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

[Barb_]

Adults want to sell things to kids. Rather than setting the tone for quality, pace or challenge they often bend to the simplicity, flash, or fart jokes children have come to expect. Relevance is code word for profit. The movie PETS was horrible because it was one long chase scene punctuated by scatological jokes, but going in I more or less knew what to expect. When I watch a classic, those sorts of scenes are cheap and jarring.

 

I watch a remake of a classic expecting to see the characters acting as if they lived in that time. I think it was Liz that mentioned upthread that girls wouldn't have talked that way, and she's right. They might have seen all sorts of things, but it was considered shameful and unladylike to speak of them. This Anne is an anachronism.

 

ETA:

Sorry, it was Fifruth, not Liz I should have quoted upthread. I got my wires crossed :)

Edited April 8, 2017 by Barb_

[gardenmom5]

Can I have a link to this?  I have not seen it and would love to!

Thanks!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088727/?ref_=tt_rec_tti

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092571/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_15

 

don't bother with the third "the continuing story".  It goes it's own way, quite divergent from the books.  and it isn't that great even as a stand alone.  or at least keep in mind - it's quite divergent.

[Barb_]

I may be extra sensitive to this because I've been parenting little kids for so many yearsWe've been back to museums I used to take my older kids to and they've completely ruined them by making them "relevant". With the exception of some classics still in print, our library threw out all of the books in their collection that were older than five or six years old. Then they did away with the Dewey decimal system, all in the name of relevancy. Kids'computer games used to take some skill and brainpower--they were wonderful! But they don't make anything like that anymore. Apps are weak and watery in comparison.

Edited April 8, 2017 by Barb_

[marbel]

I may be extra sensitive to this because I've been parenting little kids for so many yearsWe've been back to museums I used to take my older kids to and they've completely ruined them by making them "relevant". With the exception of some classics still in print, our library threw out all of the books in their collection that were older than five or six years old. Then they did away with the Dewey decimal system, all in the name of relevancy. Kids'computer games used to take some skill and brainpower--they were wonderful! But they don't make anything like that anymore. Apps are weak and watery in comparison.

 

How do they organize nonfiction now?   How can a method of organization have anything to do with relevancy?

 

I'm not arguing with you; quite the opposite.  I'm just wondering what is the thinking - if there is any - behind ditching a useful organizational system.

[LucyStoner]

The Harry Potter movies were done with the intention of following the books exactly, and they succeeded beautifully. They recognized that children were their biggest fans and would just hate it if the movies were "wrong."

 

With Anne of Green Gables, the movie could have followed the book exactly, too, and it would have been just as much a beautiful classic. AoGG isn't as widely read as HP, unfortunately, but it's still a beloved classic.

 

The Harry Potter movies don't follow the books exactly and the best HP movie was probably the one where they took the most departures.  The first two movies were the most by the book and frankly, as movies, they were pretty lame.  

 

I wish someone would make a 7 movie faithful adaptation of the Anne of Green Gables books but I will admit that movies that are just the book can sometimes fall flat.  

[egao_gakari]

Hmm, I'd say I agree with ktgrok whose concern was that they used this as a reason to shun Anne. Anne was never shunned in the books, only the Pye girls ever had any problem with her. I don't see adding some "detail" to Anne's pre-PEI experiences as a big deal except that it's out-of-character for her. Anne didn't like to talk about it. Marilla insists that she tell her life story so Anne does, but Anne makes it clear that she'd much rather tell the life story she'd made up in her head. She would never tell it on the playground to make herself sound cool. That's not Anne.

 

It sounds like Netflix would have preferred to make Emily of New Moon. Much darker, creepier, more Gothic, more… Breaking-Bad-like. But much less name-recognition.

 

Sent from my SCL23 using Tapatalk

[egao_gakari]

The Harry Potter movies don't follow the books exactly and the best HP movie was probably the one where they took the most departures. The first two movies were the most by the book and frankly, as movies, they were pretty lame.

 

I wish someone would make a 7 movie faithful adaptation of the Anne of Green Gables books but I will admit that movies that are just the book can sometimes fall flat.

So much agreement with this. I was 13 when Movie 3 came out, had always been a HP book purist, but immediately recognised how much of a better film Cuaron's vision made, as opposed to Columbus'. I wanted more crazy shrunken heads and Weeping Willow as a character! The HP world suddenly felt vast and strange and REAL like it never had in the previous films.

 

/nerd

 

Sent from my SCL23 using Tapatalk

[Outdoorsy Type]

I do appreciate dark and gritty sometimes, but to me AoGG represents an innocent time in my life. I'm listening to it now with my children, and it's funny without the sexual references that the show is using.

[gardenmom5]

they've released the megan fellows version in widescreen hi-def.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Anne-Green-Gables-Megan-Follows/dp/B004RMVY9S/ref=sr_1_3?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1491677846&sr=1-3&keywords=anne+of+green+gables+special+edition

(I actually ordered this one off of ebay for <$20.)    it's also available on blu-ray.  I've no idea what the difference is.

it was discouraging to find the single disk versions you have to flip the disc.  no thanks.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Anne-Green-Gables-Megan-Follows/dp/B00543QGEC/ref=sr_1_5?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1491677968&sr=1-5&keywords=anne+of+green+gables+widescreen

 

 

and did you know they've made a fourth one that is set during wwii?   I've never seen it - but it is part of some of the sets.

 

I think I'm going to get 1dd and some friends and do an aogg tea party . ..

Edited April 8, 2017 by gardenmom5

[ChocolateReignRemix]

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?  

 

Unless the author retained creative control after signing over the movie rights, then no, she wouldn't be suing as she would have no standing to do so.

[Guest]

Unless the author retained creative control after signing over the movie rights, then no, she wouldn't be suing as she would have no standing to do so.

She was just riffing on my "sueing" theme. I don't think she thinks suing is actually on play! (I was saying you can't make an identical story and call it something else.)

[wintermom]

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!

 

It's a fictional children's book. There is no "realistic situation" to gloss over.  Sure, it's possible to make an adult version of a children's classic, but why not just take an adult book then? Why try to ride the coat-tails of popularity of this classic, and change it into something it never was and never was intended to be. I'm sure the author would be rolling over in her grave. I highly doubt this would make her happy at all. The fight she had to do just to get published in the first place, and now to how her work tainted with this cr@p is just sad. 

Edited April 8, 2017 by wintermom

[Forget-Me-Not]

they've released the megan fellows version in widescreen hi-def.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Anne-Green-Gables-Megan-Follows/dp/B004RMVY9S/ref=sr_1_3?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1491677846&sr=1-3&keywords=anne+of+green+gables+special+edition

(I actually ordered this one off of ebay for <$20.)    it's also available on blu-ray.  I've no idea what the difference is.

it was discouraging to find the single disk versions you have to flip the disc.  no thanks.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Anne-Green-Gables-Megan-Follows/dp/B00543QGEC/ref=sr_1_5?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1491677968&sr=1-5&keywords=anne+of+green+gables+widescreen

 

 

and did you know they've made a fourth one that is set during wwii?   I've never seen it - but it is part of some of the sets.

 

I think I'm going to get 1dd and some friends and do an aogg tea party . ..

Is Anne of Green Gables the Sequel the one that is basically Anne of Avonlea? Where she accidentally sells the neighbor's cow and Diana sells her story to the Rollings Reliable Baking Powder Company? 

 

[LucyStoner]

Is Anne of Green Gables the Sequel the one that is basically Anne of Avonlea? Where she accidentally sells the neighbor's cow and Diana sells her story to the Rollings Reliable Baking Powder Company?

 

The sequel takes stories from Anne of Avonlea, Anne of the Island and Anne of Windy Poplars.

 

The Rollings Reliable story is a snippet from Anne of the Island.

 

I swear I'm not obsessed with Anne. Erm, actually maybe I was as a child. But I've also been reading the series as a bedtime readaloud for many months now. We started with Anne of Green Gables of course and are now up to Anne's House of Dreams.

 

I didn't like how Kevin Sullivan condensed three books into one movie for the sequel. In the books, she goes to university after teaching in Avonlea for two years, gets engaged the summer after college graduation and then is the principal of the co-ed Summerside high school for three years while Gilbert is in medical school.

 

In the sequel movie, Miss Stacey invites her to teach at an all girl's high school because she's restless/bored teaching in Avonlea. The sequel cuts out a lot of things that would be good in a movie.

Edited April 9, 2017 by LucyStoner

[gardenmom5]

Is Anne of Green Gables the Sequel the one that is basically Anne of Avonlea? Where she accidentally sells the neighbor's cow and Diana sells her story to the Rollings Reliable Baking Powder Company? 

 

Katie answered that one.

it is good.   it did cut out a lot.  I ordered it too.  (widescreen . . Hi-def)   nice to have the dvd's since I dont' have a  vhs player anymore .. . .

 

The sequel takes stories from Anne of Avonlea, Anne of the Island and Anne of Windy Poplars.

 

The Rollings Reliable story is a snippet from Anne of the Island.

 

I swear I'm not obsessed with Anne. Erm, actually maybe I was as a child. But I've also been reading the series as a bedtime readaloud for many months now. We started with Anne of Green Gables of course and are now up to Anne's House of Dreams.

 

I didn't like how Kevin Sullivan condensed three books into one movie for the sequel. In the books, she goes to university after teaching in Avonlea for two years, gets engaged the summer after college graduation and then is the principal of the co-ed Summerside high school for three years while Gilbert is in medical school.

 

In the sequel movie, Miss Stacey invites her to teach at an all girl's high school because she's bored teaching in Avonlea. The sequel cuts out a lot of things that would be good in a movie.

 

How do your boys like the series?  I'm wondering if dudeling might like it.  he has liked read-alouds.  they sort of fell by the wayside, but it would be good to pick them back up.

 

1ds will give him books to read.

 

do you have a preferred screen adaption?

 

I'm super picky about versions of francis hodgson burnetts books.  most versions I hate because they depart so much from the books.

[Bluegoat]

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.

 

Being tame isn't really the point.  It's the thrill, or whatever, that people get out of looking at what is supposed to be the "grittier" side of things.  It isn't in tune with the feeling of the literery source.

 

If they want a modern perspective on the period, why not just write a new book. 

 

Well, I think the reason is pretty simple - the people who make tv want to be able to slap a name on it they know will draw in people.  It's easy, like making endless sequels or comic book films.  But it doesn't serve the text, and for that matter it means writers who have something new to present aren't getting that work.

[LucyStoner]

Katie answered that one.

it is good. it did cut out a lot. I ordered it too. (widescreen . . Hi-def) nice to have the dvd's since I dont' have a vhs player anymore .. . .

 

 

How do your boys like the series? I'm wondering if dudeling might like it. he has liked read-alouds. they sort of fell by the wayside, but it would be good to pick them back up.

 

1ds will give him books to read.

 

do you have a preferred screen adaption?

 

I'm super picky about versions of francis hodgson burnetts books. most versions I hate because they depart so much from the books.

The boys love it. They are super into it. Ages 8 and 13.

 

I loved the original Kevin Sullivan Anne of Green Gables movie. The cast was fantastic. I liked the sequel ok but I was kind of bummed by the missed opportunity for more movies with that fantastic cast.

 

I also liked the one with Martin Sheen as Matthew that aired on PBS. It's different but enjoyable. I've only seen the first one, they are taking the route of making many episodes from just one book. I'm not sure when more episodes are going to air though.

 

The BBC one from the 70s is just weird.

[Bluegoat]

Well, I don't think they can do even all of the first book with this actress, she isn't old enough. 

 

Really if people want a series based on Montgomery's world, I'd suggest Road to Avonlea.  It is really set up as an episodic series, it's overall well done and nice for kids.  It was Sarah Polley's early big hit.

[Forget-Me-Not]

The sequel takes stories from Anne of Avonlea, Anne of the Island and Anne of Windy Poplars.

 

The Rollings Reliable story is a snippet from Anne of the Island.

 

I swear I'm not obsessed with Anne. Erm, actually maybe I was as a child. But I've also been reading the series as a bedtime readaloud for many months now. We started with Anne of Green Gables of course and are now up to Anne's House of Dreams.

 

I didn't like how Kevin Sullivan condensed three books into one movie for the sequel. In the books, she goes to university after teaching in Avonlea for two years, gets engaged the summer after college graduation and then is the principal of the co-ed Summerside high school for three years while Gilbert is in medical school.

 

In the sequel movie, Miss Stacey invites her to teach at an all girl's high school because she's bored teaching in Avonlea. The sequel cuts out a lot of things that would be good in a movie.

Oh right! Thanks 😄 I've actually read the entire series more than once, thus I tend to forget which stories happened in which book. It's been a long time since I've seen those movies too. I've been meaning to buy them for my girls to watch. My copies are on VHS!!

[Julie Smith]

Jasper Dale, from Road to Avonlea plays Matthew in the new Anne series. I must stay I really like him as Matthew. 

[LucyStoner]

Tangentially, book 5, Anne's House of Dreams alludes to spousal abuse and forced marriage/spousal rape.   Anne and Gilbert's closest neighbor is in such a marriage.  By the time the book starts, the marriage settled into the wife taking care of a man she never loved (and who coerced her to marry him when she was just 16) after he's lost his mental faculties and memories under mysterious circumstances, but the issue is raised again when Gilbert believes that with surgery the man could recover.  The book also discusses suicide and the tragic/violent death of a young child.  Lucy Maud Montgomery was not a writer who only delved in fanciful stories for children. 

Edited April 8, 2017 by LucyStoner

[LucyStoner]

Well, I don't think they can do even all of the first book with this actress, she isn't old enough. 

 

 

They would have to do it the way that HP was done- shooting the next series as the actors get older.  

 

In the first book, Anne goes from 11 to 16.  Megan Follows was 16, and they worked around this by dressing her young and saying she was 13.  In the books, Gilbert is supposed to be 3 years older than Anne and Diana because he missed school for several years due to family illness.  In the movie, Jonathan Crombie looks entirely too old to be smashed into a one-room schoolhouse desk, lol.  

Edited April 8, 2017 by LucyStoner

[gardenmom5]

 

 

I mean, Harry Potter got darker as it progressed, but he also aged over time along with the audience. Do you all read the entire series to your 4th and 5th graders or just the first book and then space them out as they age? 

 

I didn't even think about HP until dudeling was older.  he was ten?  maybe nine.  I did read each book with him before we watched the movie.  I really gaged how he was doing before moving on to the next book.

one thing about having one so much younger - you don't even realize what you haven't done with them.   kinda freaked out when I realized he hadn't even seen the princess bride. :svengo:

[Farrar]

I'm not a huge Anne fan so I feel like I don't have a dog in this fight, but I do think one thing that can make people jump is that content that's alluded to or described in bare terms in a book - they kissed, the date was uncomfortable, she saw things she wished she hadn't, etc. etc. - when you make it visual can have a whole different feel while still being true to the source material. Like, it's one thing to know Harry and Ginny were off snogging all sixth year and another to see the actors with tongues out on the big screen. And suddenly some people are like, eek, that's not true to the books! Because it feels different to see it.

[maize]

I felt like the LOTR movies emphasized darkness and violence much more than the books did.

 

But maybe that's just my brain's interpretation of the books.

Edited April 9, 2017 by maize

[foxbridgeacademy]

I loved Anne, she made a time in my childhood bearable.  I read all the Anne, Rilla, and Emily books and I'm okay with the mouse.  I won't likely watch the series, not my kind of show, but I will recommend it to my nieces (too tame for DD). I don't think redoing a TV series takes away from the original, the same as doing the original did not take anything from the books.    

[Julie Smith]

They would have to do it the way that HP was done- shooting the next series as the actors get older.  

 

In the first book, Anne goes from 11 to 16.  Megan Follows was 16, and they worked around this by dressing her young and saying she was 13.  In the books, Gilbert is supposed to be 3 years older than Anne and Diana because he missed school for several years due to family illness.  In the movie, Jonathan Crombie looks entirely too old to be smashed into a one-room schoolhouse desk, lol.  

 

I think the Anne in the new series is in real life 15 years old. They are dressing her young right now. 

[scoutingmom]

 

 

It sounds like Netflix would have preferred to make Emily of New Moon. Much darker, creepier, more Gothic, more… Breaking-Bad-like. But much less name-recognition.

 

Sent from my SCL23 using Tapatalk

Sadly, it is the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Company) making them. I am really disappointed.

 

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

[shawthorne44]

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.

 

Amen!   

 

Also, I am personally insulted that they think adding this is relevant to my family.  

[Bluegoat]

I usually feel like there is a clear sense of difference between people looking to interpret a book, and people looking to use it for their own ends.  Even when the interpretation doesn't work, it's different.

 

When I can picture the people saying "how are we going to get more sex/violence into the story, it's really the latter.

[McFishie]

I understand the warning, because it is unexpected, but don't let it put you off this version of Anne. For context I love the books, could probably recite them all word for word. I didn't like the Megan Follows movies - far too much saccharine, and they seemed to miss some of her essense. I am really enjoying this version. It's gritty and realistic. Anne's experience prior to the Cuthbert's would have been horrific and she had no one to tell her how to behave. In the first few episodes we see a young girl desperate for acceptance learning by trial and error how to fit into the community. She's distrustful of people as they've never been trustworthy, and the things she refers to - such as the pet mouse - is not out of context of where she came from. Its quite subtle, I think if you didn't know what it refers to it could go over your head. I love Matthew's reaction, I love the way he is heartbroken for what this child has suffered and through his example encourages Marilla to also stand up for Anne. I think 5 episodes in we're seeing some of her rough edges come off, but in showing it we get to know Anne more and her courage and determination shines even more as a result. Don't be put off, give it a go, I've found it very rewarding (and Gilbert is everything you'd hope - intelligent, his own man even as a boy, handsome and smitten with Anne from day 1)

[Barb_]

Thanks for the review!

[Murphy101]

We have never watched AOGG before. Any version of it. I never watched any of it or read the book(s).

 

But my dd16 read the books and liked it and has not watched any of the movie/tv adaptations.

 

And my dd11 is literally in the sofa reading it for the first time right now.

 

Soooo. No thanks to this version.

 

Also, I think people forget how some old versions aren't as rosy as they thought as a child. Little House on the Prairie comes to mind. I totally forgot how adulty some of the content was until I was watching it with my kids. And I quickly stopped watching for that reason. Rape scenes and more. I don't know know if previous versions of AOGG falls into the line, but it might not be a bad idea for adults to rewatch it with their new parental eyes.

[shanvan]

We have never watched AOGG before. Any version of it. I never watched any of it or read the book(s).

 

But my dd16 read the books and liked it and has not watched any of the movie/tv adaptations.

 

And my dd11 is literally in the sofa reading it for the first time right now.

 

Soooo. No thanks to this version.

 

Also, I think people forget how some old versions aren't as rosy as they thought as a child. Little House on the Prairie comes to mind. I totally forgot how adulty some of the content was until I was watching it with my kids. And I quickly stopped watching for that reason. Rape scenes and more. I don't know know if previous versions of AOGG falls into the line, but it might not be a bad idea for adults to rewatch it with their new parental eyes.

There is really NOTHING objectionable in the Kevin Sullivan productions (meaning the first two, not the 3rd one called 'The Continuing Story).  I was very strict about what my kids watched when they were younger and the first two movies were the very first 'movies' I allowed them to watch.  The ONLY thing I can think of anyone objecting to might be the scene where Diana is drunk b/c of Anne's mix up.

 

ETA: I cannot comment on The Continuing Story b/c it was so horribly done that I shut it off after 10 minutes.  What was objectionable there was the extremely misguided attempt at completely changing the storyline.

Edited April 22, 2017 by shanvan

[Word Nerd]

A "gritty" Anne of Green Gables isn't for me. I'll take the "saccharine" Megan Follows version any day (except the third, which I only watched the beginning of before turning it off).

[TABmom]

I looked on Netflix and I couldn't find this?

[Slartibartfast]

I'm not a huge Anne fan so I feel like I don't have a dog in this fight, but I do think one thing that can make people jump is that content that's alluded to or described in bare terms in a book - they kissed, the date was uncomfortable, she saw things she wished she hadn't, etc. etc. - when you make it visual can have a whole different feel while still being true to the source material. Like, it's one thing to know Harry and Ginny were off snogging all sixth year and another to see the actors with tongues out on the big screen. And suddenly some people are like, eek, that's not true to the books! Because it feels different to see it.

It reminds me of all the complaints regarding violence in the LoTR movies.

 

Sometimes authors can gloss over something that a movie cannot or chooses not to.

 

I will watch the show and decide for myself, I read all of L.M. Montgomery's books.

Edited April 23, 2017 by Slartibartfast

[LucyStoner]

I looked on Netflix and I couldn't find this?

 

It's coming on May 6th, IIRC.  

[Farrar]

I disagree, somewhat, with what you're saying. How a book is shown visually in a movie is up to the screenplay and the director's interpretation. Those are both choices, and in this case, they chose to take it in a certain darker, edger direction.

 

Sure, but sometimes it's impossible for it not to seem "grittier" on screen. The LOTR example everyone is giving is perfect. The violence doesn't feel intense in the books. In fact, it's possible to read the books and gloss over a lot of the violence. But a movie that left it out wouldn't be true to the source material. Yet, seeing the violence enacted gives it a different feel. But then, how do you avoid it? You can't. I think it's the same for material that talks about how someone was abused in the past. Okay, how do you deal with that on screen? Show, don't tell. Except, it'll feel different if you show. Honestly, the example in the OP's review didn't even feel the least "gritty" to me. It seemed rather tame. But, like I said, I have no dog in this, not being an Anne fan at all (I didn't like the books as a kid or the old show).

[Slartibartfast]

Sure, but sometimes it's impossible for it not to seem "grittier" on screen. The LOTR example everyone is giving is perfect. The violence doesn't feel intense in the books. In fact, it's possible to read the books and gloss over a lot of the violence. But a movie that left it out wouldn't be true to the source material. Yet, seeing the violence enacted gives it a different feel. But then, how do you avoid it? You can't. I think it's the same for material that talks about how someone was abused in the past. Okay, how do you deal with that on screen? Show, don't tell. Except, it'll feel different if you show. Honestly, the example in the OP's review didn't even feel the least "gritty" to me. It seemed rather tame. But, like I said, I have no dog in this, not being an Anne fan at all (I didn't like the books as a kid or the old show).

Er..I think showing instead of telling that would be really icky. If they wanted to handle it at all I think telling is preferable.

[Farrar]

Er..I think showing instead of telling that would be really icky. If they wanted to handle it at all I think telling is preferable.

 

But I think it's like, showing a child witnessing something horrible, even if you don't show the something horrible, just the child's reaction still feels way more intense than having a reference to a child having come from an abusive situation. Or having a child tell someone else about the abuse later feels way more intense than the neutral reference as well. But then... unless you have a voice over saying, "child came from an abusive situation" or a scrolling opening like Star Wars or something giving the background... you're in a tough position as a director. You can leave it out - which isn't true to the source. Or you can show something - with apparently, according to this thread - also isn't true to the source.

[Word Nerd]

I looked on Netflix and I couldn't find this?

It's not on Netflix yet but has already run in Canada (or is currently?).

[TABmom]

It's coming on May 6th, IIRC.

Thanks.

[gardenmom5]

I looked on Netflix and I couldn't find this?

 

here's the trailer - and it has links to the episodes on youtube.

 

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I plan to watch it. In the books, Montgomery frequently wrote stuff like "for Marilla was shrewd enough to read between the lines of Anne's history..." if a movie producer wishes to expand upon that, it's not too far-fetched, IMO. It's all there, between the lines of the book.

 

It's quite silly to imagine that in the reality of Anne's fictional world, Marilla, as the woman who became a mother to her during her tweens and teens, would not have had access to a lot of these insights about Anne's past and gently helped Anne to find her way afterwards. Marilla is not just a nice, prim old lady who took in an innocent Victorian angel and the storybook life commenced...she was "real" in a way that Montgomery painted her respectable neighbors not to be. Marilla could handle it, with common sense and understanding. Matthew could handle it with unconditional love.

 

In the later books, Anne refers many times to the life that she would have had if not for Marilla and Matthew, and she didn't just mean poverty. She'd seen a lot as a child, and other people who had suffered (like Katherine Brooke) or who were still suffering (like Leslie) found Anne a sympathetic person for a reason.

 

My two cents. This is a reasonable approach to recounting the story, although of course it may not be for everybody.

 

Now, for those who think this is a horrible, post-modern taking of liberties with some kind of classic work, but who never bothered to read the series, why do you have an opinion on it?

 

 

[Julie Smith]

It's not on Netflix yet but has already run in Canada (or is currently?).

 

It's playing in Canada. I have been watching it on the CBC website. 

[shawthorne44]

...Now, for those who think this is a horrible, post-modern taking of liberties with some kind of classic work, but who never bothered to read the series, why do you have an opinion on it?

 

I hope you're not saying that we who hate that the story is being sullied haven't read the books?   Admittedly it was *mumble mumble* decades ago, and DD isn't old enough for them yet.  

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I hope you're not saying that we who hate that the story is being sullied haven't read the books? Admittedly it was *mumble mumble* decades ago, and DD isn't old enough for them yet.

No, I'm referring to people in the thread who said they never read it.

[Guest]

If the Tapatalk picture is accurate, the girl playing Anne is freaky looking. Ugg!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gardenmom5]

I plan to watch it. In the books, Montgomery frequently wrote stuff like "for Marilla was shrewd enough to read between the lines of Anne's history..." if a movie producer wishes to expand upon that, it's not too far-fetched, IMO. It's all there, between the lines of the book.

 

It's quite silly to imagine that in the reality of Anne's fictional world, Marilla, as the woman who became a mother to her during her tweens and teens, would not have had access to a lot of these insights about Anne's past and gently helped Anne to find her way afterwards. Marilla is not just a nice, prim old lady who took in an innocent Victorian angel and the storybook life commenced...she was "real" in a way that Montgomery painted her respectable neighbors not to be. Marilla could handle it, with common sense and understanding. Matthew could handle it with unconditional love.

 

In the later books, Anne refers many times to the life that she would have had if not for Marilla and Matthew, and she didn't just mean poverty. She'd seen a lot as a child, and other people who had suffered (like Katherine Brooke) or who were still suffering (like Leslie) found Anne a sympathetic person for a reason.

 

My two cents. This is a reasonable approach to recounting the story, although of course it may not be for everybody.

 

Now, for those who think this is a horrible, post-modern taking of liberties with some kind of classic work, but who never bothered to read the series, why do you have an opinion on it?

 

my concerns are the appropriateness of going into such detail in a production meant for *children*.  if this was only for adults (or even teens) - fine.

I grew up in a home where there was much that was inappropriate.  I know how it affected me - I lived it. I know how easily my life could have gone the other way because of it.  I protected my children from this knowledge - as they became adults - things could be shared when their ages were appropriate.  we can talk about things now, and we have - they're adults.

 

but that is the issue with this production - age appropriateness.  or rather - lack of it. we did an aogg party on friday - and rewatched the first megan fellows movie.   it does touch on some of it - in brief flashbacks to drunken rages, but no dwelling.  enough for a younger child to get a glimpse that there were scary things - but not so much to discombobulate them.

kids are already exposed to too much too soon - why can't we just allow them to be children?  they'll be teens/grown-ups soon enough. 

 

like in the other thread where people are taking little kids to violent r-rated movies.  it has an effect.