Jump to content

Menu

Content Warning about the new Anne of Green Gables Series on Netflix


Chelli
 Share

Recommended Posts

I just found this out on Facebook, but the Anne in this series is a little more "knowledgeable" about TEA than the original Anne.

 

I wanted to share this here so everyone could decide if this story line is one you want your younger kids to watch.

Clip that was shared on Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/mcmice/posts/10212713486696407

 

 

Comment that tells how this story line continues in a later episode:

 

This is only the first scene where this is discussed in episode 3. It gets worse. 

She talks to the girls in school about Mr. Hammond being drunk and chasing his wife around the house - Mrs. Hammond always having to pet his mouse, and Anne hearing e
verything. It sometimes sounded to Anne like it was fun and other times sounded like he was murdering Mrs. Hammond. She said she didn't think Mrs. Hammond had a choice. 

It had the girls upset, who then told their families, who then didn't want Anne's influence on their children. It became a horrible part of the story line. 

I'm hoping they at least put a warning if they won't remove the series, and I more than doubt it will be removed. Almighty dollar and all..

 

I'm so upset. I didn't think the series looked all that great to start with (Megan Fellows will always be Anne to me), but I thought it might be fun to watch it with my kids. Not now though. Illusions to spousal r@pe, locker room talk, etc. in a kids' show?!? What have they done to my darling Anne-girl?

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I loved Anne of Green Gables.  I heard some negative things about this new series but my mom thought it was ok.  After reading this I'm not sure I will watch it.  Starting reading  the series with my daughter and we will head over to the Island this summer to see the play when we are down home. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigh. I'm fine with sexual content when I'm prepared to explain, but I don't appreciate being blindsided when the added content isn't part of the original. What is the point there?

 

From what I can gather by the comment in my OP, I'm thinking this new scenario replaces the original "mistakenly getting Diana drunk" as the reason Anne is shunned by the girls. Maybe trying to make it more hip? More modern?  Make Anne fans angry?

 

That's all I got and it's just a guess.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just found this out on Facebook, but the Anne in this series is a little more "knowledgeable" about TEA than the original Anne.

 

I wanted to share this here so everyone could decide if this story line is one you want your younger kids to watch.

 

Clip that was shared on Facebook:

 

https://www.facebook.com/mcmice/posts/10212713486696407

 

 

Comment that tells how this story line continues in a later episode:

 

This is only the first scene where this is discussed in episode 3. It gets worse. 

 

She talks to the girls in school about Mr. Hammond being drunk and chasing his wife around the house - Mrs. Hammond always having to pet his mouse, and Anne hearing everything. It sometimes sounded to Anne like it was fun and other times sounded like he was murdering Mrs. Hammond. She said she didn't think Mrs. Hammond had a choice. 

 

It had the girls upset, who then told their families, who then didn't want Anne's influence on their children. It became a horrible part of the story line. 

 

I'm hoping they at least put a warning if they won't remove the series, and I more than doubt it will be removed. Almighty dollar and all..

 

I'm so upset. I didn't think the series looked all that great to start with (Megan Fellows will always be Anne to me), but I thought it might be fun to watch it with my kids. Not now though. Illusions to spousal [email protected]<script data-cfhash='f9e31' type="text/javascript">/* */</script>, locker room talk, etc. in a kids' show?!? What have they done to my darling Anne-girl?

 

Stick with Colleen Dewhurst as Marilla and Megan Fellows as Anne. They were superb. Like you said, this is how I always picture Anne, Rachel, Marilla and Matthew...and Gilbert.

 

Edited by Liz CA
  • Like 15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So incredibly wrong. There's so much to the whole series that could be turned into great tv if they actually followed the books closely. I still pretend the third movie with Megan Follows and Jonathan Crombie doesn't exist. I love the later books of Anne and Gilbert's marriage and children too much. My dad took me to PEI for an "Anne" pilgrimage the year it came out, and the owner of the hotel we stayed in in Cavendish warned me that if I had read all the books I shouldn't watch it. I did just once, and I wish I had listened to her. I can't imagine if someone's only exposure to "Anne" is through this new series. How much they would miss!

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I can gather by the comment in my OP, I'm thinking this new scenario replaces the original "mistakenly getting Diana drunk" as the reason Anne is shunned by the girls. Maybe trying to make it more hip? More modern?  Make Anne fans angry?

 

That's all I got and it's just a guess.

 

The way Diana got drunk was by an honest accident about Elderberry wine. Marilla mislabeled it for some reason  - it's in the book. There is no need to change it. It's hip as it is, if hip is what it needs to be!

Don't mess with classics!

 

ETA: I just watched the clip - and arrghh - so not what the author has written.

Edited by Liz CA
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So incredibly wrong. There's so much to the whole series that could be turned into great tv if they actually followed the books closely. I still pretend the third movie with Megan Follows and Jonathan Crombie doesn't exist. I love the later books of Anne and Gilbert's marriage and children too much. My dad took me to PEI for an "Anne" pilgrimage the year it came out, and the owner of the hotel we stayed in in Cavendish warned me that if I had read all the books I shouldn't watch it. I did just once, and I wish I had listened to her. I can't imagine if someone's only exposure to "Anne" is through this new series. How much they would miss!

 

Refresh my memory, please. What was in the third episode? I have read all the books. It's harder for me to remember the movie but I did like Colleen Dewhurst (Marilla) and Patricia Hamilton (Rachel).

Edited by Liz CA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Refresh my memory, please. What was in the third episode? I have read all the books. It's harder for me to remember the movie but I did like Colleen Dewhurst (Murilla) and Patricia Hamilton (Rachel).

Anne and Gilbert have been engaged, but not married for years, and then Gilbert goes off to Europe during World War I, and at some point Green Gables burns down. Or something like that. I only watched it once. It was made more than a decade after the first two, so Colleen Dewhurst had already passed away. I was so sad that there was nothing about their "house of dreams" or Ingleside or any of their seven children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I can gather by the comment in my OP, I'm thinking this new scenario replaces the original "mistakenly getting Diana drunk" as the reason Anne is shunned by the girls. Maybe trying to make it more hip? More modern? Make Anne fans angry?

 

That's all I got and it's just a guess.

In the book, Anne wasn't shunned by the girls. She had been staying home and doing her lessons at home because she refused to go back after Mr. Phillips made her sit with Gilbert but decided to return to school so she could at least see Diana. Marilla worried she wouldn't get on with the other kids but she was welcomed back with pleasure. She was quite popular with the other girls (except for the Pyes!) but Diana's mom blocked them from seeing each other. In the Kevin Sullivan version they make it look like Anne is a loner after the Diana incident but that wasn't the case in the books. Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way Diana got drunk was by an honest accident about Elderberry wine. Marilla mislabeled it for some reason - it's in the book. There is no need to change it. It's hip as it is, if hip is what it needs to be!

Don't mess with classics!

 

ETA: I just watched the clip - and arrghh - so not what the author has written.

 

It wasn't mislabeled, she mistook Red Currant Wine for Raspberry Cordial. Both homemade in similar bottles and Anne couldn't tell the difference because she'd never had either and in the book she had a cold and couldn't smell the wine.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The book glosses over the abuse and deprivation Anne experienced before she came to Green Gables. There are hints of it woven into several of the books. I don't necessarily like the departure and adding a rape storyline but I think they might be trying to be more realistic to the times.  The then times. There is nothing uniquely modern about spousal abuse or kids hearing way too much while the adults fight. Some kids in large families in small houses with addicted heads of house hold probably did experience stuff like that in the 19th century. I haven't seen it yet so I will hold out judgment. That said, I think it's probably better than what that cursed Kevin Sullivan did to Anne "The Continuing Story". Damn that Kevin Sullivan. He had the perfect cast and he butchered the sequel and then mostly pulled continuing story out of his arse.

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anne and Gilbert have been engaged, but not married for years, and then Gilbert goes off to Europe during World War I, and at some point Green Gables burns down. Or something like that. I only watched it once. It was made more than a decade after the first two, so Colleen Dewhurst had already passed away. I was so sad that there was nothing about their "house of dreams" or Ingleside or any of their seven children.

 

This is not part of the DVD package I have but I have seen it somehwere. I remember Anne hunting him down in Europe. This does not fit at all since one of Anne's and Gilbert's sons dies in WWI.

Ingleside and all their children would make a great new series - IF the producer stuck to the books.

Sullivan did a pretty good job with the first series.

 

Edited by Liz CA
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't mislabeled, she mistook Red Currant Wine for Raspberry Cordial. Both homemade in similar bottles and Anne couldn't tell the difference because she'd never had either and in the book she had a cold and couldn't smell the wine.

 

That's right. It explained that Anne did not know the difference because she'd never had either.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read they were going to adapt the storyline to be more relevant to modern audiences when they first announced it, so I had already decided I wouldn't bother. That's just sad.

I hate that. Relevant? Spare me. No amount of innuendo is going to make kids who aren't interested invest in Anne of Green Gables. You don't change classics (games, books, movies) to capture kids who don't care. You put it out there in all its glory and enchant the newest generation, otherwise you risk losing your core audience. It's classic for a reason.

 

I'm a staunch conservative when it comes to Literature adaptation.

Edited by Barb_
  • Like 29
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Refresh my memory, please. What was in the third episode? I have read all the books. It's harder for me to remember the movie but I did like Colleen Dewhurst (Marilla) and Patricia Hamilton (Rachel).

 

anne chases down gilbert in wwi france.  she work's as a reporter in london.  finds the girlfriend and baby of one of her 'beaus', with someone  out to kidnap the baby so she's trying to get to his chateau.  someone is working as a spy.

it has her making very anti-war speeches.

it's a mess, and nothing like the books.

 

For those that don't know, the series is made by the same person who made, "Breaking Bad".

 

I remember when I saw that and that was all I needed to know . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dissent :lol:

 

This is for older fans of AOGG.

 

It's not "modern"...Do you not expect an orphan girl slaved out as the babysitter in a home with a drunk to see, hear, and experience horrible things? I thought the books glossed over it way too much. The girl has the imagination she has because she needed it to escape the horrors of her young life. Good for her. Good for the remakers for being a more forthright about it.

 

This is aside form people wanting things they love to just not be re-imagined, which I sympathize with, but this [maybe. it still sounds pretty innocent IMO] just isn't that. And it just isn't for  little ones. I am glad people are getting the trigger warnings and little-kid-warnings they need, but the desire to want to perpetually gloss over the realistic situation is foreign to me. The books still exist to be shared with our kids!

Edited by OKBud
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMG Becky, I just watched the clip and it's *so* tame. What is she supposed to be, 10, 11 years old right? VERY REALISTIC playground girl talk imo.

 

"She said she always got pregnant with twins after she pet his pet mouse"

 

I dunno you guys. When I was in 1st grade...6 years old, my teacher got pregnant and I told the whole class how. No mice were slandered in my retelling, I can assure you of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone please explain how the theme of children talking about sex with a childish understanding of what a penis is, is "modernization?"

 

Also, I rather suspect spousal rape was A LOT more common in the AOGG days, though that may be wishful thinking for the present. In any case, I don't believe it was less common back in the day.

 

I don't not support the OP :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I am sure Anne was probably more knowledgable than some of the other girls.  Though - Avonlea is a farming community.

 

I don't think that is ever denied in the books, or the older film.  Any adult watching it is going to have some sense of what kind of life she likely had - it's a major part of the reason people thought taking in an orphan was risky.  Younger readers might not clue into this, but they will as they get older.

 

However, I prefered it when people weren't so focused on dysfunction-porn, and maybe didn't have to have all the gritty details brought out to connect with a character.  Montgomery started the story with Anne coming to PEI for a reason. 

 

It seems to me that often modern writers don't think people will be able to understand their creations unless everything is revealed about them.

 

The other thing is, I'm not sure that more experience with the realities of sex - which I think many kids in the past had in a more direct way than a lot of modern middle class kids - means that kids will necessarily be more likely to gossip or talk about it in the playground.  If anything, the inability to have real privacy often seems to result in more reticence.

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the heads up. I will say I am a extremely liberal person and not impressed when classic stories are "modernized" to appeal to contemporary audiences, especially when the original stories were for children. I think it bastardizes the author's creation when radical shifts are made. And there are plenty of modern creative works for contemporary audiences to relate to. I was also supremely disappointed with the remake of My Family and Other Animals. The original by Masterpiece Theater is wonderful and sticks closely to the book. The new series, The Durrells, focuses mainly on the mother's romantic troubles like any other interchangeable contemporary drama. It was dark, and I tired of it quickly and did not finish the series nor did I bother letting my kids watch it. It lacked beauty. Luckily the earlier version of Anne of Green Gables and the Masterpiece Theater version of My Family and Other Animals are available for the subset of the population that likes their movies closely adapted to the books.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I prefered it when people weren't so focused on dysfunction-porn, and maybe didn't have to have all the gritty details brought out to connect with a character.

 

 

Me too, but this isn't anywhere near that.

 

I have an extremely, prudishly low tolerance (imo) for that sort of thing in shows. The clip and description still strike me as soo so super tame and VERY child-like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the heads up. I will say I am a extremely liberal person and not impressed when classic stories are "modernized".

 

What about this misunderstanding about how babies are made is modern???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't want to stop what's being promoted by Netflix as a family show to explain to my newly turned 7 year old boy and my 9 year old daughter what is being referred to when Anne talks about "petting the mouse." If Netflix wants to make a show that portrays Anne's life before she came to Green Gables, that's fine but don't sell it as family fun, unless you give parents the proper heads up.

I was just trying to give a heads up to those of us who thought Anne of Green Gables means I don't need to sit right next to my children to pause the show and explain why Mrs. Hammond was forced to have s3x with her husband. I knew when I started the thread that some families wouldn't have a problem with the newer version. That's fine with me, but I knew some parents would like to know.

  • Like 26
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dissent :lol:

 

This is for older fans of AOGG.

 

It's not "modern"...Do you not expect an orphan girl slaved out as the babysitter in a home with a drunk to see, hear, and experience horrible things? I thought the books glossed over it way too much. The girl has the imagination she has because she needed it to escape the horrors of her young life. Good for her. Good for the remakers for being a more forthright about it.

 

This is aside form people wanting things they love to just not be re-imagined, which I sympathize with, but this [maybe. it still sounds pretty innocent IMO] just isn't that. And it just isn't for  little ones. I am glad people are getting the trigger warnings and little-kid-warnings they need, but the desire to want to perpetually gloss over the realistic situation is foreign to me. The books still exist to be shared with our kids!

 

I've never read nor seen any AoGG stuff.  Don't know why, but there it is.  

 

I'm responding to the text color I've changed to blue.

 

What are you talking about?  It's a work of fiction. The author didn't gloss over anything.  She wrote it the way she did for her own reasons.  

 

I think calling it a modernization is a misnomer, as it's true there's nothing modern about kids seeing drunkenness and other horrors.  But it does fit our modern sensibilities of taking a lovely story and adding grim realities to it.  I like another poster's term of dysfunction porn.

 

It wasn't in the book; keep it out of the movie.  Or call it something else. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What are you talking about?  It's a work of fiction. The author didn't gloss over anything.  She wrote it the way she did for her own reasons.  

 

 

This is what I meant by "modernized". Authors make choices in creating their works of art. I personally prefer the author's vision come through if a movie or a remake is to be made.

Edited by Kalmia
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im more upset that they make her out as being shunned, when in the book she was very popular. Heck, that was a major thing in the book, that despite being so different she WAS popular, because her sweetness shone through even when she wasn't socially appropriate. 

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never read nor seen any AoGG stuff.  Don't know why, but there it is.  

 

I'm responding to the text color I've changed to blue.

 

What are you talking about?  It's a work of fiction. The author didn't gloss over anything.  She wrote it the way she did for her own reasons.  

 

I think calling it a modernization is a misnomer, as it's true there's nothing modern about kids seeing drunkenness and other horrors.  But it does fit our modern sensibilities of taking a lovely story and adding grim realities to it.  I like another poster's term of dysfunction porn.

 

It wasn't in the book; keep it out of the movie.  Or call it something else. 

 

As much as I love talking about books with people who've never read them, IMO it was glossed over and we'll just agree to disagree. She certainly had her own reasons for glossing over it (likely the expected age of her readers), but glossing over she did. Later books do not gloss over because, I am again dangerously presuming, the audience grew u as Anne with an E did. Little kids can't exactly relate to an old lady wondering if her husband loves her or not, ya dig? But Anne does exactly that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what I meant by "modernized". Authors make choices in creating their works of art. I personally prefer the author's vision come through if a movie or a remake is to be made.

 

Well conveying things in different formats necessitate changes, no?

 

That has nothing to do with modernization at all.

 

Robert Downy Jr doesn't walk around on screen with iron Man's graphic thought bubbles attached to his head....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I love talking about books with people who've never read them, IMO it was glossed over and we'll just agree to disagree. She certainly had her own reasons for glossing over it (likely the expected age of her readers), but glossing over she did. Later books do not gloss over because, I am again dangerously presuming, the audience grew u as Anne with an E did. Little kids can't exactly relate to an old lady wondering if her husband loves her or not, ya dig? But Anne does exactly that.

 

I made the point that I've never read the books to indicate that I'm not reacting to changes being made to a beloved story. My point is, the book is the book. There is no glossing over of facts in a work of fiction.  Authors tell their stories the way they do for their own reasons.  If people want to come in later and tell the story in a way that seems more realistic, fine, but don't call it by the same name.     

Edited by marbel
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made the point that I've never read the books to indicate that I'm not reacting out of changes to a beloved story.   My point is, the book is the book.  There is no glossing over of facts in a work of fiction.  Authors tell their stories the way they do for their own reasons.  If people want to come in later and tell the story in a way that seems more realistic, fine, but don't call it by the same name.     

 

 

 

If they had the EXACT same story of AOGG, with very mildly different dialogue and/or plot points but called it "Loquacious Little Girl In Canada" they'd get sued or at the VERY least people would be up in arms "THIS IS JUST LIKE ANNE OF GREEN GABLES." And rightfully so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they had the EXACT same story of AOGG, with very mildly different dialogue and/or plot points but called it "Loquacious Little Girl In Canada" they'd get sued or at the VERY least people would be up in arms "THIS IS JUST LIKE ANNE OF GREEN GABLES." And rightfully so.

 

 

And now there are people up in arms because of the way the creators of this new adaptation are changing the story and calling it by the same name.

 

Have to wonder if the author was alive, would she approve of the new version, or would she be up in arms and suing?  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dissent :lol:

 

This is for older fans of AOGG.

 

It's not "modern"...Do you not expect an orphan girl slaved out as the babysitter in a home with a drunk to see, hear, and experience horrible things? I thought the books glossed over it way too much. The girl has the imagination she has because she needed it to escape the horrors of her young life. Good for her. Good for the remakers for being a more forthright about it.

 

This is aside form people wanting things they love to just not be re-imagined, which I sympathize with, but this [maybe. it still sounds pretty innocent IMO] just isn't that. And it just isn't for little ones. I am glad people are getting the trigger warnings and little-kid-warnings they need, but the desire to want to perpetually gloss over the realistic situation is foreign to me. The books still exist to be shared with our kids!

Despite your objection to its being called a modern adaptation, that's how the series has been pitched and marketed all along: "This ain't your grandmother's Anne." If that's your cup of tea, then you'll probably enjoy the new series.

 

I don't want a "darker, more melodramatic" Anne, as one reviewer called it, and I am clearly not alone. Not sure why you're so upset by other people's preferences for adaptations of classic children's lit.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I am sure Anne was probably more knowledgable than some of the other girls.  Though - Avonlea is a farming community.

 

I don't think that is ever denied in the books, or the older film.  Any adult watching it is going to have some sense of what kind of life she likely had - it's a major part of the reason people thought taking in an orphan was risky.  Younger readers might not clue into this, but they will as they get older.

 

However, I prefered it when people weren't so focused on dysfunction-porn, and maybe didn't have to have all the gritty details brought out to connect with a character.  Montgomery started the story with Anne coming to PEI for a reason. 

 

 

Exactly. It's a feel good, funny and sometimes sad book but it's not centered around dysfunction and abuse. Anne is "rescued" by Marilla and Matthew. Her change and development from that point is the chronicle of Anne. Montgomery herself did not have an easy life according to some records and likely wrote about idyllic settings as an escape into a better world. In doing so, she created one of the best stories ever written.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...