (like in this instance) of missing things revealed in the later books that still impact the story…
Oh, this fucking shit again.
They completely brush by the Garland quotes just to get to the Portman stuff. They don’t acknowledge at all that Garland purposely read only the first book and avoided details about the others. They just say “He claims he wasn’t aware” and link to another, previous article that also tries to portray it like he…
Imagine the type of person who sees a movie about 5 female scientists that gets mad because 60% of them are white.
It’s weird how two sister sites can have such divergent takes on this news. AV Club notes the controversy but treats it with journalistic detachment; io9 basically says that everyone thinks the film is racist.
Of course it’s for clicks.
From what I’ve heard race is not really relevant in the first book, maybe in subsequent books? I don’t know. (Please correct me if I’m wrong.)
Apparently it isn’t mentioned until the second book, but one has “strong Asian heritage” and the other is described as having a “Native American mother, her white father”