Film Adaptations

[methodwriter85]

Slow your roll there, John Green. You've had one successful adaptation of your books, doesn't mean all your books get to be movies. Who do you think you are, Nicholas Sparks?

LOL. I think the thing about John Green is that a part of him is very, very adolescent-minded, if you go by watching his videos. Not that he can't be mature or anything, but I'm not shocked he's pouting like a kid.

 

Honestly, of his books, I think "An Abundance of Katherines" and "Let It Snow" would actually make pretty good, pleasant romantic comedies, but so far they're pretty obscure. "Looking for Alaska" needs to be an R-rated movie in a industry that's refusing to make R-rated teen dramas. "Paper Towns" suffered from the fact that it's not really a love story at all, but it was kind of marketed as one.

Edited January 31, 2016 by methodwriter85

[methodwriter85]

"Me Before You" finally drops its trailer:

 

 

This looks very faithful to the book. Pretty excited!

[galax-arena]

Slow your roll there, John Green. You've had one successful adaptation of your books, doesn't mean all your books get to be movies. Who do you think you are, Nicholas Sparks?

It's funny because I have heard him described as the YA version of Nicholas Sparks. Not really a designation I'd aspire to, but I guess it pays the bills and then some!

[SnoGirl]

Me Before You is going to destroy people who haven't read the book. I remember staying up and finishing it in one night and being a tearful mess (I couldn't actually believe the ending went where it went).

Sam Claflin looks perfect as Will. I like Emilia Clarke ad Lousia too. I'm excited to watch this movie this summer!

[methodwriter85]

It's funny because I have heard him described as the YA version of Nicholas Sparks. Not really a designation I'd aspire to, but I guess it pays the bills and then some!

 

See, though, John Green's characters are much more ironic and meta than Nicholas Sparks characters. I can see why they say that, but I think John Green tries to balance the melodrama with humor and self-referential behavior.

 

 

Me Before You is going to destroy people who haven't read the book. I remember staying up and finishing it in one night and being a tearful mess (I couldn't actually believe the ending went where it went).

 

I was worried about the adaption of Me Before You, but honestly, it looks perfect. I was worried they'd try and make this into a teen romance.

 

I really hope that this just won't get dumped into theaters- if this is as good as I think it's going to be, I hope a lot of people see it.

 

And yeah, the book killed me. I really loved that they went where they went, though. It felt earned.

 

Also, I LOVED that they realized that Lou's quirky fashion sense was a big part of that character, and they didn't change it so that she would look like some preconceived notion of a small-town girl.

 

Finally...oh my god,

are they actually going to show Will dying? Ugh. Not sure how I feel about that. I kind of loved that they cut away from it.

Edited February 4, 2016 by methodwriter85

[Rilla-my-Rilla]

I'm excited to see Me Before You too. It looks pretty similar to the book from the trailer.

 

I only finished the book this past weekend ( I was waiting, forever it seemed, for the library copy to become available in an effort to buy fewer books, but I usually fail at that) I read it in less than a day. I'm pretty sure I'll get a copy for myself soon.

 

I did not cry (<---- dirty lie)

[BatmanBeatles]

I've never read the book, but I really want to see this movie. I always thought Sam Claflin was hot.

Edited February 4, 2016 by BatmanBeatles

[SallyAlbright]

I was so nervous about the trailer, because MBY is one of my favorite books, but so far I am thrilled. It looks very well done. I will reserve judgement on Sam Claflin until I see him, but I think Emilia Clarke is already pitch perfect as Lou. She's just as I pictured her! 

[methodwriter85]

I was so nervous about the trailer, because MBY is one of my favorite books, but so far I am thrilled. It looks very well done. I will reserve judgement on Sam Claflin until I see him, but I think Emilia Clarke is already pitch perfect as Lou. She's just as I pictured her! 

 

I LOVE the wardrobe they're putting on her. Just wonderful. She's nailing the Lou personality- very bright and bubbly without making her seem like an idiot.

 

I don't watch Game of Thrones or ill-conceived reboots so I don't know much about her acting, so I'm really interested in seeing where this goes.

Edited February 4, 2016 by methodwriter85

[Chrissytd]

Me Before You Director set to direct The Selection adaption.

That book has been on my Goodreads to read shelf for a while.

Edited June 17, 2016 by Chrissytd

[manbearpig]

Someone really wants The Selection to get made, eh? Didn't the CW try to make a series out of that...twice? I've never read the book but it's interesting to see something get developed as a television show, then attempted again, and then have it potentially become a movie.

[methodwriter85]

Jamie Dornan may be out of 50 Shades Freed?

If they're going to recast, they may as well go back over the entire 50 Shades Darker and refilm.

And speaking of Nicholas Sparks...his production company is dunzo. I'm guessing the diminishing returns on his movies have something to do with it?

[Bruinsfan]

Who could have guessed that remaking the same story nine times with different casts wouldn't continue to be profitable?

[methodwriter85]

10 hours ago, Bruinsfan said:

Who could have guessed that remaking the same story nine times with different casts wouldn't continue to be profitable?

I think the Longest Ride would have been a hit if it had been what it had advertised- a love story between a cowboy and a serious career gal. But they just NEEDED to add that 1950's subplot/parallel love story, which I think dragged down the movie. I feel like they just kind of took over the whole movie.It was not a bad story, but it wasn't what I came to see the move for.

As for Me Before You- it's going to wind up between 55 to 60 million domestic, and it's worldwide is currently around 140 million. Pretty damn good, especially with the subject matter. Sam and Emilia had great chemistry. Not a box office smash like the Fault in Our Stars, but it's nice to see a romantic drama do well.

[Schweedie]

I was wondering if anyone have any thoughts on Alive (1993) and the book it was adapted from, The Story of the Andes Survivors? I was nine when that film came out and I remember being completely awed by it and the fact that it was a true story, and it's one of those films I've re-watched a lot, but I'd never actually read the book until only just recently. And now after having read it I wish the adaption had been better, because as a film it's not really that great. The acting is pretty wooden from a lot of the guys, the actors mostly seem too old for their youth to really come across, and they don't even look all that much worse for wear at the end of the film than they did at the beginning. And not including Nando and Canessa's final expedition makes it suffer as well, I think, because the ending is so abrupt.

A part of me wants a better film version because their story deserves it, but at the same time... I mean, the details are such that making another film feels sort of exploitative. 

[methodwriter85]

Newsies Live was pretty awesome. I get that Disney wanted to make money off of the musical without resorting to making a full-out remake of the 1992 so they went a filmed staged version, but it was the right call. If they had gone with a real remake instead of a staged version, they couldn't have used Jeremy Jordan as he's neither a box-office draw or someone that could believably be made to look 17 in a movie setting. And hell, the 1992 movie was such a flop that I can't blame Disney for not wanting to go there.

I do wonder if the success of the film staged version means that Disney might consider a full-blown movie. Although god, if they do, please get a kid who can sing. Christian Bale was all kinds of adorable but he couldn't sing.

If it does happen, Newsies would have had a circular existence, like Hairspray. (1988 movie, 2002 musical, and 2007 movie adaption.)

[methodwriter85]

I recently discovered a YouTuber called the Dom, who discusses the adaptations of books. He did one on The Princess Diaries, which wasn't exactly faithful:

I did agree with him though that the movie version's characters are actually much more likeable than the book version, which ultimately leads to a better story. I did enjoy the book, particularly all of their pop culture references like Anne of Green Gables and Lifetime movies, but if they had been truer to the book, I don't think the movie would have took off as much.

[methodwriter85]

I am not sure how I feel about this yet. It looks like it's aiming to be more serious than the fluffy March Sisters at Christmas modern take that starred Julie Marie Berman as Jo, but hmm. Swapping out scarlett fever for cancer makes a lot of sense.

I'v heard the more traditional PBS take is not faring well with viewers, but I'll still try to catch it.

Edited May 13, 2018 by methodwriter85

[VCRTracking]

Greta Gerwig’s LADY BIRD Follow-Up Is An All-Star LITTLE WOMEN Adaptation

Saoirse Ronan playing Meryl Streep's daughter is perfect casting.

[methodwriter85]

Yeah, there seems to be an uptick in Little Women productions given the 150th anniversary of the book.

I didn't see the PBS traditional version starring Uma Thurman's daughter yet. Hopefully it's good,.

[starri]

Emma Stone to play Meg?  I love her, and she probably would have been a great Jo when she was younger, but she's nearly thirty.  She's closer in age to Marmee than she is to 16.

I'm so confused.

Edited June 30, 2018 by starri

[Dejana]

On 6/30/2018 at 10:46 AM, starri said:

Emma Stone to play Meg?  I love her, and she probably would have been a great Jo when she was younger, but she's nearly thirty.  She's closer in age to Marmee than she is to 16.

I'm so confused.

 

Apparently, "Gerwig’s screenplay focuses more on the sisters’ young adult lives after they leave the family home", so casting more for that aspect than the teenage years makes sense. The movie "jumps back and forth in time, focusing more on themes than narrative" for everyone worried about where Gerwig's approach leaves

Spoiler

Beth.

Also, Streep is playing Aunt March, not Marmee.

Even with a more traditional approach, Emma Stone wouldn't have been the oldest actor to play a March sister on film.  Here are the ages of the actors from earlier adaptations:

 

Little Women, dir. George Cukor, 1933 (cast member age during the year of release in parentheses)

• Frances Dee as Meg (24)
• Katharine Hepburn as Jo (26) 
• Jean Parker as Beth (18)
• Joan Bennett as Amy (23)
• Spring Byington as Marmee (47)
• Edna May Oliver as Aunt March (50)
• Douglass Montgomery as Laurie (26)
• Paul Lukas as Professor Bhaer (39)
• John Davis Lodge as John Brooke (30)

 

Little Women, dir. Mervyn LeRoy, 1949:

• Janet Leigh as Meg (22)
• June Allyson as Jo (32)
• Margaret O'Brien as Beth (12)
• Elizabeth Taylor as Amy (17)
• Mary Astor as Marmee (43)
• Lucile Watson as Aunt March (70)
• Peter Lawford as Laurie (26)
• Rossano Brazzi as Professor Bhaer (33)
• Richard Stapley as John Brooke (26)

 

Little Women, dir. David Lowell Rich, 1978 (not sure why Wikipedia lists this as a film rather than TV adaptation, but anyway, here goes):

• Meredith Baxter as Meg (31)
• Susan Dey as Jo (26)
• Eve Plumb as Beth (20)
• Ann Dusenberry as Amy (26)
• Dorothy McGuire as Marmee (62)
• Greer Garson as Aunt March (74)
• Richard Gilliland as Laurie (28)
• William Shatner as Professor Bhaer (47)
• Cliff Potts as John Brooke (36)

 

Little Women, dir. Gillian Armstrong, 1994:

• Trini Alvarado as Meg (27)
• Winona Ryder as Jo (23)
• Claire Danes as Beth (15)
• Kirsten Dunst (12) and Samantha Mathis (24) as Amy
• Susan Sarandon as Marmee (48)
• Mary Wickes as Aunt March (84)
• Christian Bale as Laurie (20)
• Gabriel Byrne as Professor Bhaer (44)
• Eric Stoltz as John Brooke (33)

Edited July 4, 2018 by Dejana

[starri]

2 hours ago, Dejana said:

• William Shatner as Professor Bhaer (47)

Jesus wept...

I mean, I know there's always going to be a certain amount of squinting that goes on with any production.  I'm not sure why this jumped out at me as being a particularly egregious example.

However, Meryl as Aunt March is inspired.

[Wiendish Fitch]

William Shatner as anyone is egregious.

I don't like the Shat. Sorry.

[starri]

No need to apologize.  As someone who shed actual tears when Leonard Nimoy died, Shatner's public persona of the last few years has made me realize I'm going to really have to dig for a reaction when it's his time.  

[proserpina65]

On ‎06‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 8:38 PM, methodwriter85 said:

Yeah, there seems to be an uptick in Little Women productions given the 150th anniversary of the book.

I didn't see the PBS traditional version starring Uma Thurman's daughter yet. Hopefully it's good,.

It's not.  It's not egregiously awful, either, it just lies there inert and lifeless.

[Constant Viewer]

5 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

On 6/29/2018 at 7:38 PM, methodwriter85 said:

I didn't see the PBS traditional version starring Uma Thurman's daughter yet. Hopefully it's good,.

It's not.  It's not egregiously awful, either, it just lies there inert and lifeless.

Agreed, but I did like that it included the boating party which is usually left out of adaptations.

[methodwriter85]

Is it at least above the 1978 Laurie Partridge version? That was just way too campy and cheap for my taste.

[Constant Viewer]

23 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

Is it at least above the 1978 Laurie Partridge version? That was just way too campy and cheap for my taste.

 I'd never even heard of that version until now. I do vaguely remember seeing part of an anime version on Nickelodeon once, but don't remember much of the film. 

[andromeda331]

I liked that one! Mostly they added parts from the books that they rarely add in the other adaptations. But then I'm one of the few that the 1994 movie isn't my favorite. My favorite is the 1940s one even though they switched the ages on Beth and Amy.  

[methodwriter85]

Looking for Alaska is finally going to happen, except as an 8-part mini-series on Hulu instead. I'm guessing Hulu wants it to be their own 13 Reasons Why? I do think this means they'll keep in the edgy stuff from that book, which is why I think LFA took so long. It was so clearly meant to be R-rated, but R-rated teen movies just aren't getting made that much these days.

[VCRTracking]

[Dejana]

2 hours ago, VCRTracking said:

 Revenge for La La Land? :)  Maybe Watson will surprise me and hold her own against Streep, Dern, Ronan, Chalamet and the rest, and she'll improve her American accent (which slipped pretty badly in The Circle, but then, that one wasn't very good, so maybe she just didn't try, lol).

[methodwriter85]

It's going to be weird to see her play such a happy little housewife, but  I'm wondering if they're going to tweak Meg's character a bit. However, if John Norton is playing John, then I wouldn't blame Meg for being pretty content with life. (Early 1990's Eric Stotlz was also pretty sexy, so I understand that part about the 1994 version.)

I'm still leaning towards the idea that Meg is going to get tweaked a bit. I can't see a name actress taking a part that doesn't have that much sizzle to it, especially if they're skipping over the teen years and going straight to the "Jo in New York" era, after Meg had already married John. The only thing that Meg really gets is her lesson about the double standard in how women are treated at parties (which 150 years later is STILL in effect!) as well as her decision to marry for love over money. I'm guessing they might be a little more honest about the poverty they experience?

Edited August 25, 2018 by methodwriter85

[Dejana]

15 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

It's going to be weird to see her play such a happy little housewife, but  I'm wondering if they're going to tweak Meg's character a bit. However, if John Norton is playing John, then I wouldn't blame Meg for being pretty content with life. (Early 1990's Eric Stotlz was also pretty sexy, so I understand that part about the 1994 version.)

I'm still leaning towards the idea that Meg is going to get tweaked a bit. I can't see a name actress taking a part that doesn't have that much sizzle to it, especially if they're skipping over the teen years and going straight to the "Jo in New York" era, after Meg had already married John. The only thing that Meg really gets is her lesson about the double standard in how women are treated at parties (which 150 years later is STILL in effect!) as well as her decision to marry for love over money. I'm guessing they might be a little more honest about the poverty they experience?

 

Watson is an avowed feminist and Little Women is the sort of property that she would feel proud to be aligned with/promote. If the Meg role has been made juicier, I doubt that Stone would abandon it because of promotional obligations for another movie (the excuse being reported in the trades). Actors doing PR for one movie are simultaneously making another all the time during Oscar season; Jennifer Lawrence and Brie Larson were filming other projects as they were on their way to Best Actress, Larson on anothet continent, even. The production just works around their promo,  if they are important enough. I don't know what's really going on, but this dropout seems unusually last minute. Although in most film versions, the strongest role among the March sisters almost always happens to be Jo, so maybe Stone decided she's at a place in her career where she doesn't really want to be second banana to Saoirse Ronan.

And I'm not sure how in-demand Emma Watson really is, for this sort of role. Granted, she did just headline a billion dollar hit last year, but in terms of talent, I don't think that she's held in anywhere close to same regard as other actresses in her age range. If you're making prestige/awards fare and are looking for powerhouse acting from a young actress, where is Emma Watson going to rank on the list? Margot Robbie and Jennifer Lawrence are her age, Saoirse and Shailene Woodley are even younger, all are more acclaimed than Watson. But the project is a good match for her on/offscreen personas, and the studio was probably eager for a well-known name among the sisters, to sell to younger audiences.

Edited August 25, 2018 by Dejana

[Dejana]

Ever wonder how Little Women would have played out, 150 years later? Hurry to theaters in the next couple of weeks, wait for it to hit streaming in another month or two, or just watch the trailer summarize the whole thing:

Edited September 30, 2018 by Dejana

[methodwriter85]

I saw this version today. It really should have been sold to Lifetime or something- it was decent but clearly television movie quality.

I also don't know if I'm just getting older or it's on the actress, but damn, Jo was annoying. I also didn't buy her friendship with Laurie, although they did do a good job with developing her relationship with Bhaer. However, Ian Bohen has made my gaydar scream since watching Teen Wolf so I couldn't fully get into that, either.

It was pretty much exactly the kind of movie that the trailer advertised it as being. I was kind of surprised that they didn't really "Christianize" this, given that it's being distributed by PureFlix. You see some crosses but that's basically it. Hell, the 1994 had more overt religious references and imagery than this did.

Edited October 5, 2018 by methodwriter85

[katha]

I always thought Meg's and John Brooke's story had the potential to be interesting: Falling in love, then marrying, then dealing with the realities of living together and how both parties need to compromise and adjust to each other. IMO it would be cool if there was more focus on them. Loads of it would need to be modernized, of course. But IMO the books are very much of their time on many issues, and those would presumably need to be either ignored or changed to make a movie today work. Watson and Norton seem well suited to the roles, if that's the characters they will be playing.

They'll have to basically rewrite Marmee, of course. IMO the one in the book is supremely obnoxious. Yes, let the bird starve to teach Beth a lesson, Marmee. Grand idea. Geez, sadist much?

[andromeda331]

5 hours ago, katha said:

I always thought Meg's and John Brooke's story had the potential to be interesting: Falling in love, then marrying, then dealing with the realities of living together and how both parties need to compromise and adjust to each other. IMO it would be cool if there was more focus on them. Loads of it would need to be modernized, of course. But IMO the books are very much of their time on many issues, and those would presumably need to be either ignored or changed to make a movie today work. Watson and Norton seem well suited to the roles, if that's the characters they will be playing.

They'll have to basically rewrite Marmee, of course. IMO the one in the book is supremely obnoxious. Yes, let the bird starve to teach Beth a lesson, Marmee. Grand idea. Geez, sadist much?

I always liked their story best. All you stated is very true. But also I think their the most developed of the three couples in the book and in the movies. John's there early on as Laurie's tutor so we watch it all unfold. I've never felt like we get that Amy and Laurie or Jo and Behr. Maybe because they both happen towards the end of the movies there's not really a lot of time devoted to either one. We usually get a couple scenes of Amy and Laurie in Europe then their hitched. Jo and Behr usually get a few more but without ever really explaining why Jo ends up with him. He's just kind of there. Kind of boring. Plus he puts down her stories although her stories always sound like fun reads plus as she points out those stories pay.  We don't really get to see either couple fall in love.

[methodwriter85]

The Hallmarky version has a pretty good handle on Jo/Bhaer because it's framed as a 29-year old Jo flashing back to her teen years as she gets advice from Bhaer on her book.

[andromeda331]

13 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

The Hallmarky version has a pretty good handle on Jo/Bhaer because it's framed as a 29-year old Jo flashing back to her teen years as she gets advice from Bhaer on her book.

That sounds good.

[methodwriter85]

Yeah, like I said, you can definitely see where the budget is tight, and the acting wasn't uniformly good (I really wasn't feeling Teddy in this), but it was exactly what it advertised itself as- a Hallmark-ish rendition of Little Women set in the modern age.

Anyway, this is apparently the cast list for the mid-budget Little Women getting adapted by Greta Gerwig:

Meryl Streep as Aunt Josephine March

Saoirse Ronan as Jo March

Timothée Chalamet as Theodore "Laurie" Laurence

Florence Pugh as Amy March

Eliza Scanlen as Beth March

James Norton as John Brooke

Laura Dern as Marmee March

Emma Watson as Meg March

Louis Garrel as Friedrich Bhaer

Bob Odenkirk

Chris Cooper

Abby Quinn as Annie

As a sidenote trivia, Louis Garrel's sister Esther played Elio's girlfriend Marzia in Call Me By Your Name. They have a very strong resemblance to each other.

I'm assuming that Bob Odenkirk is playing Mr. March and Chris Cooper is playing Mr. Laurence.

[methodwriter85]

Wow. I honestly thought this would never happen.

"Are You There God, It's Me, Margaret" in the works after Judy Blume grants rights

I really hope they resist the pressure to age up the girls or have a 16-year old playing 12.

"We must, we must, increase our bust!"

Edited October 18, 2018 by methodwriter85

[Snow Apple]

They better do it right or they'll have generations of girls, and even boys, to answer to.

I wonder if they'll set it in the 70's?

[starri]

22 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

Wow. I honestly thought this would never happen.

I'm kind of shocked that it hasn't happened before.

[methodwriter85]

3 hours ago, starri said:

I'm kind of shocked that it hasn't happened before.

I read somewhere that Judy Blume wouldn't grant the rights because almost every pitch she got included aging up Margaret. 12 is not a popular movie age, especially if we're talking about 12-year olds having conversations about periods instead of Babysitter's Club type fluffy innocence. I mean, look at the Giver adaption, which turned Jonas from a 12-year old curious about the world into a twentysomething 16-year old hunk.

[Snow Apple]

8 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

I read somewhere that Judy Blume wouldn't grant the rights because almost every pitch she got included aging up Margaret. 12 is not a popular movie age, especially if we're talking about 12-year olds having conversations about periods instead of Babysitter's Club type fluffy innocence. 

And I'm sure they didn't even want to figure out how to handle the Laura character. A 12 year old who looks like an adult woman. 

I wonder if this new movie will keep the character or just leave her out. Because despite subjects about periods and bras and crushes, the book is still pretty innocent. Margaret and her friends joking about Laura and the teacher won't fly these days. But I guess they can still keep Laura and leave that particular mean joke out.

[raezen]

20 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

I read somewhere that Judy Blume wouldn't grant the rights because almost every pitch she got included aging up Margaret. 12 is not a popular movie age, especially if we're talking about 12-year olds having conversations about periods instead of Babysitter's Club type fluffy innocence. I mean, look at the Giver adaption, which turned Jonas from a 12-year old curious about the world into a twentysomething 16-year old hunk.

That's unfortunate becauseit can be done. My Girl was a huge hit, one that my dad almost didn't take me too see when I was 12 for pretty much the reasons you give. I think he was glad he relented despite the amount of crying on my part he had to witness.

[methodwriter85]

Well, it's being done with the people who did Edge of 17, which is apparently what got Judy Blume to trust them. And there's 8th Grade, which had 13 playing 13, did pretty well for a micro-budget with movie with an R-rating. I do think you could reasonably make Are You There God? with a PG-13 rating.

13 hours ago, Snow Apple said:

And I'm sure they didn't even want to figure out how to handle the Laura character. A 12 year old who looks like an adult woman. 

I wonder if this new movie will keep the character or just leave her out. Because despite subjects about periods and bras and crushes, the book is still pretty innocent. Margaret and her friends joking about Laura and the teacher won't fly these days. But I guess they can still keep Laura and leave that particular mean joke out.

I can see that getting uncomfortable really quick. As an aside, I follow one of my friends from high school and she's dealing with the bullying her daughter's getting for being a 6 foot tall 12-year old with hips and boobs. It does happen.

I'm kind of surprised that Blubber never happened, although I guess no one wanted to watch 10-year olds being absolutely sadistic to each other. Jill isn't much of a hero, Judy Blume did allow adaptions of the Ramona and Fudge books, as well as an indie more modern one for Tiger Eyes.

You sure as hell couldn't do Maybe Again, Then I Won't and still have Tony peeping on the next door neighbor with binoculars. Maybe a modern version would be the daughter being 18 and doing some kind of webcam deal? Although even that would still be problematic, although One Tree Hill did get away with that in the early 2000's. Not sure you could do that now. I did like the idea of following how a guy deals with becoming suddenly rich. They'd have to change the invention (it's basically the Clapper, wasn't it?) and the older brother's death from Vietnam would have to be changed.

It's Not the End of the World seemed fairly timeless, if I remember it right. So many kids go through divorce.

[Snow Apple]

9 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

 

I'm kind of surprised that Blubber never happened, although I guess no one wanted to watch 10-year olds being absolutely sadistic to each other. Jill isn't much of a hero, Judy Blume did allow adaptions of the Ramona and Fudge books, as well as an indie more modern one for Tiger Eyes.

Ramona was Beverly Cleary's books but I know what you mean. I also remember Forever was a tv movie in the 70's or 80's. Deenie fit right in with the teen medical dramas of the era so I wonder why that never got made.

As for my memory of Blubber, my bullies read it, loved it, and were outraged. The fact that they themselves were bullies went over their heads.