Question: Why didn't Mrs Whatsit turn into a winged centaur as she did in the book? What made them alter the magic creature into a living leaf?
Answer: The biggest critical complaint about this film is that director Ava DuVernay and her screenwriters essentially gutted Madeleine L'Engle's award-winning children's book and turned it into nothing more than Disneyesque eye candy, discarding many important elements of L'Engle's story and arbitrarily refitting it with lightweight (and boring) motivational platitudes. In other words, DuVernay made the movie her soapbox for "social messaging" and tossed out much of the wondrous (and even miraculous) detail that made L'Engle's original book a huge success. Consequently, this movie was a colossal financial failure.
Interestingly, Disney had adapted this story for the screen before (in 2004), and the earlier version did include the flying centaur (albeit a bad CGI rendering). Unfortunately, the 2004 version was also a box-office failure for Disney, and for the same reason as the 2018 remake: Disney removed the magical and spiritual qualities that gave L'Engle's original story its depth.
Disney's previous adaptation was released in 2003 as a TV movie, so it wasn't a "box-office failure", it was just a terrible movie.
Question: Did C-3PO and R2-D2 appear in this film?
Answer: I was wondering about this, too. C-3PO did not appear in Solo, and I cannot find any Internet reference pertaining to R2-D2 being in it. Curiously, Anthony Daniels, the actor who has played C-3PO in all the other Star Wars movies, makes a cameo appearance in Solo as another character (Chewbacca's friend).
Question: P.L. Travers hated Disney's film adaptation of Mary Poppins so much that she refused to have Disney make any more adaptations of Mary Poppins. How could a sequel be made without the consent of Travers, especially since she died in 1996?
Answer: Travers was never entirely opposed to having a sequel made. She initially refused Disney's sequel ideas, and attempted to impose her own demands and concept on what any additional film would be. In the 1980s, Travers and a friend wrote their own screenplay. The Disney company, now with different management, considered it but eventually dropped the project amid casting problems and other issues and conflicts that emerged. After Travers' death, Disney could then negotiate directly with Travers' estate.
Answer: The short answer is *because* she died. Control then passed to her beneficiaries/estate. She didn't forbid Disney from making a sequel, and she couldn't legally prevent it either. The deal she had with Disney just meant that they had to agree on it as she had creative control, and despite their (and apparently her) best efforts, they could never find a sequel idea everyone was happy with, especially given her dislike of the original film. Her will stated: "Any payments received by my Trustees in respect of or any future commercial production or exploitation in any form whatsoever of any books I have written (including any sequel to the film "Mary Poppins") shall be held by my Trustees upon trust to distribute..." On her death creative control passed to her trustees, in terms of sequels and the stage show, and they managed to agree on a sequel idea.
Question: Why would Lewis confess to Jonathan and Florence that he brought back Issac from the dead? He could've kept it a secret to avoid being yelled at.
Question: Why did Grindelwald let his acolytes steal the family tree of Leta Lestrange and place it at Pere Lachaise? What's the point? If he wanted Credence or Leta to read it, he could have simply given it to them, right?
Question: There is something I don't understand about Arthur. Why is he so reluctant to be king of the undersea nation of Atlantis?
Answer: I agree with the other answer but would add that suddenly becoming the ruler of such a huge and diverse kingdom that he'd been detached from growing up and to then assume such an immense responsibility would be daunting. Being king means sacrificing your personal freedom in the service of others.
Answer: Because he felt abandoned, by both his mother and his people. He was considered the bastard of a human and mermaid, and, like an interracial couple, it was considered illegal and immoral. Why rule when you're not wanted?
Answer: Like any other such change from the source material, it's just artistic license.
wizard_of_gore ★