Little Women (Greta Gerwig, 2019)

[mfunk9786]

Greta Gerwig is remaking Little Women with Meryl Streep, Saoirse Ronan, Emma Stone, Florence Pugh, Timothée Chalamet, and an actress to be named later

Pretty disappointingly dull career trajectory, not gonna lie. How many more times does this book need to be adapted?

[domino harvey]

Great cast, but yes, I agree. There are already several good versions of this material, no one was asking for another. Maybe if Gerwig is planning a radical reimagining (ala Whit Stillman's Love and Friendship) it may have some potency, but otherwise, disappointing

[domino harvey]

I will add though that this is a smart move for Gerwig. Rather than use the prestige, goodwill, and rep she gained from Lady Bird to make a weird personal pet project like so many other directors and possibly crash and burn, she's going for awards bait and sure commercial success with that cast. I think she has the longview in mind here

[mfunk9786]

You're right, provided this doesn't become notorious for having too large a budget or having too long a shooting schedule, etc. Can't see any of that being possible with someone like Gerwig, who already has so much experience with making films economically and quickly.

[knives]

I don't mind stories being retold especially since the last major one for this story was made nearly 30 years ago.

[Werewolf by Night]

The book is such an "independent-minded woman" (I won't say "feminist") touchstone, that I think it's fine for it to have a new film iteration every generation or so. (I'm going to politely ignore all the rotten TV adaptations, up to and including that recent baffling BBC/PBS version.)

If the world can bear and as many hundreds of adaptations of Dracula and Frankenstein as we've had that each bring in new, relevant interpretations and metaphors, it ought to be able to withstand the occasional glossy, new version of Little Women.

[knives]

What I think would work well given Gerwig's interests is updating it so that it takes place alongside the Vietnam war or something like that which would also make it seem fresh.

[Roger Ryan]

...I'm going to politely ignore all the rotten TV adaptations, up to and including that recent baffling BBC/PBS version....

Good Lord, that 2017 BBC/PBS version (which just aired last month in the U.S.) was shockingly awful - a Gerwig adaptation could not possibly be worse.

[Brian C]

I’ve never bothered watching any of the other versions, so I’m on board.

[Lost Highway]

The book is such an "independent-minded woman" (I won't say "feminist") touchstone, that I think it's fine for it to have a new film iteration every generation or so. (I'm going to politely ignore all the rotten TV adaptations, up to and including that recent baffling BBC/PBS version.)

If the world can bear and as many hundreds of adaptations of Dracula and Frankenstein as we've had that each bring in new, relevant interpretations and metaphors, it ought to be able to withstand the occasional glossy, new version of Little Women.

Dracula and Frankenstein continuously get reinterpreted in part because the novels are too sprawling to lend themselves to faithful adaptations and the premise of both is a lot more flexible. They can be adapted in many different ways, with Dracula ranging from a rodent like monster in Nosferatu to a matinee idol in the Frank Langella movie. Frankenstein adaptations keep adjusting to scientific innovations and questions of ethics and they range from the classic James Whale movie to Vincenzo Natali’s gene splicing variation. Truly faithful adaptations have been rare.

Little Women is a lot more specific and apart from questions of emphasis, most of them are comparatively similar. So far this looks like a boring choice to me, especially as there just have been two new adaptations. Apart from the recent BBC/PBS adaptation there also is this contemporary take with Lea Thompson, which from the trailer looks like a Lifetime movie: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8Leyx8eBMSA

[All the Best People]

I've never seen any version of the story or read the book, but I'm on board for whatever GG has to bring in the future. Disappointed that Meryl Streep will be in it, though, but life will never be perfect.

[Werewolf by Night]

Dracula and Frankenstein continuously get reinterpreted...

I kind of had a nagging feeling that someone was going to “ACTUALLY” me on these off-the-cuff comparisons, and I hoped to get in here and change them to Pride & Prejudice before anyone did. Oh well.

[Lost Highway]

Dracula and Frankenstein continuously get reinterpreted...

I kind of had a nagging feeling that someone was going to “ACTUALLY” me on these off-the-cuff comparisons, and I hoped to get in here and change them to Pride & Prejudice before anyone did. Oh well.

ACTUALLY, that one has been redone one so often that by 2016 the only way to find a new angle was to add zombies.

[dda1996a]

The book is such an "independent-minded woman" (I won't say "feminist") touchstone, that I think it's fine for it to have a new film iteration every generation or so. (I'm going to politely ignore all the rotten TV adaptations, up to and including that recent baffling BBC/PBS version.)

If the world can bear and as many hundreds of adaptations of Dracula and Frankenstein as we've had that each bring in new, relevant interpretations and metaphors, it ought to be able to withstand the occasional glossy, new version of Little Women.

Dracula and Frankenstein continuously get reinterpreted in part because the novels are too sprawling to lend themselves to faithful adaptations and the premise of both is a lot more flexible. They can be adapted in many different ways, with Dracula ranging from a rodent like monster in Nosferatu to a matinee idol in the Frank Langella movie. Frankenstein adaptations keep adjusting to scientific innovations and questions of ethics and they range from the classic James Whale movie to Vincenzo Natali’s gene splicing variation. Truly faithful adaptations have been rare.

Little Women is a lot more specific and apart from questions of emphasis, most of them are comparatively similar. So far this looks like a boring choice to me, especially as there just have been two new adaptations. Apart from the recent BBC/PBS adaptation there also is this contemporary take with Lea Thompson, which from the trailer looks like a Lifetime movie: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8Leyx8eBMSA

I'll also add that it has been a while since the last good adaptation of those (correct me if I'm wrong) but even then I'm not too interested in a new.
I've actually had both the original, best picture nominee by Cukor lined up to watch with my mom and then follow it up with the Winona version.
Seems fitting for Gerwig but this is a safe, boring choice.

[barryconvex]

What I think would work well given Gerwig's interests is updating it so that it takes place alongside the Vietnam war or something like that which would also make it seem fresh.

Or set during Gerwig's 80s adolescence in Sacramento as a companion piece to Lady Bird. I could buy that..

[mfunk9786]

What I think would work well given Gerwig's interests is updating it so that it takes place alongside the Vietnam war or something like that which would also make it seem fresh.

Or set during Gerwig's 80s adolescence in Sacramento as a companion piece to Lady Bird. I could buy that..

Your point is taken, but Gerwig was born in 1983.

[Gregory]

The soon-to-be-released Little Women movie is a modern-day reimagining of the story, but it's from the same "Christian values" company that brought us the God's Not Dead trilogy, so it may be released mainly into a (large) niche market anyway.

I'd prefer to see Gerwig's adaptation set in the same period as the novel but aiming for realism as opposed to heritage-film prettiness.

[knives]

What I think would work well given Gerwig's interests is updating it so that it takes place alongside the Vietnam war or something like that which would also make it seem fresh.

Or set during Gerwig's 80s adolescence in Sacramento as a companion piece to Lady Bird. I could buy that..

The civil war is a huge part of the book and nothing in the 80s or 90s really fits I think.

[barryconvex]

I confess, i've never read the book..But even if it is an important part of the novel isn't the Civil War aspect pretty negligible in the Ryder version? It's been awhile but isn't it only referenced by Sarandon that her husband's away and then only onscreen directly when the March Patriarch returns home from the south? IIRC he shows up, says something akin to "hello everyone, i'm back from the war" and then isn't seen again for the rest of the movie. Though I suppose you could argue his absence due to the war has a major influence on the sisters' upbringing, to my recollection it's not much more than a background detail for a minor character. At least in the '94 film...Regardless, i like the idea of setting it in a more contemporary arena. A Vietnam era Little Women would be fine with me.

[Michael Kerpan]

I think the Civil War setting actually popped a good number of times throughout the Ryder version...

[domino harvey]

The "actress to be named later" is Eliza Scanlen from Sharp Objects

[The Narrator Returns]

Laura Dern has now joined the cast.

[domino harvey]

Biggest downgrade of all time: Emma Watson is replacing Emma Stone

EDIT: This Twitter user's response is hilarious:

Laura Prepon to replace Laura Dern.

[domino harvey]

Louis Garrel has joined the cast

[ianthemovie]

So is Laura Dern playing the mother? I had assumed that part would go to Meryl Streep but apparently she's playing the girls' aunt (which I suppose is more age-appropriate casting).