X-Men

I just finished watching the X-Men movies (well, the ones part of the main plot: the first one, X2, Last Stand, First Class, Days of Future Past, and Apocalypse), and now word is that another one's slated to come out next February! Now I've got (at least) four movies to look forward to over the next two years: Solo in May, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald in November, X-Men: Dark Phoenix next February, and Star Wars: Episode IX! I don't think the "Golden Age" of film has ended, to be honest, but I'm a total geek (maybe this is the Nerd Age of film).

The Worst Movies Based on Books

This list might end up being longer...Anyway, here are some that, well, leave something to be desired. A lot, in many cases. Note: not necessarily in this order, either ...

A Cry in the Wild

It's just boring. Period. The book (Hatchet) is much better. If the movie were to win an award, it should be for the least human actors in a movie: it's pretty much only the main kid (who's stranded in a plane crash), his parents, and the pilot of the plane.

From the Mixed-Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler

This one was boring, too. The book was pretty good, though. It just goes to show that some books should be left in their wonderful, book form...

A Wrinkle in Time (2003 TV version)

This one honestly wasn't so bad, but it really bugged me that Meg (the main character) seemed pretty ordinary. It was hard to see why she didn't fit in. In the book, she's got glasses, braces, awkwardness, intelligence...the whole deal. This movie Meg is smart, but not really smart. There's a part where she corrects her science teacher when he's talking about the brain, but from that you'd probably just assume that she was or had once been interested in the subject and looked it up. If you want an excellent cinematic Meg, look to Storm Reid in the new Wrinkle in Time movie. It's a real shame that Madeleine L'Engle (author of A Wrinkle in Time) didn't live to see that one, instead having to settle with the TV version. I was confused when reading IMDB reviews for the 2003 one, because people were saying things like "WHY, Disney?" and I didn't think it was Disney. But, lo and behold, it was. It's a good thing they made up for it with the new one.

The Lightning Thief

Why do they always take books with preteen characters and age them up 4 years or so? Is it just to add a love story? I mean, I really wish there were more characters that age in cinema.

The Giver

Big departure from the book - and same problem as The Lightning Thief.

Holes

I don't remember the movie very well, but it has the same problem as The Lightning Thief and The Giver.

Just to let you know, I'm not saying to not watch these movies. I'm just saying to not expect too much. If you set your expectations low, then you might actually end up somewhat satisfied with how you spent your two hours or so.

The Best Movies Based on Books

Movies based on books can rarely compare with their literary counterparts, but this is a list of some that are actually really good. These are ones that manage to capture the essence of the novels they're based on and follow them relatively well. Note: not necessarily in this order.

Bridge to Terabithia

I haven't seen this one in a while, but it's a very good movie that utilizes visual capabilities to really bring the book to life. 

Harry Potter movies

They took way too much out, and aren't nearly as good as the books, but the books are so good that it's really not fair to judge. They captured the most important themes in the novels (which are amazing), so they make the list (also, they've got a great cast). 

A Wrinkle in Time (2018)

Notice the 2018: I'm talking about the newer one, not the TV movie from 2003. This movie honestly has much more merit than its mixed reviews imply. It's visually stunning and heartwarming. Again, there were some parts taken out, but the movie works out extremely well nonetheless.

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory/Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

The first one is a family classic. It brings to life all the characters in a charming way and creatively converts the novel into a sort of musical. I could go on, but you've probably seen it. The second is good in its own right, answering the question that must have kept people up at night before it hit theaters: what would Tim Burton's take on a Roald Dahl book be like? Well, here's your answer. 

The Wizard of Oz

Arguably, this one is better than the book. You've probably seen it, too, though, so I won't go on for too long about it. Interesting tidbit of information: the director was also the director of Gone with the Wind, which came out the same year! He even had to take some time off for exhaustion. And you thought you had a busy/exciting year...

Tell me some more in the comments! I'd put some superhero movies in, but I haven't read the comics and I'm sort of only counting novels here. See my list The Worst Movies Based on Books, to be published soon.

What's Wrong With the Wall

The wall between U.S. and Mexico - one of Donald Trump's most infamous campaign promises. But is it even really possible? The border is 1,954 miles (that's 3,145 km): a wall that long would only be rivaled in length by the Great Wall of China, which was built over hundreds of years. A price projection by the Department of Homeland Security estimated Trump's wall to end up costing roughly $21.6 billion dollars - and that's not even including maintenance, which would add astronomically to the price. The current federal budget only included $18 billion from the wall ... where would the other $3.6 billion (and more for maintenance) come from? Trump's bank account? Sure, that's a small cost in comparison to how much the federal budget amounted to in total (trillions), but Congress Democrats will doubtfully approve a cent more than they have. Reuters also says that it could take 3.5 years to build the wall, and Trump could be out of office by then. Sure, it would create thousands of jobs, but it's too much government dollars to be practical.

So, what's all this talk about splitting up California into three states? I may sound like some crazy conspiracy theorist here, but we're SURE it's not really a scheme to decrease the amount of sway Democrats hold in federal elections? California holds more electoral votes than any other state due to its population, and has also gone Democratic in every presidential election since 1992. The states would be divided in such a way that much of rural California, the Inland Empire, and Orange County would constitute its own state and be the 4th most populous state in the U.S: larger than the other two proposed states. A quick glance at a California political map by county would reveal that rural California, the Inland Empire, and Orange County generally lean Republican. Possibly an attempt to give those areas more sway? I know, I sound a little crazy. Tim Draper (a billionaire who claims to have collected over 600,000 signatures for getting this proposal on the 2018 ballot) has been trying to get California divided into several states for several years now...