Comments and queries for the week of February 19

YTV’s Anne of Green Gables celebrates family

When I heard of a new Anne of Green Gables film, I wondered why someone felt the need to produce it. I watched the premiere airing, and wondered why even more.

Sara Botsford and Martin Sheen? Really? They don’t fit their characters at all, and their acting skills are limited. Little Ella Ballentine tried, but the three will always be measured against the wonderful 1985 trio of Megan Follows, Colleen Dewhurst and Richard Farnsworth. Not to mention Dame Wendy Hiller in the 1987 sequel.

Not only was the acting in the new film inferior, we also had strange anachronisms such as references to a welfare system and child services, which Canada did not have in 1908 when the novel was written. Trying to update a classic is often a fool’s game. It takes away from the whole texture of the piece.

I realize I’m comparing a movie and a mini-series, but it’s the quality that concerns me. To be measured against an Emmy Award-winning mini-series (followed by the sequel, two years later, which is of equal quality) is a tall order. It would be like trying to remake Citizen Kane or Casablanca. Leave well enough alone.

What should be done is to rebroadcast the 1985 and 1987 series, perhaps every couple of years. They would build a new and growing following, much as films such as It’s a Wonderful Life and The Wizard of Oz have done. —Robert

Saving Charlie on Saving Hope

I think it might have hit Maggie… —Norah

I so HOPE there is HOPE that neither Alex or Charlie ended up dead! I can’t believe that guy could get the information from the receptionist as to where Alex and Charlie were. No receptionist would ever have done that (I know from whence I speak.). The show was so fabulous and so shocking for me at the end! And me, all by myself, with my dog and cat. This show is at the top of my list of shows to watch. I’ll be waiting for Season 5 on tenterhooks. Absolutely love you all for such a good series. Now I am waiting
for the first show of the next season, to see what the next twist is re: Charlie or Alex, or…? —Robin

I think Alex will be shot. Charlie’s already been through quite a bit in terms of “OMG, will he make it??” situations. On another note, I’d love to see more Sydney (Stacey Farber) next season. She and Maggie make a nice fit. —Jordan

I feel like it would be too obvious and redundant to have Alex or Charlie end up in a coma again. Maybe he missed and the bullet passed them and hit someone behind. @Jordan, I agree! Saving Hope needs more Sydney Katz/Stacey Farber. —Flora

I agree with you both. Stacey Farber needs to come back and she should’ve been in the season finale. —Carly

You’re right. I had to re-watch the end of the episode on to see that the woman was behind Alex, facing Charlie, so that proves Charlie may still have his “gift.” In terms of angles as shown on the final shot, I would be more inclined to think we are being misled. However, we will have to wait and see. —Christopher

I don’t know who the ghost was (but Charlie saw her, yay!), she said to him “It’s time to go.” That could mean a whole host of things. I think Crenshaw shot Charlie. It was Charlie he was after, and I think the gun went slightly in Charlie’s direction right before the cut. Did Crenshaw escape, or did he win his appeal? If he won, would he be that pissed about spending a few extra months in prison, only to be put back after this incident? Revenge may be sweet but it makes people idiots. And now the long wait. —Hallie


Got a comment or question about the Canadian TV industry? or via Twitter @tv_eh.


2 thoughts on “Comments and queries for the week of February 19”

  1. Regarding Robert’s comments.
    How can one have discussion with someone who’s bias takes him so far away from the truth that he installs “facts” that are non-existent? I guess you just don’t.

    Never mind that the 1985 version delivered an Anne who did not look like an 11 year old (as it is written in the novel). Never mind that hardly any teenager or pre-teen watched the 1985 version (and it is available). Who can fight with a grown man’s fuzzy feelings towards his childhood memories of a schmaltzy (standard of the times) delivery? Let’s forget that the sequels of what followed moved further and further away from the original novels, and throw all the stones on this new version.

    How about judging this version for what it is versus comparing to our childhood dreams? How about liking each Romeo and Juliet because it reaches out to a new group of “fans” with tools that relevant of the time when it is filmed? How about if we forget Zeffirelli and embrace Luhrmann (no gas stations at Shakespeare’s time) for its fresh delivery to a new group of audience? The likes of child welfare according to one commenter did not exist in 1908. (Hint: They were not called welfare services.) How about if we try to promote the novels, and the writer versus a 1985 version? How about if this new version will make kids want to pick up the books? Would that be unfair?

    For many, the 1985 version is the whole grail, and they are even going as far as call it the “original”. Most of those fans (not the book but the TV production of 1985) have no idea that other versions prior do exist.

    There is a silent film made in 1919 (although it is lost). There were film adaptations in 1934, 1940 .
    For TV there area adaptations from 1956, 1957, 1958, 1972, 1975, and I could go on. Many fans of the “original” never compared (or watched) any other versions. So when one wants his “Wizard of Oz” back, I beg for the 1934 version from RKO, a super production. It was produced 25 years away from the novel’s time, and 5 years from the Wizard of Oz. Or better, let us just enjoy each version, and let us discover many new things each time while embracing the classic Canadian novel, and its writer!

  2. I ignored the new movie altogether because I really like the 85 miniseries and I think its too soon to do a remake.

Comments are closed.