The Divergent Series

[Chicken Wing]

Actual weekend box office: $52.26M

[GaT]

I was reading Laney Gossip, & someone did a review of Insurgent. I was skimming through it when I read this

 

The crux of the conflict is that Jeanine needs a Divergent to pass “sims” of the five factions in order to unlock a special box—what the f*ck, how did this sh*t become a best seller?—and receive a message from the people who set up their five-faction system.

Um, that's not from the book is it? I don't remember anything like that in the book. We don't even find out

that the whole 5 personality system was an experiment

until Allegiant. Did they change the entire story?

[methodwriter85]

Yeah, they basically did.

 

Tris doesn't have sex with Four, either, but she does in the movie.

[Chicken Wing]

Did they change the entire story?

 

Kind of but not really but yeah. The movie took Jeanine's divergent hunting and gave it another, more tangible purpose. In the book, she just wants to figure out how to develop a serum that will control them, but in the movie she has to put them through specific simulations in order to unlock the magic box that holds the secret information from the founders - information she believes will help in her mission to get rid of divergents. Essentially, they took the two main issues in the book - Jeanine hunting down divergents and experimenting on them, the secret information that Abnegation was hiding - and tied them together. On the one hand, it's a good thing because otherwise Jeanine's machinations would seem rather aimless and arbitrary and tying everything together makes for a cleaner plot, since in the book the two issues had nothing to do with each other. But on the other hand ... a magic box? Really?

Edited March 24, 2015 by Chicken Wing

[GaT]

Thanks methodwriter85 & Chicken Wing for the info. The fact that they're willing to do such a major change makes me think that 

Tris won't die

in Allegiant.

[methodwriter85]

If they do go with that ending, I hope they find some way to make that mess actually work. The bitching hasn't been about the ending, but how they got there, and what the actual impact the ending has.

[Chicken Wing]

Based on rumors I've heard and the way the plot of Insurgent the movie unfolds, it seems like a lot of changes will be made to Allegiant. All of the nonsensical things that surrounded you-know-what may not even apply. In theory, it would be possible for them to write a better context for you-know-what, but I'm not holding my breath. I haven't watched Insurgent but I've read the full plot synopsis and from what I can tell from that, and from the criticism in the reviews, it doesn't sound like these screenwriters are any more adept at crafting a compelling and well-thought plot than Roth is, and they certainly don't seem to know how to infuse the story with any sense of depth or purpose. (These seem to be the chief complaints by critics this time around - weak and often illogical plotting and a lack of any reason to care about anything.) If they did still do you-know-what in Allegiant, it would likely still come off as pointless.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Chicken Wing

[Emily Thrace]

Tris doesn't have sex with Four, either, but she does in the movie.

 

Eh its implied in the book, they just can't come right out and say it because the morality police would be all over that shit. Tris has to get dressed before she leaves for Erudite she wouldn't need to do that unless she had already taken her clothes off.  Veronica Roth has confirmed that I believe.

 

If they do go with that ending, I hope they find some way to make that mess actually work. The bitching hasn't been about the ending, but how they got there, and what the actual impact the ending has.

 

I doubt anyone would have been happy with how Veronica Roth ended things. A coherent narrative might have satisfied the critics but the readers would have still felt cheated. At the end of the day most people want the happy ending or at least something like it. I mean the biggest critics of the epilogue for Hunger Games are Gale/Katniss shippers. Ditto Harry Potter and Harry/Hermione fans Ultimately I think TPTB are too concerned with the bottom line to take the risk of sticking with the original ending. 

 

But on the other hand ... a magic box? Really?

Yeah they took a fairly ridiculous part of the novel and made it ..... dumber. Not to mention they stripped out any semblance of soul or brain the story had. The worst part is it made Tris into the special snowflake who has to save them all. One of the few things this series had over Hunger Games that Divergent didn't do that..

[methodwriter85]

It's just angering, because if they wanted so badly to rip off The Hunger Games, they should have gotten that team in place for the second movie. They actually knew how to infuse depth and make memorable characters. Cinna, Haymitch, Effie, and Seneca Crane were brilliantly developed from their characters in the book.

Edited March 25, 2015 by methodwriter85

[Chicken Wing]

Eh its implied in the book, they just can't come right out and say it because the morality police would be all over that shit. Tris has to get dressed before she leaves for Erudite she wouldn't need to do that unless she had already taken her clothes off.  Veronica Roth has confirmed that I believe.

 

I thought it was clear that they did not have sex in this scene in the book. I "get dressed" before I go out, but I wasn't naked. I'm dressing for being outside as opposed to wearing whatever crap I was wearing before. The only time in the books they might have had sex was in Allegiant, and Roth confirmed that she left it deliberately ambiguous as to whether or not they did there.

 

 

 

Ultimately I think TPTB are too concerned with the bottom line to take the risk of sticking with the original ending.

 

That's what I'm thinking, but you never know. The people behind these movies haven't exactly been making entirely sound decisions so far. Just about everybody and their grandmother believes the Allegiant split is a bad idea, has always known it was a bad idea, yet they show no signs of backpedaling on that plan even though Insurgent's numbers are showing that the next movie is poised for a huge, brand-damaging plummet. I don't think they've made any plans or decisions as to the ending of the series, but if they're smart they'll weigh their options carefully and realize they can't really afford to take any chances. This franchise isn't big enough for that risk, and it's just going to get smaller. It would have been an encouraging sign for the series if Insurgent had improved on Divergent's box office numbers, shown some growth and widened appeal, but the fact that it made less even with a 3-D upcharge on a decent percentage of the tickets shows that the audience is already losing interest - and we didn't even get to the crappy movie yet.

 

 

 

The worst part is it made Tris into the special snowflake who has to save them all. One of the few things this series had over Hunger Games that Divergent didn't do that..

 

Here's one decision of Veronica's that the filmmakers seemed to have no problem going against: She said it was important that Tris be just a regular person, a flawed human being.

One of the reasons she ultimately decided to have being divergent mean nothing at all was because she wanted to dispel the implication that there was supposed to be something special about Tris.

The movies, particularly Insurgent, seem to be going out of their way to do the exact opposite of what Veronica wanted to show with her character. She IS special, she IS better and more powerful than everyone else (for reasons that have yet to be explained). She's 100 percent divergent, whatever the hell that means. Only she can unlock the truth. Only she can set the world free. Only she can prevent forest fires. (No, wait, that's the other thing.) She. Is. The ONE.

 

Whatever.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Chicken Wing

[absnow54]

Here's one decision of Veronica's that the filmmakers seemed to have no problem going against: She said it was important that Tris be just a regular person, a flawed human being. 

One of the reasons she ultimately decided to have being divergent mean nothing at all was because she wanted to dispel the implication that there was supposed to be something special about Tris.

The problem is, is that Roth wrote Tris as the specialist of snowflakes, especially in Allegiant. Tris's only flaw is that she

gets herself shot and killed in the end. In every other instance, Tris is always right, and Tobias is a whimpering fuck-up all because Tris has pure genetics (divergent) and Tobias is a fake.

[Chicken Wing]

The problem is, is that Roth wrote Tris as the specialist of snowflakes, especially in Allegiant.

 

I know, right? Great, being divergent

is nothing more than having different genes, which for all intents and purposes doesn't mean anything at all because biology means nothing. (And I hope to God the rumors are true that they're dropping that genetics plot in the movie because Stupid.) Everyone is the same, everyone is equal, everyone is capable of the same things.

But then she has Tris still being the only one who can do no wrong, the one who's always right, the one who can save the day in the end, while everyone who's Not Tris, divergent or not, is made to be inferior. The storyline in Allegiant was just one big exercise in talking out of both sides of your mouth. It's like Roth got so mired in the convoluted and nonsensical plot that she didn't even notice she was contradicting her own "point" left and right.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Chicken Wing

[FozzyBear]

So I just saw Insurgent. It's bad folks, really bad. I will admit I never got past the 1st book (I think VR is not a great writer), but even though I don't love this series, the 1st movie manged to come up with a decent narrative and engage in some interesting world building. This is just bad...and incoherent...and boring...and BAD! Magic box! Half of the movie is about opening a magic box! And so much other bad stuff. I actually laughed out loud when we found the much talked about hiding Dauntless survivors. They're literally just hanging out in Candor's town square. They haven't even changed clothes! That's not hidding! And don't get me started on all the goofy magic/science crap going on. Why wouldn't the magic mind control bullets work on Divergents? That makes no sense! And what was that little scanner they were using to find Divergents? 40% Divergent...what does that mean? What the hell is that thing reading? I just can't.

[methodwriter85]

Right now Insurgent is about 8 million behind where Divergent was at this point, although it's ahead globally. The decision to split Allegiant is looking more dumb every passing day.

 

Anyway...

 

Veronica Roth on the changes

 

Notice how she kinda hems and haws a little about the ending to Allegiant? I wonder if she got a stern talking to by Lionsgate after being very emphatic about there being no love triangle in the Divergent series. I don't think that means they're changing the ending, but I don't think Lionsgate wants there to be a definitive yes or no at this point.

 

It's really funny to compare her to E.L. James, who has become the gold standard of nightmare authors to work with. Roth, along with John Green, seem to be in general willing to let the movie people do their thing.

[absnow54]

It's really funny to compare her to E.L. James, who has become the gold standard of nightmare authors to work with. Roth, along with John Green, seem to be in general willing to let the movie people do their thing.

I don't know that I'd put Roth in the same category as John Green. John Green seems really passionate and collaborative about the adaptations. Roth seems like she's happy to cash the paycheck and let the people do what they want to do. Good for her for slamming the book 3 split though.

[methodwriter85]

Good point- John's really into the adaption process, but in a good way. (As opposed to Linda Tripp in a black wig.) Veronica Roth seems more along the lines of the people who took their paycheck and ran laughing off to the bank.

Edited March 30, 2015 by methodwriter85

[methodwriter85]

Insurgent is now standing at 114 million domestic, 250 million worldwide.

 

Yeah, they've just now made back their production budget with domestic gross.

[Chicken Wing]

The studio only gets half the domestic box office, and they take a smaller cut of the international revenue because they pre-sell the foreign rights. But the amount they got from the pre-sales plus the domestic share at this point probably did make up the budget altogether.

[Chicken Wing]

Allegiant casting news:

 

Jeff Daniels is in final talks to play

David

.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Chicken Wing

[absnow54]

This really is becoming the most prestigious "yeah, whatever, hand over the money" cast ever assembled.

[methodwriter85]

Well, with Kate Winslet gone, that should have freed up enough to grab some well-respected actors.

 

It's crazy to me that they have such a good cast wasted on something so mediocre and lacking in character depth.

[methodwriter85]

I'm starting to think that Insurgent isn't even going to hit the 130 million mark. Wow. Just wow.

 

They haven't updated the world box office totals, but there's no way it's hitting 350 million.

[BatmanBeatles]

I think it's a case of a "Been there, done that." feeling.

[Chicken Wing]

I'm starting to think that Insurgent isn't even going to hit the 130 million mark. Wow. Just wow.

 

They haven't updated the world box office totals, but there's no way it's hitting 350 million.

 

Insurgent might finish just a shade over 130M domestic. At this same weekend, Divergent was up to 145M and eked out another 5M, so Insurgent, lagging by a good 10-15%, could probably squeeze out another 3-4M if given the same amount of time in theaters. The foreign box office is all but petered out also, likely only has a couple million to squeak out, so the worldwide total will probably be around $280M without the China box office, which probably won't contribute too much more. Divergent pulled in 12M total there, but after an opening week of 9M. Apparently there wasn't a lot of holdover interest, which doesn't bode too favorably for interest in the sequel but you never know. The release schedule isn't too helpful: Insurgent finally opens in China on June 13 - three days after Jurassic World opens there. So ... yeah. Most likely, China will bring in enough for Insurgent to squeak by Divergent's total (288M) but it probably won't hit 300M. So much for Lionsgate's prediction last year of 350-400M.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Chicken Wing

[methodwriter85]

Insurgent might finish just a shade over 130M domestic. At this same weekend, Divergent was up to 145M and eked out another 5M, so Insurgent, lagging by a good 10-15%, could probably squeeze out another 3-4M if given the same amount of time in theaters. The foreign box office is all but petered out also, likely only has a couple million to squeak out, so the worldwide total will probably be around $280M without the China box office, which probably won't contribute too much more. Divergent pulled in 12M total there, but after an opening week of 9M. Apparently there wasn't a lot of holdover interest, which doesn't bode too favorably for interest in the sequel but you never know. The release schedule isn't too helpful: Insurgent finally opens in China on June 13 - three days after Jurassic World opens there. So ... yeah. Most likely, China will bring in enough for Insurgent to squeak by Divergent's total (288M) but it probably won't hit 300M. So much for Lionsgate's prediction last year of 350-400M.

 

If Lionsgate isn't doing some SERIOUS re-evaluation about the split sequel, or some major budget cutting, they are serious idiots. 130 domestic against a 110 million budget? That's pretty horrible.

 

They're going to drop like 220 million on two movies that might (operative word might) gross about 450 to 500 million worldwide? That barely seems worth it.

Edited May 11, 2015 by methodwriter85

[Chicken Wing]

Seriously, the box office totals aren't bad when taken out of context. But when you consider the budget, the investment they're putting into these movies, like they're a "thing," it's downright amusing. That's not a good number when you spent that much money! They better scale back the budget on Allegiant, like, a lot. Their pre-selling the foreign rights is the only reason they can stay in the black even with the meager returns, but Allegiant, particularly the "part one" of that movie and double-particularly with that part one yet to move from its completely counterproductive release date, could very well underperform to the point where even the pre-sales don't make up for it. If they insist on making two movies, can they please just make them on a budget of, say, fifty bucks?

Edited May 11, 2015 by Chicken Wing

[Emily Thrace]

Seriously, the box office totals aren't bad when taken out of context. But when you consider the budget, the investment they're putting into these movies, like they're a "thing," it's downright amusing. That's not a good number when you spent that much money! They better scale back the budget on Allegiant, like, a lot. Their pre-selling the foreign rights is the only reason they can stay in the black even with the meager returns, but Allegiant, particularly the "part one" of that movie and double-particularly with that part one yet to move from its completely counterproductive release date, could very well underperform to the point where even the pre-sales don't make up for it. If they insist on making two movies, can they please just make them on a budget of, say, fifty bucks?

 

I think its less the budget and more the writing. Thar's the real reason this movie didn't do as well as Hunger Games. Grown adults are much less likely to go to a badly reviewed YA movie than they are one that got great reviews in spite of being based on a YA book. I also think paying up the action angle was a major misstep. It targets completely the wrong audience. Even Hunger Games has a largely female audience and I think that hurt repeat numbers and growth from the older female audience. My mom went to Mockingjay because she heard it was good and she liked the first ones.  The reviews more than anything really hurt the movie and prevented any buzz from building. The bottom line is if older audience members feels embarrassed to go to your movie they're not going to go.

 

Plus the movie was so far from the book most of the book fans felt cheated. I think making the movie less of a thriller and more of a character story would go a long way. The last book lends itself more to that anyway. Not to mention their going to have to put some the political stuff back in to get the plot make any kind of sense. Without Marcus and Evelynne;s power plays there is no story for inside Chicago. They're also going to have to work real hard to make any of the Tobias crap work at all. Most of his actions were barely comprehensible in a screwed up 18 year old they'll look damn near psychotic in Theo James grown up Four.  There is one bright side to this box office news

it makes it much less likely that they will kill Tris in the end

[Chicken Wing]

I think its less the budget and more the writing. Thar's the real reason this movie didn't do as well as Hunger Games. Grown adults are much less likely to go to a badly reviewed YA movie than they are one that got great reviews in spite of being based on a YA book. I also think paying up the action angle was a major misstep. It targets completely the wrong audience. Even Hunger Games has a largely female audience and I think that hurt repeat numbers and growth from the older female audience. My mom went to Mockingjay because she heard it was good and she liked the first ones.  The reviews more than anything really hurt the movie and prevented any buzz from building. The bottom line is if older audience members feels embarrassed to go to your movie they're not going to go.

 

That's a big part of it, you're right. As much as this series is derided as being a "Hunger Games ripoff," people might still feel inclined to check it out if they heard that it was actually good, that despite that label it's actually quite different from Hunger Games and very interesting, etc. These movies have so far been none of these things. There's nothing to really draw people in or make them even care that this franchise exists. These movies aren't all that good. They aren't terrible, not at all, but they're not very good, either, and a lot of the reviews, both "positive" and "negative" have the same sentiment: It's not bad, but it's not that good, just sort of "eh." And a movie that's considered "eh" at best, with tepid reviews and tepid word of mouth, is not really going to send people to the theater in droves if they weren't already interested. There's just not a whole lot to get people to care. It's just so blandly mediocre, so unoffensively average that it actually becomes offensive. Because you can tell they didn't really even try.

 

And that's the real disappointment, at least for me as someone who was a fan of the (first two) books and would have liked to see them adapted into good movies: the filmmakers honestly don't seem all that interested in making the movies anything better than average. No real thought put into it, no depth, no distinction, nothing to say that they're trying to make a good, original, exciting movie, just cranking out something to put in theaters so they can make back enough money to break even. It's like doing the minimum amount of work necessary to get a C-minus on a term paper, knowing very well that the teacher can tell that you didn't even try but not caring anyway because you just needed to pass and be done with it.

 

That's what this series feels like, and it doesn't have to be that way. As flawed as the source material is, there is potential for really good movies buried in there - if only they would hire directors and screenwriters who cared enough, or were talented enough, to actually draw that out instead of just ticking off boxes on a How To Make A Generic Sci-Fi Movie Without Even Trying checklist. If they put the checklist away and actually put some effort into these movies, focused more on story and character instead of lame special effects just for the sake of being a special effects movie, did more to make the story stand out as something other than a low-rent Hunger Games placeholder, they just might succeed in creating something that average moviegoers would want to see. But as it is, they're like mindlessly formulaic shoot-'em-ups that are, at best, a serviceable way to kill two hours if you happen to catch it on TV, but not good enough to warrant going to the trouble of putting on pants and trudging all the way to the movie theater.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Chicken Wing

[GaT]

the filmmakers honestly don't seem all that interested in making the movies anything better than average. No real thought put into it, no depth, no distinction, nothing to say that they're trying to make a good, original, exciting movie, just cranking out something to put in theaters so they can make back enough money to break even.

That's exactly how Summit Entertainment works. they learned how to make movies from the Twilight series.

[methodwriter85]

I mean, the fact that Tris gets nearly killed by a guy she considered a friend, who then kills himself because of her rejection, yet it was basically just a mere footnote so we could get kickass scenes of Tris training or Tris and Four making out to the wailing of Ellie Goulding pretty much says it all.

 

They had a real chance to do something with the second movie, but by all accounts they didn't which means they clearly didn't care about things like character development or making a compelling story.

 

Contrast that to the second Hunger Games movie, which clearly tried to up the game and address complaints/criticisms that people had of the first movie, and it wound up becoming so far the most popular film in that franchise.

[Chicken Wing]

Insurgent's China release date has been moved to June 19. Looks like someone finally came to their senses. In the battle of dinosaurs vs. YA crap, the dinosaurs always win.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Chicken Wing

[methodwriter85]

I think it's hilarious that they touted the global box office at the beginning as to why Lionsgate was so happy with the movie's performance, and it cratered, too.

[BW Manilowe]

Daniel Dae Kim is returning for Allegiant. He Tweeted this pic the other day; apparently, at the time, he was on the plane en route to the filming location:

https://mobile.twitter.com/danieldaekim/status/602297785627488256/actions

[methodwriter85]

I hope they cut the budget by at least a quarter.

[Chicken Wing]

Insurgent opened in China this weekend to $8.9 million. By comparison, Divergent opened to $9.37 million.

[nksarmi]

There was no Four in Allegiant, there was only Tobias, a boy who only wanted his mommy.

My daughter is reading the series now and I liked the premise of the first movie so I am reading them as well.  I peaked ahead just to see what the ending held and I have to say that I am obsessed about how sick the ending made me. 

Seriously, the hero dies and the hateful, spiteful mother gets to be with her son after leaving him to be abused by the dad and all the things she said to Tris.

  I am seriously debating telling my daughter to skip the last book since she has only finished the second one.

[nksarmi]

I think its less the budget and more the writing. Thar's the real reason this movie didn't do as well as Hunger Games. Grown adults are much less likely to go to a badly reviewed YA movie than they are one that got great reviews in spite of being based on a YA book. I also think paying up the action angle was a major misstep. It targets completely the wrong audience. Even Hunger Games has a largely female audience and I think that hurt repeat numbers and growth from the older female audience. My mom went to Mockingjay because she heard it was good and she liked the first ones.  The reviews more than anything really hurt the movie and prevented any buzz from building. The bottom line is if older audience members feels embarrassed to go to your movie they're not going to go.

 

Plus the movie was so far from the book most of the book fans felt cheated. I think making the movie less of a thriller and more of a character story would go a long way. The last book lends itself more to that anyway. Not to mention their going to have to put some the political stuff back in to get the plot make any kind of sense. Without Marcus and Evelynne;s power plays there is no story for inside Chicago. They're also going to have to work real hard to make any of the Tobias crap work at all. Most of his actions were barely comprehensible in a screwed up 18 year old they'll look damn near psychotic in Theo James grown up Four.  There is one bright side to this box office news

it makes it much less likely that they will kill Tris in the end

I liked the second Hunger Game move much more than the first, but I liked the premise of Divergent more.  I agree about Four though - I am only a fraction into Allegient and I can't stand his mother.  I actually loathe her and I have looked ahead to see the ending and it turns my stomach.  I almost have a hard time believing a woman wrote her and I hope the movies change the ending.

[nksarmi]

Which, again, I don't see how you're possibly going to pull that off with Four being 32 years old, and Naomi Watts being a youthful 47-year old. I don't look at them and assume mother and son. I don't get why they didn't cast somebody more in the mid/late 50-something range to offset Theo's real age. Naomi is barely old enough to be Theo's mother, and with her youthfulness she looks like she might have babysit Four when she was 12.

 

They have made so many mis-steps and mistakes that it's kind of amazing this hasn't bombed in a spectacular fashion, and that's probably largely because they did get a very talented cast.

I haven't seen Insurgent yet, but if they look that close in age, it's going to be even creepier when Watts delivers some of those lines the mother has in the books to Tris - almost like she's a jealous girlfriend instead of a mother who faked her death, left her son behind with is abuser, and somehow assumes he owes her his loyalty.

[Emily Thrace]

I haven't seen Insurgent yet, but if they look that close in age, it's going to be even creepier when Watts delivers some of those lines the mother has in the books to Tris - almost like she's a jealous girlfriend instead of a mother who faked her death, left her son behind with is abuser, and somehow assumes he owes her his loyalty.

 

While they change a lot the lines there is definitely a slightly creepy pseudo-incestuous vibe to their relationship. Which actually given the history isn't entirely unexpected. In a situation like that a mother and son often would be slightly closer than strictly healthy because the abuse isolates them so much.  I got that vibe from the books a bit too though. Particularly the way Evelyn reacts to Tris, I almost wonder if Evelyn didn't have a beef with Tris's parents considering how hostile she for no apparent reason.

 

I liked the second Hunger Game move much more than the first, but I liked the premise of Divergent more.  I agree about Four though - I am only a fraction into Allegient and I can't stand his mother.  I actually loathe her and I have looked ahead to see the ending and it turns my stomach.  I almost have a hard time believing a woman wrote her and I hope the movies change the ending.

Yeah Veronica Roth seems to assume that simply because Evelyn is battered that she is sympathetic. Its something of a trope (the walking dead pulls it with Carol a lot too) where the fact that Evelyn was beaten by her husband in the past means she is a good person despite massive evidence to the contrary in the present. However Evelyn is still an asshole who treats her son like a prized possession regardless of her history. Evelyn seemed to feel Tobias having his own feelings about politics and people was some kind of betrayal.  I get that some of that is Evelyn left behind a little boy who idolized her and wasn't sure how to relate to an adult. It just that she never adjust her tactics or expectations that make her seem so self involved. Sadly Evelyn comes across as sociopath who only really cares about her son in relation to how other people perceive them and how he see her rather than actually giving a damn about Tobias. A telling moment is in the Insurgent book when Tobias comes back from Erudite and Evelyn makes sure to get the photo op hug but Tori is the one who bothers to check over his injuries. Its a sad and scary thing when the parent who beat their child with belt starts to look like the warm caring one. As Marcus said he believed what he was doing was in his best interest and wasn't about him something Evelyn never seemed to consider.  Worst of all is that the author doesn't seem to see this and thinks that telling us Evelyn loves Tobias makes it so.

 

Sadly where the Hunger Games often would have been much improved if the author cared about psychology.  This series often like Veronica Roth has read too many textbooks and not seen enough actual human interaction. Several of the characters seem to lack true motivation and instead check of boxes on a mental health sheet. Marcus for instance fits all the personality traits of a sociopath but there is never any explanation as to why. A lot of the characters seem based more in what the author has read about than actually experienced.  Evelyn is justified in her actions because of what Marcus did and it neatly explains all of her actions. Except real people aren't like that so it just feels off. The story really doesn't have a lot of nuance to any of the characters. Evelyn truly is a good person but Marcus is just evil. Which is part of why the story is so frustrating because it ends up reducing the characters to stand-in for the authors moral sermons.  

[Artsda]

 

I am seriously debating telling my daughter to skip the last book since she has only finished the second one.

She might be better off. I wish I never went past the first book and for sure don't want to see Allegiant. The book just recycles the plot from Insurgent and Four because a character I couldn't even recognize. Where as with The Hunger Games, the world changes, there's one main goal, all the characters are their core selves and don't have different personalities appear out of nowhere.

[nksarmi]

While they change a lot the lines there is definitely a slightly creepy pseudo-incestuous vibe to their relationship. Which actually given the history isn't entirely unexpected. In a situation like that a mother and son often would be slightly closer than strictly healthy because the abuse isolates them so much.  I got that vibe from the books a bit too though. Particularly the way Evelyn reacts to Tris, I almost wonder if Evelyn didn't have a beef with Tris's parents considering how hostile she for no apparent reason.

 

Yeah Veronica Roth seems to assume that simply because Evelyn is battered that she is sympathetic. Its something of a trope (the walking dead pulls it with Carol a lot too) where the fact that Evelyn was beaten by her husband in the past means she is a good person despite massive evidence to the contrary in the present. However Evelyn is still an asshole who treats her son like a prized possession regardless of her history. Evelyn seemed to feel Tobias having his own feelings about politics and people was some kind of betrayal.  I get that some of that is Evelyn left behind a little boy who idolized her and wasn't sure how to relate to an adult. It just that she never adjust her tactics or expectations that make her seem so self involved. Sadly Evelyn comes across as sociopath who only really cares about her son in relation to how other people perceive them and how he see her rather than actually giving a damn about Tobias. A telling moment is in the Insurgent book when Tobias comes back from Erudite and Evelyn makes sure to get the photo op hug but Tori is the one who bothers to check over his injuries. Its a sad and scary thing when the parent who beat their child with belt starts to look like the warm caring one. As Marcus said he believed what he was doing was in his best interest and wasn't about him something Evelyn never seemed to consider.  Worst of all is that the author doesn't seem to see this and thinks that telling us Evelyn loves Tobias makes it so.

 

Sadly where the Hunger Games often would have been much improved if the author cared about psychology.  This series often like Veronica Roth has read too many textbooks and not seen enough actual human interaction. Several of the characters seem to lack true motivation and instead check of boxes on a mental health sheet. Marcus for instance fits all the personality traits of a sociopath but there is never any explanation as to why. A lot of the characters seem based more in what the author has read about than actually experienced.  Evelyn is justified in her actions because of what Marcus did and it neatly explains all of her actions. Except real people aren't like that so it just feels off. The story really doesn't have a lot of nuance to any of the characters. Evelyn truly is a good person but Marcus is just evil. Which is part of why the story is so frustrating because it ends up reducing the characters to stand-in for the authors moral sermons.  

I don't want to criticize the author too much because she invented an interesting story, but I think she made several mistakes.  First, she should have let Tris' mother live a little longer because she was easily the most interesting character and we got nothing on her.  I understand why the author made the choice she did, but she also set it up in such a way that we (as readers) could never learn more about her and she sounds so damn interesting!

 

But aside from that, I understand that Tobias is young but he should not forgive a mother who faked her own death and left him with his abuser so easily.  Especially not if he choose Dauntless because he values courage - because that was a chicken, selfish move and unless there is something I haven't read - the author does nothing to paint that in a sympathetic light to me.   In addition to that, it's pretty clear, pretty quickly that Evelyn wants to punish the factions for being in factions.  She says she wants to create a new world, but I can't blame any of them for not wanting her world.

 

Finally, I just can't stand the creepy way Evelyn hates Tris for what appears to be no other reason that she is the focus of her son's love.  If she had issues with Tris' parents, that would at least explain some of it.  But it comes off as jealousy and it's very, very weird to me.  And I pretty much wanted her to die that moment she told Tris she was just temporary in Tobias' life. 

 

The fact that Tris dies doesn't bother me as much as Tobias forgives and has a relationship with his mother at the end.  If the author didn't want her ending to turn my stomach, Evelyn should have never been hateful to Tris on a personal, creepy level.  It should have just been that they opposed each other's desire for the world - Evelyn is awful enough with her desire to keep everyone in the city and eliminate factions or groups forming and imposing her will on everyone.  Tris would have always opposed that.  They were designed to be natural enemies and I can understand Tobias being torn between their opposing world views.   If Roth had kept it to that, I could have probably accepted the end.  After all, sometimes the hero dies. I don't actually like it in this story and I think it was a bit heavy handed to have her realize she wants to live in the second book just to give up her life willingly in the third, but it's not the worst story ever.  But when you kill of your hero, you better do a darn good job with the aftermath and I think she failed big time there.

 

I think she killed a few too many of the side characters along the way for the ending to be emotionally satisfying at all.  It's like she was trying to imitate GRRM in a Young Adult series.  There just weren't enough people left standing at the end to truly enjoy the ending to me.  But the worst part was to have Evelyn be damn near incestuous level jealous of Tris and say the awful things to her that she said and then Tobias ends up with his mom at the end?  That is vile.  I don't think my daughter at 11 will pick up on that, but I still hope the movie changes the ending.

[Chicken Wing]

Evelyn is clearly a narcissist and sociopath. She uses people, including her own son whom she abandoned to save herself, to further her own goals. Ultimately she's so bent on her goals that she is willing to slaughter literally an entire city's population to do so. Yet because she is a mother, and a former battered wife, we must believe she's just a broken woman and ultimately a good person deep down inside. Meanwhile, Marcus beat his son and previously beat his wife, not out of malice but the misguided and disturbing belief that this was how to run a family. That's pretty much the extent of Marcus as the "bad guy," and he is portrayed as irredeemable and ultimately dismissed.

 

I think Veronica Roth just has daddy issues. And has probably had very little experience interacting with actual humans. And, despite having gone to school for writing, seems to have little to no comprehension of the golden rule of "Show, don't tell" - If you don't show, at any point in the story, Evelyn as the type of person who would drop everything to be in her son's favor again, then I'm not going to believe it when you tell me that that's who she is. Her actions in the end become hollow and contrived.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Chicken Wing

[Emily Thrace]

Evelyn is clearly a narcissist and sociopath

[Emily Thrace]

Evelyn is clearly a narcissist and sociopath

 

I think it more the first rather than the second now that you mention it. Narcissistic Personality Disorder seem to fit her better than sociopathy.  She clearly has some bond with Tobias and Edward so I don't think she's full on sociopathic. Narcissists still have emotion they just don't care about anyone elses. Nancy Botwin was a another fictional example IMO. Unfortunately for us Evelyn lacks Nancy's charm.

 

Marcus may have been a true sociopath but I also wonder about the Autism spectrum. Some high functioning individuals can be manipulative the way Marcus is described(especially given the way Marcus reacts to the unexpected). Marcus might be the result of a child who was autistic but was never treated and wound up developing some really detrimental ways of coping. Like holding you anger in all day and going home to take it out on your family. Tobias has some emotional regulation issues to put it mildly but that could also be the effects of the abuse.Tobias definitely has a sensitive personality type that he probably got from his mother, he just seems to have picked up his fathers repressive coping  mechanisms. All things considered though Tobias is actually probably healthier than he should be.

 

I like to fanwank Tori was responsible for some of that. Considering the amount of shrink speak she uses I figured one of her erudite parents was a shrink and she used some of that on Tobias.

 

I think Veronica Roth just has daddy issues. And has probably had very little experience interacting with actual humans.

I think its less Daddy issues and more fundie issues. The whole sacred mother thing is a very christian ideal. Fathers in a lot of pseudo-christian works tend to be aloof or extraneous (Aslan for example).  So is forgiving your mother even if she has done absolutely nothing to deserve it.

 

I don't want to criticize the author too much because she invented an interesting story

I think of it more as she created a potentially interesting story, and then she squandered it all in Allegiant. Also you might want to tag those spoilers

[QuinnM]

Well I finally watched Insurgent. The camera work and editing was better than Divergent but there was a serious problem. Shailene Woodley was so frail looking I thought I was watching a copy of the Fault In Our Stars. Please let Charlize Theton take her aside and explain how a strong woman needs to look in her role. I just don't buy this muscleless little girl kicking the crap out of a rail car full of Factionless. And I, as a viewer, need to believe that for any of this to work.

[bluvelvet]

Well I finally watched Insurgent. The camera work and editing was better than Divergent but there was a serious problem. Shailene Woodley was so frail looking I thought I was watching a copy of the Fault In Our Stars. Please let Charlize Theton take her aside and explain how a strong woman needs to look in her role. I just don't buy this muscleless little girl kicking the crap out of a rail car full of Factionless. And I, as a viewer, need to believe that for any of this to work.

So it wasn't just me then. Just saw it myself and whenever she had to fight, all I kept thinking was how thin she looked . You can be slim and strong but I didn't see much muscle in her.

[QuinnM]

 

You can be slim and strong but I didn't see much muscle in her.

This is why I suggested Charlize - since she must have a negative value BMI but still looked capable of surviving the apocalypse in Mad Max.  

 

Divergent drove me mad in the editing of stunts like jumping the train.  The timing was all off.  You never really believed any of the stars were jumping the train - until the ending.  Then it clearly felt like they were actually jumping on the train.  So I know the film makers had the capability of doing it they just didn't care enough.

[methodwriter85]

I finally watched Insurgent, as well. There were some improvements, but the biggest problem remains the lack of character development.

 

So, they killed off Jeanine, but they didn't have Tori do it, as in the novel? I guess this was supposed to signify Evelyn being evil?

 

It's been awhile since I read Insurgent, but wow, I really thought the whole movie barely resembled the book I read. I guess that'll be a good thing for Allegiant, if what people said about it is real.

[Chicken Wing]

I only just saw Insurgent a few weeks ago myself. I found it to be a huge step down from the first movie, which itself was only marginally entertaining. I don't know if the blame falls more to the new director-writer team (though indeed the biggest issue I had with the movie was the terrible script/plot) or the fact that the second book was not well structured and by default translates poorly to a movie, but it was just ... not very good at all. The differences from the book didn't bother me, only because the storyline as a whole was so different from the book that I barely even thought of it in the context of being an adaptation at all. I was more caught off guard by the moments that actually did mirror the book.

 

Nonetheless, I really disliked the overall changes to the storyline, not because they were changes in themselves, but because the things they changed/added were just stupid. The box and everything about it was stupid. The simulations in the box and what they were meant to signify were stupid. The convenient technology that conveniently didn't exist five days ago was stupid. The random conflicts and contrived resolutions were stupid. Basically every "new" thing they added was stupid and made the story even more contrived and illogical and riddled with plot holes than it already was. I get why the screenwriters needed to change up the plot, because the book had no real plot at all, but what they came up with was just as problematic. Indeed, aside from the inherently silly underlying premise, most of the plot criticisms I'd read in reviews pertained to things exclusive to the movie. It was dumb, and I was not impressed with the movie overall. Everything was decidedly ... unimpressive. Nothing was particularly terrible (aside from the idiotic plot contrivances), but none of it was actually good. It just wasn't interesting at all. Even if I wasn't already planning to skip Allegiant, what with me hating that book with the fire of a million suns and all, I still wouldn't bother because Insurgent just didn't make me want to continue investing in this series - certainly not for two more of these things.

 

So, they killed off Jeanine, but they didn't have Tori do it, as in the novel? I guess this was supposed to signify Evelyn being evil?

 

I assume that's meant to be the significance, but I'm not sure why. I mean, the protagonists had all been pretty blase about their own plans to kill Jeanine themselves for the whole movie. I don't quite get how Evelyn doing what everyone else had intended to do anyway establishes her as a bad guy. Was it because it wasn't necessary at that point, because Jeanine had already been deposed and imprisoned? That she killed her just because she could? I still don't see the evil connotation. She still didn't do anything that the other characters hadn't already been doing the entire time. Didn't Four summarily execute Eric even though the latter was already detained? What's the difference? See, this Jeanine/Evelyn thing is yet another book-to-film change that doesn't work simply because it doesn't make much sense.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Chicken Wing

[Chicken Wing]

Latest breaking news: Allegiant Part 1 and Allegiant Part 2 have been re-named Allegiant and Ascendant.