Jump to content

"Little House on the Prairie" reboot coming to NETFLIX


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 20
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

I still have the script somewhere for the attempted movie reboot some years ago from Sean Durkin (a bizarre choice, behind the great psychological thrillers Martha Marcy May Marlene, The Iron Claw and The Nest) and Abi Morgan (an equally bizarre choice, having written Shame). I wonder wtf that looks like. I'll have to read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm sure this reboot will be produced like most productions are these days: either too-fabulous-for-words campy (I can already see Nellie Oleson doing "Real Housewives"-esque commentaries on the action) or sad and dismal, with scenes that are plodding and have been drained of all energy in order to be "edgy."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Melissa Gilbert shuts down Megyn Kelly.

"Netflix, if you woke-ify ‘Little House on the Prairie’ I will make it my singular mission to absolutely ruin your project" Megyn Kelly posted on twitter while sharing the news of the Netflix reboot.

Gilbert responded on  threads . "Ummm…watch the original again.  TV doesn’t get too much more ‘woke’ than we did. We tackled: racism, addiction, nativism, antisemitism, misogyny, rape, spousal abuse and every other ‘woke ‘ topic you can think of. Thank you very much."

Edited by janea4old
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I mean, yeah, they tackled some very topics during their run, but not in any way that I would consider "woke" or "progressive."  Of course, "Highway to Heaven," which Michael Landon also starred in and produced, suffered from the same problem.  In both cases, weightier subjects were dealt with in very shallow ways, with happy endings tacked on that were cloying and unearned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think the issue is that people talk around each other and no one is ever able to define what exactly "woke" is. Is "woke" being progressive? Is "woke" Satan in sheeps clothing? Or is "woke" just another word for executives meddling and not letting the creatives be creative?

Ultimately, I suspect both grievances come from the last part - in the past executives tended to meddle in trying to limit everything, which forced them to get creative with getting issues close to the heart into the shows. On the other hand, a check list of things that need to be fit into a production - even if you agree with them - isn't much better and can lead to lazy box checking. 

As for the reboot - I think those that are nostalgic for Little House On the Praire aren't going to check it out because why? You can't recreate the "vibe" it has because it was produced in a different era. Those that want a tepid safe watch will go and watch "When Calls the Heart" or some other Hallmark production. Those that want a realistic depiction will just watch one of the movies. 

So who is Netflix doing this for, besides noticing that it's been accumulating streaming numbers? Gunsmoke has by the way been racking up streaming numbers too, so maybe that's next?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Actually, @te., I think "Gunsmoke" would be PERFECT for a reboot, especially if the tone were more in keeping with the original radio series and the earliest TV seasons, which were darker than the later ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

"Woke" now means anything that isn't a straight, white, able-bodied man.

Today Little House would be called "DEI" and "woke" because of the focus on Laura. We would be told that the producers and writers hate men.

They would also be called "DEI" and "woke" due to having blind characters, black characters, and characters in wheelchairs. 

Edited by DRW50
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Oh, I agree that it's just become the latest buzzword at this point for conservatives to point fingers at if they don't like something. With that said - of course it can be criticized as lazy box-checking, just like older shows had to go through with meddling executives. And sometimes it does have merit - the latest Dragon Age unfortunately has some of the laziest writing I've seen and thus justly flops (though people will blame it on being "diverse" instead of what it is - bad writing).  But that's another topic for another day I guess.

 

Perhaps. I'll admit I've never seen much of Gunsmoke and in my head it tends to blend into the bland westerns that were so popular during the 50s. Maybe I should give it a shot some time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'd definitely check out the first 10 or so (B&W) seasons, along with whatever's out there from the original radio show.  As I've said before, "Gunsmoke," in those years, was very much a western for adults (and I say that as someone who generally doesn't like watching westerns, lol).  Very character-driven, and very hard-hitting, too.

I think part of my problem with LHOTP - aside from Michael Landon's penchant for maudlin, unearned sentimentality - is that the novels they're based on had a harsher, more clear-eyed view of "prairie life."  At least, that's how the novels, and Laura Ingalls Wilder's writing, came across to me when I read them as a kid.  Reading "The Long Winter" in particular made me very glad I was growing up in the 20th century, and not the 19th, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Most of the original LHOTP cast are supportive of whatever it is Netflix is making, mainly because this isn't a remake/reboot of the TV series. It's another adaptation of the books that will aim to follow the story of the books more accurately, which makes sense considering the involvement of Ed Friendly's son. Friendly and Landon clashed from the very beginning of LHOTP because Friendly's top priority was adapting the books and Landon's was to make an entertaining TV series. And considering it's been on the air nonstop for over 50 years now and still stands out in DVD sales, cable reruns, and streaming (plus all of the anniversary events last year were massive successes, even though quite a few were botched by event planners), Landon was on to something.

That's not to say that Friendly was wrong to want to stick to the books, but it's been thoroughly discussed by the cast and crew in recent times why adapting the books in the form of an episodic/mildly serialized TV drama in the 70s would not have worked. Once you had a foundation build around the Ingallses, Olesons, and others living in Walnut Grove, you couldn't just move on from that after a season or two (and then move on again after another season, and again after another two seasons, etc). Especially as it became clear early on just how strong some of the supporting cast were.

Re: it being progressive. While I do think MG likes to play it up a little more, I don't think the show gets enough credit for being generally liberal-minded. Obviously it has strong Christian themes, but you saw those expressed through love and acceptance of people of all kinds more often than you did through fundamentalist evangelism. I forget where I read it, but either Alison Arngrim or Melissa Gilbert has said that ML envisioned an LGBT-focused episode but never bothered to write it or pitch it because he knew it wouldn't happen.

I'm gonna ride hard for LHOTP every time lol It's been my #1 comfort viewing, above any and everything else, for close to a year now, and rediscovering it has gotten me through some tough times recently. If you have any interest in the show, I highly suggest checking out the extensive and informative (not to mention hilarious) episode reviews at Walnut Groovy. It looks at the show through modern eyes while still recognizing the hold it has on so many of us all these years later.

Okay, I'll shut up now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I read The Long Winter over and over as a kid. I still remember the passages where Laura was slowly dying on the sled, and how cold the rooming house she stayed in was, how even getting under the blankets was too much.

I have seen some claim that the books are white supremacist or fascist or what have you, or they say that is true of the background of them. I don't remember them well enough to say. 

I do think going back to them for source material isn't a bad idea. I just wish it wasn't Netflix, which is generally slop (even what I enjoy on their service is slop). I am hoping at the least they don't try to emulate that smug hack Taylor Sheridan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I think they’re desperately trying to cover his awful tattoos. But anyway them being unable to style short kings properly has been a major pet peeve of mine for a while now.  I honestly don’t understand what some people expect from actors to even begin considering them for recognition. Let’s be real—awards mostly mean that an actor is respected by their peers and has some level of cultural relevance. Actual judgment on the acting itself? That’s often secondary—highly subjective and shaped by the times. I completely agree on both points. If you’re an actor or a dancer you shouldn’t get any tattoos (sorry not sorry). Tomas’ tattoos are ugly too. And regarding the couples- you’re completely right. These writers are unable to write romance.   Further comments: - Kat cannot be this dumb to keep tampering with evidence over and over again. And I’m officially not a fan of the actress—every time she’s in a scene with Leslie, she doesn’t seem intimidated at all. She plays it like comic relief, which is just too much, especially when paired with Leslie’s histrionics and over-the-top antics. Leslie is older, dangerous, and has literally been portrayed as homicidal—Kat should be at least a little scared. • I also didn’t like Kat playing damsel in distress with the hotel manager. It gave off the same weird energy as Dani with the cop. I would’ve much preferred the version Paul Raven suggested, with her sneaking in through housekeeping. • And yes, Dani again accused Hayley of faking the pregnancy—this time even specifying she might be using a pillow under her shirt. (No fake miscarriage being mentioned) I stand by my take: this is ridiculous writing. No one in the real world—except us, the chronically online soap watchers—would even think of such a conspiracy theory. Haley is no Beyoncé. • What in the world was Chelsea wearing in her hair the other day? And this whole thing with Madison is beyond cringe. Chelsea’s coming off as needy and toxic—basically like every other Dupree. • I’m glad the casino storyline is moving forward, but it’s still boring as hell. Honestly, I’d be so here for a plot twist where Vanessa and Doug take Joey out. • The direction and editing lately have been rough. Abrupt cuts, weird pacing… something just feels off overall. There’s a strange uneasiness to how it’s all coming together. • And finally: Tomas is too much of a saint. Where are the messy sluts when you need them? (Vanessa doesn’t count.)
    • I was watching some August 1987 episodes and they brought back so many memories. I had some thoughts: Lisa and Jamie were so dull. Lisa was such a nothing character. It boggles my mind that so much story was centered around her in such a short amount of time. Joanna Going is a talented actress, but the material was just not there.  It was so good to see Wallingford and Mitch again. I know there was talk about Felicia a while back, but these episodes reminded me how integral Felicia was for the show.  Sally Spencer was done so dirty. She is turning in superb performances in an icky storyline. I wish she had stuck around longer. She has chemistry with everyone. The McKinnons should have lasted longer. Spencer had some strong stuff with Stephen Schnetzer and Mary Alexander. AW waster such a talented actress by getting rid of her. Justice for Cheryl too. I also missed Ed Fry when he left. Sandra Ferguson was a star from the moment she came on. She was charismatic and just popped. She had immediate chemistry with RKK and blended in well with Wyndham and Watson. I'd forgotten about the teenage Matthew.  I have no memory of Peggy Lazarus. She must not have lasted long. Was the original plan for John that he was going to turn out to be the twins' real father?      
    • If the new and improved copies that @rsclassicfanforever has uploaded can be manually moved into the "by month, by year" folders, that would be awesome. I personally don't think it's necessary to keep the older versions (which either have Dutch subtitles hard coded on them, or are lesser in picture quality). That's a lot of valuable drive space that could be cleared. Just my view but can appreciate others may feel differently. The structure had been by month by year previously, so I think it would be easier to conform to that, where so much prior work to get it to that format has already been done. Hopefully you can "drag and drop" so the new copies are in the right month/year? Re Clips, I never look at them now we pretty much have the episodes in full. Appreciate others may use, however. Thanks for all your hard work here @BoldRestless!
    • Oh yes defintely, Josh Griffith repeats and repeats the same storylines.
    • Isnt’t this storyline similar to the Cameron Kirsten situation though? Sharon thought she killed him. He ended up being alive and Sharon was being tormented with thinking she was seeing his face everywhere and that’s how we got that iconic scene with her and Nikki in the sewers.   I understand in Mariah’s case this is different circumstances but it does seem like a play on that whole thing. Maybe I’m wrong. I just wish if they were going to make any character follow in Sharon’s foot steps it would be Faith. Mariah wasn’t even raised by her, and her personality is different. I would expect her to take a different path. I understand I could be completely jumping ahead because the storyline hasn’t even played out yet but we’ll see. 
    • Thanks again @Paul Raven Monica was completely without redeeming qualities at this point. I always found the whole Monica = Carly narrative regressive, as I don't think shows comparing characters so heavily is ever a great idea, but she's actually worse than Carly was. Was it the Pollocks who had Leslie have a miscarriage?  Giving her a child, especially by rape, was not a good idea, but a part of me wishes they'd committed to it just to see what story it might have had in later years.
    • @janea4old Your detailed explanation and delving into the psychology and motivations is no doubt the opposite of what we will see onscreeen. As @ranger1rg stated we will get a few scenes and some sketchy explanations. Like the adoption of Aria, most of it will take place off screen.
    • I'm suddenly fearful that DAYS is going to pull a Flowers-for-Algernon stunt and Bo's progress will be reversed.  While @te. is stuck on Abe's tiny bedroom, I can't stop thinking of the size of Bo's huge hospital room.
    • Okay, why are Paulina and Abe sleeping like that?!  I'd take a screen grab if I wasn't lazy, but come on.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy