Anne in all her glory: Other adaptation discussion

[Meredith Quill]

Discuss Here!

[SomeTameGazelle]

Might as well get this started -- especially since the YTV version whose first installment aired in 2016 will be airing its sequel, Anne of Green Gables: The Good Stars on February 20, 2017. We have had some discussion of it in the one-offs forum. 

I know a lot of people loved the 1985 adaptation, although there are disagreements about exactly when the sequels became too egregiously terrible to bear.

[marina to]

I think there's general agreement the third one is an abomination.

[SomeTameGazelle]

25 minutes ago, marina to said:

I think there's general agreement the third one is an abomination.

Just to get our numbering straight . . . I take it the abomination is A New Beginning (3rd sequel, 4th installment)?

Anne of Green Gables : The original two-parter, covers the novel Anne of Green Gables.

Anne of Green Gables: The Sequel (aka Anne of Avonlea) : The first sequel, includes elements from Anne of Avonlea, Anne of Ingleside, and Anne of Windy Poplars, not necessarily in that order, and takes liberties with pretty much everything.

Anne of Green Gables: The Continuing Story: The second sequel, completely fabricated story from beginning to end set in WWI.

Anne of Green Gables: A New Beginning: The third sequel, including flashbacks to young Anne pre-Green Gables as well as a mature Anne played by Barbara Hershey.

I think there's a definite progressive decline in quality with each one worse than the previous. Most people seem to like at least the first two, maybe the third one, and dislike the last. The first one is truest to the books but I didn't get what I wanted from either Diana or Gilbert (I know, heresy) so I can't love it. The departures from the story of the books in the second installment (first sequel) were unacceptable to me (so disappointing not to get Phil and Stella and Royal Gardner and the college environment, and to have Katherine Brooke so very spinsterish and unlike my mental image of her). I don't regard the last two at all.

[Camera One]

Most people just refer to them by number/installment... Anne 1, Anne 2, Anne 3 and Anne 4.

To me, Anne 1 captured the spirit and the characters of the books, with the exception of Reverend Allan and his wife.  

Although I loved the source books (and I would like to see a future adaptation that depicts Anne at Redmond), I thought they did a good job of incorporating three books into a clear narrative structure for Anne 2.  The main weakness was how old Morgan Harris was.  His mother was also a little annoying and Jen Pringle too unredeemable.  I loved Katherine Brooke in this one.

Anne 3 was a poorly written film and had completely missed the essence of the characters.  Older Gilbert still seemed like himself, but Anne did not act like herself at all.  The movie really went off the rails once Anne goes to Europe, where everyone had to cheer her up, and the spy storyline went on and on.

Anne 4 was a travesty, actively destroying the characters by making Anne lie about her father being dead, Marilla being complicit in the lie, killing off Gilbert, not to mention the movie was boring.

The YTV Movie 1 had its moments, and the cinematography was beautiful, but some parts felt very rote.  The actors seemed to be reciting lines from the book without bringing it to life.  Matthew didn't seem like Matthew at all, and none of the supporting characters were memorable.  Stretching Marilla's decision to keep Anne to the entire length of the movie felt contrived and I didn't buy the climax.  

I do hope that this Netflix/CBC adaptation would be better, but that one moment of Anne in the promo saying how it was so easy to love Green Gables made her seem abrasive, rough and way too bubbly.  Hopefully, that is misleading.

Edited February 19, 2017 by Camera One

[marina to]

@SomeTameGazelle I was referring to The Continuing Story. Let's take Rilla's war story and shove Anne into it. Let's separate Anne and Gilbert AGAIN. Let's have Anne run around Europe completely out of character. Four was just more of the same.

[SomeTameGazelle]

1 hour ago, marina to said:

@SomeTameGazelle I was referring to The Continuing Story. Let's take Rilla's war story and shove Anne into it. Let's separate Anne and Gilbert AGAIN. Let's have Anne run around Europe completely out of character. Four was just more of the same.

 Thanks; I wasn't sure because I had it in my head that not everyone hated this one, either because they were satisfied at least to see Gilbert and Anne get married or they shallowly thought Cameron Daddo was hot.

Even calling it "Rilla's war story" is incredibly generous. The only thing they have in common are WWI and caring for someone else's baby. The settings, characters, and relationships are otherwise completely different.

[Camera One]

Sullivan was not allowed to use the books, though he couldn't even come up with a story which fit the characters.  I don't think Rilla's storyline in the book would have been appropriate for Anne regardless.

Some people did like Anne 3, probably for the wedding and for the reunion at the end.  I doubt anyone liked Jack Garrison.  

[SomeTameGazelle]

9 hours ago, Camera One said:

Sullivan was not allowed to use the books, though he couldn't even come up with a story which fit the characters.

I was searching to see if I could find the quote from Kevin Sullivan where he bought the rights to Anne of Green Gables in the first place sight unseen and then when he read the books didn't like them. Instead I came across this scholarly article which points out that the book is a Bildungsroman whereas Sullivan has adapted it as a romance. Which is to say he was never particularly in tune with the characters and was more interested in making money from the brand of Green Gables than bringing Anne's story to life.

[Miss Dee]

Loved Anne 1 - although they took some liberties with the story too, so I hate it when people hold it up as some kind of Bible.

I loved Anne 2 as well. Yes, it didn't follow the books, but for me it was an alternative path that kept the characters more or less where they were supposed to be, so I didn't mind it and enjoyed the story for what it was.

Tried watching Anne 3 and couldn't get through it. Absolutely horrible. Didn't even bother with Anne 4.

YTV-Anne was, surprisingly for me, a really good adaptation of the story. They went canon with some things even Anne 1 didn't do (the amethyst broach, e.g.).

For me any TV or movie adaptation is but a shade of the original - the books - so I don't hold Anne 1 to some standard no one else could live up to, or think no one should even try. Anne is large, she contains multitudes. I'm interested in all her incarnations.

Besides....if Anne proves to be a successful venture, can a new adaptation of Emily be far behind? A faithful rendition of that story would make me VERY excited!  

[Camera One]

4 hours ago, Miss Dee said:

YTV-Anne was, surprisingly for me, a really good adaptation of the story. They went canon with some things even Anne 1 didn't do (the amethyst broach, e.g.).

Which aspect of the amethyst broach did you like in the YTV version?  That was also adapted in Anne 1.

The one part I liked that they included in the YTV version but was missing from Sullivan was going to Church with flowers in her hair.

For me, the other iconic parts were not adapted well in YTV... for example, not giving us the dialogue to Anne's apology to Mrs. Lynde, not having Matthew ask for puffed sleeves from the sales lady, not having Marilla encounter Mrs. Blewitt.  In the grander scheme, it took more significant liberties than the Sullivan version.

[SomeTameGazelle]

On 2/26/2017 at 1:21 PM, Camera One said:

For me, the other iconic parts were not adapted well in YTV... for example, not giving us the dialogue to Anne's apology to Mrs. Lynde, not having Matthew ask for puffed sleeves from the sales lady, not having Marilla encounter Mrs. Blewitt.  In the grander scheme, it took more significant liberties than the Sullivan version.

The appalling liberties YTV took with the Elaine incident made me look up the scene from the1985 version. In many respects the 1985 version was truer to the book, but I still loathe the tone of the interaction between Gilbert and Anne. It bothers me that Gilbert appears to be smirking where in the book there is no suggestion that he is inclined to make fun of her in any way. And I also can't stand Anne saying "fishing for lake trout" when he asks what she is doing. But other than that it was much more accurate than YTV which got all of the details as well as the tone wrong.

Looks like YTV is reairing both part 1 and part 2 this Saturday (the 18th) between 6pm and 9:30 pm. 

[Camera One]

I didn't like the smirk as well, but I think it was meant to show Gilbert trying to keep his laughter in, which wouldn't be hard to believe.  He was definitely a bit more smug in the movie than the book, but I think it worked to show that both of them had issues of pride.  What bothered me more was the unnecessary romantic connections that Gilbert seemed to have (eg. Josie).  I didn't mind the "lake trout" line because after that, she then explains what really happened.  I think the rest of that scene got the intentions and the gist of the scene back.  

The most important thing to me is that the 1985 production expressed L.M. Montgomery's humor.  In the book, the Lily Maid incident did make me laugh.  The YTV version had zero humor in it.  That's why I also brought up Anne's apology and Matthew at the store, since those were so funny on the page, but cut in the movie, which suggests a lack of appreciation for the written word.  For me, one or two goofier lines or moments in the Lily Maid scene trumps Matthew being dragged by a pig or clinging onto the roof after losing a ladder.

[Keener]

I'm probably the only person in the world that enjoys The Continuing Story. I agree that it's not exactly the Anne we remember, but the first hour is quite enjoyable. And it's portrayal of life on the Canadian homefront during WW1 is pretty spot on.  I also liked seeing Anne and Gilbert in a relationship. And that scene at the start where she falls flat in the sand? Gold. I hated Anne 2 but probably because there was never enough Gil in it. I'm sad that Jonathan Crombie is no longer around. I'd love to see a proper Rilla series with appropriately aged parents played by JC and MF. But alas that'll never be. 

[Camera One]

2 hours ago, Keener said:

I'm probably the only person in the world that enjoys The Continuing Story. I agree that it's not exactly the Anne we remember, but the first hour is quite enjoyable. And it's portrayal of life on the Canadian homefront during WW1 is pretty spot on.  I also liked seeing Anne and Gilbert in a relationship. And that scene at the start where she falls flat in the sand? Gold. I hated Anne 2 but probably because there was never enough Gil in it. I'm sad that Jonathan Crombie is no longer around. I'd love to see a proper Rilla series with appropriately aged parents played by JC and MF. But alas that'll never be. 

I liked some scenes in the first half as well.  I enjoyed seeing more of Gilbert in the New York hospital, so was disappointed he was MIA for the rest of it.  

[YoSaffBridge]

Is the 1985 version starring Megan Follows? I'm looking on Amazon, and would love to see it, but don't want to spend $20 and get the wrong version from Amazon.

I only started reading the books a few months ago, and got stuck on the one that was letters to Gilbert, but I just adored the first several, so I'm very excited. It's gotta be better than that Martin Sheen joint from over Christmas. Not that I don't love Sheen, he's just not Matthew Cuthbert.

[ErinW]

The Martin Sheen one--no fault of his--was TERRIBLE. It got the tone all wrong and it sliced away half of the story including the end (for some reason). I'll reserve some hope for this one.

[swanjun]

[quote]Is the 1985 version starring Megan Follows? I'm looking on Amazon, and would love to see it, but don't want to spend $20 and get the wrong version from Amazon.[/quote]

Yes, it's Megan Follows. I still vividly remember the day in sixth grade that our gifted teacher had us watch it. I fell in love hard and there's no way I will ever love another version like that one.

[lynny]

The original (starring Megan Follows) was amazing and still holds up 100%. I think I have it on DVD somewhere and now I want to watch it again.

I've loved Gilbert Blythe since I first saw him played by the lovely Jonathan Crombie (RIP). Are they casting younger now? Crombie was about 19 when original Anne aired. This guy looks much younger. Basically, what I'm saying is I don't see how this guy grows from the pest who gets the slate broken over his head into the hottie that rescues Anne from the river. Excuse me as I try to get out of the shallow end of the pool over a bunch of children.

I'm going to try to get my young nieces to watch this and see how they like it. They'd be close to the age I was when the original came out. I love the original so much that I don't know if I can objectively judge this or not. But, they are piling up on my DVR right now so I guess I'll find out.

Or, maybe I'll pull out the DVDs. God I loved those movies. Now, I'm nostalgic for weekends with my cousins where we stayed up late to watch both movies. And, then older us having a special grown up sleepover to watch "The Continuing Story".

[pagooey]

Quote

 

The Martin Sheen one--no fault of his--was TERRIBLE.

 

I watched that one over Christmas. I'd confused it with this update/remake--about which I'd heard good things--and was so perplexed I felt gaslighted: were the books I'd loved for 35 years actually...bad? what was happening? What a relief, to see this! It looks very promising. :D

This appropriately gawky, young, true-ginger Anne running around in the damp, grey woods for a stretch there does make this look briefly like an extremely weird prequel to The Killing, though. (Don't worry, little red: you grow up into Mireille Enos!)

[Camera One]

13 hours ago, ErinW said:

The Martin Sheen one--no fault of his--was TERRIBLE. It got the tone all wrong and it sliced away half of the story including the end (for some reason). I'll reserve some hope for this one.

The Martin Sheen one was the first of three movies.  They basically split the novel into 3 movies.  The second one has already aired in Canada, and PBS has committed to airing it but haven't announced when.

[lynny]

15 hours ago, Camera One said:

The Martin Sheen one was the first of three movies.  They basically split the novel into 3 movies.  The second one has already aired in Canada, and PBS has committed to airing it but haven't announced when.

When did it air in Canada? I never did see it I don't think and I don't remember seeing an ad for it. But, if it was on YTV, I can kind of see how I missed it. It's not like I'm regularly watching that channel so I probably missed it.

[Camera One]

2 hours ago, lynny said:

When did it air in Canada? I never did see it I don't think and I don't remember seeing an ad for it. But, if it was on YTV, I can kind of see how I missed it. It's not like I'm regularly watching that channel so I probably missed it.

Movie #2 (called "Anne of Green Gables: The Good Stars") aired on YTV on Family Day in February.  It re-aired March 18th, so maybe it will re-air again.  PBS hasn't aired it yet, so maybe wait for that.  Not sure if they're waiting until US Thanksgiving again.

Watch out for the third movie (called "Anne of Green Gables: Fire & Dew") when it does air.  Apparently, it will be in 2018.  They will probably re-air Movie 1 and 2 before that one.

[marina to]

5 hours ago, lynny said:

When did it air in Canada? I never did see it I don't think and I don't remember seeing an ad for it. But, if it was on YTV, I can kind of see how I missed it. It's not like I'm regularly watching that channel so I probably missed it.

It's been airing on CBC the last few weeks. 

[Camera One]

1 hour ago, marina to said:

It's been airing on CBC the last few weeks. 

That's the Netflix/CBC television series "Anne", which has 8 episodes.

Lynny was asking about the YTV/PBS movies starring Martin Sheen, which has 3 movies.  

[Keener]

On 4/5/2017 at 3:33 PM, lynny said:

I've loved Gilbert Blythe since I first saw him played by the lovely Jonathan Crombie (RIP). Are they casting younger now? Crombie was about 19 when original Anne aired. This guy looks much younger. Basically, what I'm saying is I don't see how this guy grows from the pest who gets the slate broken over his head into the hottie that rescues Anne from the river. Excuse me as I try to get out of the shallow end of the pool over a bunch of children.

They're casting more age-accurate. Gil is meant to be Anne's contemporary since (in the novel) they compete in the same exams and for the same jobs eventually. In Canada at the time, kids graduated out of school around 15/16. They've established that Anne (I'm assuming we're talking about the CBC/Netflix version) is 13-- which is aged up from the novel's 11. Presumably Gil is also 13 in this adaption. The actor who plays Gil was born in 2001, putting him at a real-life age 16. The actress who plays Anne is only a year younger at 15. 

Personally, I'm loving this new Gilbert. 

[SomeTameGazelle]

1 hour ago, Keener said:

They're casting more age-accurate. Gil is meant to be Anne's contemporary since (in the novel) they compete in the same exams and for the same jobs eventually.

Gilbert in the books is in fact a little older.

Quote

“You’ll have Gilbert in your class after this,” said Diana, “and he’s used to being head of his class, I can tell you. He’s only in the fourth book although he’s nearly fourteen. Four years ago his father was sick and had to go out to Alberta for his health and Gilbert went with him. They were there three years and Gil didn’t go to school hardly any until they came back. You won’t find it so easy to keep head after this, Anne.”

[Keener]

Quote

I remember more of the Sullivan adaptation than the actual books, but even then it's been over 15 years since I watched or read either. I think that helps me look at this series with somewhat fresh eyes. I watched the PBS adaptation and found myself audibly reacting in annoyance, much to my roommates' displeasure. I managed to convince him to watch this series after pointing out that Moira Walley-Beckett was also the writer of his favourite Breaking Bad episodes, which I think is also a big draw for a wider audience than what would normally be expected. It was actually my roommate that wanted to watch all the released episodes so far on the CBC website. I wanted to break on episode 4 and wait and watch 5 and 6 together due to what the episode summaries suggested for plot. I didn't want to feel like I was left hanging in regards to Anne and Diana's separation. 

I brought the above over from the ep. 5 thread. I have to agree with this.  After visiting PEI last summer (and the GG house), I binged the Sullivan AOGG series and found it wanting. Firstly, PEI was barely a footnote to the series. While I understand that filming restrictions keep productions in Halifax, Toronto and Vancouver, even many of the establishing shots felt very Ontario. With this new series, even though it too is filmed in Ontario, it feels much more authentic. It feels like PEI and the GG house itself (even though it does look different, you can extend your imagination and see some similarities).  It helps that they are using red brick more liberally to showcase the red soil of PEI at the farm and in "Charlottetown".  The red soil *is* PEI.

Secondly, the acting in Sullivan's version was cringe-worthy at times. To be sure, Colleen Dewhurst and Richard Farnsworth are absolute perfection and I did cry at you-know-what. But Diana is absolutely brutal to watch in the first film. She improves greatly over the course of the series, but initially? Oof.  Anne and Gilbert have great chemistry and I suspect Megan Follows' chemistry with Crombie, Dewhurst and Farnsworth really allowed her to jump into everyone's hearts, but she's never really Anne of the books for me. Anne is so skinny and underfed, enough so that in the books she talks about how she lacks dimples in her elbows. There's something about MF that doesn't make her believable as the orphan girl. I also hate that 80s fashion seems to undercut period appropriate dressings. Anne's hair is just so weird.  I can't watch the Gil-Scarlett Fever scene with a straight face. I realize pompadours were in style for women at the turn of the century, but they just overdid it.  The newer version seems more in line with being historically faithful (including the lack of electricity in the Cuthbert house) I will also say that I've cried far more frequently in this newer adaption. Anne signing the Bible, Matthew calling her my daughter, etc. There are far more emotional touchstones which is nice.

For me Amybeth Mcnulty has the look. Additionally the costuming and setting is so much more on point this time around. I noticed in the first or second episode that Anne's dress was so small on her. It was a fantastic little touch-- of course Anne would be wearing ill-fitting hand me downs. Also, there was a close up on Matthew's hands and we can see the dirt under his fingernails. Yes, of course a *farmer* would have dirt under his nails. I also read (or watched in one of the extra videos on CBC, maybe?) that they stained the hems of the dresses with red dirt so that the kick up was more authentic. It's these details that make this series the more faithful adaption. Yes, there are some changes, but that is what will make it more appealing to teens who crave "dark" dramas like 13 Reasons Why and Riverdale and people will binge watch this show. I, for one, love this adaption. All of the actors are perfectly cast. Gilbert and Anne still have amazing chemistry and Amybeth looks (and sounds-- even in real life) like what I imagined Anne to be like. 

Edited April 22, 2017 by Keener

[Camera One]

In terms of visual impressiveness, it doesn't hurt that this production had a way bigger budget.

To me, the most powerful scenes in this new production are the ones which are directly from the books.  The signing of the Bible felt like the end of an after-school special and Matthew calling Anne a daughter felt contrived and un-earned.  From a historical perspective, this new series inserts a modern mindset into the characters which produces an uneven effect.  

This series is beautifully filmed and I am enjoying it to some degree, but whether or not it embodies the actual spirit of the novel is questionable to me beyond the surface visual look.

[Keener]

Actually the Bible signing was also in LMM's Blue Castle. In it the family considers removing Valencia's name from the family Bible. So that was historically accurate. I don't like that they gave her a hyphenated last name because in the book she's very much "Anne Shirley" and Marilla constantly uses it in exasperation. 

[Camera One]

I didn't find the Bible-signing historically inaccurate (except maybe the crossing out of the name half a dozen times for comic relief and basically ruining the Bible).  I just didn't find it emotionally satisfying in the second episode, nor believable from Marilla's perspective.  Too much too soon, to me.  A big part of the book's charm is how Anne wins Marilla over, gradually.  It feels earned and the change is deep and grudging, not instant.

Edited April 22, 2017 by Camera One

[Anothermi]

@Keener, I agree with your points about what makes this adaptation great. (yes, I'm finding it great and not quibbling with the changes/additions because it meets with and enhances my memory of my thoughts and feelings when I read the books). 

I still LOVE the Megan Follows version even though I did have to hand-wave a lot during the sequels. It remains to be seen if this one will supplant the 1st one, but young Anne is definitely meeting my picture of Anne upon 1st reading. I'm fully prepared to hand-wave the verbosity of this Matthew. He still embodies the spirit of Matthew. I guess today's audiences require a Greek chorus-like intervention to explain things. 

The little touches, such as showing us Matthew's only foray into romance, fulfill an audiences' need - similar to Anne's question (on the train, 1st episode) about Matthew and Marilla's marital status. Inquiring minds just want to know! I know I did and was so relieved when LLM let us know that Marilla was capable of feeling romantic love at one point in her life. It was soooo scrumptiously TRAGICAL! [/channeling inner Anne]

[Kairay]

I'm not sure if I can watch this. Like many others Meghan Follows was my Anne. I watched the movie before I could actually read. So the movie characters became my image when I was able to read the books. Richard Farnsworth captured Matthews spirit. And I fell in love with Jonathan Crombie. I've tried to watch the other remakes but they just aren't the same. But I like that other die hard fans are enjoying this new one too. I guess I just have to have an open mind.

[Camera One]

The first episode is faithful to the book, so it's a good entryway.  Part of whether an adaptation works is if it creates the right atmosphere, and this show does an artful job of pulling you into the world being created.  That's when the actors can become the character.

I would say it can't hurt to try.  Is it possible for a new production to ruin an old production or a novel you like?  I suppose there is always a slight possibility, but one can usually dissociate a new production and not have it taint the previously viewed or read works.

Edited April 23, 2017 by Camera One

[Anothermi]

@Kairay, I sympathize with your dilemma.  Lucky for me, I read the books first and had my own images based on LMM's descriptions and my imagination. (I've learned that it is better to read the book after seeing the adaptation for most things - if I don't want to be disappointed). Nothing can really live up to your own imagination. BUT, it has been decades since I read the books. Megan Follows was perfect for me as Anne but as time has moved on Amybeth Mcnulty has reminded me of my original visual images of Anne, and it HAS been over 30 years since Megan's version. I was happy to believe that Anne's red hair could have been enough to consider her "plain". 30 years has given me a bit more wisdom and a bit more tolerance for another's way of seeing Anne. I'm interested in seeing what they portray as "handsome" for a woman. I know what I think that means and I think of it as pleasing, but we shall see.

Matthew, Marilla & Mrs. Lynde were Canon to me, but the new actors in this version have not undermined that. They have brought another perspective which I am now capable of appreciating. I think I may have room for two loves when it comes to this story.

[SeanC]

A Vanity Fair piece on the series mentions something I wasn't aware of, that one of the executive producers is the actress who played Josie Pye in the Kevin Sullivan productions.  

[Anothermi]

Thanks @SeanC for that link. I also found this quote which may explain the (to me) rather strange cliff-hanger ending.

The initial "She" refers to executive producer Miranda de Pencier who was Sullivan's Josie Pye.

She and writer Moira Walley-Beckett, a veteran of Breaking Bad and Flesh and Bone, set out to re-imagine Anne by searching for themes “between the pages” of Montgomery’s material. Their adaptation tackles the author’s references to bullying and abuse, loneliness, feminism, sexuality, and xenophobia far more overtly than any Anne thus far.

Spoiler

I'm now thinking that the theme of the con-men boarding at Green Gables is to explore Anne's sexuality? She was, to my mind, portrayed as "gah-gah" at the looks of the 2nd guy to arrive. One poster in the episode thread has already speculated on why they chose such a good looking guy for what seemed to be a small role.

[Camera One]

15 hours ago, SeanC said:

A Vanity Fair piece on the series mentions something I wasn't aware of, that one of the executive producers is the actress who played Josie Pye in the Kevin Sullivan productions.  

Yes, in Canada, she was mentioned from the very beginning when the project was announced, so she was very much involved with this one.

[jah1986]

Is this thread only for discussing the 1985 version of AoGG?  I don't see that anyone has mentioned the 1934 big screen adaptation starring Anne Shirley.  I came across this one day on TCM and the actress that played Anne actually changed her name to Anne Shirley.  It's not great but for some reason I have a soft spot for this movie.  Like most others though, I love the 1985 Megan Fellows version and the sequel Anne of Avolea.  I'm looking forward to seeing this new adaptation this weekend on Netflix.

[OtterMommy]

1 hour ago, jah1986 said:

Is this thread only for discussing the 1985 version of AoGG?  I don't see that anyone has mentioned the 1934 big screen adaptation starring Anne Shirley.  I came across this one day on TCM and the actress that played Anne actually changed her name to Anne Shirley.  It's not great but for some reason I have a soft spot for this movie.  Like most others though, I love the 1985 Megan Fellows version and the sequel Anne of Avolea.  I'm looking forward to seeing this new adaptation this weekend on Netflix.

This thread is for discussing any other adaptation.  I think it just seems like it is for the 1985 version because that is the one most people have seen.  

[Camera One]

I've watched clips of the 1934 version on Youtube and I hope to watch the whole thing.  It was a bit tough to get into since it felt a little dated and staged (considering the era it's made in), but once I got used to the older style, it wasn't a bad adaptation.

[SomeTameGazelle]

Quote

I've watched clips of the 1934 version on Youtube and I hope to watch the whole thing.  It was a bit tough to get into since it felt a little dated and staged (considering the era it's made in), but once I got used to the older style, it wasn't a bad adaptation.

I remember very little about the 1934 version (other than I know I have seen it 30 years ago or so) but they also made a sequel, Anne of Windy Poplars in 1940.

I've watched a little bit of the BBC Anne of Avonlea and although Kim Braden looks very much like my mental image of a young adult Anne and they're more or less following the book, the accents are so awkward everything feels kind of clunky.

[Camera One]

I've also only watched clips of the BBC "Anne of Avonlea", though I do hope to watch the whole thing one day.  In that case, Marilla really takes me out of it.

[marina to]

On 5/13/2017 at 0:27 PM, Camera One said:

I've also only watched clips of the BBC "Anne of Avonlea", though I do hope to watch the whole thing one day.  In that case, Marilla really takes me out of it.

Marilla in that adaptation is Barbara Hamilton, from Kingston, ON. She's a treasure, surprised she wasn't a good Marilla.

[Camera One]

28 minutes ago, marina to said:

Marilla in that adaptation is Barbara Hamilton, from Kingston, ON. She's a treasure, surprised she wasn't a good Marilla.

I loved her character Eulalie Bugle in "Road to Avonlea".  It's mainly she doesn't look like Marilla.  Maybe if I saw the whole movie, I would get used to it.

[Keener]

That BBC version... oh boy. I half expected the Muppets to appear. It reminds me of the Muppets' Frog Prince.  Talk about horrible staging and crappy sets. Yikes. I couldn't get through that opening scene. 

Edited May 15, 2017 by Keener

[General Days]

I still have one episode left of Anne with an E (I'm watching on Netflix in the US). While I do appreciate the new adaptation, and get where Walley-Beckett is coming from with the edginess, that stuff isn't my Anne of Green Gables. The books are my true love, but the 1985 mini-series (and sequels starring Megan Follows) own my heart.

I know poor Anne was abused and mistreated as an orphan. Because I read the books when I was quite young though, and because the books are so wholesome, I don't want to go there with this show. 

Also, everyone else here probably knows this, but I didn't. Our 1985 Gilbert Blythe -- Jonathan Crombie -- died in 2015, of a brain hemorrhage. LINK. Oh, Gil.

[marina to]

6 minutes ago, General Days said:

Also, everyone else here probably knows this, but I didn't. Our 1985 Gilbert Blythe -- Jonathan Crombie -- died in 2015, of a brain hemorrhage. LINK. Oh, Gil.

It was a shock. I believe he'd be happy with how Gilbert is being handled here. May even be a little bit jealous of what Lucas Jade Zumann gets to play. :)

[SomeTameGazelle]

On 5/14/2017 at 8:58 PM, Keener said:

That BBC version... oh boy. I half expected the Muppets to appear. It reminds me of the Muppets' Frog Prince.  Talk about horrible staging and crappy sets. Yikes. I couldn't get through that opening scene. 

I've been doggedly making headway with the BBC Anne of Avonlea because I wanted to see what they did with Redmond and Gilbert. I'm disappointed that Anne and Gilbert aren't shown interacting as friends much, just AVIS business really, and that they put his first proposal to Anne right after Diana's engagement to Fred instead of waiting until Redmond. And that when Anne suggests that they should still be friends, he seems to agree as he stomps off in a huff. I've read that proposal dozens of times, and I wanted so much to see the tension of Anne rejecting Gilbert's love and Gilbert rejecting Anne's friendship, but there's no meaning in it if they aren't shown to be great, intellectually compatible friends.

I will persevere because I want also to see Phil, who may have been my favourite non-Avonlea Anne character of all time. I've seen Priscilla since she shows up in the visit of her famous writer aunt, Charlotte E Morgan. I don't revisit Anne of Avonlea much so I had forgotten about that. I liked the aunt in the BBC production but Priscilla seemed a bit . . . squeaky.

Oh -- and I forgot to mention that the cover of the DVD depicts Anne in a pink dress. If that isn't a failure to respect the text I don't know what is.

Edited May 22, 2017 by SomeTameGazelle
and another thing!

[Miss Dee]

I would absolutely love to see an adaptation of the Redmond days complete with Phil, Aunt Jamesina, Roy Gardner, etc. Especially how they'd handle Anne's rejection of Gilbert. Most adaptations make him the dark melancholy type she believed herself attracted to, which doesn't really help the viewer understand why she resisted so hard against the idea of Gilbert as lover.