Lord Of The Butterflies?
In the sick and macabre world of modern feminism, girls are not as icky and horrible as boys. Any talk of equality or wanting equality is only that—talk! After the dull-witted decision to shapeshift a bunch of ghost hunters with proton packs into a posse of masculinity hating menstrual cases, Hollywood geniuses have decided once again to repeat the same wretched mistake. However, this time it might very well be worth the giggles.
William Golding's brilliant 1954 novel Lord Of The Flies is being remade into a brand new, contemporary version that will fit effortlessly into the puzzle that is our current nightmare. Social justice warriors rejoice!
It appears that our modern feminists are none too happy with the direction of this new remake and how it is being written by two men, namely Evan Siegel and Scott McGehee and how it will focus on a group of young girls stranded on an island. Oh, but their disappointment and outrage does not end there. Oh no! There is more.
In a barrage of explicit rage and hormonal psychosis, feminists immediately pointed out that Golding's original novel was intended to portray the toxicity of masculinity and that “manhood” was meant to be the central, encompassing theme of Lord Of The Flies. Their argument, thus, is that women could, would never engage in such uncivilized acts of unadulterated savagery as depicted in the 1954 novel and its film adaptations of the same name. Never! No way.
The world of modern feminism is complicated. Boys are icky and gross, until we want their jobs and salaries—in which case we should all be equal. Perhaps the world of feminism has some sort of mystical logic embedded somewhere beneath a multitude of layers that our simple, male minds cannot comprehend.
If you have not caught on to what is happening yet, because you are of a simple male nature like myself, we are talking about William Golding's classic 1954 novel, Lord Of The Flies being adapted into a new, contemporary version with an all female cast. Yes, an all female cast. That means young women, stripped down to their under garments, calmly building a purely civilized culture on an undiscovered island with only a few minor disagreements which are quickly resolved through discussion. In order for the film to be accurate, we are told, there cannot be any savagery, murder, betrayal, jealousy or brutality—because women are not capable of such profoundly unsanitary acts. Surely not while they are trapped on an island with not a man in sight.
If you're wondering what could have triggered such a bizarre idea, perhaps The Telegraph can be of some help:
Mr McGehee said they were “taking the opportunity to tell it in a way it hasn’t been told before, with girls rather than boys, [which] shifts things in a way that might help people see the story anew.”
Mr McGehee told Deadline that the film adaptation hopes to challenge "conventions, the ways we think of boys and aggression."
Mr Siegel said: “It is a timeless story that is especially relevant today, with the interpersonal conflicts and bullying, and the idea of children forming a society and replicating the behavior they saw in grownups before they were marooned.”
Oh dear. It appears the writers do intend to change the way we view masculinity and boys. The feminists were correct. Now all we will have to do is sit back and wait for the remake to hit our theatres, so we can see what kind of hormonal rage will be depicted by male writers tasked with deciphering the female mind and how it may function in a state of pure anarchy. The results should send feminists into a spiralling tizzy that will entertain us more than the film itself.
Buckle up, boys!