Why have later books in the Wrinkle in Time series never got much attention or been adapted?

Question

The 1962 novel A Wrinkle in Time has been adapted as a film (twice), a play, an opera, and a graphic novel. Its four lesser-known sequels in the Time Quintet seem never to have been adapted or to have reached the same level of popularity. I didn't even know until recently that A Wrinkle in Time was part of a series!

Why is this? Usually a trilogy or quintet of books will be spoken about in the same breath, but A Wrinkle in Time seems to exist in most people's minds as a stand-alone story, and to always have been adapted as such. What was "wrong" with the later books that they never got much attention and never got adapted?

Answer 1

In addition to Fuzzyboot's analysis there's a couple of other things playing against this

1. Book series don't often get all their books made into movies. CS Lewis' The Chronicles of Narnia (7 books) has, at best, made it through The Silver Chair (Book 4) before having interest wane. In 2006 Eragon was made. It's part of The Inheritance Cycle series, and the movie clearly hints at the story continuing, but it was canceled due to poor reception and revenues.

2. While the series still remains in the fantasy realm, it becomes considerably slower as the books progress (Wrinkle was published in 1962, while An Acceptable Time, the final book in the series, was published in 1989). Some of this is due to L'Engle writing the Polly O'Keefe series, which parallels the Wrinkle series, but is not nearly as heavy on the fantasy aspects. As such, there are many fans of Wrinkle but not so many of the latter books

   So, in short, buy A Wrinkle in Time and love it. Borrow A Wind in the Door if you are invested in the characters and want to see more between Meg and Charles. Skip A Swiftly Tilting Planted unless you really like history and not a lot of plotline. Be entertained by Many Waters but don’t think of it as a historical text. Also, read the tie-in series called the O’Keefe Family series for more about Meg and Calvin’s family.

Put a different way, Wrinkle suggests a Lord of the Rings-style world, where there's big, sweeping powers behind the scenes, leading to a big climax. Instead, it becomes more accidental time travel and YA drama.

Answer 2

I do not have any official word from people who have adapted the first book, but as per my comment, A Wrinkle in Time is a weird book, often stated to be "unfilmable" and the sequels get weirder in some ways. A Wind in the Door starts right after the events of the first book with a new set of extradimensional teachers and a new cosmic threat that involves both stars being snuffed out and making Charles sick.

Instead of flinging themselves across the universe, Meg, Calvin, Progo, and Principal Jenkins (Meg’s nemesis from Wrinkle, who plays an important role in this story) save Charles Wallace from within by shrinking down and doing battle on a level that’s both cellular and metaphysical. There’s a lot of psychic speaking without words (“kything”) and celestial singing—as well as a very charismatic but non-verbal snake named Louise. All told, and even with blessedly less Charles Wallace this time around, this very interior story would be hugely challenging to adapt.

A Swiftly Tilting Planet has a massive time jump and involves time travel to try to ensure a South American dictator doesn't incite nuclear warfare by manipulating his ancestors, with the help of a magical unicorn. Many Waters brings in Sandy and Dennys and is a coming-of-age story involving Noah's Ark. The stories don't really follow each other and would likely sell to different crowds.

And probably more salient, the 2018 adaptation lost a lot of money and it looks like it's not just a matter of Hollywood Accounting.

A Wrinkle in Time grossed $100.5 million in the U.S. and Canada, and $32.2 million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $132.7 million. A combined $250 million was spent on production and advertisement. Following Disney's Q2 earnings report in May 2018, Yahoo! Finance deduced the film would lose the studio $86–186 million, and in April 2019, Deadline Hollywood calculated the film lost $130.6 million, when factoring together all expenses and revenues.

I don't have any information on what the return or liability on the 2003 adaptation was, but it was not well-received by critics:

As Diane Ortiz from The University Wire described it, the novel's first film adaptation was a "dud", emphasizing its lack of substantial acting and special effects.[6] In her same article, Eberson acknowledged a similar inadequacy in the special effects and explained how they did not meet the hopes of the creators nor the viewers. Nick Mangione, from Geek.com, suggested that many of the problems associated with the film relate to the creator's decision to dumb-down the concepts from the novel.[7] Mangione pointed out that in her novel, L'Engle trusted her audience and knew they would be able to understand the complex thoughts of the characters.[7] He believes that the film version shows no trust in the audience and spends the entire time simplifying everything and neglecting any of the more complex ideas. Mangione further stated, "It's almost impressive how they managed to take every major location and plot beat from the novel and get absolutely none of it right."

Madeleine L'Engle didn't like it either

NEWSWEEK: So you've seen the movie?
Madeleine L'Engle: I've glimpsed it.

And did it meet expectations?
Oh, yes. I expected it to be bad, and it is.