Little House on the Prairie

For me, most of the historical inconsistencies in the book and movie aren't necessarily such a big deal- such as whether it was Mr. Edwards or Mrs. Scott whom Jack scared onto the wood pile. Most of these, I assume were done to create more cinematic consistency with characters,etc. Generally, I don't think that they hurt the story.

But some things do, like Ma wearing earrings, since this undermines the nature of the family's intense struggle to get by. (sunbonnets also would be a good thing.)

. Generally, my biggest historical problem is that the children seem to be more modern in their mentality-- almost as if they'll say "cool" or "gee whiz". This fits with the modern music and seems to have been done to cater to children of today.

Some examples of this more modern sensibility: Laura jokingly asking her father for candy when he goes to Independence (product of modern-day materialism? Laura in the book knew how precious/rare such treats were). Also Laura being the one to suggest that she could wear Mary's old shoes-- its pretty clear from the book that the Ingalls (most working pioneer families) always handed such precious goods down to one another (they were poor!!)

I also found the scene with Mary confronting Ms. Scott to be ridiculous- both because it was completely inconsistent with Mary's character according to LIW(good girl vs. Laura as the bad girl) and because it is completely inconsistent with how children would have behaved in the Little House books (children not speaking at the table and definitely not contradicting others). (Ma's reaction to this offense also is inconsistent, way too chummy)

I do like this series because it has beautiful scenery and deftly demonstrates how terrifying life then could be. (I never thought about, for example, how terrifying Independence was- always taking it instead for a charming town- it is scary) I like also how they show scene through Laura's perspective- with a sense of childhood wonder.

Yet one reason I always loved the books was because the children's mentalities were different from mine. They were in an earlier, less casual era, that fascinated me. I'd like to see more of that preserved, instead of having it slide so that today's children can relate to these ones in the series.

One thing I simply don't understand is why Hollywood has so much trouble adapting the books of Laura Ingalls Wilder with some degree of accuracy. Her life was fascinating; why do they feel they need to take such artistic license in order to dramatize everything? This attempt is better than its predecessors (the Michael Landon TV series, which skidded completely off the tracks after a few seasons; the DREADFUL "Beyond the Prairie" TV movies), but that's not saying much. I do think the parts were fairly well cast, but I wondered: where's baby Carrie? I can only assume she'll be born in a future episode, or not at all. Either way, her exclusion is annoying. So too was the use of the word "blonde" to describe Mary's hair color. The word used in all the books was "golden." Also, why are Caroline's (Ma) parents still alive? They'd both been dead for years by the time the Ingalls family started their trek west. If they wanted a big, tearful scene where the grandparents say goodbye, they could've used Charles's (Pa) parents instead.

Oh well. Better luck next time.

I agree with most of the comments placed here. I'm currently watching the series on ABC and boy am I disappointed but I must say that working in the entertainment industry I know how a lot of good books are made into horrible movies or TV shows.

Most of the time it is the Network or Studio Executives who mess with the originality of the books ( Due to advertisers requests) and sometimes the producers and writers tend to stray from the original idea which is always better in my opinion. It gives them a creative license that ticks me off. I know how it works due to the fact that I'm working along side most of these folks.

I grew up with the Little House on the Prarie series and have read the series numerous times. Very disappointed with the series so far.

The music selections are too modern. Pa's clothes seems to have been picked out of the local western wear-house in Los Angeles. No attention to detail of that time period. Lots of mistakes all around. Too bad. I was really looking forward to a great series.

In my mind I was looking forward to seeing something like the Lonsome Dove Mini-Series. Now that was really a good Series. They at least paid attention to the book. I gotta give props to Suzanne DePasse and her crew.

Well, enough of my rants. I will continue to watch the show but with a heavy heart. I hope someone, someday does another Little House on the Prarie series and follows the details to the T. Maybe it will be me. :o) Enjoy folks.!

Phil

P.S. Who's looking forward to "Into the West" on TNT due out this summer?

Being a tremendous fan of the books (and being one who hated the 70s TV show with the heat of a thousand suns), I have to say this series is... not bad.

The script is relatively true to the Little House On the Prarie book. Except for the inexplicable New Age nonsense inflicted on poor old Jack (spirit dog frightening the savages, my Aunt Fanny), all the changes make sense in the context of a TV miniseries. There's no need to bother casting a Carrie, a toddler whose literary counterpart isn't old enough to talk. There's also no real need to go into all the pioneering how-to, however fascinating such details are in the book.

The cast is tremendously likable, especially Erin Cottrell, whose portrayal of Caroline Ingalls is both saintly and human, just as the character was written in the stories. Gregory Sporleder does a terrific turn as Mr. Edwards, the wildcat bachelor from Tennessee.

Where the miniseries fails is at the adaptation level, not in the performances. The author of the teleplay, Katie Ford, has injected too much of a modern sensibility. The Charles of the book would not in a thousand years have expressed his appreciation for Caroline's sacrifices by weeping as if he were on Oprah. Caroline's whining about dressing up, Mary's "sassing" an adult (an adult who was expressing fear and hatred towards the Native Americans, an attitude common to white settlers of the time), and Laura's constant disobedience of her father's orders to stay on the homestead - these all ring falsely to anyone who ever enjoyed the iconic series of books.

However, with that aside, it must be said that LHOTP:2005 is a completely inoffensive, sweet little series. It's beautifully shot, evenly paced, nicely casted, and tailor-made for the "Wonderful World of Disney/Saturday evening movie" brand.

We've been glued to the tube for the last three Saturday nights. Wow. I loved it. This is TV worth staying home for. The story has grabbed us, the cast is just right--especially little Laura, Mr. and Mrs. Scott (what a hoot!), and Wildcat. Loved the cinematography. The production values are worthy of the big screen. Such stark beauty. And that part about them driving the wagon across the frozen lake as it is thawing... White knuckle time! The scenes with the Native-Americans are some of the best I've seen in any film. You catch a sense of how strange it was for both the white man and the Indians, locked in their silent dance.

I definitely recommend this movie. Hope it comes out soon on DVD!