I can’t wait to see this told from a 21st century, streaming service perspective. “You’ve seen Girls Gone Wild, now prepare yourself for girls gone wilder. Laura Ingalls Wilder.”
I’ll pass.
deleted
Very meh on the original (watched a bit in syndication when nothing else was on), and not interested in the sequel series. I expect some will be outraged it isn’t like the original, nevermind that the original itself was different than the books (or that the books were at the very least edited to a political/societal agenda). Of course, it could just end up being bad (or good) tv, regardless of (dis)similarity to the original. The article didn’t really give any details on what to expect out it.
There really, really have been so many reboots/renewals/relaunches of old shows in recent years. There have always been some, but many more now. Admittedly, the market is so segmented - so many more shows now than in the network or even cable days. And it’s a hook (and for renewal type series you even theoretically have a built-in audience of older viewers). Kinda makes me think of comic books (for a long while now) and how they keep expanding the “families” but don’t have all that much success with newer independent/unconnected heroes.
I’m not sure why this idea is any worse than the 2019 version of Little Women, which was favourably received.
Have they casted it yet? Might be fun to do casting picks.
‘Father’ Wilder (the Michael Landon character): Jason Momoa
Laura Ingalls Wilder: Sydney Sweeney
Eh, that’s all I got. I know there’s a couple other sisters, a mom, and a ‘mean girl’, I think, but I didn’t really watch the show.
Exactly. What’s wrong with more than one adaptation of a work? After all, if we were only allowed one screen adaptation per work the only Ben Hur we’d be left with would have been the silent version! Ditto with The Wizard Of Oz. No Humphrey Bogart version of The Maltese Falcon either.
I could wish that the directors go back to the original source material, which had so much death and disaster in it that much of it was edited out by Laura herself. The inability of ‘Pa’ to settle in one place for long was the major contributor to this life of near-constant adventure, until the long-suffering Mrs.Ingalls finally insisted on a living in a house, in a town. A realistic depiction of life on the barely-settled prairie, with no money, no social services, and barely any neighbors, in the 1870’s, would be worth watching.
But I’m dreaming.
Seriously, how much could happen in a little house the prairie that would keep viewers interest over an extended series? I might watch an episode or two just to see what they created, but that would be pretty much it.
The Ingalls were constantly moving. The ‘little house’ was one of maybe a dozen places they lived in Laura Ingalls’ childhood. They lived in (and ran) a hotel, they lived with and also near relatives in Wisconsin and New York state, they lived in a dugout (aka a hole in the ground), they lived in a log cabin … during this time Laura’s brother died at nine months of age, her older sister got viral meningitis and went blind, their crops completely failed, including everything being eaten by locusts, they almost were consumed in a prairie fire, they nearly froze to death, they all nearly died from malaria (a traveling doctor found them all lying near death in their cabin). Just off the top of my head, as I read the books some twenty years ago to my daughter, and could never bear the tv series.
I’m in agreement. It’s perfectly fine for someone else to come along and adapt a work according to their vision. For Dune alone we have Lynch’s version, the Sci Fi television movie, and the most recent Villenueve version.
As we all saw with Gus Van Sant’s Psycho, there’s little reason to produce a new version if they’re just going to rehash the original, so going back to the original source material sounds like a good idea to me. I don’t think audiences in 2025, or whenever the show premiers, are going to be interested in the same thing audiences were back in 1974. So let’s see Pa’s long suffering family put up with his wanderlust.
Wow, then the title is rather misleading! It should be, “Many Houses on and off of the Prairie”. LOL
I’m not sure the debt, hunger and other privation would be well-suited to “enduring themes of hope and optimism” - but there’s the original material of the books (what people love) and the reality (which I doubt most would). I was thinking about the Waltons here but I never watched that show, know only one character’s name (well, he was named after dad) and don’t know how material lack played in with familial love there or really even what the themes of the show were.
Laura Ingalls Wilder portrayed her family as filled with strength, warmth and joy even in adversity, and I am sure that this was also true. Without it, they could not have survived such deprivation.
There’s a story in one of the later books, when Laura began teaching school at age 15, rooming with a settler and his wife because her own family’s house was too far away from the school. The wife, in a memorable scene, hated and feared the isolated life she’d been brought to, and gradually went mad, finally attacking her husband (or maybe Laura, I forget) with a butcher knife. That probably wasn’t included in the tv series.
Most of what I have described is in the books, which were written for children, so I think it would be possible to dramatize them.
The coldest and bleakest I’ve felt is when I read “The Long Winter” aloud to my daughter.
Same. I’ll put this one in the “They’re out of original ideas” file.
Themes of hope and optimism without adversity just gives the audience a silly, saccharine snooze fest of a story. And from what I understand of the original material, there’s a good dose of reality in there.
Sure, you need adversity. But for hope and optimism to actually stay in play, you need some “victories” too. I don’t feel you can have bad thing after bad thing after bad thing and nothing ever go the characters’ way, either. Example (from hazy memory, so I may have this flat out wrong, but for fiction, it still works for an example), I understand in the book there’s a section where Pa works hard, pays off their debt (that was the adversity), and the girls get new dresses. While in reality, he couldn’t pay off their debt and they snuck out of town undercover of darkness to not be noticed by those they owed the debt to. One is a story that give a more hopeful/optimistic feel than the other. Though, of course, love and family loyalty can be present in both cases.
Of course, maybe the next place was better and things improved (at least for them). But if they didn’t, you start wonder if there’s a reason for optimism (except mental well-being).
What’s wrong with reboots? A lot of Shakespeare’s comedies were reboots of decades old material. It’s a valid form of entertainment.
I might watch it if it was gritty and true to the source material or better yet the true story told accurately to history. It would be significantly better than that cleaned up saccharine shit chowder that Landon made.
Well, it is Netflix and not NBC, so I can see death, hunger, pain and suffering being put front and center.