MovieChat Forums > Anne of Green Gables: A New Beginning (2008) Discussion > Anne isn't an orphan?

Anne isn't an orphan?

posted 17 years ago by moofoo21
18 replies | jump to latest

I just watched the trailer for this movie here:

http://www.anneofgreengables.com/

Am I misunderstanding something or are they saying that Anne's father wasn't dead and she lied about being an orphan? Is it supposed to be clever that they're contradicting things from the first movie, like Anne saying she's never eaten ice cream before when presumably she does in this?

More importantly, is anybody actually going to watch this piece of trash?

It's too bad Anne of Green Gables belongs to Mr. Sullivan's company and the "heirs" of Lucy Maud Montgomery, two groups who are only interested in getting paid and can't even get along with each other. They should all be ashamed of themselves.

[–] only_moi 17 years ago

i didnt understand the context of this new story either and the trailer definitely had me confused.
maybe its cuz i read it so long ago but could someone please refresh my memory.. so if this story is a prequel to before she came to green gables... who is shirley mclaines character.. (apologies if my qtn seems very obvious but it really has been a while since i read the book and im not entirely sure i remember her character being mentioned) so was anne adopted before she went2 Green Gables?and like moofoo21 mentioned above... whats that bit abt her father??????
yes and one more qtn.. someone says something like "you were an orphan?".. is that supposed2 be her son or husband?? if it is her husband.. (presumably gilbert) wouldnt he know?
sorry again if im missing something. i know it hasnt released yet but id be grateful that if anyone has a clue if they could clear this up.

although personally personally though i dont see the point! why mess with a great story any way??? its fine as it is and there was no need for a prequel. while i loved the spin off (?) 'road to avonlea' i havent seen the other story abt the war but ive heard its not so good either.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] queen-smartass 16 years ago

I still can't get over the fact that they erased Walter (her son) and the fact that he, the dreamer, the poet, the supposed 'coward', died a hero in WWI.
The third movie was garbage, pure and simple. This isn't even worth acknowledging.

And I mean, not knowing she was an orphan? PLEASE! She named one son Walter fofr her father and one daughter Bertha Marilla for her mother and Marilla.
Ugh!!!!!

http://www.myspace.com/raineduponraven

[–] shellyjames 16 years ago

In one of the books didn't Anne return to her parent's home and see their graves? or am I just imagining that?

[–] kodie16 16 years ago

She visited them in Anne o the Island, while she was at Redmond.

This movie looks like it is going to be bad. I won't watch it on tv or anything like that, I'll wait until someone uploads it to youtube and then watch it.

Oil: Never spy on the girl you love without it.

[–] Lily-32 16 years ago

I'm not even going to waste my time on YouTube either. "The Continuing Story" was bad enough since the only thing the same was Gilbert being a Doctor and they got married. Dude, it would have been one thing if they picked up the story where the original author left off with the final book but they've just completely thrown this beautiful work in a blender, picked out a few characters here and there and then threw the rest out the window. For the love, Sullivan! What on earth were you thinking?

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PrincessBuieruwen 16 years ago

I loved the third one i thought it was great. I dont care if it wasnt like the book i mean really theyre gonna make more in twenty years anyway. If you make something exactly the same as the book then that leaves no room for anyone else to re invent the book into a film. But i have to agree that this new movie is horrible that litle girl just dosnt sound like anne the girl sounds so self absorbed and annoying. you feel for anne with megan playing anne. And this whole adventure away from the cutberts just makes everything anne went through tanted and confusing. anne seemed so genuine about everything. She never lied now its as though she was full of *beep* through the whole three movies. i hope they dont seriously count this new movie to be the fourth one. its like speed 2 all over again thank god it dosent have the same actors in it it will be easier for me to ignore it then.

[–] angelmuze 16 years ago

L.M. Montgomery wrote many sequels to her classic Anne of Green Gables and they have stood the test of time continuing to sell copies decades after they were written. I loved the first two Sullivan movies even if the second took some liberties, the third was garbage and this one I won't even give a glance at after having seen its preview. I don't understand why books that have terrific, heart warming stories on them were shelved in favor of some made up nonsense. Kevin Sullivan knows that if this movie was called Sarah of the Blue Hills, no one is going to watch it, but if he can rip off a beloved book like Anne of Green Gables, then he might make some money off of it. Ms. Montgomery's heirs should have protected her legacy, she deserved that.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fmsnr5 15 years ago

The problem began when he set the first film 20 years ahead of the book. By the time he made the third film, the timing didn't fit with the novels...

[–] jarth-2 15 years ago

I don't think Mr. Sullivan every read these books or any of L.M. Montgomery's work, if he had he could have found a wealth of stories to make movies out of and not have to change a thing and they would be wonderful. I think the man must not know how to read or evidently doesn't want to read a book first!

Get this through your head. Sullivan cannot legally make Anne movies based on the books anymore.

[–] wamer5 16 years ago

I don't think Mr. Sullivan every read these books or any of L.M. Montgomery's work, if he had he could have found a wealth of stories to make movies out of and not have to change a thing and they would be wonderful. I think the man must not know how to read or evidently doesn't want to read a book first!

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BirdCageLive 16 years ago

Oh my dear God, why? What's with all the changes?

[–] thistlecreek1-1 14 years ago

"It's too bad Anne of Green Gables belongs to Mr. Sullivan's company and the "heirs" of Lucy Maud Montgomery, two groups who are only interested in getting paid and can't even get along with each other. They should all be ashamed of themselves."

amen to that.

[–] siobanphotogirl 13 years ago

Yah, that was the worst crime in this re-telling of Anne.

Anne of Green Gables is a treasured icon of Canadian literature, and to suddenly change their minds and decide that Canada's beloved red-headed orphan wasn't an orphan after all is awful!! I can't believe they did this to the story of Anne and that *anyone* might consider this drivel part of the Anne series. Anne 3 was bad enough but I watch the parts where Gilbert and Anne are together finally, but I'm begrudging it because it's not how it was in the books.

other things that bothered me about the last Anne movie:

1. the other actresses' portrayals of Anne.. I'm sorry, the only Anne is Megan Follows!
2. Anne is planning to sell Green Gables?
3. Tarnishing the memory of Marillla with that revelation that she kept letters from Anne?
4. Gilbert died in WWII? What? It was bad enough they had him go to WWI in the third Anne, when in the books it was Walter, their son (and perhaps another son or two? I can't remember. I can only remember how sad I was when Walter was killed in action and Rilla collapsed into Gilbert's arms when he told her.) who went off to war.
4. Oh... now there's a half-brother for Anne, after all this time.... well.. the story's been bollixed to hell anyway, might as well have this half-brother turn out to be Gilbert while you're at it!!!

KEVIN!!!!!! YOU GOT SOME 'SPLAININ TO DO!!!!!!